Intro

I recently observed a dog handler begin what they described as an “imprinting” process with their detection dog. But what I saw left me more concerned than convinced. The method used wasn’t something I would endorse—because to be frank, I’m not sure imprinting actually took place at all.

To be clear, these were just observations. I’m not saying the handler was doing anything wrong—but it’s certainly not how I would approach imprinting. This was a young, inexperienced handler, doing exactly what they’d been taught at their agency’s dog training centre by instructors they trust. And that’s an important part of this conversation: the handler was following their training. The issue lies further up the chain.

The handler placed a round metal container in the search area, containing cash (banknotes). The container had a plastic lid with a small hole in it—presumably to allow odour to escape. The dog was released to search, and when it showed interest in the container—specifically by placing its nose over the hole—the handler marked the behaviour with a clicker and rewarded the dog with kibble.

This sequence was repeated around eight times, with the same container, the same placement, and the same expected behaviour. At no point did I see any variation in environment, presentation, or reinforcement schedule.

Now here’s the issue: was the dog learning to detect the odour of cash? Or simply learning to interact with a specific object in a known location, with a known outcome?

Day Two: The Problem Surfaces

The following day, the handler repeated the same setup but added a twist—they introduced an identical container into the search area. Same size, same lid, same hole. The only difference? It was empty. No target odour inside.

What happened next revealed everything.

The dog entered the search area, encountered the empty container first, and immediately indicated on it. There was no odour, no target—but the behaviour was automatic. Why? Because the dog wasn’t responding to odour at all. It was responding to the sight, shape, and possibly even the placement of the container.

The handler waited, and eventually the dog moved on and located the actual target container with the cash. That’s when the dog was marked and rewarded. But by then, the damage was done. The session confirmed what I’d suspected: this dog wasn’t being imprinted on odour— it was being conditioned to perform a routine around an object.

This Isn’t Imprinting

Let’s be clear: true imprinting is about establishing odour value. It’s about creating a direct and powerful link between the presence of a target odour and the opportunity to earn reinforcement. It isn’t about interacting with a specific object, shape, or configuration. It’s not just about showing interest in “something.” It’s about teaching the dog that only odour predicts reward.

In this case, the dog hadn’t learned that. It had learned that sticking its nose into a container’s hole got it food—regardless of what was inside. That’s a massive flaw in the learning process.

Why It Matters

If you imprint incorrectly, everything that follows is built on a shaky foundation. False alerts, frustration, dependency on visual cues, and unreliable performance are all symptoms of poor imprinting. Dogs that learn to respond to an object or context instead of odour won’t survive

the jump to operational deployments, complex scenarios, or blind searches. They simply don’t understand the task.

We see this mistake more than we should, especially with new handlers or in poorly supervised training environments. There’s an obsession with getting dogs to “look like they’re working” instead of ensuring they understand what they’re doing. And when the reinforcement criteria are built around interaction rather than odour isolation, the results might look good on video—but they fail in the real world.

Imprinting and Odour Recognition: The Foundation of All Future Work

People often ask me what the most important components are in training a detection dog. My answer is always the same: imprinting and odour recognition.

Everything starts here. If a dog doesn’t understand what it’s meant to search for, nothing else in the training process matters. It doesn’t matter how many scenarios you run or how sharp your handling looks on camera—if the dog hasn’t been correctly imprinted on odour, the work will collapse under pressure.

This is why getting imprinting right is absolutely critical. It’s not just a first step—it’s the step that defines all others. Get it wrong, and you’ll spend the rest of the training process fighting confusion and cleaning up mistakes. Get it right, and you’re building a confident, independent, odour-driven dog that knows exactly what its job is.

Getting It Right

Effective imprinting means:

• The dog learns odour, not container.

• Odour is the only path to reinforcement.

• Generalisation is built in from the beginning—different containers, placements,

  distractions.

• Indications are a result of internal odour commitment, not external handler prompts.

• Errors are information, not something to “wait out” until the dog stumbles onto

  success.

This case reminded me how easy it is to create a behaviour chain that looks like success but hides confusion underneath. And once you build that chain, unpicking it becomes far more difficult than getting it right from the start.

So no—what I saw wasn’t imprinting. It was a missed opportunity to teach a dog what really matters: that odour is king, and everything else is noise.