Santos, I think I agree with what you are saying mostly, if you are saying that an attack on a passive decoy could be a better test than a dog being agitated first and then sent. But the first advice was to make a dog hate the decoy to make them bite well, and I also think that was good advice. However, in a test, not training, it gets confusing. Are you saying that an untrained dog should attack someone that isn't being aggressive before it would be considered a real dog? Cause I would disagree with that.
I have seen PSA trials where dogs are required to attack passive (non-agitating) decoys, but some if not most of those dogs were trained in baby steps to do so. So I can show video of a dog doing an attack on a passive decoy in muzzle, but it might not mean anything (that it is a real dog) if it was trained to do so in small steps and the man isn't fighting him. I think more than the tests itself, to determine whether a dog is "Real" or not takes the observation of an expert such as yourself, Bob and Jay and others who actually are working the dog in whatever test. It's not always clearly visible (maybe not ever) in video clips, but it's the best we have to work with aside from explanations.
For me, if I have a dog that has never been tested or trained and he attacks someone for no reason, he will be a dead dog. That is instability in my book. However, if I train a dog up to follow my command no matter if the decoy is aggressive or not, he better do that, too, for a case in which someone might have a weapon and isn't overtly being aggressive. We are probably on the same page but just having a lack of communication with each other.
Santos, cred ca sunt de acord cu ce spui in mare parte, daca te referi la faptul ca un atac pe un infractor pasiv ar fi un test mai bun decat daca inainte cainele ar fi agitat si abia apoi trimis. Insa primul sfat a fost sa facem cainele sa urasca infractorul pentru a-l musca bine si consider ca a fost un sfat bun. Oricum, intr-un test, nu dresaj, ne putem incurca. Spui cumva ca un caine neantrenat ar trebui sa atace pe cineva care nu este agresiv pentru a fi considerat caine de real? Pentru ca nu voi fi de acord cu asta.
Am vazut la PSA caini care erau pusi sa atace infractori neagresivi (fara agitatie) dar majoritatea cainilor fusesera dresati cu pasi mici sa faca asta. Pot arata o filmare cu un caine care ataca cu botnita un infractor pasiv, dar s-ar putea sa nu insemne nimic (cum ca e un caine de real) daca a fost dresat cu pasi mici sa faca asta si infractorul nu se lupta cu el. Cred ca mai mult decat testul in sine, pentru a determina daca un caine este de "real" sau nu necesita observatia unor experti precum esti tu, Bob si Jay sau altii care chiar lucreaza cu cainii indiferent de test. Nu este intotdeauna vizibil clar (poate nu intotdeauna) in filmari, insa este ce avem mai bun pentru a lucra cu o parte din explicatii.
Pentru mine, daca am un caine netestat si nedresat care ataca pe cineva fara motiv, va fi un caine mort.
Asta inseamna instabilitate in opinia mea. In orice caz, daca dresez un caine sa-mi urmeze comenzile indiferent daca infractorul este agresiv sau nu, ar face bine sa faca asa, pentru cazul in care cineva are o arma si nu este vizibil agresiv. Probabil avem aceleasi pareri insa nu reusim sa comunicam prea bine.
Topic: Real training vs sport training / Sport vs Real (Read 45706 times)
