Canine temperament tests have been the subject of extensive discussion, debate and promotion. Many have been devised and used, with a great diversity in popularity and validity. Much confusion has existed about the purpose of such tests, what the results say about the character of the dogs tested, and what place they can or should play in working dog breeding programs.
More recently, tests which purport to certify the "instinct" of a dog for a specific working function have become popular. The principle example of this is the "Herding Instinct Test" which leads to the "Herding Instinct Certificate." The chief reason for their popularity seems to be the desire to certify a dog as a "true working dog" without the time and effort of serious training.
The originators of such tests have largely been people concerned with the generally perceived decline of the working attributes of various breeds, seeking a palatable remedy. Successful trainers have by and large remained aloof, mostly passing off such tests a simple minded nonsense, unworthy of notice by serious people. Breeders with an established working line have generally taken a posture of haughty disdain. Some kennels without any particular working image have shown guarded enthusiasm.
In order to provide focus, this discussion will be limited to those breeds, such as the Rottweiler, the Belgian herding dogs and the Bouvier, whose modern working functions are primarily searching, tracking, protection and herding, that is, the protective heritage working breeds.
When these breeds were founded, the common belief was that in order to identify correct character for purposes of breeding selection one must train a dog for his intended purpose and then evaluate how well he functions in his work. Two generations of KNPV, Ring and Schutzhund trainers lived and bred according to this credo. Now it would seem that some, not necessarily the creators and promoters, believe that this need for extensive training and then testing has been to some extent negated by the development of these tests specifically for the untrained dog.
Thus the fundamental question becomes whether it is possible to observe and test a young dog so as to accurately predict if proper training will produce working excellence, and whether those attributes commonly perceived as contributing to "temperament" are useful and sufficient predictors of ultimate working potential.
For the purpose of discussion, let us define "working character" as those elements of genetically predetermined emotional and mental propensities in a dog which, when proper training is applied, result in a good or excellent working functionality. Let us further agree that producing a line of dogs consistently strong in working character (and, of course, correct structure and type) is the only relevant issue.
My thesis is that working character as defined here is in fundamental ways not measurable by the temperament tests as applied in North America and that, depending on their specific nature, similar comments apply to most of the European tests. The fact of the matter is that such tests tend to be calibrated to the typical "show dog" as the norm, and that true excellence in character can be a serious disadvantage.
So, just what is temperament? Something that dogs do well in a temperament test have lots of? And if so, what does this have to do with inherent "working potential?" Are temperament and working potential the same thing? Are they even very closely related? My purpose here is not so much to convince you that I know the answers to these questions, but rather to provoke some really serious thought and discussion.
A dog who is active, friendly, boisterous, outgoing and lacking in suspicion will be perceived by most of us as having a nice, pleasant temperament, and will likely do very well in most temperament tests, particularly the ATTS type test. The problem is that such dogs, while perhaps personable and pleasant to be around, can nevertheless be seriously deficient as working dogs. Such a dog can be stupid, grossly self centered or lacking in sufficient courage or aggressiveness. Tests which certify such dogs as of "good temperament", which is perceived as in some way equivalent to "correct working character," pose a grave danger when taken seriously.
What I find objectionable is not the testing, but the formalization, the giving out of certificates on the basis of an opinion based on a very brief and stylized test. Such an opinion, when provided as a private commentary by a truly experienced trainer, can be beneficial and useful. But when it is portrayed as a proof of working character, as a breeding criteria, then serious abuse is virtually inevitable.
Certainly experienced trainers can, in an hour or so, get a pretty good idea of the potential of an adult dog. They are able to predict which dogs are likely to succeed and which ones are not, and, perhaps most importantly, which ones could be made to succeed but are simply not worth the trouble. In making such an evaluation, a trainer will devise his tests as he goes along, according to what he sees, and try it again the next day in a marginal case.
I believe as surely as the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning men such as Coen Semler, the famous Dutch police trainer, could keep a Bouvier for a week and tell you whether he was police dog material, and that you could take it to the bank. The problem is that no one conducting formal temperament tests today, to my knowledge, is remotely comparable to Mr. Semler in terms of knowledge and experience.
The subject of temperament testing has become an awkward one for me, since I was among the earliest supporters of the ATTS (American Temperament Test Society) tests. So many years ago the idea of a straightforward series of tests, administered in a standardized way by relatively inexperienced people, which would provide an assessment of temperament and thus a guide to breeding better dogs, was most attractive. We thought that it couldn't do any harm, and could do a great deal of good by bringing the concept of character criteria to the attention of the American public. I guess we were looking for a short cut, just wanted it to be true.
Much of this promise has been realized, but deep and fundamental doubts about the validity and wisdom of the process have grown persistently. Over the years I have become increasingly uneasy, concerned that such tests are perceived as having much more significance than experienced trainers know to be possible. It has become apparent that those conducting the tests are all too often lacking in knowledge and experience, simply don't understand and appreciate working dog character in sufficient depth to render a meaningful opinion.
The ATTS was founded by Alfons Ertelt twelve or fourteen years ago. Although I did not know Mr. Ertelt well, I had many occasions to converse with him before his untimely death and came to have great respect for his sincerity, persistence and knowledge. Thus it is not without careful, even excruciating, reflection that I propose that the course he charted must be altered.
Although it is perhaps presumptuous to speak for another, I have the strong impression that he regarded the ATTS test as a starting point, as a means of bring the matter of character before the public. Alfons was among the founders of the Schutzhund movement in this country, and was enthusiastic about the evolution of specialized tests for the various types of dogs. I believe that he shared the belief that the ultimate goal was something equivalent to the Ring or Schutzhund as the breeding qualification test for the protective heritage breeds, that the ATTS test was a means, an evolutionary step, a tool, not an ultimate objective.
The ATTS style test was never seriously expected to serve as an adequate breeding eligibility test for working dogs, and its portrayal as such is a serious perversion, simply does not stand up to scrutiny. Sure, a lot of the dogs who fail are truly inadequate, but in looking back over the years it has become clear that many truly good dogs would not be perceived as doing well because of the nature of the tests, and because so many of the testers are simply not at a level to recognize and appreciate a really good dog. Beyond screening out dogs of almost obvious inadequacy, passing such a test in most instances means very little. Today's reality is that the dog really has to do virtually nothing but show a little interest and not panic. I am convinced that a carefully administered sedative would allow virtually any dog to pass.
An excellent example is the agitation test at the end, where a person in unusual garb first acts in a more or less drunken manner and then moves toward and threatens the dog. I have made a habit of asking the owner about the experience of the dog, and found that virtually every dog that looks impressive has been previously agitated, that is, taught that an aggressive response is acceptable and desirable.
Bouviers in particular are apt to just stand there, to not take the situation very seriously. It is not the least bit unusual for dogs who turn out to be quite good to take four or five sessions before they understand what is expected of them and react aggressively. The fact that this slowness to react is much more pronounced in dogs raised in the typical companion home than in those who remain with experienced trainers. This shows how much of the reaction of the dog is shaped by conditioning (environment), and how much the fundamental, intrinsic character of a dog is covered up by his up bringing. (This of course should give those who think that their dog will instinctively protect them because they love them something to think about.)
So, in light of all of this, why did such tests come into existence? The reasons are many and varied, but the general pattern seems to have been the desire to do something in the face of a widely perceived decline in character among our working breeds. We were, and are, in very serious trouble, and we had to start somewhere. Much as we may have wanted to, we could not simply take gun in hand, pirate the AKC headquarters and refuse to register pups whose parents lacked a Schutzhund or Ring title. The problem was, and is, one of creating a culture, an understanding of the importance of working character and aptitude, a desire on the part of the public for the pleasure of living with a truly good working dog.
Although I have not been to a lot of tests in recent years, the over all quality of the dogs seems to be somewhat improved, which means that people have come to understand that if old Fido is apt to look bad he is best left at home. I believe that a large number of people have been made aware of temperament, and have become able to recognize a reasonably wide spectrum of undesirable characteristics. This is surely progress, but are these dogs not being tested also not being bred?
Sure the temperament test was a simplistic approach, but the real purpose was education, of creating the culture. To a large extent the things such testing can do have been done, and the question now has become one of either adapting the tests to the current situation, or eliminating them.
Subsequent to the death of Alfons there has apparently been a great deal of amateur tinkering with the rules and procedures. It seems that any dog who can be induced to touch the umbrella within two minutes, regardless of the handler's actions short of throwing the dog in the right direction, is to be passed. In the protection test only those dogs which panic, make a desperate attempt to flee, fail.
Actually, the demands on the TT judge are much greater than those on the Schutzhund or Ring judge. The sport rules are fairly well spelled out, and either the dog does it or he does not. The judge merely has to determine if the exercise was performed. On the courage test the dog has to bite, has to release, and has to stay near the helper, not return to the handler. If he does these things, he should pass. Sure, he can lose lots of points on procedure, but pass or fail is fairly well defined.
In the working trial a dog is either able to stand up to the stick or is driven off, either follows the track or does not, is impartial to gun shots or is not. The working dog tradition is simple and direct, if a bitch or a dog fails to stand up under the stick, fails to persist in spite of vigorous opposition, then any pups they produce are not working dogs, are not Bouviers or German Shepherds. The judge simply observes and makes an official record of the test according to straightforward, concrete criteria.
But the temperament test is another thing entirely. It's a matter of observing the dog and then deciding if his actions indicate good temperament, a much more subtle and abstract business. What should a dog do when a stranger opens an umbrella in his face? I think the dog who jumps back six or eight feet, goes into a crouch and waits for the bastard to make a sufficiently aggressive move to deserve being bitten shows great character and training. Why the hell should the dog go up and touch the umbrella? Would you want your dog to go up and touch the first six foot rattle snake he ever sees? Courage is doing what you have to do, jumping into situations you don't understand is stupidity.
Sure, you can tell something by what a dog does when a neutral stranger approaches. If he makes an unprovoked attack or crouches and hides something is wrong, but we don't really need a temperament test to know that. And I just can't twist around disinterest in rattled stones in a bucket to a defect in character, can't think of anything a dog can do in such a situation to warrant "failure" in a temperament test, except perhaps run and hide.
In spite of the immense, virtually impossible, demands made of the judge, relatively meager criteria for the post exist. It seems to me that one who would evaluate working dog temperament should train at least two dogs to an advanced Schutzhund or Ring title, of each breed he is certified to evaluate. Since the job of the Temperament Tester is so much more difficult than that of the Ring or Schutzhund judge, it seems reasonable that the qualification criteria should be much more stringent. Many of the judges are sincere and honest, but are by no conceivable standard qualified to quantify the character attributes of a working dog.
In spite of the relatively undemanding nature of the ATTS test, the Shepherd and Dobe clubs have had to come up with tests significantly less rigorous because so many of the show dogs are blown away. At a time when breed specific tests, more demanding according to the heritage of the breed, should be coming into existence what we tend to see is a watering down of a generalized all breed test.
Perhaps the silliest aspect of this whole thing is that you actually see suggestions in print that people should not train for such tests. Any place in the world where serious stock is put in the result of a test every breeder will, and should, do everything he can prepare his dogs, so that they will not be at a disadvantage. Any test based on the idea that people "on their honor" will not train for it is so incredibly stupid that it bears no further comment.
The danger is that such tests could do a great deal of harm by certifying, at least in the minds of the public, very poor dogs as having "good temperament" and failing good dogs because they walk around a plastic sheet or grating on the ground or because an inexperienced person was not able to evaluate a dog's reaction properly. The simple fact is that there is no real evidence for their validity, and a lot of experience to indicate that they very often provide terribly misleading results. Over the past years, it has become increasingly apparent that establishing working character requires hard work and a working test, there are simply no short cuts.
In summary, the concept of a temperament test applicable for all breeds, from the Cocker Spaniel to the German Shepherd, has proven unwieldily and not really useful. I believe that the ATTS type test may have a long term usefulness as a low level screening criteria for breeds intended primarily as family pets, such as the Poodle or one of the unused hunting breeds, but in its present form has little to offer the serious working dog breeder or trainer.
Another example of the sham title is the "Herding Instinct Test", where someone who became interested in herding last month evaluates a dog and, if he qualifies, issues him a "Herding Instinct Certificate" and the pooch forevermore goes around as Ch. His Majesty of Jojo HIC and the proud owner prattles on about how wonderful it is that the working character of the breed is being maintained.
How does this Herding test work you ask? Well, there is a great big pen with sheep (or ducks) and the dog is let loose with the sheep. The sheep run around, the dog runs around (I think he gets extra points for barking), and after a while the tester decides if the dog has herding instinct. I have never been able to discover any specific criteria, so there is really nothing involved but the tester's opinion. The beauty of it is you can make a lot of money, since lots of people will bring their breeding stock in and pay the fee, in that there is no training involved, and if they pass then, by God, they got real working dogs too! The whole thing takes about ten minutes. Neat, right? Of course, nobody ever mentions simply letting the sheep or ducks out of the pen and seeing if old Fido's natural herding instinct will come through and allow him to recover the loose animals!
Don't get me wrong, when some really knowledgeable people put together some serious, breed specific tests that really make a dog put out I am all for it. I understand a German Shepherd can pass a herding test instead of the Schutzhund I in Germany, but very few do because it is so difficult. I hope that a strong herding trial movement evolves, but am concerned about practical issues such as availability of animals to work and real applications. I am aware of a number of experimental programs for herd protection, mostly the prevention of coyote predation on sheep, using central European breeds such as the Komondor or the Anatolian Shepherd, but relatively little about actual use of dogs for herd control. All of these serious efforts are to be encouraged, but standards must be maintained. What we don't need is a proliferation of Mickey Mouse titles.
I think shepherds and bouviers (including the German bouviers, sometimes referred to as Rottweilers) are such great dogs mostly because they are derived from herding stock. It's not really all that hard to breed a race of dogs willing to bite at any opportunity, but the discrimination, intelligence and control that makes these dogs so great comes, in my opinion, mostly from the hundreds of years of selection for good herd protection and control character. It is no accident that many of the pure herd control breeds, such as the Sheltie, excel at obedience and that the duel purpose control/protection dogs, such as the shepherds and cattle dogs, excel at the more complete tests, such as the Ring trials and Schutzhund.
Herding instinct tests held to provide the novice an opinion by an expert on whether his dog showed promise, whether it would be worthwhile to train, would be most useful and commendable. But that's not what the HIC is being used as. Lots of people are getting the HIC and taking the position that it proves that their breeding stock is of correct character, which is flat out Bull. I have a letter or article someplace by the president of the Terv club stating that the breed is in great shape because 70% pass the HIC. Utter nonsense! (Before the Terv people come to lynch me - and they will have to stand in line - I ask them to note that I did not deny that the breed is in great shape, but merely stated that the HIC cannot prove it one way or the other. All I know is that everybody in Europe works the Malinois.)
What it comes down to is that Mickey Mouse is Mickey Mouse and the truth is the truth. I think that in concept temperament evaluations, herding potential tests and Schutzhund/Ring aptitude tests are fine, that getting some insight from the comments of a senior person makes a lot of sense. As long as a private expression of opinion is all that is involved, there is no objection. But the use of such opinions as certification of character and aptitude, as proof of breeding suitability, is utter nonsense.
Although they have served
a purpose, the time has come to do away with "titles" based on opinion
about potential and concentrate on objective evaluations of performance. The
TT, the HIC and any other such certifications should be abandoned. Emphasis
should now be put on providing the training opportunities leading to meaningful
working titles as measures of achievement and indications of correct working
character and aptitude.