# Developing a New Test



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

Lets say I wanted to follow my buddy Wayne's advise and start a new program to test the genetics of the GSD. 
Keeping in mind what the GSD was used for and is used for now.....

What would you like to see in this new test?

What would you keep, ( even if you modified it a bit), from SchH and what test would you add or remove?

How would you do an existing exercise in SchH differently to make it more of a test?

Last, how would you score the results? Would you maybe use a system like the old DDR or would you use points or just a pass fail for each exercise?

Please take the time to explain why. Meaning, if you want to see the helper wear a suit, explain how that is different or more of a test etc.


----------



## Andaka (Jun 29, 2003)

I would like to see things go to a pass/fail. If you take the scoring out of it, you reduce the level of competiveness of the participants. This may cause them to search for different attributes in their dogs -- maybe not as much prey drive. 

Also put minimum age requirements on the different levels to reduce the pressure on the dog/handler teams to succeed at an early age. This may reduce the number of show line dogs that are pushed thru their training in order to be shown.

Of course, this is from someone who doesn't participate in the sport and only reads what you guys post about it here. But i tend to read a lot of it!


----------



## ramgsd (Jun 9, 2007)

I wouldn't take the scoring out of it. All you would need to do is go back to the old way of scoring. That way the correct all prey, no power or seriousness dog couldn't get a V score. Also bring back the old courage test. I also really like the guard the object exercise they have in ring as well as the wall and call off.


----------



## Jax's Mom (Apr 2, 2010)

Vandal said:


> Lets say I wanted to follow my buddy Wayne's advise and start a new program to test the genetics of the GSD.


Do you mean actual _genetics_ or just character traits?


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I would like to see more agility (not agility as in the sport, but different jumps and obstacles, like some of the old stuff). I think it's good to train dogs this stuff and I'd like to see more physical challenges that test the dog besides straight up obedience.

In the protection I'd like to borrow some things from other tests. Like a friendly greeting and re-greeting, demonstrating that the dog activates and shuts down on command, more confrontation from the helper (not just standing there in a blind, then running away on the escape, etc). Maybe some of the stuff is done on leash, that's OK with me. Maybe calling the dog off a bite. These things may not look as absolutely clean and precise as a V-rated SchH 3 routine but I'd like to see a bit more variety with things that demonstrate more control and clear thinking from the dog, and also things that bring out more defense. I think there should be more pressure from the helper during the trial. I've seen a few dogs that bite and take drives on a sleeve fine but show a different picture when they are on a leash being agitated and expected to stay out there and stay in it without getting sleeve bites.

Suit or sleeve doesn't matter to me. Personally I like the suit but more for practical reason, I train my dog to bite the armpit from the front or the rear because I personally think it's a better more damaging target than a forearm. Either way the dog has to be trained what bites are acceptable in order to control the situation and diffuse the threat. I personally would not like a free-for all where the dog can simply bite whatever extremity is moving or easy to get to at the time, but maybe that's just me.

Scoring...doesn't really matter to me. Things already are pass/fail, I mean you have to get a certain score to move on. Points are OK because a lot of people are competitive and that's fine w/ me if they are competing for placement.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

I think the biggest focus would need to be on scoring. The exercises that currently exist aren't necessarily the best, but they're for the most part sufficient for most purposes. The problem lies with the scoring and often inability to read dogs that goes into that.

I don't think pass/fail is an option because while it eliminates the competition aspect, it doesn't differentiate between the dog who passes with flying colors and the one who barely squeaks by, and from the standpoint of the test that needs to be made.

But obviously the current scoring system as it is now isn't working too well in many cases. Though the fault there doesn't lie with the system itself, but rather with the judging and interpretation and emphasis being placed on the wrong thing. Not sure that's going to get fixed, or if fixed for a while wouldn't backslide into the current situation.

Perhaps one solution might be to just go with something like the existing categories (insufficient, sufficient, good, very good, excellent) without the associated point ratings. If implemented properly that might be a good compromise, allowing for the dog who did very well and the dog who barely made it to be differentiated, without developing into the existing obsession with actual points, scoring and competition wins.

I also think breaking the scoring into 2 different categories could be interesting. Sort of like skating and dance competitions where there are technical points and style points, though in this case there would be technical points and temperament points. 

A dog who did a technically perfect routine, but without heart, would be reflected as such in the scoring. High technical score, low temperament score. Likewise, a dog who showed correct temperament throughout would score well there, but suffer in the technical category if he performed without correctness and precision. 

Since the dog and the training are separate, I think it would make sense to separate them in scoring as well. One problem with modern scoring is that it is trying to judge both using one point system. And over the years that has slanted much more toward judging for technical precision than looking at the dog and figuring out why he is doing the work in the first place. If a dog Vs, one should be able to assume that both the dog and the training were exceptional, though that isn't always the case. But if a dog gets an 80 you can't tell much of anything by that score. Was it a weak dog with good training, or a strong dog with bad training? Did the dog perform brilliantly on the majority of the routine, but then just brain fart on one big point exercise? Or did the dog perform in a sloppy, mediocre fashion throughout, losing a few points on every exercise, and if so was that bad training or stress and lack of work ethic in the dog? 

They'd be some pretty long, complicated score sheets, but if every exercise was broken down into training points and dog points, it would differentiate between those situations and make it so that looking at trial results could provide meaningful information again. I think it could also go a long way in bringing balance back to the judging and participation. It seems anymore it is the training that is being tested and scored moreso than the dog, which further undermines the whole purpose of a test. Even in judges' critiques this is the case. We hear what the dog did well and what the dog didn't do well, often with a lot of nitpicking for things like crooked fronts and finishes that really have nothing to do with the dog himself, but very rarely does a judge touch on why those mistakes were made and on what inside the dog vs his training may have been involved. Separating the 2 in the scoring might take some of the focus off the training and balance things back out and help steer some people toward looking at the dogs again.


----------



## elisabeth_00117 (May 17, 2009)

I don't have any real input but wanted to say that I like how Lies described what she would like to see, I would tend to agree with her.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

As far as exercises go...

Tracking. 
I would like to see this go back to being more about the dog's ability to scent and track, and less about obedience. Certainly the dog shouldn't be wandering all over the place and should show dedication to the track, but the modern expectations of the dog following the track like a train on tracks is a bit overboard.

More challenges such as different angles of corners, terrain changes, obstacles to test the dog's persistence and problem solving.

Something to test for hunt drive. Maybe an article search or other random area search type exercise. Or even the old FH2 exercise of having to find the start of the track before beginning the track, rather than it always being marked with a flag.

Scoring that focuses more on the intensity with which the dog works through the track, how he solves problems and works through stress to achieve the end goal, rather than nitpicking that his nose went more than 6 inches past the corner on a windy day or how pefectly straight he indicated the articles.

Obedience.
I think the existing set of exercises are good and pretty comprehensive. Adding some distractions would be nice. I would also like to see this redesigned a bit to differentiate between true training and pattern training. One way would be to randomize the order of the exercises. Still the same list, but in a random order determined by the judge. Maybe at one trial you do heeling, then retrieve over the jump, then out of motions (and maybe the stand then the sit then the down) then the flat retrieve. At another trial it's out of motions, then heeling, then send out, then retrieves. This would show that the dog actually is correctly trained to respond to the handler rather than just going through things in the same order every time. Randomizing the heeling, with the judge calling out the pattern to include the elements in no set order like in AKC, rather than the same heeling pattern every time would be nice too. Randomizing the direction of the send out so it's not always straight down the centerline of the field (in most cases pointed directly at a "target" in the form of a conveniently placed flag pole, rock, or tree) would test the dog's true understanding of the exercise as well as his willingness to run away in any direction the handler points, not just run to where he thinks his ball is. Different retrieve objects, perhaps more practical ones than the same ol' db every time. 

Scoring again that focuses on the dog's utility, understanding of the exercises themselves (no pattern trained) and ability to perform each despite different distractions, different order, different individual elements. And that puts more weight on the enthusiasm, persistance, directability and attention to the handler that the dog shows througout than on things like whether or not the dog is an inch crooked on a front. I would also like to see attentiveness to the handler return to being more natural and a dog who is truly attentive and responsive rather than what we see so much today with the robotic performances of dogs staring at their handlers like slap happy zombies throughout, completely oblivious to their surroundings. Heeling is a big one here. It used to test if the dog could go for a walk with the handler, and pay enough attention to the handler without necessarily tuning out the environment to keep up with the handler. Now it's so stylized it is completely impractical and no one would ever want their dog actually heeling when going for a walk anywhere. A good working dog ought to be aware of what is going on, but able to work through it and perform useful exercises for the handler despite those things, not be trained (and bred as there is certainly genetics involved here) to the point of having such tunnel vision to the handler (or ball in the handler's armpit) that it's oblivious to anything else. 

I also agree with Lies on instituting more agility work. Partly to greater test the physical abilities of the dogs. I've seen way too many dogs recently who have trouble just getting over the 6 foot a-frame, and since physical ability is an important part of a dogs ability to work, something that would test that a bit more would be helpful. Bringing back the palisade instead of the a-frame would certainly do that, though just for physical safety and long term soundness of the dogs I'd prefer the Mondio version with the ramp down the back rather than the straight fall seen in French ring.

Dog walks, ladders or open stairs, tunnels, teeters, other moving footing surfaces like a suspension bridge would also not only be good tests of physical ability, but even moreso of temperament. Any dog could be trained to do those obstacles, but the body language the dog displays when doing so reveals a lot about his temperament.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

Chris, your second post is more what I am looking for. Exercises that remove the handler influence so it is more about the dog, making the separate scoring, ( handler/dog), not as necessary.

I think that tests like this can be really fun if they are changed up. The never knowing what to expect aspect presents a nice challenge.


----------



## Wildtim (Dec 13, 2001)

Designing a new test is sort of putting the cart before the horse.

First we have to agree on what traits we want to see. Good luck with that

Then we can decide how to allocate value among those traits. We could do more exercises for a more important trait or just assign more points to the exercise that tests the higher value trait. In the end we could come up with the perfect test of a German Shepherd dog.

It still wouldn't matter.

Or rather it would only matter as long as people, especially those judging, remember that it is a test and remember what characteristics we are looking for in each exercise. Forget that and you just have the same problems that exist now in what would become just another sport.

Whats fun for me, is to watch peoples expressions when you explain exactly what real world situation each Schutzhund exercise (in protection) is replicating. When the light dawns they finally begin to see why we want the behaviors we do at certain points. Sadly the exercises have become so stylized that most people new to the sport can't figure out what relevance they have to a real world situation. Then we go one step further and have people who aren't thinking "test", and whom aren't looking at the real world situation, making up rules, then the rules stop making sense. Once we get here people start to blame the sport when they really should be blaming the direction of focus for the judging and the participants.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Protection
Something other than the current blind search. Talk about pattern training! How many dogs just need to be shown if the search starts right or left and after that the handler might as well not even be there as the dog runs the blinds on autopilot? Even though judging seems to be getting back to paying attention to whether the dog actually checks the blind rather than just run around it, that's still not enough. The dogs know where the helper is and the pattern they must run to get there. Randomizing the blinds in terms of where the helper is and what order in which they must be searched would fix that and make it a true directed search again. An area search, such as in ring, where the dog is just turned loose in the area and must find the helper is a good test of the dog's ability to actually search, and one could argue is also more practical, but it doesn't have the test of directability that a blind search does. I like both, but to do both would be a lot of time and energy spent just running around not yet doing protection.

Bring back the attack out of the blind (the AWD titles have already done this) but make it random as to where the helper is hiding and the path the dog and handler must walk. And make it the first bite, just like it used to be so the dog doesn't get a chance to bite in prey (escape) before having to take on an attack.

Bring back the old style courage test, with the runaway followed by turn and attack. This tests for an all important drive transition in the dog.

Add in a call off, which obviously tests for control and the dog's responsiveness to the handler when in the highest possible drive. 

Or something like the DPO exercise where the dog is sent but at the last minute the fleeing helper stops and goes neutral and now the dog must hold and bark instead of bite, which tests the dog's discrimination of the situation and ability to transition drive and modulate his behavior in accordence with the change of behavior of the helper.

Add an out and recall off the active helper. Possibly the old NAPD style with a second helper coming out of hiding and the dog having to come to the handler's defense. 

Bring back the old disarms of the helpers, where the helper had to put his hands up, dog was placed in a down while the handler stepped forward and did a pat down search of the helper before taking the stick, picking up the dog and doing a transport.

Insert one exercise where after the out, instead of guard the dog is recalled to the handler. Doesn't just test control, but seeing how a dog who knows both are possibilities will respond, and how his guarding will be affected on future outs after he's been recalled, tells a lot about temperament.

The AWD2 exercise of a second helper popping out of a blind to attack handler and dog while they're doing a back transport of the first helper, and then finishing with a transport of both disarmed helpers is a really nice exercise that can have surprising results. When Raven and I did our AWD2, I was shocked that all of the other dogs trialing that day (all of them already SchH3) completely blew that exercise and either just stood their looking at the 2nd helper like they couldn't figure out what was going on, and clearly not recognizing it as an attack, or ignoring the charging second helper and instead running up to engage the first helper that they were transporting who was standing still because that was the helper they were focused on. Sure highlights a problem right there with SchH.

I also think some of the SDA protection exercises are very unique and quite brilliant. The friendly greeting of the helper, both before the action starts and again at the end after the dog has enjoyed chewing on the helper, are very good tests of the dog's control, judgment and ability to read intent. 

The SDA PD1 exercise where after the first greeting and handshake the handler and helper get into an "argument", complete with helper ranting and raving and waving his arms and the stick around and kicking over chairs and ringgate fencing and garbage cans, during which the dog should remain attentive but neutral sitting at the handler's side because the helper never makes a move to attack the handler, and the handler is demonstrating calm control of the situation is excellent as well.

Sleeve or suit doesn't matter. I do think in many ways it is easier to put strong pressure on a dog, especially during drives, with a sleeve. And a sleeve doesn't allow the dog to avoid the zone of pressure and still bite, whereas a suit does. But then I don't buy the commonly held belief that suits are more of a "real" test and a suit biting dog isn't equipment oriented whereas all sleeve dogs must be.

Whether suit or sleeve, I think a true civil aggitation exercise with no equipment would be useful. Of course the dog must be contained somehow for safety. Either held by the handler on lead, or on a teether or behind a fence like in the WH. Though I think from a temperament test standpoint it would tell more about the dog to go with the kennel/teether option and have the handler out of the picture, and see how the dog responds when by himself with no command or reassurance and support of the handler.

And I just love the ringsport object guard, so let's throw that in too.


----------



## DunRingill (Dec 28, 2007)

Chris Wild said:


> Obedience.
> I think the existing set of exercises are good and pretty comprehensive. Adding some distractions would be nice. I would also like to see this redesigned a bit to differentiate between true training and pattern training. One way would be to randomize the order of the exercises. Still the same list, but in a random order determined by the judge.


I agree, it's way too much pattern training. Should there really only be one heeling pattern used every time?? And I don't think there's enough difference between the levels. But maybe that's just my AKC obedience side talking


----------



## Northern GSDs (Oct 30, 2008)

Chris, I really enjoyed your thorough thoughts. I think you have really brought out many great ideas and supplemented them with sound rationale as to why. 

:thumbup:


----------



## Elaine (Sep 10, 2006)

I am in complete agreement with Chris. I had to laugh at her guarding the object comment as that's the one thing in ring sport that I have said so many times now that I wish was in SchH and would love to learn how to do.


----------



## VaBeachFamily (Apr 12, 2005)

I don't know what to say... but I do agree with many of the things I have seen here. I love Schutzhund, but more of the sport and giving my dog something to do and titles to earn ( especially since showing isn't an option). I do agree about the track, it seems like they want more of a robot than a scent tracker. I also agree that the dog shouldn't be running wild just looking for the end, or search and rescue style, but more like POLICE do... Track the suspect first of all, and FIND them.. not the end of the track. And, keep in a decent line, but nothing left, right, left, right... as this isn't showing as much willing to find what he is looking for as he is being obedient. 

In Obedience, I do believe the dog should listen, but, I have been taught that they dog has to watch you during EVERYTHING... any of you want to tell me how you would do if you had to walk looking up and back, not seeing where you are going? it's not comfortable, and my dog can heel ( with a lead) pretty well, but he likes to watch what's going on around us, not stare me in the face. And, when I call my dog to me, Why is it that he has to sit in a perfectly straight line? Does that mean that he came to me any less if he is crooked? Or, my dog is protective of me naturally so when he comes "hier" he comes, and loves to just run up to me, and sit halfway and watch around me. 

And.. in protection... again.. if we aren't teaching the dog to FIND the guy, in what real life situation would we be pointing at things over and over making our dog run around for no good reason. I kinda get it, and I am not arguing, but, the sleeve is another thing. I understand it shows drive and ability to listen... but... In a real life scenario... I would want my dog to take someone down who was a threat, not run around the guy looking for a sleeve, bite him wherever necessary. 

Starting to think I am in the wrong sport!!!! And, I don't mean disrespect. I do as my trainer tells me, and my dog is learning, but I feel like if it was a bit more natural and not robotic training, the dogs would be more confident... most good Schutzhund dogs anymore are kept " crated all day" so you can "harness the drive". Nope, sorry, my boy doesn't go in the crate unless the babysitter is coming over while we aren't home for her own safety, or in the vehicle, for his, and he sleeps in our bedrooms or our sons, he goes everywhere with us, including works sometimes... Dogs should be loved pets, and STILL be able to work well... again, I respect the sport, but since it was brought up, there is MUCH room for improvement... if you guys start some new sport that we can actually title in, let me know, because I am game!


----------



## Coastie01 (Mar 17, 2011)

VA I dont know much about it since I am just getting back into training but PSA sounds more like what you are looking for then SchH. I work with a lot of Police Officers/K-9 handlers whose dogs would never pass SchH becuase of how structured and rigid it is, however they are amazing Patrol Dogs. That seems to be more your frame of mind as well as mine. 

I wish there was a sport that was based off patrol work that you could title in more so then go run around a field and bite a sleeve.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Coastie01 said:


> I wish there was a sport that was based off patrol work that you could title in more so then go run around a field and bite a sleeve.


PSA and SDA are patterned more off patrol work type scenarios.

However if you think SchH is automatically just "running around a field biting a sleeve", or that suit vs sleeve makes a hoot of difference, then I daresay you've got a lot to learn.


----------



## mareg (Mar 10, 2011)

How about this for a start? At least no pattern training for obedience. A little more realistic for protecion. It may ruin it for people who like to compete.

..::Eurosport K-9 Training and Import Services


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

I have never liked the reward prompted look in my face artificial heeling in schutzhund. Too many trials - seen it too many times -- in the ring you got it , out of the ring that interest in handler unravels , becomes nothing , disintegrates to unruly - non-teamed activity. Does not prove a bond , does not prove a unity between handler and dog. The last trial (major) I went to that was the case. Impressive in the ring , at end when awards were being announced the handlers were tripping over their dogs , the dogs lunging , running circles , pulling like sled dogs. 

Here is an offering for what to include. One of the depts I deal with will take the dog , after some testing for other things - tracking , hunt , some activity , and walk the dog off into a secluded wooded area just beyond the field, tie the dog up and leave , come back to the team, owner , others present. 

You watch and listen . Does the dog start crying , whining, barking . If so is it an I am here bark , or distress high pitch frequent repetitive bark. After about 10 to 15 minutes a person (evaluator) and one or two viewers following well behind or of to side will approach the dog in a neutral way , as a friendly hiker minding his own business would do. Observe the dog. Does he rush out in high fright defense, try to break away to run away , show aggression . Is the dog aware and watchful. You don't want dozy , the dog has to be aware of the environment. At what distance does the dog show awareness. At what distance does behaviour change. 
That group can pass the dog. After a while another group may come in and approach in a similar way this time however there is a threat - does the dog stand up for himself , or stress, hackle, spin , try to escape. How quickly does he regain composure. Has nothing to do with a bite . 

I agree with the blinds routine being questioned. When I went out and joined one of the first Sch h clubs in Ontario , in the early 70's , we did natural blind work by using things in the environment, a parked car, an outhouse, a clump of bushes. The dog was let go and he had to search himself , and bark if he found someone.

When I was a young girl I had a female GSD "Asta" that lived long and healthy into her 16th year. She represents everything that I hold as ideal. I could take her to the school yard and she would integrate into the play with my friends. She dragged the newspaper wagon when I did my brothers early morning rounds . She was my passport to freedom to ramble around in the yet undeveloped woods and ravines. Hung around for woodlot marshmallow roasts. When hiking I knew exactly when and where someone was present -- she always would go forward and stop , and listen , one time gave a bark to let me know. 
The blind search always presumes that the guy you find is going to be hostile. The dogs are amped for the bite. How much drive to search would remain if that were taken away from the search.
What if you had a kid hiding in the blind - how should the dog indicate then. 

What if you are out hiking and the dog indicates someone there , but it is just a girl some distance away from her parents , laying on a blanket doing her nails or reading.
You want to know who and what or if someone is there but it should not be in take down mode all the time. You can proof the dog by changing scenarios, one time friendly passive stranger, one time hostile aggressive charge at dog. 

Carmen


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

I have to say, I have watched some ring stuff lately and it does look like fun. It is more interesting to watch the dog's behavior than SchH is now . Could be because it is something new for me to be interested in or maybe not. I really prefer watching the dogs working without all the handler tricks that I know and can see are going on in SchH. Nowadays, it seems the dogs either look really bad or they are all kind of working the exact same way. Show dogs all look alike and the working dogs all work alike. BORING. 
The basket guard is a very good example of what I am more interested in watching.
I trained for a while with a guy who was big into ring, I think he is now a judge. That was over 20 years back and he did teach just about everything with a tug during protection. Meaning, the exercises where the dog was called away from the agitator, he would be there playing with the dog. That kind of bothered me, so I was not as interested in it but that was before SchH started heading in a similar direction.

Having said that, I am not really asking about creating another sport. More looking for a way and exercises that will show who the dog is, more than who the handlers are. In some ways, I think things could be turned back a notch if the venue for the trials were not so much the same and not so available for practice. Like what was already mentioned, exercises worked out of order is okay but if it is the same environment where blinds, walls and jumps are always the props used, it won't take long until people figure out how to work around that. 

One thing I have noticed, ( by trying to work and train way too many dogs at the same time), is that some dogs really are situational. They only seem to get it when they are in the place they were trained. Like the retrieve for example. I have some dogs who will retrieve anything and anywhere. They know the word bring no matter where I ask them to do it. Others, if I take them out of the training situation, just look at me like they never heard the word before. The ones who know it anywhere are out of those older bloodlines. I attribute it to that attentiveness I talked about in the Civil drives thread. They also have no problem working the exercises out of order because, IMO, they are "listening to me" better than the other dogs. Might sound strange when you read it but you have to kind of experience the difference in the dogs. 

So, there is something to the mixing things up stuff that might show more of the dog than what we see now. People talk about the strange field in SchH and to a degree that is true that it tests the dogs more. However, not THAT much. All the fields are pretty similar in the set up and all the advance notice and practice available on those fields certainly lessens it. 

So, IMO, there is something to the mixing it up stuff but maybe I would prefer to mix it up even more. 
I think the main thing I would do is to make whatever the test is, not so available for advance notice to the entrants and change the props. We never used to be told or shown what the tracking conditions were going to be. You showed up with a dog you thought could track. Never talked about whether the blind search started to the left or right either, what the blinds would look like nor were you told what the send out was directed at. I might have appreciated that actually because that was the one exercise I was always a little lazy about teaching.  .

The other thing is, you can really SEE when the dogs are working for the handler vs a toy or a food spit. Maybe the people who have never seen the difference can't but I sure can. Perhaps that should be mentioned by the judges vs just saying the dog is willing or attentive to the handler.

Any new test would be more fun, ( for me anyway), if it was more about looking at the dogs vs looking at how cleverly the people make the dogs look like they are attentive or protective when they really are not.

Just read Carmen's post and I think we are saying something similar here.


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

absolutely Anne. You know on the "other list" I did not respond to you as there really was nothing else to add. 
I want to see strong and hardy and safe and biddable and reliable and honest proud dogs able to take pressure from foe and handler (because in crisis and excitement there may be shortness and abruptness - men of dogs not little lord faunt leroys who need kid glove treatment) .
I want to see dogs tracking out of instinct , able to use everything in the skills arsenal , air scenting , tracking , trailing, with speed and accuracy. I have been told my dogs track too fast -- for sport they need to slow down. A major competitor took the advice and created problems that never existed because the dog was a tracking super star when he was young, all this foot to foot worked against him, hobbled the dog. grrr.

test the nature of the dog not the training of the dog. 
thanks -- and with that off to work 
Carmen
http://www.carmspack.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Honestly, from a breedworthiness test standpoint, things would probably be better off if GSDs instituted a BST system like a lot of the other working breeds have. Much of that totally removes the training and the handler from the equation, and focuses on the dog. And most, unlike SchH, is not something to actually train for, just go out and see how the dog does with minimal prep.

The RSV2000 model holds a lot of promise from the standpoint of looking at the dogs, not the training or handler, and using the tests to provide useful information about that dog for breeding. With the intent being that this is pursued separate from SchH or anything else that has become a sport. Want to title in SchH? Sure, go ahead. But from a testing the dog for breeding standpoint use something else entirely, and these tests, rather than titles, become the requirements for breeding and registration. The titles are just later icing on the cake. Unfortunately it's unlikely this model is every going to really take off, at least not outside of Germany. It only has value to those who care about the breed and maintaining proper temperament and working ability. It offers nothing to the show crowd, or the sport competitors, who sadly make up the majority of the population.

If requirements for breeding went that direction, I also think overtime we'd see an improvement in SchH itself because the majority those now responsible for watering it down would leave altogether. While many different things have contributed to it's watering down, the biggest driving force behind that has been that need to get titles to breed and make money. Fewer and fewer dogs, particularly of the most popular type worldwide, are able to really do the work to pass a real trial. So the standards have been lowered, not so much in the printed rules though there is some of that there, but mainly in the judging and expectations of the dogs and that pronounced ratings are now given to any and every dog that doesn't run off the field with it's tail tucked (and possibly even a few who do). The dogs can't meet the standards set forth by the test, so instead those standards were lowered to fit the dogs. 

If that title wasn't required to get the almighty pink papers, there are a whole lot of people worldwide who sure wouldn't be doing it anymore, and that could be a good thing. If instead the breeding requirements could be met with more simple tests of the dog, with less time and effort and trianing involved, that mass exodus from SchH might allow the titles to become more meaningful again. Though quite likely with the current climate, and the priorities of those with the majority of the power, money and influence over these things, over time the same would happen to any sort of BST program that was created.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

Just wanted to add that I agree with some of what Chris suggested and Lies. For me, there is something in the temperament of a dog that makes them more suited to tackle obstacles. You can see how much they enjoy it vs others who do not at all. Some of that is in how the dogs are built, along with that temperament. They seem to enjoy the feeling of performing that physical activity and you can see it in their expression when you watch them. Once again, hard to put in words and easier to see.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

That last post by Chrris makes some very good points as well. That is what I am talking about because as it is now, SchH does not tell a person enough about the dogs. The people who own those titled dogs,( for the most part), can't tell you much either.


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

I can't add much but we use elements of the old Brownell Marsolais FEMA test (which has since been shortened I believe) when evaluating SAR prospects (if it is a young grown dog). it may be worth looking at.........

We DO do a tieout test with the handler out of the picture looking for reaction to neutral strangers and dogs, as well as look for surface sentivities etc.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Vandal said:


> Just wanted to add that I agree with some of what Chris suggested and Lies. For me, there is something in the temperament of a dog that makes them more suited to tackle obstacles. You can see how much they enjoy it vs others who do not at all. Some of that is in how the dogs are built, along with that temperament. They seem to enjoy the feeling of performing that physical activity and you can see it in their expression when you watch them. Once again, hard to put in words and easier to see.


I agree, I just love watching and having a dog who likes these challenges that combine physical and mental. This is why I do agility as well as SchH. I am not part of the "agility crowd" out there breeding neurotic monsters for MACH20 titles or anything like that. I enjoy having a dog that will jump and climb and scale for the sake of doing it! I cringe when I see dogs beginning retrieves having to be basically "desensitized" to jumping and the A-frame, even one dog that was so terrified he never would go back over the A-frame. I practically have to restrain Nikon around any such equipment.

I like watching the "police olympics" type courses where the teams have to do a tricky obstacle course, together. I like seeing the bond as well as problem solving the physical challenge. I wish there were "classes" for this like there are agility, obedience, etc. Not just training a dog to perform an obstacle as directed but actually working an obstacle course, together, where at some point I might have to carry or lift my dog, we crawl under and over everything together, etc.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

jocoyn said:


> We DO do a tieout test with the handler out of the picture looking for reaction to neutral strangers and dogs,


This is part of the temperament/traffic portion of the BH as well. But not to the extreme that Carmen described in terms of leaving the dog completely isolated for an extended period of time, and no aggitation work either on the BH of course.


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

The obedience and "agility" Chris describes is very much like the dexterity and obedience portions of the RH (Search and Rescue title on IRO/FCI).


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Yup. And too bad more clubs aren't willing to offer the RH at trials. Or the STP (article search.. a test for hunt drive) titles either.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

I think that SDA has exercises that show practical applicability in assessing traits of our breed. The family obedience component with simple things as the gate, getting in and out of vehicle with control, remaining in the down while kibble is handled, are all very practical to what we do everyday with out dogs. Also, the call off on the long bite would help in the balance of control and over the top prey for the bite.(Call out is not SDA feature). Another feature of SDA I like is the jumps over hurdles, through windows, A-frame, and over a bar jumb. I would also like to see a fence jump in the Sch three routine as bars and fences are things dogs can see through and under and often create problems if not taught. Obedience should be graded on correctness and speed and handler focus minimized. The more handler focus, the less the dog is using their own mind to deal with situations. JMO


----------



## Fast (Oct 13, 2004)

Chris Wild said:


> would probably be better off if GSDs instituted a BST system like a lot of the other working breeds have.


I think this is really the answer if you want to see the working ability get better and still keep the dogs with the classic GSD temperament.


----------



## Fast (Oct 13, 2004)

VaBeachFamily said:


> In Obedience, I do believe the dog should listen, but, I have been taught that they dog has to watch you during EVERYTHING... any of you want to tell me how you would do if you had to walk looking up and back, not seeing where you are going? it's not comfortable, and my dog can heel ( with a lead) pretty well, but he likes to watch what's going on around us, not stare me in the face. And, when I call my dog to me, Why is it that he has to sit in a perfectly straight line? Does that mean that he came to me any less if he is crooked? Or, my dog is protective of me naturally so when he comes "hier" he comes, and loves to just run up to me, and sit halfway and watch around me.


You are creating a problem for yourself. There is no rule in schutzhund saying that the dog must look at you during the heeling. It says the dog must be attentive. If your dog is looking around and still maintains proper position through out the heeling, you should get full points. But the fact of the matter is that few dogs can do that, thus people train the dog to look at them. 

It's the same way for most of the complaints about the sport. If you want to train your dog like they did in the past you can. I'm aware that you might not win at big trials. But if your dog completes every exercise the lowest rating you can receive is a satisfactory.


----------



## Coastie01 (Mar 17, 2011)

Chris Wild said:


> PSA and SDA are patterned more off patrol work type scenarios.
> 
> However if you think SchH is automatically just "running around a field biting a sleeve", or that suit vs sleeve makes a hoot of difference, then I daresay you've got a lot to learn.


I am not saying that suit vs sleeve plays any role in it. I find it much more impressive for a dog to find someone in a warehouse or the woods for the bite rather than just behind a blind because the dogs figure out that the helper is behind the blind. Also your right I have a ton to learn these are just my observations coming into SchH from the patrol dog side.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Coastie01 said:


> I am not saying that suit vs sleeve plays any role in it. I find it much more impressive for a dog to find someone in a warehouse or the woods for the bite rather than just behind a blind because the dogs figure out that the helper is behind the blind. Also your right I have a ton to learn these are just my observations coming into SchH from the patrol dog side.


An area search rather than a blind search seems more practical for sure, but it also tests completely different traits in the dog. This is where understanding what each exercise is designed to test in SchH is so important. The blind search really isn't about finding someone, it's about testing the directability of the dog. The dog knowing where the helper is is actually a big part of that test. Will the dog, despite his desire to get to the helper and his knowing where that helper is, still do a directed search for the handler, being obedient to the handler's commands? Or will he just ignore the handler in favor of getting to where he wants to be quicker? Very important traits to test for sure. 

Tracking is another area where this comes into play. People often diss SchH tracking as being unnatural and impractical. Yes, it is, but again that's part of the point. Can the dog take his natural talent and use them in an UNnatural manner, because that's what the handler asks from him? Or does his drive and instinct take over causing him to track in what for a dog is a more natural manner, regardless of what the handler wants? It's not just about testing the ability to follow scent, but to follow scent in a particular way, molding his behavior to the desires of his handler.

If one just looks at these exercises from a practical standpoint, they seem silly and useless because this is not how a SAR dog or police dog would go about finding someone. Not in tracking, and not in the blind search. But when you look at it from the standpoint of the tests being designed to test for something different, but not nearly as obvious to the onlooker, they make a lot more sense.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

> Tracking is another area where this comes into play. People often diss SchH tracking as being unnatural and impractical. Yes, it is, but again that's part of the point. Can the dog take his natural talent and use them in an UNnatural manner, because that's what the handler asks from him?


I might be buying the blind explanation but I think I have to consider this one a bit longer.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Honestly would love to hear your thoughts on those, Anne. I've been told this rationalization by more than one old timer, from both sides of the pond, over the years as of course the topics of why certain SchH exercises are what they are is a common one. And it's always seemed to make good sense, and of course is also something you can clearly see when the dogs are working; directability vs going where he want's to go, keeping that nose down and resisting the natural urge to airscent or cast or circle, etc...

ETA: Not saying it is better to test those things than other, more practical things. Just that there at least appears to be thought behind the exercises in terms of testing traits, not just making it easier to grade on a point scale. Though of course in tracking it's gone way too far toward obedience and away from scenting in recent years.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

I simply have never heard or don't recall that explanation for tracking. Apparently, that is the opinion of some and I am not saying you made it up. I think of tracking as demonstrating other traits in the dogs but because of the points, people wanted a slower tracker. Seemed to them, the dog would be more accurate and not lose the track as easy. That belief goes way back and it makes sense. However, over the last decade or so, people really started to get silly and expected the dogs to check every single footprint. I think the slower more accurate tracker comes with time in training vs forcing the dog to be slow or to carefully check every foot print. 

It takes a bit of time and the dogs slow down. I trained Vandal, ( Lear and Faust also), with a ball and at first, they were very fast. I was criticized by a couple of my club members for that method because of the speed it created. Eventually, they slowed down. When they did, they were quite good tracking dogs. Speaking just of Vandal, because I titled him more than the others, he was relentless, unless I did something really stupid on the end of the line or maybe freed him up in the middle of the track....stuff like that. When he knew where the track was, he would fight the line, ( and the fool at the end of it), to keep going. That behavior was where I saw who my dog was. I saw this same type of temperament in the other areas of training as well but it came more from the desire to do the work vs being molded or forced into doing something that was unnatural for him. If you want to say that my stupid mistakes and impatience at times were something the dog was able to overcome, yes, that was VERY true. I think people make it harder on themselves by trying to force their dog to do what is not natural and I do not see the benefit, or what it might show you about the dog. That just doesn't quite make sense to me. Maybe I am missing something in the translation.

BTW, where we track there are a number of coyotes, ( along with the crows), who make that area their home. They are there watching everything we are doing, even if we don't notice them at first. Started out they would show up as we were leaving but the more we tracked there, the more impatient they became. If we laid a track in an adjacent field from where we were standing, one of the coyotes would start tracking the track. They didn't cast around unless the wind moved the scent and they were not running down the track. They followed the track much the same way a SchH dog would, including the corners. 
Since it is right down the road from me, I laid a track for a dog and drove up the road to get him. As I was leaving, I spotted one coyote and two crows on the scent pad of the track I had already run. When I got back with the other dog, all of them were there by the starting flag of the track I had not run yet. The coyote was starting down the first leg, slow, intense and pretty darn accurate, until I yelled at him anyway. Of course, they had figured out what scent lead them to the food. The coyotes were not checking every single footstep, only the ones with food in them.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Dogs becoming slower, more methodical and more correct on their own with more experience (and maturity), without needing to be actually taught a lot of "obedience to the track", has been my experience as well. Likewise the committment to the track and dog taking charge, complete with the "it goes HERE you silly human with the inadequate sniffer" hauling the handler around by the line if need be, sort of determination. And the confidence, work ethic and understanding of the actual task at hand to choose selective disobedience if that silly handler thinks the track goes one way, and dog knows it goes the other. The willingness to be selectively disobedient at times being something IMO that is very important for a GSD to have.

To be clear, though, I'm not saying nor did those whom I've heard this from, that this is the only things tested in tracking. Certainly not. Just one area where what SchH tracking is looking for varies from more natural, real world tracking... or maybe just a good sounding excuse to justify the difference.


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

Chris Wild said:


> If one just looks at these exercises from a practical standpoint, they seem silly and useless because this is not how a SAR dog or police dog would go about finding someone. Not in tracking, and not in the blind search. But when you look at it from the standpoint of the tests being designed to test for something different, but not nearly as obvious to the onlooker, they make a lot more sense.


Actually, it has a lot to do with SAR. In SAR certifications there is an exercise where the dog finds a victim, he is praised by the handler, but not rewarded and have to keep searching the area, looking for the other victims and ignoring those he already found. That once and again up to 6 times.


----------



## Wolfgeist (Dec 4, 2010)

I would really like to see a call-off added to the list of exercises preformed in Schutzhund. I personally believe it is important to be able to guarantee that your dog will stop at any moment you give the command, even when they are about to launch themselves at the decoy. Those few moments right before the dog opens it's mouth to bite are certainly intense for the dog, so why not exercise your control at the moment of his most heightened state of mind/excitement?


----------

