Throughout this book we use the term correction for this compulsion. A good correction serves two purposes. First, it punishes the dog for doing something that we do not want it to or prevents the dog from doing it. Second, a good correction encourages or even forces the dog to do what we want it to do. Thus, when the dog ignores a “Sit!” command, a slap on the rump both punishes it for refusing to sit and also causes it quickly to assume the desired position.
Corrections can be made with the hands, feet or leash, or in a number of other ways. However they are accomplished, corrections should always be administered quickly—in close association with the undesirable behavior—and sharply enough to make a definitive impression on the dog. Nagging the dog with many light corrections is detrimental because it perpetuates the animal’s errors.
We must take care that training does not become abusive, both for ethical reasons and because abusive dog training does not bring the best results. Therefore, corrections must not be made too strongly or out of anger. For each handler, each dog and each particular error, there is a suitable level of intensity of correction that discourages the animal from repeating its mistake, but does not damage its spirit and its basic love for the work.
In addition, abusiveness should not be defined solely by how strongly the handler corrects his dog, but also by whether the dog understands what it did to bring the correction and how it can avoid another in the future.
Our main concern is to employ force effectively when we have to, but without having it show in the dog’s attitude toward its work. In training we seek to create a spirited and useful companion, not a cringing slave. The German general Erich Ludendorff said in reference to soldlers, “The training of men should not kill, but strengthen character.” Much the same principle applies to dogs.
Therefore, the more strongly we are obliged to correct a dog in order to bring about a desired result, the more strongly we must reward the animal when it finally does it correctly. There are two main secrets to the use of force without diminishing the dog’s character:
• The animal understands what it must do in order to avoid being corrected a second time.
• When it readily does as we ask, thereby avoiding the correction, we enthusiastically give it something that it wants very much—praise, play, a run after the ball, a bite on the decoy, etc.
According to Konrad Most, a service and military dog trainer of von Stephanitz’s era,
With a powerful form of compulsion we must also ensure that the initial discomfort subsequently turns to pleasure. We have no wish to see a panic-stricken slave doing what we want in fear and trembling, but a dog that enjoys life and is happy in his work, putting all his heart into it. Just as the art of human education is to substitute desire for obligation, that of an animal training requires a disagreeable activity to be changed into an agreeable one. This aim is achieved, in the first place, by the limitation of compulsion already prescribed: it must stop the very instant the act required begins. Secondly, it is essential that as soon as the disagreeable experience ceases, an agreeable one follows immediately, as a regular consequence. The result of this liberation from the pressure of compulsion is that the dog quickly learns how to escape from his disagreeable experience and, in addition, finds that the act, though in itself disagreeable, is soon transformed into an agreeable experience. This causes him to develop an amazing zest for his work.
The final phase of training is proofing. At this level we check for understanding and increase the strength of the dog’s habit by asking the animal to perform in unusual circumstances that are actually far more difficult than those it will face in a trial. In doing so we cause the dog to generalize the lessons it has learned on the training field to other situations.
Dogs are context-specific learners. Skills and concepts that we teach them tend to be unique to a certain set of circumstances. For example, if a dog is taught to track in a grassy pasture and indicate leather articles, it is likely that the animal will be unable to perform when asked to work in a weed-covered field and indicate cloth articles. Similarly, just because the dog bites well on a decoy who wears a leather sleeve and bulky protection pants, we cannot be sure that the dog will bite in an actual street situation in which the assailant wears no sleeve or protection pants.
Therefore, once we have taught the exercises and then trained them, we take great pains to proof them in all manner of bizarre situations. We perform obedience routines in busy parking lots, run tracks with a noisy crowd of people walking along with the dog as it works and perform hold-and-bark exercises in the beds of pickup trucks, inside houses and closets or on the tops of haystacks. When we have proofed our dog extensively in these demanding situations, anything it might see on trial day will seem elementary.
In all fields of endeavor, people seek the best, the most ideal approach. Unfortunately, there is no ideal approach to Schutzhund training. There are as many different ways of creating a competitive animal as there are trainers and dogs. All methods and ideas that produce results have some merit and can be drawn upon to supplement the program chosen to train the particular dog.
Whatever the approach, it should take into account three points. First, the program selected should consider the way that animals learn—initially by pleasant and unpleasant experiences and then by repetition. Second, the training program must provide a means of soliciting both motivation and repetition. Third, the approach should be progressive and pyramidal in its effect—each step in training should develop from the previous one.
4
Tracking: Requirements of the Trial
TEMPERAMENT TEST
Before the tracking test each dog in Schutzhund I, II or III is closely examined by the judge for stability and impartiality. Impartiality refers to an aspect of the dog’s character which is neither hostile nor fearful of strangers. Every judge has a slightly different way of evaluating temperament. Most judges insist on touching the animals and watching their behavior while walking on a loose leash amid a group of people. If the judge detects a sign of shyness, timidity or any indication of inappropriate aggressiveness, he will disqualify the animal in question from further participation in the trial.
SCHUTZHUND I TRACKING TEST
The handler reports to the judge with two articles in hand. The articles should be neutral in color and approximately hand size. At the judge’s direction he lays a track approximately 300 to 400 paces long. The pattern of the Schutzhund I track is rectangular, as shown in the illustration on page 34.
The handler begins laying his track by placing a stake on his left and then stamping out a scent pad approximately one yard square. He then proceeds in a straight line in the direction indicated by the judge. At the judge’s command (a wave or a blast on a whistle) the tracklayer makes a right-angle turn and then continues in a new direction. Again at the judge’s command, and without slowing down or hesitating, he drops the first article directly on the track. He continues walking until the judge signals again, at which point he makes another right-angle turn and begins the third leg. The handler finishes laying the track by dropping the second article at the judge’s command.