# Reinforcing the stare



## Brian Smith (May 26, 2013)

I am looking for suggestions on reinforcing the stare during detection work. My GSD was trained using the BSD boxes as well as a homemade BSD wall. We use the BSD system atleast monthly and he has no problem staring until the reward is given (obviously). However, when training on vehicles or rooms where the reward is given from me or the helper, he sits and stares for a second or two and then immediately looks behind for the reward. I am still getting the obvious behavior change prior to the trained final response (the sit) but his stare is pretty much gone.
In an attempt to remedy the above issue, I have tried to reward only when he is staring but getting the ball to him that quickly has caused some issues. I have had the helper hide so that he doesn't see who is throwing the reward but he picks up on that also. I have also tried to wait him out but he gets frustrated and begins aggressively alerting, something he was not trained to do.
Any suggestions or guidance would be greatly appreciated. I apologize if this has been addressed previously. I attempted a search and did not find anything related to this. 

Thanks!


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

What we often do is the following: When the dog makes his final response we go to the source without paying the dog any attention. He's not interesting, the source is. We stand or kneel near the source and draw the dogs attention by bringing the fingers of one hand to the source and making it exiting there. With the other hand you come with the reward without the dog noticing. If he doesn't look at the source anymore wait with the reward, shift your position so that the dog comes to your other side. Take your time, keep drawing his attention to the source untill you can present the reward without him seeing where it comes from.
Of course this also a good way to do with a helper. You draw the attention to the source and the helper throws the reward near your hands.


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

This is my favorite type of dialogue on the forum. First, I hope that you find answers to your situaiton and second, it'd be great if your responses/suggestions are posted here rather than sent via PM.

Either way good luck to you and your dog.


----------



## mike suttle (Feb 19, 2008)

Marker training is your friend. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CgxeoMj1Q8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UUBefuNZtk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmufatHQhwU
Don't bother trying to fool him into thinking that the reward comes from source. Make it very clear to him that you have the reward, and the path to getting it is to find the target odor and give you the final response you want.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

I didn't watch the videos, but I agree with the statements. The reward doesn't get him the reward. The source does.

This is like attention heeling with the reward swinging in your left hand. Or with the reward visible to the dog, on the ground. The dog does what he is supposed to do, then gets the reward. I would not bait him into it as he already knows, I'd just hold on to it, if his sit is good, and reward when he's looking. 

The dog I am working now had this issue and we are to the point I can grab her by the hips and pull her away without getting her to look at me. let her go, back to source. She still has issues with some noises, but she can search and respond with a stare with whistling, finger snapping, people walking around her, other dogs close, etc.. I didn't fix everything, she had a good foundation that had been gotten away from by previous handler. I just went back to it. Focus on the initial stare mark it and ignore the rest. reward quickly at first, but if there is the slightest head turn, wait the dog out and build up the duration quickly.

Good luck.



mike suttle said:


> Marker training is your friend.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CgxeoMj1Q8
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UUBefuNZtk
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmufatHQhwU
> Don't bother trying to fool him into thinking that the reward comes from source. Make it very clear to him that you have the reward, and the path to getting it is to find the target odor and give you the final response you want.


----------



## Ang Cangiano (Mar 2, 2007)

Dave, that was the comparison I was going to give as well - attention during obedience, Balabanov style, or clicker targeting. You're not going to fool the dog, he already knows you have the reward, teach him he only gets it when he give the correct response, which is a stare. 

Ang


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Take a look at Mike Suttles thread "8 Week old puppy, 3rd session of detection" or something like that. may give you some ideas.




Brian Smith said:


> I am looking for suggestions on reinforcing the stare during detection work. My GSD was trained using the BSD boxes as well as a homemade BSD wall. We use the BSD system atleast monthly and he has no problem staring until the reward is given (obviously). However, when training on vehicles or rooms where the reward is given from me or the helper, he sits and stares for a second or two and then immediately looks behind for the reward. I am still getting the obvious behavior change prior to the trained final response (the sit) but his stare is pretty much gone.
> In an attempt to remedy the above issue, I have tried to reward only when he is staring but getting the ball to him that quickly has caused some issues. I have had the helper hide so that he doesn't see who is throwing the reward but he picks up on that also. I have also tried to wait him out but he gets frustrated and begins aggressively alerting, something he was not trained to do.
> Any suggestions or guidance would be greatly appreciated. I apologize if this has been addressed previously. I attempted a search and did not find anything related to this.
> 
> Thanks!


----------



## dewon fields (Apr 5, 2009)

Brian Smith said:


> I am looking for suggestions on reinforcing the stare during detection work. My GSD was trained using the BSD boxes as well as a homemade BSD wall. We use the BSD system atleast monthly and he has no problem staring until the reward is given (obviously). However, when training on vehicles or rooms where the reward is given from me or the helper, he sits and stares for a second or two and then immediately looks behind for the reward. I am still getting the obvious behavior change prior to the trained final response (the sit) but his stare is pretty much gone.
> In an attempt to remedy the above issue, I have tried to reward only when he is staring but getting the ball to him that quickly has caused some issues. I have had the helper hide so that he doesn't see who is throwing the reward but he picks up on that also. I have also tried to wait him out but he gets frustrated and begins aggressively alerting, something he was not trained to do.
> Any suggestions or guidance would be greatly appreciated. I apologize if this has been addressed previously. I attempted a search and did not find anything related to this.
> 
> Thanks!


Im shock you want to reinforce the stare...thats the first time I heard of that. The final response should be a "sit"passive or "scratch"aggressive. But a stare is different, and I wont bash it. if a dog is giving a Change of Behavior at source, he has done his job. good luck brian, give your dog a little slack.


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

dewon fields said:


> Im shock you want to reinforce the stare...thats the first time I heard of that. The final response should be a "sit"passive or "scratch"aggressive. But a stare is different, and I wont bash it. if a dog is giving a Change of Behavior at source, he has done his job. good luck brian, give your dog a little slack.


O.k. Why is a "stare" not valid? What makes a sit or scratch any better? And how does a sit offer better source indication than a stare? And what consitutes a Change of Behavior and would you accept a CoB as a positive indication even if the dog didn't do anything else?


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Dewon. I worked dogs in the military for about 8 years. They hadn't gotten on the staring kick yet....but they did because it is closer to dummy proof. Training to the lowest common denominator. A dog that doesn't stare but is trained well finds odor just as well as a dog that stares. What the stare does for me is takes the handler further out of the equation, and keeps the dog on point for whoever is behind him better than if he looks at a handlers pocket as part of his reward sequence. 

Again, I prefer it, but a dog that will find odor either way through distraction, etc, I have no problem with. It is just a preference for me. Also, it usually says the handler is a bit more saavy about training, which also includes distractors, time and distance between hides, variable reward, etc...sometimes but not always.




dewon fields said:


> Im shock you want to reinforce the stare...thats the first time I heard of that. The final response should be a "sit"passive or "scratch"aggressive. But a stare is different, and I wont bash it. if a dog is giving a Change of Behavior at source, he has done his job. good luck brian, give your dog a little slack.


----------



## dewon fields (Apr 5, 2009)

Sarah Platts said:


> O.k. Why is a "stare" not valid? What makes a sit or scratch any better? And how does a sit offer better source indication than a stare? And what consitutes a Change of Behavior and would you accept a CoB as a positive indication even if the dog didn't do anything else?


No Disrepect Sara, in court a stare would not be valid. Lawyers would pick a part a detection staring dog thats did not sit/pawing behavior. 

plus your trying to micromanagement behavior. Indeed staring at source looks well, but its extra. I'm not bashing it, I won't focus on it. If he is finding odor, pay him!!


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

dewon fields said:


> No Disrepect Sara, in court a stare would not be valid. Lawyers would pick a part a detection staring dog thats did not sit/pawing behavior.
> 
> plus your trying to micromanagement behavior. Indeed staring at source looks well, but its extra. I'm not bashing it, I won't focus on it. If he is finding odor, pay him!!


The OP is looking for sit stare. not just stare. 

dewon, don't knock it til you try it


----------



## David Winners (Apr 4, 2012)

In off leash detection , a solid stare helps keep the dog on source, instead of waiting to break because he's watching his reward in your hand.

I could pull my dog off the hide by her back legs and she would do anything possible to get back to source. I have experienced greater focus and drive to stay on source through distraction from dogs with a solid stare.

YMMV


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

dewon fields said:


> No Disrepect Sara, in court a stare would not be valid. Lawyers would pick a part a detection staring dog thats did not sit/pawing behavior.
> 
> plus your trying to micromanagement behavior. Indeed staring at source looks well, but its extra. I'm not bashing it, I won't focus on it. If he is finding odor, pay him!!


Do you have any court rulings that indicate that a stare is not valid? If so, can you please share? Lawyers love to pick apart everything. They can and do go after dogs who's alert is a sit or paw so there's no protection there.

And I'm not sure that when you are teaching indications that it isn't all micromanagement of behavior at some level. While none of my dogs are DFR, I have seen many that are and it does work. Yes, it can take a little more work to teach the focus but those dogs appear to be less influenced by handler movements or behaviors than other types of alerts. On the whole they appear to alert closer to the item because they can alert in any position (check out some of Mike Suttle's videos) . It's a very hard alert to mistake.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

I know there is case law on aggressive alert dogs finding passively being okay. As long as it is annotated in the records that it is a trained final response. I THINK that there is case law about stare being part of a trained final response and that it is okay in a circumstance where the dog cannot sit. IE in the seat of a car with it's ass up against the seat. I'd rather defer to someone actively working and teaching this currently. Shame Jim Nash isn't on here anymore.



Sarah Platts said:


> Do you have any court rulings that indicate that a stare is not valid? If so, can you please share? Lawyers love to pick apart everything. They can and do go after dogs who's alert is a sit or paw so there's no protection there.
> 
> And I'm not sure that when you are teaching indications that it isn't all micromanagement of behavior at some level. While none of my dogs are DFR, I have seen many that are and it does work. Yes, it can take a little more work to teach the focus but those dogs appear to be less influenced by handler movements or behaviors than other types of alerts. On the whole they appear to alert closer to the item because they can alert in any position (check out some of Mike Suttle's videos) . It's a very hard alert to mistake.


----------



## David Winners (Apr 4, 2012)

Maybe David Frost will chime in.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

I've read the discussion and it's interesting. I'd be glad to give my opinion. First off, the "stare" started mostly as a marketing tool by demonstrating the focus the dog has. Many trainers have adopted the "stare" because it is impressive and it does really demonstrate the focus. How many of you have seen aggressive response drug dogs that would continue digging to bare metal and until the reward was given. It's the same thing only in a passive mode. The court discussion is also interesting but I think there is some confusion as to the "stare" or the final response. Most trainers use the stare in combination with the sit as the final response. I do certainly agree with Mr. Suttle, in fact, when I read what he said about the dog really does know where the reward comes from, I chuckled and said "amen". I still get a chuckle out of handlers that try to hide the reward and "sneak" it to the dog so he'll never know. ha ha. At any rate, for court, the final response is what is required. The final response should be part of the dog's training records. By definition, "head turns", increased sniffing intensity, sudden directions changes etc are changes of behavior, absent the final response, they are just that, changes of behavior. The critical change of behavior for court issues is the final response. If someone is telling you every change of behavior is because of contact with an odor the dog it trained to detect, that's nonsense. There are still odor that interest the dog and may cause him to have a change of behavior. the handler will see it, and sometimes may never know what in the world caused it. 

DFrost


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

David. Do you happen to have the particular case(s) about the alert for court?




David Frost said:


> I've read the discussion and it's interesting. I'd be glad to give my opinion. First off, the "stare" started mostly as a marketing tool by demonstrating the focus the dog has. Many trainers have adopted the "stare" because it is impressive and it does really demonstrate the focus. How many of you have seen aggressive response drug dogs that would continue digging to bare metal and until the reward was given. It's the same thing only in a passive mode. The court discussion is also interesting but I think there is some confusion as to the "stare" or the final response. Most trainers use the stare in combination with the sit as the final response. I do certainly agree with Mr. Suttle, in fact, when I read what he said about the dog really does know where the reward comes from, I chuckled and said "amen". I still get a chuckle out of handlers that try to hide the reward and "sneak" it to the dog so he'll never know. ha ha. At any rate, for court, the final response is what is required. The final response should be part of the dog's training records. By definition, "head turns", increased sniffing intensity, sudden directions changes etc are changes of behavior, absent the final response, they are just that, changes of behavior. The critical change of behavior for court issues is the final response. If someone is telling you every change of behavior is because of contact with an odor the dog it trained to detect, that's nonsense. There are still odor that interest the dog and may cause him to have a change of behavior. the handler will see it, and sometimes may never know what in the world caused it.
> 
> DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Dave, I do, but I'm going to have to dig around. You kind of have to read between the lines. The court usually refers to them as "an alert" but more often they are try to use the term "response" or final response. The latest defense whore, I won't use his name because I don't want to advertise, uses the same argument in nearly every case he testifies and that is; the handler prompted the dog to alert or respond. Some cases do allow for the handler, based on his/her training and experience, to testify as to what the dog did, rather than rely on a "final response". It's not an advertisement even though it sounds like it, but the most comprehensive collection of court cases is still Terry Fleck.

DFrost
.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

I had Terry Flecks legal update book as a reference at my last job. Good reading for dog guys and gals for sure. Does he still do update seminars?

Don't go to too much trouble digging. I have it on a slide presentation on my external hard drive at home and can get my hands on the legal update book if I am super motivated.



David Frost said:


> Dave, I do, but I'm going to have to dig around. You kind of have to read between the lines. The court usually refers to them as "an alert" but more often they are try to use the term "response" or final response. The latest defense whore, I won't use his name because I don't want to advertise, uses the same argument in nearly every case he testifies and that is; the handler prompted the dog to alert or respond. Some cases do allow for the handler, based on his/her training and experience, to testify as to what the dog did, rather than rely on a "final response". It's not an advertisement even though it sounds like it, but the most comprehensive collection of court cases is still Terry Fleck.
> 
> DFrost
> .


----------



## dewon fields (Apr 5, 2009)

dewon, don't knock it til you try it[/QUOTE]

I don't want to try it. Its not a requirement to pass an evaluation. My retired dog which I poured my heart and soul into training him, would pin point target with paw (US mail). he was aggressive on certain targets also. It would impress all evaluators, however he had to sit (passive), because that is whats recorded and required. Like I said Im not bashing the sit/stare response. Read your K9 SOP (Standard Operating Procedures) every department has one.


----------



## dewon fields (Apr 5, 2009)

David Winners said:


> In off leash detection , a solid stare helps keep the dog on source, instead of waiting to break because he's watching his reward in your hand.
> 
> I could pull my dog off the hide by her back legs and she would do anything possible to get back to source. I have experienced greater focus and drive to stay on source through distraction from dogs with a solid stare.
> 
> YMMV


Thats right, pulling them off source will reenforce his final response..totally agree. thats how I know my dog is/ not on residual ordor. I can pull him off residual but he will sink like an anchor on odor.He will freeze like a statue.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

You are not on current case law, I don't think. Hopefully David Frost can find it and post it.

I do know that if a dog sits or agresses and does the other response in training, it is allowable. 

Having the attitude that it isn't required to pass an evaluation may not be what you are meaning to say. It is a minimum standard, which if we endeavor to strive for and miss, then you are way below the bar. If you strive for a higher standard and are lacking, you still meet minimum requirements.

SOPs are based on case law. If they aren't updated, they can be wrong.



dewon fields said:


> dewon, don't knock it til you try it


I don't want to try it. Its not a requirement to pass an evaluation. My retired dog which I poured my heart and soul into training him, would pin point target with paw (US mail). he was aggressive on certain targets also. It would impress all evaluators, however he had to sit (passive), because that is whats recorded and required. Like I said Im not bashing the sit/stare response. Read your K9 SOP (Standard Operating Procedures) every department has one.[/QUOTE]


----------



## David Winners (Apr 4, 2012)

dewon fields said:


> Thats right, pulling them off source will reenforce his final response..totally agree. thats how I know my dog is/ not on residual ordor. I can pull him off residual but he will sink like an anchor on odor.He will freeze like a statue.


This makes no sense to me. I believe there is no difference in the composition of "residual odor" and "odor." The particles that are left behind to create "residual odor" are of the same material that makes up real odor. My dog would stick like glue to a positive hand print, which I would assume you would consider "residual." I think there is a difference in vapor pressure / amount of odor, and a dog can have the ability to develop a threshold at which it will respond differently, but it is responding to the same odor. 

We come from different operational environments, so our SOP is going to differ greatly. During a real world search, I treat every final response with equal magnitude because of the degree of variables that are present.

The locked up stare is important to me because my dog may have to hold that final for a period of time during extreme distraction (gunfire, loud vehicles, aircraft, etc...) until I can get an accurate fix on the location of her response. Our finds don't always happen during a dedicated search of an area, and there may be a lot going on she has to deal with.

The dog may also be very hot during a search, and diving for shade can look a lot like a final response to a buried hide without the stare.

Please understand that I'm not saying one way is right or wrong. It's interesting to me that on one hand, detection is detection, but the operational environment dictates the final product of training. As long as you reliably find the stuff, don't false alert, and can proceed with the intelligence in a productive manner, you're a success in my book.



Dave,

I also agree that training for the minimum will get you the minimum.


----------



## dewon fields (Apr 5, 2009)

David Winners said:


> This makes no sense to me. I believe there is no difference in the composition of "residual odor" and "odor." *(YES IT IS in my environment*). The particles that are left behind to create "residual odor" are of the same material that makes up real odor. My dog would stick like glue to a positive hand print, which I would assume you would consider "residual." I think there is a difference in vapor pressure / amount of odor, and a dog can have the ability to develop a threshold at which it will respond differently, but it is responding to the same odor. *(we are trained not to reward on residual, our veteran dogs no not to respond.*
> 
> We come from different operational environments, so our SOP is going to differ greatly. During a real world search, I treat every final response with equal magnitude because of the degree of variables that are present. (*totally agree)*
> 
> ...


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Dewon. The reference was training to a minimum standard. IE Training for cert vs. the world. The idea is if you train to a high standard, if you have an off day, you'll be well above minimum.

I still say a dog finds it either way, job done. I am trying to show what value I see in training a stare. No more or less. I would be curious as to where you first heard it wasn't necessary to train it. If someone teaching you actually not only doesn't have it, train it, or use it, but also talks bad about it.


----------



## dewon fields (Apr 5, 2009)

Dave Colborn said:


> Dewon. The reference was training to a minimum standard. IE Training for cert vs. the world. The idea is if you train to a high standard, if you have an off day, you'll be well above minimum. *true... you will have off days*
> 
> I still say a dog finds it either way, job done. I am trying to show what value I see in training a stare. No more or less. I would be curious as to where you first heard it wasn't necessary to train it*(never heard of it being important or necessary, never was bought up/taught at k9school either by ex-marine instructor*). If someone teaching you actually not only doesn't have it, train it, or use it, but also talks bad about it.


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

dewon fields said:


> *we are trained not to reward on residual, our veteran dogs no not to respond.*


Dewon, I was always taught that odor is odor. The dog does not know if its residual or not. Lets say the 5 odors you train on are narcotic. You are tasked to search a vehicle that unbeknownst to you the driver just off-loaded 300lbs of marijuana that he carried around for the last week in the trunk Are you saying that your dog will not alert to the volume of odor that is still contained in that trunk? That he [the dog] will walk that odor in favor of a single MJ seed dropped on the driver's seat because he [the dog] knows that even though that trunk still smells to high heaven there's nothing in there anymore?


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

I honestly believe there is a difference between residual and source odor and that is, as a chemist.

Particularly for odors with multiple components because the different constituent gasses come off the source in a relatively steady stream and composition that only slowly changes over time (think HR) but they readily evaporate at very different rates**. 

When there is no source I think the scent picture would change in way different than at source. I have seen different...WTF...body language in residual or a scent pool and I don't encourage/reward an indication but to work it out. The dog KNOWS he is in odor but cannot pinpoint source. I think a handprint may be different as oils are left behind which depending on the target could be a very small amount of source.

Sit and Stare....I am not sold it is necesary if the dog has a solid (e.g., sit) trained indication. I does look snappy though and I guess if it impresses folks it may impress a jury All I really care about is that the dog gets as close to source as possible and offers the trained indication. 

If , he makes eye contact - with me (only after not before the indication!) , I am fine; I can tell where source is by his behavior immediately preceeding the indication. If he is out of sight when he makes the find (sometimes with an HR dog in brush) he will sit, and move his glance back and forth from me to source and I do reward when he is looking at source. I prefer to take the reward to him than throw it to encourage not leaving source. 

**I imprinted with toys containing primary odor vs. scented toys but, well, I can't say it is wrong to train with scented toys but I can say it is not wrong to use training aids with primary odor  -so that is my two cents for whatever it is or is not worth.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Ahhh geez, now a discussion about source. I think there needs to be a general consensus on the definition of "Source". I use; "the strongest point of odor". Source isn't measured by as a distance. For example; drugs hidden in a manufactured compartment in the ceiling of a vehicle. The dog responds to the outside of the vehicle. The dog will respond, if trained to do so, at the strongest point of odor. He sure can't get to the location of the drugs. I also certainly if you train to the minimum standard you will have a dog that is trained to the minimum standard. That does not necessarily equate to a "street ready" dog. 

DFrost


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> Sit and Stare....I am not sold it is necesary if the dog has a solid (e.g., sit) trained indication. I does look snappy though and I guess if it impresses folks it may impress a jury All I really care about is that the dog gets as close to source as possible and offers the trained indication.


I thought the stare was just pretty (and the handler did have more work to train it) until a recent cadaver workshop and had a disarticulate problem. Of course by the time we got around to getting up the pieces it was totally dark and we are out there with flashlights picking through heavy leaf litter and woodland debris getting it all up. Long story short we ended up short a few things. The standard alert wasn't getting us anywhere. Hell, we knew the stuff was there but we still on our hands and knees shifting through it all looking for those last couple of teeth and rib. One of the dogs there was a DFR dog. Which is when I fell in love with a DFR dog. That dog locked on and it was very simple to sift the stuff right in front of the nose and do a recovery. Without that dog, we would have been out there still looking for that stuff. There's pros and cons to a DFR dog but I liked what I saw that night.


----------



## David Winners (Apr 4, 2012)

David Frost said:


> Ahhh geez, now a discussion about source. I think there needs to be a general consensus on the definition of "Source". I use; "the strongest point of odor". Source isn't measured by as a distance. For example; drugs hidden in a manufactured compartment in the ceiling of a vehicle. The dog responds to the outside of the vehicle. The dog will respond, if trained to do so, at the strongest point of odor. He sure can't get to the location of the drugs. I also certainly if you train to the minimum standard you will have a dog that is trained to the minimum standard. That does not necessarily equate to a "street ready" dog.
> 
> DFrost



I agree that "source" is the strongest point of odor the dog can get to.


----------



## David Winners (Apr 4, 2012)

Sarah Platts said:


> There's pros and cons to a DFR dog but I liked what I saw that night.




What are the cons?


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Brian Smith said:


> I am looking for suggestions on reinforcing the stare during detection work. My GSD was trained using the BSD boxes as well as a homemade BSD wall. We use the BSD system atleast monthly and he has no problem staring until the reward is given (obviously). However, when training on vehicles or rooms where the reward is given from me or the helper, he sits and stares for a second or two and then immediately looks behind for the reward. I am still getting the obvious behavior change prior to the trained final response (the sit) but his stare is pretty much gone.
> In an attempt to remedy the above issue, I have tried to reward only when he is staring but getting the ball to him that quickly has caused some issues. I have had the helper hide so that he doesn't see who is throwing the reward but he picks up on that also. I have also tried to wait him out but he gets frustrated and begins aggressively alerting, something he was not trained to do.
> Any suggestions or guidance would be greatly appreciated. I apologize if this has been addressed previously. I attempted a search and did not find anything related to this.
> 
> Thanks!


The trouble is getting the dog to look and reward at the same time. Use BB sized rocks and stand behind the dog. Toss the rocks to source while you have the ball in your hand. it doesn't matter if he sees the ball unless he is going to bite you vs. sit. Kind of like the idea of "swat rocks" to get a dog to focus on a room or an area in searching.. Tap what he is alerting on with your toe when he looks, reward. Put an e-collar on vibrate with the hide (not on the dog) and make sure it makes noise with the contact points on metal. that will usually draw the dog in. also, go to using hole shaped hide spots for a few days after using the BSD for one hide if you have it available. None of these ideas is the end. just a bridge to where you want to be. Get good momentum going and a solid stare, then do three hides with help, and the fourth without. next session two, etc..then back up and then extinct it at some point. If I want my dog to re-look at the hide, I tell her to sook. This is the only verbal cue other than a good girl or a hup. Sook is what I would say if she is sniffing dog piss, or food and hanging around it. the advantage to this is if there is bomb odor under the dog piss or food, she is still allowed to stay with it. If you work that into your cue to get the dog closer, you are still not making decisions for your dog.


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

David Winners said:


> What are the cons?


These are in no particular order and some could say it relates to all final response work and others may not see as a problem but this is just based on what I saw this one handler go through and a few of the MWD dogs that I've seen work. There are probably some I've missed because since I don't have a DFR dog, I don't know all the pitfalls.

1) it took longer to 'finish' this dog. This handler didn't use ball boxes or a wall to train with but just a clicker and food. The dog had a passive alert when they got it but getting that focused stare took a bit of additional training time.

2) Because it can take longer and requires a bit more training effort (although Mike makes it look soooo easy) it doesn't suit all handlers and some just don't have the patience level to teach it or maintain it.

2a) dog will break focus response aspect and require additional training time to maintain. This may be handler related which means it could be a neverending story to keep the stare.

3) Depending on search circumstances and enviroment, the alert imparts no more additional information than any other kind of alert system.

4) the dog when searching can be overly independent and may not take well to detailed searching.

5) The dog tends to stop working the odor once it goes into final response

6) may fail to give the entire and full response (stare + sit). See 2a above.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

My problem (con) has been not having a wall or a ball popper to reinforce so it is has not been practical to use routinely. 

I do think it is a very nice indication but the dog puts his nose right where he would be looking before he sits anyway and I want to see my dog working odor..though sometimes in heavy brush, well, you can't see everything

I walk to him with the reward and mark with a yes when he looks at it but don't expect the stare to be held unbroken as I do the sit which is not allowed to be broken. 

---

On the other you know I understand the strongest odor may not be at the object but don't we affirm (say 10 feet from a tree) but still try to get them as close to as physically possilbe to reward?


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> My problem (con) has been not having a wall or a ball popper to reinforce so it is has not been practical to use routinely.


As with any training aid, overuse or dependence creates its own set of problems which translates to issues in deployments. By not having or using these items, I believe the cadaver DFR dog I saw was actually stronger and more reliable for it because most of this training occured in real time settings and not in a sterile wall enviroment.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

keeping a stare is simple. you wait the dog out if he isn't looking. I agree with what you say here Sarah. It's hard to get any behavior to be solid without training it where you need it.




Sarah Platts said:


> As with any training aid, overuse or dependence creates its own set of problems which translates to issues in deployments. By not having or using these items, I believe the cadaver DFR dog I saw was actually stronger and more reliable for it because most of this training occured in real time settings and not in a sterile wall enviroment.


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

David Frost said:


> I still get a chuckle out of handlers that try to hide the reward and "sneak" it to the dog so he'll never know. ha ha.
> DFrost


Very few handlers will believe that the dog doesn't know. Doesn't the dog smell the BSD or the man behind the wall? 
But making the reward come from the source while keeping the dog's focus there is a good and easy way to teach the handlers how to keep the dog's alert OK.

I only hear here about passive alerts or scratching. Is the "bark"something that isn't done anymore in the USA?
There is no damage and I often find the dogs a little more intense than with a passive alert.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

"Is the "bark"something that isn't done anymore in the USA?" In search and rescue, the bark is used. In drug detection, it can be used, but it's annoying. Plus, if I'm using the dog to sniff a vehicle on the side of the highway, I really don't need the dog announcing he has found drugs. The person in the car already knows there is drugs there, now he knows I also know. For an explosives detector, absolutely no barking. 

DFrost


----------



## David Winners (Apr 4, 2012)

Sarah Platts said:


> These are in no particular order and some could say it relates to all final response work and others may not see as a problem but this is just based on what I saw this one handler go through and a few of the MWD dogs that I've seen work. There are probably some I've missed because since I don't have a DFR dog, I don't know all the pitfalls.
> 
> 1) it took longer to 'finish' this dog. This handler didn't use ball boxes or a wall to train with but just a clicker and food. The dog had a passive alert when they got it but getting that focused stare took a bit of additional training time.
> 
> ...



I do agree that with improper handling, the stare will go away.

Following your train of thought, I see the con as this:

To keep a good stare, you have to reward properly, and not all handlers are willing or able to do this. I see this as a problem with handling and not of the final response, but I understand where you are coming from. 

Having an amazing working dog takes hard work and talent. In the end, you get out what you put in, and if something beneficial to me takes more time (which I don't believe it does...) I'm willing to spend that time to save someone's life who is walking behind me. 


My opinion, as I stated earlier, is that our final working environment shapes our training. There is no wrong or right as long as you safely find the stuff and can back up your find when it counts.


----------



## David Winners (Apr 4, 2012)

Sarah Platts said:


> As with any training aid, overuse or dependence creates its own set of problems which translates to issues in deployments. By not having or using these items, I believe the cadaver DFR dog I saw was actually stronger and more reliable for it because most of this training occured in real time settings and not in a sterile wall enviroment.


I completely agree. I get away from the boxes as soon as possible and get into a working environment that resembles the real thing.


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

David Winners said:


> I do agree that with improper handling, the stare will go away.
> 
> Following your train of thought, I see the con as this:
> 
> To keep a good stare, you have to reward properly, and not all handlers are willing or able to do this. I see this as a problem with handling and not of the final response, but I understand where you are coming from.


 That's probably it in a nut shell but you can run into problems with ANY alert if the handler is inconsistent. At the end of the day it all comes down to did you find it or not.

The other issue I though of later was having the necessary space to build a wall type system or paying $$ to buy the boxes plus having the necessary manpower to run it if you need a guy behind the wall. Plus the dog will become conditioned to working in the room vs real life but that was brought up in later posts.


----------



## Matthew Grubb (Nov 16, 2007)

David Frost said:


> "Is the "bark"something that isn't done anymore in the USA?" In search and rescue, the bark is used. In drug detection, it can be used, but it's annoying.
> 
> DFrost


Especially if its 0700 and you have not had your coffee yet.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 4 Beta


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

David Winners said:


> To keep a good stare, you have to reward properly, and not all handlers are willing or able to do this. I see this as a problem with handling and not of the final response, but I understand where you are coming from.


 
If the handler can't reward when the dog looks at source, why keep the guy around. He probably can't reward a sit when the dogs butt is on the ground. That is what we are talking about. It's that simple and if you explain it as such, you may make more headway with a handler.

Dog stares reward. Dog doesn't stare, don't reward. You add distraction until the dog will stare through distractions.

There is a reason I or you or any other handler can get a dog to stare. Good timing and proper training, not magic. Dog training I have found as a civilian is never or rarely about the dog. It's about the guy on the leash.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Sarah Platts said:


> That's probably it in a nut shell but you can run into problems with ANY alert if the handler is inconsistent. At the end of the day it all comes down to did you find it or not.
> 
> The other issue I though of later was having the necessary space to build a wall type system or paying $$ to buy the boxes plus having the necessary manpower to run it if you need a guy behind the wall. Plus the dog will become conditioned to working in the room vs real life but that was brought up in later posts.


it is just as free to teach a stare as it is to teach a sit or scratch alert. Honestly if you can teach a scratch, you already have a stare. most dogs look at what they are scratching. you just have to extinct the scratch....


----------



## David Winners (Apr 4, 2012)

Dave Colborn said:


> If the handler can't reward when the dog looks at source, why keep the guy around. He probably can't reward a sit when the dogs butt is on the ground. That is what we are talking about. It's that simple and if you explain it as such, you may make more headway with a handler.
> 
> Dog stares reward. Dog doesn't stare, don't reward. You add distraction until the dog will stare through distractions.
> 
> There is a reason I or you or any other handler can get a dog to stare. Good timing and proper training, not magic. Dog training I have found as a civilian is never or rarely about the dog. It's about the guy on the leash.



The problem I find is that many handlers are in no way trainers. They don't understand the WHY of what they are told to do. This leads to consistently declining proficiency if they are not regularly working with a trainer. They screw their dog up out of ignorance, which equates to piss poor handler selection and training.

I do my best when instructing handlers to ensure they really understand what is going on. This takes a lot of work, and it's after hours spending time with them reviewing video. Not all trainers are willing to spend the time. I guess if the handler certifies, that's good enough for them.

When I'm training, if a handler just doesn't get it, they go back to the line without a dog.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

The thing is, all handlers are trainers. Handlers condition or decondition behaviors in the dog daily. If you don't attack the problem of a handler not understanding with that in mind, you have already failed. They have to understand why they do what they do in simple terms at least so they knows if they screw something up, they are to blame, and need to seek out help. 

You will see and hear many handlers proud of what they can do with their dog, fantastic finds, bites, demos, whatever, when it goes well. They were a trainer to cause that, they also need to have the idea imprinted early on that if it goes crappy, it's theirs to own as well, and not the dog to blame. If my dog does well with me, I give him the credit, if we suck, I take full responsibility because I have thumbs and am higher up the food chain.

Many handlers lack passion for work that someone working a dog for a hobby have instinctively because they are choosing to do something they like. Unfortunately I have seen more than a few handlers that thought dogs were less work, good to pick up chicks, cool, etc. When you want to learn for the sake of being a pro at your job, it's a lot easier for them to be taught. I applaud you for sending guys packing without a dog. I also think there shouldn't be too much of a stigma attached to it, as dog people are generally about a half a bubble off plumb and dogs aren't for everyone. Of course the military will send you to sensitivity training, and SWORDS or CLAP, COO or whatever acronym they come up with this week for happy training. Then expect you to brow beat a guy that isn't cut out for dogs, instead of thanking him and having him move out smartly. Honesty goes a long way.




David Winners said:


> The problem I find is that many handlers are in no way trainers. They don't understand the WHY of what they are told to do. This leads to consistently declining proficiency if they are not regularly working with a trainer. They screw their dog up out of ignorance, which equates to piss poor handler selection and training.
> 
> I do my best when instructing handlers to ensure they really understand what is going on. This takes a lot of work, and it's after hours spending time with them reviewing video. Not all trainers are willing to spend the time. I guess if the handler certifies, that's good enough for them.
> 
> When I'm training, if a handler just doesn't get it, they go back to the line without a dog.


----------



## David Winners (Apr 4, 2012)

Dave Colborn said:


> The thing is, all handlers are trainers. Handlers condition or decondition behaviors in the dog daily. If you don't attack the problem of a handler not understanding with that in mind, you have already failed. They have to understand why they do what they do in simple terms at least so they knows if they screw something up, they are to blame, and need to seek out help.
> 
> You will see and hear many handlers proud of what they can do with their dog, fantastic finds, bites, demos, whatever, when it goes well. They were a trainer to cause that, they also need to have the idea imprinted early on that if it goes crappy, it's theirs to own as well, and not the dog to blame. If my dog does well with me, I give him the credit, if we suck, I take full responsibility because I have thumbs and am higher up the food chain.
> 
> Many handlers lack passion for work that someone working a dog for a hobby have instinctively because they are choosing to do something they like. Unfortunately I have seen more than a few handlers that thought dogs were less work, good to pick up chicks, cool, etc. When you want to learn for the sake of being a pro at your job, it's a lot easier for them to be taught. I applaud you for sending guys packing without a dog. I also think there shouldn't be too much of a stigma attached to it, as dog people are generally about a half a bubble off plumb and dogs aren't for everyone. Of course the military will send you to sensitivity training, and SWORDS or CLAP, COO or whatever acronym they come up with this week for happy training. Then expect you to brow beat a guy that isn't cut out for dogs, instead of thanking him and having him move out smartly. Honesty goes a long way.



I love the passion in volunteer handlers. The ones that really want it for the right reasons, not to just be cool. I hear all the time from people how easy my job is. "You just play with dogs all day. How hard could that be." So I invite them to training. It usually changes their mind pretty quick when you walk 2 miles and dig 3-4 holes just to plant, then run the venue with 4-5 teams, and then pick it all up. And now it's time for OB...


I love to hear a handler talk about an off day, or a miss they had in training on a tough problem, and how they are going to train to the solution. Those are the real handlers. The guys that just talk smack all the time are in the wrong field. My dog could run at 100% for her whole career if I never challenged her, or purposely set up training to address problems I see in the field. If training is easy for you or the dog, you're doing it wrong.




When our handlers are selected, they start with a group of 75, weed that down to 25 in hopes of getting 20 to make it through the course and certification. The Commanders at all levels receive a brief that explains in no uncertain terms that just because a candidate is dropped doesn't mean they are substandard in any way. There should be nothing negative that follows a drop from the course. Some of the early classes had dismal graduation percentages. My class graduated 4 on the first cert, and 4 more on a last chance cert a week later. That's 11% of the initial selection, and 32% of the actual class.

I would rather have no team than a substandard team. There's nothing worse than falsely believing an area has been searched.


Half a bubble off plumb.... I resemble that remark


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

Dave Colborn said:


> T .... as dog people are generally about a half a bubble off plumb and dogs aren't for everyone.


Dave,

you make us sound like cat people. Now there's some folks with balancing issues, worse than any dog people will ever be.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

"I love the passion in volunteer handlers."

The problem with that is most "volunteers" start off with the wrong dog. I saw that way to often in SAR groups. 
Kudos for culling handlers in those circumstances. That isn't always the case.


----------



## David Winners (Apr 4, 2012)

Bob Scott said:


> "I love the passion in volunteer handlers."
> 
> The problem with that is most "volunteers" start off with the wrong dog. I saw that way to often in SAR groups.
> Kudos for culling handlers in those circumstances. That isn't always the case.



In our scenario, the handler just had to show up and not suck. We give them everything they need, dog included.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

I am convinced that a lot of dog people are closet cat people and just haven't come out yet. It's time to remove the stigma of cat person, so we can get everyone out in the open and know who we are dealing with.



Sarah Platts said:


> Dave,
> 
> you make us sound like cat people. Now there's some folks with balancing issues, worse than any dog people will ever be.


----------



## David Winners (Apr 4, 2012)

Dave Colborn said:


> I am convinced that a lot of dog people are closet cat people and just haven't come out yet. It's time to remove the stigma of cat person, so we can get everyone out in the open and know who we are dealing with.


I love cats....

Medium rare, served au poivre. Nothing compliments kitty like black pepper :twisted:


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

yeah, I rag on the cat folks when they get after me for not liking cats. Told them, I like them fine.....

Lightly toasted, little butter on the side.....


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Cats are beautiful to watch but I'm to much of a control freak. You call the average cat and it flips it's tail in the air like it's flipping you the bird and then walks off. 
I do believe that they can probably be trained better then even the average cat owner says they can. I think it's just that most of those folks just don't have a clue. :-o:-#8-[:-\"


----------



## Meg O'Donovan (Aug 20, 2012)

Those cats can be ferocious too. We've got an aging "applehead" Siamese, one of the skookum round-head types like used to guard the Buddhist temples in NE Thailand. He acts more like a dog than a cat. He also has great respect from all the dogs that live with us. He's silent and nothing like modern skinny alien-head Siamese. Maybe there are "working-line" cats too.


----------

