Management of War Dog School ■;.;.-, 



of those, who are uninitiated in, and, therefore, unable to 

 appreciate the necessary conditions for obtaining thai 

 very success. In giving an account of the work in the 

 French Army I mention the fact, that twice over, the 

 scheme was practically closed down, owing to this lack <>f 

 understanding, and duality of control. If this happened 

 in France, where there has always been a greater tendency 

 to consider subsidiary schemes in the Army, it must alu . 

 be recognized as a possible danger at any time in this 

 country. The fact is, that very few people indeed really 

 understand and appreciate the capabilities of the dog 

 sufficiently, to be in any way qualified to adjudicate on 

 the management of the Dog School of Instruction, or on 

 the management in the field, without advice of those 

 technically instructed from this point of view. It would, 

 therefore, be as well, that this should be thoroughly recog- 

 nized, and that those responsible for the training of the 

 dogs, should also be made responsible for the entire working 

 in the field, and for the necessary regulations governing 

 them up to that point. In this way, much valuable time 

 will be saved. Dogs are not machines. They are extremely 

 sensitive, and, in fact, in some directions are much more 

 so than man himself. Those who undertake to train and 

 handle this delicate instrument, know that certain essen- 

 tials must stand in the forefront of all regulations governing 

 its actions, right down to the actual work in the field. 

 Duality of control is, therefore, to be avoided. 



There is always one point that would, in the future, be 

 of great assistance in taking up this work again. That is, 

 that the fact, which has been reiterated again and again 

 for so many years, namely, the usefulness of the dog to 

 the soldier, has been proved. There can be no further qu 

 tion on this score, and, therefore, the many straggles in 



