What is going on in the working dog world? Do you want to stay informed about the latest developments and insights and do you appreciate the opinions of professionals? Then listen to K9 conversations Working Dog podcast Dutch. You will hear well-known and lesser known people here. Leaders in our field, experts, colleagues, but also people in a supporting role. We receive both Dutch and English-speaking guests. Who are we? We are Patrick Peterson and Minke van den Berg and this is K9 Conversations Working Dog Podcast Dutch.
[Muziek]
I always say, “You have two types of dogs; you have a dog with a camera and a camera dog.” A dog with a camera is a dog that moves independently and performs its task while you can watch what’s happening.
Patrick:
Welcome listeners, to a new episode of our podcast. Today we have a very special guest.
Minke:
Yes, exciting!
Patrick:
Someone I've wanted to get in front of the microphone for a very long time. A very busy person who fortunately found the time to talk to us. Thank you in advance for that. Due to the nature of his activities we will use a different name than his original name, but this won’t affect the content of our conversation. I am very curious, Chris, tell me, what do you do in daily life?
Chris:
Thank you very much for letting me come here. I'm very excited. In daily life I am involved in running the dog program of the Commando Corps.
Patrick:
How did you get into the dog world?
Chris:
The program itself is quite young, but I grew up as the son of a police dog handler, so I have been exposed to working dogs from a young age. Not so much the practical implementation of it, but I knew what it is like to have service dogs in combination with a private life or a family. I have experienced that myself for years. Since 2015, the KCT has started the dog program. I immediately applied there with the idea that I could certainly provide my input in the organization based on what I was taught from an early age.
Patrick:
Yes, how interesting. Before you started the program, did you already do something with dogs as a hobby or was it solely your experience from your home situation?
Chris:
We used to have four dogs at home; two service dogs in kennels and two pet dogs, so we had a full house in that regard, especially combined with the cats and goldfish that also lived with us. Before starting the program, I had experience in owning a dog but working with service dogs is something I did for the first time when I started in this program.
Patrick:
What made the Korps Commando Troepen choose to start a dog program? The corps has been around for a long time and, as I understand it from you, the dog program is relatively new.
Minke:
It started in 2015 you said?
Chris:
Yes, 2014 or 2015 off the top of my head. Dogs have always had a place within various defense units worldwide. From the Romans onward and maybe even earlier. The Netherlands has somehow lagged behind in this regard compared to other countries. During the Cold War, quite a few dog programs were scrapped or decimated worldwide. It was only through the use of dogs in the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq that the use of dogs was revived by the Americans who had developed it quite far at the time. Then I’m talking about around 2004. All coalition partners, including the Netherlands, have joined in on this, following the needs we saw during missions. Having a dog with you is convenient. That’s how the process actually started. An attempt was made earlier but they stumbled upon some things and it was put to a halt again. It takes time to evaluate what it is that isn’t working well. Eventually, the project was revived in 2014. It was then that it really took on the form it has now.
Minke:
How are your dogs called?
Chris:
Our dogs?
Minke:
Yes.
Chris:
We have APCD’s. That’s how we call them. They are Multipurpose Combat Dogs.
Minke:
The closest thing to that that I know of are surveillance dogs, but is that the same thing? What is the difference?
Chris:
The big difference lies mainly in that, as far as I know, the police surveillance dog is a single-purpose dog; he has one task. As their name suggests, our dogs are multipurpose dogs.
Minke:
So more than two tasks even?
Chris:
Yes, that actually has to do with how it is described here in the Netherlands. We call them multipurpose because they are intervention dogs but they can also search for explosives. In the Netherlands, a distinction is still made between searching for explosives in buildings and vehicles and such, and searching for explosives on roads and plains.
Minke:
Ah, like that.
Patrick:
And then you’re mainly talking about the AID’s they have to track down?
Chris:
Yes.
Patrick:
The reason you chose the title of multipurpose dog instead of dual-purpose is because you do more with them than just searching and deploying them as intervention dogs. You do many more things with those dogs I can imagine.
Chris:
Yes, that’s twofold. It once started with MWD, which was a new popular term at the time; Military Working Dog.
Minke:
Yes, exactly (laughing).
Chris:
But well, all military working dogs are of course MWD’s. That didn’t cover it. Then we looked at the term PEDD; Patrol Explosive Detection Dog. They are already known within NATO, so if we wanted to carry that title we also had to meet NATO’s requirements for PEDD dogs. Those requirements didn’t really fit within the needs we had. They included tasks that the dogs have to be able to do that we don’t actually need. So, we had to come up with something else. Given that our needs may change depending on the missions we needed a bit of a neutral name so that we don’t have to change it every time when our work field changes. Multipurpose; you can basically go in any direction with that. In addition, we attach great value to emphasizing the word ‘Combat’ in connection with the area where the dogs will be deployed.
Minke:
Is there a country, unit or specific trainers that you prefer to follow?
Chris:
We work closely with America. They are currently leading in the field. Armin Winkler is a big name there and our program is mostly based his views. We also work with Norway and Sweden and have done a lot of business with Germany in the past. We look around to see who could possibly help us or who we can help. We can stand on our own two feet now and have gained some momentum. We see other countries around us that are just starting in this area; they are actually looking at us to see how we have built up the program to its current form.
Patrick:
What I find interesting is how you start with something like this. Of course, you have a specific number of requirements that your dogs must meet. It might sound strange, but just as you as a commando must have a number of elementary character traits, I can imagine the same applies to the dogs. How did you start? Did you take one dog to see how far you could get and whether it met your needs and expectations, or did you start with a number of dogs? Or did you, so to speak, take over a dog from another unit? How did that go?
Chris:
My predecessor once started together with a colleague. They first traveled around and looked at how other entities had shaped their program and also looked at what the needs were. Needs usually arise from existing problems, they assessed for what problems dogs might offer a solution. In that search they mainly looked at the Americans, but also at the Germans because they already had some kind of program in place. That’s how it started. In addition, there was contact with a Dutch instructor who actually guided things from his expertise with dogs in general. That’s how we started with one dog. With that we eventually went to the Germans first because they had an existing program and within the Netherlands there was still a whole discussion going on whether dogs could be trained to perform dual tasks at all.
Minke:
But Patrick, that discussion is still going on right?
Patrick:
Yes, that discussion is still going on. I myself notice that you have two camps. You hear some people say it doesn’t work, but I’ve also spoken to people who say they’ve seen fantastic dogs in that area. Your experience will also be like that, otherwise you wouldn’t continue with the program. But it’s not meant for all dogs. Now, I can think of some things you are looking for in dogs, not everything of course because I don’t work in your world, but I am very curious; what specific things make you accept or reject a dog? Do you draw from the KNPV world or do you get the dogs from merchants? How does that work for you? Can you tell us something about that?
Chris:
Initially we were dependent on the German program for the delivery of dogs because they had quite a bit of knowledge and experience in this field and also had a test program for it. We looked at that when we developed our own test program. We actually try to get dogs from private individuals or from merchants. For this we have developed a step-by-step plan for how we look at a dog in which it is mainly important how the dog is in itself; not so much what has been taught to him. We assess the dogs on a few things among which his sociability - is the dog social? In addition, we look at his prey drive and his environmental neutrality. Another important factor for us is sound. We like our dogs to be quiet.
Patrick:
Yes, I can imagine that. You just mentioned the character trait ‘social’. I have an idea of what you mean by that but not everyone listening to this podcast may have that. I can imagine that people hear a certain contradiction in that; you want an intervention and attack dog, but he must also be social. Why is that so important to you?
Chris:
It is important for us that the dog is social because we also take the dogs home and walk them in a normal, civilian environment. In addition, they are also an integral part of the team itself, which is why we also want the team members not to be afraid of the dog or scared that it might suddenly grab their hand without reason. A dog can have a sharp edge to it, but if we already see during recruitment and selection that they want to bite or grab something too quickly, we reject them on that basis. We don’t want to have to control that. Then we look for a slightly more social dog.
Patrick:
That integral work in the team; does that have a lot to do with training in terms that you train a lot contextually so that the dog always recognizes the team as such? Or are there other ways in which you build up the dog in the team so that he also learns to recognize team members? Can you say something about that?
Chris:
It mainly has to do with the fact that we are quite dependent on ourselves whenever we are on a mission and that I as a dog handler have no guarantee that as soon as I enter somewhere I will also step outside again in one piece. That is why it is important that the dog is an integral part of the system so that my team members can also direct the dog if necessary, whether I am there or not. That strength of the dog makes it a force-multiplier for us because it is not dependent on me as a person.
Patrick:
Okay, yes.
Minke:
Does that mean that every person in the team has individual training sessions with the dog for example, or do you always train with a group of people?
Chris:
Within the team you have people who have an affinity with dogs and people who do not.
Minke:
No, exactly.
Chris:
Those who have more affinity with it, and have more knowledge of it, will deal with it a bit more. That is mainly with regard to the intervention side. The detection side is still more specialized and the supervisor is really needed for that. With the intervention side it is actually more or less ‘plug-and-play’ for the other team members. So, we teach them the basic principles and with that they can manage if the handler is no longer deployable.
Patrick:
Okay. As I understand from your story you don’t want to look at what a dog has been taught. Can I conclude from that that you don’t look necessarily look for certified sports dogs? What do you pay attention to? What do you choose from?
Chris:
We prefer our dogs to be a bit younger. Certified dogs are often already older before you can get them. In addition, why we actually prefer not to have certified dogs is because we then have to unlearn things that they have been taught previously. Especially within the KNPV there is a lot of barking. We have to train all of that out of the dogs again or at least try to dampen it. In addition, there are exercises within those programs that are not applicable to us at all. Then it’s actually a shame that someone has put all that time and energy into teaching a dog all of that while we will not use it. That’s why we prefer them just over a year old to start with. Then we can shape them completely as we want.
Minke:
I don’t know how much you can say about it, but what is the hardest thing you have to teach a dog?
Chris:
The hardest part is always in the vocalizations.
Minke:
That they are quiet you mean.
Chris:
Yes, that they are quiet. Especially the dogs that tend to ventilate stress through sound. Some dogs you don’t get a peep out of; then the challenge is to get some noise out of them somehow. But it’s more often the other way around that we have to deal with. We mainly work with Malinois and when they are high in their frustration it is often a challenge to make sure they remain silent.
Minke:
Yes, okay.
Patrick:
You just mentioned NATO certification briefly. Do your dogs also have some form of certification that they must pass in order for you to be allowed to deploy them? Or is that arranged very differently within your specialist branch?
Chris:
No, our dogs are certified. We have developed a certification in collaboration with other defense organizations including CSK, the dog school therein, specifically written for our dogs. We comply with that.
Patrick:
Is that an annual certification?
Chris:
No, a biennial certification. With this we intend to avoid spending more time training for certification than training for deployment. We assess the dogs during all the training we do based on what we see, which is also part of the assessment of the dog teams, but the official certification is once every two years.
Patrick:
I can imagine that in terms of training in the Netherlands, at some point you are a bit out of options. Is there a certain place in the world where you like to go because there is a wider range of possibilities?
Chris:
Yes, we travel a lot with the dogs. I think my dog has more airmiles than many civilians. America is a country we love to go to because it is easy to travel to - there is a wide range of flights that go there, and within America itself we have many different training opportunities given the size of the country. In the south, for example, you have desert areas, and you also have large forest areas where the humidity is higher. All those kinds of things. Environmentally we can do well there and there are many partner units that we can work with.
Patrick:
Very cool. In addition to searching for AID’s and the tasks of an intervention dog, you also do parachute jumping with the dogs as far as I understand. Are there any other special tasks that you incorporate into your training to get a dog as all-round as possible?
Chris:
Actually, we treat the dog almost the same as one of the guys. Everywhere we go, the dogs go with us and everything we have to do, the dogs have to do with us. That includes parachute jumping, as well as jumping out of helicopters in different ways, hanging on ropes, in the mountains and climbing and scrambling. That all comes into play. The only thing we don’t do with the dogs is diving.
Minke:
(Laughing) I was just about to ask. How do you do that then?
Chris:
That would be difficult. That’s the only thing we don’t do with the dogs. For the rest, we work and train worldwide in extremes.
Patrick:
Before this conversation we agreed on some ground rules about what we will and will not address due to the nature of your work. Has there been a certain deployment, without going into details - only dog technically, where training and practice really came together? Of which you would say: “This is what I trained my dog for.”
Chris:
Not specifically. I think we are valuable in all operations we are involved in as we are multi-deployable. Our appearance alone can already bring something in the area where we are deployed. For example, a dog can often steer large crowds better than a human can. Ultimately, given how we are trained and the training we carry out, actual operations are more like icing on the cake for us. We are convinced of our own product so we no longer need to prove its importance to ourselves.
Patrick:
No, I can imagine that. Has there been a certain deployment that you will never forget because the dog did something or showed something that impressed you?
Chris:
Not for me personally, because of course we are still a fairly young unit and mission dynamics have also changed. But that answer might differ between handlers.
Minke:
I assume that if you wanted to do this work, you would have to work in the Korps first. The ranks and standings are not so familiar to me, but how does that work? Suppose I would already work with you and I would like to work with dogs, how should I approach that?
Chris:
You have to already work with us and you also need to have some experience in the teams, so you have to be active with us for a few years to be able to work in the dog section. That also has to do with the fact that in addition to working with the dogs, we also have an important task in advising commanders on deploying the dog, and - and this is often even more important - not deploying the dog. We are responsible for the well-being of the dogs. For example, in the heat we are the gauge of when the dog is no longer deployable. We then have to tell commanders: “No, not anymore.” In general, we are advisory in this. Someone who is older can do that much more easily than someone who is still very young and may still experience some group pressure which could cause him to not dare to express this.
Minke:
Ah, so. Yes, I can imagine that. Are there also people who have a certain education in the dog field? Or do you train people in that area?
Chris:
Our training lasts ten months, so that is already a very long process where a lot of knowledge is given to the students. In addition, there are also a lot of conferences that we visit where guys can focus on very specific topics based on their own needs and what they want to learn more about. We were just talking about it; I’m going to America for a big conference, HITS. What they offer there varies from the basic principles about dogs to scientists explaining the workings of the dog’s nose as a whole.
Minke:
You can choose what you want to know more about.
Chris:
Yes, exactly. You can choose what seminars or lectures you want to attend. So, we do quite a lot of schooling in that area. Furthermore, for the guys themselves, and that’s also why those years of experience are needed, they should not only know the dog but also their own dance moves in the big picture. You need to have a bit of foresight which often comes with experience. People who don’t work with dogs may not always think about the possibility of deploying a dog, so you have to be able to switch quickly and look over your shoulder at what’s happening and where your help is most needed. Then you have to try to maneuver yourself and your dog there. If you’re still quite young in the team, you’re already dealing with so many things from just yourself.
Minke:
Yes, correct.
Chris:
Then you might also have a dog who understands it even faster than you…
(Laughter)
Minke:
(Laughing) Which is often the case.
Chris:
Then it becomes even more of a challenge.
Patrick:
There’s a lot of training in that.
Chris:
Yes, certainly.
[Music]
Minke:
When I look back at what I found to be very difficult to teach a dog it is to follow verbal directionals well. I haven’t worked with camera or microphone but of course you can apply all of that too. I am very curious about your thoughts on that.
Chris:
In this I actually distinguish between two types of dogs. That is something I notice more and more in the current developments in the dog world, but especially in the world of managers who are afraid of possible residual risks, that they want more and more control and guidance on the dog itself. This also applies to cameras. I always say that you have two types of dogs in this regard; a dog with a camera and a camera dog. A dog with a camera is a dog that moves independently and performs its task while you watch along with it. A camera dog is a dog that you give direction to because you want to specifically bring something into view, but then he is just the bringer of the camera. That can be very handy with stairs or ruins and such, but for me it is mainly important that our dogs stay within their own skill set and do exactly what we cannot do. I like a dog to use his ears, eyes and especially his nose for visible and above all invisible threats so that we are able to generate time and distance between the teams and the threat. To maintain that independence, the dog must be able to be himself so we stay a little further away from directionals.
Minke:
Yes.
Chris:
We do it, but in a much coarser way, just to be able to help the dog somewhat if we see something for example. What we try to avoid is that we are very rigid with the directionals and therefore also train the dogs a lot in that area, but that has more to do with what I say; the balance between a high degree of independence and obedience. Those are two buttons that are very close together.
Minke:
You hear that in a lot of disciplines, what you are saying now. That balance.
Chris:
For us it is important that the dog can work independently away from us and can actually make his own decisions based on the experiences he has gained in training.
Minke:
Have you seen that happen in practice? Or do you know stories about it?
Chris:
We rule the night I always say; we work in the dark. Our advantage is that we have optical means that contribute greatly to our ability to see in those circumstances, but in wooded areas, or a building where the light is strange for example, we need the dog to generate time and distance. Then it also becomes clear that his nose is actually his most important weapon. The dog may go in a direction of which you think: “Why is he going there now.”, but the scent image determines which way he goes. He may end up somewhere where you would never have sent him yourself but there he does show something which is often either a threat from a person or a threat in the form of an explosive.
Minke:
Do you only work with Malinois or do you also use other dogs?
Chris:
At the moment we only have Malinois but we are also open to Dutch shepherds. German shepherds too, but they are not available on the current market, so we never had that chance. Malinois and Dutch shepherds are therefore our name-of-the-game at the moment.
Patrick:
Now you said something that triggered me and I also find interesting from my field of work; that people critically look at how the dog is deployed. In military terms, I think that would be called something like ‘rules of engagement’. Can you say something about the specific character traits of those rules of engagement with regard to the dog? What is a no-go for you, for example, when you would be tapped on the fingers so to speak? In the surveillance dog world we are only allowed to work and search with the dog on a leash except in specific exceptional situations for example. But how is that with regard to the Multipurpose Combat Dog?
Chris:
We operate in the highest spectrum of violence and in extreme situations all over the world. In that respect, our field of work is not comparable to yours. We mainly work intelligence-driven so wherever we knock we are usually free to take serious measures. The potential resistance we get is serious enough to justify that. In that respect, we have fewer rules in that area. We do have rules of engagement, but they are also based on the type of operations we run. In terms of deployment, the dog also falls within those frameworks. In this respect, the dog is actually a non-lethal means compared to all the lethal means we carry with us to complete our missions.
Patrick:
Our dogs are trained on our arms and legs; limbs. That also has a heavy ethical background. I can imagine that your dogs are not trained on the face or neck either, but there is always the risk that due to the nature of the circumstances a dog can bite in a place on which you did not train him. How is that regulated? You don’t go abroad with a dog for a shoplifter, only for difficult and dangerous operations, which are your specialty. How is it looked at when a dog does bite in a place on which you haven’t trained him and creates a wound that could be fatal?
Chris:
It’s good that you bring it up. Our dogs are not a lethal force. They’re actually almost a degree lower than we ourselves are. If it happens that a dog bites and causes a serious wound, which is conceivable, we do have the advantage that we have the necessary medical capabilities, especially focused on complex trauma care, to act decisively. From the moment we have got the dog off the person and there is something serious going on and the situation has been neutralized - there is no further threat, we can provide medical care where necessary, regardless of who it is. That’s actually the same as we would do with firearm use.
Patrick:
So, you have real medics in your team. What happens when a dog is seriously injured during a mission? In the Netherlands you would drive it to the vet but that is of course a no-go for you. I can imagine that there are people in your team who have the medical knowledge, especially the handler, to be able to apply some first aid to a dog. How far do you take that? What can a dog handler do when you are on a mission and cannot go anywhere but have to take care of your dog who has been seriously injured during an operation?
Chris:
Medically, we can do a lot. That’s something different from what we’re allowed to, because we’re not allowed to do much from an animal welfare perspective; we can’t just stick needles everywhere. When we go on a mission, a lot of time is spent on planning the possible medical evacuation of the service dogs. From where we stand on the ground to Utrecht, the entire medical chain is thought out in various complexities. The big question is, and that is also the difficult question I ask to the handlers; What happens after? What will remain of the dog that has been blown up, for example, and has lost its nose, sight, ears and legs but is still alive? That is an ethical decision-making process that must take place.
Patrick:
That’s a difficult dilemma you’re facing.
Chris:
That’s very difficult, especially from our perspective given we can do so much. It’s hard not to focus solely on what is possible and forget what is actually left.
Minke:
Yes, and what you want.
Chris:
Yes.
Patrick:
I can imagine that if you have trained with a dog for a while it is not only an extension of all the tools you have. It also becomes a friend. That’s me speaking from personal experience. I can imagine that that trade-off is very difficult given the business consideration you have to make on the one hand, and your personal considerations on the other, because you may have to leave a team member behind.
Chris:
Yes, in addition it is much more difficult for an animal to understand what is wrong with him than for a human who has been injured and lost his legs but can move forward with a wheelchair. You can wonder if and how that works with a high drive service dog who has lost two legs on the left. How do you deal with that so that the dog understands what is wrong with him and will still be able to take pleasure in life?
Minke:
Yes, and whether he will he still be able to enjoy life after you’ve repaired it.
Chris:
Yes.
Minke:
Yes, I understand.
Chris:
There is no black-and-white answer to this but it is an issue that we do draw handlers’ attention to. In addition to the entire medical chain that we pay a lot of attention to, we also pay attention to these kinds of ethical issues.
Patrick:
Yes, I understand. Are you supported or guided in this by the faculty of Utrecht or do you also go international for this?
Chris:
Both. We have close connections with the faculty of Utrecht but there are often medical experts and such at the conferences where we go too. We try to have conversations about these topics too.
Minke:
Do you also see any changes in this field or is it not so noticeable yet? I am curious about that. I have worked at a school for years where I taught animal husbandry and all related animal subjects including first aid for animals. I am curious if you have noticed any new developments in this area that stand out to you.
Chris:
I don’t know about new things. What we do see is mainly the shift towards using dolls in training. Just as you have dolls for teaching first aid on humans, you now also have first aid dolls for dogs. In addition, there is a lot more awareness among people nowadays. Dogs are more valued than they used to be I think. I think that’s progress and there’s a whole market that’s playing into that. We have fit, healthy dogs so our main concern is mainly traumatic care; gunshot wounds, damage from explosives and such things.
Patrick:
I have no idea how you build that up, but suppose you do a training in parachute jumping with dogs, do you as a new dog handler first jump with a dummy or do you jump straight with your dog? How do you train that? Can you tell us something about that?
Chris:
Yes, I can say something about it. Actually, we do the same as what we do with all deployment methods, and what maybe people at home with a pet dog do too. We have a main point that we look at. This includes the dog’s task package, what he must be able to do, but what we mainly spend a lot of time and energy on is making the dogs as environmentally neutral as possible. I always make the comparison to a kickboxer on ice when I talk about this. If I have to fight someone on the grass, and I can kickbox a bit, then I feel comfortable. If I have to do that on ice, and my opponent is used to fighting on such a slippery surface but I’m not, then I already feel a lot less comfortable. For that reason, we try to spend a lot of time making our dogs feel comfortable in all environments, even in extreme situations in extreme areas. When environmental neutrality hardly plays a role anymore, the dog is better able to focus on his task, whether it is biting or searching. More or less the same applies to parachute jumping, we don’t make anything very special out of it either. It must be something normal. We try to chop it into manageable pieces for the dog. The plane itself becomes normal by just sitting in that plane once so that the dog also has the experience that nothing happens. Then we fly around for a while, nothing wrong either. These are all steps we take to ensure that the dog himself has a good feeling about it. Skill-wise it also depends on the skill set of the handler himself, how many jumps he has already made and how skilled he is in it. In general, we first train the procedures with a fake dog so that all those things are secured before we jump with a real dog. We try to minimize jumping with the dog. Many people like to see it, and it is fun to watch, but the dog itself gets very little out of it. For us technically it doesn’t matter much either because he’s in a bag and can’t do anything anyway. Occasionally we jump with the dogs so they stay used to the phenomenon but most jumps we make with dummy dogs.
Patrick:
Yes. I can imagine that applying oxygen to a dog during a very high jump is difficult, or is that possible? Is there a limit to what you can do in that regard?
Chris:
Yes, those are the latest developments in the market. You see more and more other units pioneering in this area as well. We try to keep an eye on what direction the developments will take what is possible, what is allowed and what is needed.
Minke:
Yes, I was just going to say that. If you don’t have that need (yet) you might be better off watching along first. Now I am very curious, as I have a Malinois the size of a calf. Do you also select your dogs based on size and manageability therein?
Chris:
Yes, actually. We try to keep the dogs between 32 and 37 kilos. If they are below that, it says nothing about the nature and character of the dog, but we know from units that started using lighter dogs in the past because it is easier to travel, that an opponent is also better able to manipulate a dog and just walk away with it for example. When you have a dog with a bit of weight, that becomes more difficult; he is literally more of a ballast than a lighter dog. On the other hand, we actually don’t want to go above 40 kilos because we also have to be able to do everything with them, including lifting and lowering them down sewer pipes or through windows for example. Dogs over 40 kilos are very large and very awkward in such situations.
Patrick:
Apart from the means and materials you have to take with you on a mission, that’s just not practical, no.
Chris:
No, and they also have to fit in all vehicle boxes.
Patrick:
I already mentioned it earlier, but are there any developments with regard to animal welfare that are of interest to you? Does the way you train the dogs makes the issue come up? What is your take on that? I think most people listening have no idea how you train. People may have the idea that an intervention dog must be a sturdy dog and therefore must be trained in a heavy-handed way. There is of course a very big difference in what you mean by sturdy and sturdy. Can you tell us something about your take on this and how you deal with it in training the Multipurpose Combat Dog.
Chris:
Yes, certainly. It actually starts with recruitment and selection, where we try to see which dogs are trainable. The first form of animal welfare is not to give a dog a task of which he is mentally incapable. So, we look at that very closely. In addition, the progression in our program is actually a phased build-up between intensity and control. We start with the technical things; technical biting, teaching where to bite, and such things, along with an intensification in environmental factors and the aggression of the dog. This happens step by step and is all assessed and viewed from the point of view of the dog. A hot issue nowadays is of course the whole phenomenon of outing. For us outing is a whole process in itself, where the focus is on how the dog experiences the world. I can say; “Out”, and then demand that he outs, but we first look at whether he is mentally capable of doing so or whether he may have concerns that prevent him from being able to let go. Where we stay away from is the idea that he doesn’t want to let go out of disobedience. If the dog is not ready to make that step then we assess that and either go back a step or look which way we need to go with it, but we stay very far away from the: “You have to do what I say, or else…”
.
Patrick:
Yes, you want to keep that dog independent not vulnerable on his handler. Everywhere I go, including America where I’ve been too, outing is the biggest problem I come across with dogs. What people often don’t understand is that biting for that dog is the reward and that you take away that reward again by telling it to let go. When they take the dog off the decoy, they think they’ve rewarded him but what they’re actually doing is literally pulling that plate with steak on it -the decoy- away from that dog. If you do that a few times then your dog will eventually think: “Hey buddy, outing isn’t so funny anymore.” It has come to mean the end of the game. If you make that association different and outing actually becomes an announcement that he gets to go a second and a third time, and you do that in a variable form, then you create a different expectation pattern in the dog and the out gets a different meaning. Is that something you mean and also apply? Or should I look at that differently?
Chris:
That is indeed one facet of our training. Outing itself must not be a punishment, the dog must always get something out of it. In addition, we spend a lot of time and energy making sure the dog knows what will happen next. That’s also what I mean by looking at it from the perspective of the dog. Especially with a strange decoy and ultimately that’s also one of the reasons why many dogs don’t out on a verbal cue on the street; the dog might have concerns for his well-being. It’s not disobedience towards the one behind him, it’s concerns about what will happen to him if he lets go, because for the dog it’s real, he fights for what he’s worth. If he has the idea that if he lets go something might happen to him and holding on is the only form of control he still has, then he is mentally not capable of letting go. Certainly not if you’re ten meters behind him. What we try to avoid at all times is that a dog starts worrying about his handler while he’s dealing with a decoy or an actual person; “As long as he doesn’t get angry”. We want the dog from the start, as soon as we give the cue, to go straight to its target with 90 percent intensity and not just 70 percent. We try to mitigate any potential worries the dog might have by making what happens after releasing very predictable so that he knows what to do.
Patrick:
In sports/surveillance dog training, biting is quite clinical; the dog bites in, the decoy stands still and the dog gets a verbal command. That’s all solvable and well-executable for certification. With an operational dog, whether it’s a surveillance dog or something else, it’s different in practice of course. from the moment the dog bites, there is screaming and panic. The person being bitten never stands still. He only wants one thing; that the dog comes off, so he starts kicking, acting wild, maybe falls to the ground, loses his balance… In that setting it is actually not possible for a dog to out, like you said. If you compare it to what happens in nature; that bunny keeps moving and that dog keeps shaking that bunny so that he can start eating. Is that something you often look for in training? Do you make sure situations are not set up so clinically that they no longer resemble what might happen in the real world but are instead set up in some kind of staging where the dog really has to experience it?
Chris:
Yes, we do that a lot. We play a lot with environment and also with what happens next. One of the things we benefit from is that once the dog comes off, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the exercise is over because there may still be another decoy, or even several. The expectation of the dog is therefore that even if he lets go of this one, there may still be more to gain. As a result, the willingness to out is greater. In addition, we use a lot of environmental influences, because our field of work is not the sports field where a decoy stands still. We try to get them accustomed as much as possible to the scenarios where they might end up in so that there can also be a form of recognition and to ensure that they will clearly recognize the signals from the handler and know what happens next. If you never train that and never prepare the dog for it, and he doesn’t know what happens next, that will be cause for concern for the dog, and when he’s worrying about those things he is not able to do the things you demand from him.
[Music]
Patrick:
Could you explain in more detail how you view that, the out? Why should it be or become a problem?
Chris:
The first question I often ask people who have questions about this is whether they themselves have ever actually been in a street fight, or have been in contact with violence. And by that I don’t mean violence in the kickboxing school, but real violence on the street, in its full intensity. In addition, I try to make clear to people why letting go in such a situation is so difficult. For this I often use the example of a bar fight in which you are not the perpetrator but the victim. In that fight you get hit, and maybe there’s blood, but somehow you manage to get control over the other person. You have control over that person but you feel in everything that as soon as you let go he will jump up and give you another round of punches. Maybe he’s a strong person or technically very good, so with every fiber in your body you try to keep him under control. If a bouncer at the top of the stairs ten meters behind you then tells you to let him go, you won’t let him go either. You would want him to come down first. The same is true for the dog in that situation. If the bouncer then tells you again to let go, the dog in that situation will feel like: “Yeah, no. It won’t end well if I let go, my nose is already broken. Please come help me.” Then imagine that the bouncer comes towards you and you think he’s coming to help you, but instead he says to you: “I said ‘out’”, and gives you another punch on your ear or on your head while saying “And now out!”. By doing that you will have damaged the dog’s trust in you, and the dog still hasn’t understood what “out” means. The only thing he has understood is that whatever happens, he has to make sure he can hear that guy behind him. That immediately detracts from the intensity with which the dog can operate. Then we actually come back to that 70/90 percent; a dog may then only fight with 70 percent because he thinks he has to be able to hear the one behind him, which may make him not resistant to the violence used against him.
Minke:
What I hear you say is that trust and predictability are actually very important in training, but also in general. I sometimes wonder if people realize that. I don’t know how you look at that?
Patrick:
What Chris actually says very nicely is that they look at it from the perspective of the dog. I think that generally speaking, a lot of people look at it from their perspective. They see a dog that bites and doesn’t listen to the cue to release, so they label that dog as disobedient. That’s the conclusion. We can often solve that in only one way and that is usually by physical intervention, whether that is with a choke cord, a slap or by using an electronic device. People often don’t take the trouble to crawl into that dog’s skin to see how he experiences things. A very simple example; a dog retrieves a ball, they play for 2-3 seconds and repeat that a few times, and at some point, the dog doesn’t release the ball anymore. Then they say: “Today he’s stubborn”, and then they correct the dog because he doesn’t release the ball, while they themselves have actually told the dog, or the dog has experienced it that way, that if they play he has to hand in the toy again while he likes doing it so much. He doesn’t feel like handing it in. I think people often don’t really think about how the dog experiences the situation. I think if you look at that more closely, you could prevent a lot of problems and also train more efficiently.
I’m very curious: How do you generally look at a dog, Chris?
Chris:
In general, I look at how a dog stands, how he looks out of his eyes, how he looks around and sees the world, how he moves on different surfaces - is he independent in that, and how is the interaction between the handler and the dog. What I also like to do myself is count along in age. A one-year-old dog I compare to a fourteen-year-old. I then often ask the handler what he was like at that age and whether he listened to his parents then. The same is true for a two-year-old dog. What we often see then is that dogs are at their best when they are about four/five years old. Then they have had that whole build-up in all situations they might encounter, they know their task and you know their tricks and quirks which we also have as humans. I always like to make that comparison. I do the same with the different ranks in the military. A three-year-old dog is a sergeant; he knows what’s expected but doesn’t always listen because he is also quite stubborn. A seven-year-old dog might be a major or lieutenant; he knows what his task is but might not always feel like doing the same thing again or gets a bit crabby if you want to explain too much to him. I try to talk with the handlers in a playful manner about why their dog does certain things and why he might not do other things. I think especially with regard to age, that really matters.
Minke:
Yes, certainly. You see that in all areas of dog sports and dog training, but I can imagine it is also very important for you.
Chris:
For many people, a world opens up when I ask them: “How were you when you were 18?”, or whatever age is similar to the age of their dog. What I find very interesting myself is that at some point I see the handler in the dog. Where the handler is still trying to figure out why his dog doesn’t do what he should, I look at both and say; “Yes, that’s because you are you.”
(Laughter)
This is your product, based on who you are as a person. The same is true for me. I am also responsible for how my dog is compared to how I am myself.
Patrick:
If you think back to the period when you yourself became involved with the dogs within the KCT and you look at where you stand now; is there a big difference in how you saw things then and how you look at them now? Or have your insights remained the same?
Chris:
No, they have not remained the same. What has helped us a lot is, as we already talked about, the theory of looking through the eyes of the dog. That has been very important for us. In addition, we see that the dog is different than 20-30 years ago so we also have to fill in our training program differently than maybe 20-30 years ago people had the luxury to do. People often talk about strong dogs but the question is whether people who breed those dogs still want those really strong dogs, because they are much harder to control. The dogs that are available and still affordable may be a bit lighter in their being. So, you have to adjust your training program to keep the end product the same, even though your starting point might be different. I think that will also be the big challenge for the future, in combination with what everyone demands from units and handlers and what their dogs must know, be able to do and be. You have to adjust your steps accordingly.
Minke:
What shift have you seen when comparing the past with how it is now? Is it something cognitive in dogs? What is it that you see?
Chris:
I may also be a bit biased because my father did the recruitment and selection himself from puppyhood. He worked with the dogs from puppyhood until retirement, or death actually. He had a taste for very strong Malinois, so in that respect my frame of reference may also be a bit skewed. At least that is what I hear sometimes. Some dogs that are perceived by others as very intense, I actually feel are very good dogs. In our search for suitable dogs we do notice that it becomes a bit more difficult, also because the people who are now training and educating those dogs are no longer the same. The dogs were handled a bit rougher back then, so in that respect they were also more used to it. In addition, we have a lot of competition from around the world, with a lot of dogs being send abroad now as well. There is a limit to our means and we have to make do with the dogs that are available and trainable, which is most important for us. We try to keep the process fluid; personalized for the individual dog and not a program where the dog has to be crammed into.
Minke:
Okay, that’s already very nice.
Patrick:
There may not be a “Special Forces Dogs” seminar, but you will have another platform where you can share experiences internationally. Does something like that actually exist?
Chris:
Our world is quite small and within it we have our contacts. The special forces world is already small but the dog world within it is actually even smaller. We always know how to find each other in that respect. In addition, we actually have a lot of common ground with everyone who works with dogs, especially because our dogs have multiple functions and we work from the drives that the dogs themselves have. Then it doesn’t really matter whether it’s a policeman or someone who uses sniffer dogs at an airport; they use more or less the same methods, our context is just different.
Minke:
That’s true too.
(Laughter)
Patrick:
There are still a thousand and one questions we could and would like to ask you…
Minke:
I mentioned it already just now during the break, but I’m a bit afraid I’ll go too deep. I’m so curious about the technical side, how you do things, but I think you can’t say much about that because then you really go deeper into how you train specific things. In addition, I am curious about your list of what you need.
Chris:
Our “How” is mainly based on how the dog sees the world. Whether it’s man work or explosive detection work, we turn the same knobs in terms of prey drive combined with his defensive drives; where the dog has concerns. The only difference we make is that we convert that prey drive towards a rabbit or a deer, and direct it towards a man or TNT. For the rest, we try to keep it the same. The misconception that often exists, especially with people who are skeptical about multipurpose or dual-purpose dogs, is that there are limits to what the dog can do; when will he perform one task and when another. A dog can’t bite someone and still point out explosives with his left hind leg. You can’t expect that from people either. Our expectation pattern in when he can do what is sharply defined and well demarcated. We don’t have the luxury of taking six different dogs with us for all kinds of different tasks; the 1-3 dogs we take with us need to provide us with as many resources as possible so that we can all survive on the battlefield. That is ultimately the end goal of all of us; that we perform a task but are also able to return home together. The dog plays an important part in this.
Minke:
As preparation for this, Patrick told me to watch some YouTube videos.
Patrick:
Because you had no idea what it entailed, I thought you might be able to find something about that.
Minke:
Well, no. You can find so little, also in terms of footage. (Laughing) I may not be very good at searching, but I really can’t find anything.
Chris:
The question is what you’re looking for.
Minke:
Well, something to form a visual about what it is like. Suppose it would be possible for me to apply for a job, then I would like to prepare myself. The same is true for me as a civilian when applying for a position with customs or the police; it’s very difficult to get an image of what the work is like.
Patrick:
The funny thing is that actually in recent years, apart from the dogs, there has been much more openness about the special forces due to programs like ‘Special Forces VIPs’. They don’t show everything of course, and that’s understandable; the details of the work you do are not intended for everyone to see, but there has been much more openness in recent years.
Minke:
If I may speak for myself, through my knowledge and my knowledge of the experiences of people who work operationally with working dogs, I have come to understand much more why people do things the way they do. I think if people knew just a little more, their judgment about your work for example, would be different. I’ll group you together there for a moment…
Patrick:
As Chris just said; there really is a significant difference there.
Minke:
Yes.
Patrick:
The threat level at which we operate is not comparable to that of someone from special forces.
Minke:
No.
Patrick:
Not to mention the dangers they have to face, they are extremely high. You have to ask yourself to what extent you can, and also want to give openness in that.
Minke:
I don’t think you can give openness in everything but I think people now have either no idea at all or a very wrong idea. The same applies to the surveillance dog units.
Chris:
The difficult thing is that we find ourselves in a world of aggression, which most people actually don’t want anything to do with. People would rather not have aggression, and I am the biggest advocate of world peace; then I could also do something else with dogs, but aggression exists and for that reason we also exist. One of the hardest things for people to understand is the goal and the means to it. In addition, people also fear that they don’t understand it. What I mainly see when I look at our dogs and our guys, and women too of course, is that they are very much the same in some respects; we all have a goal. The dog has a goal and we as soldiers also have one, and that drives us forward. The worry button as I always call it is what may hold us back from our goal. When I look at the dogs, and then we actually come back to the piece about whether it can actually be done; those dual task dogs, on average 6-7 out of 10 dogs will be suitable for dual tasks, but of those 7 maybe only 20 percent are suitable for special forces. That has to do with the world we find ourselves in. That’s what you actually see in the SF world too; our worry button may be a bit less sensitive than those of people who wouldn’t want to do this work because they may worry sooner about their well-being. With us, the goal we want to achieve is greater than the worries that hold us back. What I always say is that the dogs we have are mentally very stable, we select them for that and we consciously train very contextually so that the dog understands what it is to be a dog but also when he has to perform his task. If I compare that to myself; when I walk on the street I blend in with the civilian population and when confronted with a form of aggression I too will take a walk around the block like most people. That says nothing about the capabilities I have, but in my being, I am a stable person who can have normal interaction with people. The same is true for our dogs; at their core they can be dogs with all the fun things and all the tricks they have - my dog still finds a cat very interesting.
(Laughter)
He can just be a dog but he can also perform his task as a means of violence in the highest violence spectrum in which we find ourselves.
Patrick
What I would really like to ask - I still have many questions but I think we should also start wrapping up a little bit given the time…
Minke:
Yes, correct.
Patrick:
If I understand it correctly, you go through the elementary commando training (ECO) where there is a very high dropout rate; “Many called, few chosen” I once read. If you were allowed to draw a parallel between someone training as an operator with special forces and the dogs you train; you can’t afford to buy ten of them when only one makes it, or is that actually what happens? Are there many dogs that drop out? You select very well beforehand of course, but you also ask quite a lot from the dogs. Can you draw some kind of parallel between an elementary commando training and the dropout rate of your SF dogs? Or should I look at this differently?
Chris:
You should see that differently. That has to do with on one hand our recruitment and selection program and on the other hand the worry button of people in the commando training being much more sensitive than that of the dogs in training. The dog doesn’t worry about whether he will make it or not during training. He doesn’t think when he’s in the car: “I’m so glad I passed everything.”
(Laughter)
And at home they don’t have something like: “You’re away a lot.” or “You’re always tired when you come home.” They have much fewer factors to consider. In addition, it is of course also true that one of the hard values in the SF is that lying is not allowed. If you are caught lying in commando training, it will be held heavily against you. I will leave it in the middle if a dog can lie - I don’t think so. A dog is always honest, maybe selfish but always honest. These are all core values that would prevent a dog from dropping out during our training. He might secretly eat something that he’s not allowed to, but those aren’t things he will get kicked out for; a dog remains a dog. I think that’s why the dropout rate is lower in that respect.
Minke:
You just select very well.
Chris:
That as well. We select very well and that is an issue that is quite relevant nowadays because the dropout rate is very high. What I find interesting myself is to draw the comparison between how we run our dog program and how the training programs for commando’s are run. We will fine-tune our training program based on the individual needs of each dog. The question is whether we always do that with our human trainees as well.
Minke:
(Laughing) Yes.
Chris:
That’s a question we’ll leave in the middle. This certainly applies, because just like the dogs, the generations of today are wired differently than the generations of 20-30 years ago.
Patrick:
The level of comfort people experience nowadays is a world of difference compared to thirty years ago.
Minke:
That too.
Patrick:
If I look at my line of work, there is a world of difference between the students of today compared to those of 20-30 years ago. That will be the same for you, even though the requirements the students have to meet will remain the same; you still want someone who is suitable for the specific work you do.
Chris:
Yes, that can be difficult to balance.
Patrick:
Yes, I can imagine. I think it’s a very interesting conversation, but unless you have an urgent question Minke, I think we should start wrapping up for now. Otherwise we’ll be here for another few hours. I can imagine that someone like you has a lot of other appointments so I really want to thank you for the time and effort you took to come here to have this conversation with us. We always ask our guests if they would be willing to have another chat with us in the future if we have any more questions.
Chris:
“Great minds think alike” they sometimes say. That’s what I wanted to say. Maybe you still have some questions or maybe there will be more questions as a result of this conversation. I am definitely open to a 2.0.
Patrick:
Very nice.
Minke:
Top.
Patrick:
Thank you very much for your time.
Minke:
On behalf of the listeners too, thank you for your willingness to talk with us again if necessary because I have a suspicion that there will be quite a few people, at least those who come to mind, who will have some questions. So once again; thank you and see you next time.
[Music]