Drive theory pros/cons

[mark_sherry]

Judi,

I'm not saying that you can take a Bloodhound and turn him into a lure courser. To be more specific, I'm saying that you don't need to work dogs through prey, defense, and fight drives to get them to do a specific task (i.e. muzzle aggression). To me, the concept that a dog with a "low prey drive" can't become a good ScH dog is ludicrous. For one, the parameters of measuring prey drive is very limited in scope. And two, the concept of "prey drive" is so limiting that it's hard for anyone to understand what they need from a dog to perform a task in the future. As it stands, a dog who will not chase a ball on a string is considered in low prey drive and is many times dismissed from further efforts to train that dog; however, the lack of desire to chase a ball on a string does not indicate low prey drive. It may very well have a strong prey drive but is not allowed to show it. Does it necessarily mean, then, that a dog with a low prey drive couldn't have a strong fight drive and do equally as well in ScH without being royally screwed up? Absolutely not.

Mark

[Muckdogs]

I'm not taking it personally at all. I will train according to the way I want to train. The problem here is with consistency and jumping the gun. I approach training with a very open mind and am always willing to at least discuss new methodology and theories that have a basis somewhat integrated with my belief system and training goals. The problem is that there are so many ways to train and so many trainers that you have to make somewhat of a decision and stay consistent as you will find that consistency is the singlemost important aspect of training. You have the Ivan's, the Gottfried's, the Flinks', the Booth's, the Vandergeten's, and on and on. No one with any sense can argue with the succes of these people. While they differ on methodology, one thing that they all have in common is that they recognize the importance of working the dog in drive. It simply makes zero sense to me to say that ignoring the drives of the dog is the "new" way to train. i just don't see how it is possible. As far as the behaviorist goes, has she ever worked a dog? Has she ever trained and competed? Has she ever been a helper? Probably not, but I could be wrong. Probably some academic babbling in an ivory tower after spending a year or so watching rats. Check out Andre Vandergeten if you want to read learned information from a working canine behavoirist.

You can waste a lot of time philosophising about training methods and trying to rediscover the Model T, but it seems that these new theories are trying to build a car without four round tires, an engine and a steering wheel.

[Judi W]

OK, I backed up on the posts for a second and - being the proud owner of a '27 T, I will tell you that Henry's T had the first automatic transmission. Amazing how the foundation comes back round..................

Mark,
I don't believe anyone would argue that it is not possible to train a dog that is low in the drive for the activity, but why place such a stress on the trainer or the dog when there are breeds and individuals that have a natural response appropriate for that occupation? What we call drives or the natural response to stimuli does indeed vary according the selection process for the task the breed is intended to perform.

[babyray]

Mark
I think people are confusing Drive Theory with the application of training specifically for sport. you are obviously looking at the big picture. many trainers are only concerned with the smaller picture of success in competition and dont care if they dont truly understand the physiology or psychology of the dog. Kudos to you for your thirst for knowledge and wider scope of vision.

Flamesuit in place-see the goggles?

[mark_sherry]

Muckdogs,

Now I can see where you're coming from a little clearer, and I respect wholeheartedly your decision to find consistency in your methods. I see nothing wrong with that. The only thing I recommend is that you at least take a look at what Amm and Stark are saying. Yes, both of them do work dogs and have titled them ScH III. They are both consultants with the Canadian Mounted Police and various national and international police departments, and they both are instructors at K-9 seminars. I didn't say that this was a new theory. In fact, it is almost as old as the drive theory. Remember, I said the same biologists recanted the drive theory five years later. After talking with Amm several times, it makes perfect sense to me how he can train his dogs without paying attention to drives. And his methods work very well. Many PDs have asked him to train their dogs (new dogs) in muzzle defense and aggression for riot control and for routine patrol work. And they continue to be impressed with the dogs he produces. They are safe, yet reliable when called to action. And, according to him, they are some of the hardest hitters out there. Some of these dogs, he adds, have no desire to do bite work (thus they would be thrown to the side for ScH and sport work); however, that same dog will punch a hole in someone's gut after he's trained them, even though there was no initial drives seen in the dogs.

Judi,

According to Amm and Stark, there is no residual stress placed on the dog in training. It is the method of training that is different, and the entire approach is different from the beginning. What I'm saying is that dogs that don't show an interest in bite work or chasing a ball on a string are not wasted time. He can turn out a great muzzle dog in the same time that someone can turn out a great ScH dog with one heck of a bite. When looking at natural responses through breeding, Amm does work only with GSDs and Rotties as far as I know. The lack of drive training doesn't exclude the fact that certain breeds are better geared physically to accept the challenge. For example, I wouldn't expect a poodle to be made into a muzzle dog. They are not physically up to the challenge. But your working dogs are. From there, everything is different.

Babyray,

Thank you for seeing that this is looking at the broad picture. Those who are trying to debunk drive theory are, for the most part, involved in sport, but their main priority is training dogs for K-9 units. I chose to look at dogs as more than animals. I think we need to better understand them for what they are, and that is a complex being with emotions and personal characteristics and talents that are individually unique. When I approach this issue in my mind, I think of the human athlete as a comparison. One person may have the build, talent and interest to be a sprinter. Another person may have the build, talent, and interest to be a middle distance runner. Does this mean that the first person won't excel in middle distance running? Even if the initial tests by the coach reveal that they're a better sprinter? No. Michael Johnson has proven that many times. His heart may lie in sprinting, and that's where he is more intersested in competing, but if trained and conditioned, he makes an excellent middle distance runner as well. Dogs are the same way. While they may not show an initial interest in a ball on the string, it doesn't mean that they lack the capabilities to go forward in training. If they don't have an interest in biting, it doesn't mean that they don't have a "fight drive" as the drive theorists maintain.

[Ramon]

Originally posted by mark_sherry
In my opinion, I'd much rather see a Rottweiler herding cattle or pulling carts for a job that must be done.

Why? They certainly aren't the best herders around. Herding is old stuff. Protection is what they are being bred for now. I live in the present.
They're pretty good at pulling carts, but if you have a good working rottie, I guarantee the difference in attitude between pulling carts and biting a sleeve is night and day. You have to train creatively to get them to actually enjoy pulling and sometimes you'll never get them to like it, but if you look at good working dogs, you have to work to get them off the sleeve.

Originally posted by mark_sherry
How many people out there have actually done any research into the development/history of drive theory? I think we all blindly accept the concept because it's been a tradition passed down from one generation to the next,

I wouldn't say it's blindly accepted. It's accepted because it works in practice. Just ask anyone who's trying to do bitework with a low drive dog. It's sad. They get so frustrated, they are tempted to get rid of their dogs, and some of them do. Give it any name you want: drive, desire, motivation, instinct, etc. If a dog doesn't have it and you want to train him in protection, you're in for an uphill battle.

[Storm]

In this part of the world PD guys don't even give bite development any consideration as opposed to us sport guys, grip is everything and to nurture this grip we need the "drive" aspect to get it on par. Once the grip is there and we, dog and helper, have an understanding we can push a little harder having that which motivates the dog and acts as a "release" for pressure, stress etc. whatever you want to call it. In the case of Michael Johnson, he obviously has the genetic makeup to enable him to be so versatile and as with a dog it must be there. If this was not the case then thousands of dogs would be appropriate candidates for sport and police and would be good at it to, unfortunately that is not the case! We see this time and time again and there is only few that prove themselves to be exceptional, above the rest. Individuality? Definately, but the dog's genetical make up has parameters, plain and simple. Unless a dog is working in fight he will not be "motivated" to go out there and engage, looking at this point within the fight drive concept. There is no prey, there is no fight, which ultimately are associated, not always but in high levels. So the dog goes out for muzzle, he has had no bite development in association with drive channeling and raising drive levels, what is this low drive dogs mind set when he goes out there? Behind the muzzle does he really want to get in a bite, what is the motivation here. How has he been conditioned when in the scenario, is he just fighting the guy or is his main objective to get through the muzzle to the guy, if the muzzle comes off what would he do? A low drive dog, possible aggression that is nerve related, does such a dog go out there with such enthusiasm or avoid confrontation? What I'm trying to get at is what training has been implemented within the dog's head and what is the dog's minset during this muzzlework, what drives him? If not does frustration add here, think not. Has pressure been used to get the response? and sure we can raise prey drive but initiating defense but these will never be high prey drive dogs. With these terms of drive you have a volcabulary to address the dog's stages/areas etc. it may be only terminology but with it we have a picture, take it ALL away what do we have? The same dogs, same behaviors....yet no terminology?

[mark_sherry]

The comment about herding and pulling was just for fun. I know that Rotties are not best in these events. It was just for reflection on some of the other things that Rotties can do. It was also juxtaposed with the question as to whether or not a Rottie was a good candidate for livestock protection.

That being said, let me go back to muzzle work in dogs not trained through drives because this is the issue that led me to come into contact with Amm in the first place. I was continually bombarded (in a good way) with suggestions about doing muzzle work before bite work. The consummate researcher in me wanted to hear the other side of the story before I made a logical decision as to what to pursue. When I contacted Amm, and after reading Stark, and after researching the actual origins of drive theory as it is used today, I came to the conclusion that Amm's methods, Stark's articles, and animal trainers (not ScH and ScH trained police dogs) worldwide had a better system for evaluating and training. And there system is based upon an age-old scientific perspective that was formulated by the same scientists that came up with drive theory in the early 20th Century. Now, a few people have requested the first of Stark's articles. I look forward to their feedback on what they read. Once that article is read, it is good to take a look at other articles written by different psychologists and trainers who have succesfully developed training programs without using drive. That's when it came together for me, especially after having many meaningful conversations with Amm.

To start, the concept that a dog must go through bite work (but first must exhibit strong prey drive to be succesful) to be PP trained is incorrect, in my opinion, because it anticipates problems that do not arise. Name any other animal trainers in the world who use drive theory other than sport dog trainers? Bite work may have its own gospel, but true PP training, including muzzle work, has its own gospel too -- the general gospel of animal training. It’s just how you build the program with the implement from the beginning.

Where I have a problem with drive theory is that it insinuates that a dog knows that he is supposed to bite the jute sleeve as his primary function, and that this is his only outlet to release frustration when taken to fight drive. Dogs trained in muzzle work from the beginning have a complete understanding of what they are to do, and they are just as capable of releasing their frustrations by pounding the hell out of someone. If the dog wins, he is satisfied, regardless of what "drive" people say the dog is working in. Sure, the key is a good helper, but training the dog from the beginning in muzzle without worrying about drives produces dogs that are just as sound and solid as any dog trained in drives to bite the jute. Biting, anyway, is just a big game of tug-of-war, and the fact that a dog shows no interest in doing this doesn't mean that it lacks the genetic makeup to do the work. But drive theorists maintain that it does. They maintain that dogs who don't chase a ball on a string have low prey drive. They maintain that these dogs don't have what it takes. This is simply not true.

Drive means "energy," and the focus is to channel the energy of the dog from the beginning. You don't have to train dogs to focus their energy by putting them into drives and working them in drives. Doing this is a much more frustrating method for the dogs and takes more time and energy to develop. Amm's approach has been to by-pass drives and to focus on developing energy and enthusiasm by letting the dog focus on muzzle work. This gives the dog much better control and focus than does bite work and drive training from the get-go. Once the dog has progressed through this training method, and he moves them on to bite work, the dogs are much more focused on the task at hand. How many of you have had dogs that went for the person rather than the sleeve? Probably everyone. Training through drives is the reason that they do this. They lack the focus, and they must be retaught to bite the sleeve for bite work. In my opinion, it doesn't take a lot of skill to teach a dog to bite a sleeve, but it does take a lot of skill to teach a dog to work in the muzzle. But in the end, taking this approach, you'll have a much more confident, calm, and focused dog, and you don't have to take time to train through drives. This is not a shortcut at all -- in fact, it's more intense and time consumming than doing it the other way. But the results are more impressive and long-lasting in my opinion.

Now let me go from here. When Woodworth invented the concept of drives, he did so because a replacement needed to be made on the theory of instincts, which was just a flawed. Drives was supposed to show what compelled an animal to do something -- what energized it into an action. In other words, what made it survive. Drives has been used ever since to try to explain why dogs do what they do. The fact that the theory is erroneous and was recanted means nothing to most trainers mostly because dog trainers in Germany and Europe accepted drive theory as being true once Woodworth completed his first study. Drives, as the definition is used in the dog sport community, can be built, intensified, and/or lowered. This is just not true. As explained in drive theory, drives are hard-wired and unchangeable. It's part of the make-up of the dog. By trying to force a dog through drives, it is working the dog piecemeal rather than working the dog in the whole of its capabilities. Not looking through the tunnel of drives, perhaps it is reasonable to look at at dog by its character. Character takes into consideration the whole dog, not just its temperament or their "drives." It assesses the dog by its personality, its motivations, and its strengths and weaknesses. Genetics and breed-type do play a part in this -- these are hard-wired elements that can't be changed or altered. Training through drive assumes that these can be changed. Hence, "building drive," "increasing drive levels," and "toning down drive" are concepts that drive theory promotes. This is not logical nor is it scientific. Looking at it from this perspective, it is totally reasonable to look at a dog in terms of its character and hard-wired makeup, and the to focus a training program that builds character. This way, you can plan a program around what stimulates a dog into action and then channel that behavior through training. The end result, here, is that you can work your dog better through its personality than you can its "drives."

Mark

[Muckdogs]

Originally posted by mark_sherry

Where I have a problem with drive theory is that it insinuates that a dog knows that he is supposed to bite the jute sleeve as his primary function, and that this is his only outlet to release frustration when taken to fight drive. Dogs trained in muzzle work from the beginning have a complete understanding of what they are to do, and they are just as capable of releasing their frustrations by pounding the hell out of someone. If the dog wins, he is satisfied, regardless of what "drive" people say the dog is working in. Sure, the key is a good helper, but training the dog from the beginning in muzzle without worrying about drives produces dogs that are just as sound and solid as any dog trained in drives to bite the jute. Biting, anyway, is just a big game of tug-of-war, and the fact that a dog shows no interest in doing this doesn't mean that it lacks the genetic makeup to do the work. But drive theorists maintain that it does. They maintain that dogs who don't chase a ball on a string have low prey drive. They maintain that these dogs don't have what it takes. This is simply not true.

Drive means "energy," and the focus is to channel the energy of the dog from the beginning. You don't have to train dogs to focus their energy by putting them into drives and working them in drives. Doing this is a much more frustrating method for the dogs and takes more time and energy to develop. Amm's approach has been to by-pass drives and to focus on developing energy and enthusiasm by letting the dog focus on muzzle work. This gives the dog much better control and focus than does bite work and drive training from the get-go. Once the dog has progressed through this training method, and he moves them on to bite work, the dogs are much more focused on the task at hand. How many of you have had dogs that went for the person rather than the sleeve? Probably everyone. Training through drives is the reason that they do this. They lack the focus, and they must be retaught to bite the sleeve for bite work. In my opinion, it doesn't take a lot of skill to teach a dog to bite a sleeve, but it does take a lot of skill to teach a dog to work in the muzzle. But in the end, taking this approach, you'll have a much more confident, calm, and focused dog, and you don't have to take time to train through drives. This is not a shortcut at all -- in fact, it's more intense and time consumming than doing it the other way. But the results are more impressive and long-lasting in my opinion.


Mark

You can't take a dog to fight drive, he either has it and uses it or he doesn't. Unless I missed something, I thikk you misunderstand that regardless of whether muzzled or not, the dog is working in drives. Again, I go back to my table example. I would bet you my retirement that I could take one of Amm's dogs and show you, through working the dog, that it is working in differenet drives. It is like Henel Keller looking at a picture. She may say that there are no colors present because she either can't see them or because she refuses to recognize the existence of color. Maybe Amm is not using the drives as a reference to develop the work, which I still think is incorrect because it inherently igonres the fondation of the dog, but the dogs are working in drives nevertheless. Muzzled or not, if the dogs are high in prey, they will chase a ball and bump it with the muzzle. If the dogs are high in defense, application of pressure will result in low pitched barks, hair raising on the back, baring of the teeth, etc.. and if the dogs are high in fight drive, they will take the fight to the man, confidently, regardless of the muzzle impediment.

As far as the tug of war, you shold probably watch some serious dogs train. Its not a game for them. In fact, some dogs I have worked view the sleeve as only a barrier between them and what they really want, me.

I'm still not buying the discount of drive theory. But if you think it is interesting and worthwile, more power to you. Certainly, I believe that you will have a hard time convincing club members and will run into problems finding helpers well versed, but if you do, see ya at nationals.

[mark_sherry]

Muzzled or not, if the dogs are high in prey, they will chase a ball and bump it with the muzzle. If the dogs are high in defense, application of pressure will result in low pitched barks, hair raising on the back, baring of the teeth, etc.. and if the dogs are high in fight drive, they will take the fight to the man, confidently, regardless of the muzzle impediment.

We're not just talking semantics here. There is a real difference in how dogs are worked. I do not buy the fact that a dog in "high prey" drive will chase a ball. It's not true. This I can argue extensively on experience. I have had many hunting dogs who were the least interested in a ball, but when it came down to what they loved, chasing and capturing prey, they exhibited a prey drive that would shame most ScH trained dogs. My problem with the drive theory is that so many dogs are disregarded because they don't show textbook prey drive under textbook, tunnel-visioned conditions. It's a limited approach in my opinion and completely wastes the talents of so many dogs who are just not interested in the typical suitability test. From there on, you and I are just arguing semantics.

Beyond the scope of defining and proving drives, I think most people out there may be training a little more in the way that Amm and Stark are recommending that they'd want to admit. Drive theory, which I am against, is a strict regimen for training that adheres to a set of concepts that are flawed. Perhaps what you all are doing is a mixture of training methods that work, even though you look at it in terms of "drive." If you were to look at a comprehensive study of drive theory, I think you would probably change your internal definition of what your doing. At that point, though, it is just semantics and would have no bearing on your training.

I would bet my retirement and my destroyed stock portfolio (not worth very much anymore), though, that chasing a ball or the lack thereof does not define the prey drive of a dog. Has it ever occured to anyone (not being sarcastic here) that dogs have personalities and maybe chasing a ball is below them? Maybe, just maybe, they are more like humans. If they do have a "high prey drive" it is possible that a simple game like chasing a ball would be boredom to the max.

I highly recommend that you read some of these articles because I'm not sure that you understand what you're arguing against. If it's my opinion, then it's not sufficient because I am not an expert on the subject matter, just a student seeking answers that make sense. To me, making sense includes looking at training regimens that were used for hundreds of years (how did hunters train their dogs 200 years ago? They certainly didn't train in drives.), using science and psychology as a firm basis, and using common sense from the world of animal training, not just ScH training. It's funny to me how training through drives is now the only accepted way to train a dog when hundreds of years ago, dogs were trained just fine to accomplish the same tasks using a different approach. And, no, the world hasn't changed that much in regards to dogs, and there were many great dogs who were used back then. We're not inventing anything here, we're just using what's been handed down.
Mark

[Muckdogs]

The issue here, though, is that most, if not all posters are training for a particular purpose, sport, be it SchH or ring or whatever and training through drives has proven to be the best way to accomplish this task. We're not talking about hunting dogs, or seeing eye dogs, or service companion dogs. We are talking about limited objective training using the avenues that are tried and true. Certainly, there are different methods to use when training for different purposes. For sport dogs and probably PP dogs, utilizing drive in training is the way to go. I would argue, however, that drive training would be an effective way to train dogs for other purposes as well.

BTW, a ball on a string is not the only way to work a dog in prey drive or test for prey drive. The key to being a good handler or trainer is to find what it is that brings out the dogs drive. My dog really could care less about a ball. So we don't use it. However, he will work in drive fo a 12" tug. S does the fact that he doesn't like the ball mean he is low in drive? No, it just means that he needs a different catalyst.

Your point about a lot of dogs being discarded is well taken. I think that no one would argue that those discarded dogs can never work. The point is, however, why should we waste valuable limited training time with a problem dog when there are many others out there that don't have baggage and can easily perform without troubleshooting. Is it the dogs fault? No? It is merely a cost benefit analysis. If you have the extra time, train through the issues and you will be a much better handler. Some of don't have the time or the care to possibly waste two years trying to bring a dog around that will eventually flop.

[Mattweiser]

Mark,

I have seen a commonality thourought your posts on this topic: You are consistently relating whether or not a dog chases a ball to be the end-all be-all of its expression of prey drive...

This is a fallacy. Not all dogs enjoy chasing balls, and not all dogs have been properly "trained" to chase balls.

You mentioned hunting dogs that you had direct experience with. These dogs would not chase a ball, but would chase game. I believe you... The point is not that they would not chase a ball because they had no prey, they did not chase a ball, because they had never been trained to chase a ball (and then retrieve it)... hunting dogs, and hunters have a very no-nonsense relationship with their dogs (at least the ones that I have been in contact with).. These dog/handler teams do nothing that is not directly hunt related. so of course it is no surprise that the dogs have no desire to chase a ball.. Why would they?? they have likely been corrected for chasing anything that was not "game"... And furthermore, they have never been rewarded for retrieving the ball... But I assure you that any hunting dog could easily be trained to chase, retrieve, and enjoy a ball....

Now, back to the overall discussion:

I posted this earlier, the majority of us that train, and use drive theory.. do not look at it like a black and white theory..

it is not stereo instructions... it is a baseline to use to understand why dogs do things that they do....

another hardwired aspect to take into consideration (which nobody has mentioned) is Nerve....

nerve is half of what a dog is... the other half is drive...

I like to use this rough equation when talking about a dog's ability

drive + nerve = response

here is an example...

a dog has great prey drive, will chase balls, animals, birds, etc... loves to bite on tugs, thrashes etc.. but has problems biting a sleeve. why??

nerves... his perception of threat overpowers his drive to bite.... so he avoids, or bites poorly...


this is an article by Brian Amm..
Article by Brian Amm
throughout the article he talks about the dog driving the decoy "away" , it even states that this is how the dogs would act in the wild.... I do not know how more simmilar to Defense Drive this could be, w/o actually saying defense.. Like many of us stated before, just because Mr Amm does not use the same terminology, does not mean that we are not doing very simmilar things...

I do not discredit his techniques.. I am in fact a very big fan of muzzle training.. and am very aware of the seriousness that it evokes in a "good" dog, but it can also damage a mediocre dog

[Mattweiser]

By the way:

this is the reason that Brian teaches muzzle work first:

from the above linked article by Brian Amm
Conclusion

Let me comment on muzzle training in relation to bite work training. I believe that the best advantage comes from training the dog completely in aggression and control on the muzzle first--then introducing the bite work training later. Bite work training is so much easier if the dog is already solid in his control work. The dog can still be tested for his bite separate from the muzzle process, but extensive bite training is complicated by the absence of the proper release ("out") component.

Dogs already trained to bite securely don't need more if they are performing adequately. It is my experience that muzzle training a dog naturally improves the dog's performance in off-muzzle work.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. Good luck and good training.

basically it is just a way to get around the "out" and control work, until after the dog is older and more secure.. not because drive theory is flawed ;)

[Storm]

Mark, when there is a world out there competing at the highest possible level, sports, ring, PD, KNPV etc. etc. etc. etc. associated with "drive theory", how can you repeatedly refer to it as FLAWED? Correct me if I am wrong but someone recently posted somewhere how they could train avoiding "bite work" cause of their wife or something.................... well if related they sure got themselves convinced now!

[Muckdogs]

Originally posted by Mattweiser

another hardwired aspect to take into consideration (which nobody has mentioned) is Nerve....

I didn't dare get that started