The second part of the conversation focuses on IGP training and why the perfect image on the field doesn't always reflect the dog's actual abilities. Markus Neutz explains why the purpose of an exercise can be destroyed by over-emphasizing certain elements , why social media role models often cause more stress than progress, and how this negatively affects the harmony between dog and handler. He also provides insights into protection work and examines the role that the sport still plays in the selection of working dogs.

PK: It's almost become a cliché that training techniques have "improved" in recent years. How has it specifically changed over the last few decades from your perspective?

MN: In my case, we're talking about 40 years of dog training. Over that time, training methods have changed dramatically. Of course, this is also very much for the benefit of the dog. In the past, dogs hardly had a chance to do anything right. That's completely different today.

Nevertheless, it's been roughly ten years since I saw the best obedience work. The FCI sometimes asks for more "natural behavior" in obedience. I wouldn't go that far: in my view, nothing that is demanded of our dogs in the sport is "natural ." However, the work on the field can certainly look harmonious. And this harmony seems to me to be somewhat lost lately.

PK: What's the reason for that?

MN: In my view, too much attention is often paid to individual elements of an exercise. For example, people want a dog to return super fast in the retrieve. However, achieving this speed can lead to loss of purpose of the exercise.

PK: What is the purpose of the retrieve?

MN: For me, it's about the dog willingly bringing me an object that I've thrown. Of course, this also includes the dog being happy to give it up. But these days you often see exercises with fast runs, great take up, and proper sits. When it comes to outing the dumbbell, you see the dog stressing. The dog doesn't really want to give up the dumbbell.  

You're training with the two-prey system; in itself, a very nice system. When well-trained, you achieve a beautiful retrieve. But it also creates a strong possessive attachment to the dumbbell. Consequently, letting go of the dumbbell is more difficult. It's a similar story with prey swapping; here, too, an obsession can easily develop.

PK: How do you train the dog to retrieve? You can't totally neglect a good pace?

MN: Dogs can also achieve good speed because they enjoy the front sit. If this is a holy position while the dumbbell isn't overly important, the dog will come quickly and readily give up the dumbbell in exchange for a reward. This is my way to achieve a fast retrieve.

PK: Do you have another example where, in your opinion, individual elements are overpowered and the purpose of the exercise is lost?

MN: Heelwork: I personally like different images of the dog walking at heel. The dog can look straight up, towards the armpit, or a little more towards the face. In my opinion, many handlers overreact when the dog makes small mistakes, for example, walking slightly crooked or lunging forward a bit. A big problem is certainly that we are bombarded with so many images on social media today . Newcomers, in particular, often have a very specific idea of ​​what heelwork with their dog should look like. Knut beautifully demonstrated the dog looking upwards many years ago. Today, we might not find it completely harmonious anymore; but it would still be a great image.

The problem is that not every dog ​​is capable of holding this position. Nevertheless, many handlers insist on it. They want Knut's heelwork and another famous dogsport competitor's retrieve. But take a quick sit: you can see even with puppies whether they can do it quickly. Some dogs will never sit very quickly. It seems to me that training suggests that all of this is achievable if you just train long enough.

If things don't work out as expected, the handler creates a form of stress for the dog that isn't meeting expectations. This isn't stress caused by punishments or corrections, but rather stress stemming from the dog feeling overwhelmed. The handler is dissatisfied, complains, and keeps doing more. Eventually, the team no longer appears harmonious.

That's why I like giving the dog the room to offer behavior. Within this behavior, the dog will feel comfortable because it's able to perform the tasks it's offered. However, this doesn't mean I shouldn't set any rules. Dogs need rules.

PK: People might rely on social media examples, because they otherwise lack precise instructions? If it were explicitly stated that more than one type of heeling qualifies for an "Excellent", people might be less inclined to look to successful role models. I've read the regulations several times to see if I understand what's expected of the dog and handler and what results in point deductions. The regulations (PO) do not specify it sufficiently. The wording merely states: "the dog must follow joyfully and attentively..." But what does a joyful dog look like? Realistically, you'll probably get three slightly different answers from three judges. It's sometimes said that the dogs should move naturally, with their backs straight. How straight does a German Shepherd need to be - a lot have an angulation that is there. full stop. The regulations don't mention a "natural gait." "Free or harmonious work" isn't further defined either. Without experienced people pointing out what is expected, a newbie will never know reading the regulations.

In equestrian sports, particularly dressage, there are official supplementary documents that explain in more detail what is expected in the trial regulations. These are a great help. Drawings and photos illustrate what constitutes signs of stress and what is considered open and joyful. This would be helpful for both handlers and judges – it would allow for better comparability.

MN: That's difficult. When we talk about obedience, we won't find a single dog that achieves a perfect 100 in obedience if we judge in detail.

PK: So a 100% obedience score isn't possible at all? Mia managed it with Helge at the FMBB, and her obedience still looks great today.

MN: Yes, the subordination is still not far from 100 today.

PK: What is your standard as a judge? Let's take the sit command as an example. You said earlier that not every dog ​​is capable of sitting quickly.

MN: I'm a member of the PSK (Giant Schnauzers). As an association, we don't have much influence on the judging. But in judging, you will often hear me saying: "That was fast enough." Some people interpret that negatively, even though that's not how it's meant. For me, "fast enough" means that the exercise is completed. My standard isn't the fastest sit. There will always be a dog that sits even faster or barks more frequently. The "V" (Excellent) isn't about a single peak performance on a given day, but rather about technical, clean execution, speed, and no signs of excessive stress or stress-related behavior.

PK: Stress behavior: how do you recognize it? And how many points does the handler lose in each case? Does the cause for stress make a difference? Stress behavior doesn't always result from the dog being corrected. There are also dogs that get stressed when they don't understand what they're supposed to do, or dogs that can't cope with the environment at a competition.

MN: Stress might not be the right word; life naturally comes with a certain level of stress. Positive stress is necessary for excellent performance. If you understand the word "stress" as most people probably do—that is, "I'm stressed, meaning I feel overwhelmed, or something is making me nervous or even anxious"—then it's probably more understandable. It's completely irrelevant why a dog feels overwhelmed, or why it's nervous, or whatever. If this is clearly evident, then the exercise can no longer be very good, regardless of the technical execution. 

PK: Over the last 20 years, the average points awarded in B and C level competitions have decreased by almost 10 points (FMBB, FCI, WUSV, ...). What is the reason for this?

MN: The judging has for sure gotten more strict over the years.

But personally, a lot of the protection I see I don't like as much as in the past due to the motivation of the dog Im assuming. Of course, I try my best to ignore my personal feelings when judging. After all, we're still talking about a sport. As long as the athletic performance is good, and the overall picture on the field looks good, I don't worry about the dog's motivation. Perhaps some judges today question the dog's true motivation too much and deduct points accordingly.

If the dog fulfills the requirements of the trial regulations, then the underlying motivation is not to be judged. It's difficult to recognize and differentiate between the dog's motivation. Especially in protection work, there's constant talk of aggression and prey drive, but can I really differentiate between these in our sport? Ultimately, almost everything that dogs exhibit in protection work is motivated by prey or hunting instincts.

PK: What shortcomings do you see in the protection training?

MN: For example, I personally don't like dogs switching to the open side. For me, there shouldn't be too much dictating or manipulation involved in guard dog training. I want the dog to show its natural behavior, the kind it feels comfortable with and can develop. For instance, if the dog is very prey-driven, it can still be a great dog and do excellent protection work.

In Germany, however, a great deal of emphasis was placed on a specific technique. This is evident in examination videos, even at the highest national level. The helpers adapted accordingly. They would hold the sleeve to the side so the dog could move over to the open side. If a helper does it differently, for example, the helpers from the Czech school or the Austrians, who hold their sleeve in front of their body, our dogs get confused. Of course, not the perfectly trained dogs we also have, but the vast majority. I estimate that 80% of all dogs then make significant mistakes. Some forget what they're supposed to do, others can't bark properly. We see things today that we wouldn't have seen in the past: for example, a dog running the entire length of the training field towards the handler because it has become insecure, or the constant need to make the grip fuller.

We still see top performances in protection work in Germany, but not across the board. For me, that's a consequence of the training methods. It doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the dogs themselves.

MN: Young dogs are trained from the very beginning to display a desired picture. This often gives the dog little opportunity to develop naturally. The dogs only learn reactions to specific images, and as long as the images are appropriate, they can perform well. However, when the image no longer fits, the dogs, in my opinion, have few options. Take, for example, the so-called "boogie man" exercise. Here, the dog only reacts to the prescribed image; it doesn't develop natural aggression. In fact, quite the opposite happens. When I have dogs on duty that have been trained this way, the solution is usually not the desired confrontation, but rather the dog's first attempt is to bark even more, because that's its learned behavior.

PK: Another topic related to protection work: silent guarding. Neither the regulations nor the evaluations I've seen make it clear to me what a dog has to look like to receive an excellent rating. One example that left me puzzled is Branko, owned by Theo Sporrer. He's a dog I personally believe when I see him. If he were standing in front of me, I certainly wouldn't move.

MN: I've already judged him. He got a lot of points from me. But fundamentally, there's a difference between watching a video and standing next to the dog. I've also seen Branko's truly perfect, powerful, silent guarding. In two trials, in my opinion, he didn't quite maintain the tension when the handler approached. That moment is always the most interesting for me as a judge. Since it's such a brief moment, the camera might sometimes misrepresent it.

PK: The preamble to the new regulations no longer mentions that the sport is a means of breeding selection. According to it, the sole purpose of the sport is to provide exercise and mental stimulation for the dogs. What's your take on this? And is the removal of the selection aspect a drafting error or intentional?

MN: The sport has never been pure selection in my opinion. But it certainly contains that aspect too. Of course, we assess qualities, for example, when a dog consistently shows over several years; not possible without a certain quality. Trainability as such is an important breeding criterion. I can't tell you whether the selection aspect was intentionally removed. But generally speaking, we're in an unenviable position: In Germany, we conduct by far the most IGP trials per year, yet we only have one vote, like Malaysia, when it comes to FCI decisions. Changes can easily occur that aren't in our best interest.

After Markus Neutz discussed training, motivation, and the right level of stress in obedience and protection work in this section , the third and final part focuses on the structures behind the sport. Who decides how judging is carried out? What role do the examination regulations, judges, and helpers play , and how does this shape the dog's temperament and performance in protection work?