An interesting perspective on ‘Predatory Drive’

[Kibble]

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.

I eventually borrowed some placeboards. With hindsight I would have used these much sooner. The instant effect was surprising. I could have happily played placeboard games with my lively puppy.
She is quite good at sitting by the fridge.
NB, lively, not hyperactive I don't need an excuse for finding dog training difficult.

Behavioural science doesn't have to be total ,. It can even be quantitative. For example, the use of placeboard(s) in puppy training would lend itself nicely to a Randomised Controlled Trial. I looked up Cato, in case they had bothered to fund such a trial. I am guessing they could afford to. Would such a trial add anything to dog training? Maybe not directly.

The pdf that Naj introduced, includes the suggestion to just describe the behaviour (and not talk about drives).
In saying that I have a 'fast' dog, I simply meant that she can run really fast. Nick mentions this observable and measurable behaviour as interesting, beyond just running. (sorry can't seem to add the quote).
The pdf also mentions the difficulty in using assessment (such as of drive, which is subjective) to predict future behaviour / potential.

the important point which is often overlooked is that we will continue to assess the dog AND its training throughout the whole process.

What to do when, with a pup, is where experience would be particularly useful. However, I lke to watch my pup 'shake it off'. I am not quite sure if she has always done this, and I didn't notice, or if she has recently learnt this important way of coping with a frustratingly slow trainer.

[Nickheref]

Hyperactive was probably the wrong word but it is the one my brain uses and how I think of them, I actually like them, busy could also be used as they are usually busy investigating everything except when they are asleep! Just to keep things going I saw the phrase "high energy" in a magazine yesterday referring to a type of gundog! You can use place-boards from 8 weeks, most pups love playing games on them and as you appear to have seen they move forward very quickly with them!

I recently lent my place boards to a friend who has her first dog, a whippet, usual thing scared to let it off the lead in a wood, it will never listen to me etc. I did a couple of 3 minute sessions of calling the pup onto the place board and rewarding it showing her what to do. I went round the other day for the first time in a month and the pup raced to its place board and sat on it when it saw me waiting for the treat.

[Kibble]

I am reading 'Spaniels for Sport' by T Radcliffe (first published 1969!). I think the recommendation for this book came from this forum.
The forward by W Stephens uses 'keenness/fierceness combined with gentleness,' to describe spaniel temperament. I find this description helpful.

Part One of Radcliffe's book is Psychology. I suppose that shows the detail you get from books, rather than videos and podcasts. I like books.

[munstyman]

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

So much here... and so little time
Generally the first paragraph is correct ... up to

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.

I disagree that the dogs `learn to find game through trial and error' rather that they learn to handle game through trial and error and that is where `birds train gundogs' Hunting and finding particular game in relation to its purpose, you could loosely attribute to trial and error but I would argue that the handlers response, either in a positive or negative manner to finding a particular quarry is the main factor in establishing that behavior.

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.

You've lost me there, as I can't think of anything that doesn't involve a cue to some degree that gets the dog to learn anything. If a dog already knows something then we are not teaching it to do it. We may need to teach it to perform said action to a cue as an when we need it ( or don't need it ) and that can be as a specific word or sound or as subtle as opening the gun cabinet, but it is still training a dog with commands/cues as I use the term.
I am aware of Brad from the HPRforum, and I saw his videos very differently, just saying. Those over the pond need a different' standard of dog for a different hunting environment. Taking hunting dogs, NOT retrieving dogs ( I don't want to get on the wrong side of crackered ) I am always torn between two thoughts in my mind. Namely:
1/ Is it that they don't `control' the dogs more when they hunt them because the ground is more open and the game is generally well spaced out and wild so sits tighter for longer. Or
2/ Because they can't train that `control'. Controversial I know and it has probably a lot to do with all those excuses I hear for sub-optimal trained dogs this side of the pond which frames that thinking.
I'm not saying their way of doing things is better or worse, and they could say the same about the way we train our dogs, in that ours need to be controlled because they lack `natural' hunting skills, desire and nose and have to trip over game in order to find it. Still that's a whole different topic.
So much to cover ...and so little time
Kibble wrote:

Behavioural science doesn't have to be total ,

Absolutely, Odd as it might seem, as a student of Johnny Morris , I do actually enjoy reading various authors in this field, and some science has shed light on different aspects of training my dogs and makes me a little more fluent in the canine language. But , as I said previously this is not at that level and is why I labelled it as I saw it.

However, I like to watch my pup 'shake it off'. I am not quite sure if she has always done this, and I didn't notice, or if she has recently learnt this important way of coping with a frustratingly slow trainer.

Your not alone kibble, so much animal behavior is based around simple observation ( and preferably an open mind ), and sometimes you just can't see the wood from the trees. All the information is right there in front of you, in the dog. Not in a book, a scientific paper, the interweb and definitely not FB
It is one of the reasons I HATE on mobile phone dog walkers ( with dogs off lead ) Everything the dog is trying to communicate is being ignored, what an utter waste, so much is being missed, for what? a mindless conversation or text which could easily waited half an hour

[Naj]

Radcliffe’s book was based purely upon ‘Spaniels, Their Breaking for Sport and Field Trials’, written by HW Carlton. Carlton was a bit of a visionary in being an early enthusiast of the latest thinking on psychology and a reward based approach but it didn’t really catch on. Peter Moxon was kennel editor of Shooting Times for many years and believed that Carlton’s book was so important that he instigated a reprint in the mid 70s. I once visited Radcliffe at his home/kennels. He was an interesting guy but was only interested in the American spaniel scene where dogs of his breeding had far more success than in the U.K. But he was very much a traditionalist when it came to training. I like books too.

[Naj]

Not sure if we’re splitting hairs here, MunstyM. As someone who introduces pups to wild game from 8 weeks onwards, and on a daily basis, I see at first hand how their game finding ability develops through trial and error, in the field, at least. The first contacts with game are a bump and purely accidental. That ignites a curiosity in game as they find more and begin to make positive associations and this develops into a more focussed interest so eventually they’re zeroing in from some distance on the slightest whiff of scent. But the natural Point typically kicks in at 16 weeks and then they’re pretty much staunch. From here they’ll naturally move on to learn how to handle moving birds and will be proficient at both by 6 months of age. Other than setting up a consistent sight picture I try to stay neutral throughout and only ever say anything after we’ve had a productive point on a game species. But this develops, naturally, on its own.

Commands? Cues? Are we splitting hairs again? You keep jumping from command to cue! I think most would view a ‘command’ as verbal. I’m happy with verbal cues too but what I was referring to was non verbal cues. Which I thought I’d made pretty obvious.

The best trained dog is surely the dog that suits your purposes the best. That’s why I strongly believe that you should train for what you want and not what somebody else thinks you should want. I think much depends upon what density of game you are hunting, especially with a pointing breed. Here in the U.K. there is a bit of an obsession with control and ground treatment. That may well be required on a reared bird shoot but I shoot two or three times a week or more right through the season on wild birds and, yes, I want my dogs to cover the ground efficiently, but that doesn’t entail insisting on them tediously quartering over every inch of ground in textbook fashion when they know full well it holds no game. I’d find it terribly boring and a waste of time and energy, and I’m sure they’d be equally as frustrated. So perhaps that is why I need little to no commands, but commands don’t maketh the dog. Horses for courses!

Naj

[Naj]

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.

Where to start!

What is it you don’t agree with, Newf? Behavioural science moved away from ‘drives’ a way back (so this isn’t breaking new ground), because they don’t explain a great deal, other than at a generic level which we laymen tend to use, quite loosely,to describe anything and everything. They’re all things to all people. And that’s ok. “Predatory behaviour is a natural behaviour of dogs …. triggered by external stimuli.” What’s not to like!? The reason why ‘drives’ lost their popularity is because, as we’ve seen here, everyone’s got a different opinion on whether they’re innately instinctive or learnt. It makes much more sense just to concentrate on the Behaviour. Saying it’s an instinctive drive isn’t going to help much in trying to sort out an unwanted (chase?) behaviour. And if you want to stick to ‘drives’ are they so simple? I hunt game. Does that mean I have innate prey drive but somebody that that doesn’t hunt, or just beats on a shoot, doesn’t possess prey drive? My dog has a high prey drive because she’s a hunting breed? She’s currently curled up on her bed and hunting is the last thing on her mind at the moment, nor has it been all morning. I let her out on the lawn this morning and there was a flock of greylag geese in plain sight the other side of an open wire fence and within easy shooting distance. We hunt them all season but she didn’t give them a second glance, had a pee and headed back indoors. What would prey drive tell me about anything. Much better to look at actual behaviours. And I would have thought that would chime with your enthusiasm for rational observation!

I’m surprised that you see predatory hunting behaviour as pure luck and chaos. As MunstyM pointed out, strategies are developed, in partnership, and those that consistently fail are dropped and those that bring success are monopolised upon. Yes, there are failures but that’s down to predater/prey dynamics. The same for prey species. They develop escape strategies by trial and error but the consequences of failure are more deadly! I see this everyday with my own dogs so I’m surprised that you don’t. From my current dog’s clumsy handling of her first game contacts to four years on when she makes it all look easy. And she’s still learning. The same with our working partnership, her cuing off me and me off her. And I use precious little whistle and often forget to bring it so I know that she is working cooperatively rather than being ‘held’ by me. She has her strengths and weaknesses but so have I.

Naj

[munstyman]

Not sure if we’re splitting hairs here, MunstyM.

Yes we are but isn't that the point of the thread? Remember right back at the beginning I said I thought those articles did nothing to advance Dog training, but merely pushed a redefining of words to the authors meaning. And even later I specifically said

...with commands/cues as I use the term

My point through out is that behavior is not an exact science, and authors will, by human nature, have their own definitions of words to label or describe those behaviors just as you and I use words. It does not make any of them more right than others, it is when they push their definition without consideration to others that I feel it right to call them out on it ( especially as I said it does not move the understanding forward )
I can see your use of `command' is clearly different than mine as you have separated out cue from `verbal' command where as I have not, and use command as in giving an instruction to an action regardless of how it is given. I understand that, and make no assumption to who's definition is a correct use of the term, as that would be merely `splitting hairs' and a distraction from the important stuff. Understanding the behavior aspects and how to better use it in training .
Likewise I see a difference in, and still question, how you you see a hunting dog `find birds' through `trial and error'. The desire to find quarry is instinctive driven in a predatory species in my view ( Predatory drive ) Those scents, sounds and visuals of natural prey are evolutionary embedded, again in my view, and why I do not see it (the desire to locate ) as developing through trial and error. What develops through `trial and error, or with a little `training' either from the trainer or the quarry, is how the dog handles the quarry after it has found it. ( Following those instincts )
Once again, I want to make it clear. This could still be a case where it is me this time splitting the meaning into multiple scenarios and you using it to cover the larger picture. All I'm asking is does it really matter? There will be some that read this and agree with one of us and others that don't agree with either of us as they have their own `definition'. The argument about `definition' is, as I continue to say not going to contribute very much to the subject of behavior and training of gundogs.
I would agree there are SOME handlers and trainers with an obsession for control. There is a whole competition and arena which obsesses about control, sometimes even favoring it over natural ability And then goes on to develop specific types of dogs for that purpose. I think thee and me both tut tut and shake our heads about this, but as individuals we are all free to choose what we want to get out of life, and if they get enjoyment out of it, and their dogs get to do natural stuff, it is a choice thing, I'm happy to let it be.
I have always taken a more controlled route in my training of my dogs, and have had many a long discussion about this with our dear departed friend `Wullie'. The commonality between our different views was that we each could read our dogs and new how much control was needed for that dog to get the best balance between control and natural ability. We also knew when to apply control and when to let natural ability do its thing. Very few novice trainers and handlers have this ability, and in truth will only get that ability over time and multiple dogs.( Not FB. Can't resist )
Ground treatment and control ( Damn your annoying when you throw these odd words in that take me in a different direction )
Yeah I'm pretty sure I know where your coming from. I'll just say I believe it shows the difference between `Hunters' and 'Handlers' and when it comes to competitions, Judges that Hunt and Judges that Handle. Dogs are not the perfect hunter we may make them out to be, they are only as good as their nose and that nose is only as good as where it can scent. When training a hunting pattern or developing/shaping a natural one we are giving the dog the best access to the scent for our purpose of shooting the quarry. A dog can `miss ground' for a whole variety of reasons, some good, some bad. It is your decision what happens next not the dogs, your the one that is `leading/directing' the hunt, your the one with or working for the gun. If you want to bring the dog back to the missed ground, you should be able to do so ( Control ), or justify not doing so and accept the consequences either way. ( Don't blame the dog for missing said ground). If you make a dog that has a good nose, in good scenting conditions, work a beat where right at the beginning the dog has told you there is nothing there, and in its ability you trust. Your just going to be wasting time for the sake of a `perfect pattern' with no reward for that pattern, when the dog proves its ability right. Personally, if one of my dogs misses ground and subsequently a bird gets up from it. It gets chastised in the most awful way possible for a HPR ... it gets called a expletive Spaniel

[Judy]

Well, I finally got around to reading the link and finding out what all the fuss is about! Who knew we needed a Predation Substitution expert in dog training? I worry about these people and their inventions, ffs! IF you have any kind of mutual relationship with your dog it wont b' off into the sunset exercising it's right to predate / use it's instinct to chase / have prey drive / be an unruly mess of instinctive behaviour / misbehaviour. Perhaps people who can't relate to their dogs shouldn't be allowed to have them although that would put a lot of "experts" out of a job pdq.

[Naj]

Me thinks we’re pretty much singing from the same page, MunstyM, give or take a slant on the odd bit of language.

Command and cue are interesting in a training context. When I first started out training gundogs, giving a (verbal) ‘command’, with all its authoritative and pseudo military implication, was de rigueur. We ‘Commanded’ the dog to do this or that, usually in a commanding voice carrying with it the implicit threat that woe betide you should you ‘disobey’. Nobody had heard of cues in a training context, other than a few who recognised the significance of body language. Verbal cues first came about through the rise of reward based methods, notably in the use of clicker training. Adherents didn’t want to ‘command’ their dogs to do anything and so ‘cued’ behaviours instead. It was the beginnings of choice based training as we know it today, but best not get mired in that can of worms now.

Naj