An interesting perspective on ‘Predatory Drive’

[Kibble]

It's easy to agree that the meaning of 'drive' (in the context of dog behaviour) is ill defined and misused. This shouldn't mean that using other, equally ill defined and easily misunderstood words, such as motivation, will be any improvement. I think there are rather a lot of ill defined and misused words in dog training.
By contrast, the word 'fast' (in the context of a running dog) is observable. I know that I have a fast dog.
People with experience talk about 'reading your dog' and 'training the dog in front of you'.
Will a good dog trainer first assess their dog, based on their experience, and then tailor the training accordingly?

[Naj]

You’re quite right, Kibble, folk bandy words about without understanding them. That’s why ‘Behaviour’ has a defined language. The problem is (if, indeed it is a problem) that not everyone is interested in learning even the basics of that language.

Re your earlier post about your pup. You answer your own question, your pup was frightened. No need to bring drive into it.

Naj

[Nickheref]

Will a good dog trainer first assess their dog, based on their experience, and then tailor the training accordingly?

Yes, some dogs can be pushed/encouraged more. others can't. Not pushed in a bad way just given a bit of confidence - take swimming, there are usually 3 types of behaviour you will see in a young dog when you first introduce it to water
1 It swims first time of asking because it likes doing it with very little encouragement
2 It is a bit unsure at first and paddles a bit but with a bit of coaxing and possibly the lure of a dummy after 2 or 3 sessions it is swimming with confidence
3 It refuses point blank to swim for any reason or possibly even to get its feet wet. This dog will take an awful lot of work to get it swimming and will probably never be as good in water as type 1 and standing on the bank shouting at it or repeatedly chucking dummies in the water or worse still pushing it in is only going to convince the dog that it was right first time in its view on water. It can swim perfectly well but doesn't want to so you have to look for another way of getting it swimming.

But this is the point, by the time you are probably asking this question of the dog you already have an idea of what you think will happen as you have been watching how it responded to water when it met it earlier in life, did it jump in the shallow stream and think it great running up and down or did it keep away from the stream and just jump over it avoiding the water altogether.
All three need different training but perhaps ironically given the general flow of this thread it is the low drive/unmotivated dogs that are most difficult if not impossible because they are not really bothered about doing whatever there is to be done, so there is no point trying to coax a reluctant retriever to swim for a dummy just out of range in the water because it isn't bothered about getting the dummy. So it definitely isn't going to do something it is not very keen on to achieve something else it is not very keen on.

Or

The hyperactive little pup who finds it difficult to sit still for more than 2 seconds. They can be very difficult to introduce to the concept of sitting and remaining (I hesitate to say "stay" ) in one place. With a place-board they get the idea very quickly without any issues as they can easily understand that you only ask them to go back onto the board the moment they start to move of it but if they stay on the board even if they are shuffling a bit they will be rewarded, gradually you can increase the time they are asked to stay on the board. Trying to do that on a bit of grass that all looks the same to them just results in them creeping towards you and they don't understand why you ask them to move them back to the first spot. Other pups don't move and will just sit in one place until released.

[munstyman]

Will a good dog trainer first assess their dog, based on their experience, and then tailor the training accordingly?

Absolutely, but the important point which is often overlooked is that we will continue to assess the dog AND its training throughout the whole process.
Pups grow up and some aspects of their character will not remain the same. A dog which appears introverted at the beginning, can, once it develops confidence, may become quite the extrovert. Similarly an out going pup may be `regimented' into becoming reluctant to try new things by to much correction. Training and bringing the best out of the dog requires flexibility to your training program, set nothing in stone and never change course because of one instance, one day. Rather look for developing patterns then make the changes as necessary.
Going back to defining descriptive terms in animal behavior I have to disagree again with Naj ( Bad habits are hard to break )

That’s why ‘Behaviour’ has a defined language.

I don't think it does, quite frankly if it did we would not be having this discussion I said earlier that behavior and psychology are an observable science, so inevitably use descriptive terminology which suits `their' understanding of the word to what they are seeing. Others, seeing and hearing its use by that person will be able to associate the word to the action because they are there and the situation will bring it context. The same written word, being read by someone else not seeing its use first hand and not with that direct context will have to apply their own meaning to that word based on `their' understanding only of the word.
Even kibbles use of the word `fast' can be interpreted to mean something different. For example Fast as in keen to find, or fast as in `too fast' for its nose. Words may often present an accurate meaning and description at the extremes, the trouble is that leaves a whole range of vague words and meanings to fill the void in between. When it comes to describing a dog and/or its training it is very rare that we are faced with those extremes and so are nearly always going to be `redefining' this or that. As I said at the beginning, those articles are just that, it's not new, it adds nothing to training a dog just puts an authors view on words that `they' deem to be being used incorrectly. I still can't get my head around how they think a longer word is less of a mouthful than a shorter word But I'm just a simple man, what do I know?

[Naj]

Yes, but … this is the difficulty of using terms like (low, or any other) drive, motivation, hyperactive, keenness or any other that we put ad hoc values to. They’re all relative, mean many things to many people and can easily be misinterpreted. I’ve found the HPRs I’ve had aren’t naturally inclined to go for a swim just for the hell of it. Do they lack drive, or motivation, or simply just don’t like it? Go shoot a duck over water and they’re in there like a shot and you can’t keep them out of it.

An unmotivated dog is just that, unmotivated at that point in time, but there’s invariably a reason for it other than the personality of the dog in question. It’s not a character trait. The trainers first job, I would suggest, is to find out what motivates the dog, which is usually surprisingly easy. That leads on to engagement and then you have a dog that is choosing to work with you, and you always get stronger behaviours when the dog is volunteering them rather than being pressed into them. How you train often dictates how you ‘see’ and interpret the dog. The ‘hyperactive’ or ‘stubborn’ dog that fidgets or moves on the sit/stay is a product of the training, not the dog. Use something defined and understandable where it can place its bum, like a place board, or put value in it sitting remotely so it is only too happy to do so and your hyperactive/stubborn dog is suddenly a paragon of virtue. The appliance of science, who’d have thought.

Of course Behavioural science has its own defined language, just as any other of the sciences has. This discussion just highlights what I said earlier, that some aren’t interested in learning it and put their own interpretation on it. Which is ok but leads to inevitable misunderstanding and confusion. Reinforcement is a common behavioural (and training) term but I’ve lost count of the times folk have advised to reinforce the sit or heel position through correction, when they actually mean re-enforce. Does it matter? Perhaps not if others understand the context. Depends on what company you keep.

Getting back to prey drive, I don’t think that is so cut and dried as is often made out.

Naj

[munstyman]

Of course Behavioural science has its own defined language, just as any other of the sciences has. This discussion just highlights what I said earlier, that some aren’t interested in learning it and put their own interpretation on it. Which is ok but leads to inevitable misunderstanding and confusion.

No it doesn't, because it is not an exact science. You have authors who use preferred `descriptive' terms which `they' have put a meaning too. Yes , there are specific terms for biological and physical actions, but even then there will be degrees when describing any quantitative expression which the individual may have been taught to use ( And different teachers and studies will have influenced that )

Yes, but … this is the difficulty of using terms like (low, or any other) drive, motivation, hyperactive, keenness or any other that we put ad hoc values to. They’re all relative, mean many things to many people and can easily be misinterpreted.

Precisely, So? When I hear the use of common terms in dog training, I have my interpretation of them but I am also aware of others. I am aware that their use of the term maybe something I would use a different term for. As a descriptive term I can get a rough picture either way ( and why I always ask more questions of those having problems before giving a response, or qualify my advise accordingly ). What I don't do is get bogged down in the use of the term, because it differs from mine and that they should use X rather than Y because there is a scientific paper somewhere, or some PHD with their head up their arse, that says so. I try to give a solution to the actual problem.
If for example the articles went into more constructive depth like what you said here:

An unmotivated dog is just that, unmotivated at that point in time, but there’s invariably a reason for it other than the personality of the dog in question. It’s not a character trait. The trainers first job, I would suggest, is to find out what motivates the dog, which is usually surprisingly easy. That leads on to engagement and then you have a dog that is choosing to work with you, and you always get stronger behaviours when the dog is volunteering them rather than being pressed into them. How you train often dictates how you ‘see’ and interpret the dog. The ‘hyperactive’ or ‘stubborn’ dog that fidgets or moves on the sit/stay is a product of the training, not the dog. Use something defined and understandable where it can place its bum, like a place board, or put value in it sitting remotely so it is only too happy to do so and your hyperactive/stubborn dog is suddenly a paragon of virtue. The appliance of science, who’d have thought.

Instead of just the terms being used. Then they would have not been referred to as crap and self importance drivel ( I may not have said that last bit previously, but it was what I was thinking ) I've always believed communication is key. Be that human to dog, dog to human or human to human to dog. Just like the dog does not understand the specific meaning in a literal sense of a command word to associate it with an action. When training a dog we shouldn't either, rather just get the association we can work with to better train the dog.

Just for fun:

Getting back to prey drive, I don’t think that is so cut and dried as is often made out.

Not that complicated. munstymans contortionist definition so use it or your wrong : Prey drive = instinct to kill or capture

[Naj]

I've always believed communication is key. Be that human to dog, dog to human or human to human to dog. Just like the dog does not understand the specific meaning in a literal sense of a command word to associate it with an action. When training a dog we shouldn't either, rather just get the association we can work with to better train the dog.

Just for fun:

Getting back to prey drive, I don’t think that is so cut and dried as is often made out.

Not that complicated. munstymans contortionist definition so use it or your wrong : Prey drive = instinct to kill or capture
[/quote]

I particularly like the bit about communication. Commands, in many ways, get in the way of training and ‘natural’ communication. Just look at dogs interacting together, and with us. They’re creatures of routine (and rituals) and get along fine without ‘commands’. Look at any wildlife doc about wolves or African wild dogs and their days are comprised of routines, their hunts like choreographed dances where each individual cues off the actions of others and their quarry. Dogs follow similar patterns, and hunting with them is certainly a well choreographed dance, metaphorically speaking. My aim in teaching a dog anything is to steer away from command based training and to get through a hunt without the use of any.

I’d agree with your definition of prey drive. But it’s often presented as an overriding impediment to training and/or management so what I was referring to was the dog’s ability to switch it on and off whenever it chooses.

Naj

[newf]

A ‘study’ of hot air. Well, one has to get paid for saying a few words in order to keep currency flowing and dogs are certainly the ticket.

Stuff like this nonsense is certainly not helping behaviorial ‘science’ in their endeavour to be taken seriously. They must figure a change of jargon and labelling will get them closer to a place of measurement and Bunsen burners.

Less complicated and clearer it is not…putting a spin on a single facet of behavior is stupid. Behavior is dynamic. It doesn’t stand still to be measured alone, it’s always a part of many parts working together.

P.S. The author’s last statement reveals a bias towards breeding of ‘natural motivations to unnatural levels because it may not be good for the dog or breed’. I wonder, is this her ‘motivation’ for attempting to change the talk from prey driven to “motivation”? To lay blame for dogs acting inappropriately. Where is the science in that motivation?


P.P.S. Naj, I’ve must have missed the flowing choreography of predators hunting and bringing down game? I see chaos that may get the job done after several or more failures. Pack members milling about at other things while their lone buddy is attempting to bring down an animal all by itself. Or, a predator wanders away from its kind and is soon attacked by something else bigger. No dream in either of the above natural behaviors …in reality.

Thought I was gone but it seems not. This kind of stuff passing itself off as ‘science’ really gets my goat, or maddens, perhaps angers is more appropriate. You see? It’s all the same: aggression.

[munstyman]

My definition of command is obviously different than yours Naj
Just to be clear, I used it just as a word ( sound to the dog ) associated with a required action. In fact because I use both word, whistle and hand ( body ) signal you could say I choreograph an opera and ballet and a play for the dog to help it understand to do a required action when it receives the `command' . So it must ring a bell to the wild ancestry within, as it seems to work. Remember wild dogs and wolves use body language and sounds to communicate, these are still cues to a potential action and have meaning to individuals within the pack
As newf just posted often hunting in the wild is often chaotic until an action is rewarded by success. If the opportunity repeats and allows the action to be repeated, either by an individual or a group and again rewards the hunters it is likely to be used again and again, as a learnt behavior . Thus a group of hunters will bring a perceived order to the chaos by repeating a pattern. In training a gundog we aim to bring about a way, by using `commands' and association, which gives the dog a better chance of being rewarded in a relatively short period of time, by removing a large part of trial and error ( That is not to say I don't personally manipulate a situation to let the dog learn something for itself when the rare opportunity arises, I do and it can be very effective ) .
Once a dog knows its purpose, knows what part it plays and how to do it, you should not need to use constant`commands' because they are just used to get it to that stage, except perhaps`start and stop'. It still may be necessary to help on occasions to improve the success of the hunt, but generally you know your part and the dog knows its, you work as a team.Then as you rightly point out, commands `can' get in the way of a dogs `natural ability' and function and reduce overall performance. I'm sure we have all seen a good handler with a well trained dog making it all look easy without any words or whistles, it all just flows seemingly telepathically. It doesn't just happen it takes a lot of work, understanding and training of `commands' to actions ... I challenge anyone, anyone at all including academics to prove me wrong and show me a dog that has been trained to provide a function without the use of commands ( As I'm using the term )

[Naj]

I’m not sure if you’re agreeing with me or disagreeing, MunstM. I’ll take it you’re agreeing re my …. hunts like choreographed dances where each individual cues off the action of others and their quarry. Which, of course, is all about body language. And of course this is all learned behaviour through trial and error, just as the pointing or flushing dog learns to find its game through trial and error. What’s that saying…. birds train the bird dog.

Regarding the necessity, or not, of commands in training, you’ll know yourself that there’s lots of things we can teach a dog to do without the need for a command from the handler. That aside, you run pointing dogs so we perhaps train differently. I do all my formative puppy training in the field so we’re developing a working partnership and field control from the get-go, but that doesn’t include lots of commands. I don’t see it so much as an opportunity for command and control but an opportunity to exploit environmental rewards and punishers. But if you want to see somebody that trains gundogs without basing the training on control through verbal commands, just take a look at Brad Higgins. He has lots of u tube videos showing gundogs he has trained this way.

Naj