# Prey work, not a new controversy



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

Here is another piece of an article from 1981. Many of you know the author of this article.
Opinions seem to remain the same but sadly the dogs have not. The last comment about the status of the GSD in the world is no longer true.



> Quote:A sensitive subject is presently being discussed by the SV. Under debate is the so-called prey drive method for training young dogs for SchH trials. Precisely defined, the method works as follows: The dog is stimulated to center his attention on a fake prey object, ( sack - sleeve), also called substitute prey - his inherited prey, hunting and play drives are used in SchH training.
> These drives are present in almost all dogs and if handled right, it is possible to train a dog in such a manner that none of the inherited character faults are evident to the looker watching the trial.
> Now that an experienced and successful handler has thoroughly described this method in addition to other methods, many handlers feel that they have found the absolutely best and only successful method. When the goal in this type of training is reached, the dog performs perfect protection work, as far as the observer is concerned, but the dog’s work is not motivated by the desire to protect this handler or himself , but exclusively by the delight and enjoyment he derives from hunting, playing and making prey. The helper is of no importance at all, only the sleeve- the substitute prey- is the object to be bitten and attacked.
> The driving forces are therefore not “protection drive”, “defense drive” , “fighting drive“, but only “hunting drive“, “prey drive” and “play drive.”
> ...


----------



## Wildtim (Dec 13, 2001)

really nothing that can be disputed at all in this snippet. I don't dare hazard a guess at the author either, so I'll just give it a little bump so a few more people get a look at it.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Anne, it is so nice to see these articles so some people can understand that an evolution has taken place, not for the betterment of the breed. These methods have had a major role in turning our breed into a pet (showlines), and a sportdog (workinglines). Where is the service dog anymore. Real herders aren't clamoring for GS, the military/police aren't clamoring for the GS. The founder of the breed would be SICK! 
Part of it is training and part of it is genetics, and most of it is people in the forefront that don't know what this noble breed is capable of and has been.
Case in point, I firmly believe that one of the reasons you see so many Czech dogs as police dogs is because in the Czech Republic the "box" is used with green dogs to balance the "prey work" that is done with young dogs. At say 10 to 12 months these dogs are worked in both prey and in the box which strengthens defense components. Dogs learn to confront stress without a danger to the youthful age of the dog. In other parts of Europe and America the dog during this same period is only worked in prey. So by the time the dog is 18 months and is a quote"green" dog the ones in America and Europe are entrenched in prey drive habits(sleeve happy, little focus on helper, lack of handler protection development,etc), and the green dogs from the Czech Republic are more balanced in seeing the helper as an adversary and thus easily converting to police/patrol work. Of course there are exceptions to this premise, but by and large I honestly think the overindulgence in prey drive training leaves most dogs except the exceptional ill equipped to serve man as a protector anymore.JMO


----------



## MLinn730 (Jan 19, 2006)

Just to play devil's advocate...

Just because the motivation is not defense does not mean that the dog will not be able to perform the work of gaurding, chasing and catching the threat. At the end of the day, with a true, working protection dog, isn't that the goal. To provide a deterrent and ultimately protection if needed?

Perhaps it is not the method of training the SchH dog to complete the protection exercises that is at fault, but the test itself. Take away the sleeve. A running decoy (whether with sleeve or suit) is still a prey object, the bite is still a prey bite. A strong nerved dog that is worked in prey will fight the prey object just as vehemently - it's goal is to kill the prey. A dog in defence is just trying to escape from the threat.


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

I had a related discussion with someone a while back that goes right to the root of this issue. They were talking about the idea of a "sport" dog vs. a "real" dog. I told them that I think that entire notion is non-sense. The same qualities that I want in a dog for the sport are the same qualities that would make the dog good at "real" work. They scoffed at this. I think this is a real problem.
Additionally, it seems to me that there are very few helpers who understand how to work a dog in anything except prey. If the dog is not a prey monster, he is immediately written off. The last litter I had produced dogs that were very hard with a lot of aggression, but not over the top prey. I do not believe there are too many helpers today that understand how to work dogs like this. (By the way if you are interested in the pedigree of that litter go to PDB and type in "Erko von der Zahnburg")
The thing is that breeders are rewarded for producing over-the-top prey dogs with little or no aggression, because these kinds of dogs can win big, particularly with some of the incredibly talented trainers that are out there now. 
I realize I have been kind of rambling, but I think this is an important issue that people don't pay attention to. It seems to me that a lot of people breed to points and don't look at the dog. Additionally, I think this is a short-fall in the sport itself. The training for the sport can show you an awful lot about a dog, but on the trial field you only see what the trainer allows you to see. The training has shown the handler and his helper what that dog really is, but on the trial field you don't see that.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

> Quote: The training for the sport can show you an awful lot about a dog, but on the trial field you only see what the trainer allows you to see.


That is not particularily true. Here is a recent example of a dog who shows who he is on the trial field and yes, I do like this dog in case anyone has been wondering from my other posts about him. Lots of people were befuddled by the 100 point score and it is because of the other things you said in your post. 
I work a dog in my club who is a son of this dog's father and he is like this dog...very serious, very powerful and he fights. A very old style type of dog and only the people who saw the dogs back then can truly appreciate what I mean by that.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRwAWVIHDJI


----------



## Zahnburg (Nov 13, 2009)

Anne,

I am not suggesting that it is not possible for a dog to show his power on the trial field. Rather I suggest that a good trainer is quite capable of preventing the judge and the spectaters from seeing what the dog lacks. The trainer knows, the training helper knows, but because of how good some trainers are it is never appearant on the field. The judge (and spectaters for that matter) only see what the trainer allows them to see (if the trainer is good enough to do so and I contend that there are trainers that are this good).


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

See, now I look at it differently. I think the trainers who can't train in a way where the dog is not squashed or where the dog is just playing, are not really good trainers. Lots of people are afraid to work dogs this way because they think the dogs will be dirty. In MY opinion, the dogs are much less likely to be dirty when they are confident and using all the genetic traits they should possess when confronting the helper. It only makes sense and I have seen it done.
I know what you are saying though but to me, a great majority of trainers are incapable of what i just said, but in reality they always were. I used to be outraged at all the insecure dogs who had endured WAY too much pressure when I first started in SchH. I was not opposed to using prey at first, we did try that method with one of my first dogs but we/ I figured out over time that there is a balance to be achieved with the dogs. 
I'm not done with SchH but I have been less than happy with the V scores for dogs who don't show much of anything other than nice obedience in protection. Dogs who get a V should be something special and over the last ten years or so, they have been just average. Judging from all the complaints about the Nationals, I am hopeful something is changing. The DOJ told me recently that things are going to be different and I am looking forward to that.


----------



## workingdawgs (Jul 18, 2005)

I have to ask a question that is related but OT somewhat and perhaps I should have started another thread regarding it, but there has been reference in a couple of threads about working a dog in the box. Could someone please elaborate on this concept? 

Thanks a million


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

Just to clarify what I said because I rambled there....must be contagious......what I was TRYING to say was.....I think that most trainers cannot bring out all the drive and fight in the dogs they are working. I don't think it is a case where they are hiding who their dog is intentionally, I think they can't bring it out in the dog. I have said this before, so excuse me to those who get sick of me saying it, but when I have gone to clubs and worked dogs, most of the dogs were not BITING. Sure, they were on the sleeve and that's about it. No one seemed to notice until they saw their dogs bite me.... and suddenly they were looking a bit harder. That is the state of most clubs, the helpers can't bring that fight out of the dogs and others are trying to put it into the dogs with work that is "too much". You can't do that, it does not work and creates other problems for the dog.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: workingdawgsI have to ask a question that is related but OT somewhat and perhaps I should have started another thread regarding it, but there has been reference in a couple of threads about working a dog in the box. Could someone please elaborate on this concept?
> 
> Thanks a million


It means the dog is sort of boxed in, like a wooden three sided box. If you go on youtube and search "schutzhund box" there's some examples.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Workingdogk9, In answer to your question about a prey trained dog fighting the prey just as hard as a balanced dog. Tell me, when the prey dog chases or guards the helper working out of prey what is the dog chasing or guarding????? Is it the sleeve or the decoy??? If you throw the sleeve will the dog stay with the decoy where the threat comes from, or will it follow the sleeve. You can take a labrador retreiver and teach it to chase and hold and tug very effectively, but what happens when you try to turn them into real protection dogs? there is difference in prey dogs and protection dogs, they are not the same. Prey dogs are missing important components necessary to be a protection dog.JMO
Sch is supposed to have a "protection" routine, not a choreographed prey routine.


----------



## umzilla (Nov 2, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: cliftonanderson1 ...If you throw the sleeve will the dog stay with the decoy where the threat comes from, or will it follow the sleeve...


This assumes a threat is coming from the decoy. If the decoy is not being threatening, then I would hope the dog would have the stability to recognize that, and react appropriately. I don't like it when a dog goes into a frenzy at the mere sight of a person in scratch pants and a sleeve, but by the same token, after the decoy slips (or throws) the sleeve, if there is no threat, why should the dog go after him??? A stable dog should "read" all of that as it happens.

Prey in the wild is deadly serious, a matter of survival. Different than PLAY.

Having said that, in training for martial arts, sparring sessions are not with the real enemy, and have different levels of intensity, skill challenges, and stress. Practicing fighting skills in a safe training environment where everyone knows it's not "for REAL" every time is very valuable. I believe the same can apply to training dogs. 

Christine


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

> Quote: This assumes a threat is coming from the decoy. If the decoy is not being threatening, then I would hope the dog would have the stability to recognize that, and react appropriately. I don't like it when a dog goes into a frenzy at the mere sight of a person in scratch pants and a sleeve, but by the same token, after the decoy slips (or throws) the sleeve, if there is no threat, why should the dog go after him??? A stable dog should "read" all of that as it happens.


I don’t know where the idea that a dog should go into a “frenzy” when he sees the helper came from. Who said that? I must have missed it. I think the dog should view a helper as always being a possible threat . If he is not, he should not be the helper. This is not a case where the helper is a child, anyone who works a dog as a helper should be capable of presenting the right picture. The problem is when they don’t and that is quite common now. In fact, I use that analogy when I teach helpers. I tell them that my dogs will not bite kids so do not stand in the blind with the attitude of a child, it is confusing for the dog. The dog should be controllable and be able to contain his aggression when it is appropriate but when he is doing protection, well, he should be doing protection and viewing the helper as an adversary.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Precisely!!


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

The issue is whether or not a dog working only in prey drive is a complete protection dog or more of a play dog. To do protection work the dog must work in prey, defense, and fight drives. All of these aspects assume the dog MUST exhibit control in reading the situation, the issue is whether the dog is guarding the sleeve or the decoy...plain and simple.


----------



## MLinn730 (Jan 19, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: cliftonanderson1Workingdogk9, In answer to your question about a prey trained dog fighting the prey just as hard as a balanced dog. Tell me, when the prey dog chases or guards the helper working out of prey what is the dog chasing or guarding????? Is it the sleeve or the decoy??? If you throw the sleeve will the dog stay with the decoy where the threat comes from, or will it follow the sleeve. You can take a labrador retreiver and teach it to chase and hold and tug very effectively, but what happens when you try to turn them into real protection dogs? there is difference in prey dogs and protection dogs, they are not the same. Prey dogs are missing important components necessary to be a protection dog.JMO
> Sch is supposed to have a "protection" routine, not a choreographed prey routine.


If trained correctly, using hidden sleeves and bite suits, the prey dog is chasing and guarding the human and not the equipment. Many police and government K9 units use this method to train their working dogs. The dog trained and worked in prey drive still needs solid nerves (for when the prey object fights back), but one does not exclude the other. Only in the manipulated training environment do dogs come across prey that do not try and fight for their lives. Just because the dog is trained to take down larger prey by tapping into that drive, does not necessarily mean that they are not real protection dogs. 

Just an observation of animal behavior: an animal chasing a prey object does not back off if the object is within their reach. But when put in defense, there is always the option of flight (it's a primal natural behavior, instinctual to almost ALL species). Why tap into the drive that has a flight option over the "continue until killed" drive?

In reality, the dog that is trained in such a manner would probably not back down from a threat, but there would be no need to work the dog in that defense drive to produce a good protection dog (both on and off the field). 

The SchH protection routine (IMO) is already a choreographed routine with mostly prey bites/attacks. It does not translate into real world protection; they are two separate training methods.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

^^ The above seems to operate under the assumption that there are only 2 drives that can be utilized in protection work, prey and defense (reactive aggression). WorkingK9s, is this your opinion on the drives available to be accessed for protection work, or do you/do you not acknowledge the existance of fight drive/active aggression?


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

> Quote:The SchH protection routine (IMO) is already a choreographed routine with mostly prey bites/attacks. It does not translate into real world protection; they are two separate training methods.


Attacks are countered with the dog’s defense instinct and aggression. So, I am not sure what you are trying to say about what the SchH routine is but as far as it being all prey work, that is just not the case at all. There is really only one exercise that that you could label that way, that is the escape. The rest of the routine is mostly defense work where the dog is stopping an attack or holding and guarding the helper. You wrote that like defense, (attack), and prey are the same, they certainly are not. Therefore, the dog must learn how to use his defense instinct, ( and be able to control his flight instinct), and to be confident , ( we use prey work to achieve that ). It requires that the training teaches him he can control the aggression of a bad guy with his own aggression and fight drive and in doing that, we can see more clearly what kind of dog it is . That was the original purpose of SchH, it was not developed to be a sport.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

> Quote:In reality, the dog that is trained in such a manner would probably not back down from a threat, but there would be no need to work the dog in that defense drive to produce a good protection dog (both on and off the field).
> 
> Prey in the wild is deadly serious, a matter of survival. Different than PLAY




As for prey work being dead serious and all that stuff. I find it interesting that people make these comments about how serious prey work is and how prey animals really fight but seem to be saying that protection work or use of the dog's other instincts is not necessary.
I hear this comment about prey drive all the time. So, for the sake of discussion……..maybe for a predator it is deadly serious but these are domesticated dogs and I am not doing SchH to hunt for food with my dog. That might change if the economy doesn’t improve but right now, my dogs eat from a bowl and it is food I give them.









Having said that, of course our dogs have prey instinct and we do use that in protection training, it is necessary to build the dog’s confidence but it can’t be the only instinct the dog uses. Its getting a little silly to compare prey work in protection to prey work in the wild. Like I said, these are domesticated dogs and this breed has been created by people. There are traits we decided we wanted to see in a certain balance in this breed and they are traits that helped the breed become one of the best dogs ever.
The idea that we could train the dogs to do SchH in a way that would not preserve all of those traits is really the topic . You can use whatever method you like I suppose but if the Police dog only brings his prey drive to a fight, I don’t think I would want to be the handler in that situation. 
Each instinct presents it’s own set of behaviors in the dog. For example, defense work brings a harder bite and prey work will give you a full bite. Fight drive is what you see when the helper counters an attack. When you use all the drives in the dog, and you are talented enough to make the dog confident doing that, you get a dog with a great deal of power. Of course, the dog has to be genetically balanced to achieve this but if I had a police dog, I would want a dog like that who will make a bad guy think about how long he wants to resist, if at all.


----------



## umzilla (Nov 2, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: Vandal
> 
> I don’t know where the idea that a dog should go into a “frenzy” when he sees the helper came from. Who said that? I must have missed it.


I mentioned it, and it is not a theory of mine, it is an observation. There are many many dogs that "go off" when they see a helper or a sleeve, period. I've seen dogs that pull wildly and bark to get to a sleeve that is lying on the ground. Right or wrong, it happens. I think if the helper is neutral to the dog, the dog should be able to be neutral back. If someone in street clothes, off the protection field, were to present a threat, I would expect that the dog would pick up on that too.



> Quote: anyone who works a dog as a helper should be capable of presenting the right picture. The problem is when they don’t and that is quite common now.


Yes, this is my point. Many people talk about dogs that "go for the sleeve" or "go for the man" - but don't examine how the helper is working the dog. SO, if we have a good dog, and the helper is playing with the dog, should we fault the dog for going for the sleeve? That same good dog, with a different helper, will ignore the sleeve if it is thrown, and "go for the man" - the dog is reacting to what the helper is doing.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

> Quote: That same good dog, with a different helper, will ignore the sleeve if it is thrown, and "go for the man" - the dog is reacting to what the helper is doing.


I agree with that. SchH and protection has much more to do with who the helper is than what equipment he is wearing or where he throws it. You will not get an argument about that from me. I already talked about the "mental" ability of the helper in the thread about when to start the dogs in protection. There is a great deal of whip popping etc. in SchH when people are trying to get to that aggression we all want to see. In reality, a helper who does less of that can be far more threatening to a dog. It is that "presence" people talk about and it is mostly a mental abilty the helper has, not just physical.

BTW, I realize that people do not always put words in writing that expresses exactly what they may be thinking. The way I have learned is to allow myself and the ideas I have about protection training to be challenged by others. When I had to explain what I was thinking and why, many times my own explanation taught me something.


----------



## Jason L (Mar 20, 2009)

So what would be a good balance of prey/defense in a dog? 

I have heard people mentioning 60 prey/40 defense as a good ratio ... sound right?


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

I think trying to assign numbers and ratios is far too simplistic. No drive or temperament trait works in isolation. They work together. What is an ideal balance for one dog would be different for another dog. This is why "one size fits all" training programs aren't the best route to take. The training should adjust to the dog, and what that individual dog needs, not the other way around.

I also think there is more than just 2 components or drives in protection to be figured into the equation. There is more than just prey and defense IMO.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

Here is another article I found about an hour ago, ( that's how long it took me to type this...hunt and peck method here).

This was written by Dr Rummel in 1982. He was the SV President at the time.
Much of what he warns about has now come to pass and I can't say I can find much of anything that I disagree with.



> Quote: If I, (as president of the SV), talk about the above subject, it is not with the intent to interfere with the activities of the training coordinator, Mr Koster and his committee. At issue here are the general observations which concern the training of the German Shepherd Dog. Things which I have noticed in the past few years and which are worth discussing.
> 
> Lately, protection work has often been the subject of discussion, especially the promotion of prey drive. Much has been said and written about this subject and I must say that there is no such thing as “ the one and only training method”. It is definitely wrong to describe the prey method as the only method. The prey drive has always been used in training, a fact which is familiar to everyone who has been involved in training for a few years. However, bringing the dog along by prey drive *exclusively* must be rejected. In order to preserve the Shepherd’s reputation as the number one protection dog from the genetic point of view, training must promote *not only the prey drive*. It is a well known fact that *unused qualities *atrophy and the loss of defense and protection drive would be an outright catastrophe.
> What would a Shepherd be if he had nothing but a learned passion for the sleeve - no protection drive and no defense drive? This discussion is not meant to sanction reckless promotion of only the defense and protection drives as this would be wrong because the Sheherd is *not bred *for protection only. Any kind of over-emphasis , and here lies the mistake of many training coordinators and trainers, means specialization and if it is practiced for an extended period , would establish precisely defined use areas for the dog.
> ...


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

He said those things in 82, and when you look at many many Sch dogs today and see what he said would happen you understand how the breed got to where it is today generally. Those are the same things I'm saying that I see too much of today and this is the first time I have read this article. It coincides because what he feared has evolved. I may not know what I'm talking about, but if that's the case Dr. Rummel doesn't either.


----------



## MLinn730 (Jan 19, 2006)

> Quote: WorkingK9s, is this your opinion on the drives available to be accessed for protection work, or do you/do you not acknowledge the existance of fight drive/active aggression?


It’s not that I don’t acknowledge that it exists, but it is not a NORMAL canine behavior. (I guess it also depends on what you define fight drive to be.) Behaviorally speaking, defensive (also fear) aggression, territorial aggression, dominance aggression (debatable…) and prey aggression are all normal canine behaviors. Every normal, aggressive act, whether on the training field or in the neighbor’s front yard, is caused by fear, territory, dominance or prey. 

Fight/active aggression is not a normal canine behavior. Dogs aren’t normally aggressive for the sake of being aggressive, some studies claim it is a neurochemical imbalance. I see it much on the same level as OCD – abnormal canine behavior. 




> Quote:Attacks are countered with the dog’s defense instinct and aggression. So, I am not sure what you are trying to say about what the SchH routine is but as far as it being all prey work, that is just not the case at all. There is really only one exercise that that you could label that way, that is the escape. The rest of the routine is mostly defense work where the dog is stopping an attack or holding and guarding the helper


I guess this where we differ. I agree with the escape. But I feel that the bark and hold is not necessarily defense, it depends on the type of training. Also, all the re-attacks could also be classified as prey. The dog has to wait until the sleeve moves. Regardless, I still don’t believe that they are transferable exercises to real world protection scenarios. 



> Quote: You wrote that like defense, (attack), and prey are the same, they certainly are not. Therefore, the dog must learn how to use his defense instinct, ( and be able to control his flight instinct), and to be confident , ( we use prey work to achieve that )... It requires that the training teaches him he can control the aggression of a bad guy with his own aggression and fight drive and in doing that, we can see more clearly what kind of dog it is . That was the original purpose of SchH, it was not developed to be a sport.


It was not my intention to imply that defense and prey are the same. I agree 100% that training in prey drive builds confidence. My assertion is that training a dog with solid nerves in prey drive can produce a real world protection dog. That's it. 




> Quote: You can use whatever method you like I suppose but if the Police dog only brings his prey drive to a fight, I don’t think I would want to be the handler in that situation.


It’s funny you should mention this, because I know someone that is currently working with a number of different canine units across the country on training Police Dogs in almost all prey. Again, the dogs have to have strong nerves (it’s not like they are training the dogs in prey b/c they are weak), but it apparently reduces flight when the suspects actually start to fight back. 

Another observation though, it would seem, to have such a prey monster that the prey drives would have to be through the roof. For example, my dog does not have the greatest prey drive. Defense was introduced to keep her from “flaking out.” Now she is aware of the threat on the field an approaches bite work a little differently…

Vandal, it's not that I completely disagree with the articles you are posting. I think it is the fault of the test and not the training methods though. If you can use alternative methods for your dog to be able to go on the field and complete all the exercises then that only proves you are a talented trainer who can work to fit the system. It is the system that is at fault for not creating a test that proves, without a doubt, the protection ability of the dog. If they do produce such a test, and a dog trained in prey drive passes the test with flying colors will you accept a little bit of what I have been saying ?


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

I don't have time right now to go through your post and answer each question. I have a boarding kennel and this is Thanksgiving week, so, I have already used too much time trying to be a typist with that article. I will try to later if I am not too tired.

I will just say this for right now. What we hear about in training and what we actually see , are most of the time totally different. If you were someone who did helper work, I think it all might be much clearer to you what I am saying because you would have felt the difference in the way the dogs do things when you work them a certain way.
I watch helpers all the time and they come off the field and tell me how much prey work they just did....uh...no they didn't but they just do not realize it. It goes the other way as well. There is a balance to be achieved when you work the dogs as the helper and there is so much going on there, it is almost impossible to put into words. You need to read the rule book and see what it says about how the dog should perform the hold and bark and guarding.
I have done helper work for decades now and I know what I feel and see in the dogs and I have worked them in all different ways as well.Nothing compares to a dog that is genetically balanced and has been trained to use all of it on the field. No one will ever convince me otherwise because I have worked those dogs and not just in SchH.


----------



## ramgsd (Jun 9, 2007)

K9's you said: "It’s funny you should mention this, because I know someone that is currently working with a number of different canine units across the country on training Police Dogs in almost all prey. Again, the dogs have to have strong nerves (it’s not like they are training the dogs in prey b/c they are weak), but it apparently reduces flight when the suspects actually start to fight back." 

I think this is totally wrong. While an extremely tough dog worked only in prey may have the ability to take the preasure of the suspect fighting back, at that point the dog is no longer fighting in prey. 

Also I think those K9 handlers may be in for a shock the first time the run into a suspect that won't continue "in prey". If they've never had a real threat put on them many won't stay in the fight. Your training needs to encompass every aspect. I feel that if you train the 50/50 balance and gradually increase the preasure on the dog, pushing his threshold, you will have a truely confident dog. A K9 that has won in every situation will react the way he always has because he's seen it before and always come out on top.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

R Mattox, that's how I see it also!


----------



## charlie319 (Apr 6, 2009)

Good thread that deserves revisiting.


----------

