 |
| Author | Topic: I have a stick and I'll use it!!! |
|
Terry Byrne (Moderator) |
posted 4/22/06 5:01 AM
I would like to hear from a people or three on what they believe to be the purpose behind the clatter stick in training, and what they are using it to accomplish, outside of acclimating the dog to it for ringsport purposes, of course. This is something I've never really used, because, well, I don't get the point, LOL. |
| Lee |
posted 4/22/06 5:33 AM
I think it depends upon HOW it is used. If it is used in training as a "distraction" to condition a dog to ignor or if it is used to make a more impressive warning/intimidating like challenge like a rattle snake's tail is used in defense...it brings a sound to the event that some dogs see as a defensive noise IMO. I prefer the clatter stick and the whip over the padded stick...but I really don't think it matters what you use as long as you are working the dog's drives. In fact, I believe this is one area where exposing young dogs to many environments really makes a big difference. |
|
Terry Byrne (Moderator) |
posted 4/22/06 5:54 AM
OK I can see the noise and the "spread" might challenge a dog unaccustomed to it at first. Now the whip I get, and use. I also use the padded stick, with not-so-gentle, solid strikes, to get dogs like Caber who don't take the decoy seriously, to take him a bit more seriously. 'Fights on' in other words. From what I have seen, most of the clatter stick hits I've watched seemed to be prettty much checked, you can see the decoys arm 'break' at the moment of impact, so i was wondering about that. Sometimes it almost looks like there isn'any real contact. Now, if its being properly used, the sound it makes should intimidate the dog? |
| Diane |
posted 4/22/06 12:06 AM
It sure looks and sounds impressive to a novice who knows little about the sport of bitework. Just an observation. |
|
Terry Byrne (Moderator) |
posted 4/22/06 12:50 AM
Diane! I don't think it's supposed to scare the handler? LOL. I see them a lot in FR trial video, and was wondering if was orginially designed for FR, then found its way into general training, is what really got me wondering. Of course, in video you don't hear the noise. And you know, I've never had one used on my dogs, as popular as they seem to be? I'll have to ask around locally, see if I can find someone who knows how to use it well so I can check it out :) |
| Lee |
posted 4/22/06 2:55 PM
Terry, Email me your address and I will send you a video of a FR III titled dog (I think) that was ran off without any contact and ONLY with the clatter of the clatter stick. P.S. Me personally, I think a clatter stick can be used for hitting a dog as well for those that wish to do that. Some don't. I see no reason not to. We used a tiki torch one time and Bullette turned it into a clatter stick. LOL. |
| Thad Stacy |
posted 4/22/06 5:39 PM
I think the schlagstock or "clatter stick" or bamboo betty got its start in old world Schutzhund. I have always used them, and I think (as I think about it LOL) that I use them for really two purposes. With green dogs I use them primarily for a passive flanking action to increase the intensity of the bite once they have engaged. For some reason (Butch probably knows the science)when you flank a dog lightly by clattering the stick along their rib cage all the way back to the hips, it tends to really intensify the bite, and discourage typewriter biting. This has be be done in conjunction with other more subtle techniques like arms rolls, et al. to keep the conflict response good and hot, and the bite solid. I think the distraction component is equally valid. For distraction, it tends to condition the dog to expect some weapon in the hands of the assailant. But more, I use it across the nose, not striking! But only rattling to desense the dog to facial distraction. I think it is all in how you use it. This has traditionally been a bone of contention among different schools of thought. But in Real World bite scenarios, it is dangerous to leave out the expectation that the dog will be aggressivel attacked by the assailant. Personally, I believe it is a fine line between being overly abusive to the dog during decoy training, and conditioning them to expect pain in live bite scenarios.I have handled dogs in many "live bite" scenarios, and I will tell you the last thing you want is a dog that smokes off the bite because the perp hits them or hurts them. Ultimatley that is very dangerous to both the handler and the dog. I'm sure we would all agree. So, it is important to teach the dog to expect retaliation and not be spooked by an aggressive decoy response. But again, this is an area that must be taught by a very experienced decoy trainer. I have seen people introduce live gun fire to a dog who has never experienced it, by firing rounds after the dog is on the sleeve, to test them for courage. Like a schlagstock, Gunfire has to be conditioned too, and you don't start by introducing them to the sound right next to their ears. I have seen more than one "trainer" use this approach then wash to dog out because they come off the bite. Not the brightest bulbs on the tree. http://www.k9prosportnetwork.com K9 ProSport Network |
|
|