Blind search exercise comment - reposted - Page 2

centurian, I doubt he is referring to a silent guarding, think he means sitting still like in obedience exercise SIT and NOT actually guarding

this is what you see a lot, no guarding but just sit and wait till routine continues

Some dogs show a very intense "silent guarding" naturally, it's the trained "silent guards" where the dog's drive is overruled by OB that I find objectionnable.

I have attended some Lance seminars and he wants dogs that are in active aggression. 

 

It's ok to use luring to show a dog the mechanics of any endeavour however the finished product must show the required drives.

Duke
I agree with what you reference. But that is the point : IPO is a sport. Not a police routine. Not in truth like a different context . I trained a silent toe to toe sit in front guard with police canines. That means that these dogs , in a true guard were ready , willing , desiring , able to literally take out , to seriuosly mame , and to kill the criminal . If a canine falls into this category , willing to seriuosly harm a man my contention is that is not a sport dog or sport. That is not IPO and IPO is not that. Therefore it is not fair to have written a letter of that nature to IPO enthusiasts or anyone else in general. IPO does not have a true guard considering in truth what the word guard means. And no I am not knocking IPO . But call the sport what it is . IPO does not even constitute true 'protection' , ... at least ... not by my biased standards. There is no real pressure or theat onto the dog. And don't get you undies in a tizzy . There is nothing that comes close to reality and that is OK . I expect and IMOp require that for 'SPORT". IPO doesn't even come close to LE or PP . And there's nothing wrong with that.

I think there is a difference on concentrating on the man i.e a true criminal , himslef as opposed to the dog concentrating on what the man is doing i.e helper work .[The helper has no intention of hurting the dog , and AHHH that is why he is called a helper as opposed to a criminal ]. So why the critisim of the dogs , the training ? IMOp that is way out of line .

Centurian, I agree with your differentiation between sport and LE. No question....my point is that many think that when you have this differentiation taking place, that a natural evolution in breeding, in goals, in training, will not eventually lead to a different type of dog.
It does, and has in any group selected for specialization. That's all I'm saying....if you like sport, want to excel in sport, have the support and resources around you, get a good sport dog. But folks looking for LE dog don't necessarily look to sport stock, although occasionally sport dogs produce good LE candidate.
It the same as KNPV, yes you will see " some" of the same dogs in KNPV pedigree as IPO pedigree, but if you study pedigrees there is only select IPO dogs will you find in KNPV pedigrees, and many IPO top dogs that you won't see. Doesn't make either right or wrong, just they value different end games.

I agree with you ! 100% Gustav ... your post is at the heart of my point ...

For a GS bred purposely with certain behavioral traits for a sport [ or non sport work ] IMOp should not be compared to other GS for other sports or endeavors. Yes you are correct with KNVP / IPO commentary . Absolutely !! I've done ring sports with several GS , and some being WL others SL . A show line GS doing IPO is not the same in kind as a working line GS doing IPO . They are different animals . So to critique them the same is IMOp , unfair .

Meaning that not all GS in IPO are the same in respect. After all IPO is* sport. Seeing IPO as a sport , we must keep differences into consideration and be not quick to place ever GS within al dogs the same expectation of performance. That is why I say the comment is to harsh and critical. The SL and the WL , and even within those there are subcategories of genetics/ bents affecting their abilities in work . Some will debate me on this ... but I state WL and SL , for instance, are in GS history at this point in time , two entirely different genetic animals . There is a divergence even in the malinois as to which Mals are better gentically for sport vs other endeavors , such as LE. Some Mals perform some sports better than other too . Just as Gustav has in his KNVP - IPO pedigree and top dog point. He is correct not just GS we see divergence in the Mal. [ and the Mal owners will argue this too with me but the best European breeders recognize this too] .

There is a differentiation in the genetics within these dogs that parallel their purposes and endeavors and as it translates to training and performance. Personally , I laugh to myself , at Sch/IPO when I hear the terms such as 'protection ' , guarding , courage test use as descriptive nomenclature . However , I owe it to IPO practiioners and their dogs to be respectful and non judgmental in what they think and do considering their dogs genetically and their purposes for doing IPO.

You are correct gustav and on point. Doesn't make for right or wrong. :-) .

Yes…the fact that IPO is sport you have to have objective, quantifiable, behaviors. These might not mean they are practical in any way, but when trying to separate dogs and teams in a sport, you have to try to remove as much objectivity as possible. An “intense silent guard” is something I’ve witnessed, but have also seen people describe average or below average silent guards as intense. Leaving that up to judges, especially in a sport where very few are truly impartial, creates huge conflicts of interest and never truly a fair playing field. It’s like centurion talked about…just because a dog isn’t outwardly exhibiting X…doesn’t mean there isn’t X. But how do you fairly score something like that? You can’t. Humans placed value on certain behaviors and that’s what sport looks for. Deeper barking, speed, full/calm grips, etc. Practically speaking many of these things don’t hold much value…but they need to be there to differentiate between dogs in sport. I spoke about my own dog’s guarding in a different post. I know he barks in prey, at most it’s prey frustration/aggression, but it’s deep, fast, loud and great sounding. Plenty of others would call it defense. In the same sense I’ve had people call my dog “nervy” due to his barking and it was clearly a shot at the dog. It’s not objective, it was meant to demean the dog, and was outright a false evaluation of the dog. Why was it said? Jealousy. So in a venue where that happens…how can we expect judges to judge fairly if they’re given a lot of room subjectively? They don’t like you or your dog? Call the barking higher pitched, take 3 points, there goes a possible podium, possible breedings, possible training business opportunities. Silent guard…call one intense, another one weak…one person wins, one loses, and there is very little anyone can do to challenge that decision.

centurion, only think that he meant that IPO started as a TEST of dog and its drives and turned into a sport where it is not testing any of the things it was set up for,
blindsearch is not a search anymore
guarding is sit
bark is for reward
transport is heel
etc etc

Duke…I know that line of thinking from many “old timers” but my question is always…tell me how? Most can’t answer. Most times they resort to pointing out the “strength” of a dog…yet it’s again another subjective statement that they just don’t realize is subjective. Yes…in today’s IPO (and ANY dog sport) the training is so much better than it ever was that an excellent trainer with a mediocre dog can beat a mediocre trainer with an excellent dog. What were the dogs doing back then, or being asked to do back then that is so different than today? Yes…we had the TSB rating scale…but again, had to be removed because of the lack of objectivity that brings to the trial. I can guarantee you there were tons of issues with it at higher trials where those points truly matter and judges were giving their friends an extra point, and taking a point from someone else even when the performance on the field was the same. A two point swing can be the difference between fifth and first.

Bav, really you look from sport point of view, it is so funny that if you ask if a sport/point dog can perform policework, it is the sport people screaming yes, not the men on the street
first of all the old way of training had a selective function in itself, if the dog couldnot take the pressure and corrections it was out, today we know of WUSV level dogs were the owner lost its temper once and the dog was out for two weeks or was given to a woman for a month to gain confidence again


now you ask me how, very simple,
let sport dog guard a man with sleeve agitate the dog, get passive throw sleeve behind a tree or so and see if your dog guards him, think he will run to the tree to get the sleeve
in older type dogs if you would ask helper to throw the sleeve he would say are you crazy, that is my protection

put a guy without sleeve, pants etc in third blind and let your dog run six, look what your dog will do, a blindsearch or run to six anyway

now again im fine with that but we have to realize that we have showlines, sportlines and workinglines now, were some sportdogs/lines still work well in other fields, many dont

In honesty ... IMOp the barking bit in a protection exercise is mere foolishness anyway . Because , animals in order to accomplish a goal do the most energy efficient [ conservation of their energy for where it counts attaining a goal] and the most proficient behavior[s]. jumping up and down barking incessantly is so contrary to what an animal needs to do . Unless it has to alert you to a location when a perptrator has been found. One of the most purposes of a bark in a canine is to call the troops , sort of speak. So if you are in proximity , why the need in IPO?

The barking in a dog... what does that mean . In other words , what is the dog saying? For me , I don't care about a bark . Goodness scared dogs can bark ferociously and look like they are working super. There are better barometers. For one , the dog's eyes. I can't explain this to novices. I fail to put this into writing. But I want to tell you that any experienced person , and I mean 'experienced' can look right into the eyes of the dog and tell you exactly what it is feeling , what it is thinking , it's motives and it's desired action. Sounds like BS , but I tell you with certainty this is so. Other barometers also give you insight into the dog. So judging a bark/ hold by a judge should IMOp be not all that difficultand not be needed or indicated by a bark routine. Same with a lack of barking- a dog silently , truly or falsly guarding for an experienced judge / person IMOp should similarily be not that difficult to discern. If you want to debate this then just tell me , does not the dog see right into you by looking at your eyes and at your other barometers ? I am saying a true experienced judge or person can see the truthfulness about a dog by it's demeanor as well as it's action performing.

Duke , I understand what you comment about- point well taken . Sch original purpose was to test the temperament and character of the dog. But it never [ from what I understand ] from it's inception was established by anything beyond those confines that equated it to anything other than / more than sporting requirements. - At least I don't think so [ not fully 100%  certain], but I am willing to be corrected on this comment if in deed If I am incorrect.