Improving wildlife detection dog team selection and training

Abstract

Wildlife can only be properly managed when populations are accurately monitored. Commonly used monitoring methods, including camera-trapping and visual surveys, are often costly, labour intensive, with low detection rates. To address these issues wildlife detection dogs are increasingly being used in ecological research. These dogs non-invasively locate live individuals, their scats, carcasses, and denning/nesting sites. The success of this method is dependent most notably on the dog and handler, and their training. Whilst incorrectly selecting dogs and handlers is costly and a welfare concern, selection is often based on personal preference rather than scientific evidence. Working dog selection remains focused on breeding programs that are financially expensive with highly varied success. Certain breeds are therefore commonly excluded during selection. Selecting unsuitable individuals, or incorrectly managing these teams, will not only reduce team performance but may also tarnish wildlife detection dogs’ reputation. There is currently minimal research on the selection, training and management of wildlife detection dog teams, especially in Australia. Given wildlife detection dogs have unique working requirements research on other working dog fields is often not comparable. Thus, to investigate factors important to detection dog and handler selection and management, I trained 12 dogs from three breeds at detection work, experimentally assessing their training times and odour discrimination ability. After reviewing the literature three breeds were selected. The breed with the greatest number of suitable behavioural and physical characteristics for wildlife detection (Border Collies); the breed with the least number of suitable characteristics (Greyhounds); and the breed used most commonly for detection work (Labrador Retrievers). These dogs were trained to detect Bengal Tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) scat as it was a novel odour which they would not encounter outside training. Training sessions were filmed to determine the time required to achieve specific training competencies, and behaviour coded to record smelling times and behaviours related to the dogs’ true and false indications. Once the dogs achieved all training competencies their odour discrimination ability was assessed during single-blind trials, with both a familiar and unfamiliar handler.All Border Collies and Labrador Retrievers, and one Greyhound, completed training. Overall the Border Collies had the quickest training times and the highest accuracy scores. Individual variation was, however, significant within the breeds’ training times and accuracy. During training the dogs’ smelling times were significant factors influencing their indications, with specific behaviours (e.g. paw-lifting) being correlated more often with true, rather than false, positives. The only Greyhound to complete training had higher accuracy scores than half of the Labrador Retrievers during testing. There was therefore a weak correlation between the dogs’ training times and detection accuracy. During testing the dogs had significantly higher accuracy scores when handled by their familiar handler. With the unfamiliar handler the dogs performed significantly more stress-related behaviours and were distracted for a higher proportion of time, which was negatively correlated to detection accuracy.Important dog handler traits and skills were also determined through emailing questionnaires to Australian and New Zealand wildlife detection dog handlers. These questionnaires asked the handlers to complete personality assessments and rate handler skills based on importance for wildlife detection work. The handlers shared similar mean personality scores, however, these scores had large ranges. Handlers rated skills specific to their dog, such as understanding dog body language, as highly important for field success.Individual variation was prominent in all major findings. Due to the large range in the dog handlers’ personality scores, personality may not be as important as their training or dog–handler relationship. The large variation within the breeds training times and accuracy further suggests that a dog’s breed may not be the best predictor of their trainability or detection aptitude. These dogs’ accuracy was further impacted by changing handlers. Future research is required to determine if professional dogs are impacted similarly, and the best ways to manage dog-handler transitions. Lastly my research demonstrated that dogs’ smelling times and their associated behaviours can assist handlers discriminate between dogs’ true and false indications.My research challenges how working dogs are currently globally managed. Due to the level of individual variation among dogs suitable for working roles, dogs should not be excluded purely because of their breed. Individual team’s performances must also continue to be evaluated due to the highly site-specific nature of their effectiveness. Management strategies must also take into consideration how influential the dog-handler relationship is on team performance. Prior to my study no research had investigated how detrimental changing a dog’s handler is on their welfare and performance. It is therefore crucial to continue challenging and advancing best practises, not only for animal welfare but also for the success of the working dog industry. Continuing research on wildlife detection dogs, including best avenues to source dogs, is crucial for this emerging method and will ensure the greatest outcomes are achieved.