Quote:

Robert, this is just the point, selection testing is old school,why, if you have great working dogs, a couple of generations deep in breeding in your services then you don’t need to go out and head hunt - or do selction testing. A futile process, trying, weeding out prospects. With foundation breeding, every litter is a total prospect. Where breeding characteristics become set by the third generation of progeny.

this might just be a cultural thing here. i don't know if you know how it works over here, but we don't have a "national police". police departments pretty much function on their own. so we have these thousands of cities, each running their own program. some cities don't have dogs, some have 1 dog, some have many. where i work, our department has 3 dogs. you cannot have a breeding program with 3 dogs (especially with all 3 being males). it just isn't practical. especially when we need a dog every 3 or 4 years or so....

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />Robert, for once I can actually have a civilized conversation with you; when I am referring to bloodlines, it was using the word in a generic context, not in the literal interpretation. (Papers and kennels)

Let me quantify, we started the program by selection testing, and fooling around, that I will admit to. However as time passed on we used the exceptional to good working dogs we had and bred them, and kept with this formula, of only breeding nark to nark and psd to psd etc., until a great total, yes semantics, but as much as 80 -90 percent, and in some instance 100%; of a litter of 4 boarder collies for instance, are all working nark dogs now, in the nark section.

Reread that quote you posted, it is not about selection so much as it is about high-end breeding, and how it stuffs up any good line, it focuses on getting a heightened characteristic, (like sent) and supercharging it through breeding.

Well believe the percentages – it is not always that high – the point is it is still much higher than selection testing

Andre Martin, seems to know what I am seeing here, and have shared in

Well, we pretty much follow the same protocol Jim is explaining, we train the handlers to train the dogs, but we have three levels, the first one is the PSD 13 week course, then TPC Tactical police dog course, 6 weeks and then tracking and counter ambush 8 weeks –at advanced levels, visual tracking and lifting the dog and re-tracing, the track further on, and so on.

I must say I do share many of Jim Nash’s views.

We had three programs like this, one is at Roodeplaat – our National Police ran that, the other was at Potchefstroom and the other at Birdsluck, both Military, and then our own version here at EMPD.

So Robert just when you think you know every thing there is to know, you find out that the world is very big place, with very diverse influences and methods of training, and selection of dogs. This is why I started this thread, why are we not all on the same page. Well I think that we should start looking in the darker corners of the world, and we might be surprised how non-mainstream some people operate with great success.

We had 79 dogs and 36 handlers when we were out our peak on the unit, and we got one year certification certificates for all our dogs , time and time again, here we get a three month, six month or one year certification from the National Police, who certify our dogs after training….standards are high, or use to be.

The funny thing is we never had one true titled dog or true pedigree dog on the unit to do it with, so much for papers.

Reinier stated;

 Quote:

The funny thing is we never had one true titled dog or true pedigree dog on the unit to do it with, so much for papers.

I used to have the same opinion as you did . When I started in our K9 Unit we used donated dogs . 99.9% had no papers and came from breedings that weren't too professional . We would look at over a 100 dogs to get on average then 12 dogs . We also weeded out twice that many over the phone or when we went out to look at them . The ones that we brought in were put through a selection test and most were weeded out quickly . My first K9 was a donated dog and I would put him up against any PSD no matter papered or not . I used to cringe when I read in this very forum statements like ; " You have a better chance of getting hit by lightning then finding a donated or American bred GSD to do PSD work ." .

BUT , the large # of donated dogs dropped over the years . We've been using mainly green imports (most papered) for several years now and my experiance with them is they are way more driven overall and we can move much faster and get way more done with these dogs in a 12-13 week course then we ever could with the donated dogs . The papers by the way go back with the dog if it doesn't have what it takes to be a PSD . I think out of the 4 other trainers in my unit I'm the only one who looks at them . It's not the papers we are looking for just the right dog . As PSD trainers the only purpose the papers have served so far is they take up our desk space but most of the dogs that came with them have done alot .

Though the statements that used to tick me off were exaggerated they were very true in the point they were trying to get across . Don't get me wrong we got very good street dogs out of our donated dogs but we had to work very hard to get them and it usually took a little longer to get them there . Just my experiance from my corner of the world .

Justification for a “Puppy prepping program”:

I have had some questions, about why puppy prepping is a good thing for effective selection testing. Well I will try to explain the logic behind it.

I for one firmly believe that a dog’s growth potential is mainly limited in terms of the lack of very early learning or environmental interaction - conditioning, and stimulation, particularly around weeks 3 to 14. Studies have shown that young dogs soak up more info and learn a lot more during this period, just like our kids do. However what should happen after this, logically, drive building - all drives not just some, like just focusing on pray drives. It is said that any attribute of the dogs behaviour not sufficiently stimulated will become impaired, even if genetically strong. It is now recognized that without sufficient stimulation and socialization breeder’s efforts to imprint and improve breeds for protection work via genetic traits are to a certain extent useless. The results are not consistent enough.

This is attributed to one thing, and it needs to be pointed out here, that dogs are individuals in their own right, with individual personalities developing just like humans do; the ones with the most exposure show the most confidence, and therefore always excel above the ones that got pegged in a kennel for instance. You only build confidence by constructively implementing, stimulation and change. I read some where that studies in Australia have shown that change is like torture to dogs, referring to those that have only known one habitat and routine that is not used to constant change from birth. Therefore, make sure to implement change in the young dog’s growth plan.

Nature, also it seems to have a say, it predominantly endows the males in the species with the physical, and mental powers they need to protect, and defend territory and kin. The instinct to protect from harm lies at the core of a male’s masculinity, they are prone to aggression and contest from birth, and it is an immensely powerful force to harness effectively to get balance.

Balance is accomplished in two major ways. The first way is taking a proactive approach to “trying” , by resolving issues that manifest later on in adult life through a strategic plan – called prepping. During prepping, we try to start a process of unearthing or preventing counter-productive charter traits from developing via methodical incremental stimulus. For example, you might implement diversity and have load noises introduced, in increments, over the 14 week period, into the kennel environment, as well as playing a radio at the kennels during day time.
The second way is to correct performance problems, phobias, and submissive behaviour that may arise within the pack structure, due to hierarchies. This is accomplished by first, identifying the root cause of the problem and secondly, by implementing a plan of action to correct the problem. Although dogs are prone to work out difference, this must be stopped, only one alpha male - you.


This brings me to sport once again, methods used in sport training have and has been adopted to help train and correct certain aspects of police dogs behaviour, I do not disregard the value of sports training. There is a place and a time for every thing life has to offer, but in proportion. I will be a fool to sell that short, although in the police context it should be specific in its application to build for instance; stamina, agility, resilience and instincts, rather than just focus on attributes of behaviour for perfection like bite and grip, all important don’t get me wrong, but the first part is more important for survival, therefore we require transition to the more realistic emphasis.

Statistically more encounters between cops and perps, are at close range and at high levels of intensity, at short time intervals in police work, this is why CQB, or close quarter combat or battle has now also been extended well into the K9 sector for cops, training dogs, both man and dog must be able to react appropriately and effectively to overcome any threat at great intensity.

K9 teams are also being used more and more in VIP protection role’s, escorts and security details, where previously only explosive detection dogs use to feature, this requires a lot more practical and tactical training for a PSD to operate effectively at this level. The balance and tradeoffs between a good tackle and a good call off/ release.

My point- attack dogs should be predictable, we have a company here that deploys a variant of patrol dogs at banks, my kid can go over and stroke the dog, I like that, I have seen them in action at there training facility and they are every bit as good as any police dog, this is what the public, the force and every body wants, a dog that behaves like a cop, friendly, kind and disciplined but when the curtain goes up he must perform his dedicated duty. They have adopted a “prepping program” and have dominated the market ever since, due to their paradigm, should we not try to follow same?

The point is you can select all you want, if you don’t follow the route of bonding, socialization, and habitation from very early on – prepping – chances are you will not achieve excellence consistently, by just resorting to selection testing and paper imo.

Well it seems that both Darwin and Pavlov had something going in their dark part of the world. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Reinier,
I have seen a discussion very close to what you're talking about from a kennel based in Canada. Are you basing your training off of their theories?

Will, It looks alot like what Josef and Taunya Mravik are attempting in Slovakia. On their website, they have a puppy training program. They say they were tired of looking at prospects that had not been properly raised for work or sport.

It looks like the are going to pick 2 to 4 pups from each of their litters. Then place the pups with experienced trainers to start the pups properly in obedience,tracking,drive building and grip work. During this time the pups will be exposed to traffic, loud noises and other environmental issues. Then at 5 to 10 months pre-limb xrays and sell the pups for sport,police or pet.

Hey Tracy!
I've seen that very site, and I can see a high possibility using numbers 2 to 4 pups - most litters of well bred dogs can produce that many good puppies as candidates.
But when I see a number like 80-90% out of a litter, I know that just doesn't happen in the real world, unless standards are way below what we'd find acceptable in the U.S. Canine arena.

That's exactly what's on my mind, Will.

Reinier, can you tell us what exactly your claim of 80% to 90% is? Is that a % of pups in a litter making it to a certification, or to street work? What kinds of street work? Or, is that dogs that enter the program pre-selected making through a program with a handler?

What is that number and what kind of work are we talking about?

Will, I agree with you on the 80 to 90 percent. The highest numbers I've seen in studies indicate 30% to 40% is more likely. Personally, I think a good breeding-match could produce higher numbers if you classify the pups as sport(could mean club level to world class),dual purpose, single purpose, therapy and SAR.

I know there are flukes, The maternal grandfather of my Donut's litter was one of them. Out of the six. One competed and placed in the top 20 at the 2001 BSP. He had a sister compete in the LGA. Then the remanding four work as police dogs in Germany and Sweden. Two are dual purpose the others are drug detection dogs.

I seriously see no need to nitpick, so just to set the record straight. No Will, or Van Camp, we base our theory and practices on SA standards, experience and culture. SA Standards, which by the way is ranked by many as some of the highest in the world, due to our strict National certification policy, and we train all our dogs in house. No private contractors.

Moreover, yes I have read about the very much alluded to “Bardenk9” facility that share our core beliefs, but in no way are we affiliated or even remotely connected.

They do their thing as much as we do ours, although at face value it seems quite similar. However, it must be pointed out, that, they are in Canada we are in the RSA – The Republic of South Africa – on the African continent – continents apart.

As far as the very “controversial” 80n to 90% is concerned, well lets settle it.

Strange, that none of you seem to question the validity of any thing else stated here? Except the outcomes projected, so it stands to reason that you accept what is said here, or agree to a certain extent that this is a better way of selection, or at least understand it now, and concurred with this much debated paradigm. So I am pleased I got the global point across to you.

Just to put your curious minds at ease, the semantics of the 80 -90 percent of a litter, or the biggest portion, or the greatest their of, that is good enough to go on the prepping program. Don’t get me wrong I am not playing the ratio’s down, but this is the perceived accuracy we got. In short they show the required drives and potential we are after, after being evaluated, the amount that makes it into programs are varied, it is not a mathematical equation that I can relate back into ratios or to figures. Neither can any one who does normal selection testing.

There are in both instances just too many variants and factors, in other word no guarantees. You need to understand, that we are not a breeding entity either, this was a pilot project. I cannot vouch for other institutions success rates either. It depends on supply and demand, firstly, secondly it depends on budgets available to pull the dogs out of the prepping program and straight into the training programs for instance, if we don’t get a budget to train new recruits with then the dogs were sold or donated to other agencies, and we did not keep records after that, and we don’t keep dogs that we cannot use. We have mou’s in place with other state organizations, and when ever a dog died or was placed out of service, we would swap a trained, or semi trained dog out with a prep, and visa versa.

As prepped dogs were never considered capital asset yet, only on certification, we did not track them. Like we do with our trained and certified dogs for instance. I am being straight forward here, do your own enquiries, and check this out for your self. There is no criteria or bench mark for this that I can forward as proof, or scientific data to ease your mind. So you will just have to take it at face value. Which is difficult I am sure, because you have never been here, or been exposed to our Fraternity and its dogs, or this paradigm of thinking in person. You are purely speculating; “don’t knock it if you have not tried it, or seen it first hand”. I never for one moment insinuated that this is the rule; I purely used the percentage to indicate a seriously higher success rate, when comparing it to normal mainstream believes on selection testing.


Nitpicking will get us no where, the proof is out there I assure you, however some of us are just to astound that it could actually exist.

The final summary is this, if you breed “real police working dogs”, say three generations deep to each other, and then use those pups, and put them into prepping, your pool of working dogs, in any category will improve far greater than just using selection testing, coming from different breeders stock, as the rule.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />