# Narcotic Detection Training



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

Many of the members have been following my narcotic certification problems in another thread. That thread was actually of Randy Hare's system and sort of got hijacked so i figured I'd try to clean that up and stay in this thread

Anyway, training is coming along well. We did the standard scent boxes yesterday You know, the ones with the hole in the top for the dog to put his nose in and them when he sits bomb the kong in. I personally don't like this type of training but I'm at the trainer's disposal and his way.

We were using scentlogix psudo marijuana . The dog just walked the odor and went right past the box So as is normal we do it over and over again assuring he sits when he is at the right box and bomb the reward in. 
I would like to use a reward system more like the oral game Randy hare talks about and shows in the videos he has on line. This just makes sense to me.
I will never believe that the dog does not know where the reward comes from when the handler throws it in.
Sure maybe not at first but once burnt you will always have a dog that knows where it is.
so why not forget about trying to fool the dog and just make a bigger game out of it.
I was showing the trainer that my dog could care less about the toy it is the game of tug he wants. He will walk right past the kong OR after he is rewarded for a correct response in the normal way he plays a little and then drops it waiting for you to do something with it. again it is the game.

After a lot of convincing the trainer let me try rewarding him not by trying to fool but by actually getting right in front of him and pitching him the kong a(with rope in it) and play tug or war directly over the hole in the scent box.

Did this about 10 times. He sit got much faster and he stopped walking the odor.

Today we go for a vehicle search exercise with the same pssudo marijuana. After the trainer set the aids ( it is a blind test always) i started for the impound gate. The dog pulled away from me and i lost my grip on the leash. He ran into the lot and directly to the door of a car about 30 yards from where I was. ( we dont work detection off leash by regulation) He immediately went to a final response sit. I looked at the trainer and he said to pay his as he was exactly where the aid was hidden.

The rest of the detection work -on leash- was flawless.
Trainer will continue to let me work him the way I want as it made a world of improvement. He is much more focused on the task and he knows that he will get the game at the odor and no place else. This seems to have done the trick

BTW I was told we could not get the real stuff to train with by the trainer. a little talking to the MP dog trainer and I now have what I need. All you have to do is ask. In fact that bothers me greatly. People just stopping because " That is the way its always been" I always hated being told that. I guess I dont play well with others


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Hey Jon

Great news that your dog is reacting better to the game of tug then to the deus ex machina reward. Also great that the trainer is willing to let you use what works. 
It's OK for drug detection BUT I'm not sure "BOMB the reward in," is something I"d use if you're doing explosives?


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Just a question; was your certification with SL as well?

DFrost


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

David,
Nope cert was with real stuff. It normally does not cause a problem. By reg the Army can not use psudo , contractors can mainly due to the storage and accountability issues. I think this is easy to fix but that is way above my paygrade, In fact I know how to fix it. Seems simple to me.
All it take is a few good containers , some cotton gauze pads, and a sourse of real stuff to impregnate the pad with the odor. 
Like I said, seems simple and cheap.


----------



## Patrick Gibbons (Nov 28, 2011)

i heard of this way a while back, get wooden clothes pins and a decent size of dope. boil the two together so the smell impregnates the wood. never tried it myself but if someone has access to evidence that will be destroyed it may be worth looking into.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Patrick Gibbons said:


> i heard of this way a while back, get wooden clothes pins and a decent size of dope. boil the two together so the smell impregnates the wood. never tried it myself but if someone has access to evidence that will be destroyed it may be worth looking into.


 You do not use drug "evidence that will be destroyed" as training aids.


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

ive used cotton balls before with good results

simply place a few cotton balls in a container with the dope you are wanting the scent of Let then sit together for a few days. The longer the better but after a few days they will be sufficiently tainted with the dope odor. Then i like to place the cotton balls in a glass salt shaker. This is an easy way to handle them. The odor escapes through the holes in the cap When you are done place the salt shaker back in an air tight container. Ive had these type aids work for months before we tainted them again. No evidence lost or even removed from the locker


----------



## Pete Stevens (Dec 16, 2010)

When I hear or see the "the dog thinks the reward is coming from the source" theory, I just grin. Really? We train them to find a tiny amount of a substance. What makes you think they don't smell that toy or tug in your pocket? I agree that it is the fight of a tug or chewing of a ball that satisfies the hunt for the source odor. 

I like ScentLogix for a couple of reasons. The odor spectrum can simulate large amounts of substances which helps upping the dogs threshold level. If you don't have access to large amounts of the substances you are training for, this is a good way of achieving it.I'm not just talking about a couple of ounces. I'm talking about in the amount of 500-1000 lbs. I've watched some pretty good dogs walk large amounts. Secondly, if you loose it, misplace it, or your dog gets a hold of it....no worries. Should you train soley on any type of psuedo? If that is the only thing you have, you won't have any issues. I like to mix it up. Just like training with other K9 teams and using their training aids. 

Jon- I know what you mean about that feeling when your dog is just a rock star. Yesterday at certifications- my girl was awesome. Nailed everything and super easy to read. Even the blank rooms were just a clean run. And in my unbiased and certainly humble opinion- the best dog in the world.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Pete Stevens said:


> When I hear or see the "the dog thinks the reward is coming from the source" theory, I just grin. Really? We train them to find a tiny amount of a substance. What makes you think they don't smell that toy or tug in your pocket?
> .


Amen. 

DFrost


----------



## Jeremy Wall (Jul 21, 2011)

Jon
Needed to put together some narc. aids for detention handlers to train searches in our detention facility. Obviously real aids were not an option, so I prepared Bandaids and children's stickers soaked in odor for the guys. Once saturated, I placed them in small clean pelican cases for them to train with. The "aids" were easy to stick in places inside the facility and even used them on cars a couple times, and if accidentally forgotten were not a liability issue for the guys. As for the pseudo, the real thing is always best but you've gotta go with whats available.


----------



## Timothy Saunders (Mar 12, 2009)

in october I was at positive response canine for some scent work training. I was told that sometimes dogs started on pseudo will alert to pseudo and the reals stuff. He said that sometimes dogs started on the real stuff will ignore pseudo. 
one of the aids he suggested using was the felt like disks that goes in between a glass table top and what it sits on. He said it holds sent well and you can stick them anywhere.

He uses the style customs uses with towels


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

yes there are so many ways to do it.. And I agree that the scentlogic allows large find simulations. That is something very difficult to do in the real world,
unless you are in Texas--everything is bigger there;-)--

my last find before resigning was 968 pounds of baled marijuana


----------



## Pete Stevens (Dec 16, 2010)

They may be bigger in Texas Jon- it its always better in California. 52 tons found in the last tunnel out here. Ok- we didn't find it...but damn....that is a lot of weed. Our largest find was 1,300 lbs in a van. I love working in a target rich enviorement!


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

yes the left coast has its perks


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

too funny.... :lol:

like two silicone strippers in a bar fight :
...... "my bust was always bigger than your bust !!"


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

rick smith said:


> too funny.... :lol:
> 
> like two silicone strippers in a bar fight :
> ...... "my bust was always bigger than your bust !!"


Male or female?:-o:-o


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

dont ask dont tell


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

It's hard to tell nowadays....gotta ask.


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

wellthis thread got off topic fast.

lets see, narcotic detection, that means mainly cops or affiliated
yep figures 
bent sense of humor to say the least


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> well this thread got off topic fast.


That's the first time that's ever happened on the WDF


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Thomas Barriano said:


> That's the first time that's ever happened on the WDF


*
EVER!!*

I am writing it in my diary.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

I apologize for posting something that is on topic. 



Pete Stevens said:


> When I hear or see the "the dog thinks the reward is coming from the source" theory, I just grin. Really? We train them to find a tiny amount of a substance. What makes you think they don't smell that toy or tug in your pocket?


I think it should be said that "the dog thinks that the reward comes from his final response." 



Pete Stevens said:


> I agree that it is the fight of a tug or chewing of a ball that satisfies the hunt for the source odor.


I think that there's one more step to satisfy the prey drive beyond playing tug or chewing − shredding. Here's some video of Wild Dogs doing it WARNING: this video is graphic and not for those with weak stomachs! And here's some video of a narco dog doing a substitute for it.  Notice that when the drive has been satisfied the dog goes back to work all by himself. 

Problem is few dogs have enough prey drive to do it.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Lou Castle said:


> Problem is few dogs have enough prey drive to do it.



Could it be that most people do not use items that the dog can tear up, or do not allow the dog to tear it up, or wait until the dog tears the reward to shreds if it is even possible for them to do so? I think this is probably way more common than a good working dog not having enough prey drive...


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

I like my simple explanation a lot better. The dog likes his toy, the dog find dope, responds, gets the toy. I take it away, the dog want to keep playing so we do it again. 

The MWD program called it prey/kill for years. the prey drive was the chase, the kill was the manipulation of the toy/target etc. 

DFrost


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> Could it be that most people do not use items that the dog can tear up, or do not allow the dog to tear it up, or wait until the dog tears the reward to shreds if it is even possible for them to do so? I think this is probably way more common than a good working dog not having enough prey drive...


You're completely correct in the first part of your statement Joby. Most people don't want their dogs tearing up their toys so they correct them for it and the dogs become inhibited about doing it. Most people want their dog to play tug or chase the ball, not to tear up their expensive toys or cut themselves on PVC. But most _"good working dogs"_ just won't do the shredding. Either it's been trained away, they're working in the wrong drive, or they just don't have it. Most of the emphasis in narco detection these days is on play and it's the wrong drive for the shredding to occur. When it happens it's a whole different dog. Most people can't get away from the play and/or the reward aspect that are common in this training. 

If your dog is one that will do the shredding I suggest that you take a look at Yarnall's training in drive system. There are lots of advantages to it, not the least of which is the absence of false alerting.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Lou Castle said:


> You're completely correct in the first part of your statement Joby. Most people don't want their dogs tearing up their toys so they correct them for it and the dogs become inhibited about doing it. Most people want their dog to play tug or chase the ball, not to tear up their expensive toys or cut themselves on PVC. But most _"good working dogs"_ just won't do the shredding. Either it's been trained away, they're working in the wrong drive, or they just don't have it. Most of the emphasis in narco detection these days is on play and it's the wrong drive for the shredding to occur. When it happens it's a whole different dog. Most people can't get away from the play and/or the reward aspect that are common in this training.
> 
> If your dog is one that will do the shredding I suggest that you take a look at Yarnall's training in drive system. There are lots of advantages to it, not the least of which is the absence of false alerting.


I do not train detection with the dog, but do play search games for the toy. If I hide the toy, and the dog finds it and shreds it, leaves it and then hunts for another hidden toy, is that comparable in any way...or is that way different?


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Joby Becker said:


> I do not train detection with the dog, but do play search games for the toy. If I hide the toy, and the dog finds it and shreds it, leaves it and then hunts for another hidden toy, is that comparable in any way...or is that way different?


Lou do you have a link to the article on Training in Drive? If so please post it..


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Lou Castle said:


> You're completely correct in the first part of your statement Joby. Most people don't want their dogs tearing up their toys so they correct them for it and the dogs become inhibited about doing it. Most people want their dog to play tug or chase the ball, not to tear up their expensive toys or cut themselves on PVC. But most _"good working dogs"_ just won't do the shredding. Either it's been trained away, they're working in the wrong drive, or they just don't have it. Most of the emphasis in narco detection these days is on play and it's the wrong drive for the shredding to occur. When it happens it's a whole different dog. Most people can't get away from the play and/or the reward aspect that are common in this training.
> 
> If your dog is one that will do the shredding I suggest that you take a look at Yarnall's training in drive system. There are lots of advantages to it, not the least of which is the absence of false alerting.


In my profile we work with rewards that are prime for shredding. Scented articles such as sweaters and such. The handler or quarry will typically play tug of war with the article once found.

I have seen MANY dogs shred, not all of them high drive or exceptional searchers (some are some are not). I see no correlation between if they shred and how good of a searchers they are.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> I see no correlation between if they shred and how good of a searchers they are.


Nor have I, ever. Actually, I would prefer that both my drug and explosives detectors not shred anything. 

DFrost


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> I do not train detection with the dog, but do play search *games * for the * toy. Bbbb If I hide the toy, and the dog finds it and shreds it, leaves it and then hunts for another hidden toy, is that comparable in any way...or is that way different? [Emphasis Added] *


*

If you're playing a game (and based on my emphases, you are) then it's not the same thing. The dog playing a game is in play drive. That's a relatively fragile drive. If a dog is tired, hot, thirsty or the like, it fades away. Just raising your voice too high for some dogs will take them out of it. Shredding comes from prey drive, it's the final step in the hunting of prey, killing it. Detection dogs trained in this system think that (Yes I know it's anthropomorphizing) they're hunting for a nest of rats. In another post I gave the five elements of a prey drive hunt. 


Hunt
Find
Flush
Catch
Kill

There's none of this in play. That's a game, this is a hunt for prey, that's not a game, that's survival. I'm not saying that narco dogs think that they're finding their food during this but the compulsion is the same. 

It's not just an article Jody, it's an entire website. CLICK HERE*


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> In my profile we work with rewards that are prime for shredding. Scented articles such as sweaters and such. The handler or quarry will typically *play *tug of war with the article once found. [Emphasis Added]


The operative word in your statement is *play. * The shredding that I’m talking about is not done with the handler or the quarry and it has nothing to do with play. This is a dog that is substituting ripping the towel apart for ripping apart the carcass of an animal that he's killed.  HERE'S THE VIDEO AGAIN, in case you didn't watch it last time. The dog does it himself. In fact the handler ignores the dog while it's going on. Notice that at the end of the shredding the dog goes back to work by himself without a command. There's no encouraging the dog or praising him with this system. It's not necessary, he's not working for you, he's working for himself. 



Jennifer Coulter said:


> I have seen MANY dogs shred, not all of them high drive or exceptional searchers (some are some are not).


Since you describe what you've seen as _"play"_ I'd say that we're not talking about the same thing. This has nothing to do with play. It's a completely different paradigm. It's another case of two things appearing to be similar, but they are not the same thing. As an example ... There are a few people who train a dog to bite using the same technique that field retriever folks use to teach the forced retrieve. Instead of having the dog bite a bumper they have him bite a sleeve. Too many people when these dogs bite the sleeve it looks the same as a dog that's biting out of a combat drive. When it's done properly it's very hard to tell them apart. But when the rubber meets the road, it's not the same thing. 



Jennifer Coulter said:


> I see no correlation between if they shred and how good of a searchers they are.


I said nothing about a correlation between shredding and how good a searcher a dog is if play drive is being used.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> Nor have I, ever. Actually, I would prefer that both my drug and explosives detectors not shred anything.
> 
> DFrost


It sounds as if you think there's something wrong with the shredding that's used in this system? If so, I don't think we're on the same page in the use of the term. In this system, the dog shreds a towel that's been substituted for the prey object, the scent source. 

In order to use this system folks have to get past the idea that the dog is working for a handler supplied reward. He's not. He's working for himself.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> It sounds as if you think there's something wrong with the shredding that's used in this system? .


Never said that. I said "Actually, I would prefer that both my drug and explosives detectors not shred anything." The dogs I select for drug or explosives training don't quit just because they are tired, thirsty or the voice is raised to high. If dogs are doing that, in my opinion, they were poorly selected for detection work. 

In explosives detection, touching the target is a failure. It is in USPCA, most federal programs. I don't know enough about NAPWDA and others to say. 

I've always felt when the right dog is selected he is working for himself, regardless of what the handler does. 

DFrost


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Lou Castle said:


> If you're playing a game (and based on my emphases, you are) then it's not the same thing. The dog playing a game is in play drive. That's a relatively fragile drive. If a dog is tired, hot, thirsty or the like, it fades away. Just raising your voice too high for some dogs will take them out of it. Shredding comes from prey drive, it's the final step in the hunting of prey, killing it. Detection dogs trained in this system think that (Yes I know it's anthropomorphizing) they're hunting for a nest of rats. In another post I gave the five elements of a prey drive hunt.
> 
> 
> Hunt
> ...


Lou...

I "think" the dog shreds the toys out of compulsive prey drive satisfaction. as a detection dog you describe would...minus the alert and the toss...she hunts for whatever and shreds it...moves on to the next toy and shreds that one...how is what I do more of a game to the dog? than what you do? just curious...

Jo*B*y


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Lou, 
I did watch the vid, and that is exactly what I am talking about. Yes we "play" some tug with the found article first, but as soon as you let some dogs have or "win" the article, they will shred it, exactly as the vid shows.
Sent from iPhone


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

Just to throw in my "word of the , noncertifing, K-9 god" 
in explosive detection shredding would be a bad idea. I can just see, well see for an instant, my dog grab an explosive find and start shredding it. Epic Fail !!

For the drug dog, same deal. not fatal but sure would be embarrassing.
" But Chief, there really were drugs there, I'm sorry that Snuffty shredded the plastic bag the they blew away. Yes I understand that was 6 months of undercover work in the wind. Yes I know we have to pay a big vet bill. But But," 

I think shredding is a bad idea once you get in the real working dog world.
Just saying


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Jon Harris said:


> Just to throw in my "word of the , noncertifing, K-9 god"
> in explosive detection shredding would be a bad idea. I can just see, well see for an instant, my dog grab an explosive find and start shredding it. Epic Fail !!
> 
> For the drug dog, same deal. not fatal but sure would be embarrassing.
> ...


that just doesnt jive with what Uncle LOU said,,,you must be working in the WRONG drive


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Jon Harris said:


> Just to throw in my "word of the , noncertifing, K-9 god"
> in explosive detection shredding would be a bad idea. I can just see, well see for an instant, my dog grab an explosive find and start shredding it. Epic Fail !!
> 
> For the drug dog, same deal. not fatal but sure would be embarrassing.
> ...


I do not think shredding is needed at all for a "real working dog world" dog. However, just to play the devil's advocate here, the reward you use could be what is shredded it is not required that the source of the odour be shredded.. I mean you still let an explosive dog BITE its toy as a reward, but you do not let the dog BITE the BOMB.

Just saying...


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

I don't use odor saturated toys. The is rewarded for finding the odor. Rewards are given quick and taken away quick. When working boxes during imprinting etc, a dog will run a set of 10. It's very quick, odor, response, verbal praise letting dog know the reward is on it's way, (I think there is a name for that) give reward, whoopee, good dog with reward, remove reward, rinse and repeat. Very quick, the dog didn't get the Nobel prize, he just had one find in a box, we aren't going to over due it. I usually try to get 3 sets of 10, per dog before lunch and 2 sets of ten after lunch. Of course this is just during imprinting, I don't stay on boxes long. The dog never has the reward long enough to shred it. 

Shredding a drug training aid can be fatal. The death in such a situation would be limited to the dog. Shredding a a real IED could have a significant greater impact. The possibility of an explosion during training is negligible. Excluding peroxide based materials, the most dangerous training material we work with, during training is smokeless/black powder. Everything else is relatively harmless unless capped. 

DFrost


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

David Frost said:


> I don't use odor saturated toys. The is rewarded for finding the odor. Rewards are given quick and taken away quick. When working boxes during imprinting etc, a dog will run a set of 10. It's very quick, odor, response, verbal praise letting dog know the reward is on it's way, (I think there is a name for that) give reward, whoopee, good dog with reward, remove reward, rinse and repeat. Very quick, the dog didn't get the Nobel prize, he just had one find in a box, we aren't going to over due it. I usually try to get 3 sets of 10, per dog before lunch and 2 sets of ten after lunch. Of course this is just during imprinting, I don't stay on boxes long. The dog never has the reward long enough to shred it.
> 
> Shredding a drug training aid can be fatal. The death in such a situation would be limited to the dog. Shredding a a real IED could have a significant greater impact. The possibility of an explosion during training is negligible. Excluding peroxide based materials, the most dangerous training material we work with, during training is smokeless/black powder. Everything else is relatively harmless unless capped.
> 
> DFrost


Yes, this is a no brainer. Of course. Was my point missed? My point was that a dog even just BITING a a drug training aid, or an explosive could have a deadly result, but you still let the dog BITE a toy as a reward. You don't say..."oh it is too dangerous to let a dog bite a tennis ball as a reward because we are finding dope or bombs and one day they might bite the source of the odour instead". 

I have stated I don't think shredding is at all needed (or even desirable), but IF ONE WANTED TO, even for drugs or explosives, they could use a shreddable reward (not odour soaked). You already let your dogs bite a reward, but you don't let your dog bite the source of the odour.

Does anyone pick up what I am putting down here? Have I not explained it well? Am I out to lunch?

I am in a very weird profile where we have an aggressive alert, for a very good reason, and dogs may play with the buried article in training for good reason...BUT this would be just plain stupid in other profiles and I NEVER once suggested it.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Jennifer says: "I am in a very weird profile where we have an aggressive alert, for a very good reason, and dogs may play with the buried article in training for good reason...BUT this would be just plain stupid in other profiles and I NEVER once suggested it."

I completely agree with you for your purpose. In your situation, the target can be the reward, and you use that to your advantage. With explosives and drugs, it's the response that gets the reward. The target odor isn't the reward, only the means to the reward. I think the difference is significant. Using the same drug dog, passive response, as a patrol dog during building search. Now the target odor becomes the reward. The dog searches the building, finds the target and since we are a find and bite organization, the dog engages, if the subject is accessible. While we aren't going to allow him to shred the target, he is going to bite and hold until told to release. Same principle, although I don't think wanting the ball for finding drugs/explosives is the same "drive" as finding the man and engaging. Having observed both on multiple thousands of times, they sure don't look the same. ha ha 

DFrost


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

Working an Entry Control Point (EPC) I'd run out of things to shred in a couple days.

" Can I have another stack of towels please?"

just wouldn't work

on a more serious note as David said , the reward is for the response BUT we all have had something go a little wrong and the dog starts to agres the target. If he is accustomed to grabbing and shredding it might get too far out of hand before you could stop it.

I dont see any real value in starting that behavior, at least on a working dog


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> I dont see any real value in starting that behavior, at least on a working dog


One of my training "mantras" is; it's better to prevent a bad habit from starting than trying to correct it once developed. 

DFrost


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> Working an Entry Control Point (EPC) I'd run out of things to shred in a couple days.
> 
> " Can I have another stack of towels please?"
> 
> ...


I've always looked at "shredding" as a hectic behavior indicating a lack of focus and see no reason to tolerate, much less encourage it, even in a pet dog


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> In explosives detection, touching the target is a failure.


Shredding is separate from flushing. Shredding is what the dog does to the towel, not something he does to the source. Not sure why you're trying to tie the two together. I said nothing of it. 



David Frost said:


> I've always felt when the right dog is selected he is working for himself, regardless of what the handler does.


You can have the right dog who works for himself but the wrong training can change that situation. What your dogs do is quite dependent on the handler. Your handlers must praise at the right moment to let the dog know that he's right. That praise must also be to the right degree to motivate the dog and. If the handlers don't do this the dog does not catch on to what's expected of him. This means that the dog, while he may be looking for something that's of interest to him IS working for the handler. It's a handler−based reward system.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> Lou...
> 
> I "think" the dog shreds the toys out of compulsive prey drive satisfaction. as a detection dog you describe would...minus the alert and the toss...she hunts for whatever and shreds it...moves on to the next toy and shreds that one...how is what I do more of a game to the dog? than what you do? just curious...


Joby I think that you'd agree that there are significant differences between play and prey drive. If a dog is shredding in play, it's significantly different than if he's doing it out of prey. Shredding is the final satisfaction for prey. Play is to establish some things with the handler. The animal that tries to initiate play is saying that he's the submissive, the immature and/or the compliant individual. There's nothing of that in shredding. There are no signs of play on the video. The dog that is doing the shredding is independent of the handler and the handler is either just standing by or ignoring the dog. There's no interaction between them. Go back to the wild dog video, the shredding, while several dogs take part at the same time, is just as independent of the other animals present.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> Lou,
> I did watch the vid, and that is exactly what I am talking about. Yes we "play" some tug with the found article first, but as soon as you let some dogs have or "win" the article, they will shred it, exactly as the vid shows.


Jennifer chances are that if it starts in play, as you described, it will stay in play, especially if the handler or the quarry are still involved in the game. Dogs can shred both in prey and in play. But the difference in intensity and the purpose for the shredding are miles apart.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> Just to throw in my "word of the , noncertifing, K-9 god"
> in explosive detection shredding would be a bad idea. I can just see, well see for an instant, my dog grab an explosive find and start shredding it. Epic Fail !!


Jon please don't confuse the type of flushing behavior with the shredding behavior. While they are both parts of prey drive, they're two completely separate behaviors. If you are a police K−9 handler you can go to Donn's site, sign up and get the LE clearance, and then you can see videos of dogs trained with this system that give a passive alert and never touch the source. 

If you're working with something you don't want the dog to touch you get the dog to do a passive behavior, such as a sit or a down. This then becomes the flushing behavior that makes the towel appear. Then the dog can catch and kill it, with the shredding behavior at the end. Shredding is not the response to the presence of scent, the sit or down is. 



Jon Harris said:


> For the drug dog, same deal. not fatal but sure would be embarrassing.


You can train a passive alert if you like ... that has no effect on the shredding which is done to satisfy the drive. Since you prefer a passive alert, Donn talks about this at length on his site. I suggest you go sign up and read what he says and look at the videos. But you can't just read a paragraph or two or just look at the videos if you want to understand it. 



Jon Harris said:


> " But Chief, there really were drugs there, I'm sorry that Snuffty shredded the plastic bag the they blew away. Yes I understand that was 6 months of undercover work in the wind. Yes I know we have to pay a big vet bill. But But,"


Really Jon? Really? Gee, in all my years of training I've never heard this before. Did you just come up with it? Lol. 

Let me say this again for those who seem to have missed it. The dogs DO NOT shred the narcotics or the explosives or anything else they're trained to find. They shred the towel. Don't confuse flushing behavior with shredding behavior. 

If the dog can get to the drugs, you probably shouldn't be using a dog, they're in plain sight. If they're someplace that the dog can access, say behind a book on the lowest shelf, when the dog moves his paw towards the shelf, you pull him away. If you're worried about this then I suggest you train a passive alert. They're the same system, only the flushing behavior is different. You seem not to realize that dogs trained in an aggressive alert are not permitted keep up their aggression so that they can get to the drugs. There are thousands of aggressive alert dogs that find drugs every day that do not destroy the evidence. But that has nothing to do with this discussion. No idea why you went to this place. 



Jon Harris said:


> I think shredding is a bad idea once you get in the real working dog world.
> Just saying


Shredding is a separate behavior that, while part of prey drive is not the same as finding or flushing. Not sure how you made this leap.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> Shredding a drug training aid can be fatal. The death in such a situation would be limited to the dog. Shredding a a real IED could have a significant greater impact.


I have no idea where this comes from. I have NEVER said anything about a dogs shredding anything but a towel. In your system David, the dog bites whatever reward you're using. Shredding is just an extension of this, the dog being allowed to satisfy the prey drive that's being used. Yet, somehow, a couple of you have made the illogical leap to dogs biting either the narco/explosive training aid or an IED.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> Yes, this is a no brainer. Of course. Was my point missed?


Apparently, as was mine. 



Jennifer Coulter said:


> Does anyone pick up what I am putting down here? Have I not explained it well? Am I out to lunch?


A few seem to be missing both our points. Not sure why this is. Sometimes people attack new ideas because they're feeling threatened. It's to be expected when the status quo is questioned. No, you're not out to lunch. The folks who have gone to the "shredding is dangerous because the IED might explode" or "the dog could destroy evidence" or "the dog could ingest some narcotics and be killed" are. 



Jennifer Coulter said:


> I am in a very weird profile where we have an aggressive alert, for a very good reason, and dogs may play with the buried article in training for good reason...BUT this would be just plain stupid in other profiles and I NEVER once suggested it.


Neither did I. It's an illogical leap that some have made.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> I completely agree with you for your purpose. In your situation, the target can be the reward,


Call me pedantic but I think the language is very imprecise here. _"The target"_ is never the reward. Rather, something is substituted for the source odor. That "something" is the reward in a reward−based system. In the situation where the person is the "object" that's being searched, for the person can give the reward, in a reward system. But if you think in terms of a reward, it's hard to understand this paradigm that I'm talking about. 



David Frost said:


> With explosives and drugs, it's the response that gets the reward. The target odor isn't the reward, only the means to the reward. I think the difference is significant.


I agree, in your system. 



David Frost said:


> Using the same drug dog, passive response, as a patrol dog during building search. *Now the target odor becomes the reward. * [Emphasis Added]


Perhaps it's just semantics but I don't agree. _"The target odor"_ is NOT the reward. In your system the reward is praise from the handler and some sort of toy, supplied by the handler. A major difference here is that with shredding the dog gets to complete the prey behavior of hunting. With toys like the ball or the tug, the dog never gets to satisfy the prey drive. 



David Frost said:


> The dog searches the building, finds the target and since we are a find and bite organization, the dog engages, if the subject is accessible. While we aren't going to allow him to shred the target, he is going to bite and hold until told to release.


I would not say that _"the target odor"_ is the reward. Rather, it's a case of the person supplying the reward in both your system and Jennifer's. In your _"find and bite organization"_ the source is STILL not the reward, rather "the source" gives the dog a sleeve (or suit) to bite. In your system THAT is the reward, not the source of the odor. It's just another form of substitution. 



David Frost said:


> Same principle, although I don't think wanting the ball for finding drugs/explosives is the same "drive" as finding the man and engaging. Having observed both on multiple thousands of times, they sure don't look the same. ha ha
> 
> DFrost


Major difference here David. In the system that I'm describing they ARE the same. Searching for a person and searching for narcotics (or any other source) are the same, both are trained and worked in a combat drive. I prefer fight drive for the search for the human and prey drive for the objects; but both are combat drives. The only difference is in what happens at the end of the search. In both cases I try to satisfy the dog's drives as much as can be done. I've found that the closer to drive satisfaction one can come, the more reliable the work.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> Working an Entry Control Point (EPC) I'd run out of things to shred in a couple days.
> 
> " Can I have another stack of towels please?"
> 
> just wouldn't work


Wondering Jon, how many finds do you make in a day? Are you saying that you give your dog a reward on every search where he gives his final trained response even if you don't know that drugs are present? I think that's a bad practice that, if it hasn't already done so, it can easily lead to a false alert issue. I think that a dog should only be rewarded (and that's not what is going on in the system I'm talking about) during training when you know where the source is. In this system there are no false alerts. 



Jon Harris said:


> on a more serious note as David said , the reward is for the response BUT we all have had something go a little wrong and the dog starts to agres the target. If he is accustomed to grabbing and shredding it might get too far out of hand before you could stop it.


Jon as has been said, it's a simple matter to train a passive alert for anything you're searching for. There are thousands of aggressive alert dogs out there making finds every day. But I have some more questions for you. Don't you let your dog bite the toy that you supply? How is this any different. Answer: it's not. 



Jon Harris said:


> I dont see any real value in starting that behavior, at least on a working dog


The value is that it gives the highest degree of reliability possible and it's not dependent on the handler. There are no false alerts and the handler can't cue the dog as can easily be done with a handler reward based system. 

Tell me Jon, what does your dog do when you give him his toy to play with? I bet he bites it! There's no difference as far as the chance of him getting into the source between your system and this one.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> One of my training "mantras" is; it's better to prevent a bad habit from starting than trying to correct it once developed.
> 
> DFrost


David what do you think is going on when the dog has the ball in his mouth and he's repeatedly chomping down on it? He's trying to satisfy his drive to make the kill, only due the nature of the toy that you've chosen, he can't. He's starting the shredding behavior but never gets to complete it. By destroying the towel the dog experiences the full satisfaction of the drive.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Thomas Barriano said:


> I've always looked at "shredding" as a hectic behavior indicating a lack of focus and see no reason to tolerate, much less encourage it, even in a pet dog


Shredding, in this context of killing prey, is very methodical behavior. Watch the videos and you may see it. With the video of the detection dog when he's finished with the towel, he just goes looking for the next prey object. That's far from hectic behavior. There's no wasted energy and there's no frantic behavior. The dogs are excited, but they're far from hectic.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> Shredding, in this context of killing prey, is very methodical behavior. Watch the videos and you may see it. With the video of the detection dog when he's finished with the towel, he just goes looking for the next prey object. That's far from hectic behavior. There's no wasted energy and there's no frantic behavior. The dogs are excited, but they're far from hectic.


In nature, what is the shredding about? I mean the shredding that goes beyond kill-tear-gulp.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> Shredding is separate from flushing.
> 
> 
> You can have the right dog who works for himself but the wrong training can change that situation. What your dogs do is quite dependent on the handler.



I have no idea what the "flushing" is all about. I've never spoken of it. The discussion was about shredding. I posted I didn't allow it and basically, how I used/taught, the reward to be used.

I don't disagree with that at all. In fact it was my point. I select the right dog and conduct the right training. I want my dogs to be independent of the handler. To much control on a detector dog is a poorly worked detector dog. 

DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> I have no idea where this comes from. I have NEVER said anything about a dogs shredding anything but a towel. In your system David, the dog bites whatever reward you're using. Shredding is just an extension of this, the dog being allowed to satisfy the prey drive that's being used. Yet, somehow, a couple of you have made the illogical leap to dogs biting either the narco/explosive training aid or an IED.


Lou said: "It sounds as if you think there's something wrong with the shredding that's used in this system? If so, I don't think we're on the same page in the use of the term. In this system, the dog shreds a towel that's been substituted for the prey object, the scent source."

In your system, described as "this" system, they can shred anything they want. In my system, it's not permitted. I haven't made any illogical leaps. I'm saying it's not my system. No where did I say, mine is the only way and you are wrong. Your system is not mine. I don't care what names, drives or behaviors you wish to attach. My system doesn't really need a lot more descriptions than ole B. F. said himself. It's (what I'm doing/training) is nothing more than basic operant conditioning. 

DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> David what do you think is going on when the dog has the ball in his mouth and he's repeatedly chomping down on it? He's starting the shredding behavior but never gets to complete it. By destroying the towel the dog experiences the full satisfaction of the drive.


So, if the drive is not satisfied, does it decrease, increase, become a point of frustration/anxiety that interferes with training? Many behaviorists will say a behavior that isn't rewarded will diminish. Should I expect that in my training program? Dogs I train never get this "drive" satisfied, so what exactly does this mean in "your system"? 

Incidentally, you said: "He's trying to satisfy his drive to make the kill, only due the nature of the toy that you've chosen, he can't." 

That isn't a factual statement. It isn't the nature of the toy, I have dogs on towels, tugs, balls, etc, I don't permit it. My post said, it's verbal, toy/tug, with verbal, remove and repeat. The dog isn't allowed to keep it long enough to shred. 

DFrost


----------



## Timothy Saunders (Mar 12, 2009)

If you have a bomb dog do you give him the towel to chew after he has found a bomb? What if he has more work to do.Does everyone wait until he is done to SHREDDING TO CONTINUE.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

In training we use a variable reward. That is to say, the dog does not get the primary reinforcement each time he responds properly. In actual situation, we do not reward the dog at all. 

In actual drug searches, particularly vehicle searches, once the dog responds, you know there are drugs present. The subjects already know the drugs are there. Now they know you know the drugs are there. The last you thing you need to be doing is playing tug-of-war or chasing a ball down the side of the I-road. Once the habeus grabbus has been put on the offenders, some handlers will allow the dog to go back to the vehicle and respond, once the drugs have been located. 

In an actual bomb search, the dog (in my program) is never given the primary reward if it responds during an actual search. There are a lot more things to worry about at the moment. 

DFrost


----------



## CJ Neubert (Sep 7, 2009)

Barbie always did enjoy making noise with her obnoxious sqeakie toy near the subjects (had enough officers around that it wasn't a safety issue though) I am sure some to this day have a operant conditioning related aversive response to squeakie toys.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

CJ Neubert said:


> I am sure some to this day have a operant conditioning related aversive response to squeakie toys.


chuckle, chuckle. 

DFrost


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Lou Castle said:


> Joby I think that you'd agree that there are significant differences between play and prey drive. If a dog is shredding in play, it's significantly different than if he's doing it out of prey. Shredding is the final satisfaction for prey. Play is to establish some things with the handler. The animal that tries to initiate play is saying that he's the submissive, the immature and/or the compliant individual. There's nothing of that in shredding. There are no signs of play on the video. The dog that is doing the shredding is independent of the handler and the handler is either just standing by or ignoring the dog. There's no interaction between them. Go back to the wild dog video, the shredding, while several dogs take part at the same time, is just as independent of the other animals present.


lou...wtf are you talking about? .... I already said it was in PREY not play.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> lou...wtf are you talking about? .... I already said it was in PREY not play.


Joby

Are you sure it isn't "fight drive"?


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

WOW!! I add a little humor-- At least I thought it was humorous-- and the shit hits the fan,

I want to thank everyone for making me feel welcomed and able to start a thread that has become so entertaining..

Lou, uhh no i dont reward on a real search for bombs. If the dog alerts BTW my dogs are passive alert so yes I do know about that way of alerting. Anyway, if the dog alerts on a bomb search the EOD is called The EPC is shut down for minimum 3 hours, Eod investigates, they determine if something is or was there through wipes and other techniques then the vehicle is moved to a safe place and the shit is blown out of it.

No I really dont need to be rewarding and playing with the dog in that area.

On narcotics
No that conversation with the chief never happened of course, It was a humorous way to make a point, My drug dogs have all been passive alert. An I agree with David if the dog alerts EVERYONE knows its there. I do sometimes return to the find ONLY ON DRUGS NOT BOMBS
just wanted to make sure you were clear on that,

after the upstanding citizen that just happened to get stopped in a car with drugs in it that an unknown friend, that he cant remember the name of, who borrowed the car, must have left there is in handcuffs, then I may decide to return to the confirmed find and reward.

just saying



All kidding aside we seem to have a drive for everything the dogs do
prey, hunt, kill, food, toy. flush,play,fear, defense, fight, survival, combat, it goes on and on

How about whatever the dog needs to work and continue to work efficiently?

I guess we could break it down some more and call it a new system. We can all even write about it and maybe sell a new though pattern in training.
Like Kong drive, ball drive, towel drive,dowel drive, pipe drive, In fact we could probably start a PHD program on the various phases of what the layman calls "Ball Drive" but after the course we could be experts in the different branches of Ball Drive as illustrated above.

After completing the course the graduates would have a PHD in Balls and a certificate that states that are experts in balls and can determine the different types with authority.

Please accept this diatribe with tongue firmly in cheek



.


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

Lou Do I reward every time?
No

How many finds?
7 last weekend Drugs

What does he do with the reward?
He mouths it but doesnt really tear it up. We do more of a tug of war at the odor and that is in training or on a confirmed and controlled situation.

Yes i know there are thousands of aggressive alert dogs making finds every day. The departments I worked for did not want the liability of paint repairs and upholstery replacement.

My dogs are all passive alert

I feel like I need to practice my Matrix skills. The knives seem to be coming pretty steady from your direction. Lou, your middle name wouldn't happens to be Smith would it?
Black suit, sun glasses low quarters and skinny tie? Just kidding


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Jon Harris said:


> WOW!! I add a little humor-- At least I thought it was humorous-- and the shit hits the fan,
> 
> I want to thank everyone for making me feel welcomed and able to start a thread that has become so entertaining..
> 
> ...


I would like to thank you for coming and sharing your experiences and starting some threads on detection work. We don't always have a lot of them here. 

I hope your dog slays his next certification. 

Stay funny. :grin:


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Connie Sutherland said:


> In nature, what is the shredding about? I mean the shredding that goes beyond kill-tear-gulp.


In mature individuals it has to do with a couple of things. It's taking food down to an edible size. But it's also involved with sharing food with the pack and with young puppies as well. It's also about members of the pack bonding, sharing and cooperating.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> I have no idea what the "flushing" is all about. I've never spoken of it. The discussion was about shredding. I posted I didn't allow it and basically, how I used/taught, the reward to be used.


David the discussion is about Narcotics Detection. Naturally it turned to prey drive. The five elements of prey drive as applied to this topic are:

Hunt
Find
Flush
Catch
Kill

After the dog finds his prey, in this case the strongest scent that he can get to, he does a flushing behavior. In nature, he'd do something to get the prey to leave cover, to come out of the hole, to come out of the dense brush, etc., that would have it leave cover and make it more vulnerable to the next phase, the catch. For aggressive alert dogs this can be such things as scratching, pawing, digging, barking, etc. For passive alert dogs this can be such things as a sit or a down. 

I had mentioned shredding and you wrote _"Never said that. I said "Actually, I would prefer that both my drug and explosives detectors not shred anything." The dogs I select for drug or explosives training don't quit just because they are tired, thirsty or the voice is raised to high. If dogs are doing that, in my opinion, they were poorly selected for detection work. 

* In explosives detection, touching the target is a failure.*"_ [Emphasis Added]

I responded, _"Shredding is separate from flushing. Shredding is what the dog does to the towel, not something he does to the source. Not sure why you're trying to tie the two together. I said nothing of it."_ It looked to me as if you has mistaken shredding for _"touching the target"_ and I wanted to make sure that you realized that shredding was completely different. 

Earlier I wrote, _"It sounds as if you think there's something wrong with the shredding that's used in this system? If so, I don't think we're on the same page in the use of the term. In this system, the dog shreds a towel that's been substituted for the prey object, the scent source."_ 



David Frost said:


> In your system


Credit where it's due. It's Donn Yarnall's system. 



David Frost said:


> described as "this" system, * they can shred anything they want. *


The only thing that the dogs shred is the towel. That's the only thing that's substituted for the prey. 



David Frost said:


> In my system, it's not permitted.


I understand. But you decried the shredding and said _"In explosives detection, touching the target is a failure. _"as if shredding the towel had something to do with _"touching the target."_ The two things are not related except that they're both elements of a prey hunt. 



David Frost said:


> My system doesn't really need a lot more descriptions than ole B. F. said himself. It's (what I'm doing/training) is nothing more than basic operant conditioning.


Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something about your work. Do you select your dogs for detection work based on their level of prey drive or do you select for their desire to play with a toy? Are you one of those folks who believe that virtually any dog can do detection work since you're using OC to train them? 




David Frost said:


> So, if the drive is not satisfied, does it decrease, increase, become a point of frustration/anxiety that interferes with training?


It probably depends on the dog. 



David Frost said:


> Many behaviorists will say a *behavior *that isn't rewarded will diminish. Should I expect that in my training program? Dogs I train never get this "drive" satisfied, so what exactly does this mean in "your system"? [Emphasis Added]


We're not talking about a behavior, we're talking about a drive. Drives can be brought out or suppressed by training. They can't be created or put into the dog. So again, I'd say that it depends on the dog. 



David Frost said:


> Incidentally, you said: "He's trying to satisfy his drive to make the kill, only due the nature of the toy that you've chosen, he can't."
> 
> *That isn't a factual statement. *It isn't the nature of the toy


It is in part. The other part of it is that in your system, you don't want it so you don't allow it. Your dogs never get to kill the prey so there's probably some level of frustration. Can you tell me how you get the ball away from the dog? And what do you do if he won't give it up?


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Timothy Saunders said:


> If you have a bomb dog do you give him the towel to chew after he has found a bomb?


I'm guessing that you're talking about finding a real bomb. If that's the case, of course not! You ease him out of the area and let the EOD people take over. 



Timothy Saunders said:


> What if he has more work to do.


Do you mean another area that needs to be searched? You go search it. 



Timothy Saunders said:


> Does everyone wait until he is done to SHREDDING TO CONTINUE.


Not sure who _"everyone"_ is but, Yes.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> Lou, uhh no i dont reward on a real search for bombs.


I wasn't aware that you handled a bomb dog Jon, so I wasn't referring to this at all. I was going by the title of the thread that you started, and thought that we were generally talking about "Narcotic Detection Training." A couple of other people mentioned explosives but you did not until just now. Do you really think that I was asking if you rewarded your dog on real searches for bombs at the site, or was that another attempt at humor? 



Jon Harris said:


> On narcotics


It's a separate issue but Jon are you saying that your dog is cross trained for narcotics and explosives? Or are these two separate dogs you're referring to here? 



Jon Harris said:


> My drug dogs have all been passive alert. An I agree with David if the dog alerts EVERYONE knows its there. * I do sometimes return to the find ONLY ON DRUGS NOT BOMBS *
> just wanted to make sure you were clear on that,


Got it. 



Jon Harris said:


> after the upstanding citizen that just happened to get stopped in a car with drugs in it that an unknown friend, that he cant remember the name of, who borrowed the car, must have left there is in handcuffs, * then I may decide to return to the confirmed find and reward. *


* 

You had written, (probably intending to be humorous)



Working an Entry Control Point (EPC) I'd run out of things to shred in a couple days.

" Can I have another stack of towels please?"

just wouldn't work

Click to expand...

It seemed that you were ridiculing this system because you make so many finds that you'd run out of towels and have to ask for "another stack ... in a couple of days." So I asked how many finds do you make in a day? BTW this prey system starts with the original system that US Customs used to use, using scented towels to start with and then using unscented towels to reward with. Those dogs were recognized to be among the best in the world. Back then running out of towels was not an issue there was a ready supply for every handler. When you run out of dog food, do you ask for more and get it? 



Jon Harris said:



All kidding aside we seem to have a drive for everything the dogs do
prey, hunt, kill, food, toy. flush,play,fear, defense, fight, survival, combat, it goes on and on

Click to expand...

Yep dogs and many other animals are driven by their instincts. 



Jon Harris said:



I guess we could break it down some more and call it a new system. We can all even write about it and maybe sell a new though pattern in training.

Click to expand...

Except nothing's being sold Jon. The information is available to anyone who's capable of typing a link into their browser. Condescension is rarely a good discussion technique. 



Jon Harris said:



Like Kong drive, ball drive, towel drive,dowel drive, pipe drive, In fact we could probably start a PHD program on the various phases of what the layman calls "Ball Drive" but after the course we could be experts in the different branches of Ball Drive as illustrated above.

Click to expand...

I agree that some people assign drives to all sorts of things. That's one reason that the drive systems fell from favor. There is a tendency among some to assign drives to behaviors. They're not the same thing. 

But it may interest you to know that someone with vastly more experience than both of us, Wendell Nope, the head of POST for the training of LE and SAR K−9's for the state of Utah has a list of drives that is single spaced, and take up about two pages. I find it too complicated but he finds it useful. More than one way to skin a cat. 



Jon Harris said:



Lou Do I reward every time?
No

Click to expand...

So I guess we can disregard your attempt at humor wherein you had to ask for "another stack of towels please?" 



Jon Harris said:



What does he do with the reward?
He mouths it but doesnt really tear it up. We do more of a tug of war at the odor and that is in training or on a confirmed and controlled situation.

Click to expand...

If the dog has it, it's fairly easy to change from the tug of war to shredding. You're not interested but a surprising number of people are. 



Jon Harris said:



Yes i know there are thousands of aggressive alert dogs making finds every day. The departments I worked for did not want the liability of paint repairs and upholstery replacement.

Click to expand...

If the dog is properly handled this isn't an issue. This is a matter of competent training and then competent handling. Some aren't capable of it I guess. And some administrators don't want to face the issue. I know of a state agency that had hundreds of finds, everything from a gram to hundreds of pounds. Along the way there was a seizure of $1.6million in cash. All of these dogs were aggressive alert dogs and not one complaint was ever lodged. 

I've said it a few times but no one commented on it, there are no false alerts with this system because the dog is working in a true combat drive (just like when a patrol dog is sent to find someone who is hiding). The search is between the dog and his prey, in this case the source of scent. There is no payoff for the dog to alert when the scent source is not present as sometimes happens with a handler based reward system. A hunting dog isn't going to start digging just for the sake of digging, he know that there's no rabbit in the hole. A pointer is not going to point at a bush just for the sake of pointing. He knows that there's no bird there. Dogs trained like this are not going to waste their energy unless the prey is present. The most influence the handler has in this system is to direct the dog to the proper area so the dog has the opportunity to detect the odor if present. The dog does the rest. 

In fact, the passive alert system in narco work came along because so many dogs were false alerting and tearing up property and claims were coming in. Dope WAS NOT BEING FOUND in those cases and so, complaints were appropriate. It's interesting to note that those dogs were trained in a praise/play/reward based system that most people are using today. Rather than fix the issue of false alerts (and it's just about impossible to eliminate the problem completely once it's started, the best that can be hoped for is to lower the rate as much as possible) by changing the alert, they eliminated the complaints. The question is, does the true problem, that of false alerts, remain? 


Jon Harris said:



The knives seem to be coming pretty steady from your direction. Lou

Click to expand...

Kinda how I felt about what you now call "humor."*


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Lou said: "But you decried the shredding and said In explosi"ves detection, touching the target is a failure. "as if shredding the towel had something to do with "touching the target." The two things are not related except that they're both elements of a prey hunt."

I didn't "decry" anything. What I said was; "In explosives detection, touching the target is a failure." Touching the target is a failure. Personally, I don't care if the dog tears your towel apart. Still has nothing to do with, touching the target is a failure. Lou, just as a personal note; if I disagree with you, doesnt' mean I'm personally attacking you. When I say, the dog isn't permitted to touch, if you feel I'm "decrying" your comments, your off base. I'm very literal in dog training. Mainly because I have always felt people make it more difficult than it is. They do that because simple, in dog training doesn't seem as marketable. Kind of a soup de jour sort of thing. At any rate, when I say, an explosive dog can't touch the target, and that I don't allow tearing up any type of reward, well that's me. It has nothing to do with you, because, well, I'm me. I'm not trying to be anyone else. 

DFrost


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

Lou said

It's a separate issue but Jon are you saying that your dog is cross trained for narcotics and explosives? Or are these two separate dogs you're referring to here? 


no that is never appropriate separate dogs That info is in my signature and profile

Lou im not attacking you
yes i do use humor quite often
Some get it, some don,t some dont want to and try to take it literal. Up to them, their choice.

end result
my dogs dont shred.
and btw
nice mustache on the old pics.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> and btw
> nice mustache on the old pics.


Jon,

A link pretty please


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

Sure Thomas,
Id call you Tom but have not received permission yet.


http://www.loucastle.com/photos.htm


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> Sure Thomas,
> Id call you Tom but have not received permission yet.
> 
> 
> http://www.loucastle.com/photos.htm


Jon,

YOU can call me Tom, everybody else has to use Thomas 
The one picture (The Two of US) looked like Dustin Diamond when he played Screech on "Saved by the Bell" ;-)


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

You know, there is another picture that comes to mind.
One of a private detective in old porn movies.
I think I saw a documentary about him once on PBS:-o

Johnny Wad? was the character.

Man I just know there is about to be another looong post taking apart every letter as there are not enough words in this one to really work with.:twisted:


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> Man I just know there is about to be another looong post taking apart every letter as there are not enough words in this one to really work with.:twisted:


You're catching on pretty quick Jon


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

I just went and watched that shredding video again to make sure I didnt miss anything

Just looks like destructive behavior to me

No it does not look the same as wild dogs to me. And that is me not anyone else

I still do not see a reason for this behavior in law enforcement detection

Lou, what happens if the car you are searching the inside of a car and it has a towel in it?


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

Seems to me and reading Mr Yarnall's site, the shredding is for food for eating in the wild dogs
I just cant make the connection. Maybe Im bias? Maybe I dont have the knowledge to understand? 

Ive also read some of your posts on other sites. I see the treatment my posts are getting are nothing special. 



Man this is getting fun. reminds me of another thread on this forum Gee what was that one ? Didnt it also have to do with drive? Combat drive?
But Im old and clearly senile so I may be remembering incorrectly.


----------



## Laney Rein (Feb 9, 2011)

You know, just seems to me that everytime there is a discussion about detection that seems to be going along in a very interesting manner, that a certain member decides to jump in and either derail the thread or try to shove his "self perceived knowledge" into the foray. He especially goes after one member trying to act like he knows more and runs on and on and on and.......in multiple quotes.

I am training a detection dog and depend on a lot of the info obtained here. It is not appreciated when I have to wade thru all the contridictions and rehashings of what everyone else said. I got so tired by page 6 I had to respond to Mr. Castle and tell him Who cares about shredding but wild dogs? Tired of York tirades and book writing on threads.


----------



## Laney Rein (Feb 9, 2011)

Oh and thanks Job for a very interesting thread. Sorry it went down the wrong road. You're right, this is common behavior for this person. Gets so old so quick. Probably why we don't get a lot of good discussions as they wind up the same way.

Thanks again for your much appreciated humor and info!


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

Thanks
ription. 
end result is everyone will have their points. To me at least Im open to them until I get the feeling Im being preached at or being forced to accept a point of view At that point the heels dig in

As for training a detection dog i am no expert. Maybe an experienced amateur would be a better description.

My dogs are passive alert. In explosive it is a must

In narcotics I like it better and so do the departments Ive worked in

I watched a couple of Yarnall's videos with aggressive alerts on drug dogs and watched the dog paw and scratch the shit out of the cars. Not good in my mind.

I watched the dog shred a towel under a car for a long while Also not good in my opinion.

I do use a kong My dogs like them I have a large red one we play with
the working ones are black with a rope loop in them

I work boxes In fact I have 75 boxes I have several that I use for the drugs These are always the same. I place them in a field of other boxes. The others are blank or have distractions in them.
Food, leather, tape, a kong, balls, I also have a set that have the target odors along with distractions like gasoline and diesel. Many of the finds in my area were in fuel tanks so I trained specifically for that type of find.

I built and use a Herzik wall. Not all the time but is was something new and it does help in focus.

I believe I can combine the wall with the on target system on rewarding and get good results Ill see when I return to the states.

I train on real world scenarios cars buildings open areas buried stashes
I run alot of blanks That has helped me more than anything recognize when I am pushing the dog to maybe false or cuing him.

I train on real drugs when i can and Psuedo also. I have experienced no issues yet with it.

My vehicle searches are long 40-60 vehicles. Im trying to build stamina and recognize when the dog has had enough. It is a matter of necessity where I am We do A LOT of searches.

I do both known and blind training Meaning many times I know where the hides are. Some may have a different opinion about that but if I know where the hide is I can better correct false alerts and direct the dog to productive areas so as to train for success. 
I dont cheat. Even if i know where the hide is the dog has to find it. I wont find it for him.

I use the inverted v pattern most of the time On cars I work backwards It is easier for me. I also dont try to block the dog. If he passes me i switch hands with the leash and bring him back searching as he goes and them we continue on pattern.

I have a very headstrong dog now. he gets a whiff and he is off to the races I allow this and follow but remembering where we took off from so I can restart on pattern after he satisfies his nose or finds the stuff. Ive been pulled under more than one trailer or eighteen wheeler on the way to a find.

If he finds he gets rewarded for drugs on the scene 
If im working my dog bog and we get a find we will of course vacate the area BUT i have a drop aid I can place somewhere and he can find that and get rewarded just like in training.

This seems to keep him interested in searching

One thing you will probably notice I know I do is when working a blank. the dog can get frustrated because he cant find anything. This lets you see exactly what he looks like when that happens and what he look like IF he is thinking about falsifying the find
I can be a real eye opener.

Also let me caution you on a point and I bet every handler has had this happen.

Right this minute Im nursing a rather large knot on my head. Remember when you are looking down at your dog searching that be careful to look up at what you are about to walk into. I damn near knocked myself out today on a black open area search Open area with lots of stuff in it like metal overhangs and scaffolding. 
PS. They are harded than you head I know first hand.

I hope this helps you a little This is a glimpse into what I do. Im sure many will see holes in it and things wrong but this is just a thumbnail sketch and in no way all of what you do to train and sustain.

AND I STILL DONT LET THE DOG SHRED DAMMIT!!

btw our friend is banned in a few other forums fr the same stuff


----------



## Laney Rein (Feb 9, 2011)

Thanks for the insight. Every bit helps. We have been working narcotics w/ a professional trainer on weekends and do urban searches every other week.

I am working w/ an adopted Mal that came with many fear issues. After owning and working for over a year he is finally blossoming and loves to search and find. One of the other members on here has been very helpful and gives very useful and experienced advice. So nice to have such a great group to learn from.

Keep the info coming. Believe me, many of us appreciate it, Jon.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Jon says: "I watched a couple of Yarnall's videos with aggressive alerts on drug dogs and watched the dog paw and scratch the shit out of the cars. Not good in my mind."

I agree with most of what you said. I do have to say, I like aggressive response, single purpose drug dogs. I have trained a lot of them. I don't think they are any more or less proficient. I don't think they are any better or worse indicating on source. I don't think they have more or less false responses. I don't think they are any easier or more difficult to train. I just like the way they work. I've said on more than one occasion I train them that way because I'm in charge and I make that decision. (now that's ego) I work for an agency that the majority of the work a drug dog does is vehicle searches. Over the past 10 years we've done 50 to 60 thousand vehicle sniffs, we've paid 4 claims that I'm aware of. Sometimes, it's just a cost of doing business. The handler doesn't have to allow the dog to scratch it to bare metal. Sometimes it's just fun.


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

David,
you get no argument from me. Im kinda in the same frame of mind. I dint think either is better than the other Just different and departmental preference. I do admit it would not be a bad thing to watch the paint come off the dealers car but then again it might lower the value WHEN WE SELL IT!:twisted:


----------



## Laney Rein (Feb 9, 2011)

You guys have such a. Great sense of humor! Must make the day once in awhile to be a little bad, too.


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

I have never known a cop with any time on the street that didnt have a somewhat "bent" humor. 
Maybe just everyone else is humorless. I dont know. I know Im certainly bent. 

seriously though and yes I can be serious
you find the same type of humor in cops, firefighters, emts and er staff specially those of us that like and live for the night shift.
Personally i have always done whatever i could to stay on nights You meet such a more interesting crowd. and the bonus is you get to arrest them


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

I worked an aggressive alert drug dog (loved it), and a passive alert bomb dog (Loved it). Never had a false response in training. I have my own ideas when it comes to training scent detection dogs but that doesn't preclude me from wanting to learn about other styles and theories. Gaining the additional information helps when discussing those theories with other people. In the end it's all about wanting to be better at what I do. Although Lou's style of response can get tiresome I enjoy having specific areas of training discussed in a clear, concise and to the point manner without all the personal feelings and name calling. If disecting a statement rote with BS to clear things up so as not to spread clear disinformation is his style, well more people benefit from that than they realize. Some people need things spelled out for them in easy to understand statements....myself included sometimes.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> I have never known a cop with any time on the street that didnt have a somewhat "bent" humor.
> Maybe just everyone else is humorless. I dont know. I know Im certainly bent.
> 
> seriously though and yes I can be serious
> ...


My best buddy is a retired firefighter. One sick SOB but he can make me laugh so hard I damn choke on my own spit.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Earlier I wrote,


> But you decried the shredding and said "In explosives detection, touching the target is a failure." as if shredding the towel had something to do with "touching the target." The two things are not related except that they're both elements of a prey hunt."





David Frost said:


> I didn't "decry" anything.


I'll take your word for this David but I can't figure out any other explanation for you to have made this comment at this stage of the discussion. We weren't discussing explosive dogs or explosive detection. 



David Frost said:


> What I said was; "In explosives detection, touching the target is a failure."


Yes, I know, I quoted you accurately. I have no idea why you brought it up and still can't figure it out. 



David Frost said:


> Touching the target is a failure.


Yes, I know. 



David Frost said:


> Personally, I don't care if the dog tears your towel apart. Still has nothing to do with, touching the target is a failure.


Still wondering why you mentioned this. 



David Frost said:


> Lou, just as a personal note; if I disagree with you, doesnt' mean I'm personally attacking you.


I said nothing about a personal attack. I said that you "decried the shedding." That's about the discussion, not about me. "Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted." – George Bernard Shaw.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> no that is never appropriate separate dogs


I knew that if we went on long enough we'd find some area of agreement! lol



Jon Harris said:


> Lou im not attacking you


I didn't think that you were Jon. I always thought that we were talking about this system of training. 



Jon Harris said:


> yes i do use humor quite often


People who study these things tell us that about 50% of the information that is exchanged in face to face discussions comes from body language, facial expression and tone of voice. None of those things can exist in this medium so humor often doesn't come across well.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> I just went and watched that shredding video again to make sure I didnt miss anything


And yet you did! Lol. When looking at something that's different from what you've been taught and have been doing for a good part (if not all) of your K−9 career, one is not going to see anything new (or especially not learn anything new) unless one's mind is open. You might think about reading the material instead of just watching the videos. That will help you understand what's going on. The reason that the videos are at the end of the articles is because they illustrate what the articles discuss. Watching the videos without having first read the articles is analogous to reading the headlines of a newspaper and then thinking that you're well informed. 



Jon Harris said:


> Just looks like destructive behavior to me
> 
> No it does not look the same as wild dogs to me. And that is me not anyone else


Really? Please tell us the difference? Perhaps you should look again? It's not destructive behavior, it's carcass shredding behavior. I, and quite a few others, think it's pretty clear. But then we've read the articles. 

I think that the problem Jon is that your mind is not open to the possibility that there's more to detection work than you know right now. The guy who developed this system has been doing detection work since about 1977. He founded BOTH the LAPD narcotics detection unit and their patrol dog unit. He was the head of the latter for over 20 years, until he retired. This work has been evolving continuously since the late 1970's. He calls it his "rat's nest system." You're looking to see what's wrong, instead of looking with the possibility that there may be something new that might be of value to you. But if you don't want to learn anything new, that's fine with me. 



Jon Harris said:


> I still do not see a reason for this behavior in law enforcement detection


Probably it's just me but I think that the complete elimination of false alerts (and the attendant violation of 4th amendment rights of the people) are plenty enough reason to go to it. 

I realize that at this moment you're working in Afghanistan where they don't have that darned pesky 4th amendment that says, _"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."_ But back here it's something that's important (or certainly should be)to LE officers everywhere. 

The courts have ruled that the alert of trained, reliable detection dog is enough to circumvent the need for a warrant when searching a vehicle. But if a dog is giving false alerts, an industry wide issue (except with those using this system), then when a car is searched behind that false alert, that person's rights have been violated. That seems to me to be pretty important. 



Jon Harris said:


> Lou, what happens if the car you are searching the inside of a car and it has a towel in it?


I can't think of an instance where a dog will come across a hand towel that's been folded, rolled and then taped up in the fashion that towels are used in this training. But if a dog were to come across one, he might show some interest in it, he might even pick it up. But since the dog is hunting for a specific odor, (instead of for a toy) and that odor is not present, it has no other meaning or attraction to him. If the dog was to pick up the towel, the handler should ignore it and wait for the dog to drop it and go back to work. That happens within a few seconds. The dog doesn't shred the towel because it's not prey. If a dog were to come across a folded or rolled up towel, for example, someone going to the beach, or coming home from Bed, Bath and Beyond, he'd ignore it. 

I think it's an excellent question and one that you (and David too) should respond to. What happens when your dog(s) comes across one of your toys, a ball, a Kong or a tug toy in a car? I think there's FAR MORE chance of that happening than a dog finding a rolled up hand towel in a car. I bet that he'd do far more than just "show interest" in it. Since in your system these toys are handler supplied as a reward, and the dog thinks that he's searching for his toy, the dog would think that he'd hit the jackpot and had found what he'd been searching for. BANG – the search is over and it's time for some play! Now you have to get the toy away from the dog and redirect him back to the search. I'd bet that now he's using his eyes more than his nose and it would take him some time (depending on the dog) to get back to using his nose exclusively. Can you tell us Jon (and again, David too) how do you get your balls, Kongs, tugs, etc. away from your dogs? I know that I asked this before, but no one has answered it.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> Seems to me and reading Mr Yarnall's site, the shredding is for food for eating in the wild dogs


Shredding which is part of killing, is the end phase of the prey drive hunt. The prey drive is satisfied when the prey is killed. Eating is not part of that. I suggest that you open both videos and position them so that they're alongside each other. Start them at the same time and then watch them. Perhaps then you'll see that the behaviors are identical? 



Jon Harris said:


> I just cant make the connection. Maybe Im bias? Maybe I dont have the knowledge to understand?


I'm sure that you're biased. You're no different than the rest of us. After all you've been using your system, with not a little bit of success, for quite some time. There's a tendency not to fix something if the perception is that it's not broken. However I've noticed that you've avoided my comments about false alerts several times now. I know for a fact that false alerting is an issue that plagues this training all over the world and so I doubt it's any different for you or for David. 

Perhaps it's just me, but the promise that this system does not have false alerts ALONE would be worth it to me to investigate it with an open mind, rather than say repeatedly that I didn't see any advantage for LE. It seems to me that NOT having false alerts would be a MAJOR advantage to an LE officer or anyone else for that matter. 



Jon Harris said:


> Ive also read some of your posts on other sites. I see the treatment my posts are getting are nothing special.


Yep I've been replying to people paragraph by paragraph (sometimes sentence by sentence) for years. To me it's the best way to learn and to make sure that what they say gets my full attention and comment. In areas where I disagree with the author it's a way to ensure that I respond to every point that they raise. I've asked you many questions and you've either not caught them or have chosen not to respond. 



Jon Harris said:


> Man this is getting fun.


I agree. I’m doing a talk on this in a few months at a seminar and this is helping me prepare that presentation.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> I said that you "decried the shedding." That's about the discussion, not about me. .


Suits me.

DFrost


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Laney Rein said:


> You know, just seems to me that everytime there is a discussion about detection that seems to be going along in a very interesting manner, that a certain member decides to jump in and *either derail the thread or try to shove his "self perceived knowledge" into the foray. * [Emphasis Added]


Laney this thread is about Narcotic Detection Training. That's what I've been discussing since I've been here. That's hardly _"derailing the thread."_ As far as _"try[ing] to shove [my] 'self perceived knowledge' [not even sure what that means] into the fray"_ that's what forums are for. 



Laney Rein said:


> He especially goes after one member trying to act like he knows more


_
mod delete_

I go after him??????? ROFLMFAO. As far as this topic it's a simple fact that I do know more than he does. I've been working with such dogs for decades while I doubt that he's trained even one. 



Laney Rein said:


> and runs on and on and on and.......in multiple quotes.


Yep. When someone writes and I'm interested and have the time, I respond. I do use multiple quotes. So what! 



Laney Rein said:


> I am training a detection dog


To detect what? What kind of dog? 



Laney Rein said:


> and depend on a lot of the info obtained here.


Some info here is good and some is not so good. It's often difficult for a beginner to tell the difference. 



Laney Rein said:


> It is not appreciated when * I have to wade thru all the contridictions and rehashings * of what everyone else said.


Laney you don't _"have to wade through"_ anything. This forum features an ignore feature. Feel free to use it, my feelings won't be hurt. Then you won't have to read anything I write. Or you could just develop some will power and pass right by my posts. 



Laney Rein said:


> I got so tired by page 6 I had to respond to Mr. Castle and tell him Who cares about shredding but wild dogs?


Anyone who's doing detection work should consider that they don't know everything there is to know. New methods come along FOR EVERYTHING and some make use of them. Others are left in the dust. 



Laney Rein said:


> Tired of York tirades and book writing on threads.


Then don't read them. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? 

Thanks for ANTHER gratuitous personal attack. Not a word about the topic, just another post about how much you don't like me, my style of posting or anything I have to say. Gonna go cry myself to sleep now. Sniff sniff. lol



Laney Rein said:


> Oh and thanks Job for a very interesting thread.


Yeah thanks Jon. I appreciate the ability to get this info out. 



Laney Rein said:


> Sorry it went down the wrong road.


Thanks for sharing your opinion. Mine is quite different. 



Laney Rein said:


> Probably why we don't get a lot of good discussions as they wind up the same way.


I think that this is AN EXCELLENT discussion!


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> end result is everyone will have their points. To me at least Im open to them until I get the feeling Im being preached at or *being forced to accept a point of view *At that point the heels dig in [Emphasis Added]


Patently absurd Jon. You're thousands of miles away and you're a big boy now. It's impossible for me to _"force"_ anything on you. 



Jon Harris said:


> As for training a detection dog i am no expert.
> 
> Maybe an experienced amateur would be a better description.


The guy who developed this system *IS * an expert. 



Jon Harris said:


> I watched a couple of Yarnall's videos with aggressive alerts on drug dogs and watched the dog paw and scratch the shit out of the cars. Not good in my mind.


Do you not realize that what is shown in the videos is training, not real searches? How many times do I have to tell you what is done to prevent damage to people's personal property? 



Jon Harris said:


> I watched the dog shred a towel under a car for a long while Also not good in my opinion.


What's _"a long while"_ and why is this _"not good in [your] opinion?"_ 



Jon Harris said:


> I work boxes In fact I have 75 boxes I have several that I use for the drugs These are always the same. I place them in a field of other boxes. The others are blank or have distractions in them.


I think that boxes are great for doing the very early work. After that they're a bad idea. 



Jon Harris said:


> Food, leather, tape, a kong, balls, I also have a set that have the target odors along with *distractions like gasoline and diesel. * Many of the finds in my area were in fuel tanks so I trained specifically for that type of find. [Emphasis Added]


Jon _"gasoline and diesel"_ are not _"distractions."_ They're masking odors. A distraction would be something like food, a cat, or a Kong; something that would draw the dog's attention. Dogs are not interested in _"gasoline and diesel"_. Those substances are used by people who are trying to "mask" the scent of the substances they're concealing. 



Jon Harris said:


> I built and use a Herzik wall. Not all the time but is was something new and it does help in focus.


The man's name is Herstik. His first name is Mike for anyone wanting to do some research on Mike's walls. 



Jon Harris said:


> I believe I can combine the wall with the on target system on rewarding and get good results Ill see when I return to the states.


Jon aren't you a reserve police officer with your department? Do reserves handle dogs there? 


Jon Harris said:


> I run alot of blanks * That has helped me more than anything recognize when I am pushing the dog to maybe false or cuing him. * [Emphasis Added]


So Jon in spite of avoiding my many questions we now hear that false alerts and cuing your dog ARE issues with your system! Once your dog has learned that he can false alert it's just about impossible to completely stop it. AGAIN it does not happen with the system that I'm talking about. Neither is cuing possible. I know that in Afghanistan this is not very important, (wondering how often your EOD gets called out for false alerts though, I bet they don't appreciate it) but when you get back to the states there's going to be that darned 4th amendment to deal with. What a nuisance. Lol. 



Jon Harris said:


> I train on real drugs when i can and Psuedo also. I have experienced no issues yet with it.


What is that you say about using pseudo David, that it's like going to the range and shooting blanks? lol



Jon Harris said:


> My vehicle searches are long 40-60 vehicles. Im trying to build stamina and recognize when the dog has had enough.


Here's another advantage to this system Jon. The dog will tell you, very obviously, when he's had enough. 



Jon Harris said:


> I do both known and blind training Meaning many times I know where the hides are. Some may have a different opinion about that but if I know where the hide is * I can better correct false alerts * and direct the dog to productive areas so as to train for success. [Emphasis Added]


Again, we can see that you're fighting the issue of false alerts. It's probably not an issue with narcotics in Afghanistan, but back here, _"the right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures * shall not be violated"*_ Ever heard that before Jon? 



Jon Harris said:


> I dont cheat. Even if i know where the hide is the dog has to find it. I wont find it for him.


Jon you just discussed an issue of cuing our dog. It's impossible with this system but obviously already a problem for you. Yet you cling to your system, as you've told us _"dig[ging] in your heels"_!? Hard for me to understand why anyone would do that. But maybe that's just me? 



Jon Harris said:


> I use the inverted v pattern most of the time


Of course you do Jon. You're a military dog handler. (At least I think you are). Everything is done by protocol. Can you tell me Jon, are you a handler or a trainer for the military? Are you full time or a Reserve? Are you in the Guard? What branch of the service. Maybe things have changed but it used to be that it was a one dog – one handler system. Have things changed? 



Jon Harris said:


> If he finds he gets rewarded for drugs on the scene
> If im working my dog bog and we get a find we will of course vacate the area BUT i have a drop aid I can place somewhere and he can find that and get rewarded just like in training.


I think you're talking about _"working [your] dog [on] *bombs"*_* here. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Are you saying that you keep a bomb "drop [training] aid in your pocket? If so, what happens if your dog gets "a whiff" of it. And what about the contamination problem? 



Jon Harris said:



One thing you will probably notice I know I do is when working a blank. the dog can get frustrated because he cant find anything. This lets you see exactly what he looks like when that happens and what he look like IF he is thinking about falsifying the find

Click to expand...

  Thanks for making my point Jon.  Your system requires that the handler supply a reward to motivate the dog. It requires that the reward comes on a fairly regular basis. If the dog is not rewarded he become frustrated. Frustration leads to false alerts.  THERE  is the problem. If you have searched half the cars in your line of "60" and have not made a find. Your dog is starting to get frustrated, or he may be well into it. He's on the verge of false alerting. What's worse is that a dog that false alerts will also miss target odors. 




Jon Harris said:



AND I STILL DONT LET THE DOG SHRED DAMMIT!!

Click to expand...

More's the pity. 



Jon Harris said:



btw our friend is banned in a few other forums fr the same stuff

Click to expand...

You're quite wrong Jon. I am banned from several forums but it has nothing to do with what's going on here. Most of the time it's because I dared to disagree with the forum owner and some of them are such egomaniacs that they can't tolerate that. Once it was because I had been handing out information on the Ecollar for several years and the forum owner was about to release his DVD on the topic. He couldn't have someone giving out for free, what he was trying to sell, so he banned me. Most of the time it's because I go places where the Ecollar is not used much, particularly forums that come out of the UK. Since I know a bit about that tool, I start right in dispelling the myths, misconceptions and sometime outright lies that are told about them. Many of those people can't stand to hear discussions that are opposed to what they believe, so I get banned. Once I had the outright gall to call a list owner on his consistent use of profanity. If anyone else dared to curse, they were removed at once, but it was perfectly OK for him to use some of the nastiest cursing that exists. I didn't agree and told him so. Next thing you know, I was banned. I consider being banned from toilets like that a badge of honor! NEVER have I been banned due to my style of quoting posts or because I’m argumentative. In any case, I'm still here. ROFL.*


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> Jon says: "I watched a couple of Yarnall's videos with aggressive alerts on drug dogs and watched the dog paw and scratch the shit out of the cars. Not good in my mind."
> 
> I agree with most of what you said. I do have to say, I like aggressive response, single purpose drug dogs. I have trained a lot of them. I don't think they are any more or less proficient. I don't think they are any better or worse indicating on source. I don't think they have more or less false responses. I don't think they are any easier or more difficult to train. I just like the way they work. I've said on more than one occasion I train them that way because I'm in charge and I make that decision. (now that's ego) I work for an agency that the majority of the work a drug dog does is vehicle searches. Over the past 10 years we've done 50 to 60 thousand vehicle sniffs, we've paid 4 claims that I'm aware of. Sometimes, it's just a cost of doing business. The handler doesn't have to allow the dog to scratch it to bare metal. Sometimes it's just fun.


I knew that you'd get this David. Thanks for jumping in.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> I do admit it would not be a bad thing to watch the paint come off the dealers car but then again it might lower the value WHEN WE SELL IT!:twisted:


I've never been one to engage in the punishment phase of the process. That's for the court system. I've never thought that it would _"not be a bad thing"_ to destroy someone else's properly even if he was a dope dealer. It's not hard for the handler of an aggressive alert dog to keep him from damaging personal property. As in some other areas of K−9 work, it's a mistake to think that what happens in training is what happens in the field. In any case, I'll refer you back to post # 71 where I wrote, _"I know of a state agency that had hundreds of finds, everything from a gram to hundreds of pounds. Along the way there was a seizure of $1.6million in cash. All of these dogs were aggressive alert dogs and not one complaint was ever lodged."_ They too sold the cars they seized.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Howard Knauf said:


> I have my own ideas when it comes to training scent detection dogs but that doesn't preclude me from wanting to learn about other styles and theories.


Some people don't want their theories questioned. I welcome it. It makes me a better trainer and makes it so that I can better explain to my students what's going on. I think that some people feel threatened when their theories are put under the microscope. 



Howard Knauf said:


> Gaining the additional information helps when discussing those theories with other people. In the end it's all about wanting to be better at what I do.


I'm here to learn myself and to help others. Some people have a "know it all attitude" and resent it when information that differs from theirs is put forth. 



Howard Knauf said:


> Although Lou's style of response can get tiresome


Howard if you (or anyone) can suggest another way that allows me to respond to all of what people say, without it being _"tiresome"_ please share it. If I agree, I'll adopt it. I don't think that replying to someone's questions or comments with a block of text does that well. 



Howard Knauf said:


> I enjoy having specific areas of training discussed in a clear, concise and to the point manner without all the personal feelings and name calling. If disecting a statement rote with BS to clear things up so as not to spread clear disinformation is his style, well more people benefit from that than they realize. Some people need things spelled out for them in easy to understand statements....myself included sometimes.


Thanks for jumping in Howard. I’m just presenting information. I'm certainly not forcing anything on anyone. I've never understood why people who don't like my style or what I have to say, keep reading my posts and then complain about them.


----------



## Laney Rein (Feb 9, 2011)

Lou stop please stop debating dead horses. We all know you have it out for df and are always trying to show your perceived superiority. Many of us, if you bothered to read, are so so so tired of you kidknapping a thread and writing articles and books just " trying to prove yor point"

it is so old, no one in the military or police gives a darn about shredding and don't have the time to sit around and wait while the dog tears up a towel for each find. 

Please keep your answers short and concise and quit requoting and evaluating every word that everyone says you disagree with, which is everyone. Shut up.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

The thread needs to continue in the direction of detector dogs. As always, let's leave the personal stuff out of the discussion. I did the deleting and editing. Rather than close a thread that many are enjoying. If someone is having a problem with the thread, either report the abuse, or stay out of the thread. 

DFrost


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

David Frost said:


> The thread needs to continue in the direction of detector dogs. As always, let's leave the personal stuff out of the discussion. I did the deleting and editing. Rather than close a thread that many are enjoying. If someone is having a problem with the thread, either report the abuse, or stay out of the thread.
> 
> DFrost


David 

Do you really think this thread is going in any direction with the last 20 or so posts? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I"m going to go to the Yarnall site and get all the shredding info first hand


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

WTF David

You let all the Castle mega posts stay. And delete my posts
mentioning his personal attack about Laney _mod delete_


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Thomas Barriano said:


> David
> 
> Do you really think this thread is going in any direction with the last 20 or so posts? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> I"m going to go to the Yarnall site and get all the shredding info first hand



Whether you like it or not, the posts, for most part, have been on the discussion and on topic. You may not like the way they are posted, or the content, but none-the-less they were on topic. If you can't handle that, then I would suggest you refrain from commenting on this thread. 

DFrost


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

David Frost said:


> Whether you like it or not, the post, for most part, have been on the discussion and on topic. You may not like the way they are posted, or the content, but none-the-less they were on topic. If you can't handle that, then I would suggest you refrain from commenting on this thread.
> 
> DFrost


AMEN, I "detect" a good moderator..


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

I happen to be a member on Don Yarnall's site. It has a crap load of good information in it and not just on detection. Don saw fit to only allow police and military to be a part of his site. Lou has already given the cliff notes on Don's experience training dogs so I'll refrain but, Lou is hawking Don's training in this thread and I personally believe he's been a good embassador for the method that's been discussed here. He's giving info to people that Don won't divulge to the general public...right or wrong, it's his site. A lot of people don't like Lou's delivery and that's fine but, look past the person who's bringing the information and actually look at the information disseminated. It's clearly defined with a number of reasons which support this theory.

If you're police or military (especially police) just look at the state of Florida and what hoops handlers now have to jump through just because of one newbie handler, poor records, and finally...the claim by the defendant that PSDs are cued to alert as well as false alerts. To develop a training style that eliminates false alerts can only be a good thing. Just sayin.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Howard Knauf said:


> I happen to be a member on Don Yarnall's site. It has a crap load of good information in it and not just on detection. Don saw fit to only allow police and military to be a part of his site. Lou has already given the cliff notes on Don's experience training dogs so I'll refrain but, Lou is hawking Don's training in this thread and I personally believe he's been a good embassador for the method that's been discussed here. He's giving info to people that Don won't divulge to the general public...right or wrong, it's his site. A lot of people don't like Lou's delivery and that's fine but, look past the person who's bringing the information and actually look at the information disseminated. It's clearly defined with a number of reasons which support this theory.
> 
> If you're police or military (especially police) just look at the state of Florida and what hoops handlers now have to jump through just because of one newbie handler, poor records, and finally...the claim by the defendant that PSDs are cued to alert as well as false alerts. To develop a training style that eliminates false alerts can only be a good thing. Just sayin.



I am genuinely interested in how producing a towel to shred as a reward for a find, can eliminate the possibility of false alerts. Can someone tell me why this is?


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> I am genuinely interested in how producing a towel to shred as a reward for a find, can eliminate the possibility of false alerts. Can someone tell me why this is?


The term "false response" in my mind, denotes training. It all boils down as to how you define the term in and of itself. I've been around long enough, and have seen enough dogs work, in actual situations to know two things;

1. In training, a dog can be trained to the point it gives no false responses. I don't know anything about the shredding and all that, but the no false responses is not that hard a deal when (I would bold the when, but I'm computer illiterate) training is conducted properly. 

2. A working dog, in actual situations, will have those occasions where nothing is found subsequent a response. Call it what you will, but it will happen.

DFrost


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

David Frost said:


> The term "false response" in my mind, denotes training. It all boils down as to how you define the term in and of itself. I've been around long enough, and have seen enough dogs work, in actual situations to know two things;
> 
> 1. In training, a dog can be trained to the point it gives no false responses. I don't know anything about the shredding and all that, but the no false responses is not that hard a deal when (I would bold the when, but I'm computer illiterate) training is conducted properly.
> 
> ...


That is also pretty much how I see it at present. But I would like to hear about this system from people who have used it, and why the possibility of false alert would be different.

My understanding is that the towel is presented after the final response. I want to understand why there is a claim that presenting a towel, vs a kong lets say, would change the possibility of a false alert. 

I am also interested in hearing how what a dog wants to do with a reward (some like to possess it, some like to tug with handler, some like to retrieve it, some like to shred it) changes the rate of false alerts.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> That is also pretty much how I see it at present. But I would like to hear about this system from people who have used it, and why the possibility of false alert would be different.
> 
> My understanding is that the towel is presented after the final response. I want to understand why there is a claim that presenting a towel, vs a kong lets say, would change the possibility of a false alert.
> 
> I am also interested in hearing how what a dog wants to do with a reward (some like to possess it, some like to tug with handler, some like to retrieve it, some like to shred it) changes the rate of false alerts.


from what I gather...the true shredder is in PREY drive...he is NOT playing, he is not in PLAY drive, he will NOT false alert to get the handler to play with him, trick him into giving the dog his toy...he will ALERT because he knows he will be able to shred his prey when it appears..

I am no expert, but that is what I got from it...


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

That's the gist of it.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Joby Becker said:


> from what I gather...the true shredder is in PREY drive...he is NOT playing, he is not in PLAY drive, he will NOT false alert to get the handler to play with him, trick him into giving the dog his toy...he will ALERT because he knows he will be able to shred his prey when it appears..
> 
> I am no expert, but that is what I got from it...


I guess I just don't get how a dog could not learn to false alert to shred (prey), just the same as a dog could false alert to (play). 

I could see this if the dog accessed its own rewards, ie shredding rewards are out there and the handler has nothing to do with it. We have already established that that is dangerous for detection.

It seems to me that the potential for a dog to false alert does not come from the fact that it wants to PLAY with the handler with the reward per say. It seems to me that the potential for the dog to false alert comes from the fact that the handler controls the access to the reward. 

So therefor, in my blond head, I can't see why a dog thats reward is to shred a towel, and it REALLY REALLY wants to shred a towel (call it whatever drive you want), could not learn to manipulate the handler into producing the reward...if the training was bad I mean.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> I guess I just don't get how a dog could not learn to false alert to shred (prey), just the same as a dog could false alert to (play).
> 
> I could see this if the dog accessed its own rewards, ie shredding rewards are out there and the handler has nothing to do with it. We have already established that that is dangerous for detection.
> 
> ...


Jennifer, you have to watch the wild dogs shredding on the video, and then you can see the difference. .the difference is that if the dog is not trying to shred his reward, and he is just playing with it...then he most likely is NOT working in the correct drive to begin with (according to Lou, and possibly others), he is working as a game...not serious prey drive...that is what I gleaned through it all...that is just not possible for the dog to be working in the correct drive, if he does not want to shred his reward IN true unabated prey...he could just want to shred it as a game...and therefore working in the WRONG drive..who cares if he has 100's or 1000's of finds or not, it is still wrong..


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

Well Good morning . Its early am here and I see the thread took off again

You see, I am of the same mind as Jennifer, After the final response the handler supplies the towel. 
Not to mix words that the reward is not handler supplied . It effectively is The dog does not supply it. The source does not supply it. 
Yes i know the dog by showing final response triggers the handler to supply the towel.
Yes I know the source order triggers the final response ( at least is suppose to) that in turn triggers the handler who SUPPLIES the towel.

It really seems very close to the same to me as normal training outside of Yarnall's system. The main difference I see here is the actual reward and what you let the dog do with it.

To answer a couple questions. and comments made about me.
I am not a military handler I am a civilian contractor
I work on a contract for the military.
I am a reserve officer with my department due to them putting me on a leave of absence and unpaid by the department while im in Afghanistan. When I return I go back to my full time slot. I have an advanced certification as a Texas Peace Officer. Been in law enforcement almost 35 years
Yes ive heard of the fourth ammendment . In fact I taught constitutional law as well as the entire criminal justice curriculum in College while stationed in Germany.
Yes I read the entire Yarnall site, not just watched a couple of videos. yes I find it interesting and full of information. Yes im a member also
No my dog does not have a falsifying issue but I do train to recognize it should it happen.

Yes i work two types if dogs Explosive detection and Narcotics. 
I am a handler and trainer


What I see in the Yarnall system that Lou quotes is this

After reading all the material After watching all the videos, After trying to see a big difference is it I come to this conclusion.

I see little difference in the system from other training except the following points. Now mind you Im not closed to new things at all but Ive evaluated this at least in my mind and have come to my own conclusion.

The system still has a handler supplying the reward Regardless if you want to say the dog triggered it the handler still controls the reward physically and still facilitates the dog receiving the reward

The reward is a towel not something else. 
The dog is allowed to shred the towel and continue until it is finished or bored with the shredding
These actions are pure prey drive according to Mr Yarnall.
All these actions are Prey drive, and that will absolutely preclude false alerts according to Yarnall.
The handler does not supply the reward according to Yarnall.
It is his system and as far as he is concerned it seems to be to only viable system according to Yarnall. 

A couple answers I missed
How do I get the reward back from my dogs/ I give them a command to release it, that simple
I mentioned a drop aid for the bomb dog. No I do not carry it around in my pocket. The drop aid is secured as per regulation. When i want to use it I arrange to have it placed so the dog can search and find it.

Did I mention false alert? Yep I did and I train to recognize if it happens and I train to attempt to preclude it for happening but it will in all systems. The false alert my not really be false. It may be an alert on residual odor and you will never really know.

Masking distracting odors are there and used for the same purpose. To train to dog to alert on the target odor and nothing else. The words used don't change the reason.

Thats about it


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

According to this system and everything it is based off of the dog is in extreme prey drive. That is the center point of the system and Mr Yarnall explains this is prey drive activity. He supports that conclusion by comparing the shredding of a towel to the shredding behavior of wild dogs shredding a carcase and eating in a survival situation mainly in a pack.
That is the crux of this system and everything is stacked on that assumption.


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

I think I am at the point of the sig line

Not from the forum at all but this shredding topic

I think it is time to piss on it and walk away for me at least

Anyone have any thoughts on just how long training exercises should be?
Say in a building

cars

how large of an open area can you reasonably search?

Yes dog and handler stamina clearly come into play but how much or how big should you shoot for and how do you get there?



Oh and thanks to Lou I'm no longer a junior member .


----------



## Laney Rein (Feb 9, 2011)

Guess I'm just a little peeved that a 100 yr old man who has nothing to do with anything and knows me naught can post public assumptions that I take various drugs to be cohesive on thought. I believe that is called FRAUD and libel and I resent that even in fun he feels it's funny to say about someone he does not know. So the old man owes me an apology as I do not use any of the types of mess he was insinuating. May due to his senility makes him ramble
.

Or maybe he has altzeimers. But I'm not impressed nor happy with the drug title
therefore he needs to publicly retract the statement and terms
I'M not the one with websites written about my idiocycracies. 

But again, he always thinks he's right and won't accept that the high and mighty Loud would be harrassing and walking a legal tight line with name calling


.


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

I must have missed something Ill have to go back and read it


----------



## Laney Rein (Feb 9, 2011)

Well jon according to Lou, I'm a drug who're. And that came from me asking him to go to short concise answers instead of repetitive quotes. What a "sweet guy". Guess he'll be on ignore. Joby says you think Lou is the hottest thing going.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> Anyone have any thoughts on just how long training exercises should be?
> Say in a building
> 
> cars
> ...


I'll answer your question with a question. Why wouldn't your training exercises be as long as an expected deployment? 

If you routinely would be expected to sweep 200 vehicles, that would be a starting point. If you are routinely expected to clear x number of acres squared, that would be a good start. What I'm saying is; train past your expected deployment. Every dog has that point that where proficiency begins to decline. The only way to find that point is to test it during training. 

What I'm saying is; your training record has the answer to those questions, you just have to do the training to fill in the blanks.

caveat added; 99% of that training should be blind.

DFrost


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

David
I agree completely with what it should be You should be able to search as long as it take But there is a point of diminishing rewards meaning efficiency declines

Im just posing the question as to where most find that happening?


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

No Joby I dont think Lou is hot

Maybe a hot head but I dont know him personally, nor do I think that is libel to happen I think he is just more trouble than he is worth.

I dont mind at all a disagreement as to theory but there is no reason to try to be so verbose as to try to tutor and make oneself look superior


----------



## Erik Berg (Apr 11, 2006)

I suppose a wild dog shredd the prey to be able to eat, but does a dog really think a towel is a real prey in the same manner, why is then the shreeding a more real preybehaviour and more motivating than catching a thrown ball or similar? I guess we can´t know in what degree a dog is playing or in "real" preydrive when given a reward, does the reward matter as long as you have selected a dog that can work for long time even if he get´s a reward or not, isn´t that quality the most important thing and not what type of reward you use, considering the dog appreciate the reward regardless if he is in "play" or "pray" drive.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> David
> I agree completely with what it should be You should be able to search as long as it take But there is a point of diminishing rewards meaning efficiency declines
> 
> Im just posing the question as to where most find that happening?


Jon, I understand the question. Maybe my answer wasn't clear enough. I did say there was a point where proficiency declines, the way to find that is; "your training record has the answer to those questions, you just have to do the training to fill in the blanks."

A good training record is a road map. You know where you need to go, the training record tells you where you are and how to get there. 

DFrost


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

David Thanks , yes i did understand the answer and I agree I was just trying to do two things. 

1 get an idea of where people saw their limit as to the length of their searches and more importantly
2 move the thread away from the shredding debate to another area


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> I must have missed something Ill have to go back and read it


Too late Jon, the post has been removed as has my post complaining about it. It's kind of funny that Screech cries 
"personal Attack" every time you question his information or tactics but thinks it's OK to suggest Laney *comment deleted by mod ... again*
Me thinks there is a little bit of favoritism in the Moderation of
this list?


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

I understand, the "shredding" is an opinion, the same as the opinions we discuss. Sometimes it's not the subject of a discussion that causes all the problems.

DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Too late Jon, the post has been removed as has my post complaining about it. It's kind of funny that Screech cries
> "personal Attack" every time you question his information or tactics but thinks it's OK to suggest Laney *deleted by mods*
> Me thinks there is a little bit of favoritism in the Moderation of
> this list?


Thomas, I don't hang on every word Lou says. I missed that post. No one reported it. I deleted a lot of posts that were nonsense and off topic. I should have this one but didn't. You should be the last to question someone on "personal attacks". You'll little attraction to Lou is really comical. It's too bad you can't see it. 

You are always free to discuss your concerns with the owner of the board. He has the power remove me as a moderator. 

DFrost


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Too late Jon, the post has been removed as has my post complaining about it. It's kind of funny that Screech cries
> "personal Attack" every time you question his information or tactics but thinks it's OK to suggest _*comment deleted by mod*_
> Me thinks there is a little bit of favoritism in the Moderation of
> this list?


The remark you repeat over and over in complaint was removed long ago, Thomas. Please stop repeating it.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Jon Harris said:


> 1 get an idea of where people saw their limit as to the length of their searches


There are so many variables there. The dog's drive, the dog's age and level of training, environmental conditions, size of search area and so on and so on.

It has been mentioned here before, but I think it is important to remember that if you do a 45 min search with 3 finds, that is different than a 45 min search with only one find at the end.

I lot of what I do at work is site clearing, so the reality of doing longer searches with no finds inevitable. Of course that doesn't mean that I train like that all the time. Like a marathon runner, you don't run a marathon every day...shit would fall apart. Diminishing returns I as you said.

I try to build up to what I am going to be asked to do, but make sure that I am always varying my training with that in mind. I want the dog to always think the next find is just around the corner if he/she just works a little harder/longer. The formula on how I would accomplish that depends a lot on the dog and the level of training. 

I try to remember that even with a seasoned dog, it is never wrong to step back to fun easy stuff...a marathon every day would get boring.

I will work knowns (or somewhat knowns) to accomplish pushing times as well. For example I will search an area I know is blank and really try to push the length the dog is working and see how they are working when getting frustrated and tired. When they are really pushed, but before they are giving up, I can continue the search into an area with a known find ( I need not know exactly where it is, don't want to lead the dog). In this way the dog can finish on a high note when it was stressed, but before it gave up. This can help the dog to learn to push through for longer times.

For a more seasoned dog that I know search times are not an big issue, I would set up my longer searches more like real life for me. I would have to work a large area with an unknown amount of burials, and work it until I could make a decision as to if the site was clear. This part is as much for me as for the dog. 

Searches in real life could last 5 minutes to days at a time. Of course in longer day type searches, the desperate nature of our profile will have passed. I would be rotating my dog with other dogs and allowing the dog rests and breaks. 

Of course this is not narcotics detection work, so maybe you don't care about any of this...but I answered anyways :mrgreen:


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

no i appreciate the answer.

The description of how you push the dog to almost the end a and then go to a place where they can have a success finding is a great explanation of how to build stamina and extended search time into the dog.

Not narcotics or explosives but still a search.

I have outposts where we only have 2 explosive dogs that are tasked with searching 75 to 100 eighteen wheelers as well as all sorts of vehicles and tanker trucks. It is very hard on the dogs.
Just looking for suggestions to extend the search window reasonably. Your method is very close to what we do.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Jennifer says: "It has been mentioned here before, but I think it is important to remember that if you do a 45 min search with 3 finds, that is different than a 45 min search with only one find at the end."

I'd hug you if you were closer and let me etc etc. Well said. If you do a 45 minute search with three finds, you've documented your dog will work for 45 minutes with 3 finds. If you want to find out if the dog will work for 45 minutes - - - well you already understand that. Very good.

I know I've said this before and I really do "preach it" to my handlers; You will never know how good your dog is until you find out what it can NOT do. 

DFrost


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

Damn,
another point I agree with David on

And i see my point number 2 is working


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Laney Rein said:


> Lou stop please stop debating dead horses.


I didn't realize that you had been put in charge of when a discussion should end Laney, and I don't think the horse is dead. I've been saying for quite some time that the system that Jon favors carries with it the vital issue of false alerts. Finally Jon confirmed this. I think it's important to explore that issue. As always, feel free to ignore my posts. 



Laney Rein said:


> We all know you have it out for df


I do? I did not know that. I count David as a friend and we've had many phone calls about issues that have come up on the forum and other things besides. 



Laney Rein said:


> and are always trying to show your perceived superiority.


Again, news to me. David and I disagree on several points about working LE K−9's. But I don't have it in for him and I'm pretty sure he realizes it. 



Laney Rein said:


> Many of us, if you bothered to read, are so so so tired of you kidknapping a thread and writing articles and books just " trying to prove yor point"


Yes, and? I suggest that you pass by my posts if you're _"so so so tired"_ of them. 



Laney Rein said:


> it is so old,


Actually this system is only a few years old, at most. The handler based reward system is what is _"so old."_ 



Laney Rein said:


> no one in the military or police gives a darn about shredding and don't have the time to sit around and wait while the dog tears up a towel for each find.


Well, I'll have to say that you're wrong Laney. Those who have used this system realize that the few moments spent allowing the dog to shred, bring so many advantages, not the least of which is the absence of false alerts, that it's well worth their time. When this work is done on the street the handler eases his dog away from the scene and lets him shred the towel. There's no rush at this moment. When the dog has finished the shredding and his drive has been satisfied, the handler puts him up and goes back to the car to do, or to assist in, the search. 



Laney Rein said:


> Please keep your answers short and concise


Would that I could! Lol You're relatively new at this stuff and so you have little expertise and so, little to say. I teach this stuff and so I have a bit more to say. There are several list members who are interested in the details of this work and so, I'm writing for them. If you ever come across a situation where the student has more to say than the instructor, I'd say that there's a problem 



Laney Rein said:


> and quit requoting and evaluating every word that everyone says you disagree with, which is everyone. *Shut up. * [Emphasis Added]


ROFL. When you get to be my boss, the list owner or a moderator, THEN you get to tell me to _"shut up."_ Until then, you just show how ineffective you are when you try to give me orders. 

THIS sort of nonsense is what derails threads. ACTUALLY this time (a first for you, just about) there is something having to do with the discussion. You're wrong but at least it's on topic. The rest of your drivel is AGAIN about me.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> I am genuinely interested in how producing a towel to shred as a reward for a find, can eliminate the possibility of false alerts. Can someone tell me why this is?


Here's the problem Jennifer. The way you state it, _"producing a towel to shred as a reward for a find ..."_ it won't stop the false alerting. I've said several times this is not a handler−supplied reward system. It's not a reward system at all. It's a "find the rat's nest" system where the scent being searched for is that of the rat. When the dog alerts, and it's easier seen in the aggressive alert, but it really doesn't make any difference, the towel is substituted for the rat. The dog, who has been on a prey drive hunt, finding and then flushing, now gets to catch and kill (by shredding) the prey. 

There's no false alerting because the dog knows that if there's no scent present, there's no prey present. 

False alerting happens (among other reasons) because dogs trained with handler supplied rewards get frustrated if they don't make a find within their comfort time frame. Jon mentions this problem specifically in one of his recent posts. This will differ from dog to dog and from moment to moment. They also happen if a handler's timing is bad and he tosses in the toy too early or too late. 

They don't happen with this system though! Think of a Wild Dog out hunting for something to eat. His drives shape the form of the hunt but they carry the five elements I mentioned earlier, hunt, find, flush, catch and kill. He's been hunting quite some time, is frustrated, tired, hungry and thirsty. He's not going to start digging at a hole because of these issues, he knows that there's no rabbit in that hole and so he knows that there won't be any flushing, catching or killing. He's not going to waste his time and energy. It is the odor of the prey that triggers the flushing behavior. This kind of training is the same thing. 

One of the problems with this system is that it's EXTREMELY difficult for anyone who's been using any kind of reward system, and that's just about all of us, to stop thinking of the towel as a reward. It helps to think of the towel as substituting for the rat and to let the dog flush it so that he can catch and kill it. In this system the dog is allowed to satisfy his drive in a way that is complete and is therefore completely satisfying. 

If you think of this as just changing the toy the dog plays with, you won't understand it. I suggest that you go read the articles on  Donn Yarnall's site BEFORE you look at any of the videos. The articles are written in the order that they appear for a reason. If you're interested in this please don't jump around in the articles, start at the beginning and work through them. You wouldn't start reading a book in the middle and expect to understand what's going on and this site is very much the same thing. If you look at the videos first, you probably won't understand what's going on in them and why it's being done as it is.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> The term "false response" in my mind, denotes training. It all boils down as to how you define the term in and of itself. I've been around long enough, and have seen enough dogs work, in actual situations to know two things;
> 
> 1.	In training, a dog can be trained to the point it gives no false responses. I don't know anything about the shredding and all that, but the no false responses is not that hard a deal when (I would bold the when, but I'm computer illiterate) training is conducted properly.


David I have no doubt that you are capable of this with your experience and skill in training. I'm sure that your timing and knowledge is easily sufficient to train and maintain this so false alerts don't happen. I'm just as sure that lots of other people are not skilled enough to do this. Especially the average, heck, even above average, new dog handler. No matter what kind of training is being done, new people are going to make mistakes. It's easy for a new handler to make a mistake that results in false alerting, and once it's started, it's virtually impossible to stop. 

Again, I'm sure that you have the skill to do this. But as soon as the dog is away from you and out on the road with the handler alone again, the problem will resurface. Make no mistake, a handler using this system can screw it up but it's much harder to do so, because it's not a handler−supplied reward system. In this system the handler is but a chauffeur and a doorman, as with a patrol dog. He shows the dog the area to be searched and puts his nose where there's likely to be scent. 



David Frost said:


> 2. A working dog, in actual situations, will have those occasions where nothing is found subsequent a response. Call it what you will, but it will happen.


The popular term for this these days is "unproductive response." Many well trained dogs will alert to the area where drugs were yesterday because they can detect the faint residual odor that's been left behind. This is not what I'm talking about when I use the term "false alert." By that I mean a dog alerting when there are not drugs present and none were there in the past.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> That is also pretty much how I see it at present. But I would like to hear about this system from people who have used it, and why the possibility of false alert would be different.


Jennifer I suggest that you correspond with Donn directly. His email is [email protected]. I think Donn used be a member here but I know that he's stopped taking part on the forums due to the dissension that comes with it. The system is fairly new and has only been used to train a small group of handlers. Their success rate was very high. I wish I could discuss this more, but at present, I can't. There are things going on behind the scenes. 



Jennifer Coulter said:


> My understanding is that the towel is presented after the final response. I want to understand why there is a claim that presenting a towel, vs a kong lets say, would change the possibility of a false alert.
> 
> I am also interested in hearing how what a dog wants to do with a reward (some like to possess it, some like to tug with handler, some like to retrieve it, some like to shred it) changes the rate of false alerts.


It is not the towel that makes the difference. The towel just makes it possible for the dog achieve drive satisfaction. I suggest reading the articles on Donn's site. I can only give the highlights here. Dogs aren't interested in doing the things you mention, playing _"tug with handler ... retrieve"_ with prey. Yet MORE evidence that this is NOT a reward based system. I keep saying this and you folks keep NOT getting it. If you don't get this single point, you're not going to get this system. It's an easy concept but as I've said one that people who have been training with rewards usually find difficult to grasp. Perhaps if you folks had been started with a drive based system, it would be easier, but few, if any, were.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Joby and Howard, you got it. 



Jennifer Coulter said:


> I guess I just don't get how a dog could not learn to false alert to shred (prey), just the same as a dog could false alert to (play).


It's very difficult for any of us who are used to rewarding our dogs to get behavior to make the switch to this system. But when you realize that any handler supplied reward system is basically teaching a trick, that the dog is rewarded for, it become more apparent. I said earlier that if this is done wrong it can become a handler supplied reward system. But since it's useless to talk about training that's done improperly, there's no point. 



Jennifer Coulter said:


> I could see this if the dog accessed its own rewards, ie shredding rewards are out there and the handler has nothing to do with it. * We have already established that that is dangerous for detection. * [Emphasis Added]


Not sure how this is dangerous for detection unless you're talking about a dog getting into the drugs or disturbing a bomb. I think those topics have been covered. 



Jennifer Coulter said:


> It seems to me that the potential for a dog to false alert does not come from the fact that it wants to PLAY with the handler with the reward per say. It seems to me that the potential for the dog to false alert comes from the fact that the handler controls the access to the reward.


And the dog knows this. He also knows that it's a game. Since he doesn’t have any ethical concerns, if he can cheat to get to play with the handler, he will. If he learns that going up to a car door and sitting gets him the ball and some play, he'll do it when he pleases. The false alerts are caused by a dog making an undesirable association. In this system only the presence of the scent brings about the flushing behavior (the alert) and that's the only thing that brings the chase, catch and kill. It helps that the towel is delivered, especially at the start of training, from underneath, rather than from the top as a ball or tug is usually delivered. This puts it closer to where the dog's paws are digging and the feeling that he uncovered it is more apparent to him. 



Jennifer Coulter said:


> So therefor, in my blond head, I can't see why a dog thats reward is to shred a towel, and it REALLY REALLY wants to shred a towel (call it whatever drive you want), could not learn to manipulate the handler into producing the reward... * if the training was bad I mean. * [Emphasis Added]


I covered this briefly in a previous post. There are dangers inherent in any system of training. If you're using an Ecollar and your timing is very bad, in certain situations you can make a dog aggressive. A leash and correction collar can convince the dog that the handler is "the enemy" and draw a bite. Treats can make a dog fat with all the attendant health problems. A ball can be swallowed and kill the dog. So warnings and safeguards are taught when any system to avoid such issues. With this system the handler can screw it up and get bad results, the same as with any other system. 

But with a handler supplied reward system the problem of false alerts which bring with them the very real issue of the violation of people's rights in the US, is inherent in the system As Jon has said, and most of us know, a dog searching for a long time who gets frustrated or who gets hungry, tired, bored, etc. (and the dog determines when this happens) will false alert just to get his toy and some play from the handler to relieve his issues.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> Jennifer, you have to watch the wild dogs shredding on the video, and then you can see the difference. .the difference is that if the dog is not trying to shred his reward, and he is just playing with it...then he most likely is NOT working in the correct drive to begin with (according to Lou, and possibly others), he is working as a game...not serious prey drive...that is what I gleaned through it all...


Excellent!

There is no such thing as a perfect system Dogs are going to develop bad habits and problems will arise. That is the nature of dog training. Because of that a smart trainer builds fixes for those problems into the system so that the handlers that he trains can go back and fix those problems. Since this system allows the drive to come out naturally in its purest form it's much easier to go back to that pure form if issues arise. Things will happen on the road, that's just reality. But with this system the trainer can come in and lead the dog back to the purest form of prey very quickly and very simply and refocus the dog on what the correct task is. It's not the towel it's what the towel allows you to do. This can be done with other tools but the towel simplifies everything because it goes back to the purity of the drive. 



Joby Becker said:


> that is just not possible for the dog to be working in the correct drive, if he does not want to shred his reward IN true unabated prey...he could just want to shred it as a game...and therefore working in the WRONG drive..who cares if he has 100's or 1000's of finds or not, it is still wrong..


It's just a touch more complicated than this. Many dogs, even those that are very high in prey drive will not shred as a result of never having been supplied with a toy that can be shredded. But usually when a trainer realizes that THIS dog WILL shred he modifies the reward system such that another toy is used that the dog can't shred or he engineers his training so that the dog does not have the toy long enough to shred it. They're not giving those Kongs away at the pet supply house; you gotta pay good money for them and you expect them to last for longer than one training session. But some dogs WILL shred a towel if they're left with it. This is not just a matter of handing the dog a towel, walking away and waiting for him to start shredding. More than likely his desire for shredding, if he has it, has been inhibited by the owner who may have yelled at the dog for chewing on various articles or otherwise expressed dissatisfaction with it. One has to allow the behavior to come out. Often it's a matter of getting out of the way and letting the natural behavior, if the dog has it, come out. You should be able to tell fairly quickly if it's in there or not. Someone who's good at this can determine if the dog will shred in a matter of moments, someone who's not and who has inhibited the behavior may take a few days.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> It really seems very close to the same to me as normal training outside of Yarnall's system. The main difference I see here is the actual reward and what you let the dog do with it.


To someone who does not understand what' going on, shredding may look very nearly the same as a dog playing with a toy. But if you can read dogs well you'll see the difference between a dog playing with a toy and one who's shredding out of prey drive. 



Jon Harris said:


> To answer a couple questions. and comments made about me.
> I am not a military handler I am a civilian contractor
> I work on a contract for the military.
> I am a reserve officer with my department due to them putting me on a leave of absence and unpaid by the department while im in Afghanistan.


Thanks for clearing those matter up Jon. Most departments that I know of don't put someone on "Reserve Status" if they get called up or ask for a leave of absence. Rather they put them on unpaid leave. But their status as a police officer does not change. Looks like your department does it differently. 



Jon Harris said:


> Yes ive heard of the fourth ammendment . In fact I taught constitutional law as well as the entire criminal justice curriculum in College while stationed in Germany.


Then you are well aware of the dangers of violating it when a dog gives a false alert and a search of the vehicle is based on that. Yet you persist in a system that sooner or later will give you false alerts. Makes no sense to me. 



Jon Harris said:


> No my dog does not have a falsifying issue but I do train to recognize it should it happen.


Jon earlier you wrote, _"I run alot of blanks That has helped me more than anything recognize when I am pushing the dog to maybe false or cuing him."_ Sure looks as if you recognize that you have a false alerting problem. But perhaps I misunderstood. It only takes once for a dog to false and get his reward and the problem will remain for the rest of his life. 



Jon Harris said:


> I am a handler and trainer


I think you’ve been _"a handler and trainer"_ for a relatively short amount of time, just a few years and probably have only used one system. Perhaps that's part of your lack of understanding of this. 



Jon Harris said:


> What I see in the Yarnall system that Lou quotes is this
> 
> After reading all the material After watching all the videos, After trying to see a big difference is it I come to this conclusion.
> 
> ...


If this is what you got out of my statements, you're not paying attention. If you got this from Donn's site, you're not reading with any level of comprehension. *There are no handler supplied rewards in this system. * 



Jon Harris said:


> Regardless if you want to say the dog triggered it the handler still controls the reward physically and still facilitates the dog receiving the reward


Nope, still no reward in this system. 



Jon Harris said:


> The reward is a towel not something else.


Nope, the dog has found his prey, not a toy. 



Jon Harris said:


> The dog is allowed to shred the towel and continue until it is finished or bored with the shredding
> These actions are pure prey drive according to Mr Yarnall.


Yep as pure as it gets. 



Jon Harris said:


> All these actions are Prey drive, and that will absolutely preclude false alerts according to Yarnall.


In the two years that the system was in use, there was not one false alert from any of the dogs. The absence of false alerts isn't just a theory. 



Jon Harris said:


> The handler does not supply the reward according to Yarnall.


You can't supply something that does not exist. 



Jon Harris said:


> It is his system and as far as he is concerned it seems to be to only viable system according to Yarnall.


Donn does not make such a statement. I'm sure that he'd appreciate if you not try to attribute such statements to him. It's his opinion, that due to the dogs working in prey drive, rather than play drive, that it gives much more reliability. He once trained to a very high degree of success with a system that's similar to the one that you now use. Now he's moved beyond it. 



Jon Harris said:


> A couple answers I missed
> How do I get the reward back from my dogs/ I give them a command to release it, that simple


How did you train them to release the ball? I bet there was some compulsion involved. This puts the dog into pack drive, wherein he submits to you, removing him even further from BOTH the play and even the potential prey drive. Here's another advantage to this system. Anyone who's trained with a reward based system using toys or the like knows that sometimes it's a real job getting the toy back from the dog. Much of this depends on the dog but we've seen this issue come up quite a few times here with the "How do I get the toy away from the dog" question. 



Jon Harris said:


> I mentioned a drop aid for the bomb dog. No I do not carry it around in my pocket. The drop aid is secured as per regulation. When i want to use it I arrange to have it placed so the dog can search and find it.


This means that significant time elapsed (even a few minutes is "significant" at this moment) between when you recognize that your dog is becoming frustrated and when you can give him a source so that you can reward him. And if you don't recognize that he's getting frustrated ... Again, this isn't necessary in this system. A dog hunting for his prey who gets frustrated isn't going to false alert on a bush or a tree. A dog that is hunting for some play with his handler and knows that his handler supplies these things, will. 



Jon Harris said:


> Did I mention false alert? Yep I did and I train to recognize if it happens and *I train to attempt to preclude it for happening *[Emphasis Added]


And since, like the rest of us, you're human, sooner or later you'll make a mistake and reward a false alert. When you do, the dog will have learned a lesson, that he owns you, that he'll remember for the rest of his life. 



Jon Harris said:


> but it will in all systems.


Sorry Jon. Dogs hunting for their prey don't false alert. Either the rat is there or it's not. Either the antelope (for those thinking of the Wild Dog videos) is there or it's not. 



Jon Harris said:


> The false alert my not really be false. It may be an alert on residual odor and you will never really know.


Not talking about alerts on residual odor Jon. I am talking about a dog that is frustrated, who wants to play with his handler and when there is no scent present will do what he can to initiate that game. An alert on residual odor is not a false alert. 



Jon Harris said:


> Masking distracting odors are there and used for the same purpose. To train to dog to alert on the target odor and nothing else. The words used don't change the reason.


Using you used these words, these terms of the art improperly. To me that speaks volumes as to your experience, knowledge and training. Masking odors and distractions are NOT used for the same purpose. A distraction is something that will pull the dog away from his purpose. It may be manifested as a physical pull or it may just take the dog's mind somewhere else. Masking odors will not cover up the scent of the contraband substance but the crooks think they will and so they'll do things like putting the dope in the gas tank or spray the package with it. You train on them NOT TO PROOF OFF DISTRACTIONS, but to make sure that the dog is still finding JUST the trained scent and not alerting to the masking odor. Since they are together quite often some dogs may start to alert on them and the target odor. You place them in the environment to make sure that the dog is not alerting on them. You place distractions in the environment to make sure that the dog is not distracted by them. If your dog is alerting (or you think that's why you proof off of them) you have a bigger issue than I realized.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> According to this system and everything it is based off of the dog is in extreme prey drive. That is the center point of the system and Mr Yarnall explains this is prey drive activity. He supports that conclusion by comparing the shredding of a towel to the shredding behavior of wild dogs shredding a carcase and eating in a survival situation mainly in a pack.
> That is the crux of this system and *everything is stacked on that assumption. * [Emphasis Added]


What assumption Jon? You state some facts and then talk about an _"assumption."_ I didn't see one in your description of what you think Donn is saying. I'd suggest that since you completely misunderstand what Donn is saying (this is separate from disagreeing with it) that you NOT try to summarize it for the folks.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> I'll answer your question with a question. Why wouldn't your training exercises be as long as an expected deployment?
> 
> If you routinely would be expected to sweep 200 vehicles, that would be a starting point. If you are routinely expected to clear x number of acres squared, that would be a good start. What I'm saying is; train past your expected deployment. Every dog has that point that where proficiency begins to decline. The only way to find that point is to test it during training.
> 
> What I'm saying is; your training record has the answer to those questions, you just have to do the training to fill in the blanks.


What we see here is the difference between someone who thinks he's an _"experienced amateur"_ and an expert. Jon these questions should have been covered during your basic training.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> David
> I agree completely with what it should be You should be able to search as long as it take But there is a point of diminishing rewards meaning efficiency declines


Jon, David was pretty clear that the information you seek for your particular situation and your dog is in your training logs. At least it should be, if they've been kept properly. 

Jon is THIS NEWS STORY about you? If so, it answers many of my questions about your experience, education and training.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> I dont mind at all a disagreement as to theory but there is no reason to try to be so verbose as to try to tutor and make oneself look superior


I’m verbose when teaching because, as we've seen, some don't get it with less instruction. Heck some don't get it with longer lessons and some will probably never get it. Jon says that he read Donn's site, but he still thinks this is a reward system and doesn't understand the difference between a dog working in prey v. one working in play. Possibly he's never seen it but the articles and the videos on Donn's site clearly show it. But again, there's that open mind thing. Donn shows two dogs being tested, one right after the other, one dog is in play and the other is in prey. The difference is obvious to anyone who can read a dog. If someone can't ... 

As far as trying to _"make [myself] look superior."_ I could not care less how "important" you think I am. Some people think I'm important and others could not care less about me. Your comment sounds like sour grapes to me.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Erik Berg said:


> I suppose a wild dog shredd the prey to be able to eat, but does a dog really think a towel is a real prey in the same manner, why is then the shreeding a more real preybehaviour and more motivating than catching a thrown ball or similar? I guess we can´t know in what degree a dog is playing or in "real" preydrive when given a reward


There's an enormous difference between a dog doing something out of, or while in play, v. in prey drive. Play is just what it sounds like, a silly game with no benefit beyond entertainment, signaling rank level, showing immaturity and compliance. Prey is a combat drive. There are no games there, it's serious business. The details of this are clearly explained on Donn's site, no need for me to repeat it here. 



Erik Berg said:


> does the reward matter as long as you have selected a dog that can work for long time even if he get´s a reward or not, isn´t that quality the most important thing and not what type of reward you use, considering the dog appreciate the reward regardless if he is in "play" or "pray" drive.


Again, this is not a handler−supplied reward−system or a reward system of any kind. It's a case of a dog being allowed to satisfy his drive. 

It is not the reward that's important. It's what's in the dog's head that is important. If the dog is working due to an internal compulsion, as in working in drive, it's reliable. Jon thinks that because the handler manipulates the prey object, the towel, that it's the same as a handler reward system. However it has to do with what the dog is thinking, that he's found prey NOT that he's found his toy that makes this system reliable. In this system the dog thinks that flushing behavior (the alert) has brought out the prey. 

In the conditioning process great focus is placed on making the connection between following scent to its source and flushing the prey.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

I know it's anthropomorphizing but if you were the owner of a company which would you rather have working for you, someone who's working for the paycheck (as is the case with a reward based system) or someone who is working because what's inside him makes him want to do the job? Any right thinking person would pick the latter. That's what this system gives you. NOT a dog that is working for a paycheck, his toy and some play with the handler, but a dog that is working out of the behaviors that his drives force him to perform. 

This system was developed due to the inherent long−term problem of reward based systems, false alerting. It's completely dependent on the skill of the trainer to keep this from happening. And when a handler gets out on the road, away from his trainer it can happen to him without him even realizing it. Many handlers will simply write off false alerts as alerts on residual scent. I've watched them do this without any investigation, without any questioning of the occupants of the vehicle and without any hint that it's really happening. Their dog alerts, there's no drugs found and they get into their car and leave, saying, "residual odor" as they drive away. This is the wrong way to do it and will sooner or later have us all suffering from bad case law. 

There is always the danger of handlers cuing their dogs, whether intentional (I'd like to believe that this never happens, but I'm a realist) or unintentional. Because of the huge amount of drugs moving across the US these days and the litigation that goes along with it, the courts are seeing many more of these cases. Howard mentioned the problems that are going on in Florida right now and it's just a matter of time before this hits the rest of the US. 

A true expert looks five years or more down the road, sees what's coming and prepares for it. This system was developed specifically to thwart the trend of some courts to eliminate the use of dogs due to false alerts. If something is not done about this issue there's a good possibility that the use of interdiction dogs will be stopped in the US. They'll still be available for searching after search warrants have been obtained but their use as probable cause will be gone. It's one thing for a dog to false alert when he's searching a house behind a search warrant. It's quite another for a dog to false when he's searching a car (which the courts have ruled is an exception to the search warrant requirement). As the courts start seeing more and more false alerts they'll start throwing out the evidence and thereby the case. Right now the scales are tipped in our favor, if there are training records that support the training then they are deemed reliable. But if this false alerting continues it will probably mean the end of dogs−as−probable−cause. People whose dogs are false alerting or are cuing their dogs will make bad case law that affects all in LE. 

A reward based system is very much dependent on the skill, timing, knowledge, etc. of the handler. I'm sorry but few people are capable of attaining the skill level of a David Frost. This system takes the handler out of the problem as much as can be done, thereby eliminating most of the problems.


----------



## Timothy Saunders (Mar 12, 2009)

when using a handler based reward system does anyone reward the dog when they know the dog didn't find anything?
In the shredding system do you let the dog shred before you know it has found something?

It would seem to me that either dog could false alert to get the reward (for handler reward) of the shredding for its self satisfaction faster


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Lou says; " skill, timing, knowledge, etc. of the handler"..... I'm sorry but few people are capable of attaining the skill level of a David Frost." 

It's not that difficult. It really isn't rocket science. It certainly takes skill, timing and knowledge. The power of operant conditioning and a true conditioned response should not be minimized. The dog does learn there is one way to achieve the reward. Irrespective of shredding rats, towels or the actions of a handler. The operational dog meets many challenges. They have to stop training at some point and go to work.

DFrost


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Lou


Does this method open up a whole host of other possible dog breeds for use in searching? Dogs that work in TRUE PREY DIRVE, as you call it? I have seen huskies and crosses for example that love to shred a towel, but have no desire to chase a ball, or play tug of war or interact with the handler with a towel. I have seem them be able to search successfully because they love to shred. But in the end they are not dogs I would want to work, because the searching and work ethic doesn't look like I want it too. What have you seen with other breeds? Don's dogs be suitable candidates?


----------



## julie allen (Dec 24, 2010)

ok so not narcotics, but going to false alerts and rewarding... One of my HRD dogs hit on a narcotic box last week. The LE trainer said oh thats wrong, the helper said wrong, but I knew the dog does not alert with no odor present. I did NOT reward, because it was not confirmed. The dog will point it out with a 'show me' command. We opened the box with marijauna inside, I gave the command and she touched the top of the lid, not inside the box. Then the helper realizes.... had the same gloves on handling HRD and opened the box earlier.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

julie allen said:


> ok so not narcotics, but going to false alerts and rewarding... One of my HRD dogs hit on a narcotic box last week. The LE trainer said oh thats wrong, the helper said wrong, but I knew the dog does not alert with no odor present. I did NOT reward, because it was not confirmed. The dog will point it out with a 'show me' command. We opened the box with marijauna inside, I gave the command and she touched the top of the lid, not inside the box. Then the helper realizes.... had the same gloves on handling HRD and opened the box earlier.


Another possibility. Dogs that have worked the boxes expect to find their odor in the boxes. When the dog came across a "novel" odor, although it wasn't one of the odors the dog was trained to detect, it is new and in a location where odors are taught. The dog may respond accordingly. It's one of the reasons, other than imprinting, I don't use boxes. I've always said it was like taking a college graduate back to Middle school. Distractions or cover odors, in my opinion, should be included in scenario based training. My reasoning is, the dog has learned to discriminate from among the many odors and expects to have to discriminate in scenario based training. 

As a footnote, the fundamentals for all detection is pretty much the same. While there are some differing technical and tactical approaches to some venues, the training of detection itself is basically the same. Odor, response, reward. 

DFrost

DFrost


----------



## Laney Rein (Feb 9, 2011)

Jon
I'd say your point number 2 was working for a short while - then we got three more pages of regurgitation. Out of 16 pages, 10 of them belong to one poster. I don't think point number 2 is working anymore.

I think when I go to get expert information, I look to the internet for recomendations and resumes that are not made by the person I am looking up. Those are the trainers and experts I want to learn from and get my info from on how to train my dog so that he is trained correctly.

While I am new at detection, I can read dogs and have over 25 years in behavior and 40 in training. I may not be a LEO or military officer or train schutzhund or bite sports, but doesn't mean I'm a novice by any means.

Jon - do you have anyone to send you and your canine a care package? I would be honored to do so. I just sent one to a marine and his bomb dog, Woody, a lab, in afghanistan - took 4 boxes to fit everything into but my way of saying thank you.

Anyway, think this thread has gone so off that I don't want to read anymore. Hope you start another topic - that can avoid the shredding topic.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Laney Rein said:


> I think when I go to get expert information, I look to the internet for recomendations and resumes that are not made by the person I am looking up. Those are the trainers and experts I want to learn from and get my info from on how to train my dog so that he is trained correctly.


 This system is Don Yarnall's, not Lou Castle's. Too bad Don isn't on here anymore. I'm sure he'd give the exact same information Lou has albeit in a manner that doesn't piss some people off (disection of posts). Be that as it may...the information is the same and the reccomendation is made by Lou in this case, and other LE handlers who have tried it and liked it.




> Jon - do you have anyone to send you and your canine a care package? I would be honored to do so. I just sent one to a marine and his bomb dog, Woody, a lab, in afghanistan - took 4 boxes to fit everything into but my way of saying thank you.


 That's thoughtful of you. More people should do the same.


----------



## Laney Rein (Feb 9, 2011)

Howard - I wasn't referring to the shredding system of Donn Yarnell in my reference - it was to training in general. I see no point in my aspect of the use of shredding - time consuming and very expensive over time. It was more like if I want to know if someone is boasting wins, background, titles, etc and training background, I'm going to research them and make sure the info I find is posted by non-biased views and not self posted.

You are right, tho, that, if Yarnell had presented this theory, it would have come across much different and less offensive - and would have been worth trying to understand without all the quotes and dissections.

I am sincere about sending a box to Jon and his canine or someone who may need one.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

OK. I understand now.

And good on you for the care package.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Howard Knauf said:


> This system is Don Yarnall's, not Lou Castle's. Too bad Don isn't on here anymore. I'm sure he'd give the exact same information Lou has albeit in a manner that doesn't piss some people off (disection of posts). Be that as it may...the information is the same and the reccomendation is made by Lou in this case, and other LE handlers who have tried it and liked it.


I am thankful to have heard of something I had not heard of before in this thread. I don't completely "get it", nor am I sold, but it has at least sparked my interest to learn about something new. I can't guarantee I will ever adopt any of it, but it is interesting to me because my profile does lend itself well to shredding type rewards.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

*Re: Shredding*

I s there a simple explanation of shredding on the Yarnall site? I can't seem to find it on the Civilian side? I can't make it through all the quotes inside quotes inside quotes to figure out the basics of the system :-(


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

I agree my point #2 was only successful for a very short time. But then again we did get a lot of good info in the thread. I got some value out of Yarnalls system by reading his site and not really much by reading Lou's posts. 

Lou Im sorry but to me and it is just me, the way the posts come across immediately cause resistance to what you are trying to say.

Also lou many of your comments about me are inaccurate and full of assumptions. Ill not try to change it It is not worth the effort.

Oh and my records are very detailed accurate and up to date. I have a myriad of regulations to follow and unlike many K-9 officers all of our records are inspected and audited each and every month. David I completely agree that the records area road map of where you need to go in training and what is strong and weak in your dog/handler team.

Laney,
there are handlers in and out of here all the time

I would not feel right about a box addressed to me 
But 
to 
Dog handlers
AMK9
APO AE 09354

that way it will get distributed to all of the handlers and dogs here
It is a really nice thought We all thank you


PS yes Lou that is one of the news stories about me/it talks about the acquiring of that particular dog and his training. You may ask why I enrolled him and mselfy in training if I also train dogs? I dont certify myself, I always go to an outside organization for that to stay objective and for court purposes but Im sure you knew that. The article says nothing about my background other than I am a career officer. It only speaks to the specifics of that dog and how I was able to start the K-9 program in the county with no cost to the county and very little out of pocket cost to me.


----------



## Laney Rein (Feb 9, 2011)

Thanks for the address Jon - will be shooting you guys some treats for the holiday season. If there are things in particular you guys need or want - please pm me with them. I will try to get box out by end of next week - it will most likely turn into a couple cuz they make you use certain boxes of certain sizes that fit nothing in them!

Cheers and happy holidays


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> Does this method open up a whole host of other possible dog breeds for use in searching? Dogs that work in TRUE PREY DIRVE, as you call it? I have seen huskies and crosses for example that love to shred a towel, but have no desire to chase a ball, or play tug of war or interact with the handler with a towel. I have seem them be able to search successfully because they love to shred. But in the end they are not dogs I would want to work, because the searching and work ethic doesn't look like I want it too. What have you seen with other breeds? Don's dogs be suitable candidates?


When I read mr Yarnall site this system wouldn't work for a lot of breeds that are used for detection worldwide. He says pointers, labs and springer spaniels have no or little prey drive and his system is based on this drive.


----------



## Chuck Zang (May 12, 2010)

One key bit of info that differentiates the rat's nest/prey system from the traditional reward system is the absence of praise from the handler. Lou may have mentioned it but I missed it ( adult ADD) I know that it is stressed by Mr. Yarnell on his site. That little change makes a lot of difference for the dog and the drive. He also says to allow the shredding behavior to develop naturally, not standing on the towel or tugging with it. that is to keep the dog from shifting into play drive. If I am correct, he also advocates this system for digs with "pronounced prey drive." 

We used Mr. Yarnell's system with the last group of dogs we trained. It worked as "advertised" with no falses. It was hard for the experienced handlers to just watch but that was the only downside. Not saying that it will work for all but it does work well.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Chuck Zang said:


> We used Mr. Yarnell's system with the last group of dogs we trained. It worked as "advertised" with no falses. It was hard for the experienced handlers to just watch but that was the only downside. Not saying that it will work for all but it does work well.
> 
> Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk



Training I understand. My question is about actual usage. Evaluating he dogs that were trained using the system described have any of these dogs had responses during actual situations, where no drugs, paraphernalia or tangible evidence were found? 

DFrost


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

David Frost said:


> Training I understand. My question is about actual usage. Evaluating he dogs that were trained using the system described have any of these dogs had responses during actual situations, where no drugs, paraphernalia or tangible evidence were found?
> 
> DFrost


Real life deployments always leave the handler "wondering" if there was a false alert when a non productive search is made on a street alert. Doing a proper search and interviews of people to enforce the alert is key for any system when real deployments are made. Training is the only way to know for sure if there is a false alert. Although I never had false alerts in training using the handler based reward system with my two dogs I have to assume it was based on the good training the dog recieved. 

I always did my due dilligence on the street to confirm an alert but that is not 100% assurance if the search and interview of suspects didn't confirm the alert. This is where Florida handlers are going to have a problem. Scumbags who refuse to talk, or who have already delivered the goods make it look like the dog is wrong in their deployment records. Those records become court evidence and can place a black mark against an otherwise excellent dog. That dynamic can let a subsequent arrestee get off of a charge and place future doubt of the dogs' effectiveness in the future cases in effect making the dog useless for court presentation as a possible outcome. Sucks.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

I understand what you are saying and of course agree. The good thing is, the courts look at the totality of an individual dog. It's why it concerns me when people start taking about never having unproductive, responses (or whatever term you use) in actual situation. At some point we have to stop being "trainers" and start being program managers. I say that because the dog has to work at some point. While training discussions are fantatastic, I think some get lost in the training haze and forget the operational dog. 

At any rate, it is the comparison of training v. actual work that establishes the credibility of a dog. In my experience in both state and federal court, that is established in good, detailed training records. There is far too many examples, as of late, of poor training records causing a problem. 

DFrost


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Jan Wensink said:


> When I read mr Yarnall site this system wouldn't work for a lot of breeds that are used for detection worldwide. He says pointers, labs and springer spaniels have no or little prey drive and his system is based on this drive.


Right, so that makes me even more curious about breeds that "could" be used in this system. If they have to have "real prey drive", but "playing" with the handler is not required, it would seem to me that a whole whack of dogs and breeds that would have previously not been candidates for search work, would now be in. I would like to know how that goes.


----------



## Chuck Zang (May 12, 2010)

David, 
The dogs have not been on the street long- two months. I agree with Howard and you that the street is where it matters but training is where you can honestly assess- by doing blind hides. Street interviews are important but how many times have you had people tell you there is no dope in the car, then you find it. Or, you find it and then they don't know how it got there etc.? Point is there are too many unknowns in real searches. 

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk


----------



## Erik Berg (Apr 11, 2006)

If the handler is in fact giving the dog the towel, why would this not create just as much chance of a false alert compared to throwing a kong to the dog? Because after all this talk it´s still the handler that gives the towel to the dog, or isn´t he? If the dog realizes there is a connection between the prey/towel and the handler, why would the towel and it´s supposed meaning to the dog gives less chance of false indications, all other things equal? If the dog really thinks the towel is more of a preyobject than a kong why would it not really like the handler to give him the towel just as much if not more than other objects that are not satisfying the dog´s preydrive as much according to this system.

Lou, explain short and consist how the dog is getting is towel and why this is different than this dog for example, is this dog playing and less intense than the shreeding dog you posted because the handler gives him a kong?
http://www.youtube.com/user/JorgenHagen#p/u/0/tylw2mQSWj8

I found it strange that spaniels are no good detectiondogs because they lack complete preydrive according to the site mentioned, I mean they are pretty common as detectiondogs, maybe they have other qualities then that make them suited and it´s not all about "real" preydrive and shredding.


----------



## Laney Rein (Feb 9, 2011)

Jennifer
I have a miniature rat terrier who could be a maligator in sheep's clothing. She will launch herself at people who come at me in a threatening manner and hit them in the chest while taking a good hold of them (no training - natural). She will hunt things into the ground and dig until you make her quit. She will shake the prey once she catches it until it is confirmed dead and then shred the shit out of it, if allowed. So, in all purposes, there is no reason why this dog or breeds that show the same verocity couldn't be trained just the same. She can track, do protection, obedience, search, find, kill and destroy. I have to control her more than I do my malinois. Too funny to watch. No training involved here - all instinct.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

re: "She will launch herself at people who come at me in a threatening manner and hit them in the chest while taking a good hold of them (no training - natural)"
WOW !
- do people often approach you in a threatening manner ?
- how many confirmed launches has this little beast executed without any training ?
- NO training ? 
- no lawsuits yet ?? lol

- but i'd love to see her in action


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

rick smith said:


> re: "She will launch herself at people who come at me in a threatening manner and hit them in the chest while taking a good hold of them (no training - natural)"
> WOW !
> - do people often approach you in a threatening manner ?
> - how many confirmed launches has this little beast executed without any training ?
> ...


me too...I love cute little dogs that are tough as nails..


----------



## Laney Rein (Feb 9, 2011)

Rick
try husband cutting tree in front yard carrying large pieces of wood approaching me in what she perceived as as a threatening manner - and person entering fenced barn area unannounced nor invited. Husband a bit upset with dog, second time she's done it to him - first time he play acted like he was attacking me. Now he knows she'll bite so he's more careful. No lawsuits - Signs up on property - you don't just let yourself into a gated back barn area and saunter in unannounced around here.

Dog is like 15 inches tall and maybe 20# (she's a little heavy) Will see if I can get something on video sometime. I really have to be careful with her because of her protective nature.


----------



## Chuck Zang (May 12, 2010)

Sorry, I was on my phone earlier so I tried to keep my posts shorter due to the difficulty of inputting on a phone and having fat thumbs. 

So, my understanding of some of the things with Mr. Yarnell's system, and what I am taking out of Lou's description. The following are what I took from the reading that I did. Please do not hold them to what I put here. I do not have the expertise that many on here have and I am just trying to fill in a couple of gaps that I believe I see in some of the conversation. 

There are video's showing dog's doing the traditional retrieving test and hunt test. He shows the differences in dogs working the test's in prey and in play. A dog that is working in play will not work for his system. The differences in body language of the dog's is subtle but the drive difference is key. The dog should have "pronounced prey" drive. The "prey dog" working in Mr. Yarnell's system gets drive satisfaction through *completing* the stages of prey drive, Hunt, Find, Flush, Catch, Kill/Shredding and thus does not need the handler to praise him or tug with him, etc.

In the videos of the wild dogs shredding he points out that the other dogs do not play tug with the dog that made the kill. they do not squeal and act silly during the kill, shredding, and sharing of the carcass. He contends that the dog does not need all of the high pitched praise and tugging that we traditionally give, _*if*_ the dog is "working in the right (prey) drive."

In the videos of the dog's training for detector work he shows the dogs hunting, finding, flushing, catching, and killing the prey. The handler does deliver the towel, at the source (rat's nest) upon the flushing behavior (scratching, sit, down, whatever) but he allows the dog to catch, kill and shred the prey without the praise or other physical interaction (tugging) that is so important to the traditional system. Note- I have seen this work. It goes counter to everything that I was taught when I got into K9 but it works. If I remember correctly, Mr.Yarnell also stresses allowing the shredding behavior to come out naturally, not through tugging, standing on the towel to facilitate the shredding, etc- that can lead to a shift in which drive the dog works in. 

I think what Lou is contending (I really am sorry if I am wrong Lou) is that in the traditional system, because the dog is not working in the right drive (prey v. play) he will eventually seek to achieve satisfaction (dog & handler interaction) absent the target odor.

If the dog is working in true prey drive, there is no benefit to indicating to a rat's nest that is not there. In the wild he would essentially be attempting to flush prey that does not exist. That difference is what lends the reliability to the dog's hunting.

As for the lab’s, Spaniels, etc. not working in his system, I don’t remember reading this but it has been a couple of month’s since I checked in there so it might be new, or I somehow overlooked it when I was reading. I doubt that he discounted a entire breeds of dogs. I can see making general statements about the declining quality of dogs from those breeds due to their having been bred to a standard (field trials) that reduces true prey drive.

I am not a spokesman for Mr. Yarnell. I have just tried his system and I found myself wanting to interject a few pieces that I think that I understand, that may also help others. Of course if I am wrong I will find out here shortly-LOL! I am getting tired and am distracted by Suday Night Game so I am sorry if I screwed this up.


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

I think you explained it pretty well. This is my understanding also. Yes I did understand it. 

My whole hesitancy to taking this system as gospel or any other system for that fact that depends on the exact thing the dog is thinking or exactly which drive it be in park reverse neutral prey play rat killing or any other drive is the following:

sometimes we probably can tell what is going on inside the head of a dog, sometimes and I tend to think most times we cant.

We would like to say " oh see? that is prey drive" or play drive or fight drive

Sometimes we may even be right but until we are able to read the minds of the dog I dont think we will ever really know for sure.

Many experts say they can tell by looking at the dog or watching certain behavior ie reading the dog.
Great if it is actually true
If said expert has a set of behaviors they believe are signs of this or that drive they will look to see them and if they see the expected behavior then eureka! that is prey drive. But is it really? are you sure? could the expert be mistaken?
i have hard time with anything that says always or never. That just is not the way things work

To say a traditionally trained detection dog will always false
or
the yarnall system dog will NEVER false is hard to swallow

Yes I understand the theory
I understand that IF the dag Thinks he is actually only looking for prey then there is no reason for the dog the false I get that.
The big question is IF
you mentioned the handler still supplies the reward/prey/rat/towel 
regardless of what the dog is thinking  it is the behavior that triggers the end result of the prey appearing and the dog getting what it is after.

that fact in itself seem to me to open the door for the dog to link behavior with rat
not so much as the total search from odor to conclusion
seems to me the same reasons you may get a false in a traditionally trained dog are still there no matter if you have designed a system around a theory that would preclude it. Until we can either control the minds i=or read the minds of dogs we will never be 100percent what is going on in there.
just saying


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Chuck Zang said:


> If the dog is working in true prey drive, there is no benefit to indicating to a rat's nest that is not there. In the wild he would essentially be attempting to flush prey that does not exist. That difference is what lends the reliability to the dog's hunting.


Reading material from an unrelated and independent source this does lend relatively well to my impression on this topic. Having observed two opposite ends of the spectrum with dogs that hunt "prey", there does appear to be some merit to this, assuming of course, that one develops a program off a motor sequence of relatively complete behaviors that typically fall or fit within the definition of prey "drive".


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Jon Harris said:


> I
> 
> My whole hesitancy to taking this system as gospel or any other system for that fact that depends on the exact thing the dog is thinking or exactly which drive it be in park reverse neutral prey play rat killing or any other drive is the following:


 John,

When you were first taught your current system did you question the reasons why it's done that way, or how you knew what was going on in the dogs' head? I would think "no" as I did not either. As a newbie handler we were all sponges and when a system works it's like magic to us. I can tell you that I was taught heavy compulsion with m first dog. I changed that to more positive reinforcement and focus reward with very little compulsion on my second dog. I was much happier with the results of the latter and was more effective. I opened my mind and tried something different which turned out quite well for me. I still consider diffeent styles of training when something new comes up that I feel will make me and the dog better.

Regarding the delivery of the towel in the initial stages of this training style...I have the same concerns as you in consideration of the dog connecting you to the reward. In this case though you can make the connection to the falconer who allows his bird of prey to kill an animal, then give the bird a peice of meat from his hand to retrieve the catch from his clutches. The raptor knows the handler gave him food after the hunt,find,catch kill but the bird only performs to make that kill and nothing else. He doesn't get paid (fed) until the kill is made. The handler allows the bird to tear the reward flesh from his hand in a manner that the bird would perform in an actual kill situation ie: tearing/ripping the flesh, then eating it thus satisfying the birds' natural killing/eating instincts. There's no way for a raptor to fake a kill so it would be pointless for it to try in an effort to get food from the handler.

I said before that I was quite happy with the handler reward based training that I did with my dogs. That said, I like the Yarnall system and the easy to understand thought process which utilizes a dog's natural behavior that we humans can capitalize on to be effective as we can with our partners. I was successful but my mind is still open. I was only successful because I had an open mind. I'm not suggesting you or anyone else are closed minded here....I'm just saying that change comes hard for some people. Myself included sometimes.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Howard Knauf said:


> This system is Don Yarnall's, not Lou Castle's. Too bad Don isn't on here anymore. I'm sure he'd give the exact same information Lou has albeit in a manner that doesn't piss some people off (disection of posts). Be that as it may...the information is the same and the reccomendation is made by Lou in this case, and other LE handlers who have tried it and liked it.
> 
> 
> That's thoughtful of you. More people should do the same.


He is still here he just doesn't post.

Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

will fernandez said:


> He is still here he just doesn't post.


 That's too bad


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

will fernandez said:


> He is still here he just doesn't post.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk


Will

He may be registered but that doesn't mean he's reading the posts. I'd really like to hear an explanation of the system from the source
The Shredding protocol may work really great with the right dog and the right situation. HOWEVER when someone starts talking about zero false indications and 100% reliability You start losing credibility.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Timothy Saunders said:


> when using a handler based reward system does anyone reward the dog when they know the dog didn't find anything?
> In the shredding system do you let the dog shred before you know it has found something?
> 
> It would seem to me that either dog could false alert to get the reward (for handler reward) of the shredding for its self satisfaction faster


Gonna try an experiment. Not going to "dissect" posters' messages in my next group of posts. I think that some communication will be lost. But since some people don't like this dissection, I'll give it a try. I'll make about the same comments but I won't take the original posts apart. I think some won't know exactly what comment that was made that I'm responding to. Maybe it will be better and maybe I've poisoned the well. 

In this system shredding without searching occurs at the start of the training to allow the behavior to come out of the dog. Then it's only done in prey exercises. After that the dog only gets to shred when he finds the rat. He's made the association between the prey and the odor by that time. 

A Wild Dog that is in a prey drive hunt will not stalk and then try to flush something out of an empty bush. That would be a complete waste of his time and energy!


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> Lou says; " skill, timing, knowledge, etc. of the handler"..... I'm sorry but few people are capable of attaining the skill level of a David Frost."
> 
> It's not that difficult. It really isn't rocket science. It certainly takes skill, timing and knowledge. The power of operant conditioning and a true conditioned response should not be minimized. The dog does learn there is one way to achieve the reward. Irrespective of shredding rats, towels or the actions of a handler. The operational dog meets many challenges. They have to stop training at some point and go to work.
> 
> DFrost


David I've found that many experts, such as yourself, have forgotten how long it took them to get to the point that they're at now. Training becomes second nature and they don't even have to think about it anymore. Sometimes trainers are perplexed when newbies have a difficult time with something that comes so easily and so fluidly to them. Leash corrections are a good example. It takes a new handler about a year to learn to give a proper correction. And sometimes they get lazy and no longer include the directionality that a leash correction must contain if it's to give maximum information to the dog. 

You say, _"it certainly takes skill, timing and knowledge."_ and I agree. You can teach some people till you're blue in the face and they won't retain it. Perhaps they retain it but they'll just retain enough to work the dog but not enough to cure (or even recognize) problems. _"Skill"_ and _"timing"_ often are qualities that are either in someone or they're not. Often they can't be trained into a person. 

But perhaps I'm wrong and you are capable of giving every handler that you train not only the ability to recognize issues as the first sign of them, but giving them the knowledge (and have them retain it for the rest of the dog's working life) how to fix those issues. You'll probably agree that the issue of false alerting is widespread and that sooner or later it will become a national issue.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> Lou
> 
> *Does this method open up a whole host of other possible dog breeds for use in searching? * Dogs that work in TRUE PREY DIRVE, as you call it? I have seen huskies and crosses for example that love to shred a towel, but have no desire to chase a ball, or play tug of war or interact with the handler with a towel. I have seem them be able to search successfully because they love to shred. But in the end they are not dogs I would want to work, because the searching and work ethic doesn't look like I want it too. What have you seen with other breeds? Don's dogs be suitable candidates? [Emphasis Added]


Not really. It's not about the shredding. It's necessary that a dog to be used for this have all five elements of the prey drive hunt. It's about dogs who can easily be put into a prey drive hunt. While many dogs will shred a towel naturally, often it's hectic, destructive or bored behavior. GSD's and Mals are among breeds that naturally do the prey drive hunting behavior and shredding both.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> Another possibility. Dogs that have worked the boxes expect to find their odor in the boxes. When the dog came across a "novel" odor, although it wasn't one of the odors the dog was trained to detect, it is new and in a location where odors are taught. The dog may respond accordingly. It's one of the reasons, other than imprinting, I don't use boxes. I've always said it was like taking a college graduate back to Middle school.
> As a footnote, the fundamentals for all detection is pretty much the same. While there are some differing technical and tactical approaches to some venues, the training of detection itself is basically the same. Odor, response, reward.


Earlier I said that I don't favor walls, boxes or the like except for very early work. You underline one of the issues. Another is that they are usually made of wood, which is porous and can and will absorb odors and give you training that's based on residual odors. There is also the issue of contamination but that is not a concern to some. 

Your last statement is very true in most detection systems. Not so in this one.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Laney Rein said:


> Out of 16 pages, 10 of them belong to one poster. I don't think point number 2 is working anymore.
> I think when I go to get expert information, I look to the internet for recomendations and resumes that are not made by the person I am looking up.
> While I am new at detection, I can read dogs and have over 25 years in behavior and 40 in training. I may not be a LEO or military officer or train schutzhund or bite sports, but doesn't mean I'm a novice by any means.
> Jon - do you have anyone to send you and your canine a care package? I would be honored to do so.
> ...


There is some _'number 2"_ going on here but it has nothing to do with Jon's points. In any case, all 18 pages (as of this writing) belong to the world, not any single person. 

Who makes up resumes for other people? How do they know everything that person has done, all the classes he's attended, all the seminars he's taught? You make no sense here Laney. 

Love the way that some people think that because they have done something (especially) like _"behavior"_ or something as vague as what they call _"training"_ that they can read behaviors that exist in venues that they don't take part in. 

Laney regarding this "care package," you do realize that Jon is not in the military right? He's a civilian contractor, probably getting paid VERY handsomely for his services. It's your _"care package"_ of course but I'd think that a GI (someone in the military) would be just as appreciative and is far more deserving of it. Those guys have no choice about the fact that they're in ugly places in the world and let's not forget that they're paid very badly for what they do.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Laney Rein said:


> Howard - I wasn't referring to the shredding system of Donn Yarnell in my reference - it was to training in general. I see no point in my aspect of the use of shredding time consuming and very expensive over time. It was more like if I want to know if someone is boasting wins, background, titles, etc and training background, I'm going to research them and make sure the info I find is posted by non-biased views and not self posted.
> 
> You are right, tho, that, if Yarnell had presented this theory, it would have come across much different and less offensive - and would have been worth trying to understand without all the quotes and dissections.


The absence of false alerts is but one point. The reliability is another. 

There's no rush after a find has been made so the few minutes of time consumed are not even worth discussing. Yet you bring it up again and again. As to expense, the local dollar store has hand towels in a 10 pack. Ten cents apiece. Doing highway interdiction a busy handler would probably be spending less on towels than then the tip he left for his waitress at lunch. That's if he had to purchase the towels himself. People on this list spend thousands of dollars buying things like GPS units, Ecollars, special crates to transport their dogs in, vehicles to transport their dogs. And here you are sniveling about a few bucks for towels. lol

Interestingly * those who have actually used this system * find none of the objections to it that you folks have * who have only read about it. * 

The only time that I brought up my background and experience is when you wrote _"Guess I'm just a little peeved that a 100 yr old man * who has nothing to do with anything"*_ In yet another of your many efforts to try to discredit me. And so I showed you, and those who don't know me, that in fact I do have a bit to do with quite a few things. You challenged my background and experience. In response I showed the truth, that you were quite wrong. Otherwise, I don't mention such things. 

It's interesting that some are "offended" by my method of writing posts. I can see that some would find them difficult to read, but "offended?" Makes no sense to me. The reason that Donn and quite a few other giants of the industry, don't take part in these forums any more is because of personal attacks that the likes of you and a few others here, put out Laney. Sometimes these folks are inexperienced and have little knowledge. Yet the Net gives them the same voice as the knowledgeable. 

Love the way that when you get back the same sort of treatment that you hand out, you fall on your back and scream like a little ........... well, no need for rudeness at this moment. "He started it. He started it. He hit me back first!"


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> Lou Im sorry but to me and it is just me, the way the posts come across immediately cause resistance to what you are trying to say.
> 
> Also lou many of your comments about me are inaccurate and full of assumptions. Ill not try to change it It is not worth the effort.
> 
> ...


I’m sorry that it bring out this response from you. As to you not liking my style" sometimes the medicine tastes bad but because it works, you just have to swallow it. 

I'll be happy to correct any comments I've made about you that are wrong, Jon but you have to point them out. I'd bet that MOST of them are dead on. A self-serving statement as you've written that _"many ... are inaccurate"_ accomplishes nothing. And it's meaningless when compared to the amount of misinformation that you've put out about detection work in general and Donn's system specifically. 

If your records are so complete I'm wondering why then you ask a question that, as David pointed out, they should already answer. 

Why would you go to an _"outside organization"_ for training if you're a trainer? Why would you not just go to them for the cert? Instead you went to them for training, fact is that you paid them for this training with a barter. After that, they had a vested interest in seeing that your dog pass the certification that they did. This sure sounds like an in−house cert to me! Once they've trained you, you're no longer _"an outside organization."_ They BOTH trained AND then certified you. The fact that the owner handed the dog over to you for free points out another issue, the quality of the dog for LE work. If he had been sound, they'd have sold him. Instead you got him for free. 

The news story addresses how the dog was obtained and the fact that he was a washout and had heartworm. Those things, and more in the article, speak to the issue of the quality of a dog that you put into police service.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Chuck Zang said:


> One key bit of info that differentiates the rat's nest/prey system from the traditional reward system is the absence of praise from the handler. Lou may have mentioned it but I missed it ( adult ADD) I know that it is stressed by Mr. Yarnell on his site. That little change makes a lot of difference for the dog and the drive. He also says to allow the shredding behavior to develop naturally, not *standing on the towel or tugging with it. *that is to keep the dog from shifting into play drive. If I am correct, he also advocates this system for digs with "pronounced prey drive."
> 
> We used Mr. Yarnell's system with the last group of dogs we trained. It worked as "advertised" *with no falses. *It was hard for the experienced handlers to just watch but that was the only downside. Not saying that it will work for all but it does work well. [Bold Emphasis Added]


Thanks for jumping in Chuck. 

I did mention the lack of praise with this system earlier. One of the problems with a handler supplied reward system is that praise is usually part of it. I was trained like this initially and trained quite a few people as well. Now I see that it's not only less effective as a system, it can actually interfere with the training and with the work. David wrote, _"... give reward, whoopee, good dog ... "_ The "whoopee, good dog" part of this is the handler praising the dog. It's part of the reward. I'd bet a house payment that David will agree that one of the problems with this system, when dealing with police officers is that we've been taught from our Academy days, not to allow our feelings out, to control ourselves in order to remain in control of situations. 

When they become K−9 handlers however, this is thrown out the window. They're supposed to be ecstatic and show it with whoops, hollers, happiness in their voices, high pitched voices, baby talk, excitement and more! They're taught that the better they are at this, the better that they can show the dog that they're thrilled with his performance, the better it will be received by the dog and the end result is that his work will be better. Lots of cops have trouble doing this, some think it makes them look foolish and juvenile. 

Besides the natural reticence of most cops to doing this, if a given handler is not good at it, the work suffers. Often cops have to coaxed into the whoop and hollder. They need to be shown over and over again how to do it. And at the end of a shift, when it's cold, raining and they want to go home, it's hard to stir up the emotion and physical demands that this requires and some simply won't do it. With the right (wrong) dog, yes I understand that this is a matter of selection) it may lead to frustration very quickly. Donn's system completely removes this. There, the work has little to do with the handler. It's between the dog and the prey. This philosophy originated from searching for felons where the less the handler is involved in the search (the scent work and the drives) the better. Donn has just applied this where it's been little used before, to detection work. It also applies to search work for humans where a bite is not a good thing, SAR work. 

Sometimes with some dogs that have the potential to shred it may not come out right away. And so standing on the towel or tugging on it may have to done at the very start to give a dog "permission" to start doing it, to let him know that it's OK. But once the dog has caught on, it's never done again. It's important to keep in prey and not have him go into play when doing this. 

It is hard for experienced handlers, people who have been taught the "whoop and holler" to just stand still and be quiet. I was one of them. I still praise occasionally but it's a human need, not something the dog needs and I can see that it sometimes distracts the dog.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> Training I understand. My question is about actual usage. Evaluating he dogs that were trained using the system described have any of these dogs had responses during actual situations, where no drugs, paraphernalia or tangible evidence were found?


David in the case where this method was used by a state agency. Ten handlers worked for over three years doing nothing but highway interdiction without a single false alert. There were a few alerts on residual odor and each time there was a sophisticated hidden compartment located in the vehicle. They just got them "going the wrong way." Quite a few money seizures were made too, one of them $1.6 million. 

It's relatively easy for a trainer to prevent false alerts from happening during initial training when the handlers he's training are in his presence. The test comes when they've been out in the field for a couple of months, away from his constant influence. Of course, all good systems bring the handlers back for refreshing and certs. But at the end of the deployment period bad habits can manifest.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> I understand what you are saying and of course agree. The good thing is, the courts look at the totality of an individual dog. It's why it concerns me when people start taking about never having unproductive, responses (or whatever term you use) in actual situation. At some point we have to stop being "trainers" and start being program managers. I say that because the dog has to work at some point.
> 
> 
> DFrost


To clear up any confusion that may exist. I'm calling a "false alert" when the dog does whatever he's been trained to do when he finds the strongest source of scent that he can get to; But there are no narcotics present and they've never been there. The term of art these days when narcotics were present in the past but are not there now, is "unproductive response." There the dog is alerting to the residual scent that's left behind after the contraband is gone. We humans can detect the residual scent of a homeless person who slept in a gas station bathroom long after he's gone. 

With this system, there are no false alerts even after the training is completed and the dog is on the road. Chuck Zang's comment _"it worked as 'advertised' with no falses"_ was not limited to training. He was talking about working. 

The system is designed for what happens on the street, not just what happens in training. For example, there's a lot of OJT involved in this work. It's job based training almost from the very beginning. It's recommended that a team in training go out and work a vehicle after a certified, experienced dog had made a find. This very closely mimics what the team will encounter when he's certified and out there alone. I'd guess that your course, David is probably similar to the OJT system that I'm describing. But you know that most courses of this nature are 3-5 weeks where the handler and K−9 are in a training facility and then the teams go home and hit the street, often hundreds or thousands of miles away from the training facility. If they're lucky they have an experienced handler to work under but still, he's just a handler, not a trainer. 

This system was designed not for a training class but for what happens in the street with working dog handlers and _"the operational dog."_ This system is about as far from what you mentioned in your last sentence _"While training discussions are fantatastic, I think some get lost in the training haze and forget the operational dog."_ as it gets.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> Right, so that makes me even more curious about breeds that "could" be used in this system. If they have to have "real prey drive", but "playing" with the handler is not required, it would seem to me that a whole whack of dogs and breeds that would have previously not been candidates for search work, would now be in. I would like to know how that goes.


It's not the breed, it's that the dog has to have the 5 elements of a prey drive hunt.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Chuck Zang said:


> David,
> The dogs have not been on the street long- two months. I agree with Howard and you that the street is where it matters but training is where you can honestly assess- by doing blind hides. Street interviews are important but how many times have you had people tell you there is no dope in the car, then you find it. Or, you find it and then they don't know how it got there etc.? Point is there are too many unknowns in real searches.


Chuck how much are your handlers (or your unit) spending on towels? Does the department pay for them?


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Erik Berg said:


> If the handler is in fact giving the dog the towel, why would this not create just as much chance of a false alert compared to throwing a kong to the dog? Because after all this talk it´s still the handler that gives the towel to the dog, or isn´t he? If the dog realizes there is a connection between the prey/towel and the handler, why would the towel and it´s supposed meaning to the dog gives less chance of false indications, all other things equal? If the dog really thinks the towel is more of a preyobject than a kong why would it not really like the handler to give him the towel just as much if not more than other objects that are not satisfying the dog´s preydrive as much according to this system.
> 
> Lou, explain short and consist how the dog is getting is towel and why this is different than this dog for example, is this dog playing and less intense than the shreeding dog you posted because the handler gives him a kong?
> http://www.youtube.com/user/JorgenHagen#p/u/0/tylw2mQSWj8
> ...


Erik it has to do with what drive the dog is in. In a handler supplied reward system the dog regards the object as a toy to play with that he's searching for. When he makes find he is highly praised and gets to play with his handler and the toy. In Donn's system the dog is hunting for a rat to flush, chase, catch and kill. The towel is substituted for the rat and the dog gets to kill it. The handler has nothing to do with this act. The use of the towel facilitates this work on several levels. 

I’m sorry Eric but I don't do "short and concise." Lol. The dog shown in the video is very prey driven and appears to be an excellent candidate for Donn's system. THIS DOG IS WORKING IN PREY, just as in Donn's system. Notice that there is no play or praise from the handler. There is no high pitched, "GOODBOYGOODBOYGOODBOYGOODBOY" verbal reinforcement, the "whoop and holler" as part of this system as there is with a handler supplied reward based system. AGAIN it's not the towel that makes this system work. Not sure why some of you folks can't get past this roadblock. I must not be clear on something here or you're not reading Donn's site with an open mind. 

Anyway, this dog has made the connection between the prey and the Kong. This is a prey based system, just like Donn's only this trainer is using a different prey object. This handler is doing an excellent job, his timing is excellent his body language and leash handling are excellent. Look at the absence of handler influence on this video. Notice the dog's intensity when he spits out the Kong and then stares at it intently. This is flushing behavior. He's waiting for either a release command or the handler to make it live again by kicking it. This is the essence of the prey system. This is exactly what I've been talking about. The only difference is that this trainer uses a Kong instead of a towel. I'd guess that a lot of compulsion was used to get him to release the Kong so quickly. His prey drive has overridden the problems that sometimes arise with compulsion. I doubt that the average handler is going to have the skill necessary to maintain this clean out without tipping the dog over. Look at the number of times that this topic "How do I get the ball away from my dog" has come up, just on this forum! Another advantage of using a towel for this is that the handler does not have to take it away from the dog to use it again. The dog kills it, walks away and goes right back to work. 

Now the question becomes how do you achieve the level of proficiency of this handler with the average dog handler. I'd say that it's a very rare handler that will ever rise to this skill level. Utilizing a system that depends on the handler's excellence is, I think, a mistake. While every trainer should aim for the end, in reality we know that it's a rare police officer who is going to achieve it. 

Another question that I have is how is this dog out in the real world? I'd like to see him doing some real work out in the real world with distractions. Do you know if there are any videos that show this? 

Erik _"I find it strange"_ that you state that Donn's site says _"spaniels are no good [as] detection dogs."_ Since you've made this statement, please provide a quotation from the site that supports it. You'll find that you can't find such a statement on the site because it's not there. Rather it describes the attributes that a dog must have in order to be considered for this system.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Laney Rein said:


> Jennifer
> I have a miniature rat terrier who could be a maligator in sheep's clothing. She will launch herself at people who come at me in a threatening manner and hit them in the chest while taking a good hold of them (no training - natural). She will hunt things into the ground and dig until you make her quit. She will shake the prey once she catches it until it is confirmed dead and then shred the shit out of it, if allowed. So, in all purposes, there is no reason why this dog or breeds that show the same verocity couldn't be trained just the same. She can track, do protection, obedience, search, find, kill and destroy. I have to control her more than I do my malinois. Too funny to watch. No training involved here - all instinct.


Laney look at your dog's breed ... miniature _"RAT terrier."_ I'd guess that if it wasn't for your dog's size that he'd make an excellent candidate for Donn's system. The problem with little dogs like this is that they can't search higher than the handlers knees. Lol. 

BTW didn't you write a few posts back, _"Anyway, think this thread has gone so off that *I don't want to read anymore.?" * _ [Emphasis Added] yet here you are again. Welcome back!


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Chuck Zang said:


> Sorry, I was on my phone earlier so I tried to keep my posts shorter due to the difficulty of inputting on a phone and having fat thumbs.
> 
> So, my understanding of some of the things with Mr. Yarnell's system, and what I am taking out of Lou's description. The following are what I took from the reading that I did. Please do not hold them to what I put here. I do not have the expertise that many on here have and I am just trying to fill in a couple of gaps that I believe I see in some of the conversation.
> 
> ...


Chuck I don't think I've seen a better summary of Donn's system.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> I think you explained it pretty well. This is my understanding also. Yes I did understand it.
> 
> My whole hesitancy to taking this system as gospel or any other system for that fact that depends on the exact thing the dog is thinking or exactly which drive it be in park reverse neutral prey play rat killing or any other drive is the following:
> 
> ...


It's clear that you DO NOT UNDERSTAND Donn's system Jon. Otherwise you'd not be making the same mistakes about it over and over. 

Your _"hesitancy"_ regarding not being able to tell what drive a dog is in, is interesting but it has no application to this system. You do not need to know this as a handler, only as a trainer or the person selecting the dogs. Someone who is skilled CAN read a dog and tell if he's in prey, play or fight drive. We're not "mind reading" here. We're basing a supposition as to what drive a dog is in on his body language and then we're testing that with various procedures that will confirm or deny our supposition. After years of doing this, it becomes a relatively simple matter to tell what drive a dog is in. We can't tell whether a dog is thinking about rats, mice or bunnies, but for this system it makes no difference. Looks as if there's a hole in your training. Not to worry, if you get with the right trainer it's not all that hard to learn. But again you have to have an open mind and based on comments you've made here, yours is not. You have your method, you say it works for you, of course you're a civilian working a drug dog and a bomb dog in Afghanistan where the US laws on search and seizure don't apply, so your system may not work quite so well when you return here, where most of the rest of us work and reside. 

The fact that you can't read a dog's drives, speaks to your abilities as a trainer not to anyone else's skills. Just because you are incapable of reading a dog, it's a mistake to think that others cannot. On this method of training, I'd say that you might qualify as a handler, but not as a trainer. No offense intended; if you were to hand me the leash of a herding dog I'd not even qualify as a handler. 

The fact is that with a handler supplied reward system, unless the handler is VERY good at all the phases of working his dog, the dog will false sooner or later. You admit that this is an issue if a dog becomes frustrated. It takes a pretty good handler to realize when this is happening under good conditions and an even better one to see it in adverse situations. In training it's relatively easy to see, when you're in the field it's harder and you may be distracted by many factors, making it harder for you to read your dog. Donn's system allows even an average handler to work his dog in the system reliably because the handler has so little involvement in it. The more the handler is involved the easier it is for him to screw it up. 

Fact is a state agency worked ten dogs for three years without a false alert. Chuck tells us that his department has been working for two months without one. 

Jon you wrote that Chuck _"... mentioned the handler still supplies the reward/prey/rat/towel. "_ Chuck DID NOT write that. In fact Chuck did not use the word "reward" anywhere in his post. You got it wrong again. The handler in Donn's system does not _"supply the reward/prey/rat/towel."_ *There is no reward in this system no matter how many times you say it *or how many times you tell us you’ve read and understand what's written on the site. It's obvious that you still don't understand it, despite you saying numerous times that you do. If you did, you'd not still be saying this. It looks as if you're trying to twist what people are saying to make yourself right and them wrong. Sorry but it's not gonna work. It would probably be better for YOUR credibility if you stopped. 

When you state, _"eems to me the same reasons you may get a false in a traditionally trained dog are still there ... Until we can either control the minds i=or read the minds of dogs we will never be 100percent what is going on in there."_ it's AGAIN made clear that you don't understand this at all. A handler supplied reward system requires quite a bit from the handler that he may or may not be able to supply. When under the direct control and supervision of the trainer in a controlled environment he may be able to. When he's on the road, away from supervision and someone to direct him, when he's cold, hungry, tired and can't wait for the end of his shift, it's quite another. This system requires little from the handler but that he drive to the location, allow the dog to drag him to the area to be searched and then put his nose where there's likely to be scent. No praise, no "whoop and holler," no exact timing required and no getting a toy away from the dog, with the attendant OB and potential for conflict that's required. 

Any trainer who's worth his salt CAN tell with quite a bit of reliability what drive a dog is in. But all is not lost! lol There are videos on Donn's site that show two dogs being tested. One is in play drive and one is in prey drive. I suggest that you put the two videos next to each other and play them at the same time. Perhaps then you'll be able to see and learn to read the difference between play and prey drives. 

Jon one issue I have with you is your disrespect for people who have actually accomplished some pretty significant achievements in the dog world. This has been seen in your posts from the first one and continues in this one. Donn has trained dogs and done seminars all over the world. He started both the narco and the patrol dog unit for one of the largest Police Departments in the world. His education, training and experience far outshine yours. Next to this you're a very small fish indeed! It comes out as unctuous mocking and insinuations that he's lying or at least being disingenuous. You'll pretend that this is your sense of humor at work but it's become clear that it's far beyond that excuse. Donn developed this system for law enforcement after decades of success in that field. He offers it free of charge to anyone who wants to take advantage of it. Go ahead and stay where you are. Soon, you'll be left in the dust. Yaknow Jon there are many trainers out there who are honest and competent. Perhaps you skepticism is nothing but projection. It looks as if you read Donn's site with more of an eye towards protecting your own interests, rather than to learn something. Your disrespectful statements are the reason that many people no longer participate in these forums. Unfortunately the Net gives your voice the same stage as those people who really know what the hell they're doing. Quite a few people are getting the true picture of you. a

Here we have Chuck Zang, completely independent of this discussion, who I doubt has never even met Donn, who has used the articles on Donn's site to train his dope dogs that have been in the field for plenty long enough for false alert problems to develop and we're told that they have not. 

Jon you are now arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and arguing just for the sake of arguing. You've been corrected many times now and it's become obvious that you're mind is not open and you're not willing to learn anything that is not aligned with what you already know. This is a very simple process that actually works and gives excellent results. Your arguments do nothing but confuse people and muddy up the waters. Your posts are distorting the picture and are one reason why others here are having problems understanding this. YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND and unless you move away from your comfort zone, you never will.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Another advantage to this system is that it has, as a safety valve, the ability for a handler to go back to the pure form of prey drive when problem solving. You don't always know specifically what cause the problem but no matter what caused it, as long as the genetics put pure prey drive into the dog you can go back to this and solve it. It's fast, it's easy, the handler still has little to do with it and it works.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Howard Knauf said:


> John,
> 
> When you were first taught your current system did you question the reasons why it's done that way, or how you knew what was going on in the dogs' head? I would think "no" as I did not either. *As a newbie handler we were all sponges and when a system works it's like magic to us. * I can tell you that I was taught heavy compulsion with m first dog. I changed that to more positive reinforcement and focus reward with very little compulsion on my second dog. I was much happier with the results of the latter and was more effective. I opened my mind and tried something different which turned out quite well for me. I still consider diffeent styles of training when something new comes up that I feel will make me and the dog better.
> 
> I said before that I was quite happy with the handler reward based training that I did with my dogs. That said, I like the Yarnall system and the easy to understand thought process which utilizes a dog's natural behavior that we humans can capitalize on to be effective as we can with our partners. I was successful but my mind is still open. * I was only successful because I had an open mind. I'm not suggesting you or anyone else are closed minded here....I'm just saying that change comes hard for some people. * Myself included sometimes. [Bold Emphasis Added]


Excellent point Howard regarding people being _"first taught [their] current system"_ and how it seems like _"magic."_ Sometimes this leads people to think that their first trainer knew everything there was to know about training a dog. After all, he had all the answers to all of their questions. Sometimes it's very difficult, sometimes it's impossible for people to get out of this thought process and realize that there's more under the sun than what their first trainer knew. 

Open minds are necessary for progress to occur. Once this was just a theory. But it's been put to work on at least three police departments that I know of. The successes of those handlers speaks for itself.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

There are several things going on behind the scenes that are vital to the issues of false alerts, handing cuing, handler supplied rewards systems and this system right now. 

Many dogs trained with handler supplied reward systems are false alerting. 
Many dogs are alerting (and properly so) on residual odors
It's relatively easy for the handler of a handler supplied reward based system to cue his dog, intentionally or unintentionally. 
Dogs trained with Donn's system do not false alert. 
Criminal defense attorneys are saying that these residual odor alerts should not be permitted. If drugs are not found during vehicle searches that these alerts allow, the 4th amendment rights of their clients are being violated. So far courts are not accepting this argument. 
There's a new crop of defense experts out there testifying that handlers are intentionally cuing their dogs to alert so that the vehicles can be searched. 
Some courts are leaning towards requiring that dogs not be trained to alert on residual odor. Since this is impossible, we may lose the use of dogs as probable cause. 
it's all but impossible for the handler of a drive based trained dog to cue his dog, whether intentionally or unintentionally. 
This system is easy for juries to understand and easy for them to see that since the dog is hunting for prey, he won't false alert if the prey is not present. 
This system may save the use of dogs as probable cause. 
There's more going on right now that I can't discuss until some decisions are made. Sorry for the histrionics, but it's necessary right now.


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> Erik _"I find it strange"_ that you state that Donn's site says _"spaniels are no good [as] detection dogs."_ Since you've made this statement, please provide a quotation from the site that supports it. You'll find that you can't find such a statement on the site because it's not there. Rather it describes the attributes that a dog must have in order to be considered for this system.


http://www.k9copsonly.com/civretrieve.html#top mr Yarnall says here that pointers totally lack prey drive and that most labs and springers are not far behind.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> David in the case where this method was used by a state agency. Ten handlers worked for over three years doing nothing but highway interdiction without a single false alert. There were a few alerts on residual odor and each time there was a sophisticated hidden compartment located in the vehicle. They just got them "going the wrong way." Quite a few money seizures were made too, one of them $1.6 million.


As I would expect any well trained dog to do. Your use of the term "residual odor" indicates there were in fact occasions where no tangible drug evidence was found subsequent a response. I can, dog specific, catagorically state the percentage this happens. It's part of our presentation in court. Is that information available on the dogs you reference? 

DFrost


----------



## Erik Berg (Apr 11, 2006)

Lou, so you agree that there is nothing wrong with the handler throwing the dog a kong or hose just like the video I posted I then assume. It´s seems just semantics then and hence the confusion when speaking of prey, rewards and handler bases rewards. 

I get that the dog should view the towel or kong as his prey, but it´s still the handler that supply/controll the "prey" to the dog also in the system you talk about. Many would say the handler gives the dog a "reward" in that situation when doing what it´s supposed to do, even if the dog is in preydrive.

But once again, do you mean the dog have no clue the handler gives/controll him the preyobject, is that the reason you say there are no false indications with this system? Because if the dog realizes the handler has his prey what makes that different to what you call handler based rewards? Or is it just that the dog needs to be in preydrive you worry about?

If so, the question then is when does the handler invokes play in the dogs. You agree that throwing an object and imitate huntinggames is OK. So if someone throws the kong to the dog and he bites it in prey, do you mean the slightest action of the handler after that, as tugging a bit on kong when the dog holds it is wrong and send the dog in play and he realizes the handler gives him the preyobject that then turns into a "toy"? Why not use both type of "games" if the dog is highly motivated by that for some reason. 

I don´t get why a dog working in prey and are not rewarded for false indications is likley to do false indications just because the handler may do a bit more after he throwed the kong to the dog, as long we have a dog with enough drive for the task, whatever motivations the dog is equipped with to do the work. I guess a terrier or lurcher is more prone to shake and kill the prey compared to a spaniel, but does it have the same intense drives for searching as a hunting spaniel have as an example.


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

Lou.
well the gloves seem to have come off . I will not join in the personal bashing though,
A couple things to adress and then Im done, Ill read and lurk and maybe find another interesting topic that dosent result in what this one has.

as for sending anything here to the handlers, I specifically asked it not be sent to me but to the handlers in general. Most of the handlers here are not US personnel and do not make the high salaries you seem to think. Did you know the guys on their hands and knees searching for mines only get 300 a month? They are from Sudan and Cambodia and evidently that is a good wage for them. Everything is relative. we have many handlers here that make a wage that neither you nor anyone in the US would accept, That is who the package would go to.

About the training and the dog
The company that originally got the dog never even tested it. The heart worm comment they gave the vendor was so they could return it without paying for it, The dog at the time was excess.
I had the dog tested no less than three separate times, No heart worms No sign of there ever being heart worms. 

Inhouse cert? no the dog was certified by NNDA IPWDA NPWDA not in house.
I do let the trainers use my property and we do trade out stuff I also trained with other departments and other k9 officers Used their aids they used mine. 

Open minded? I think so for the most part. In fact I was just now delivered my On Target Detection DVDs on another system. Another system besides what I was taught and use to try to learn more and see other ways to do things.

Please understand I am not saying the Yarnall system bad or wrong in anyway I just have a hard time with some of the statements in it as being absolutely 100 percent all the time the way it is with no chance for anything else like a false happening. I at no time called his statements a lie. That would mean a conscious attempt to deceive and I at no time said or think that. 

so far you have insinuated that my:
dog is less than desirable
my training is poor
im closed minded
im only trying to confuse
i make too much money
i dont understand the US laws
it goes on

Tell you what Lou. it is not a competition but you win anyway, everything you say is true, Everything you believe is absolutely correct no question. In fact anyone that does question it must be either wrong or a moron
If you say the sky is made of cream cheese then it is no question.

I come here to learn, participate, add what pea sized knowledge I can. Not to be holier than thou,

Oh BTW my bent sense of humor some get You dont fine. But it is just that humor nothing else.
Well im off to watch the new DVDs
Have fun


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Jon Harris said:


> Open minded? I think so for the most part. In fact I was just now delivered my On Target Detection DVDs on another system. Another system besides what I was taught and use to try to learn more and see other ways to do things.
> 
> Please understand I am not saying the Yarnall system bad or wrong in anyway I just have a hard time with some of the statements in it as being absolutely 100 percent all the time the way it is with no chance for anything else like a false happening. I at no time called his statements a lie. That would mean a conscious attempt to deceive and I at no time said or think that.


 I've not heard of the On Target system but will definately investigate this system to see if I like it. Let us know what you think of it. Just curious as to why you're willing to at least consider using that system. Do the inventors of On Target not make incredulous claims as to its effectiveness? Are Don Yarnalls claims the only thing bringing resistance by you to his system?

I used to work with a guy who always said "There's 20 ways to teach a dog to sit"...he only knew one.](*,) I know at least 2.


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

I more than will to try anything
I am a member of Yarnalls site and communicate with him directly

It is Lou's forcing it down my throat that I resist.

The on target system makes a lot of common sense to me, It is done by Randy Hare 
I dont endorse him or anyone else for that matter Everyone has good points and some I think I may pass on. It is that filling the tool box analogy 

There is a thread on the forum about it, the randy Hare one and he as yarnall has videos on the net too. 
Like I said , I can easily understand his ideas and they make sense to me.

Regardless of what I may be accused of I understand what Donn is doing and what his system is based on. It is good and Im sure it works fine. I just have my own questions about some of it and being berated by Lou that it is the be all end all system and if you dont agree with him you are basically an idiot . That sort of rubs me the wrong way The facts he is trying to put forth get lost.

Ive seen some training that was so heavy in compulsion that I had to walk away from it.
Ive seen some that was terribly disjointed and not working
Ive seen some that was on track and worked very well
I seen training that was logical and made the training easy on the handler and the dog 
Im open to all sorts of new stuff. But I also reserve the ability to decide which is working and which is not as far as I am concerned.

I guess in a way investigating the On Target system sort of proves a point that I am not closed minded Just closed minded to abuse and internet blowhards


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

So in the end it's about Lou's delivery and not the system? My overall feeling during the thread was that of suspicion and and resistance on your part (as well as a couple others). 

I've been on the recieving end of Lou's dissection in the past but I let it go like water off a duck. I read what was written and had questions answered. I considered what was said and took from it what I wanted. I guess I just have thicker skin than most because for me it's all about learning despite the vehicle or delivery of the information.

Don's a nice guy. You guys should get on great.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Will
> 
> He may be registered but that doesn't mean he's reading the posts. I'd really like to hear an explanation of the system from the source
> The Shredding protocol may work really great with the right dog and the right situation. HOWEVER when someone starts talking about zero false indications and 100% reliability You start losing credibility.


Previously I've said, that Donn used to be on this forum. I’m gonna restate that, I think he was a member here. But his name does not show up when you do a "search for user his name." 

It's not _"just talking"_ about _"zero false indications."_ Chuck Zang, who is on this forum and contributing to this thread has said it. (Remember in another thread Thomas, you had to hear from someone on this forum before you'd believe something?). And the state agency who fielded ten handlers for three years reported the same thing. 

I don't recall anyone saying that this system gave, _"100% reliability."_ Can you show us such a post please? One thing is for sure, if the dog's nose is put where scent is present the dog will indicate. If it's not there, he won't. He has no reason to. It's that simple. Some folks are trying to make this much more complicated than it is. The genius is in its simplicity, and that's what confuses so many people, it is just so simple.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Earlier I wrote,


> Erik "I find it strange" that you state that Donn's site says *"spaniels are no good [as] detection dogs." * Since you've made this statement, please provide a quotation from the site that supports it. You'll find that you can't find such a statement on the site because it's not there. Rather it describes the attributes that a dog must have in order to be considered for this system. [Emphasis Added]





Jan Wensink said:


> http://www.k9copsonly.com/civretrieve.html#top mr Yarnall says here that pointers totally lack prey drive and that most labs and springers are not far behind.


Jan I suggest that you read the part of my previous statement that I've placed in bold to assist you and then compare it to what is on Donn's site. NOWHERE does Donn say what Eric attributes (and apparently now you) to him. I notice that you've failed to "provide a quotation from the site that supports it." You can't provide what doesn't exist. 

Donn does not say as YOU claim _"that pointers totally lack prey drive."_ He says very clearly that _"It is this lack of *Prey elements * that cause the pointer to be weak in detection work."_ Prey drive and prey elements are not the same thing. 

He ALSO does not say that _"most labs and springers are not far behind"_ in reference to prey drive as you've tried to attribute to him. He does use that language but he's referring to Combat drive. Here are his words, _"Without a Combat Drive such as Prey Drive, it is impossible for the dog [he's referring to Pointers here] to experience any significant Drive Satisfaction. * And Labs as well as Spaniels are not far behind."*_ Bold is mine in both quotations from Donn's site. 

It's highly unfair and irresponsible of you to misquote what the site says.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> As I would expect any well trained dog to do. Your use of the term "residual odor" indicates there were in fact occasions where no tangible drug evidence was found subsequent a response. I can, dog specific, catagorically state the percentage this happens. It's part of our presentation in court. Is that information available on the dogs you reference?
> 
> DFrost


The presence of _"a sophisticated hidden compartment located in the vehicle is tangible evidence of drug transportation. It's been presented in court for convictions and for seizures too. Of course those guys have that information. They present it in court too, when it's necessary and appropriate._


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Erik Berg said:


> Lou, so you agree that there is nothing wrong with the handler throwing the dog a kong or hose just like the video I posted I then assume. It´s seems just semantics then and hence the confusion when speaking of prey, rewards and handler bases rewards.
> 
> I get that the dog should view the towel or kong as his prey, but it´s still the handler that supply/controll the "prey" to the dog also in the system you talk about. Many would say the handler gives the dog a "reward" in that situation when doing what it´s supposed to do, even if the dog is in preydrive.
> 
> ...


Of course there's nothing wrong with using other prey objects than the towel Eric. I keep saying that there's nothing special about the towel (except that it gives several advantages that other objects don't) and you folks keep going somewhere else. The towel allows the dog to shred it thereby giving the final element in the prey hunt drive. Other objects mean that at some point they'll have to be taken away from the dog. Mostly this will take compulsion. Many handlers are not capable of balancing the compulsion necessary to do this with a high prey drive dog. Sometimes it will cause conflict between the dog and the handler and that will affect the work. It's not a matter of semantics. It's a matter of choosing the best tool for the job. For many reasons, the towel provides the most advantages. 

I pretty much don't care _"what people say."_ This system does not have any rewards as the term is used in dog training. 

The video you sent shows an excellent dog and an excellent handler/trainer doing a very basic, beginning exercise. Notice that the dog is staring intently at the prey object, in this case a scent laden pipe. At some point the Kong is substituted for the prey object and the dog gets to chase it. What is shown on this video is virtually identical to what goes on in Donn's system on Day 1 or Day 2. In this case the Kong is substituted for the prey. The difference is that Donn supplies an object that the dog can kill and shred. He can't kill and shred the Kong. 

The hide consists of a pipe laden with odor. This is this dog's primary prey object. The presence and sight of the prey object keeps the dog in prey drive. Because he has experienced that sitting and staring at the pipe (flushing behavior), makes the prey object come flying out of the cubby hole, that keeps his total focus is on that. What the handler does in the video is substitute the prey object, the Kong for the odor. It is nowhere near the same thing as a whoop and a holler and playing with a toy. In one the satisfaction comes from something that has been substituted for the source, in the other it comes from the handler. 

Do you know if he has any videos where the work is done with ONLY the source odor is in the block, that is, where there is no visible prey object? The skill comes when he moves out of the small training room and into the real world to get the dog to maintain this kind of focus on the odor when there are all sorts of distractions around. I bet this handler is capable of it but I know that not everyone is. 

It's obvious that in the perfect world the dog thinks that his flushing behavior "unearthed" the prey object. But I don't know anyone who lives there. And so some dogs will see their handlers throw the towel. But it's a simple matter to fix if the dog starts to look at the handler expecting the towel to be thrown, an obvious sign that the dog is on a reward based system. You just go back to the pure prey drive that this work started with. 

The people who have used this system are the ones who say that there are no false alerts with this system. I'd suggest that you direct your questions to Chuck Zang who is on this forum, has used the system to train his dogs with and reports this as well. 

A handler using this system never invokes play. Invoking play signals to the dog that the person/dog doing this is immature and is subordinate to him. Have you read the articles on Donn's site? I ask because this is all discussed there. 

Yes, you're correct that the handler should not tug on the rope on the Kong, if that's what's being use as the prey object. Look at the video of the Wild Dogs again. There are no games going on. Prey drive is not a _"game."_ It's combat. Play drive IS a game. It's NOT combat. 

I have no idea where you come up with the information in your last paragraph. A dog working in prey is not going to do a false alert. The false alerts come with a dog that is trained with a handler supplied reward system. That dog is in play drive, because he wants his toy and some interaction with the handler. Donn says that most of today's breedings have taken the kill out of the spaniels. It means "points−off" for most of the venues where they are used. If you have one that has as pronounced, all five elements of a prey drive hunt, he'd be suitable for this system. Donn is talking about the general characteristics of today's version of the dogs.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> Lou.
> well the gloves seem to have come off . I will not join in the personal bashing though,
> A couple things to adress and then Im done, Ill read and lurk and maybe find another interesting topic that dosent result in what this one has.
> 
> ...


Jon you started the personal bashing. You pretend that it's your "sense of humor" but it's clear that's just an excuse and a coverup. 

The fact that the guys from other countries are getting low pay has nothing to do with the fact that Laney wanted to send her care package TO YOU. You diverted it but that doesn't change the fact that she seems to be under the illlusion that you were in the US military. As I said it's her care package and I really don't care what she sends or who she sends it to. Until just now there was no reason to believe that there was anyone but US personnel, albeit civilians working with you. But again, it's really makes no difference.  As far as wages, those depend on what people are willing to work for and what the employer is willing to pay. It has nothing to do with, as I said, that you're _"a civilian contractor, probably getting paid VERY handsomely for his services."_ 

Going back to the dog in the news story (the link I supplied) ... There's no such thing as an _"excess dog."_ No heart worms? That's not what the news story says. Of course they often get such things wrong, but I'm sure that you were the source for all the information in the article. 

The new story says,


> * After extensive testing and rigorous certification through Choice Dogs of Texas, * Buddy and Harris were certified as a narcotics detection team on April 22, 2010. [Emphasis Added]


 Sure looks as if they certified you! Perhaps you went on and got other certs but somehow they're not mentioned in the news story. 

The DVD's you just got that you think show how "open" your "mind" is are another handler supplied reward based system. Here's what it says on the website. Randy's DVD's are to allow you to _"achieve the detector dog trainers three objectives."_ From the website .... 



> Select a good detector dog prospect.
> Teach target odor-*reward * association.
> Condition the final response.


It's just a variation of what you've been arguing for since the start of this discussion. So much for your claim of an _"open mind."_ Randy changes a few things around to get better results. It's not different, it's an improvement. Doesn't really show an open mind at all. It's basically more of the same. An open mind would be shown if you had not argued against Donn's system. But that's not where you went. I have no problem if someone wants to ask question but you went far beyond that. And Jon, you certainly did say that Donn's system was wrong. You came close to calling him a liar. You questioned everything about the system from the prey object that is used to disputing the fact that the dogs don't false alert. 

As to your claim of "my insinuations." You got your dog for free from a vendor. If the dog had what it took to be a police dog to anyone with standards, the vendor would have sold him, not given him to you for free. There are things that your writing reveal about your training that showed that there are some adverse things going on that you don't even see. Is that "poor training." I leave that determination to the readers. 

Despite your claims to the contrary it appears that you ARE closed minded about this system. That is what is shown repeatedly by your comments. Over and over again you stated as fact things that are not true about Donn's system. I can't think of any reason for you to do that except to confuse the readers. 

I don't give a damn how much money you make. Your writing led quite a few people to believe for a time that you were a military working dog hander deployed in Afghanistan when, in fact, you're a civilian contractor there. I don't know any of them who are making less than five figures. You're perfectly capable of buying your own "care package" and sharing it with the _"guys on their hands and knees."_ 

As to your claim that I said that you don't understand US laws ... I ASKED if you knew about the 4th amendment. A great deal of your argument was based on where you're working and what you're doing right now. There the laws are quite different. 

In a previous post you said _"... many of your comments about me are inaccurate and full of assumptions."_ Back then you were challenged to show those comments. You've not done so leaving us to believe that just like this time, your claims are empty. 

You can pretend that your rude comments about Donn's system was _"[your] bent sense of humor"_ and I'm sure that some will even believe it. I know it to be BS and nothing but a weak attempt to cover up your disrespect for what you've shown that you are incapable of understanding.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> It is Lou's forcing it down my throat that I resist.
> 
> Regardless of what I may be accused of I understand what Donn is doing and what his system is based on. It is good and Im sure it works fine. I just have my own questions about some of it and being berated by Lou that it is the be all end all system and if you dont agree with him you are basically an idiot .
> 
> I guess in a way investigating the On Target system sort of proves a point that I am not closed minded Just closed minded to abuse and internet blowhards


Jon this is the second time that you've said this. It's just as stupid as the first time. But since you're such a helpless little flower and think that I'm _"forcing [something] you’re your throat"_ perhaps you could do with some assistance. Folks please just go to www.buyjonapair.com and contribute. In truth, since you repeatedly got the information that's on Donn's site wrong, I was only showing you your errors and correcting them to prevent anyone from becoming confused by your lack of understanding and your continual insistence that you understood the system but showing by your comments that you really didn't. 

Only an idiot would think that I said that if you don't agree with me that you are an idiot. This is just another case of misquoting or pretending that someone said something, when they did not. 

The DVD's that you got, Randy Hare's system, is another handler supplied reward based system. It's a good system, better than a lot of them out there, but it still has the same shortcomings as the rest of the handler supplied rewards based systems. 

I see by you calling me an _"Internet blowhard."_ that you've adopted the language and tactics of another forum member, (who shall remain nameless). The facts are that I was one of the first three K−9 handlers that my department put on, the 4th agency in So Cal to start a K−9 unit in the "modern era." I was a handler for about 5 1/2 years. When my dog retired I became the in−house trainer for the unit for the next 15 years or so until I was sidelined by injuries. I retired after nearly 30 years of service. I started doing seminars and have done 53 of them in 19 states and 3 foreign countries. I also spend lots of time on the Net. So while you only know me from here and have applied your title to me (more humor no doubt), I've accomplished quite a bit in real life too. But since you brought up the topic of "blowhards" ... I wonder Jon, with the vast knowledge and experience that you certainly must have, how many K−9 seminars have you been called upon to do? There must be lots of them, right?


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Howard Knauf said:


> So in the end it's about Lou's delivery and not the system? My overall feeling during the thread was that of suspicion and and resistance on your part (as well as a couple others).
> 
> I've been on the recieving end of Lou's dissection in the past but I let it go like water off a duck. I read what was written and had questions answered. I considered what was said and took from it what I wanted. I guess I just have thicker skin than most because for me it's all about learning despite the vehicle or delivery of the information.
> 
> Don's a nice guy. You guys should get on great.



There is for sure some suspicion on my part, but I have no actual experience in narcotics detection, so my suspicion doesn't mean a whole lot. :mrgreen: As I said though, I am genuinely interested in learning, there are applications where I may find this kind of thing useful.

I had a little "ah ha" moment when reading the exchange between Erik and Lou, and seeing Lou's comments on the vid Erik linked. What I "get" now is that this system is mostly based on the fact that the handler does not interact, praise or play with the dog at all (even thought the handler does physically supply the reward). That is the advertised difference that I see. The dog has to bring it all on their own. You are calling it "prey vs play". Or "prey based vs handler reward based".

In the end I am still wary about the same types of things Erik mentioned, I don't need to repeat them I don't think. That coupled with a healthy skeptisism of anyone that promises it impossible for a dog to false alert.

I don't think that suspicion for sure means a closed mind. You might be very suspicious about how I choose to train, and until you train with me in my profile, you wouldn't have the info needed to really know for sure if you bought into the way I train or not. You would want to see my product, and compare it to other products out there. The suspicion would make you seek out answers to questions you might have to gain a better understanding of my methods. (I am using MY figuratively).

It would for sure be cool to see it in action at a seminar or real life one day, but that is unlikely for me, so I appreciate the info put forth here and the links to Don's site. I for sure learned something on this thread.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> Previously I've said, that Donn used to be on this forum. I’m gonna restate that, I think he was a member here. But his name does not show up when you do a "search for user his name."
> 
> It's not _"just talking"_ about _"zero false indications."_ Chuck Zang, who is on this forum and contributing to this thread has said it. (Remember in another thread Thomas, you had to hear from someone on this forum before you'd believe something?). And the state agency who fielded ten handlers for three years reported the same thing.
> 
> I don't recall anyone saying that this system gave, _"100% reliability."_ Can you show us such a post please? One thing is for sure, if the dog's nose is put where scent is present the dog will indicate. If it's not there, he won't. He has no reason to. It's that simple. Some folks are trying to make this much more complicated than it is. The genius is in its simplicity, and that's what confuses so many people, it is just so simple.


Lou,

My post was addressed to Will
My request was for an explanation from the originator of the 
shredding system/protocol which would be Don Yarnall.
Since you are neither Will or Don........Thanks for your reply,
but no thanks.


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

No Lou, 
I won't bite. I'm not in the business of doing seminars. Im in the business of handling a dog and protecting the lives of our service members.

No need to list accomplishments. Not going to get in a "sword fight" with you to prove who has the bigger one.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> There is for sure some suspicion on my part, but I have no actual experience in narcotics detection, so my suspicion doesn't mean a whole lot. As I said though, I am genuinely interested in learning, there are applications where I may find this kind of thing useful.
> 
> I had a little "ah ha" moment when reading the exchange between Erik and Lou, and seeing Lou's comments on the vid Erik linked. What I "get" now is that this system is mostly based on the fact that the handler does not interact, praise or play with the dog at all (even thought the handler does physically supply the reward). That is the advertised difference that I see. The dog has to bring it all on their own. You are calling it "prey vs play". Or "prey based vs handler reward based".
> 
> ...


What are you suspicious of Jennifer? 

The lack of input from the handler gives several advantages. One is that because the dog is totally focused on the prey odor he's inattentive to the position, stance, stopping starting, or standing still of the handler. The handler in this system can't cue his dog. This is one of the avenues that experts for the defense attack. One of them Steven Nicely, recently testified that a handler cued his dog to alert even though the find was made out of the view of the dash cam! His testimony was discounted but remember, he only has to confused one juror. 

I think it's healthy to be skeptical of any system, not just this one and not just because it's new or starts from a "different place." Look critically at each and every phase of all systems. When you do this across the board, you'll see that Donn's system is as close to foolproof as anything gets and that a system that's based on handler supplied rewards is flawed.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Lou,
> 
> My post was addressed to Will
> My request was for an explanation from the originator of the
> shredding system/protocol which would be Don Yarnall.


Your post was "addressed" to the forum. 

If a request falls in the forest but the man with the information does not hear it, does it make a sound? In any case, last time I looked, you were not involved in any of this kind of work, especially not in a LE capacity, so it seems to me that it's really academic. 

All the information is on Donn's website.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> No need to list accomplishments. Not going to get in a "sword fight" with you to prove who has the bigger one.


The fact is Jon that if you were nearly as educated, experienced and as trained as you'd like us to believe, you'd be in demand to teach and train all over the world. You're not. You're a dog handler with a computer. You tried to impugn my credibility with a personal attack, calling me an _"Internet blowhard."_ I was simply showing which of us in this thread was the keyboard commando.


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

Still taking shots at me lou?
You want to do seminars , Great have at it and I do honestly hope you have good success at it.

Im doing what I want to do, where i want to do it.
Here in Afghanistan living the dream.


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> What are you suspicious of Jennifer?
> 
> The lack of input from the handler gives several advantages. One is that because the dog is totally focused on the prey odor he's inattentive to the position, stance, stopping starting, or standing still of the handler. The handler in this system can't cue his dog. This is one of the avenues that experts for the defense attack. One of them Steven Nicely, recently testified that a handler cued his dog to alert even though the find was made out of the view of the dash cam! His testimony was discounted but remember, he only has to confused one juror.
> I think it's healthy to be skeptical of any system, not just this one and not just because it's new or starts from a "different place." Look critically at each and every phase of all systems. When you do this across the board, you'll see that Donn's system is as close to foolproof as anything gets and that a system that's based on handler supplied rewards is flawed.


I think the lack of input of a handler is a guarantee for a poor search. Every dog handler wants the dog to search the objects he wants. If not guided by lead or by body language very few dogs will be able to do that.


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> Earlier I wrote,
> Jan I suggest that you read the part of my previous statement that I've placed in bold to assist you and then compare it to what is on Donn's site. NOWHERE does Donn say what Eric attributes (and apparently now you) to him. I notice that you've failed to "provide a quotation from the site that supports it." You can't provide what doesn't exist.
> Donn does not say as YOU claim _"that pointers totally lack prey drive."_ He says very clearly that _"It is this lack of *Prey elements *that cause the pointer to be weak in detection work."_ Prey drive and prey elements are not the same thing.
> 
> ...


I don't claim anything but to put it simpky: many spaniels and retrievers have been used as hunting dogs, are not supposed to damage the prey and will be very reluctant to shred. Not the best choice for this system I would say.


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> Not really. It's not about the shredding. It's necessary that a dog to be used for this have all five elements of the prey drive hunt. It's about dogs who can easily be put into a prey drive hunt. While many dogs will shred a towel naturally, often it's hectic, destructive or bored behavior. GSD's and Mals are among breeds that naturally do the prey drive hunting behavior and shredding both.


I think here you more or less say that GSD's and Mals are more suitable for this system.
My point is that many, many of the dogs that are good detector dogs in a handler supplied reward system will not have the qualities for the system of shredding. That's why I doubt if it will ever be widely accepted.


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

This is a post Lou made back in 2001 
_
Why don't you tell us of your accomplishments??? I'm sure they're fantastic!!! I'm sure that you've been around the world training dogs. I'm sure that you've done hundreds of seminars. I'm sure that your skills are in GREAT demand. I'm sure that quite a few companies are after you for your endorsement. I'm sure that you've made lots and lots of videos that sell in the six figures every year. I'm sure that your day rate for training is in the four figures. So tell us of YOUR accomplishments.

_And here your post to me

 I wonder Jon, with the vast knowledge and experience that you certainly must have, how many K−9 seminars have you been called upon to do? There must be lots of them, right?




looks to me like you need some new material. Also it is apparent that I am certainly not special. Your call to compare qualifications is also not new. 

Tell me, is there an issue in doing all those seminars while on disability from your department? Just how long were you on disability? Sure seems like you suffered more than your share of injuries on the job.

Dont respond yet I need to put my Kevlar on


----------



## Erik Berg (Apr 11, 2006)

Lou, I agree that it´s easy to understand this system if everyone uses the same terminology. What confused the heck of me and send me into serious overthinking is when you agreed with David Frost that the target odor isn´t the reward, only the means to the reward, but then you added it´s not so in your system, no "rewards".

I get you don´t use rewards that could evoke wrong drive in the dog but is this the only difference or is it also the fact how the dog make the association between alerting the odor and getting it´s preyobject? If I learn the dog to associate alerting a certain odor by himself gives him his preyobject, is this different from learning the dog hunt for his preyobject that then are associated with the odor of a substance? In the video I posted the dogs are learning to first sniff samples from their beloved kong, the scent from the kong is then mixed with the scent you should learn the dog, when the dog gets the connection the scent of the kong is taken away. But as you can read in the link further below they also call it rewards and doesn´t seem to discourage playing tug with the dog as one method among others to increase his drive for the kong, one of their dogs when the target is hidden,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbFAWoPKkZg


So what is the real difference if you have a towel/kong the dog sees as a preyobject he gets when alerting, isn´t the only difference how you learn the dog associate his preyobject with the scent? Is it a handler based reward system if the dog learns sniffing a scent in a box gives him immediatelly satisfaction by getting a preyobject thrown to him? As long as you use the dogs preydrive, does it matter how you learn the dog to associate the scent with his preyobject?

If you define reward as playing with the handler in a way the dog are not in preydrive I get the point, the reward I was thinking about is throwing the dog his preyobject to reward his alert so the dog learns to associate the odor and correct way of alerting with help of the kong/towel, for example rewarding the dog when sitting and having focus on the source odor. If this is not a rewarding I don´t know what a reward is.

The only difference I noted in what you describe is in your eyes the towel is not a reward because the dog doesn´t associate the towel with the handler. Isn´t more correct to say the dog works in prey but still realize it´s his handler that is responsible for the towel and hence the reward to appear?

I also get that a preydog will not alert if he doesn´t smell the odor trained for, but has that so much to do with false alerts? If you define false alert as alerting despite no narcotics present, isn´t this just a case of the dog alerting because misstakes have been done in training, the dog may alert for a scent that the trainer wasn´t aware was present when training the dog. Isn´t this the biggest reasons for false alerts and not the dog alerting because he have discovered alerting can give him some attention from the handler? It seems also a very preydriven dog could do this just to get his towel then, as long as the dog isn´t thinking the preyobject has no connection to the handler at all.

In the end I guess what is most important is to get the dog highly motivated for his preyobject(towel or not) combined with good training, no arguing there. If he does his jobb well there isn´t much use of thinking about what elements of prey he is gifted with. Considering spaniels are often used for detection it seems they are still having enough of certain qualities even if they would not shredd so likely as other breeds, is this spaniel working in "wrong" drive,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk_PuDz-BR4

If some one intressted here is a link that deals much with the training and preparing of minedogs, much info about rewards and other things we have disscused here,
http://www.gichd.ch/fileadmin/pdf/publications/Training_of_MDD.pdf

This is one way to learn a dog odors by a clicker with great timing and less influence of handler, now if someone learn a dog odors this way but then uses a preyobject when the dog indicates, is it a handler based reward system that will have the dog working in wrong drive?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-vN5MlOg-g

A policedog learning to indicate with use of clicker and reward, don´t know what Lou thinks about this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjFeikRUiH0


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Erik

The NPA way of training is really nice. It lends itself nicely to tracking and Narcotics. They do pick excellent dogs with high drive through their puppy test. Thanks for links


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

It is amazing this thread has as many replys in it

224 is a bunch for it only being up a few days. Guess it has been entertaining.Almost like watching a train wreck. That will probally get a comment too](*,)


----------



## Winnie Keppler (Jan 14, 2011)

Can anyone help me with building Dutch Scent Boxes similar to the ones Randy Hare uses? Like dimensions or anything? Thank you..


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Winnie Keppler said:


> Can anyone help me with building Dutch Scent Boxes similar to the ones Randy Hare uses? Like dimensions or anything? Thank you..


Winnie, you want to do a bio/intro here: http://www.WorkingDogForum.com/vBulletin/f20/

Then I would open a new thread about your question. 

Thanks!


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> Your post was "addressed" to the forum.
> 
> NOT REALLY
> 
> ...


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Thomas says: I'd really like to hear an explanation of the system from the source"

Since he doesn't post here, I would suggest contacting him through his website. That way you can carry on a conversation with him personally.

DFrost


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Erik Berg said:


> This is one way to learn a dog odors by a clicker with great timing and less influence of handler, now if someone learn a dog odors this way but then uses a preyobject when the dog indicates, is it a handler based reward system that will have the dog working in wrong drive?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-vN5MlOg-g


That's an interesting looking contraption. What exactly is it?


----------



## Winnie Keppler (Jan 14, 2011)

Can anyone help me with building Dutch Scent Boxes Similar to the Elite K9, Hare Boxes? PLEASE!!! or does anyone have some Hare Boxes to sell CHEAP??


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Winnie Keppler said:


> Can anyone help me with building Dutch Scent Boxes Similar to the Elite K9, Hare Boxes? PLEASE!!! or does anyone have some Hare Boxes to sell CHEAP??


http://www.workingdogforum.com/vBulletin/f15/looking-plans-make-dutch-box-16437/


----------



## Winnie Keppler (Jan 14, 2011)

Thank you so much Nicole for your help, that helps me out...


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

some dimensions here

does not look that hard at all really

http://alphak9.com/products-store.h...lypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=2&category_id=4


----------



## Winnie Keppler (Jan 14, 2011)

Thank you for getting me that info John, yeah looks easy but I need some numbers or something I can take to the drawing board... Wish I would of Measured those Boxes like the Hare Boxes, Like Elite K9 had, when I was down there in KY.... Thank you though... Love these boxes though....


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

i just finished watching the three dvds from Randy Hare for the second time.

Makes a lot of sense to me. I like the fact that there is fooling the dog I think handlers that think they are always fooling the dog as to where the reward is coming from are sometimes fooling themselves.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Jon Harris said:


> i just finished watching the three dvds from Randy Hare for the second time.
> 
> Makes a lot of sense to me. I like the fact that there is fooling the dog I think handlers that think they are always fooling the dog as to where the reward is coming from are sometimes fooling themselves.


I saw one handler who thought he fooled his dog on a "toss and hide in the armpit", take a bite to his chest that he had to go to the ER for. Everyone thought that was really funny, except him...dog got his reward for it too


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

i meant to say i lake the fact that ether is NO fooling the dog in his system.
man typing in the dark sucks:roll:


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> I saw one handler who thought he fooled his dog on a "toss and hide in the armpit", take a bite to his chest that he had to go to the ER for. Everyone thought that was really funny, except him...dog got his reward for it too


In situations like that, I tell the handlers; "I've looked on the IOD form, there is no block for stupid. How did you want me to record this?" Can ya believe they don't always see the humor in that????????

DFrost


----------



## Jon Harris (Nov 23, 2011)

We had a guy in San Antonio that did the same thing Tried to hide the kong under his arm Dog bit him in the upper arm trying to get to the kong. SO a couple days later he tries a new tactic. When he picks up the kong off the ground instead of trying to put it under his arm, (lesson learned) he -- well-- picks it up and attempts to put the kong in his pants pocket.

It gets better

As he is bringing the kong from the ground to his pocket he of course crosses his lower body with it. Dog goes for the now moving kong , Guy pulls it out of the way and the dog clamps down on the closest thing he can get.

Cue hospital visit

Ice packs
Swelling Will go down

Yep , got him right in the crouch. It was a pretty hard dog too Another handler had to lift the dog off him by the collar. He couldn't scream for help and a bunch of us just about died laughing.

Yes cruel I guess. Funny thing is there was a pool going to see how long it would be before he got bit. This was the third time with three different dogs in 4 days.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

David Frost said:


> Thomas says: I'd really like to hear an explanation of the system from the source"
> 
> Since he doesn't post here, I would suggest contacting him through his website. That way you can carry on a conversation with him personally.
> 
> DFrost


Hey David

I looked over the info on the website. There is way too much
confusing drive jargon and theory. I doubt if Donn Y is interested in explaining his shredding theory with a non LE
sport trainer? As far as I'm concerned the shredding protocol has been poisoned by all the comments on this thread. I did get some interesting ideas from some of the replies.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Hey David
> 
> I looked over the info on the website. There is way too much
> confusing drive jargon and theory. I doubt if Donn Y is interested in explaining his shredding theory with a non LE
> sport trainer? As far as I'm concerned the shredding protocol has been poisoned by all the comments on this thread. I did get some interesting ideas from some of the replies.


Did you try to contact Donn, or are you just assuming he will not explain it.

Does the LE side of the website, go into more detail?


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> Did you try to contact Donn, or are you just assuming he will not explain it.
> 
> Does the LE side of the website, go into more detail?


I don't know what's on the LE side. There is no need on my part to contact Donn Yarnall. I got enough information from the website to convince me that the shredding protocol isn't for me


----------



## Winnie Keppler (Jan 14, 2011)

Does anyone have the Randy hare DVD set... I Can watch? PM Me if you do...


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Hey David
> 
> I looked over the info on the website. There is way too much
> confusing drive jargon and theory. I doubt if Donn Y is interested in explaining his shredding theory with a non LE
> sport trainer? As far as I'm concerned the shredding protocol has been poisoned by all the comments on this thread. I did get some interesting ideas from some of the replies.


Old cowboy saying; never drink down river of the herd. If you feel the information you've received is tainted, go to the source. If you're willing to trash an idea that either you don't feel you have a complete understanding or the information is corrupt, not much I can say. Something about cursing the darkness but refusing to light a candle?? I can only say, if I had questions, I'd find out from someone whose opinion I respected. 

DFrost


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

David Frost said:


> Old cowboy saying; never drink down river of the herd. If you feel the information you've received is tainted, go to the source. If you're willing to trash an idea that either you don't feel you have a complete understanding or the information is corrupt, not much I can say. Something about cursing the darkness but refusing to light a candle?? I can only say, if I had questions, I'd find out from someone whose opinion I respected.
> 
> DFrost


David,

Where do you get "trashing an idea"?
I've seen similar hype concerning the Guidance System video
when it first came out. I read enough on the website and on this thread to come to the conclusion that the shredding protocol isn't for me. If it works for you or anyone else?
Knock yourself out


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Ok, "trashed" was a poor choice of words. If I felt a presentation had been "poisoned" with "confusing drive jargon and theory", I would go to a source that is not confusing. Perhaps the source of the theory would be better than those involved in the discussion on WDF.

DFrost


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Is it safe to say that from the lack of response so far, no one knows the answer to my question?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik Berg 
This is one way to learn a dog odors by a clicker with great timing and less influence of handler, now if someone learn a dog odors this way but then uses a preyobject when the dog indicates, is it a handler based reward system that will have the dog working in wrong drive?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-vN5MlOg-g
That's an interesting looking contraption. What exactly is it?


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

I haven't seen one of those since I worked at Southwest Research. you can see in each hole the dog is sticking his nose into, a plate with smaller holes. I'm guessing at the point the video was being shot, the dog was in the process of learning to sniff each hole is sequence. At some point, an odorant of some sort would be introduced and the reward would only be provided when the odorant is present. The current day use of the boxes in detection is actually a dirivitive of this laboratory practice. Even in the very early 70's (70, 71, 72) we were using simliar platforms. The odorant in some of the platforms was actually propelled by an inert gas (nitogen). The reward is very strong and as you can imagine, the odor becomes the source of the reward, regardless of how it is provided. At least that's the theory I learned. 

DFrost


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Thanks David, I was hoping you might come through for me with a response if I asked about it again. Laboratory is a good word reference here, which is why it initially caught my interest. I also remember past discussion about using items that appeared to be large salt shakers and so in my head I was putting together a number of things previously mentioned to see if this was something described in the past. 

Obviously, I didn't train my mastiff on this specific system or rather device, but otherwise the observable fundamentals were applied.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

David Frost said:


> Ok, "trashed" was a poor choice of words. If I felt a presentation had been "poisoned" with "confusing drive jargon and theory", I would go to a source that is not confusing. Perhaps the source of the theory would be better than those involved in the discussion on WDF.
> 
> DFrost


David

I totally agree. Anyone that is interested in the Shredding Protocol should definitely contact Donn Yarnall. Even better would be to restart a separate topic on Shredding and convince
Donn to participate from the beginning?


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Thomas Barriano said:


> David
> 
> I totally agree. Anyone that is interested in the Shredding Protocol should definitely contact Donn Yarnall. Even better would be to restart a separate topic on Shredding and convince
> Donn to participate from the beginning?


Good idea. Now stop bringing it up. :twisted:


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Hi Nicole

I don't know if this is what you're looking for, but you need to check out the "Training of Mine Detection Dogs...."
manual that Eric pointed to in the same post
http://www.gichd.ch/fileadmin/pdf/publications/Training_of_MDD.pdf

It's a 120 page manual with lots of good information including an explanation on the carousel in Chapter Eleven



Nicole Stark said:


> Is it safe to say that from the lack of response so far, no one knows the answer to my question?
> 
> 
> Quote:
> ...


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Hi Nicole
> 
> I don't know if this is what you're looking for, but you need to check out the "Training of Mine Detection Dogs...."
> manual that Eric pointed to in the same post
> ...


Hey Thomas thanks. I had that manual set to print today and then got interrupted before I could do so. I have seen videos of a number of carousel varieties but didn't initially think to consider this one quite like that. Also, I think it was the "sterile" nature of the work that made me wonder if there was something specific or unique about it but come to think of it a lot of the carousel work seems to be done in particularly sterile looking environments.


----------



## Laney Rein (Feb 9, 2011)

Lou Castle said:


> The fact is Jon that if you were nearly as educated, experienced and as trained as you'd like us to believe, you'd be in demand to teach and train all over the world. You're not. You're a dog handler with a computer. You tried to impugn my credibility with a personal attack, calling me an _"Internet blowhard."_ I was simply showing which of us in this thread was the keyboard commando.


and Just FYI - when calling the numbers supplied by Lou himself for reference I was told that he was never their in-house trainer - that they mostly had 1 dog at the time and when more were added - outside contractors were brought in to train and keep the dogs sharp. Lou was off and on disability approx 20 years of the 30 he says he worked there. This is fact given to anyone upon making a simple phone call. Lou I will not debate this with you as it came from someone other than yourself. Off to hide again until Lou stops his tirade.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jan Wensink said:


> I think the lack of input of a handler is a guarantee for a poor search. Every dog handler wants the dog to search the objects he wants. * If not guided by lead or by body language very few dogs will be able to do that. * [Bold Emphasis Added]


Of course the handler in this system can guide the dog by lead or by body language to the area to be searched. Watch the videos on Donn's site and you'll see this. 



Jan Wensink said:


> * I don't claim anything * but to put it simpkyte: many spaniels and retrievers have been used as hunting dogs, are not supposed to damage the prey and will be very reluctant to shred. Not the best choice for this system I would say. [Bold Emphasis Added]


You *did claim * that Donn's website said something. I showed that it did not. 

I'd agree, dogs that will not shred (no matter what their breed) are not a good choice for this system. This system is about balance and level of drives, not breeds. 



Jan Wensink said:


> I think here you more or less say that GSD's and Mals are more suitable for this system.
> * My point is that many, many of the dogs that are good detector dogs in a handler supplied reward system will not have the qualities for the system of shredding. That's why I doubt if it will ever be widely accepted. * [Bold Emphasis Added]


Mals and GSD's have the required level and balance of drives more often than other breeds. This is not just opinion, it's been shown through testing for dogs to use in this system. 

I don't know if it will ever be widely accepted or not. I do know that in both California and Florida courts are on the verge of requiring that dogs not alert on residual odor. If that happens more than likely, dogs that do will be deemed not to be "reliable." I think it's happening because so many dogs are false alerting in those venues. If that happens we'll lose dogs as probable cause in those venues. Then it's only a matter of time until it becomes the law of the land. All LE will suffer behind poor work by a small number of handlers. That's the way it's always been and that's the way it always will be. 

This isn't about the dogs, except that you seem to have a bias towards a certain breed. It's about the system. In a handler supplied reward system the dogs can be cued to false alert even if the handler doesn’t intend to. If he decides to do the wrong thing because "he knows" that there are drugs in that car, he can cue the dog intentionally. We all know that there are flawed cops out there who sometimes will do the wrong thing. Donn's system is much more defensible in court because the handler has so little role in the dog's searching beyond taking him to the area to be searched. He doesn't even give him a command to search.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jon Harris said:


> looks to me like you need some new material. *Also it is apparent that I am certainly not special. * Your call to compare qualifications is also not new.
> 
> Dont respond yet I need to put my Kevlar on [Bold Emphasis Added]


Thanks for making my point Jon. ROFL. Actually the material works well anytime an idiot attacks me personally, by saying that I have no experience or that I've not done anything in the K−9 world. As before, you ran out or cogent arguments about the topic so you turned to a logical fallacy, the personal attack to try and stay in the discussion and make some points. We now know that contrary to your attempt to diminish me, that you are the empty bag. 

You called me, an _"internet blowhard"_ insinuating that I had no real expertise in training and that I only wrote on the Net, without any real hands on experience. Instead you revealed your true colors.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Erik Berg said:


> Lou, I agree that it´s easy to understand this system if everyone uses the same terminology. What confused the heck of me and send me into serious overthinking is when you agreed with David Frost that the target odor isn´t the reward, only the means to the reward, but then you added it´s not so in your system, no "rewards".


It's not my system, Donn Yarnall's system. I agree with you, you're seriously overthinking this. 



Erik Berg said:


> I get you don´t use rewards that could evoke wrong drive in the dog but is this the only difference or is it also the fact how the dog make the association between alerting the odor and getting it´s preyobject? If I learn the dog to associate alerting a certain odor by himself gives him his preyobject, is this different from learning the dog hunt for his preyobject that then are associated with the odor of a substance? In the video I posted the dogs are learning to first sniff samples from their beloved kong, the scent from the kong is then mixed with the scent you should learn the dog, when the dog gets the connection the scent of the kong is taken away. But as you can read in the link further below they also call it rewards and doesn´t seem to discourage playing tug with the dog as one method among others to increase his drive for the kong, one of their dogs when the target is hidden,
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbFAWoPKkZg


I'm sorry Eric, I can't make heads or tails about what you're asking here. 



Erik Berg said:


> So what is the real difference if you have a towel/kong the dog sees as a preyobject he gets when alerting, isn´t the only difference how you learn the dog associate his preyobject with the scent? Is it a handler based reward system if the dog learns sniffing a scent in a box gives him immediatelly satisfaction by getting a preyobject thrown to him? As long as you use the dogs preydrive, does it matter how you learn the dog to associate the scent with his preyobject?


It doesn’t matter at the beginning. It does matter at the end. The advantage of the towel and shredding has been discussed over and over again. I'll give it one more try. A dog who is hunting finds a rabbit in a hole using his nose. After he stares at the hole for a moment the rabbit jumps out of the hole. The dog kills the rabbit. In another circumstance the dog finds a rabbit in a hole using his nose. After he stares at the hole for a moment the handler brings him a rabbit and lets him kill it. The first situation is Donn's system. The second is a handler supplied reward system. It seems obvious to me that the first system will be more reliable. 



Erik Berg said:


> If you define reward as playing with the handler in a way the dog are not in preydrive I get the point, the reward I was thinking about is throwing the dog his preyobject to reward his alert so the dog learns to associate the odor and correct way of alerting with help of the kong/towel, for example rewarding the dog when sitting and having focus on the source odor. If this is not a rewarding I don´t know what a reward is.


Reward training is "if you do this, I give you this." This system is "If you work hard enough you will be able to get the prey to flush. A behavior can be rewarding. A handler (in this discussion) supplies a reward. They are not the same thing. 



Erik Berg said:


> The only difference I noted in what you describe is in your eyes the towel is not a reward because the dog doesn´t associate the towel with the handler. Isn´t more correct to say the dog works in prey but still realize it´s his handler that is responsible for the towel and hence the reward to appear?


Again I'm not sure what you're getting at. In Donn's system the dog should not know that the prey object comes from the handler. If he does he might start false alerting. It's easy to tell if the dog knows this, he looks at the handler after making the find. To fix this, it's a simple matter of taking the dog back to the pure form of the hunt. After doing this about a half dozen times the dog will go back to thinking that it's his behavior that made the prey object appear rather than thinking that the handler supplied the reward. 

In a handler supplied reward system the dog knows that the reward comes from the handler and he's likely to do things so that the handler will give him the toy and some praise, making it less reliable. 



Erik Berg said:


> I also get that a preydog will not alert if he doesn´t smell the odor trained for, but has that so much to do with false alerts? If you define false alert as alerting despite no narcotics present, * isn´t this just a case of the dog alerting because misstakes have been done in training, the dog may alert for a scent that the trainer wasn´t aware was present when training the dog. Isn´t this the biggest reasons for false alerts and not the dog alerting because he have discovered alerting can give him some attention from the handler? * It seems also a very preydriven dog could do this just to get his towel then, as long as the dog isn´t thinking the preyobject has no connection to the handler at all. [Bold Emphasis Added]


I don't think it's just because mistakes have been made in the training. If a dog alerts because _"The trainer hasn't aware some scent was present"_ There are some serious errors being committed. I think that dogs false alert because the dog has learned that he can get his toy and some praise just by doing his trained alert without ever actually making a find. 



Erik Berg said:


> In the end I guess what is most important is to get the dog highly motivated for his preyobject(towel or not) combined with good training, no arguing there. * If he does his jobb well there isn´t much use of thinking about what elements of prey he is gifted with. * Considering spaniels are often used for detection it seems they are still having enough of certain qualities even if they would not shredd so likely as other breeds, is this spaniel working in "wrong" drive,
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk_PuDz-BR4


You've got this _"if he does his job ... there isn't much use thinking about what elements of prey drive [a dog] is gifted with"_ backwards. The time to think about what elements of prey drive he has is long before he's doing his job. It's during the earliest part of the selection process. Once he's been selected, one no longer has to consider it. 

Erik thanks for posting this video. It shows a dog that is working in prey drive. He's NOT being rewarded. I think that you, and perhaps his handler, think he is but you can clearly see that instead of giving the dog a reward the handler is SUBSTITUTING the prey object for the prey odor. But there's a problem on the horizon. It's clear that this dog knows where the prey object comes from. As soon as he sits in the first search he turns and faces the handler because he knows that the handler will give him the prey object. If this is not fixed it will probably turn into a full−on handler supplied reward system. You notice that when The dog goes into the back of the van and is away from the direct influence of the handler, he reverts to what is his natural behavior. Instead of sitting, he starts digging with his paws all over the seat backs. It's only when his handler climbs into the van, that, due to proximity of the handler, the dog goes back to his trained behavior, a sit. Then, again the handler substitutes the prey object for the prey odor. It looks as if this dog might be a good candidate for Donn's system. Notice what he does with the prey object after the last search; he runs off with it. I'd bet that if he was left alone, he'd start to shred it! 



Erik Berg said:


> This is one way to learn a dog odors by a clicker with great timing and less influence of handler, now if someone learn a dog odors this way but then uses a preyobject when the dog indicates, is it a handler based reward system that will have the dog working in wrong drive?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-vN5MlOg-g
> 
> A policedog learning to indicate with use of clicker and reward, don´t know what Lou thinks about this
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjFeikRUiH0


The chances of you getting a dog to work in prey drive after doing clicker work is slim. Clicker training is about the pinnacle of a handler supplied reward system. In order to understand the drive system people have to be able to see past trick training.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Thomas Barriano said:


> I looked over the info on the website. There is way too much
> confusing drive jargon and theory. * I doubt if Donn Y is interested in explaining his shredding theory with a non LE
> sport trainer? * As far as I'm concerned the shredding protocol has been poisoned by all the comments on this thread. I did get some interesting ideas from some of the replies. [Bold Emphasis Added]


If folks have been using the correct jargon from the start, it's not confusing. If they have not .......

Actually Donn has discussed _"his shredding theory with a non LE sport trainer"_ quite a few times.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

My comments in blue. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> Originally Posted by Lou Castle
> Your post was "addressed" to the forum.
> 
> NOT REALLY


 Yep really. Up at the top of the page there's a button for "Private Messages." There you can _"address"_ posts specifically to one member. If you don't use that button you're post is "addressed to the entire forum" where anyone may respond. And so, I did to provide you with the best, most up−to−date formation. Putting someone's name at the top of your post merely means that you want a reply from that person or that you're speaking to him. This is a bit like having a conversation in a group at a party. Even though you start your sentence with one person's name, anyone can chime in.  

My post 179

"Will

He may be registered but that doesn't mean he's reading the posts. I'd really like to hear an explanation of the system from the source
The Shredding protocol may work really great with the right dog and the right situation. HOWEVER when someone starts talking about zero false indications and 100% reliability You start losing credibility."

n any case, last time I looked, you were not involved in any of this kind of work, especially not in a LE capacity, 

>That would make two of us then and only one of us is
>trying to claim otherwise.

 Sorry Thomas but AGAIN you're wrong. I work with both LE and SAR detector dogs regularly. In fact I assisted at a class on detection at SAR CITY and will do so again at another seminar in Colorado, next year. Always amazed when you think you know what kind of work I'm doing. All it does is underline how little you really know about me.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Laney Rein said:


> and Just FYI - when calling the numbers supplied by Lou himself for reference I was told that he was never their in-house trainer - that they mostly had 1 dog at the time and when more were added - outside contractors were brought in to train and keep the dogs sharp. Lou was off and on disability approx 20 years of the 30 he says he worked there. This is fact given to anyone upon making a simple phone call. Lou I will not debate this with you as it came from someone other than yourself. Off to hide again until Lou stops his tirade.


Another off topic rant from Laney consisting of nothing but ANOTHER personal attack. 

Notice how Laney SOMEHOW forgets to give us the name of her source? I won't call Laney a liar but IF she did get this information from someone at my department he's either a liar or simply ignorant of the facts. To set the record straight, we started with three dogs. Several months later we added a fourth. A short time later a handler was removed from the program. We continued with three dogs until about 5 years later. During that time we DID NOT hire any outside vendor, contractor, or trainer. I did the training. Virtually every other department in the area, except for LAPD AND LASD , DID hire outside trainers. Mostly they used their vendors. In fact, We didn't hire ANY outside contractors to maintain our dogs until I was injured and could no longer do it. The number of dogs varied from 2-3. And I think that at one time the Chief shut it down for about a year. There were a few periods after my retirement when we had no handlers on the street but new ones were always in the mill. Here's a photo that's also on my website. 









_(L to R) K−9 handler Officer Carl Everett and K−9 Canto, K−9 handler Officer Brian Fitzpatrick and K−9 Ede, K−9 Coordinator Sgt. Seth Fogel, K−9 Trainer Officer Lou Castle, K−9 handler Officer Paul Christy and K−9 Asso. _

Hmmm Looks like more than the _"1 dog"_ that Laney described!? 

Rather than believe the lies that Laney has posted, I suggest that you call the department. There are several handlers that I trained who are still there who will tell you the truth. PM me and I'll be happy to supply their names. One of them is in the photo and he's still there, the rest have either gone to other departments or retired. That one is now a Sgt., Brian Fitzpatrick. Sgt. Aubrey Kellum, one of the last two handlers that I trained is now the K−9 Coordinator. He'll be happy to speak with you, as will Brian. 

Anyone who says that I was on disability for 20 of my 30 years is a liar and stupid to boot. Common sense, which seems to be in rare supply here for some, says that a department will retire anyone who stays disabled this long. In truth, my first injury that lead to my retirement occurred around 1996. I retired in 2004. I worked for many years after that first injury, in fact, I was on duty, in patrol, when they sent me home and then to see the city doctor who put me off "light duty." My department never had a long−term "light duty" position, and so they retired me. 

There's no _"debate"_ to be done Laney. Lies don't need a _"debate."_ They just need the light of truth shined on them.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

If there is more discussion on Narcotic Detection Training, please start a new thread. This one is just too far gone to resurrect. 

DFrost


----------

