In the world of detection dog training, too many trainers begin with the indication, the passive alert. They put all their focus on shaping a dog into giving a perfect, long, focused SIT of at least five seconds. During this time, the dog is expected to ignore distractions: clapping, leash pressure, thrown objects, or even animals nearby. It looks fantastic on social media. A calm dog, sitting like a statue, staring at a hide while the trainer beams with pride.
But here’s the real question:
What is the benefit of this training? And more importantly, what is the operational goal because in real-world operations, the story is very different.
Training vs. reality
I’ve worked with dogs for more than 25 years in the real operational double-blind world. That world has nothing to do with orchestrated social media videos or carefully staged training sessions. Don’t get me wrong, we can design challenging training exercises, and we should. But the tension, chaos, and uncertainty of a live operation cannot be fully mimicked. And when I tested the dog teams, trained for the famous “super-focused sit and stare” alert in true double-blind setups, they failed to find the target odor. Why? Because their training was built on predictable expectations, not true detection. The weakness is in the way how these dogs are trained, how the handlers act and time after time they break in the real operational world, because;
-
The trainer always hides the odor in a familiar environment.
-
The reinforcer (like a Kong) is always delivered at the right time, so the trainer knows the exact hiding place of the odor.
-
The rhythm of findings becomes so familiar that the dog is predicting the outcome. If these dogs miss this rhythm in the real world, where they often don't find anything, they collapse.
-
The trainer cannot cope with the tension of double blind, the dog notice that and start hesitating because things are not congruent.
The hidden cues handlers give
Many dogs that look flawless in training are actually responding to handler cues, not odor. To name a few of these, sometimes very subtle, handler cues;
-
Standing still near the hide, facing front towards the hide.
-
Stopping verbal encouragement or conversations with others
-
Tension or slack in the leash.
-
A “distraction pull”, tension on the leash, that actually acts as a bridge signal for the dog.
-
Reaching for the reinforcer.
-
Position themselves behind the dog for the throw.
Handlers often don’t even realize they’re doing this. But the dog does. The result? A dog that looks brilliant on camera, but fails in operational work, where those subtle cues are missing.
What science tells us
Researchers like Dr. Nathaniel Hall (Texas Tech University) have shown that a dog’s expectations in familiar training environments play a huge role in performance.
-
Dogs learn patterns quickly.
- The expectation for the dog to find something is super high.
-
If the training lacks variety in odor sources, environments, time gaps, and distractions, the dog builds a narrow expectation.
-
When those expectations aren’t met in the field, the dog struggles.
I’ve seen too many dog teams fail in real double-blind operations simply because their training was too simple, too repetitive, and too controlled.
The myth of the “Protocol Prophet”
I’m a strong believer in protocols. Bob and Marian Bailey taught me how powerful step-by-step systems can be. Decades ago, I was one of the first to introduce protocols into the professional K9 community, and I faced a lot of resistance at the time. And you know the phrase "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win". Im not so interested in winning, so let's change that in 'and then they question ' how did you do that?'.
But here’s the danger:
Some trainers treat protocols like they came from a Protocol Bible, insisting there’s only one true way to train. These “Protocol Prophets” pass on this mindset to their students, many of whom have never done double-blind searches or worked in real operations. These people start to feel superior. They speak with authority about preparing dogs for the field. That’s like trying to train combat seasoned fighter pilots how to fly better after you have only flown in a simulator. Or like a former TV host telling experienced generals how to prepare for war and run a military operation. Protocols are valuable, but they are not the holy grail. Real detection work demands more.
The real operational challenge
In the real world, dogs and handlers face conditions no staged training video can capture.
-
Many searches end with no finds at all.
-
The pressure of the operation, often in life threathening circumstances.
-
Sometimes target odors are degraded, contaminated, amounts differ or its for the dog like just a poor copy of training samples.
-
Handlers are often nervous, distracted, or under pressure, and unable to provide their usual cues to support the dog in its decision.
This is where many dogs trained for picture-perfect alerts fail.
Operational success requires:
-
Dogs trained with curiosity and independence
-
Handlers who allow the dog to lead the search
-
Honest double-blind training that reflects the reality of field conditions
Why I still teach an alert
You may wonder, if a flawless SIT isn’t the goal, why teach an alert at all? Because dogs are biological detectors. They can detect just a few molecules and track them to the source, something no electronic sensor can yet do. But dogs are also self-learning detectors. That means their understanding depends heavily on what they’ve been reinforced for in training. Take narcotics as an example:
-
If a dog is reinforced only on cocaine batch A, it may hesitate or fail to indicate on batch B which is manufactured differently, stored longer, or cut with other chemicals.
-
This is a generalization problem.
But dogs can also learn something we don't want. By classical conditioning the dog suddenly start to react on something else than the target odor. Or dogs draw conclusions, like found something 3 times in a suitcase? Well there is a big chance that the dog will sit nearby the next suitcase that it will see, without even using its nose. Here we can use the trained SIT to calibrate the dog.
That’s where the alert becomes important. It gives us a way to:
-
Test what the dog truly understands.
-
Calibrate performance across odors, batches, and environments.
-
Ensure the dog is discriminating the right target odor, not something chemically close but incorrect.
- That the dog will use its nose instead of eyes.
Why calibration matters
I strongly advocate for calibration testing for detection dogs, just as we do with electronic sensors or chemical test kits.
-
Electronic sensors are recalibrated regularly and its mandatory.
-
Chemical kits have clear procedures for testing their accuracy.
-
Detection dogs should be held to the same professional standard.
Without calibration, the risks are enormous:
-
Shutting down airports for hours after a false alert
-
Missing explosives hidden on a train or in a building
-
Failing to detect narcotics at a border crossing
-
Triggering unnecessary evacuations of buildings or events
These are not small mistakes. They can cause panic, cost millions, and put lives at risk.
The role of NOTA in calibration
One of the biggest obstacles in calibration testing is the emotional debate about odors. Handlers often argue that:
-
The target odor is too fresh or too old.
-
The sample is contaminated.
-
The batch is different from what their dogs trained on.
These arguments derail the real purpose: measuring the dog’s actual detection capabilities. That’s why I propose using NOTA (neutral odor) as a worldwide calibration odor.
-
NOTA is unique, standardized, stable and neutral, removing the emotional baggage tied to operational target odors.
-
It provides a consistent benchmark across organizations, countries, and disciplines.
-
By calibrating with NOTA, we avoid endless debates and create a shared global standard for reliability.
This doesn’t replace training on real target odors. But it ensures that calibration is fair, objective, and professional.
Back to the passive alert
So let’s return to that famous 5-second SIT. Yes, it looks impressive. But in the real operational world, we rarely see picture-perfect alerts. More often, it’s a change in behavior, a pause, a head snap, a subtle shift, that leads us to the find. K9 trainer Steve White put out a nice video about this on Youtube with the title 'Thousand hour eyes'. In which he also discuss Mackenzie's eight scent work indicators; Pull, nose heigh, tail carriage, breathing, cadence, circling, crabbing, head swing.
That’s why my focus is always on:
-
Teaching dogs that the odor itself is the key
-
Allowing them the freedom and giving them the confidence to make choices without relying on handler cues
-
Building flexibility and generalization into their training
-
Preparing teams with double-blind work, where “no find” is just as important as a find
-
And teach your dog to search together with you, I mean the trained final response (SIT) isn't always the moment the reinforcer will follow. Sometimes we need to move stuff and search again to reach the odor source.
-
And keep in mind that in some situations the dog cannot go into the SIT because of the environment, the obstacles or other reasons. In many of my covert operations I didn't wanted the SIT because bystanders could noticed that their was a investigation going on.
Detection training for me is much wider than the perfect SIT. My protocols give more flexibility. Because at the end of the day, our work isn’t about creating perfect videos for social media. It’s about preparing reliable dog teams for the reality of operational work where lives, safety, and public trust are on the line.
My mission
To empower handlers, bridge the gap between science and practice, and make detection training more honest, reliable, and professional.
Simon Prins – Innovator, trainer, coach, writer and advocate for reliable detection dog teams