BACK TO BASICS

By Sergeant Denny Kunkel, New Haven Police Department


After many weeks of hard work, and a few bouts of frustration, you have finally graduated the basic training canine class with your new Police Service Dog. You hit the streets running as a fine-tuned working canine team, performing at your “A” game, taking on each individual assignment with a newfound attitude of confidence. Weeks, and months pass by, and although you have directed your dog’s in-service maintenance training to a higher level of tactical mind-set, you encounter situations where your dog begins to have less interest in complying with your first, or even second, verbal commands. Especially during those on-duty incidents or training scenarios when control is the number one basis for the success of the deployment.

For instance, you are dispatched to an alarm call at a local business after the first responding officer discovers an open door. You arrive at the scene and exit your cruiser with your Police Service Dog, tactically approaching the known entry point of the business while continually maintaining your cover advantage. After numerous verbal or physical attempts, your dog finally “Downs” to your command at the edge of the open door, and you begin to verbally announce your presence to anyone who may be hiding inside the premises. Following a number of announcements, you release your Police Service Dog into the building and he begins his search. You strategically trail your dog throughout the premises employing every tactical precaution available, just as you practiced in training. Your dog finally indicates the presence of human odor behind a closed door by exhibiting a behavioral change of verbal alerts and physically scratching at the door. You are excited and ready; this is what you have been training for. You call your Police Service Dog back to you in preparation of demanding that the suspect exit his place of hiding. However, your dog proceeds to ignore your directive and continues lingering at the door. Following numerous verbal commands, your dog hesitantly turns and advances toward your tactical location with obvious frustration. As soon as you gain control of your dog, you instruct the suspect to slowly step from behind the closed door with his hands visible. Next, you “Stay” your Police Service Dog and you tactically begin to approach the suspect in preparation of handcuffing, however your dog breaks your command and begins to slowly creep toward your location. This movement creates a distraction for you, likewise compelling you to direct your attention off of the suspect to verbally re-instruct and physically re-position your dog. You re-approach the suspect getting the handcuffs on one of his wrists. However, once again your Police service Dog breaks his “Stay” position, but this time your dog makes unwarranted physical contact with the suspect.

Although hypothetical, this is only one of many scenarios that illustrate a very common problem that can develop through the result of training negligence, in both new and veteran canines alike, which can lead to civil liability, or worse, tragic consequences when it happens in real life. Let’s face it; it is no secret that if you situate a number of canine handlers together in one room the majority will not be afraid to speak of their successful canine missions, however you will soon discover that it is human nature that few will discuss their failures. Moreover, I have found that when canine maintenance training is concerned, the same mindset applies; many like to concentrate on areas of training that highlights their strong points and they avoid those areas that emphasize their weaknesses. All too many times, handlers forget about routinely reinforcing the fundamentals after they graduate from basic training and then they want to advance to working tactical. Yet, when the dog will not listen, the handler losses his temper and inappropriately overcorrects the animal, accomplishing nothing more than generating behavioral problems in the Police Service Dog. It is totally understandable that facing this setback head-on can sometimes become a frustrating state of affairs for any canine team, particularly when the handler is not entirely sure of the action to undertake to correct the dilemma. However, if one takes the time to look at the big picture they will discover that the truth of the matter for rectification consists of nothing more than readdressing and consistently practicing the fundamental foundation of what canine training involves; basic, “Keep It Simple,” obedience. To clarify, let’s begin by defining the order of a “Pack Leader,” which is the generally recognized phrase that describes the relationship between the handler and his Police Service Dog. This position involves a two-fold responsibility for the handler as a “Pack Leader.” On one hand, the “Pack Leader” should act quite social with the canine member, however on the other hand; the “Pack Leader” should exert dominance when a command or correction is necessary. In other words, the handler should act extremely friendly with his dog, just as a partner or equal, however when a command is given the dog should trust that it is required to respond immediately or die. Don’t misunderstand this philosophy, no one is advocating that a handler should put to death his Police Service Dog for disobedience, however you must be knowledgeable of the fact that this is the canine’s way of thinking in his own natural habitat. Keeping this in mind, once a dog understands a command it should be given only once. Failure to comply with the first request should result in the handler taking prompt and firm enforcement action to correct the inappropriate behavior. Additionally, when commands are given the handler should eliminate the tendency to give more than one command for the same action; likewise maintaining simplicity. For instance, handlers have a tendency to issue consecutive commands such as “Down-Stay” in their attempt to have their dog remain in a prone position. Psychologically, a Police Service Dog understands clearly and concisely the desired behavior, merely with a “Down” command. “Down” means “Down” until the dog is commanded to display another behavior or released from control. Accordingly, disobedience to the command should not be followed by an array of repeated commands or a “No” or anything else but an immediate unpleasant enforcement of the command. For example, a Police Service Dog that understands the “Down” command and breaks his location as the handler walks away, should immediately receive an unpleasant enforcement back into the “Down” position without verbal communication. Consequently, the Police Service Dog understands unmistakably that “Down” means “Down.”

Keep in mind, there is no hidden secret or gimmick available to keeping your Police Service Dog under constant control. The only factor that is required is your desire to develop a habit of maintaining consistent and basic, “Keep It Simple,” obedience drills as a fundamental part of your training routine. By continuing this habit, your dog will behave appropriately, maintaining total reliability under all conditions, from that neighborhood canine demonstration to that criminal apprehension when stress is at it’s highest.


About The Author:
Sergeant Denny Kunkel, IPWDA Master Trainer is a 20-year veteran with the City of New Haven, IN, P.D. He has over 17 years of canine experience where he serves as Canine Supervisor and Tactical Instructor for that agency. Sergeant Kunkel can be reached at Dkunkel@NewHavenIN.org.
 

THE REMOTE TRAINING COLLAR CONTROVERSY

By Sergeant Denny Kunkel, New Haven Police Department

 

Regardless if one is on the canine training field or present during the instructional debriefing, the subject of remote collar (e-collar) training persistently emerges with the end result typically leading to unproductive debate. Arguments presented by countless collar adversaries such as “is there a necessity of shocking a canine into compliance” or “the handler surely lacks control when the collar is immobilized” is a clear case in point of the on-going misunderstanding of the application and desired results of electrical stimulation training. I for one will agree that the use of early limited level collars is cruel and limits the trainer to solely compulsion training. Early production collars restricted the trainer to employing negative based enforcement to establish dominance by using high levels of electricity to form the behavior of the animal, notably in the area of control work. In this circumstance the trainer would shock the canine for several seconds or until the animal complied with the command. Under this method a genetically soft dog (perceives pain and/or stress more intensely than average dogs) that was “jolted” too many times would reach crisis point and become anxious for fear of doing something wrong, or he would react to corrections with panic and loose focus on the task at hand. Unfortunately, this was the historical practice that has currently encouraged the controversy and poor media that has followed the present remote training collar system. If this is the type of e-collar training that challengers are referring to within their arguments, then they are correct to condemn the use of this system.

However, the contemporary e-collar models available today have advanced tremendously, not only in size and stimulation level capabilities, but also distance of range. For instance, models that are currently available on the market utilize 18-varied stimulation levels at the transmitter and have the capability to transmit up to a one-mile line of sight range. This technology allows for the opportunity of accomplishing more than one objective during a single training exercise. For example, when the remote training collar is correctly utilized the focus of training can be directed toward the properly selected dog’s instinctual skills on a positive level rather than on a negative level of continuous compulsion techniques. Moreover, through the repetitive practice of correct timing of low-level stimulation during remote collar training, conflict between the dog and handler can be eliminated via the canine recognizing the correlation between its own performance of the command and the end of the mild discomfort. In general terms, the dog associates perfectly timed corrections with his own performance, rather than thinking the trainer “got me.” Therefore, the canine’s attitude stays confident because he believes he can avoid the correction through his own actions; validating the mind-set of “Master’s of Association.” Overall, canines distinguish only pleasure or pain in life, possessing no principled values or the ability to think logically. Accordingly, training and development must be approached cautiously to prevent any undesirable associations, especially with the canine’s knowledge being acquired specifically through good and bad memory experiences. Even though, the highest level of “reliability” in a police service dog is obtained through compulsion training techniques, the highest level of “achievement” is accomplished through continuous coercion practices.



Don’t misunderstand, I am not saying that this is the only suitable system or philosophy of training available for today’s working canine, nor am I condemning the use of proper compulsion corrections when needed. On the contrary, what I am offering is an alternative thinking principle on the usefulness of a technologically improved training tool, which when used humanely, will provide compliance motivated by physical or mental pleasure, in lieu of compliance motivated by invariable physical and mental pain. Which when both systems are collectively balanced, will lead to the ultimate goal of a Police Service Dog that equally maintains a high level of achievement and reliability.


About The Author:
Sergeant Denny Kunkel, IPWDA. Master Trainer is a 20-year veteran with the City of New Haven, IN, P.D. He has over 17 years of canine experience where he serves as Canine Supervisor and Tactical Instructor for that agency. Sergeant Kunkel can be reached at Dkunkel@NewHavenIN.org.

[ top ]