TESTING AND TRAINING FOR PROPER DEFENSE AGGRESSION My introduction to training dogs to pass a sport test goes back almost 50 years. Testing an adult dog for sport suitability consists of various assessments primarily aimed at evaluating a dog s courage. One common denominator in the evaluation is a critical look at the guarding behavior. Guarding requires a far more dominate temperament than just biting! Currently, I deal with hundreds of law enforcement agencies, each with many different testing procedures; seldom do I observe a test for guarding behavior. Even as I watched the KNPV championships, I observed at least half of the 12 best dogs in Holland show a less than optimal guarding behavior. I attribute this trend to the methods used to teach defense aggression. More importantly, there is a lack of an emphasis placed on making the agitator an adversary or an opponent and not just a padded suit running and hiding. Let us take into consideration how our dog s initial bite work is conditioned. Basic bite training of a puppy utilizes his innate prey drive. There is a huge difference in our domestic dog s prey drive and what Mother Nature intended. The prey drive has been mutated to no longer relate to their food chain. As a result, it tends to remain a juvenile behavior, never becoming serious. Bite training with the domestic dog starts with sacks, jute rolls, puppy sleeves, adult sleeves and progresses to bite suits. These items become an extremely strong "fetish." Dogs will jump through a fire hoop to bite a sleeve. When a firm bite is in place, an out and a guarding behavior is introduced. Initially, this is accomplished by the handler using various collars and differing lengths of leashes. In most training environments, police and sport, the handler is the primary source of the behavior modification relating to control. Frequently an electronic collar is introduced at this stage. The use of the e collar can be a tremendous asset when applying negative reinforcement. On the negative side it is inanimate, the source of the correction is not nearly as meaningful as one applied by the handler, (defense submission), or a skilled agitator (defense aggression). Unfortunately, the primary, and often the only, prey target continues to be suits and sleeves. The skill, agility and fitness of the person using the equipment can increase a dog s drive; ultimately making the dog work harder to get at the target, but an important element is still missing. Coupling muzzle work and increased difficulty to earn a bite, the dog ultimately can view the human as an additional prey item. However, the difference between prey and adversary or opponent is pronounced, especially in those formative training days prior to the first real apprehension. So, how do we condition a dog to view our agitators as opponents? In some cases, hard dogs come by the behavior naturally, but most have to learn it. Some learn it by experience in the field. However, if we imprint this in training, as well as testing for it in procurement, our success rate will increase dramatically. A proven technique is to introduce the agitator as a behavior modifier. In this role, the skilled and knowledgeable agitator will enforce previously learned behaviors with a level of force. What goes on in a dog s mind when he is given a command to release coupled with a meaningful correction from the agitator? Anthropomorphism could lead a handler to perceive this as confusing to the dog. If presented properly, and the dog is suitable for our job, it is not at all confusing.
First, why does the dog release when ordered? He does this to defend himself from what will occur if he does not let go. This is an element of his defense drive. We can describe two types of defense. Defense submission: When a handler gives a command to his dog, the dog normally submits and complies. This behavior is quite easy to identify in a police service dog or a pet. Defense aggression: This is a more complex behavior. It could be described as a complete fear biter (extreme defense), or as a behavior we want to enhance. The submissive behavior exhibited when a handler issues a release command, coupled with a sharp handler administered correction, resulting in compliance would be classic defense submission. However, a similar sharp correction from a skilled agitator will result in compliance as well. Both are based on defense: defense submission to the handler and the introduction of defense aggression channeled toward the agitator. The equipment/prey driven dog feels obligated to comply with the combination of a verbal order and a correction from the agitator, however, an increase in adrenalin flow is added to the equation. A good dog will immediately show a pronounced increased interest to the agitator and less interest in the equipment. Thus, the defense mechanism becomes defense aggression. An often, in my opinion, misused term fight drive is a byproduct, or positive result of successful introduction of defense aggression. Could this confuse a dog? It is possible only if he does not possess the drive to be a police service dog. Since a dog is not burdened with an ego, he could successfully defend himself by escaping or running away. When used as a testing technique it is not unusual for a dog to simply leave the scene when confronted with strong use of negative reinforcement from an agitator. (Behaviorists use the term positive punishment as opposed to negative reinforcement. I personally try to never use the term punishment as relates to conditioning a dog for any task. In the human world punishment is often administered long after the transgression. In our world, any time lapse with an appropriate correction could turn it into punishment. Dogs understand when behavior is being modified only when the behavior is occurring.) Pavlov taught us that a learned behavior can be an expected behavior when introduced using positive reinforcement over a period of 5 days. Once we have tricked the dog into forming an association with a verbal cue, we can introduce negative reinforcement, i.e.: a correction. Anthropomorphism can be a huge problem when conditioning an animal to present specific behaviors from our cue. Unfortunately, it is quite prevalent in police dog training. Before describing the first exercise used to develop fight drive, a human analogy may help. Using a fighting type sport, I will explain a situation to develop fight drive. My sports for many years, up to and including today are Wrestling and Judo. I have 3 sons; I had them begin learning Judo as young boys. The following is a typical training scenario with an 8 to 12 year old boy. The boy has learned some important skills to this point. He can handle himself quite well with opponents his own age and skill level. (sport dog?) As we move around, I throw him to the mat with a force that leaves an imprint in the mat! He knows he has to get up and fight. He then attacks with a learned technique and I hit the mat with the same force. Over a period of 30 minutes, I am thrown 3 times more often as he. He has an intellect (a dog does not), and he knows I am submitting when I could use my Testing and Training for Proper Defense Aggression 2
superior size and skill to prevail. He is, however, developing confidence, skill and abilities that can assist him to more successfully engage his peers. More importantly, as he becomes almost angry that he is being submitted to this, his adrenalin flow increases. (Increased adrenalin flow causes an increase in retention of skills learned during the period of stressful instruction. This is true of man and dog.) After very few sessions, their skill levels are enhanced and, more importantly, they develop fight drive! In a critical incident moment, man and dog tend to default to their training. I tend to be more proficient at showing than telling. To that end, if my explanation of the above concepts fails to project an intellectual image, I would invite you to attend a session at our facility, or I can take it on the road if enough interest is generated. What could be the association between the above scenario and imprinting fight drive in a dog? I offer the following as stages of imprinting defense aggression. If you have a dog raised in Europe and he was over a year old when you purchased him, he was almost certainly exposed to guard and bark training in Europe. The initial training is done using an agitator without regard to skill level, as all the control is done by the handler. When the dog is clean and demonstrates a good guard and bark, he is sent from a distance using long lines to control position and behavior. In many cases, the next step is an e- collar for reinforcement. This is often the final step in the process. For long searches, with the handler out of sight, the agitator may have the transmitter. The results can be good to excellent for trial preparation. The guarding picture is complete and trial ready. At this point the dog is guarding equipment: no stress, minimal adrenalin flow. If defense aggression is present, it is innate. To introduce the dog to a session to imprint defense aggression, I select a location to conceal myself in plain sight. I am armed with a sleeve and a soft stick. The sleeve is more at my side than in front of me. When a dog we are testing storms into my space and immediately bites the sleeve, we have to evaluate whether he was searching for me or a piece of equipment. In almost all cases, it is the latter. The handler has been instructed to not encourage or discourage the dog. In most cases, he is out of sight. The dog is given the opportunity to bite, which he almost always does regardless of his background. I then strike the dog with some force over the nose and give a release command. After several strikes, most release the bite. The good ones begin to guard, however, poor candidates, those who are not capable of showing a strong defense aggression behavior, often leave. If the dogs are guarding and focused on the sleeve and not me, they receive more blows to the nose with a soft stick. With a good dog, he begins to realize I am more important than the sleeve and his guarding behavior is transferred to the person. I then give the dog a bite, a fight, and an out command. This is repeated several times over a period of minutes. Next, the dog is given a command to down, reinforced by myself as the agitator. While in the down position and quiet, he is given a bite command (by the agitator). When he unloads and bites the now passive person, he is given a strong fight. In virtually all cases, the bites after the initial toy bite are at least 25% stronger! In minutes, a good dog has learned a man can be an opponent, an adversary. The fight is not out of anger or fear just a stronger fight drive that has been developed by this exercise. Testing and Training for Proper Defense Aggression 3
The technique, when performed properly can result in bites on unprotected body parts. (In my case, an estimated 400+ occasions.) Once the guarding behavior becomes more serious, the alert on suspects behind doors or otherwise nonaccessible will also show a marked increase. The technique has to be observed; most people are far less skeptical once they experience the action in person. While the testing portion, as well as further conditioning, is designed for somewhat harder dogs, it can be modified for softer dogs. The confrontational behavior developed with this and similar exercises are the primary reason the guard and bark behavior was introduced over 100 years ago in Europe. The Germans had zero civil rights laws until 1945; the guard and bark was not introduced to protect, but to enhance guarding and confrontational behavior. To this day, it still greatly enhances the often deficient guarding and alerting behavior, as well as being an excellent technique to introduce confrontational behavior. When trained and maintained properly, the guard and bark dog will be more efficient and effective. In most cases, strong alerts on inaccessible suspects and apprehensions will increase. In addressing officer safety while deploying a dog with enhanced guarding characteristics and properly shaped defense aggression, the following should be considered: In virtually all deployments, you are expected to make an announcement. At that moment, the suspect is aware of your position while you are still searching for his. When we are certain our dogs will alert properly when locating a person, we can maintain a position of cover while the dog searches. Often handlers of poorly imprinted dogs are following their dogs, keeping them in sight so they are aware of a diminished alert upon locating an inaccessible suspect. I have been to trial approximately 40 times, in most cases, with the most frequent issue or complaint, being the level of force related to a canine apprehension. In recent cases, the guard and bark issue is almost always part of our opponent s argument. Hopefully, we will never have a mandated requirement with unrealistic expectations forced upon us. Even the ultra-liberal 9 th circuit has placed the dog as less than lethal. To that end, if we adopt the guard and bark training techniques, and train and apply it properly, we stay one step ahead of stifling mandates. When trained properly, the reasons for introducing guard and bark to your program are: An efficient method to develop defense aggression while defining an opponent as an adversary. Greatly increases proper alerts on inaccessible subjects, which significantly increases officer safety. Tends to greatly decrease liability. All dogs I am representing can, and in several cases have, demonstrated the behavior in court. Virtually all of our legal opponents are aware of the terminology and attempt to cloud excellent deployments and apprehensions with hypothetical examples of alternatives to a dog bite. Testing and Training for Proper Defense Aggression 4
If it were possible to adopt guard and bark as a training technique, thereby creating an increase in efficiency while reducing liability, would this interest handlers, supervisors as well as risk managers? My guess is it would. Before it is mandated or becomes part of the community standard, to protect you both physically and legally, why not do it properly? While the conditioning of dogs for police service, we rely on science when we have scientific knowledge of the subject matter. However, much of our work is an observed phenomenon. It is up to us, the end user, to determine the difference. Be willing to experiment, but be skeptical! Please refer all comments to author David Reaver dreaver@adlerhorst.com First Defense Aggression Session First Prey Bite on a Human Testing and Training for Proper Defense Aggression 5