# Curious on Successful Find Rate



## Jenn Schoonbrood (Oct 31, 2008)

I remember reading an article or pamphlet or something years ago stating that the average successful live find rate for canine SAR teams worldwide is estimated to be about 20%. This stuck with me because it seemed so low.

I have been trying to find such statistics again (or, more hopefully, statistics that argue canine SAR units are more effective!) but have not had much luck.

Can anyone offer up some statistics? Wilderness, urban, even cadaver, etc... All appreciated! Thanks! :mrgreen:


----------



## Anne Jones (Mar 27, 2006)

Konnie are you there ???

If Konnie see this, I am sure that she will respond. She does USAR & I am sure that she has some stats on this she can share.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

HA HA. They can't find shit. : P


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> HA HA. They can't find shit. : P


Oh boy.


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

How would you define and then determine "successful find rate?" Does this take into account (and negate) searches where the person wasn't lost or where the IC had the canines searching in the wrong area? How do those situations fit into figuring the statistic?

I can't even imagine how anybody would be able to compile such a figure, especially when talking about "worldwide."


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Good answer =D>=D>=D> Good answer.

Now get back to ringsport, and stop wearing white.


----------



## Jenn Schoonbrood (Oct 31, 2008)

Hi Konnie,

I have absolutely no idea what the measures were in the article/pamphlet. I just remember the statement of an (IMO) absolutely dismal find rate. That being said, I recognize the variables. So, for the purpose of my question, in real world application: when a dog is started in the right area and is properly trained, what is an estimated % of the time that a live person would be found before it was too late?

Even just broadly - half the time, almost all the time, etc?

I.e. I have a dog that does 100 fresh people tracks in wilderness setting without regard to the conditions of the environment (because a successful search dog should be able to deal with those conditions). The dog finds the person 90 times, and misses the remaining 10 times without regard to how far along he got - the person wasn't found. I would say that dog had a 90% success rate in fresh track wilderness situations. That sort of thing.


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Good answer =D>=D>=D> Good answer.
> 
> Now get back to ringsport, and stop wearing white.


THE PANTS ARE FADED KHAKI!!!! Next time I'm going to wear a dress and heels, then you can really make fun of me.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

You asked a question about SAR tracking dogs in a wilderness setting. I have no experience there. The RCMP take the tracking calls in my province for the most part, so I don't certify in it. You also asked about fresh tracks. I would imagine you would have to define fresh. There would obviously be a higher success rate with fresh vs old tracks. 

I have yet to be called to a wilderness air scent (non avalanche) search where there was actually anyone in the area I was given to search. Like Konnie said, there is a LOT of negative search areas searched with air scenting dogs. They call those dogs out when they do NOT have a last known point or last seen point, or a track would be too old or contaminated.

In avalanche settings the dog success rate is pretty high in Canada (with CARDA and RCMP avi dogs)especially up to about 2 meters in depth. THere are cases with deep burials and certain snow conditions with shallower burials that can lower the chances of a find. A dog can't find what it can't smell for example.

Sorry, no stats.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Konnie Hein said:


> How would you define and then determine "successful find rate?" Does this take into account (and negate) searches where the person wasn't lost or where the IC had the canines searching in the wrong area? How do those situations fit into figuring the statistic?
> 
> I can't even imagine how anybody would be able to compile such a figure, especially when talking about "worldwide."


Excellent response. I know the find rate for cadaver is dismal because it is usually a negative search. Would you say bomb dogs suck because they rarely find bombs in real life? Thats why we keep training logs with reliability stats and certify with national agencies.

Thats why I am skeptical about people who think a certification test alone means squat. Show the training records on unknown problems in realistic scenarios.

I do know our teams water find rate is excellent, and that rate includes pinpoining - but for most water searches, guess what, there really IS a body there. 

And even then, how do you count for stats a search where 2 dogs alert in the same place [blind to each other including different handlers, neither of whom knows what the first dog did] but they don't put in divers and the body floats but it is in a river and it comes up downstream the next day?

I think if the response was so dismal we would have heard , "guess what, the victim was in an area you searched and missed" and that is not the case. Actually I do remember that did happen with another team in the Winston Salem Area of NC about a decade ago where a dog team missed and a person died and EVERYBODY in the area heard all about it, so it would not be a silent kind of mistake. Several of our dogs have made live finds.


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Jenn:
Maybe Carol or Nancy have some idea (thanks Jen for chiming in!), but I really don't know. IMO, there are just way too many variables - wind, terrain, time of day and temp, etc. etc. - to quantify anything.

I also think that compiling the statistics to represent an average would be underestimating the capabilities of very highly trained teams. The SAR world has its fair share of "inadequate" teams.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I will add that a good % of live searches are called off before the teams even get to the site. It often turns out the person wasn't really lost, grandma picked up the kid without telling mom, the person came home on his/her own, yadda, yadda. This isn't uncommon with kids. 
After a 3-4-5 or more hour drive these are great stress relievers.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Konnie said
"I also think that compiling the statistics to represent an average would be underestimating the capabilities of very highly trained teams. The SAR world has its fair share of "inadequate" teams."

I will always have some very serious "what if" in the back of my head because of some of those "inadequate" teams that were allowed on a search site.


----------



## Jenn Schoonbrood (Oct 31, 2008)

Thanks for the responses, and yes I can see how an average would be misleading.


----------



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

Well.....if we are discussing training logs I am always at 100%



LOL....JUST KIDDING!!! (I think this was discussed before, as I have seen logs that reflect 100% and it drives me batshit)

It would be hard to say a percentage of how effective teams are due to what has already been discussed. I have been on several searches where I see people that have NO business there AT ALL....so like Bob said....the "what if's" are immense. 

I will venture to say that my training logs reflect ALL of my training....mistakes, success, problem solving, and the "dog flipped me off and wouldn't work" days included. 

I can honestly say that I would hate to be the HRD handler that walks into court and says 100% success rate.....better have a couple extra pounds to spare as the ass ripping would be severe and the case would probably go down the tubes. But, it is something I would not mind watching or having some people watch as maybe then they would get a CLUE to what they NEED to be putting in their logs......


----------



## ann schnerre (Aug 24, 2006)

and here we have yet another Phd thesis/research project funded by (whom?)--but at least it would have some value, unlike a LOT i've seen.

and it actually would take some research/cooperation, division into the various areas of SAR/HRD, etc, plus taking into acct certified/uncertified, what the cert standards are--the possibilities are virtually endless.

so all you young ppl out there, take note: i just gave you a huge freebie to get that PhD. now you owe me, LOL


----------

