Images Of Dogs "in Drive"

[Kelpie-i]

Gabe is the one in the air...the black/tan below is Tasha (Miss Precious)

[PAX]

I think drive is working/training to the dogs highest level reward. The desire for the reward is under the handler's control.

Edited January 12, 2010 by PAX

[corvus]

Not sure about the ears and tail.

When entering the flyball ring abby (the Kelpie that Nik posted a shot of) will be barking, lunging- eyes wide, ears pricked, tail up BUT when I kneel down and line her up her ears go flat to her head tail drops and she pulls her front feet up close to the body. So I agree that the body is always tense however the other areas of body language will change entirely. She is in drive the whole time and would do a run at any time (and has when she has escaped) however she prepares herself for release.

I was wondering when someone was going to point that out. The last thread would have been the perfect moment but no one did. Bizarre. Anyway, I suggest that what you are seeing is a transition from anticipation of a reward to that instinctive herding focus that Kelpies and other herding breeds have.

I would actually dissagree that body language for drive is universal.

The problem with that is that it doesn't make evolutionary sense. What is body language for if it doesn't communicate reliably? It doesn't mean that it has to be exactly the same for every dog, but it does mean that it has to be characterisable (is that a word?). In other words, if we can't characterise the behaviour through context and body language, then how can we say we are seeing something definitive in the first place? If there's no pattern, you can't characterise it and it essentially doesn't exist. At least until you can find a pattern that can characterise it. Might be that to dogs there is a very clear pattern, but if we can't see it then it may as well not be there.

So I guess what I am saying is that there it is more about the dogs energy rather than their physical position that would indicate when the dog is TID because their body language will be influenced my what is going on around them. ie drive with acutal prey (sheep) looks different to a dog working for a tug at obedience.

"Energy" is not quantifiable; body language is. But body language is a reflection of the energy. At some point there has to be a pattern. It might mean that you have to look at a wider picture and take in context. You certainly would for more complex social interactions, and it gets so complex there that a lot of people think it's not worth even trying. Drive is pretty basic in comparison, but as you've pointed out, there are grey areas that don't quite fit the pattern. Which is why I said in the other thread that I would very much like to classify those grey bits as something else so they can fit in their own pattern. If it doesn't fit in the pattern then either the pattern is false or the behaviour doesn't belong in it. I'm leaning towards the behaviour not belonging there, because I can't find a pattern that comfortably incorporates both the play we use to train and the more serious "work" look of modified prey drive like herding or flushing game without being so broad as to be meaningless. If someone can find one, I'd happily do an about turn on my argument that they are all different!

I hope that makes some kind of sense.

I do like PAX's incredibly succinct definition, though.

ETA, actually, I think energy is quantifiable, but nowhere near as easily as body language. Unless someone can think of an easy way...

Edited January 13, 2010 by corvus

[dogdude]

The problem with that is that it doesn't make evolutionary sense. What is body language for if it doesn't communicate reliably? It doesn't mean that it has to be exactly the same for every dog, but it does mean that it has to be characterisable (is that a word?). In other words, if we can't characterise the behaviour through context and body language, then how can we say we are seeing something definitive in the first place? If there's no pattern, you can't characterise it and it essentially doesn't exist. At least until you can find a pattern that can characterise it. Might be that to dogs there is a very clear pattern, but if we can't see it then it may as well not be there.

My point,......we can't. We can measure the determination and control level of the dog though, and see that a dog motivated by prey drive works differently to a dog trained using another method.

Hi Corvus

How did you come to the conclusion that any outer visible sign of a dog in drive is a communication?

Why would they need to?. Consider why some people bite their tongues while concentrating. They are not doing it as a communication to others, they just do it. Others put their hand on their chin to think. If someone puts their hand to their chin, are they automatically deep in thought? No, we wouldn't have a clue.

[corvus]

How did you come to the conclusion that any outer visible sign of a dog in drive is a communication?

Why would they need to?. Consider why some people bite their tongues while concentrating. They are not doing it as a communication to others, they just do it. Others put their hand on their chin to think. If someone puts their hand to their chin, are they automatically deep in thought? No, we wouldn't have a clue.

Firstly, because animals in general rely very heavily on body language. In many cases it's about all they have to communicate.

Secondly, because dogs are social animals, this is even more important than usual, so there is a good deal of complexity in what they communicate and how, and furthermore, it makes evolutionary sense for other dogs to notice this, whether it is conscious or not. As an example for why I think it makes evolutionary sense, consider what dogs communicate to each other. Is there anything in the world a dog experiences that would not be useful for another dog to be aware of on some level? If the dog sees a prey animal and goes into stalk mode, that would be beneficial for another dog to know. If a dog goes into play drive (assuming they are different) that would be very beneficial for another dog to know, especially as play aids in social development.

Thirdly, body language doesn't lie. Not in humans, not in dogs, not in any other animal on the planet. Animals don't lie. The closest they get is ravens that put an opaque object between themselves and another raven when caching food to prevent the other raven from seeing where the cache is. But nor are animals ever little islands within themselves. Just as humans have trouble mastering the poker face, dogs don't even try. Did you know that people's pupils dilate when they make a decision? Putting a hand on the chin can mean several things, but that doesn't mean it is so random and variable it can't be characterised.

Lastly, my hare knows what a dog in drive looks like. He responds by fleeing for his life. He has grown up around a dog that largely ignored him, but the very first time a dog looked at him and saw dinner, he flipped out and went into flight mode. He responds to being stared at, but he does not run when a dog looks at him curiously and tries to sniff him. He doesn't run when a dog stares at him in fear (it has happened) but he does run when a dog stares at him because it wants to chase or bite him. He has been frightened by too many dogs now to be a reliable indicator, but he's about a thousand times better at seeing patterns in behaviour than I am, and I am trained to see it. And he's not even a social animal!

By communication I didn't mean that it has to be conscious, or even that it is the purpose of the behaviour. But it is a fact of life when you are a non-verbal animal. If my hare can tell when a dog wants to eat him instinctively, then one would assume that if a dog (or other wild canid) was able to make, say, prey drive so random as to be impossible for a prey animal to characterise, it would have happened by now.

[dogdude]

Corvus

To simplify my argument, you want to see "what drive looks like" specifically prey drive? I am telling you that I know when I have it, (by knowing my dogs training history) and I can tell you that you can not specifically see it in body language alone. To the human eye it looks like alot of other things that could be anything. My food trained dog looks very much the same as my prey driven dog while doing obedience training/trialling.

Edited January 14, 2010 by dogdude

[bedazzledx2]

"We can measure the determination and control level of the dog though, and see that a dog motivated by prey drive works differently to a dog trained using another method."

I disagree!!!! Its all relative. How can you tell what 'drive' my dog is performing in???????? This is where the drive debate fails utterly in my opinion. Someone says "Hey that dog works well...look he is motivated and up and happy...he must be in prey drive" or are you combining (lumping) all 'drive' training against all 'correction' training...or are you assuming all correction training is when the dog looks unhappy and lags????

I can show you 3 (for arguments sake) different videos of 3 different dogs working in 3 different 'drives' and I would challenge anyone to tell me what 'drive' they are working in or have been trained in.

Edited January 14, 2010 by bedazzledx2

[huski]

"We can measure the determination and control level of the dog though, and see that a dog motivated by prey drive works differently to a dog trained using another method."

I disagree!!!! Its all relative. How can you tell what 'drive' my dog is performing in???????? This is where the drive debate fails utterly in my opinion. Someone says "Hey that dog works well...look he is motivated and up and happy...he must be in prey drive" or are you combining (lumping) all 'drive' training against all 'correction' training...or are you assuming all correction training is when the dog looks unhappy and lags????

I can show you 3 (for arguments sake) different videos of 3 different dogs working in 3 different 'drives' and I would challenge anyone to tell me what 'drive' they are working in or have been trained in.

Bedazzled, what does drive mean to you? How do you define and understand it?

I can see a difference bewteen a dog who is motivated and a dog who is working in drive. I see it in trials or at training all the time. I see it in my dogs. Drive, to me, is a state of mind, it involves the dog going through a motor pattern in response to a stimulus, the end result producing a chemcial reward (endorphins). I think Seita's earlier post really articulated what drive is to me. There are positive drives (pack, prey, food) and negative drives (i.e. defense drive). I have seen a dog trained in food drive look the same as a dog trained in prey drive. At the end of the day, how they got there doesn't change the fact they are both still working in drive and can both achieve the same type of intensity. To an observer, does it matter what positive drive the dog is working in? Not IMO, when it can produce the same result.

Like I said earlier I think there is only so far this discussion can go via the written word... it is so much easier to convey in real life

Edited January 14, 2010 by huski

[bedazzledx2]

Arrgggghhhh!!!!! I give up!!!! I don't use this terminology. You do!!!! I have said right from the beginning.....what does it matter what drive my dog is in? I require my dog to be engaged in the training game and I don't give a blind fig what 'drive' he is in! Thats it...my last word on the subject!

"We can measure the determination and control level of the dog though, and see that a dog motivated by prey drive works differently to a dog trained using another method."

I disagree!!!! Its all relative. How can you tell what 'drive' my dog is performing in???????? This is where the drive debate fails utterly in my opinion. Someone says "Hey that dog works well...look he is motivated and up and happy...he must be in prey drive" or are you combining (lumping) all 'drive' training against all 'correction' training...or are you assuming all correction training is when the dog looks unhappy and lags????

I can show you 3 (for arguments sake) different videos of 3 different dogs working in 3 different 'drives' and I would challenge anyone to tell me what 'drive' they are working in or have been trained in.

Bedazzled, what does drive mean to you? How do you define and understand it?

I can see a difference bewteen a dog who is motivated and a dog who is working in drive. I see it in trials or at training all the time. I see it in my dogs. Drive, to me, is a state of mind, it involves the dog going through a motor pattern in response to a stimulus, the end result producing a chemcial reward (endorphins). I think Seita's earlier post really articulated what drive is to me. There are positive drives (pack, prey, food) and negative drives (i.e. defense drive). I have seen a dog trained in food drive look the same as a dog trained in prey drive. At the end of the day, how they got there doesn't change the fact they are both still working in drive and can both achieve the same type of intensity. To an observer, does it matter what positive drive the dog is working in? Not IMO, when it can produce the same result.

Like I said earlier I think there is only so far this discussion can go via the written word... it is so much easier to convey in real life

[huski]

Arrgggghhhh!!!!! I give up!!!! I don't use this terminology. You do!!!! I have said right from the beginning.....what does it matter what drive my dog is in? I require my dog to be engaged in the training game and I don't give a blind fig what 'drive' he is in! Thats it...my last word on the subject!

Okay... obviously the wires have been crossed here somewhere... I was just trying to understand where you were coming from. My bad.

[westielover]

Here are a couple of a foster kelpie I had recently who was BALL mad

[dogdude]

I disagree!!!! Its all relative. How can you tell what 'drive' my dog is performing in???????? This is where the drive debate fails utterly in my opinion. Someone says "Hey that dog works well...look he is motivated and up and happy...he must be in prey drive" or are you combining (lumping) all 'drive' training against all 'correction' training...or are you assuming all correction training is when the dog looks unhappy and lags????

I can show you 3 (for arguments sake) different videos of 3 different dogs working in 3 different 'drives' and I would challenge anyone to tell me what 'drive' they are working in or have been trained in.

My whole point again. I have said all along that you can not tell by just looking alone.(didn't word that highlighted post too well) The only way you can tell is by training one yourself!

Nobody here has said that prey drive training is specifically better than any other method.(so far).

I have trained a trial winning dog on correction based training myself.

I can say though that having trained using the main three methods, prey drive training has maid "me" alot more confident in my dogs reliability,and overall performance, even given the fact that we NQed at our last outing, and dog is only doing Novice. Every method and handler has some flaws.

Edited January 14, 2010 by dogdude

[corvus]

Corvus

To simplify my argument, you want to see "what drive looks like" specifically prey drive?

Not quite. I want to know what everyone means when they say they are training "in drive". I've heard a lot of airy fairy definitions along the lines of "Oh, it's clear if you know what you're looking for and have seen dogs training in drive." but how do you know they were training in drive in the first place? Because someone else told you? What do they know? Can they characterise it??

I am telling you that I know when I have it, (by knowing my dogs training history) and I can tell you that you can not specifically see it in body language alone. To the human eye it looks like alot of other things that could be anything. My food trained dog looks very much the same as my prey driven dog while doing obedience training/trialling.

Well if it looks like a lot of other things that could be anything, then it is. My food-trained dog looks the same as most of the dogs "in drive" on this thread as well. It leads me to believe that a dog "in drive" is simply a dog in a state of intense anticipation of a reward that means a lot to them. You can build that using any reward a dog values, which would be why those that see no difference see no difference. There is none.

Of course, a reward isn't a reward. Some rewards are big bickies and some are so-so. But if you can teach a dog to anticipate a reward, frustrate them a little, then deliver big when they bring themself under control, you get that look that people are calling a dog "in drive" (that is apparently impossible to characterise).

Here's what I said in a discussion on another board:

Drive FOR toys and drive for food are to me different things, but the STATE of drive is not dependent on the type of reward. I think the way drive is currently used in dog training is generally in the sense of building drive for one thing or another and then keeping it tightly paired to that reward, and that's what I was thinking when I say prey drive and food drive aren't the same even when they look the same.

In light of the present discussion and more research since I said that, I would say the only thing I would change is the wording. Different "drives" look different when the rewards are not equal to the dog. A dog "in drive" is a dog anticipating a big reward. I think you can build drive for any reward, as Erik is proving to me. Although I still think you can tell the difference between a dog about to kill an animal and a dog about to play tug by the body language. And I still think prey drive grey areas exist (like modified prey drive) and I'm beginning to think that the reason why they have been bothering me is because once the dog starts working the anticipation goes away, and that's why it looks so different (thanks Woofenpup).

I feel pleasantly satisfied with this explanation. Anyone care to shoot a hole in it?

[huski]

I don't think a dog in drive is impossible to characterise at all, I just think it is difficult to discuss over the net, and far easier to talk about in depth in person.

[dogdude]

Anyone care to shoot a hole in it?

Would you consider that there would have to be a ranking of importance on the "drive scale" to the dog? Talking about what stimulates the dog more, or which one would outrank the other (specifically regarding training purposes), taking in consideration what is has been wired into their natural instincts and habits of being dogs?

Yes, you can build drive using anything that a dog finds cause to. But for obedience purposes etc, prey drive ranks very high on the list.

[corvus]

Dogdude, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. I mentioned that not all rewards are equal to an individual dog. I don't think there is a static hierarchy of rewards for all dogs, but I think different rewards mean different thingd to a dog, not just "reward".

Huski, you have all the videos, photos and words you need to have a crack at charcterising drive on the internet. Give it a go! Doesn't have to be perfect.

[Staranais]

In my opinion, drive is a physiological state of arousal, where the dog is charged up and adrenalised. It's involuntary and unconcious, as the dog can't choose to release adrenaline.

So I guess, IMO, a dog in drive is a dog that is working under the effect of an adrenaline rush.

In contrast, a dog working in "food exchange" is a dog that might be happy to get food, and might be interested in working with you, but isn't adrenalised about it.

Positive drives look similar to the observer, since you're mostly seeing the effect of adrenaline on the dog = excitment/arousal. But they're not equivalent in training, since a dog in prey drive won't be satisfied by presentation of food, and vice versa, since this doesn't satisfy the dog's idea of how to fulfil the drive.

People can pick holes in that if they like, and I'm perfectly aware the science of it isn't precise or "technically" correct. But as a basic explanation, it works for me, with my dogs and my training. To me, drive = adrenaline, and the concious mental process that goes along with it as the dog works out how to achieve drive satisfaction.

I'm not sure if adrenaline is all that drive is, but I don't think you can have drive without adrenaline.

JMO.

[Diva]

In my opinion, drive is a physiological state of arousal, where the dog is charged up and adrenalised. It's involuntary and unconcious, as the dog can't choose to release adrenaline.

So I guess, IMO, a dog in drive is a dog that is working under the effect of an adrenaline rush.

JMO.

Makes more sense than most things I've read about the concept

[huski]

In my opinion, drive is a physiological state of arousal, where the dog is charged up and adrenalised. It's involuntary and unconcious, as the dog can't choose to release adrenaline.

So I guess, IMO, a dog in drive is a dog that is working under the effect of an adrenaline rush.

In contrast, a dog working in "food exchange" is a dog that might be happy to get food, and might be interested in working with you, but isn't adrenalised about it.

Positive drives look similar to the observer, since you're mostly seeing the effect of adrenaline on the dog = excitment/arousal. But they're not equivalent in training, since a dog in prey drive won't be satisfied by presentation of food, and vice versa, since this doesn't satisfy the dog's idea of how to fulfil the drive.

People can pick holes in that if they like, and I'm perfectly aware the science of it isn't precise or "technically" correct. But as a basic explanation, it works for me, with my dogs and my training. To me, drive = adrenaline, and the concious mental process that goes along with it as the dog works out how to achieve drive satisfaction.

I'm not sure if adrenaline is all that drive is, but I don't think you can have drive without adrenaline.

JMO.

Staranais, thank you for articulating that so clearly

I care about what drive I train my dog in because the point of our training is about teaching her how to get drive satisfaction. I couldn't do that without knowing how to motivate her and get her into drive. For anyone who does drive training, drive building is a huge part of it - teaching your dog that letting go and giving tonnes of drive is the best way to get satisfaction, before you even start giving commands. Part of doing this is teaching the dog that if they give you drive, you will give them drive satisfaction. To have a dog who switches on into drive just about anywhere, at any time, you need to be very consistent with how you build this drive so the dog has the confidence of knowing how to get drive satisfaction (not sure if any of that made sense??).

And yep, people can criticise me for failing to articulate it in a manner that allows them to really get what I'm attempting to convey but at the end of the day, it works wonders for my dog and I (despite what some people clearly think) - I, and others who knew her before we started this training, see the difference in her and I am very happy with the method I am using.

Edited January 15, 2010 by huski

[Aidan]

In my opinion, drive is a physiological state of arousal, where the dog is charged up and adrenalised. It's involuntary and unconcious, as the dog can't choose to release adrenaline.

Good observation What we call prey drive would certainly include a whole bunch of respondent behaviours, including release of adrenaline. This is important to note because these [respondents] will not be controlled by consequences in the same way that operant behaviours (such as running) are. A lot of it is learning by association.