# Wilderness air scent searching on long line



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

I am visiting family in different province and I had the opportunity to meet up with a woman I have chatted with on-line that is training a nice working line GSD for SAR. (super friendly, bicolour, big boy!). I think it bred by one of the regional officers.

She is training under the direction of the regional police, and will be examined by the provincial police. There are no other SAR dogs in the area at present.

I am relitively new to SAR dogs (this is my first SAR dog) and I work in British Columbia and our examinations are done by the RCMP.

This woman has to do her wilderness air scent searach with the dog on a long line. I had never seen this before, as all the wilderness air scent dogs I have known about work off leash (including mine). It was raining and wet and the poor woman fell numerous times, the lead became tangled in slash, she would have to basically stop the dog and distract the dog IMHO to get sorted out. My point is the dog would have figured the air scent problem much faster on its own....

I asked her about it and she said that the police dogs may not search for a missing person off lead, so she can't eather. She said they would not call her out for an off lead search, so that is why she is training on lead.

I can see why a full profile dog may not search a wilderness search for a missing person (non-criminal) off lead, but why might a SAR dog not be able to search off lead? It has no bite training.

The dog also has to have a bark alet, but it hardly seams neccassary since the handler will see the victim as they have the dog on a leash. I suppose they could be burried under leaves or something....

This woman is allowed to search her dog off lead for articles, but not missing persons. She is also doing a tracking profile which is done in a harness on line of course.

Any ideas? Would all LE search for missing persons (non-criminal) with a dog on lead? Are there other SAR groups that do wilderness searches with a long line? Are there advantages I may be missing to searching on lead? Enlighten me!

Thanks,

Jennifer


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

First let me say I'm jealous over RCMP's control. I wish the states had a mandatory certification, either state or federal, but we don't. In my experience, most SAR work is or at least can be, conducted off leash. There may be times due to the terrain or inherant dangers a leash is used. I work a cadaver dog, it's mostly off-leash, but then my victims aren't going to be frightened or run away. I think there is a huge advantage in working off-leash for SAR. I can see some problems if the dogs aren't trained properly, but assuming proper training, in my opinion, the dog, less encombered, would do a better job.

In the US, LE may or may not search off leash, depending on the circumstances. Generally however, L/E searches are more criminal oriented,than SAR. That is in our state anyway. There are some very experienced SAR folks on the board. Hopefully, they will also have some input.

DFrost


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I can't imagine working a dog on a long line in heavy cover. 
Ditto with David on the RCMP. The have the reputation of being the absolute best with search dogs.


----------



## Bryan Colletti (Feb 16, 2007)

I can't imagine how anyone can conduct a proper scouting search on lead. No worries about scaring a victim when you train a refind. The dog simply passes by the victim and gets the handler and repeat this until the handler is there. NO barking or snapping of the bark and hold.

About the RCMP: I have often wondering how much success is due to the lush wet green environment, and the fact as you all just mention no rival agencies. They are known for the tracking dogs. Well to me, it's insulting to think they have exclusive tracking knowledge, when realistically they have ideal tracking conditions. My friends in New Mexico can't track at all, they must area search constantly. NO vegetation. 

I must say I do admire there strict standards at the point of evaluation, that is certainly a huge advantage over the agencies in the states where lack of funding dictates most everything. I do believe however, that a great many tracking experts live here in the states, and if given a system where bye they could only and would only accept the best Police Candidates, well you have the answers now.

Bryan


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Bryan Colletti said:


> About the RCMP: I have often wondering how much success is due to the lush wet green environment, and the fact as you all just mention no rival agencies. They are known for the tracking dogs. Well to me, it's insulting to think they have exclusive tracking knowledge, when realistically they have ideal tracking conditions. My friends in New Mexico can't track at all, they must area search constantly. NO vegetation.
> 
> I must say I do admire there strict standards at the point of evaluation, that is certainly a huge advantage over the agencies in the states where lack of funding dictates most everything. I do believe however, that a great many tracking experts live here in the states, and if given a system where bye they could only and would only accept the best Police Candidates, well you have the answers now.
> 
> Bryan


Remember that Canada is a vast country with very diverse ground cover! Just as you have "wet lush green environment" in many areas in the USA, we have some as well in Canada. We also have a tonne of grassland, very dry desert like environs, huge tracts of tangled tight boreal forest and don't forget the vast tundra up north as well. To say that the second largest country in the world made up of a zillion types of ground cover has just ideal ground cover for tracking is a tad "insulting", to borrow your words. Tell the RCMP officer in Whitehorse on a windy -50 degree celcius morning that he has ideal tracking conditions! Come up and visit 

I have never heard an RCMP dog handler say that they knew everything about tracking or any such nonsense. In fact all the instruction I have received and been tested on by the RCMP is in area search/air scent, it is not as if they only track! I know for a fact that the US has phenominal dog resourses in a many areas, hey, why do ya think I am on this list!!!

I should not speak for the RCMP as I am no expert on their LE dog program. I CAN answer to the fact that I am glad that in my province at least, the RCMP are the overseers and examiners of the SAR dog program, whose evaluations and standards would be very contraversial in the USA perhaps. It is the RCMP in my province that call us out, so it makes sense that they do the examinations. Then they can have trust in the civilian teams they use, and in turn the civilian handlers all know what standards their collegues on scene have met as well.

I seek out many opinions and views on SAR and have learned a great deal from folks south of the Canadian border and will continue to I am sure! 

The RCMP do not have the only search dogs in Canada. The RCMP are Canada's federal police, but many small towns contract out their services for local policing. This is the case in much of British Columbia for example, but all the cities of Canada have their own police force (and their own dog programs) and many provinces have their own provincial police progams (and dog programs (Ontario and Quebec for example). Some regions have their own police forces as well. The monopoly on dogs is not complete, but there is not as much competition as in the USA, you are correct. I may be mistaken, but I also beleive that after 911 the RCMP got the contract to do all airport work as well.

Back to the OP, I was just wondering if their was advantages to doing a wilderness search on line that I had not come up with on my own. It is my feeling that the woman in this case is working in an area that has no SAR dogs, and they are having her follow their LE protocols, despite the fact that her dog is not trained in bitework. This is NOT an area covered by the RCMP and I think they only allow GSD for SAR there as well....but that is a whole other thing....! I loved getting to go meet and train with her and learn about the standards she must meet, wich I thought were VERY impressive over all.

Cheers,
Jennifer


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

<<I must say I do admire there strict standards at the point of evaluation,>>

My comments about the RCMP were strictly related to the standards they can impose. This country needs exactly that. There are too many trainers, both civilian and police, and vendors that sell crap. That crap enters a system where there is no standardization or required proficiency evaluations. It has nothing to do with funds. POST already exists in every state, adding minimum qualifications for dogs of various skills wouldn't add much too it. There is already a considerable rift in the EDD side. You have 3 Federal agencies fighting about a standard. Arguably TSA has the most intensive certification, yet another Federal agencie wants to test a dog's ability to sniff paint cans. We have several organizations that offer certification and they can't agree on what to do. Of course they rely on voluntary membership. It's no wonder states can't do any better. At any rate, RCMP has a standard, dogs that want to claim a certain proficiency have to test to that standard. I think it's a model for all of us. As for tracking in New Mexico, well, it's not all desert. My wife is from there, and I've spent a lot of time there. 

DFrost


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Upon further reflection it is obviously not up to me (I am NOT qualified) to explain or defend the RCMP dog program, especially on a public forum. I would like to deter this thread from becoming a discussion on RCMP dog handling as there is no RCMP member here to comment.

As far as RCMP refers to SAR no problem discussing it, otherwise if someone has questions or comments perhaps we could go the PM route ?


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Anyhoo, I agree with Bryan, Bob and David that searching heavy cover on a long line for a non criminal case does not make much sense to me. (It could make sense with an LE dog though I think) It always amazes me how fast the dogs can figure out a problem unencumbered by their clumbsy, chatty two legged handlers!


----------



## Bryan Colletti (Feb 16, 2007)

You have hit the nail on the head David, The Standards by which RCMP operate is the model of their success. That is the single most impressive thing I have seen, the test they put young dogs through, I love. That dedication to the highest standards is key. 

I couldn't agree more about the struggles between agencies here in the States. They do themselves in all the time. Good thing I just provide a dog with some good drives and training. That's it. It's particularly rough between state run certs and fraternal ones like NPWDA and USPCA. I would not want to be a trainer or handler having to choose sides. Too much politics not enough training

I would love to take a trip up the Canada and observe these tracking classes though. Some folks have brought up some interesting tracking problems specific to Canada, plus they breed in house I guess, I know CARMSPACK did some breeding for them as well. I would love to pick their brains. Wonder if they have any Mals yet))

Is anyone on the list from the RCMP?

Bryan


----------



## Bryan Colletti (Feb 16, 2007)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> Upon further reflection it is obviously not up to me (I am NOT qualified) to explain or defend the RCMP dog program, especially on a public forum. I would like to deter this thread from becoming a discussion on RCMP dog handling as there is no RCMP member here to comment.
> 
> As far as RCMP refers to SAR no problem discussing it, otherwise if someone has questions or comments perhaps we could go the PM route ?


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Jennifer there is no need to defend their program, I was being punky to which I apologize. I really do respect their program immensely. I just happen to also believe we have some fine tracking folks here. 

Bryan


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Bryan Colletti said:


> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
> I just happen to also believe we have some fine tracking folks here.
> 
> Bryan


Not a doubt in my mind that is true!

I PM'ed you.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Bryan Colletti said:


> I would love to take a trip up the Canada and observe these tracking classes though. Some folks have brought up some interesting tracking problems specific to Canada, plus they breed in house I guess, I know CARMSPACK did some breeding for them as well. I would love to pick their brains. Wonder if they have any Mals yet))
> 
> 
> 
> Bryan




RCMP started their breeding program in 1999 at the Police Dog Service Training Center in Alberta. Here is some public info on the RCMP dog program in case anyone should be interested in contacting them for training reasons.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pds/index_e.htm


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

A trip to Canada and working with their trainers can be quite a learning experience. The best advice I can give if you get the chance; be in shape. Bryan, you are absolutely correct, we have some great tracking trainers here in the states, some equal to those I've met. As I said before, my comments were solely related to the certification process. They have us beat by a mile. You know as well as I do, a department can buy a dog, send a handler through a two week school, be 'certified" and put on the road. Happens all the time. My concern with that is two fold; 1. You've put that officer at a disadvantage, which could be costly in both safety and liability. 2. Bad case law. It scares me to see how some departments operate and "get by" and I honestly believe it's only a matter of time. There was an article in a recent magazine (a police related magazine to boot) that was filled with inaccuracies and just plain bad information relative to use of force. Even Terry Fleck spoke out against it. (He's a library of information relative use of force; search and seizure, etc.) I really like the idea of having a mandated certification program for each state. I would certainly prefer the states do it themselve rather than involving the federal government, be something is needed.

DFrost


----------

