Training methods of military dog handlers and their effects on the team's performances

• Published in: Applied animal behaviour science 2008-09, Vol.113 (1), p.110-122
• Main Authors: Haverbeke, A., Laporte, B., Depiereux, E., Giffroy, J.-M., Diederich, C.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: animal handling; animal performance; animal welfare; Distraction; dogs; human behavior; human-animal relations; Human–animal interaction; methodology; military personnel; Operant conditioning; teams; Training; training (animals); training distraction; working animals; Working dogs
• ISSN: 0168-1591; 1872-9045
• DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2007.11.010

While only a few studies have analysed training methods used on working dogs, a recent survey in 303 Belgian military handlers revealed the use of harsh training methods on military working dogs (MWD). The present work aims at analysing the training methods used on Belgian MWD and the behaviour of handlers to objectify the performances of the dog handlers teams (DH teams) and the welfare of the animals. A standardized evaluation, including obedience and protection work exercises, was conducted on DH teams ( n = 33). Every evaluation was done twice to assess the reliability of the observation methods. The behaviours of MWD and handlers were recorded on videotape and subsequently analysed. Results showed that handlers rewarded or punished their dogs intermittently. Stroking and patting the dogs were the most frequently used rewards. Pulling on the leash and hanging dogs by their collars were the most commonly used aversive stimuli. The team's performance was influenced by the training method and by the dog's concentration: (1) low-performance dogs received more aversive stimuli than high-performance dogs; (2) dog's distraction influenced the performance: distracted dogs performed less well. Handlers punished more and rewarded less at the second evaluation than at the first one. This suggests that handlers modified their usual behaviour at the first evaluation in view to present themselves in a positive light. During the second evaluation the dogs reacted to this higher frequency of aversive stimuli as they exhibited a lower posture after aversive stimuli. The authors cannot prove that the welfare of these dogs had been hampered, but there is an indication that it was under threat. Low team performances suggest that DH teams should train more regularly and undertake the usefulness of setting a new training system that would rely on: the use of more positive training methods, an increased training frequency, the elaboration of a course on training principles, and an improvement of dog handler relationship.