[Aussie]

It seems a few posters have viewed Schutzhund type training, read books or purchased DVDs/videos.

Over the last year or two, I have purchased quite a few DVDs/tapes as well as having seminars on our property by a highly regarded drive trainer in Australia.

This particular trainer, naturally (being Australian :lol has different terminology to the tapes/DVDs, nevertheless his disciples remain akin.

Rather than cloudy the waters, regarding the correlation between Schutzhund and retriever "game" training, I will stick to the reason for my question.

Do you believe that dogs in 100% drive, it is impossible for a dog to learn?

Hopefully some replies will result, from my possibly vague question.

 

[Buzz]

When the Schutzhund people do their drive and focus work, they put the dog extremely high in prey mode. But all the work is done with a tug or a ball and string. So the dog is in high drive, but in a way that it's focused on the handler who has the prey item. So the dog has great motivation to pay attention to the handler and do as it's asked in order to get its reward. I think this helps condition the dog to focus and listen to the handler when it's totally wound up. And it learns to settle down and be calm around the handler while the dog is in posession of the prey item - with the "into my arms" bit. I think the routine also helps the dog learn to switch quickly and easily from prey mode and into social mode. So in that context, I think that putting the dog into 100% drive is conducive to learning.

In retriever work, the dog's reward is in the field, away from the handler. Being in 100% drive with focus away from the handler probably isn't so conducive to learning.

Go easy on me...

 

[Pete]

In retriever work, the dog's reward is in the field, away from the handler. Being in 100% drive with focus away from the handler probably isn't so conducive to learning

In Schutzhund the prey item is also at a distance hidding in a one of the blinds.
Its all geared towards building. One little step at a time. As with any type of dog training.

Police dogs are not required to cast off one prey target to another. Retrievers are. And maby its because Schutzhund competition is structured differently or maby the added defensive drive complicates matters. However all methods of good sound training parallel each other. and cannot contradict.



The question does a dog learn in 100% drive is deturmined by if the dog is conditioned to go in drive by the handler ( leader) and if so can you say that the dog is 100% in drive or is there something researved for attentiveness.

or does the dog ( leader)control its drive.
A good doggy debate re-gaurdless

 

[L. Zell]

I have found with the new GSD that if he is in too much drive, he just can't comprehend what I'm trying to show him, then he stresses out, no learning. But if I can bring him up to about 80%, he can learn, and very quickly. My chessie could be pretty close to 100% and still learn the lesson, so I think, It Depends...

 

[hhlabradors]

The problem is this "drive" stuff is so very vague and the terminology is tossed around with no mutually agreed upon definitions.

If you read Volhard's stuff on drives, there are three: Pack, Defense, and Prey. Which drives you need him to be in for a specific type of work or training varies. According the them, you can't NOT train "in drive." The secret is to be able to utilize the correct drive (and know how to get the dog into it) for the job at hand.

Many of the tasks required of retrievers are pack drive kinds of tasks. It is interesting that the Volhard's propose that in order to get a dog from prey drive to pack drive, you HAVE to go through defense drive.

I think it's interesting to think about this in relation to teaching steadiness, line manners, pretty much everything that is "obedience" or "control" related, and the use of corrections versus "positive motivation."

It is, of course, just one theory. But then, it's all theory, so what the heck. :wink:

 

[Pete]

Ellenor

I am certain he forgot Food,sex, and in some circles and with some breeds,,,fight

Drive is not vague.
Drives are the the motivations to survive .

They manifest themselves in many ways and most can be catagorized.
When goals are met drives are satified.
When drives are satified lessons are learned.

Men are most motivated by food sex and pack not neccesarrily in that order :lol: re-gaurdless

 

[Buzz]

Eleanor,

I have not read Volhard's stuff on drive. I'll have to dig that up. I read something that Aussie turned me on to on Modal Theory, by Iain McDonald:

http://www.dogstuff.info/modal_theory_part1_macdonald.html

In it he talks about 3 drives, prey, defense, and social. I wonder if pack and social are he same thing, different terms.

Dave

 

[SloppyMouth]

I'd like to look up Volhoard's stuff, too. Is there more than one book? If so, is there one in particular that is good?

I am certain he forgot Food,sex, and in some circles and with some breeds,,,fight

Sex drive came to my mind when I read Eleanor's post as well. Wouldn't food fall under prey drive and fight under pack/social? I guess sex could fall under pack/social as well, although seems to stand alone a bit in my mind.

I haven't read much, if any, on Schuntzhund theory/training but am figuring that by putting them in to drive (be it 100% or 80%) you're talking about "spinning them up" so to speak? Or is elevating that drive (pack, prey, defense) above the other drives?

Another question, is there a scale to determine how far into drive they are (80% vs 100%)? Or is it a matter of reading the individual dog under varying circumstances and determining that each's level?

Love the theory discussions and canine psychology!

 

[hhlabradors]

Ellenor

I am certain he forgot Food,sex, and in some circles and with some breeds,,,fight

Actually they feel that all of these are encompassed under the greater umbrellas of the three they describe.

Pete, you've just given me a beautiful illustration of my point. LOL

The existance of drive (or drives) may not be vague, but the terminology is. Every camp has a bit different take on just what defines what terms. I see similar difficulties on training email lists where everyone gets so caught up in labeling which of the "four quadrants of learning theory" is in play during a particular action that they get sidetracked on arguing semantics and forget about the actual dog.

I am of a mixed mind about all of this. Certainly, some understanding (and some use of!) drives, learning theory, etc if of benefit in understanding what works, or doesn't work, and why. On the other hand, being able to quote a ton of theoretical and academic knowledge won't necessarily get you results on the training field.

To try to answer Aussie's question, I acknowledge some need for drive for a decent working dog, and will do different things to build the dog's desire and use that desire to help train him, but as far as critical analysis about whether it's 100% or 80% or things like that, I find thinking about stuff like that distracts me from communicating with the dog, just as whether analyzing the ear pinch transforming between negative reinforcement to positive punishment and back again distracts from staying in the moment, reading the dog, and delivering "whatever" effectively.

 

[hhlabradors]

I'd like to look up Volhoard's stuff, too. Is there more than one book? If so, is there one in particular that is good?

I have several of the Volhard's books, but I think the one they really get into the importance of drives in is "Dog Training For Dummies." They've got tests to figure out your dog's "drive scores" and how to customize the individual training program, and the whole shebang. They actually have a whole email list devoted to it, which I find odd.

But I do like their collars.

 

[L. Zell]

I guess I used the percentages more to try to tell others about what I'm seeing, rather than what I'm thinking about while I'm training. With the GSD, I want to see him up and looking for the food/ball, but not so up that he is shivering and his teeth are chattering. So if I see him get too much in drive, then I try to get him to calm down a bit. Before I had him, I think he got a lot of pressure while he was over the top, and I think that is part of why he stresses out. My goal with him is to back up a bit, get him to THINK, then add extra drive back in. So far, its working pretty well...

 

[SloppyMouth]

I'd like to look up Volhoard's stuff, too. Is there more than one book? If so, is there one in particular that is good?

I have several of the Volhard's books, but I think the one they really get into the importance of drives in is "Dog Training For Dummies." They've got tests to figure out your dog's "drive scores" and how to customize the individual training program, and the whole shebang. They actually have a whole email list devoted to it, which I find odd.

But I do like their collars.

Sweet, thanks much!

 

[hhlabradors]

You are welcome!

And Buzz, thank you for the article link!

 

[Aussie]

I am relieved there have been replies to the thread.

I had been advised that dogs who are in, the zone, of extreme drive - what some call drive peak, cannot learn (learning pathways blocked), Endorphin flows and pain barriers lessen.

Regarding terminology. It can be confusing. As I train and have my dogs around me when not training, I do use basic principles of why and how dogs learn, in the hope of further consistency, control with good timing and being able to generalise training.

I train my 4 dogs, and they are so different. But all high drive, otherwise they would be on someone else's couch. Nevertheless one displays panic responses quickly but is an excellent marker and bounces back from corrections very quickly so I continue to train him.

I will be back, to continue my ramblings. Training 3 hours away again today.

 

[Pete]

Sex drive came to my mind when I read Eleanor's post as well. Wouldn't food fall under prey drive and fight under pack/social?

S&M
If anything prey or social(pack) would fall under food.,,,,,because the ultimate goal for a pack or chasing something is to aquire food:but they dont

The reason why is

If you let my dog eat a 40 pound bag of dog food and he was laying there in a giant ball ,,,,ready to bust,,,,,, and I wipped out a bumper he would immediatly go into to prey mode. His drive to eat is oviously satisied.


When a male is finished with his orgasm most of the time they do not immediately hop back on. Because that drive is temporarity satisfied.

It is very difficult to train a dog that is low in,,,,,pack,food,prey.

Our genetic engeneering has promoted cetrtain drives above others,,,,depending what we want.

There are some breeds that are very "doggy" and some that aren't.

Ellenor ,
I do agree that lingo and jargon mean nothing. unless you are trying to discuss something over the internet. Then somehow we must be able to understand one another. Drive,instinct,running fast at a moving object. Whatever the discription we are all talking about the same thing

this stuff is best dicussed over a case of cold bubblies and goose jerkey re-gaurdless

 

[Pete]

Ut o Ellenor I feel one coming on. I'm sittin here decifering and disecting and remember an old study of inner city dogs
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:55 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


.

If you read Volhard's stuff on drives, there are three: Pack, Defense, and Prey.

There is a study that showed and documented that the majority of stray dogs in the inner city were solitude. Meeting up occassionally on their own and going there seperate ways to feed.
I believe the study was slightly scewed by the new age behavioralists who proclaim that dogs are not really pack animals and have no hierarcy.Thus the notion of being a leader is a controlling barbaric act propounded by old school behavioralists.


I see it as the dog has no need pack up because all the food is laying around in the street and garbage cans and is easily capture even by the most inept of canines. Thus there is no need to form a pack.
The size difference in stray dogs is immence and only the largest strongest ones would survive if they packed up. So to survive most dogs remain solitude.

Which brings me to Volhards theory. of pack,defence and prey being your basic drives. According to this fairly accurate study of city dogs wouldn't ;
Food,defence and sex be the basic drives. Its already proven that inner city dogs do not need prey or pack up. but the 3 I mentioned are definitly needed for survival of a species if they dont have to work for their fuel.

Hey its sunday morning I gotta quit deciferin and disecting re-gaurdless