# working dogs...Police,Military or Security..breeders/trainers/vendors/end users.



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

breeders,trainers, vendors, or end users..

is sociability, kid friendliness,etc... a major concern for these types of jobs?

I realize it can be a plus if dog is sociable for some Police K9...dogs expected to do demos, and visit schools full of children..

are sociability, and kid friendliness a major concern for breeding or selection of these types of working dogs?

I am guessing NO...


----------



## Pete Stevens (Dec 16, 2010)

Its nice to have them sociable, but not necessary. Some dogs are not demo or take to school dogs but very functional police dogs. They are tools not pets. And they don't belong to the handler, they are property of whatever agency owns them. I think a sport dog should be more social but that is just my opinion. The law enforcement dog has a release for stress and are with the handler while they are working. A sport dog may need another person to give them a break from the kennel or feed them. The responsibilty of a sport dog is soley on the owner. Whatever the dog does falls on the owners shoulders. Right now I have a female GSD I'm training for a friend. She is the most socialable dog I have had but a complete monster on the training field. Some dogs can turn it off, while others can't.


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

My dog looks at kids the same way a guy does that just came home to find his neighbor boinkin his wife.

It's a non issue, people have the common sense not to put their kids in with the cattle or horses but think all dogs should be Rintintin.


----------



## Ashley Campbell (Jun 21, 2009)

Oh an appropriate place to ask this...from what I read on the K9 Cops show, officers do bring their K9's home after their shifts. I'm not sure if this is optional or what though.
So how do you deal with a non-sociable dog in that event if you're a K9 officer and have children? Dog comes home and goes in a kennel, stays at the station in a kennel? 



> It's a non issue, people have the common sense not to put their kids in with the cattle or horses but think all dogs should be Rintintin.


But do you let cattle and horses live in your house?


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

Ashley Campbell said:


> But do you let cattle and horses live in your house?


I was married to a cow for a few years, she even slept in my bed.


----------



## Ashley Campbell (Jun 21, 2009)

LMAO, good response.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Gerry Grimwood said:


> My dog looks at kids the same way a guy does that just came home to find his neighbor boinkin his wife.
> 
> It's a non issue, people have the common sense not to put their kids in with the cattle or horses but think all dogs should be Rintintin.


and this dog is your pet? why have you not put a bullet in its head yet? you must realize what a menace to the public it is..


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

Joby Becker said:


> and this dog is your pet? why have you not put a bullet in its head yet? you must realize what a menace to the public it is..


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGIY5Vyj4YM


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

i understand now Gerry...


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> breeders,trainers, vendors, or end users..
> 
> is sociability, kid friendliness,etc... a major concern for these types of jobs?
> 
> ...


Depending on the application and operations of said department or unit and what the requirment is, I think they can all be different, but I need a dog who is social period. 

Socialability again means alot to different people, and some beleive a dog can't be aggressive and social. Alot of this is genetics, but I feel more of it is training and providing a good balance in the dog in order to get what you need out of him. The dog needs to be clear headed of course, but socialability is a key factor without going into actual techniques and applications. If the dog isn't social, he doesn't make it, its that simple.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

I'm an end user. First off, a dog has to meet certain training standards. None of those standard necessarily require "socialability". They however require that a dog is not uncontrollable. Whether or not a dog is good with kids, spouses etc has never been a concern in selection. Placement, (handler) maybe, but never in selection of the animal. Whether it's a single purpose Labrador or a dual purpose Mal, all handlers are warned of the potential dangers of a large dog. As each dog's "personality" is learned while in training, precautions are taken accordingly. All of our dogs go home at night. Some live in the house, some remain in the kennel. That is entirely dependant on 1. the dog 2. the handler

DFrost


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

Ashley Campbell said:


> Oh an appropriate place to ask this...from what I read on the K9 Cops show, officers do bring their K9's home after their shifts. I'm not sure if this is optional or what though.
> So how do you deal with a non-sociable dog in that event if you're a K9 officer and have children? Dog comes home and goes in a kennel, stays at the station in a kennel?
> 
> 
> ...


Like I said in that other thread , 

" I agree . Of the 21 K9s in our unit the majority (mainly GSDs) are very social and good with kids . The same goes for the 12 or so K9s we train a year for other agencies . Most are good around kids a strangers . 

But we also have some that are not good around kids or others . Either way it doesn't matter as long as they all can do what's needed on the street . I also see no correlation between which one makes a better PSD , the social or unsocial K9 . We have no requirement either way that they be social or unsocial because it's a nonissue in relationship to their work . " . 



Every K9 officer is issued a 7'X12' kennel with a very nice insulated dog house with a windblocker and the department also pays to have a cement slab poured if needed . They all must go home with the handler .

95% of the 21 handlers are married with kids , mostly small children . Most have their dogs living inside , some even with other dogs and cats . They are all warned when they are first issued the dog that it is a working dog and if they think there may be a problem that they should keep it in the kennel because if there is a problem they could have a very short career .

I handle one of the few dogs that aren't very good around kids or strangers . He stays in the kennel while at home . The kids go along with us for walks with the Bingo and under my supervision pet , play fetch and give him treats . In my presence he excepts them but I make sure there are no incidents were they may compete over toys or food because there would be a problem . 

If it were up to me I would require all of the K9s to be kenneled at home and monitored around the family and that they not be around any pets . Reguardless if they are sociable or not . They are working dogs needed by their agencies to keep the public , handlers and fellow officers safe .That's just my opinion though . 

They are working dogs to me and an accidental or negligent bite at home puts the K9 more at risk even if the human or humans were more responsible for the dog bitting . The handler may just lose his or her's job . The K9 could lose it's life over an accidental or negligent bite . Also a fight with the family pets can result in injuries to the K9 requiring retirement .


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Jody Butler said:


> Depending on the application and operations of said department or unit and what the requirment is, I think they can all be different, but I need a dog who is social period.
> 
> Socialability again means alot to different people, and some beleive a dog can't be aggressive and social. Alot of this is genetics, but I feel more of it is training and providing a good balance in the dog in order to get what you need out of him. The dog needs to be clear headed of course, but socialability is a key factor without going into actual techniques and applications. If the dog isn't social, he doesn't make it, its that simple.


can you define the word social as it pertains to your application ..

for instance...does dog need to be accepting of manhandling by strangers, does dog need to be ok with kids and strangers taking its leash and making them do stuff..does dog have to seek out attention and enjoy being petted by strangers and kids...that kind of stuff?


----------



## Ashley Campbell (Jun 21, 2009)

Jim Nash said:


> Like I said in that other thread , most of our K9s are sociable . Every K9 officer is issued a 7'X12' kennel with a very nice insulated dog house with a windblocker and the department also pays to have a cement slab poured if needed . They all must go home with the handler .
> 
> 95% of the 21 handlers are married with kids , mostly small children . Most have their dogs living inside , some even with other dogs and cats . They are all warned when they are first issued the dog that it is a working dog and if they think there may be a problem that they should keep it in the kennel because if there is a problem they could have a very short career .
> 
> ...


Good to know, I kind of had you in mind when I thought about it, since you said Bingo can be quite the ass at times. 

Your thoughts on it make sense, a K9 is a tool like someone mentioned, but also not a cheap investment, it would make sense to keep the dog away from others to prevent setting it up for failure or injury.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

My stake out test allows me to select a dog that is very high in fight drive. Usually such dogs are very tolerant of strangers, kids, other dogs, etc. I used to do walk−throughs of a very busy shopping mall several times a week. Quite a few times young children ran up to my dog, threw their arms around his neck and gave him a big hug. It wouldn’t do if he ripped their faces off. 

But there are lots of excellent police dogs who will not be doing those walkthroughs because they won't allow such touching. I prefer it if a dog will allow it and is sociable unless I tell him not to be.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> can you define the word social as it pertains to your application ..
> 
> for instance...does dog need to be accepting of manhandling by strangers, does dog need to be ok with kids and strangers taking its leash and making them do stuff..does dog have to seek out attention and enjoy being petted by strangers and kids...that kind of stuff?


'Social' to me can mean aloof; pays little mind to everyone, with the handler as the only exception. I prefer a dog that has it's attention glue to me, and enjoys our interaction together. I'd really prefer NOT have a dog that feels it needs attention from others, but some things are OK as long as it places a higher value on the handler's bond. Don't care for dogs that feel it mandatory to be 'on edge' around every stranger in unfamiliar settings. Sociable, aloof, and antisocial are good distinctions, but a dog can be considered for the most part aloof yet also thrive on it's handler's attention.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Social, to me, means the dog has to be under control and tolerate the situations I put it in. Doesn't have to seek it out or even like it!


----------



## Evan Harbalis (Apr 12, 2009)

Lou Castle said:


> My stake out test allows me to select a dog that is very high in fight drive. Usually such dogs are very tolerant of strangers, kids, other dogs, etc.


 

Lou, we had Sgt Donn Yarnell here in Australia for a seminar a few years ago for policing personnel. He discussed and tested his stake out test, with quite a number of dogs. Here is a link to the stake out test with Sgt Donn Yarnall and my dog http://www.youtube.com/user/harddobe#p/u/44/1VQcAE9ZkHo and yes my dog was tolerant to everything with solid nerve.

Cheers,
Evan Harbalis
www.lexicon.net/vonultimate


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Bob Scott said:


> Social, to me, means the dog has to be under control and tolerate the situations I put it in. Doesn't have to seek it out or even like it!


That's fair and I'd expect that to be a given whether or not the dog was socially open.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Evan Harbalis said:


> Lou, we had Sgt Donn Yarnell here in Australia for a seminar a few years ago for policing personnel. He discussed and tested his stake out test, with quite a number of dogs. Here is a link to the stake out test with Sgt Donn Yarnall and my dog http://www.youtube.com/user/harddobe#p/u/44/1VQcAE9ZkHo and yes my dog was tolerant to everything with solid nerve.


Evan your video shows the very end of the test. Do you happen to have any video that shows an entire test, especially if it shows a dog that does not do well? Donn's method is virtually identical to mine, he taught it to me. As Donn says, your dog shows an excellent response.


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> Evan your video shows the very end of the test. Do you happen to have any video that shows an entire test, especially if it shows a dog that does not do well? Donn's method is virtually identical to mine, he taught it to me. As Donn says, your dog shows an excellent response.


Do you know the history of the " Stake Out Test " ? I know we had been doing it long before I even started on the job . Did Don invent it or does he just have his own version of it ? I always assumed it originated in Europe .


----------



## Oluwatobi Odunuga (Apr 7, 2010)

I think for breeders whose goals is to breed for law enforcement sociability is not something that determines if a dog will be bred. The tendency to breed social dogs may also vary from place to place, in the US for example care is taken to make sure the police dog does not appear to be an aggressive outta control animal and some units even pick weak dogs so that may make breeders in that area trying to breed social dogs, in other areas where criminals have much less 'rights' i think it wouldn't matter if the dog were a monster, as long as it is not a danger to other officers and can tolerate their presence.
In my country as long as your'e an intruder if you get bit you have no right to sue the dog's owner, no perp would dare even report such, elsewhere like the US the intruder might sue you i guess. Things like this i guess may affect breeders' choices. On the other hand, not all dogs whose parents aren't social will be like their parents so breeders may still go ahead and breed them . Sunshadow's caine was a monster(so i heard), none of his progeny have disolayed the same behaviour used to describe him so....:wink:


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Lou Castle said:


> Evan your video shows the very end of the test. Do you happen to have any video that shows an entire test, especially if it shows a dog that does not do well? Donn's method is virtually identical to mine, he taught it to me. As Donn says, your dog shows an excellent response.


Lou I read your article on the test.

If this video was the end of the test, is the part about petting the dog earlier than this portion, or after? Is there a bite given in Donn's test, and would that be before this part or after? I ask because you state this video shows the end of the test, and also stated that Donn's test is almost identical to yours...and the doesn't jibe with how I interpreted your writing.

in addition 

just out of curiosity how would a dog that had good amount of tie-out work, or one that is just nutty on a tie out,period, fair? 

in your test..would the waiting period usually take care of this?

what if dog was immediately in fight mode when you started your stalking, stood up to all of the threats without signs of weakness, took all the bites well, but did not calm down immediately to be petted while on tie out? 

Interesting..I would have to imagine there may also be some strong fight dogs that are not defensive, or weak...that might not allow you to pet them as well on a tie out, if they had a good deal of tie out work, and some that would not allow you to pet them at all... that there would be some strong fight dogs that might not want you to pet them after you threatened them.

is this test only applicable to greener dogs with little work? would you use this test on a dog with a good deal of training in the same manner?
just curious...


----------



## Evan Harbalis (Apr 12, 2009)

Lou Castle said:


> Evan your video shows the very end of the test. Do you happen to have any video that shows an entire test, especially if it shows a dog that does not do well? Donn's method is virtually identical to mine, he taught it to me. As Donn says, your dog shows an excellent response.


 
Lou, yes the video shows the near end of the test and the crucial part, jmo - I do not have the stalking at the beginning but you can see Dares' response to the stalking before you see Donn Yarnall approach him in the video. Dares' response to Donn Yarnall's stalking, weaving, looking away, waiting and continuing with the stalking Dares response was the same from the beginning till the end. The end result Dares did settle down and the recovery time was great. Donn was not keen enough to reach in and pat him. All in all, it was a great seminar. Donn wanted to take my dog Dares home with him to USA [-X

Cheers,
Evan Harbalis
www.lexicon.net/vonultimate


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> Lou I read your article on the test.
> 
> If this video was the end of the test, is the part about petting the dog earlier than this portion, or after? Is there a bite given in Donn's test, and would that be before this part or after?


The video shows the end of the test but not the VERY end of the test. The video ends before the test is completely over. I don't know if Donn did the petting part of the test or not. You'd have to ask Evan. Usually the petting is the very last part of the test. 

Bitework is not part of the stake out test, if it's done, it's done separately. Sometimes, as with a dog that's not had any bite training, it's not done at all. 




Joby Becker said:


> just out of curiosity how would a dog that had good amount of tie-out work, or one that is just nutty on a tie out,period, fair?


It probably wouldn't make much difference. In this video it looks as if the test was done on a training field with the owner/handler watching. This is a guess based on the fact that one can see the tie off point later in the video near the seating area. You can also see the dog looking over to Donn's left at one point, probably at the handler. When Donn is talking to the group you can see the dog (I think it's the same dog) off in the distance, still tied out. The test is best done if the dog is taken to someplace he's never been before. You get more of an idea of what the dog is like. But sometimes it's inconvenient, especially in a seminar situation. 

If the dog is "nutty" on the tie out it's usually a matter of letting him calm down. 



Joby Becker said:


> in your test..would the waiting period usually take care of this?


Hopefully. If not, then the "nuttiness" would have to be taken into account. 



Joby Becker said:


> what if dog was immediately in fight mode


Not sure what you mean by "fight mode" here. 



Joby Becker said:


> when you started your stalking, stood up to all of the threats without signs of weakness, took all the bites well, but did not calm down immediately to be petted while on tie out?


Dogs that have had a lot of training will sometimes think that this is another training session. But as soon as the tester starts moving in, the dog realizes that this is something different and the level and balance of his drives start to show. As more pressure is put on the dog, his training shows less and less and is true nature shows more and more. Notice that during the test the dog never goes into a calm bark and hold as he does later when the decoy is working him. He's lunging at the end of the leash at times. But with the decoy he's pretty steady. If he was responding to his training he'd probably not be lunging. But the test is bringing out his natural behavior. 

If this was severe, the dog never calmed down, it would probably be a fail. It's graded on a curve; "perfect" is if he quickly calms down and welcomes the petting. If it takes him a few moments and he's a bit cautious that's acceptable. If he calms down but still won't allow the petting but shows this by moving away without aggression it's less acceptable but, depending on the rest of the test, might be a pass. 



Joby Becker said:


> Interesting..I would have to imagine there may also be some strong fight dogs that are not defensive, or weak...that might not allow you to pet them as well on a tie out, if they had a good deal of tie out work, and some that would not allow you to pet them at all... that there would be some strong fight dogs that might not want you to pet them after you threatened them.


If by "fight dogs" you mean dogs high in fight drive, I agree. This may be a function of their training or it could be part of their makeup. If they do allow the petting it means that they're probably going to be fairly easy to work with v. the handler having to be careful how hard he corrects the dog. The dog may still be an excellent police dog but I'm also looking to minimize problems down the road. Handler aggression is one of those problems. If I've got an experienced handler who knows how to read his dog and temper his corrections, I may still take the dog but if I've got a green handler who sometimes undercorrects and sometimes overcorrects it could be a problem. 



Joby Becker said:


> is this test only applicable to greener dogs with little work? would you use this test on a dog with a good deal of training in the same manner? just curious...


It can be used on both. You take the amount of training the dog has into account.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Evan Harbalis said:


> Lou, yes the video shows the near end of the test and the crucial part, jmo - I do not have the stalking at the beginning but you can see Dares' response to the stalking before you see Donn Yarnall approach him in the video. Dares' response to Donn Yarnall's stalking, weaving, looking away, waiting and continuing with the stalking Dares response was the same from the beginning till the end. The end result Dares did settle down and the recovery time was great. *Donn was not keen enough to reach in and pat him. *


Sometimes the dog calms down completely and with a bit of coaxing welcomes the petting. Sometimes he won't allow it at all. Usually, if the dog has passed the rest of the test, it's somewhere in between. Like Donn, I'm not interested in pulling back a bloody stump. If I'm doubtful that the dog will allow it I don't force it.


----------



## Debbie Skinner (Sep 11, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> breeders,trainers, vendors, or end users..
> 
> is sociability, kid friendliness,etc....are sociability, and kid friendliness a major concern for breeding or selection of these types of working dogs?
> 
> I am guessing NO...


No, it's not one of my criteria when deciding to use a dog in a breeding program or not. It's sure that I try to combine temperaments that compliment each other when deciding on a pairing. So when using a very intolerant bitch, I "may" put her with a more social male for example. Also, I look at the entire family/line of dogs when breeding, but my goal is to produce a dog that has drives, is controllable and has the character to work, resiliant... and not to produce "social butterflies" or pet dogs.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Gerry Grimwood said:


> My dog looks at kids the same way a guy does that just came home to find his neighbor boinkin his wife.
> 
> It's a non issue, people have the common sense not to put their kids in with the cattle or horses but think all dogs should be Rintintin.


I think it's "Kommisar Rex" now - Rintintin went out years ago. But... I agree with you.

One of my GSDs looks at kids like yours does - the other one's nuts about them - but, would not allow liberties.

I wish the general public (and a helluva lot of dog handlers, unfortunately) would learn to read their dogs and know what they had at the end of the leash.

The GSD that looks at kids like yours does behaves normally but I would never let a kid come up to him and stroke him. If the kid speaks to me he accepts him but as he's not enamoured with them like the younger dog, I see no sense in encouraging inter-action.

Someone once told me "you can have an aggressive dog - no problem - but keep it under control".

On the other hand, NO canine is 100% reliable in ALL circumstances. I don't care what the blue rinse brigade members on here preach!!!


----------



## mike finn (Jan 5, 2011)

Joby Becker said:


> breeders,trainers, vendors, or end users..
> 
> is sociability, kid friendliness,etc... a major concern for these types of jobs?
> 
> ...


I am guessing NO...

I would consider it a major concern in most cases. To me it just makes the dog more useful if you can take it every were. I do not think a dog that is unsociable is any more likely to be a better dog. I used assist the k9 handlers when I was stationed at an air base. some of those dogs were hard to feed because they wanted a piece of every one so bad. One dog in particular was even handler aggressive. That dog did not perform better or bite harder than any other dog in that kennel and I caught almost all of them on a sleeve at one time or another. 

 With a military working dog, no one really gives a shit how friendly the dog is. At the end of the shift it is put up in a kennel, in a building, surrounded by a fence with razor wire.It is almost never off lead around people. It will probably never interact with many people.They just care if it can perform its job.So with a mwd, it does not matter. 

 But 99% of people have other people involved with there dog besides themselves. Most people don’t have a maximum security prison to keep their dog in like the military does. I would hate to have a dog that would eat some kid if it ever got loose.Why have the liability. Even safe drivers have car accidents, things happen, with dogs to. 

 to me a dog that I can not take any where is like having a gun I cant carry. What good is a gun if its in your gun safe when you need it? About as good as a dog that you cant bring with you because it is unsociable. If I was going to breed dogs, personality and temperament would be top priority. This is a free country, if you want a dog that’s unsocial more power to you. I myself prefer one I can cart around with me and is there when I need it.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

thanks LOU...appreciate it...I have participated in some stake out tests and seen it done by others more than a few times, am familiar with them.



> The video shows the end of the test but not the VERY end of the test. The video ends before the test is completely over. I don't know if Donn did the petting part of the test or not. You'd have to ask Evan. Usually the petting is the very last part of the test.
> Bitework is not part of the stake out test, if it's done, it's done separately. Sometimes, as with a dog that's not had any bite training, it's not done at all.


There is disparity here, forgive me, not trying to sound rude, just trying to clarify, this is directly out of the article..

*"If a dog has passed the test so far, I will get a hard sleeve and take a bite while he is still staked out."*

I realize that is an old article...
But, you are a pretty meticulous in your writings..

My questions were more based on the article, I was thinking that I know more than a few high fight drive dogs that are not gonna let you approach them and pet them immediately after you just stalked them, agitated them, got as close to the breaking point as possible AND gave them a bite...
Has your test changed? If so why? 



> It probably wouldn't make much difference. In this video it looks as if the test was done on a training field with the owner/handler watching. This is a guess based on the fact that one can see the tie off point later in the video near the seating area. You can also see the dog looking over to Donn's left at one point, probably at the handler. When Donn is talking to the group you can see the dog (I think it's the same dog) off in the distance, still tied out. The test is best done if the dog is taken to someplace he's never been before. You get more of an idea of what the dog is like. But sometimes it's inconvenient, especially in a seminar situation.


That is a given. I assumed this was just to show what the test was, not that it was the ideal test. Just did not see the petting part of it, (or the bite) which would also be at the end, according to that article, thanks for clarifying...



> If the dog is "nutty" on the tie out it's usually a matter of letting him calm down. Hopefully. If not, then the "nuttiness" would have to be taken into account. Not sure what you mean by "fight mode" here.


Gotcha.....

I was just asking about a dog that has had a good deal of training, that may react very quickly once you make eye contact and start your stalk...(Not talking about weak or defensive dog here either) Your article addresses weaker dogs, defensive dogs, and prey drive dogs, and fight drive dogs with little or no training, on that point, it does not address the dog that is "full of fight drive" that has had training, in detail, like the other types, in the stalking part...that was why I asked. It does say if the dog has had civil training he may respond as he has been trained...I can infer what that means...



> Dogs that have had a lot of training will sometimes think that this is another training session. But as soon as the tester starts moving in, the dog realizes that this is something different and the level and balance of his drives start to show. As more pressure is put on the dog, his training shows less and less and is true nature shows more and more. Notice that during the test the dog never goes into a calm bark and hold as he does later when the decoy is working him. He's lunging at the end of the leash at times. But with the decoy he's pretty steady. If he was responding to his training he'd probably not be lunging. But the test is bringing out his natural behavior.


Gotcha. But I think it would depend on the dogs exposure to different things, whether this is something different or new to him, or not...If the dog has had civil training...It may only be different, because he has never been exposed to *you* doing the test. But do agree that it can cut to the nature of the dog itself.



> If this was severe, the dog never calmed down, it would probably be a fail. It's graded on a curve; "perfect" is if he quickly calms down and welcomes the petting. If it takes him a few moments and he's a bit cautious that's acceptable. If he calms down but still won't allow the petting but shows this by moving away without aggression it's less acceptable but, depending on the rest of the test, might be a pass.


gotcha..



> If by "fight dogs" you mean dogs high in fight drive, I agree. This may be a function of their training or it could be part of their makeup. If they do allow the petting it means that they're probably going to be fairly easy to work with v. the handler having to be careful how hard he corrects the dog. The dog may still be an excellent police dog but I'm also looking to minimize problems down the road. Handler aggression is one of those problems. If I've got an experienced handler who knows how to read his dog and temper his corrections, I may still take the dog but if I've got a green handler who sometimes undercorrects and sometimes overcorrects it could be a problem.


Yes I meant dogs high in fight drive...

Understood....that aspect of the grading was not really well defined in those terms...
The way the article reads it seems like it is all about testing fight drive...that those aspects are directly related to the fight drive.

Not sure if that is how you meant it to read, but that is basically how it reads....



> It can be used on both. You take the amount of training the dog has into account.


gotcha...

*"My stake out test" is designed to test the dog to see what drives he operates in during stressful situations. Its designed to find my idea of the "perfect dog" for police service. It is designed to break the spirit of every dog that I test. I will apply so much pressure that only the toughest of dogs can pass the test. I will, of course, not break the dog down completely. When a dog shows some weakness, I apply a bit more pressure to confirm what I am seeing. I will then flee and give him some agitation to bring him back up.

For police service I choose a dog that is high in fight drive. I like some prey drive as it makes it easier to play with a ball to relieve the stress of training. Some defense drive is acceptable but if there is more than a little, it's too much. Its O.K. if there is absolutely no defense drive.

For a home protection dog, less fight drive and more defense is acceptable than for a service dog. I can make a viable argument that both dogs should be the same but since the police dog needs to regard "wherever he happens to find himself" as his territory, he needs to be a little tougher."*

Reads like it all about fight drive, doesn't elude to those other aspects, that is why I asked...

*"A high fight drive dog may remember our last contact but will very quickly calm down, as I approach."*

that part was a little sketchy to me, But I was assuming you tied dog out on its own in a strange area, stalked and agitated him and in a very frontal manner and let him bite you, like was written. 

Bite or no bite, it might not be the case with a good number of high fight drive dogs, especially with civil training. Certainly many of those dog are not gonna sit calmly and let you pet them, as in Evan's case, most likely, since he said Donn was not too keen on the petting part with the dog...

I get what you mean by it though. What is desirable for your selection.
Everything gets weighed and the big picture is looked at. I have read your newer response to Evan..on the matter...

Thanks for the reply. Would like to here about the bite thing, that is still fuzzy for me....

one last thing... 

Do YOU attach the dog to the stake yourself? The article seems to infer that. 
You take dog to strange area, you stake him out, you hook him up...I assume that is probably not the case, (maybe erroneously) just wanted to ask since you said you don't want to come away with a bloody stump..:-o

good discussion..thanks


----------



## Chris Jones II (Mar 20, 2011)

Gerry Grimwood said:


> My dog looks at kids the same way a guy does that just came home to find his neighbor boinkin his wife.
> 
> It's a non issue, people have the common sense not to put their kids in with the cattle or horses but think all dogs should be Rintintin.


Cattle and horses don't live in the house and are not companion animals and Rintintin was an aggressive sob. A dog that lives in a home and interacts with people even part of the time, ie. not a mwd deployed in Iraq or some such, should probably not be bred to be anti-social. If you are a recluse and hate people then any anti-social dog would do I suppose. If I'm walking my dog and I see a fine looking woman, and admittedly there are not many where I live so this is even more of an issue, and she wants to pet my dog and I say "sorry no, he's an ahole and will bite you," that kinda ruins a good opportunity. And no I do not plan to use my dog to get chicks. Just making a point about potentially ahole dogs living with normal people in populated areas. Most dogs are not like that, so why is it ok that working dogs are like that? Aren't working dogs supposed to be more stable than all the byb and puppy mill dogs that get labeled as unstable? Isn't that the main argument you guys use when JQP looks at you like you are beating your dog and says that protection sports training is training a dog to be aggressive and dangerous? Isn't the argument against that attitude that it takes a more stable and well rounded dog to participate in these sports? Apparently not?


----------



## milder batmusen (Jun 1, 2009)

I do know that many dogs does not like children and it seems to me that in the USA that police-k9 does not like kids or are not social,can still be a good policedogs and, can still be a suitable for work if they are social with children or ofter strangers 

in the scandinavia many police forces expect their dogs to cope with children or have a social nature (of cource not all ) but many police k9 live indoors woth their family.

I seems that the exspectations in your country is the more aggresive and anti social the dogs is its a good thing but I dont aggree correct me if I',m wrong

In Denmark,Sweden and so on many does not like the not social dogs no matter the reason, they have to pass a test that sets their drive and social matters and they have to pass to become a policedog.

I my self have both a very social female and a male that is social to a degree, but he would never tolerate strange kids in the house or if strangers did not treat him with respect and I think its a bit annoying to always have to think ahead and what he would not accept.

I guess that the social aggresion is more valued here than here in Scandinavia=P~


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Gerry Grimwood said:


> My dog looks at kids the same way a guy does that just came home to find his neighbor boinkin his wife.
> 
> It's a non issue, people have the common sense not to put their kids in with the cattle or horses but think all dogs should be Rintintin.


I had never heard of Rintintin before joining this board. I got my first gsd in 1984, didn't know there was a film star gsd.....I wasn't brought up on tv and coke though ;-), I had seen Lassie on tv.

I think it is a big issue with anti social dogs, if they are lacking the instinct and character to recognize a small child for what it is, then it lacks quality imo. If folks are breeding away from this quality, or it is simply of no consequence in their breeding plans, they will not last for an awful lot longer in todays climate. It means that those pups born from these litters will not be suitable pet/companion/sport/activity material, and how many pups from a working litter really cut it as a working dog ? Not them all by a long shot from what I have heard. How can it make economic sense ? It also isn't doing the breed a favour is it? A dog which cannot be trusted and reliable about it's own people ?? Mwds aside.

Gerry, I think you're off your rocker if you think it's ok to have a dog as you describe as a pet/companion. Sounds like you've been ripped off to me, and conditioned into thinking it's special because of, unless that particular trait was what you specifically wanted. jmo of course.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Chris Jones II said:


> Cattle and horses don't live in the house and are not companion animals and Rintintin was an aggressive sob. A dog that lives in a home and interacts with people even part of the time, ie. not a mwd deployed in Iraq or some such, should probably not be bred to be anti-social. If you are a recluse and hate people then any anti-social dog would do I suppose. If I'm walking my dog and I see a fine looking woman, and admittedly there are not many where I live so this is even more of an issue, and she wants to pet my dog and I say "sorry no, he's an ahole and will bite you," that kinda ruins a good opportunity. And no I do not plan to use my dog to get chicks. Just making a point about potentially ahole dogs living with normal people in populated areas. Most dogs are not like that, so why is it ok that working dogs are like that? Aren't working dogs supposed to be more stable than all the byb and puppy mill dogs that get labeled as unstable? Isn't that the main argument you guys use when JQP looks at you like you are beating your dog and says that protection sports training is training a dog to be aggressive and dangerous? Isn't the argument against that attitude that it takes a more stable and well rounded dog to participate in these sports? Apparently not?


Dude you are just not getting it...

In your scenario, who cares if the fukking dog likes that woman, or wants to be petted by her? not me...

You want that girl, you tell your dog to sit, if you have to, and let the hot women pet the fukking dog...

You have control of your dog.... if you cannot command that amount of control, to have dog be petted by stranger...

You don't let her pet him...

If she is hot, you DON'T fukking tell her your dog is an asshole and will bite her..especially in a hot girl deprived area...

you say...

that is probably not a good idea right now, he will be eating out of your palm once he gets to know you better, why don't you come over to my place, I'll make you dinner and we can watch a movie, and we can work on you and the dog becoming buddies....

Holy crap..are you for real?](*,)](*,)](*,)


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

it seems you are fixed on thinking a dog that is not very social is an aggressive dog lunging and trying to bite people, a dog does not have to be social at all to be under control by a handler, it is just not a dog you treat like a fluffy pet, working dog or not....if dog is such that he is not pettable by strangers, you do not let strangers pet it....pretty simple....

being under control does not have any bearing on sociability...it has to do with training...


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

being under control does not have any bearing on sociability...it has to do with training...[/QUOTE]

But training does affect overall sociability....


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Jody Butler said:


> being under control does not have any bearing on sociability...it has to do with training...


But training does affect overall sociability....[/QUOTE]

agreed...either way...more social or more NOT social, depending on what you do with the dog...

you can have a naturally asshole anti-social dog under control and have it in public...if you are not a moron...does not mean it has to like people..


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> But training does affect overall sociability....


agreed...either way...more social or more NOT social, depending on what you do with the dog...

you can have a naturally asshole anti-social dog under control and have it in public...if you are not a moron...does not mean it has to like people..[/QUOTE]


By fuk though, you won't be able to relax and take your eye off the ball for a moment though huh? Dog like that shouldn't be out in the public by my reckoning. You must be one helluva conscientious control freak if you're comfortable with that. And what's more....think there is absolutely nothing wrong with it! And that's talking about a 'naturally anti social dog', not one who is near constantly crated and has to put up with your fukked up philosophies (to some) to boot no doubt. :-D


----------



## milder batmusen (Jun 1, 2009)

Joby Becker said:


> *it seems you are fixed on thinking a dog that is not very social is an aggressive dog lunging and trying to bite people,* a dog does not have to be social at all to be under control by a handler, it is just not a dog you treat like a fluffy pet, working dog or not....if dog is such that he is not pettable by strangers, you do not let strangers pet it....pretty simple....
> 
> being under control does not have any bearing on sociability...it has to do with training...


If that post is for me ,then no I do not think that an unsocial dog is a dog that bites all the time:???:


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

milder batmusen said:


> If that post is for me ,then no I do not think that an unsocial dog is a dog that bites all the time:???:


NOT you..Chris Jones II...


----------



## Ashley Campbell (Jun 21, 2009)

Joby Becker said:


> If she is hot, you DON'T fukking tell her your dog is an asshole and will bite her..especially in a hot girl deprived area...
> 
> you say...
> 
> ...


Joby is the winner of "lamest pickup line ever". LMAO.


----------



## eric squires (Oct 16, 2008)

I like to have dogs that are social, but it is not absolutely requred. Most of the departments and officers preferr a dog that can live with the family. To me being social goes to how clear headed a dog is.


----------



## Chris Jones II (Mar 20, 2011)

maggie fraser said:


> agreed...either way...more social or more NOT social, depending on what you do with the dog...
> 
> you can have a naturally asshole anti-social dog under control and have it in public...if you are not a moron...does not mean it has to like people..


 
By fuk though, you won't be able to relax and take your eye off the ball for a moment though huh? Dog like that shouldn't be out in the public by my reckoning. You must be one helluva conscientious control freak if you're comfortable with that. And what's more....think there is absolutely nothing wrong with it! And that's talking about a 'naturally anti social dog', not one who is near constantly crated and has to put up with your fukked up philosophies (to some) to boot no doubt. :-D[/QUOTE]

This is exactly what I am trying to get at. I suppose I just don't understand how anti-sociability is something to breed for and sorta revered in the working breeds, which some seem to ascribe to. So Joby, what do you think of a dog who just sits when you give a sit command, sits calmly, no problems, but when someone comes to pet the dog he out of nowhere bites them 3 or 4 times the way shepherds tend to do if they bite in that situation? Do you have some magic do not bite command? Or are you faster than the flash? That is the kind of thing I am thinking about. Not some snarling beast trying to eat people. A dog is probably not going to not bite someone they are scared of or uncomfortable around just because you told him to sit. 

I'm trying to get what you are saying in these threads but I keep coming back to the more logical, realistic side of things. Is it just breed loyalties or "working dog" loyalties or the apparently unstable character of dogs here preventing people from even breeding stable dogs that make it difficult for people to see that dogs biting people in a normal everyday social encounter or family environment is something that is not kosher? My grandfather used to take dogs that bit his livestock or people for no reason out back and put a bullet in their heads. Have things changed so much?

It would be nice if someone would address the stability thing I brought up too because it seems a valid and important issue. working dog v. backyard bred.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> There is disparity here, forgive me, not trying to sound rude, just trying to clarify, this is directly out of the article..
> 
> *"If a dog has passed the test so far, I will get a hard sleeve and take a bite while he is still staked out."*
> 
> ...


You're right. I changed the way I do the test but didn't update the article. 



Joby Becker said:


> My questions were more based on the article, I was thinking that I know more than a few high fight drive dogs that are not gonna let you approach them and pet them immediately after you just stalked them, agitated them, got as close to the breaking point as possible AND gave them a bite...


The petting comes before the bite. But, as I said, such a dog might make a perfectly good police dog but, unless I'm selecting for an experienced handler I don't want him. 



Joby Becker said:


> Has your test changed? If so why?


Just that part already mentioned where I move the dog before taking the bite. I changed to taking the bite off leash. 



Joby Becker said:


> The way the article reads it seems like it is all about testing fight drive...that those aspects are directly related to the fight drive.
> 
> Not sure if that is how you meant it to read, but that is basically how it reads....


The test is looking for the dog's level and balance of combat drives, which ones he has and which ones he normally operates in. 



Joby Becker said:


> Reads like it all about fight drive, doesn't elude to those other aspects, that is why I asked...


Since I’m not interested in prey or defense I didn't go into detail on them. 

Joby quoted my article,


> A high fight drive dog may remember our last contact but will very quickly calm down, as I approach.





Joby Becker said:


> that part was a little sketchy to me, But I was assuming you tied dog out on its own in a strange area, stalked and agitated him and in a very frontal manner and let him bite you, like was written.
> 
> Bite or no bite, it might not be the case with a good number of high fight drive dogs, especially with civil training. Certainly many of those dog are not gonna sit calmly and let you pet them, as in Evan's case, most likely, since he said Donn was not too keen on the petting part with the dog...


Yeah that's a bit too absolute. 



Joby Becker said:


> Do YOU attach the dog to the stake yourself? The article seems to infer that.
> You take dog to strange area, you stake him out, you hook him up...I assume that is probably not the case, (maybe erroneously) just wanted to ask since you said you don't want to come away with a bloody stump..:-o


Some dogs will allow that and some won't. If the latter, I rig the backtie and have the handler hook him up. I don't want to *start out *with a bloody stump either. lol



Joby Becker said:


> good discussion..thanks


Thanks for pointing out the holes in my article. I'll have to give it a rewrite. I don't think that anyone has critiqued it in−depth before. That's how they get better.


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

The head trainer when I started in K9 14 years ago and mentor of mine Don Slavik , has probably performed the " Stake Out Test " on hundreds of dogs over the years . I think he is now a trainer for the DEA or ATF , I keep forgetting . 

He used to give a class on K9 behavior and used a powerpoint and video showing several dogs during a stake out test . For any LE or Military K9 folks out there interested in something like that he'd be a good guy to track down . I think he travels alot throughout the country training . He's not big on promoting himself but I know he loved to help or put on classes when asked . 

He was a K9 handler(multiple dogs) and trainer here for over 20 years , past National President of the USPCA , National Champ with his dog and use to instruct at tons of seminars back in the day . He's an Old school guy that always is looking for new ideas though .


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Ashley Campbell said:


> Joby is the winner of "lamest pickup line ever". LMAO.


never had much game..LOL...I honestly would never say that...but...

still has to be better than

"sorry no, he's an asshole and will bite you,"


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Lou Castle said:


> Thanks for pointing out the holes in my article. I'll have to give it a rewrite. I don't think that anyone has critiqued it in−depth before. That's how they get better.


Lou, was not really trying to critique it, though it probably looked that way..
Just read the progression of the thread. Saw your post, then the video, and your reply...

Then read the article, and it was a little different..and wanted to see where you were coming from on some things, pick your brain a little 

I was editor of a small publication before LOL...


----------



## Erik Berg (Apr 11, 2006)

Jim Nash said:


> Do you know the history of the " Stake Out Test " ? I know we had been doing it long before I even started on the job . Did Don invent it or does he just have his own version of it ? I always assumed it originated in Europe .


I have a book from 1970 that describes the selection of police/armydogs(stateowned kennel for GSDs in sweden) and descriptions of the different drives a dog has and how to test them. One part of the book describes a test where the dog is left alone on a short chain and then threathen by a stranger, pretty identical to the stake out test described here, and these test started around in the early 50s I believe, and I guess they could also have taken it from some other european country. The "test of sharpness" it is/was called and was also performed on civilan korungs and I know in finland they still have that part left in their charactertests for civilian dogs.

Here is a video from a selectiontest where the test is used, starts about 13.10 in the video, would be intressting to know if this is a "passing-grade" or not according to Lou´s version of the test and how this dog acts,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1304071760053722630#


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> Then read the article, and it was a little different..and wanted to see where you were coming from on some things, pick your brain a little


No problem Joby. When people see such anomalies and ask about them it allows me to clarify any inconsistencies in the articles. 

In this case, the article was first written quite some time ago. It bears the copyright date of 1998 but was written several years before that. Nowadays I rarely use the test exactly as it's written. There are rumors of people training to various tests so a tester has to plan for that.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Erik Berg said:


> Here is a video from a selectiontest where the test is used, starts about 13.10 in the video, would be intressting to know if this is a "passing-grade" or not according to Lou´s version of the test and how this dog acts,
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1304071760053722630#


Can't tell Erik. The decoy approaches too fast and really doesn’t give the dog enough time to react for me to read the dog. Plus, often the signs of weakness are things like an ear flick or avoiding eye contact and those can't be seen in this video. 

This video does show something I've mentioned in my previous post, the fact that some parts of the test can be trained for. Examples are the "body on the sled" and the tunnel. If the dog is completely "green" these tests may mean something but since they can easily be trained for the value of these tests is doubtful.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Lou Castle said:


> No problem Joby. When people see such anomalies and ask about them it allows me to clarify any inconsistencies in the articles.
> 
> In this case, the article was first written quite some time ago. It bears the copyright date of 1998 but was written several years before that. Nowadays I rarely use the test exactly as it's written. There are rumors of people training to various tests so a tester has to plan for that.


I don't think its a rumor...

I imagine that in most cases if looking at dogs mature enough to handle that type of testing, a high percentage of them are going to have some training done with them. 
If it was my goal to present dogs for testing and sell them, I am pretty sure I would want to know that the dogs would pass certain types of tests, so I did not waste time or effort with those dogs, or waste other people's time with them, and get a bad reputation in the process.That just seems to me, like the smarter thing to do.

The days of mature "green" dogs available with NO "training" are about gone I think.

Many good dogs are moved at earlier ages these days as well. If one was trying to find18-24 month old, "untrained" green dogs, I surmise it may be very difficult...

If one is presenting detection dogs, I imagine they would also get the dog crazy for the highest tier of object the dog will work for (from ball to pipe) And work the hell out of the hunt drive for that object. If they know most of their customers use pvc, they are gonna get the dogs on pvc or above, they are not gonna just play ball with the dogs, and then present them for testing on pvc. 

I think most everyone probably pre-tests their dogs they are presenting for testing, to make sure they are at a competent level to pass the types of testing that they may go through, if they don't and the dogs fail tests often, I doubt they are gonna get many people coming back to look at dogs, very often...seems like the smarter way to go about it.

I agree though it is up to the tester to try to figure it all out.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

I'd agree with Joby. We've seen vendors on this board talk about working with dogs and certain objects. Makes sense if you are selling to a particular buyer and you know what that buyer likes to work on that behavior. I like to buy untrained, but as Joby said, it's extremely difficult to find a true green dog. I think green has kind of taken the meaning of some bite work and ob. I'd rather have them spend time on tracking, I'll do the bite work, ha ha. 

Many moons ago, I was scheduled to attend dog school at Hindenburg Kasern, Wiesbaden Germany. The dog school sent an instructor down to the base I was at - Aviano Italy - to test a potential dog. I accompanied him as his gofer. I was totally green, at this point, I had only cleaned kennels. He conducted a test similar to the videos and what I've read as a stake out test. I know I ended up with that dog, he was totally green and was donated by an Italian National that worked for the base. Then 8 weeks of hell started. Dog training in the early 60's was a charismatic experience. the instructors believed in "laying on of the hands". 

DFrost


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

I think the dog in the second video was tested in a different situation than the first video in this thread. The dog in the second video did not fair as well as the first, and was pushed over the limit at the end. Some sniffing in the beginning and a definite falter at the end, But the situation was not really comparable...totally different situation, and the second tester looks to actually try to feign a strike at the dog, whereas the first kind of stepped in with stick raised, almost leaning back. 

Weak dog? After watching the entire video I'd say no. Probably just needs a little more exposure. Difference was the second guy got to the dog, the first did not. 

Is he gonna score as high as a dog that would act like the first dog, no.

SCH 3 dogs tested in a group setting on a training field is not ideal. I have seen a few dogs that would pass that test, but once they are tested in strange place at night, or some pain is put on them, when the agitator actually gets in the dog's head, the true nature of the dog comes out and they might not look so good. Many are just have good strong nerves and are prey locked, and don't recognize a potential threat in the situation in the video at all. 

That is for a different thread though.

I AM NOT SAYING ANYTHING BAD ABOUT THE DOG IN THE FIRST VIDEO....am saying the dog did much better, but the situation was different for sure.

I will say this since the thread is about social aspects, and not fight drive testing, the dog in the second video appears to be a good social dog..


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> I imagine that in most cases if looking at dogs mature enough to handle that type of testing, a high percentage of them are going to have some training done with them.


About the only time that's not the case is a dog from a private owner who has purchased the wrong dog and hasn't done much with them or sometimes a dog from rescue. 



Joby Becker said:


> If it was my goal to present dogs for testing and sell them, I am pretty sure I would want to know that the dogs would pass certain types of tests, so I did not waste time or effort with those dogs, or waste other people's time with them, and get a bad reputation in the process.That just seems to me, like the smarter thing to do.


Not everyone is as interested as you in returning business. 



Joby Becker said:


> I think most everyone probably pre-tests their dogs they are presenting for testing, to make sure they are at a competent level to pass the types of testing that they may go through, if they don't and the dogs fail tests often, I doubt they are gonna get many people coming back to look at dogs, very often...seems like the smarter way to go about it.
> 
> I agree though it is up to the tester to try to figure it all out.


If the test is good and the tester can read the results such preparation won't play much of a part.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

> Lou Castle
> About the only time that's not the case is a dog from a private owner who has purchased the wrong dog and hasn't done much with them or sometimes a dog from rescue. Not everyone is as interested as you in returning business.


All valid points, although I think the chances in finding high fight drive dogs like you state you want in a shelter, are slim...detection dogs more commonly, depending on the standards.

I think there for sure some great working quality dogs are sitting in someones backyard or house....untested and untrained for testing, if you spend the time to look for them... 

Someone looking to get a couple dogs that are suitable for the work from random private owners and shelters may have to look at 100's of dogs to find suitable stock though, and depending on their standards, may not find any..just look at PDB, every one thinks their dog is a Dual Purpose quality Police candidate...

I suppose someone could also find the dogs at the first shelter they visit, it is possible...

I was referring to people that are in the business of moving suitable dogs, which I am sure you knew, that would want return business. 

*If the test is good and the tester can read the results such preparation won't play much of a part.*

I think it depends on what the testing involves, whether preparation will play much of a part or not...


----------



## Oluwatobi Odunuga (Apr 7, 2010)

Erik Berg said:


> I have a book from 1970 that describes the selection of police/armydogs(stateowned kennel for GSDs in sweden) and descriptions of the different drives a dog has and how to test them. One part of the book describes a test where the dog is left alone on a short chain and then threathen by a stranger, pretty identical to the stake out test described here, and these test started around in the early 50s I believe, and I guess they could also have taken it from some other european country. The "test of sharpness" it is/was called and was also performed on civilan korungs and I know in finland they still have that part left in their charactertests for civilian dogs.
> 
> Here is a video from a selectiontest where the test is used, starts about 13.10 in the video, would be intressting to know if this is a "passing-grade" or not according to Lou´s version of the test and how this dog acts,
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1304071760053722630#



I like the prey drive from the dog and it seemed to have good scent work also. The only part of the stake out test i would not perform is the petting after agitation, i think its ok whether the dog is friendly or not. IMO a dog that refuses to be petted by someone just threatening it some moments ago is still ok if it passes other tests. Most suspects are not going to be agitating the dog like we do so i even prefer a dog with a lot of natural aggression. Back to the dog in the video, i liked the overall performance although the vid wasn't too clear


----------



## Erik Berg (Apr 11, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> This video does show something I've mentioned in my previous post, the fact that some parts of the test can be trained for. Examples are the "body on the sled" and the tunnel. If the dog is completely "green" these tests may mean something but since they can easily be trained for the value of these tests is doubtful.


As been said already, many dogs have some pretraining, if a handler buys a puppy or young dog he is going to expose it for some environmental experiences and let it bite tugs or sleeves, I guess doing nothing and put it in a cage would be stupid. I assume the dogs that have some SCH-training are going to take that experience with manwork also on the stake out test and therefore do better. But if the handler is testing on specific things that they don´t meet in the normal life/training of the dog they are only fooling themselves, if the testleader shouldn´t spot this, and I guess if the handlers want to hide weakness they get a dog they deserve.

Joby, yes it was a bit different setup and also experience with bitework between these two dogs, not all persons are doing the stake out test exactly the same manners I assume. The original manual/book I have on the test the dog should be chained to a wall or similar so the escape route is limited, and the decoys should simulate an attack on the dog with a stick, not hitting the dog but the ground or the wall. The purpose is to see what the dog does in a very stressfull situation. 

Tobi, a dog doesn´t have to calm down immediatelly, but the purpose with letting the decoy invite the dog to be petted is not so much about sociability, it´s more a test of how quick a dog settle down after a threath. A dog with lingering aggression after the treath is gone is not ideal and could mean the dog has some nerveissues. 

Here is a GSD where the test is similar to what I decribed, also a cane corso where obviously something goes wrong
http://www.youtube.com/user/Santse2#p/u/49/vMvBQOhsjts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVPMsFCgNfk


----------



## Oluwatobi Odunuga (Apr 7, 2010)

Erik Berg said:


> As been said already, many dogs have some pretraining, if a handler buys a puppy or young dog he is going to expose it for some environmental experiences and let it bite tugs or sleeves, I guess doing nothing and put it in a cage would be stupid. I assume the dogs that have some SCH-training are going to take that experience with manwork also on the stake out test and therefore do better. But if the handler is testing on specific things that they don´t meet in the normal life/training of the dog they are only fooling themselves, if the testleader shouldn´t spot this, and I guess if the handlers want to hide weakness they get a dog they deserve.
> 
> Joby, yes it was a bit different setup and also experience with bitework between these two dogs, not all persons are doing the stake out test exactly the same manners I assume. The original manual/book I have on the test the dog should be chained to a wall or similar so the escape route is limited, and the decoys should simulate an attack on the dog with a stick, not hitting the dog but the ground or the wall. The purpose is to see what the dog does in a very stressfull situation.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the videos Erik,
I feel some dogs would still consider the decoy a threat after agitation except they can't recognize its the same guy. I think the GSD did fine but i guess some other equally good dogs may have bitten the guy if they actually ever saw him as a threat:-k.
Couldn't watch the corso vid, ill try later.


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

Most of the Stake Out Tests I've seen the dog is staked out to a 6' to 7' high fence in an area the dog isn't familar with . Noone is around and the dog is left there for about half an hour . 

The tester approaches from much further out then any of the videos I've seen so far . Originally the tester's body language and actions aren't threatening but increase as they move in on the dog . They have also been longer then what I've seen so far on these videos .

Not saying there is only one way to do it just that many seem to have their own certain way of doing it .


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Jim Nash said:


> Most of the Stake Out Tests I've seen the dog is staked out to a 6' to 7' high fence in an area the dog isn't familar with . Noone is around and the dog is left there for about half an hour .
> 
> The tester approaches from much further out then any of the videos I've seen so far . Originally the tester's body language and actions aren't threatening but increase as they move in on the dog . They have also been longer then what I've seen so far on these videos .
> 
> Not saying there is only one way to do it just that many seem to have their own certain way of doing it .


The ones I have seen and participated in were done as you describe, just not always on the fence..but much longer...

The intent was to give guy a chance to actually get in the dog's head some (if possible), to see what happens with the dog. I think it is better that way, a dog with more training may start to show things on a longer approach, that he might not on the shorter approach, and a dog with very little training is given more of an opportunity to recognize the threat and respond to it.

Erik. They should make sure their tie out has enough strength obviously, some of those mollosers are very powerful... LOL.. That was not horrible...guy was able to protect himself luckily 

I saw a test once where a guy was testing a 135 lb presa on a cable and a tree, the cable had a brand new agitation spring on the end, that was rated for 1300 lb load. Dog was responding well to test and once the guy got within 3 ft or so, the dog lunged and stretched the spring from about 1 foot long, to about 7 feet long, guy backpedaled but still took one in the thigh....I doubt he used springs after that incident.

I also had a dog put down some chainlink, ripped it right off the frame, a 130 lb. grandson of Tonio Del Jardin....luckily it was in the center of a long stretch and most of it stayed attached..that surprised everyone, including me...some dogs pack a good deal of explosive strength.

I used this type of test, among others, most of the time when looking for adult Presa Canario (different dogs, different applications), for selection for a mutli-breeder program. Most of the dogs leaned towards defensive side, some of the strongest dogs showed absolutley no reaction in the stake out test, without being struck, and not because they were dead heads, although those were abundant as well. Some were oblivious to the threat because they were just happy confident social dogs. I cant remember a happy social untrained presa, that exploded after pain was put on him, calming down to be petted afterwards, but like I said different type of dogs, not herders, and not being selected for police dogs.

good discussion...


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jim Nash said:


> Most of the Stake Out Tests I've seen the dog is staked out to a 6' to 7' high fence in an area the dog isn't familar with .


I agree. From my article on the stake out test,


> I take the dog to a strange area, somewhere he's never been before, and stake him out. I prefer to use chain link fence because it spreads the strain out and has some give to it.





Jim Nash said:


> Noone is around and the dog is left there for about half an hour .


I don't use quite that long a time,


> I then wait about 10-15 minutes for the dog to settle down.





Jim Nash said:


> The tester approaches from much further out then any of the videos I've seen so far . Originally the tester's body language and actions aren't threatening but increase as they move in on the dog . They have also been longer then what I've seen so far on these videos .


My article says,


> Then I walk onto the field appearing about 40-50 yards from the dog and angling slightly away from him.


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

Yes . Your article is a pretty standard description of a stake out test that I'm familiar with .


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Jim Nash said:


> Yes . Your article is a pretty standard description of a stake out test that I'm familiar with .


Thanks Jim, 
I thought I was getting (more) senile. I couldn't see a significant difference between "Lou Castle's Stake out Test" and the Donn Yarnall version in the video or a half a dozen others I've seen. I saw one test a few years ago that I would NOT recommend. Started with a tie out on a post with some civil agitation. The second part of the test was sending the dog (young male Malinois) after a fleeing "suspect" in a bite suit. I don't have any Police K9 testing experience, but I'm guessing having the guy that did the stake out work/civil agitation acting as a recording secretary during the bite suit work was probably NOT a good idea? The Mal started after the guy in the suit, but made a U turn and headed straight for the guy with the clip board. Who got bit on both arms and his butt :-(


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Thomas Barriano said:


> I couldn't see a significant difference between "Lou Castle's Stake out Test" and the Donn Yarnall version in the video or a half a dozen others I've seen.


That's because there isn't a significant difference between our tests. We're looking for virtually the same dog. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> I saw one test a few years ago that I would NOT recommend. Started with a tie out on a post with some civil agitation. The second part of the test was sending the dog (young male Malinois) after a fleeing "suspect" in a bite suit. I don't have any Police K9 testing experience, but I'm guessing having the guy that did the stake out work/civil agitation acting as a recording secretary during the bite suit work was probably NOT a good idea? The Mal started after the guy in the suit, but made a U turn and headed straight for the guy with the clip board. Who got bit on both arms and his butt :-(


This is one reason for the "petting" part of the test, to see if the dog can calm down and accept the different behavior from the tester once he's being friendly.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jim Nash said:


> Yes . Your article is a pretty standard description of a stake out test that I'm familiar with .


Yep. Pretty standard stuff. The only real difference is in the interpretation of what's going on and the kind of dog that people are looking for.


----------



## Oluwatobi Odunuga (Apr 7, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> That's because there isn't a significant difference between our tests. We're looking for virtually the same dog.
> 
> 
> 
> This is one reason for the "petting" part of the test, to see if the dog can calm down and accept the different behavior from the tester once he's being friendly.



I don't know how best to explain but in reality most police k9s are taken away from the suspect after he has been cuffed cos they are cj\hoking and want to get another bite from the guy, wanting to bite a guy that was just harassing some moments ago is weak nerves???:sad:.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> That's because there isn't a significant difference between our tests. We're looking for virtually the same dog. /QUOTE]
> 
> That's pretty much my conclusion too. Which is why I'm confused when you have articles on your website identified
> as your "stake out test" your "out protocol" your "crittering protocol" etc. when they doesn't seem to be any "significant
> ...


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Oluwatobi Odunuga said:


> I don't know how best to explain but in reality most police k9s are taken away from the suspect after he has been cuffed cos they are cj\hoking and want to get another bite from the guy, wanting to bite a guy that was just harassing some moments ago is weak nerves???.


This may be or it may not be "weak nerves;" but depending on how the rest of the test went it may be an indication of a dog that is working primarily in defense and he still regards the tester as a threat, even though he's not one. I don't care for dogs that work primarily in defense for LE work and so a dog that won't allow petting for this reason is probably one that I wouldn't select. 

Often, during later training the fella who's decoying is riding in the same car as a dog he was agitating just a few minutes earlier. It's best if the dog is not trying to bite him again, he also is not a threat at that moment. He is also going to be standing around on the field when he's not decoying.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Earlier I wrote,


> That's because there isn't a significant difference between our tests. We're looking for virtually the same dog.





Thomas Barriano said:


> That's pretty much my conclusion too. Which is why I'm confused when you have articles on your website identified as your "stake out test" your "out protocol" your "crittering protocol" etc. when they doesn't seem to be any "significant difference" between "yours" and everyone else?


The article is not entitled "My Stake Out Test." It's named, _"The Stake Out Test for Police Service Dogs."_ It's also not on my website as you state. It's hosted by Dr. P, on HIS SITE. 

As to the crittering protocol, I developed that originally. I didn't get it from anyone else. Others who are doing something similar either got it from me or they developed something similar on their own. Who do you know that is doing something similar to my crittering protocol? 

I haven't seen any trainers who make comments such as you suggest in their writings. Can you show an article written by a trainer who gives this sort of credit to another trainer? Can you show us video of any who do? (Only asking for video because there are some here who think that is the ONLY proof that something has been done). I'd be happy to take your word for this, but some ........ 



Thomas Barriano said:


> Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "here is a stake out test that I learned from Donn Yarnall" and not make one or two insignificant changes and claim it as your stake out test?


While I initially learned the test from Donn, I also got parts of it from many other trainers. Do I need to name them too? Does every trainer who writes an article need to list a bibliography of every trainer he's ever learned anything from? Donn doesn't mind, wondering why it seems to be an issue for you? 

I'm reminded of the lengthy and pointless discussion about "copyright infringement" that went on when I posted my method for getting the out. LOL.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> Earlier I wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

"lengthy and pointless discussion" seem to be a common 
theme in some recent topics"

Yes it does and this one stops now. If anyone has personal comments to make about another person, go to email, pm's, snail mail, smoke signals, semaphore or the telephone, frankly I don't care. What I do care about is, that it does not continue here. Instigating, regardless of how passive aggressive someone might want to be, is childish and will not be tolerated. In other words, discuss the subject and leave it at that. 
Otherwise, you be wise to not post.

DFrost


----------



## Bart Karmich (Jul 16, 2010)

On the original subject, I think sociability is an unnecessary characteristic for working dogs. It is valuable but it would be a waste to pass over dogs that lack it when they are otherwise totally useful for work, police, military, security etc. There are places where they will fit in fine but obviously you have to make the match for each dog, handler, and job. In my county, all the K9's are the handler's pets and a lot of them are house dogs. Half of them are single purpose anyway. The duals are all Mali's and they still live with the handler's family but probably have kennels. They demo too. The K9's at the State prison, those are probably a little different situation.

For sport dogs, personally I think the BH test needs to be judged much more strictly than it is. It is treated like Schutzhund 0.5 title and most often serves only to demonstrate that the dog is being trained in some basic obedience. Section B (_Prüfung im Verkehr) _is neglected and many dogs that should fail are passing. I see a quite a few dogs with higher titles that are dog-reactive, dog-aggressive and if I tested them they would fail. The dogs are not necessarily bad and I'm not saying they should be excluded from sports, but the fact is they do not qualify to pass the test the way it is designed. They pass simply because the test is fudged and the handler continues on by managing their dog to avoid any problems but the dog is simply not traffic sure.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

In the following reply, my original comments are in black. Thomas' are preceded by these marks >>> and my NEW comments are in blue.  

Earlier I wrote, "The article is not entitled 'My Stake Out Test.' It's named, "The Stake Out Test for Police Service Dogs." It's also not on my website as you state. It's hosted by Dr. P, on HIS SITE." 

>>>My mistake. it's THE Stake Out Test for Police Service Dogs Copyright 1998 - Sgt. Lou Castle 
>>>So it's not your test, you just have the copyright???

 One can't copyright a method of doing something unless you can show that it's original. The article that I wrote is my original work, and that is what is copyrighted.  

Earlier I wrote, "I haven't seen any trainers who make comments such as you suggest in their writings. Can you show an article written by a trainer who gives this sort of credit to another trainer? Can you show us video of any who do? (Only asking for video because there are some here who think that is the ONLY proof that something has been done). I'd be happy to take your word for this, but some ........" 

>>>I don't do other peoples research 

 As I thought, you can't supply such information. That's because no one writes or speaks as you think I should.  

>>>Feel free to look at some of Michael Ellis DVD's or clips on
>>>the Leerburg site. Michael often mentions other trainers that he has gotten ideas from.

There's a vast difference between _"mentioning other trainers that he has gotten ideas from"_ as Mr. Ellis does, and what you suggested I say. You thought that I should say, "here is a stake out test *that I learned from Donn Yarnall" * This statement insinuates that no one else has had any influence on my version of the stake out test. That's not the case. If you're claiming that Mr. Ellis makes such a statement anywhere the burden to prove it is on you.  

>>> I'm sure there are other 
>>>WDF members familiar with Michaels work who can verify

 I've seen such statements on Mr. Ellis' videos. NOWHERE does he make a statement that you suggest that I make.  

Earlier I wrote, "... wondering why it seems to be an issue for you?" 

>>>It's NOT an issue. 

 Then why did you bring it up?  

>>> It's my opinion and observation that you
>>>tend to take credit for other peoples work and state or
>>>imply that you originated a protocol 

 I'll disagree with your opinion and observation. I've never said that I originated a protocol, unless I have, the crittering protocol is one such example. Every trainer in the world has learned things from other trainers that came before him. Yet NONE of them make the sort of statement you think I should be making. You single me out for this because of a personal dislike. Please stop taking these discussions off topic.  

Earlier I wrote, "I'm reminded of the lengthy and pointless discussion about "copyright infringement" that went on when I posted my method for getting the out. LOL."

>>>"lengthy and pointless discussion" seem to be a common 
>>>theme in some recent topics 

 I agree. I wish those of you folks who do this would stop these pointless diversions from the topic. Several moderators have spoken to this issue as well. It's a shame that their response to such diversions is to lock threads rather than to punish those who lead topics astray into such personal attacks.  

>>>I don't recall anyone mentioning "copyright infringement"

 I did here and another member did in the discussion I linked to. As I said, this discussion _"REMINDED"_ me of that one.  

>>>I mentioned that I thought your "out protocol" was very
>>>similar to the Brian Mowry video 

 My method for getting the out is NOTHING anywhere near what is shown on Brian's video. Anyone who has read my article and seen his video would agree. That is if they didn't have a personal agenda. Brian agrees with me that what he shows in that video has nothing to do with my article on the topic of getting the out.  

>>>and you asking me to 
>>>do your research again 

 I didn't ask you to do anything "for me." You made the statement that the methods shown in Brian's video were similar to my method of getting the out. You're wrong. They have very little in common. Since YOU are the one making the claim that something exists, the burden of proof lies (as it always does with someone making a statement that something exists) with you.  

>>> and give a line by line dissection
>>>comparison of your article and Brians video

 Yep I clearly showed that they were NOT similar.


----------



## Bart Karmich (Jul 16, 2010)

I read the article on the stake out test. I thought it was a little ridiculous just because it reads like, "I will do this... and then I will do this..." "I work the dog in all three drives..." Reality is a lot more complicated. We would like to do all these things but testing or training almost never comes out that clean.

The criteria for determining what drive the dog is in and failing so-called prey dogs is also no where near as rational as the article makes it seem.

I don't mean any disrespect but it seems like the article came out of a time 10 to 15 years ago when "drive" theory and the idea of "fight drive" was popular even if nobody could really say what it was much less accurately test for it. Hopefully we (working dog people) have learned something in the last 10 years.

If you go back even further, Kohler had his tests detailed in his guard dog book. I know plenty of people have tests but only a few publish them in detail so that's what I have to look at 50 years later. The tests provide some useful data but none of these tests are suitable for puppies and good prospects start out as puppies and by the time they're ready to test like this they already have a lot of training and they're pretty known entities. I guess I just don't know where these unknown adult dogs are coming from where the trainer can't tell you what's there, unless you're dealing with a trainer you don't trust.

How many dogs get tested with these complex test scenarios (Kohler's, Lou's, or whoevers)? Who provides the dogs to be subjected to these tests? What happens to the failed dogs? I'm asking because realistically I don't see it going on. Most people deal with what they get, if they can't they learn they were using the wrong source. The complex test scenarios seem to me more like someone sat down and dreamt up what they would do if they could.


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

Bart Karmich said:


> I read the article on the stake out test. I thought it was a little ridiculous just because it reads like, "I will do this... and then I will do this..." "I work the dog in all three drives..." Reality is a lot more complicated. We would like to do all these things but testing or training almost never comes out that clean.
> 
> The criteria for determining what drive the dog is in and failing so-called prey dogs is also no where near as rational as the article makes it seem.
> 
> ...


Our K9 Unit used the selection test discussed when we use to use donated dogs . We usually looked at around 100 dogs mostly around the 5 state area ( Minnesota , Wisconsin , Iowa , North and South Dakota . We looked at dogs between 1 1/2 to 3 years of age . 

Most of the dogs didn't make it to the selection test but were ruled out for a variety of reasons .

I would guess about 30-40 dogs got to the selection test to get 12-16 dogs for our yearly 12-14 week patrol class . Most of these dogs came from people not involved in sports and were mainly GSDs of unknown lineage . Most had no training of any kind just basic manners around the house (if that even) and most were usually donated because they were beginning to be " too much around the house " . 

We did this for about 20 years then in the late 90's it was getting extremely difficult find qualified candidates from the area . We then went to purchasing dogs from a vendor . Mainly GSD's , Mals , Dutchies and crosses of each and no longer used the selection test that we have been discussing . These were "Green" dogs that we still put through our 12-14 week patrol class . I can only remember a handfull that had titles , mainly KNPV and Schtz. .

One of the reasons we no longer did the " selection test " was they were coming with training that prepared them for this test .


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Those of us that still try to find green dogs, still conduct a test in one form or another. I've never really put a name on it. Having been in the business nearly that 50 years someone mentioned, I would sure hate to think that my test is no longer valid. Honestly, I don't see that much difference in the dogs of today from the dogs of yesteryear. Breeds come and go. The requirements pretty much stay the same. There may be a little more of this, a little less of that, but in general there just isn't that much difference. I do feel the overall quality of training (I'm speaking of law enforcement as I know very little about sport), in general, is less than in years past, but that's just one old timers opinion.

DFrost


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

David Frost said:


> Those of us that still try to find green dogs, still conduct a test in one form or another. I've never really put a name on it. Having been in the business nearly that 50 years someone mentioned, I would sure hate to think that my test is no longer valid. Honestly, I don't see that much difference in the dogs of today from the dogs of yesteryear. Breeds come and go. The requirements pretty much stay the same. There may be a little more of this, a little less of that, but in general there just isn't that much difference. I do feel the overall quality of training (I'm speaking of law enforcement as I know very little about sport), in general, is less than in years past, but that's just one old timers opinion.
> 
> DFrost



We still run them through tests just not a selection test like the one I described earlier . 

I will say a difference I see from the donated dogs of the past and the bought dogs of today is I haven't seen a "green" dog today that hadn't seen a sleeve before we got them . 

99% of the donated dogs of the past never saw a sleeve or had someone civily aggitate them before getting to us .


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

If you bring a true "green" dog, it will probably fail the test. I have just started this nightmare, and green to me is a dog that is 18 months old and very little else.

My buddy Kevin says that you have to train the dog or they will **** it up and want to replace the dog. Better to train a strong foundation and then they cannot mess it up and return it.

I also like how long the tests are. :roll::roll:

On the other hand, I know how ****ing shady so many dog people are, so I cannot put blame on the PD's, but on the system and how it has been manipulated.


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> If you bring a true "green" dog, it will probably fail the test. I have just started this nightmare, and green to me is a dog that is 18 months old and very little else.
> 
> My buddy Kevin says that you have to train the dog or they will **** it up and want to replace the dog. Better to train a strong foundation and then they cannot mess it up and return it.
> 
> ...


I can see why your buddy does that but for any test it depends on the tester . You can prepare a dog for it and the douchbag performing the test can then just descide to push even further and screw the dog up because it looks that much better . 

When I started and saw our trainers performing " The Selection Test " they weren't looking to screw the dog up just to get a good view of what the dog might have . Keeping in mind it was a true green dog . 

My first dog was about a 14-18 month old GSD(?) . I've got some short video of him on a cd , if anyone knows how to post a video from a cd I'd be happy to send them a copy . It would explain why I stated GSD(?) . 

He was raised on an 8 acre home out in the woods . The owner had a wife and 2 kids and he spent most of his time with the dog who was allowed to roam . The owner said the dog knew "come" and "go lay down " . For fun he would run out in the woods hide and call the dog to find him . He started to get territorial and scared the neighbors so he needed to get rid of him . He was not happy with it and I kept him updated on how he was doing . 

When the trainers pulled up to the house to look at him he came up to the car with a huge tree branch in his mouth and stood at the car door . They said they got the impression they should stay in the car . Once the owner arrived they were able to check him out and he warmed up to them .

That's how I'd like to see a dog raised for us , minus the beef with the neighbor .


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

I have a couple females that I am keeping out of this litter, and I already wish I could somehow go forward in time. Jin is really close to what I am looking for in a female at three months. I cannot wait to see what she grows up to be.

Esko has done a nice job, except for all the females. Good grief. I had one pet out of the bunch.


----------



## Oluwatobi Odunuga (Apr 7, 2010)

Jim Nash said:


> Our K9 Unit used the selection test discussed when we use to use donated dogs . We usually looked at around 100 dogs mostly around the 5 state area ( Minnesota , Wisconsin , Iowa , North and South Dakota . We looked at dogs between 1 1/2 to 3 years of age .
> 
> Most of the dogs didn't make it to the selection test but were ruled out for a variety of reasons .
> 
> ...


Hi Jim,

For the green dogs is there any special way you agitate them in the suit since they're totally green. I want to test my 9 yr old male on the suit in a few weeks time, he's been very good as a property guardian, bitten my friend once cos the guy was agitating him, but is usually ok with strangers. Only prey drive i've seen is for basket balls and lizards-he does a nice bark and hold for lizards on the wall. Just any advice you may have, i just want to have fun with him before he goes....


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

Oluwatobi Odunuga said:


> Hi Jim,
> 
> For the green dogs is there any special way you agitate them in the suit since they're totally green. I want to test my 9 yr old male on the suit in a few weeks time, he's been very good as a property guardian, bitten my friend once cos the guy was agitating him, but is usually ok with strangers. Only prey drive i've seen is for basket balls and lizards-he does a nice bark and hold for lizards on the wall. Just any advice you may have, i just want to have fun with him before he goes....


If you just want to have fun with him I wouldn't do it the way we do . I'd just introduce him to the suit first with noone in it . Let him know it's ok to bite and play with it . Then I'd slowly start putting your arm or legs into the suit while playing and get him use to that . Once he bites well let him have it . Then just progress up to the decoy wearing it entirely and just have the decoy work the dog keeping in mind it's all fun for him .


----------



## Oluwatobi Odunuga (Apr 7, 2010)

Thanks Jim,
He's never really shown good prey drive for things like rags, only the basketball and lizards i feel he may not be interested in the suit if there's no one in it. He seems to handle defensive pressure well and from what i've seen it may be the only way to get him to bite. Ill try what you said anyway. Thanks again.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Maybe he needs to be backtied and watch another dog doing the work.


----------



## Oluwatobi Odunuga (Apr 7, 2010)

Thanks Dahryl ill try that!


----------

