by emoryg on 19 July 2019 - 23:07
by Hundmutter on 20 July 2019 - 09:07
Can't find any evidence that it was included, from my 'library', but I do not have detailed memories of those days pre the 80s and just 'cos I can't find a reference to it does not mean it was not 'part of the routine'.
BUT I think I see the rationale for why it may not have been, however: Formal Recall has been seen as too 'constraining' for the Tracking and Protection stages. Its place is in the more formal Obedience Section. (I.E. the thinking has aways been that to track and do bitework are the more 'naturalistic' expressions for the dogs).
Therefore, the "Down and Recall" exercise in the Ob stage has been treated as sufficient evidence that dogs can do the formal return to handler, sit in front, then return to heel.
During Protection , the fact that a dog completes the Out from a bite is apparently all the judge needs to see that it is under adequate control, without any fancy additions as to where exactly the dog ends up.
by emoryg on 20 July 2019 - 17:07
by Hundmutter on 20 July 2019 - 18:07
Opens some questions about the circumstances in which that dog went for the judge ... was it 'sent', to attack the decoy, and went for the judge instead ? or was it a case of it not actually having been sent, and deciding for itself that the judge presented some threat ?
Either way, a really well-trained dog ought to have been responsive to the handler calling it off. This would probably still have been marked down, as far as I can gather. Even if it interrupted itself immediately. (Maybe even DQ'd ?)
I'm sure there are others here who will correct this if I'm wrong, out of their better knowledge of the various tests and competitions, but I can't think of anywhere a dog would be asked to come back ONCE ACTUALLY "SENT" to a target, whether that is a person to bite, or a drop box to sit in, or for a dumbell/ball. I am certain some people nonetheless routinely teach this; just not aware of any competition where it would not be seen as a very confusing exercise for the dogs.
Running after a target without being Sent to it is different. But then, in IPO/SchH @ least, the formal recall and successful Out are usually enough to confirm the dog will always return to the handler, without setting up some target-that-isn't-going-to-be-a-target distinct exercise ? IDK.
by emoryg on 20 July 2019 - 19:07
Hund, it sounded like it was a case of mistaken identity. The dog was sent for the decoy, but was probably already looking at the judge. The way he described it, the handler was yelling no, no, no, while the decoy was yelling trying to bring the dog to him. The judge did not get bit.
The exercise is very useful in real life situations. From my experience, the call-off serves three purposes. First, and this is what I used it for the majority of the time, is to protect an innocent person that the dog was going after. The vast majority of the time, the not so innocent person is another police officer. No matter how many inservice training modules you teach, occasionally somebody is going to break one of the golden rules and run after the same suspect that the police dog is going after. Prior to going ‘ears up’ the dog is very well aware of his surroundings and can easily shift focus off the criminal and to the officer. Fortunately, before ‘ears up’ the dog is also willing to listen to the handler. The exercise saved quite a few officers, while at other times I was not able to stop the dog. i.e, I could not get the command out of my mouth before the dog was on the officer. There’s that brief moment when you see what is happening and literally gasp and say a cuss word before you can issue the command
Second purpose is to stop the dog from being injured. In this circumstance, you have sent the dog but now the dog is at risk of being injured if continues to go after the suspect.
Third and least of all used, is when the suspect who you sent the dog after, has now decided to surrender. This does not happen very often. But for whatever reason, the dog needs to be stopped. No different than any other nonlethal use of force scenario, if the suspect gives up, the force must stop.
But what you said makes perfect sense. I agree the dog should be under control at all times, at all places and under all circumstances.
by Hundmutter on 20 July 2019 - 20:07
Oh yeah, I can see where it would be useful in Police duties; I know of one or two officers who wished the dog had been called off before it hit them ! (Mind you, it often seems to be pointed out that the officer who got bitten was aware the dog was being brought in and should have been more mindful of standing in the way.) But you are so right about that split second that can make the difference.
Other police officers getting accidently bitten does not seem to have featured in the minds of those setting the exercises for competitions - I'm mostly just regurgitating what I've learned from what
people have said to me, or who have written stuff down about SchH etc, they have argued that it would be confusing for the dogs to actually teach them as a competition exercise to be aimed at a target and then called away from it, as a regular thing. I don't know enough, myself, to take a position on it. Mind you, I think that in training dogs we can often give them things to do which could confuse them; in learning what we want, they show they can overcome human inconsistency !
by Centurian on 22 July 2019 - 14:07
No !! , a 'call off ' is not confusing to the dog- at all . Do we not teach things to the dog such as : 'leave it' , ' sit, now stand , now down, now sit ' . Do we not teach 'go out' and on the send out , cue the dog to stop and immediately down' ? So in essence we stopped the send out. Do we not teach the dog to bite the sleeve , now out . take it mouth off the sleeve? . That is to say we teach dogs behaviors and we cue them to cease that behavior. They are quite smart at understanding this : that a behavior can end at anytime . We teach : " Go for a bite , then cease what you are doing and come back ". This is not hard at all to teach a dog with exact , clear , precise communication. And correctly taught , the same as bite , now ou, is not confusing to a dog.
Also , further thinking : we can teach a dog to do something , stop for a moment , and we then cue the dog to continue what it is doing . An example :' bite ... out /guard .. then cue to the dog continue the biting again' .The dogs are so intelligent they very very clearly understand that behaviors can ' start , stop and then continue again '.
A call off is not in the least confusing to the dog, not at all . A ' call off ' has practical applications when working the dog.
by Hundmutter on 22 July 2019 - 15:07
Centurian - Thanks; the 'thinking' on this is largely culled from interpreting people like Raiser, and Dildei, and Barwig; who have written stuff down, referencing back to Most & Lorenz: that you should do as little as possible, in repeating exercises, to confuse the dog. I don't particularly agree or disagree; like you and Emory I can see the practical plusses, and am not convinced that dogs (at least, not all the dogs) are so easily confused. But the exercises being set were presumably set with reasoning, at the beginning, and it seems to have been the pattern of thinking that maybe led to there NOT being such an exercise, in SchH ? Maybe that thinking is now out of date, with improved training methodology ?; but the SV hasn't yet seen fit to revise IPG to include such a test, has it ? (Tho' I expect there is some reluctance to put in yet another change, since these often do not seem to be well received !)
I did say I didn't know if this was true of other disciplines; so ta for the info about Ring.
by Koots on 22 July 2019 - 15:07
by Centurian on 22 July 2019 - 18:07
OK I share another thought . Rhetorically speaking : do we not teach a dog to go away from us and do we not teach a dog to come to us. They more than understand these , the acts of both coming and going away - for they can and do perform/execute these behaviors on our request /cue , yes ? Then on that note, when a dog is asked to go out from you , for whatever reason, is it so out of the ordinary for the dog to be called from that ' going away from you ' , back to you ? As a matter of fact does ' hier' mean come to you .. or at least it should [ unless a classicaly condition repsonse over rides that request ] , no matter what . If my dog walks to another dog and I call it to me , even though the dog walks away from me is it so unreasonable or confusing to that dog to come back towards me when I call it ? Meaning if you ask a dog to come to you ,' not coming to you ', should not be an option , no matter what - for it truly understands what you want.
Obedience defined is : when a dog is asked to do something nothing else enters that dogs mind except to fulfill what has been asked of it , willingly , glady and immediately. [ all those criteria : willingly , gladly- happily , and immediately ] . Of course obedience , as in a recall , is a lesson that is corectly taught.
IMOp , the SV ... does what is in it's interest .. and IMOp not always the dog's interest or the members' interest ...