# Does anyone train agressive alert anymore?



## Chris Keister (Jun 28, 2008)

Wondering if anyone trains an agressive alert anymore?

I see more and more passive. I understand the reasoning. We don't want our dogs damaging people's property. 

I have a new pup that is naturally agressive and natural digger. He dies into the ground and digs at things he wants and can't get at. I have never trained a passive alert and since he naturally wants to dig at things I want to go with that. 

I'm thinking I can get him those dog booties later on and that will key him to what we are searching for. 

Thoughts, comments concerns from the LE detection folks out there....


----------



## Craig Snyder (May 7, 2012)

Depends what you're detecting for I guess. You don't say.

Bombs need a passive alert obviously. HRD work as well. Drugs, not so much. But than again having a dog scratch the hell out of possible evidence, including fingerprints, might not be so cool. So I think you are right that the move is towards more passive alerts.

FEMA live find K9's are encouraged to dig and paw for their subjects. The test criteria specifically mention that in addition to the bark alert.

Craig


----------



## Chris Keister (Jun 28, 2008)

Sorry yes that would help. I was thinking in terms of narcotics. Maybe bomb if the department goes for it and that would obviously be passive and I would be sent out for training. 

The question pertains to narcotics and doing it myself


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Damage of any hides in a K9 NW trial could get you a DQ.
Seems to be more negatives to teaching an aggressive alert than a passive one?


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Not to derail, but have you done any sport nosework, Thomas? I was at a weekend seminar last weekend as my first intro to it. Was pretty interesting. Seems like a fun sport to do indoors when it's not 100 F or 0 F when you can't train for anything else.


----------



## Ang Cangiano (Mar 2, 2007)

It's much easier for an aggressive alert narcotics dog to get into the stuff and ingest it than for a passive alert dog to do the same. Safety of the dog can be a large factor in departments switching from aggressive to passive.

Ang


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

I still do. I like it, like to train it and like to watch it. It's applications are pretty much limited to drug dogs, but yes, I still train it when possible. A passive dog can damage a vehicle just as well. In well over 100,000 canine sniffs of vehicles, I think we've paid 5 claims. It's just the cost of doing business. Just because a dog is trained to respond aggressively, you don't have to let the dog scratch the paint down to bare metal.

DFrost


----------



## julie allen (Dec 24, 2010)

Not narcotics, but my hrd dogs do both passive (sit) and aggressive (bark).

On a recent vehicle search, in the evidence room, all the detectives were standing there watching Greta work the car. The whole " don't touch, don't cough, dont breathe on it" routine. They had cracked the trunk open with gloves of course. 
Greta comes in circles the car, shoved her nose in the crack of the trunk, flings it open, jumps inside, and lays down barking like mad, drool flying. 
I wanted to melt where I stood lol. 

Of course, they can tell dog dna from human, but this was a case I wish she didn't have to be on top of the damn source! However she did pin point it out to them, and they applauded her, so all was well.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> Not to derail, but have you done any sport nosework, Thomas? I was at a weekend seminar last weekend as my first intro to it. Was pretty interesting. Seems like a fun sport to do indoors when it's not 100 F or 0 F when you can't train for anything else.


Both my Dobermanns have Birch ORT's and I plan on going for Anise and Clove ORT's August 18 and NW I the end of September. We attempted a NW I last year but failed the vehicle search with my girl. I questioned the DQ and decided to work on a real lock on odor indication so there would be question next time 
Leerburg sells a nice Intro to NoseWork by Andrew Ramsey
that I think teaches a much more effective training protocol then the official NACSW touchy feely trust and learn to read your dog


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

julie allen said:


> Not narcotics, but my hrd dogs do both passive (sit) and aggressive (bark).
> .


Whewww, you scared me. When you said aggressive, I formed a mental picture of your dog bringing you a femur, or a still articulated leg ha ha. I see the "bark" as the aggressive. I feel much better now. 

DFrost


----------



## Marta Wajngarten (Jul 30, 2006)

for those who have a dog that does both, how does that work, a different command at the beginning of the search? or do you train a different response to different scents?


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Both my Dobermanns have Birch ORT's and I plan on going for Anise and Clove ORT's August 18 and NW I the end of September. We attempted a NW I last year but failed the vehicle search with my girl. I questioned the DQ and decided to work on a real lock on odor indication so there would be question next time
> Leerburg sells a nice Intro to NoseWork by Andrew Ramsey
> that I think teaches a much more effective training protocol then the official NACSW touchy feely trust and learn to read your dog


Trust and learn to read your dog? Pffft...whatever. ;-) Yeah, some of the dogs at the seminar and even some doing the ORT that I observed (I volunteered to videotape for a bunch of people, so got to watch in the gallery) were incredibly soft if not downright timid or nervy dogs. I guess it's cool that they can do a sport too to give them some confidence if they are too reactive or timid to do stuff like agility or rally.

I'll have to check that DVD out. Got plenty of dog stuff to train for now, but when it's super cold outside, indoor scent work sounds appealing.


----------



## julie allen (Dec 24, 2010)

David Frost said:


> Whewww, you scared me. When you said aggressive, I formed a mental picture of your dog bringing you a femur, or a still articulated leg ha ha. I see the "bark" as the aggressive. I feel much better now.
> 
> DFrost


Ha, crime scene guys may appreciate that! Less work for them.

I found an issue with hrd, you can't quite train as you do for other things, because we don't have access to whole bodies. So when they make a find, they have odor, but see the body and it takes a bit to put it together. 

Anyway, so I have a partial mannequin I set up sometimes. Yesterday Greta comes running up from the back porch with the head of the dummy Lmao! She never picks up anything during training, not quite sure if she was gonna set some problems up herself or what lol.


----------



## julie allen (Dec 24, 2010)

Marta Wajngarten said:


> for those who have a dog that does both, how does that work, a different command at the beginning of the search? or do you train a different response to different scents?


Marta, we started with a sit only. Doing disaster work, we had to add a bark to alert out of my sight, as some places we may not have access to. You can send a dog in, but the piles haven't been cleared for people to be on searching.

So I added a bark for a toy, she gets the reward when she sits and barks. She put it together fast. The hard part was getting her to stay at source, since she naturally wants to come to me. She gets rewarded for sit and bark looking at me, had I trained like the good narcotics dogs for keeping her staring at the source, this would have been easier. 
I just prefer the dog to associate the reward with me, but that's not the best.

The only alert she has is for hrd. On live scent, she just finds the victim and is all over them when its the right one lol. However, if I don't acknowledge her and reward, she starts barking at me. This is why I preferred her to look at me, not to look at the victim and bark, so it carried over to hrd.

On a recent drowning, the man had been in the water maybe four hours, not long enough for a decay scent. She didn't alert, but I could read that the victim was there. 
That was an interesting deal, because the man had flipped the boat, got out of the water, one of the hounds tracked him on land for a ways and stopped at the water. The so was certain he was on land, even after my dog alerting. The side scan sonar showed nothing (that they could read at least  ) THP helicopter couldn't see anything due to tree cover, so we continued to search where they asked. The next morning, again I said where he was, they let us go back, interest on shoreline, then alert on the boat, same area. Both dogs were absolutely correct. Not sure why he entered the water again.


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

julie allen said:


> Not sure why he entered the water again.


That sounds oddly suspicious. :-k


----------



## Pete Stevens (Dec 16, 2010)

CHP still trains that way. I prefer passive that's just my style. Less damage for training sites, less damage to evidence. Not there won't be any damage, just less.


----------



## Bart Karmich (Jul 16, 2010)

In my mind, the active alert is easier to train. You just wait for the dog to think he has to do something more to get the reward. Most dogs will easily offer more behaviors and you can reward the one you want.

FWIW, I switched from an active alert to a passive. For me it wasn't too hard because my dog is not hectic and doesn't have a crazy neurotic obsession with the reward. He doesn't train as quickly or search as fast as those ball nutters. He's a slow but steady worker. (At this time I've pushed him to 20 minute searches but normally we do shorter ones.) So to switch to passive I just started rewarding before he offered the active response. I slowly increased the duration between the find and reward but always before he began to think he needed to do active. With a slower dog it wasn't hard to get a passive response instead and extend the duration to about 5-7 seconds so far.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

I prefer the aggressive alert. It's easier to train and easier to maintain. Most prey driven dogs, the only kind that should be used for detection work if it's serious, will naturally dig to flush the prey. It's easier to encourage natural behavior than it is to train some other behavior. When problems develop it's also easier to re-establish the link between the prey scent and the prey object with an aggressive alert. 

To prevent damage to property all that's necessary is to ease the dog away from it when the dog starts the behavior. There's no need to let him continue to dig until he causes damage. 

I don't think that the _"dog booties"_ are necessary. I prefer to use a verbal command to _"key"_ the dog that he's supposed to start searching. Harder to lose. 

Bombs require a passive alert but that's really about all that does. Some certifying entities require that the dog not disturb the source, but a good handler can still use an aggressive alert, if he's been trained and is paying attention. As for dogs getting into narcotics that might injure them, before searching, a handler should do a walkthrough of the area to make sure that there isn't any material that is in such a location, and then watch carefully while the dog is searching. A passive alert does not guarantee that a dog will not get into something that might injure him. 

I believe that when a dog locates source his alert should be so overt that someone who knows nothing about dogs can see that his behavior has changed. It's important for people to learn to read their dogs but it should not substitute for an alert. I'm not a fan of handlers _"interpreting"_ behavior and calling alerts on it. Too much opportunity for errors or ...


----------



## julie allen (Dec 24, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> I prefer the aggressive alert. It's easier to train and easier to maintain. Most prey driven dogs, the only kind that should be used for detection work if it's serious, will naturally dig to flush the prey. It's easier to encourage natural behavior than it is to train some other behavior. When problems develop it's also easier to re-establish the link between the prey scent and the prey object with an aggressive alert.
> 
> To prevent damage to property all that's necessary is to ease the dog away from it when the dog starts the behavior. There's no need to let him continue to dig until he causes damage.
> 
> ...


With cadaver dogs, you don't want them disturbing any evidence, they often work quite a distance from the handler, so the passive alert is preferred.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

julie allen said:


> With cadaver dogs, you don't want them disturbing any evidence, they often work quite a distance from the handler, so the passive alert is preferred.


I think that it's a mistake to have these dogs working off leash. I'm sure that there are some that can do it, but I've seen certified people miss, or have their dog dig at source. A passive alert does not guarantee that the dog won't disturb evidence or that he won't damage property. Having the dog on a leash, with an observant handler on the other end, does.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> Bombs require a passive alert but that's really about all that does. Some certifying entities require that the dog not disturb the source, but a good handler can still use an aggressive alert, if he's been trained and is paying attention. ...



An aggressive response of any type with an explosives detection dog is both dangerous and ill advised. If a person can't train a dog to not be aggressive toward a target, they shouldn't be deploying these types of dogs. I'm not aware of any entity that conducts certification that allows any aggressiveness towards a target. 

As for working a cadaver dog off leash, I've found, through personal experience, it's much easier to clear large acreage utilizing a controlled off leash search than using a leash of any type. The only time I ever worked a cadaver dog on-leash involved a safety issue. Otherwise, the dog responded by sitting and remained there until released. 

DFrost


----------



## julie allen (Dec 24, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> I think that it's a mistake to have these dogs working off leash. I'm sure that there are some that can do it, but I've seen certified people miss, or have their dog dig at source. A passive alert does not guarantee that the dog won't disturb evidence or that he won't damage property. Having the dog on a leash, with an observant handler on the other end, does.


With all the wilderness areas, and disaster areas we cover, it would be next to impossible to work a dog on lead. 

The digging is an aggressive behavior, hence why it is discouraged for hrd. One of mine loves to dig, we have taken it down to just a couple of scratches now, but still she wants to be as close to source as possible. So there have been times when she couldn't work certain scenarios where that would matter.

You can train a good search pattern for any type of area. Directionals work well, so if you feel the dog didn't cover a place well enough, simply point and send. Having the dog offlead, it can use air currents to its full advantage, get into places we can't go as easily, and it doesn't get slowed down by a handler dragging on the lead trying to maneuver through weird spots. 

You can be just as observant, if not moreso, standing back and watching the dog work rather than 6 feet away. You may see a slight shift in its nose, a turn of the tail, a falter in step, that you may not see if beside him. Your own body doesn't block any air currents, shift the scent, or encourage the dog either way. 
Good training and handling in no way requires a leash.

Also I will add, certification doesn't necessarily mean squat. I have seen many certified dogs and handlers, that couldn't own way out of a wet paper sack. I wouldn't deploy a non certified dog, but wouldn't dare think just because they have a certification means they are any good. Sort of like registration papers, I still want to see what the dog can do.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Earlier I wrote,


> Bombs require a passive alert but that's really about all that does. Some certifying entities require that the dog not disturb the source, but a good handler can still use an aggressive alert, if he's been trained and is paying attention.





David Frost said:


> An aggressive response of any type with an explosives detection dog is both dangerous and ill advised. If a person can't train a dog to not be aggressive toward a target, they shouldn't be deploying these types of dogs. I'm not aware of any entity that conducts certification that allows any aggressiveness towards a target.


My first sentence should be read as absolute. My second sentence referred to searching for other materials where there's a concern that the dog might damage it or himself. 



David Frost said:


> As for working a cadaver dog off leash, I've found, through personal experience, it's much easier to clear large acreage utilizing a controlled off leash search than using a leash of any type.


Of course it is. But one can't guarantee that a passive dog won't dig at source, no matter how perfect the training. 



David Frost said:


> The only time I ever worked a cadaver dog on-leash involved a safety issue. Otherwise, the dog responded by sitting and remained there until released.
> 
> DFrost


I'm sure that you've never had a dog make a mistake during an actual deployment. Does your cert standard include an allowance for false alerts that the dog can make and still pass? Does your cert for narco detection? Do you use the USPCA for your narco detection?


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

julie allen said:


> With all the wilderness areas, and disaster areas we cover, it would be next to impossible to work a dog on lead.


_"Next to impossible ..."_ is not impossible. Difficult and time consuming yes. But if there is an absolute requirement that a dog not touch the source, Using a leash if the best way to guarantee that the dog does not do so. It's really a moot point anyway. If there's a dead body in the _"wilderness"_ that's been there for any time at all, the local animals will have had their way with it. There's little chance that a body that's been dismembered by time and animals is going to have any evidentiary value decreased by the pawing or two, of a dog. 



julie allen said:


> The digging is an aggressive behavior, hence why it is discouraged for hrd. One of mine loves to dig, we have taken it down to just a couple of scratches now, but still she wants to be as close to source as possible. So there have been times when she couldn't work certain scenarios where that would matter.


You could have worked those scenarios if you'd restrained her with a leash. 



julie allen said:


> You can be just as observant, if not moreso, standing back and watching the dog work rather than 6 feet away.


Perhaps. But you can't pull a dog that's decided to dig, no matter how he's been trained, without a leash. You can call him away, but that's not going to be as fast or as sure. 



julie allen said:


> You may see a slight shift in its nose, a turn of the tail, a falter in step, that you may not see if beside him.


Who said anything about being _"beside"_ the dog? 



julie allen said:


> Good training and handling in no way requires a leash.


No one has said that it does. 



julie allen said:


> Also I will add, certification doesn't necessarily mean squat.


It means that at the moment the dog was tested, he passed the requirements of the cert. Absent anything untoward going on, of course. That's a bit more than _"squat."_ 



julie allen said:


> I have seen many certified dogs and handlers, that couldn't own way out of a wet paper sack.


Me too. But every dog that's going to be deployed on a search should have been certified by some reputable entity. 



julie allen said:


> I wouldn't deploy a non certified dog, but wouldn't dare think just because they have a certification means they are any good. Sort of like registration papers, I still want to see what the dog can do.


So if you call an outside team to assist you, you require that they put on a demo before you allow them to search? Or do you accept some certs and not others? Any national certs that you don't accept?


----------



## Marta Wajngarten (Jul 30, 2006)

julie allen said:


> Not sure why he entered the water again.


He went back to the boat to get some thing? He thought he could unflip it? Bring the boat back... 

So your dog did one alert and was taught a new one, but doesn't actually utilize both at this point?


----------



## julie allen (Dec 24, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> _"Next to impossible ..."_ is not impossible. Difficult and time consuming yes. But if there is an absolute requirement that a dog not touch the source, Using a leash if the best way to guarantee that the dog does not do so. It's really a moot point anyway. If there's a dead body in the _"wilderness"_ that's been there for any time at all, the local animals will have had their way with it. There's little chance that a body that's been dismembered by time and animals is going to have any evidentiary value decreased by the pawing or two, of a dog.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Personally, no, unless I have experience with the handler, I will not rely on certifications from any entity when asking for assistance. There are a few people I would trust, if the say the handler is competent, then yes I would rely on their word. 
I would not use a dog that has no certification, for legal aspects. 

If you stop a dog during the search, for example, the dog wants to scratch at an area, then you are only getting an area of interest, which isn't an alert, do you waste valuable time and resources where you can use a dog that would give an accurate alert so what is the point in using the first dog on a search that requires minimal disturbance? 

There is more to hrd than finding a body in the wilderness, Lou. If it were that simple we wouldn't have to use k9s. The dog can find all sorts of forensic evidence with human remains scent, and that footprint, hair sample, drop of blood, minute tissue fragment, etc, is not where you want a dog digging. It's not CSI Miami, we have real backwoods boys that try to piece together crime scenes, where there could be evidence far from body. You can walk all over evidence without knowing it, yet sending a dog offlead, the dog alerts as it picks up evidence where wind is swirling will give you a much better preservation of the scene. 

The rest of your comments, I covered in the first post.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> I'm sure that you've never had a dog make a mistake during an actual deployment. cert Do you use the USPCA for your narco detection?


You would be wrong. No I don't use USPCA. Not since they buckled to ATF and require the NORT. I've said that on numerous occasions.

DFrost


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

julie allen said:


> Personally, no, unless I have experience with the handler, I will not rely on certifications from any entity when asking for assistance.


Not ANY entity? Are you in a position on your team/LE agency that you make such decisions? I want to make sure that I understand. You seem to be telling us that if YOU, your team, your LE agency (I don't know your situation) asks for help from a neighboring team, and YOU don't know that team, YOU demand that they perform a test before YOU let them search. Is that correct? 



julie allen said:


> If you stop a dog during the search, for example, the dog wants to scratch at an area, then you are only getting an area of interest, which isn't an alert


For a dog that's trained for an aggressive alert, a _"scratch at an area"_ IS an alert. 



julie allen said:


> There is more to hrd than finding a body in the wilderness, Lou.


Yes, I know. 



julie allen said:


> If it were that simple we wouldn't have to use k9s.


There's nothing _"simple"_ about _"finding a body"_ in a couple of hundred acres of _"wilderness."_ 



julie allen said:


> The dog can find all sorts of forensic evidence with human remains scent, and that footprint, hair sample, drop of blood, minute tissue fragment, etc, is not where you want a dog digging.


Again, I know. As I've said, when the dog starts to scratch, he's eased away from the spot with the leash. Then the spot is marked for investigation by the investigators. As David has said, _" Just because a dog is trained to respond aggressively, you don't have to let the dog scratch the paint down to bare metal."_ Similarly when an aggressive alert dog starts to dig, you don't have to let him dig on through to China. 



julie allen said:


> It's not CSI Miami, we have real backwoods boys that try to piece together crime scenes, where there could be evidence far from body.


Wow! That's just amazing Julie. We don't have anything like that here in the big city. If they can't find a body here, they just wander on back to the office. Lol. 



julie allen said:


> You can walk all over evidence without knowing it, yet sending a dog offlead, the dog alerts as it picks up evidence where wind is swirling will give you a much better preservation of the scene.


Nonsense. If you walk into that are with a dog on leash that's trained for an aggressive alert he'll let you know that you're in the vicinity of HRD long before you _"walk all over"_ it.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> No I don't use USPCA. Not since they buckled to ATF and require the NORT.


So what detection cert do you use? Does it allow a dog to pass if he false alerts? 



David Frost said:


> I've said that on numerous occasions.


Sorry David. I don't follow you around taking notes on what you've said.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> So what detection cert do you use? Does it allow a dog to pass if he false alerts?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry David. I don't follow you around taking notes on what you've said.



We have an in-house certification. It is written into the General Order and the Department K9 Manual. Drug dogs are required to be 90% proficient with less than 10% false/unproductive response rate. Perfection has never been required for probable cause in any court. Our program has been upheld in state, district, CCA (6th) and reviewed as part of a case during a USC decision. 

Conducting training so the dog is never wrong is possible. It's just not realistic. I've always been of the opinion, you will never know what you dog is capable of doing until you find out what it can not do. At any rate, I wouldn't believe there was a dog out there that was perfect, if used during actual searches regardless of who told me. I've been around too long to believe in fairy tales.

As for not following me around. thank you.

DFrost


----------



## julie allen (Dec 24, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> Not ANY entity? Are you in a position on your team/LE agency that you make such decisions? I want to make sure that I understand. You seem to be telling us that if YOU, your team, your LE agency (I don't know your situation) asks for help from a neighboring team, and YOU don't know that team, YOU demand that they perform a test before YOU let them search. Is that correct?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, a test doesn't cut it. Almost any dog handler team can pass a test, hence the reason we have both seen crappy certified teams. Seeing the dogs work in real life, or training with the teams are what gets them used or not.
Again, the aggressive alert dogs are not preferred here for hrd, so the scratching isn't an alert, a passive alert dog isn't going to be scratching, so you are going in circles.
I have yet to see a dog that can alert when not in odor. So during certain conditions, the dog will be well passed where the actual item is located.

Have you worked an hrd dog on rubble piles not cleared for searchers yet? Or large brush piles? Sink holes? Thick undergrowth wooded areas in Illinois or Tennessee? Rock cliffs? Sure it can be done onlead, but I would like to see the man or woman capable of doing it without hindering the dog.
The whole reason to use the dog is to make it easier and faster for us. A dog having to work at the pace of the handler is not doing either. Narcotic dogs make finds, the handler themselves could make, but it would take an awful lot of work. Same with us. We could go probe every inch of two hundred acres, but its a lot more efficient to use the dogs.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

julie allen said:


> Have you worked an hrd dog on rubble piles not cleared for searchers yet? Or large brush piles? Sink holes? Thick undergrowth wooded areas in Illinois or Tennessee? .


Sometimes, people get so wrapped up in training and training theories, they forget operational realities. I've yet to see a search fail during planning. During training, the subject always goes home safe. 

DFrost


----------



## julie allen (Dec 24, 2010)

david frost said:


> sometimes, people get so wrapped up in training and training theories, they forget operational realities. I've yet to see a search fail during planning. During training, the subject always goes home safe.
> 
> Dfrost


8)


----------



## Craig Snyder (May 7, 2012)

julie allen said:


> Personally, no, unless I have experience with the handler, I will not rely on certifications from any entity when asking for assistance. There are a few people I would trust, if the say the handler is competent, then yes I would rely on their word.


I think this is doing a disservice to many dog teams. You basically just said you wouldn't trust any FEMA K9 teams. This goes against almost everything NIMS and ICS is designed to address. This is the exact reason NIMS typing was developed.

I think there has to be some trust between teams. If a team follows a known standard and routinely trains and certifies their dogs and people to that standard, you have to trust that their teams can do the job their cert says. I agree that you can have a crappy dog pass a test on any given day. But the same holds true for other emergency services. 

As a firefighter, I often have absolutely no clue who some of the men and woman are that show up to assist at a fire ground. But if I asked a chief to send me a crew to go up the aerial ladder and make a trench cut, or to provide a RIT for standby I have to trust in that companies policies and training and the chief's knowledge of his crews. I have to trust that he gives me RIT certified firefighters, or firefighters that can work a roof.

People in SAR need to develop the same type of response. If a search needs more dogs for whatever reason, you can't not call them in cause YOU don't know them personally. If they train, certify, and are part of a reasonably responsible team with established SOP's and policies, you would be irresponsible to not deploy them just because you personally don't know them.

Police, firefighters, and the military have learned to do this over the years. SAR teams need to do this as well. Its the whole concept behind NIMS and ICS. While NASAR or other standards aren't the end all and be all, you need something to hang you hat on. You can't be the sole arbitrator of what's right for a particular search.

I can also turn it around the other way. If everyone thought as you do, why would anyone bother with training to standards or certify? I'd think heck, it doesn't matter, all I have to do is convince Julie my dog is good.

With a policy like that, large responses, whether for wilderness searches, the world trade center or Katrina would be all but impossible.

Firefighter and police trust their lives on this approach every day. Surely SAR teams can utilize it somehow.

Craig


----------



## julie allen (Dec 24, 2010)

Craig Snyder said:


> I think this is doing a disservice to many dog teams. You basically just said you wouldn't trust any FEMA K9 teams. This goes against almost everything NIMS and ICS is designed to address. This is the exact reason NIMS typing was developed.
> 
> I think there has to be some trust between teams. If a team follows a known standard and routinely trains and certifies their dogs and people to that standard, you have to trust that their teams can do the job their cert says. I agree that you can have a crappy dog pass a test on any given day. But the same holds true for other emergency services.
> 
> ...


No this is the same Craig. If I asked the "chief" I would trust their judgement. 
However on every search, we get so many gung ho search dogs that show up, no way would we utilize them. 
On a house fire, would you let someone in that showed up and tossed a paper up saying he was a fireman?

Documents are so easily falsified, and sadly there isn't one organization that strictly covers SAR dogs. I have tested with, and observed several of the national certifying agencies, and have not seen one where every dog certified through them were competent, with the exception of FEMA. However, even some of the state teams have dogs that shouldn't be used, from what I have personally witnessed for lack of upkeep of training. Though their coordinators know who would be deployed, and who wouldn't, so as I stated yes I would trust their judgement in situations like that.


----------



## Craig Snyder (May 7, 2012)

julie allen said:


> No this is the same Craig. If I asked the "chief" I would trust their judgement.
> However on every search, we get so many gung ho search dogs that show up, no way would we utilize them.
> On a house fire, would you let someone in that showed up and tossed a paper up saying he was a fireman?
> 
> Documents are so easily falsified, and sadly there isn't one organization that strictly covers SAR dogs. I have tested with, and observed several of the national certifying agencies, and have not seen one where every dog certified through them were competent, with the exception of FEMA. However, even some of the state teams have dogs that shouldn't be used, from what I have personally witnessed for lack of upkeep of training. Though their coordinators know who would be deployed, and who wouldn't, so as I stated yes I would trust their judgement in situations like that.


That's not what you originally said. You said you would only trust a handful of other handlers. Not chiefs of other teams or teams in general. I agree that you have to watch out for self dispatching K9's and people that show up by themselves. But your comments made it sound like you wouldn't allow any K9 work that you didn't have firsthand knowledge of.

I won't disagree with you about lack of upkeep or other issues that happen. But on a large, multiagency event, you have to rely a certain amount on certification and a trust in the system. It's why we try to build the systems and certify in advance of events. 

Also, if you have a bunch of gun-ho unknown teams showing up, that would seem to me a lack of control of the command and staging areas. I know some will always breach the perimeters, but most should not. Of course, nothing prevents someone from just striking out on their own into an area. That is always a problem.

I'm glad you clarified that. You had me worried.

Craig


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

I have seen way too many "certified" teams be completely useless. I go back to the fellow who failed the 40 acre NASAR test because his dog found the victim too quickly because he knew how to strategize and his dog was an incredible dog with many real finds before the test was made official (he was a beta tester and also a county emergency manager).....I have also seen folks who passed the same test because they were in an easy open flatlands area on a good day and got lucky but did not have a clue and would not know how to work terrain features unless it was in a test on paper. Which one would you use?

So I would not trust a certification without some info/background on the person. And, yes, we have aslo had someone show up to say they had this and that certification only to have it NOT be the case.

I DO believe in certifications but don't see a lot of decisions made based on whether or not someone has them. Unless it is for HRD, and then mainly for a criminal search. Fortunately we have enough relationships with most of the teams within 5 or 6 hours that we can ask their leaders (who we know and trust) who is good and what are their strengths and weaknesses and suggest them to the IC if additional resources are needed.

I think the deal is very few single person SAR searches turn into huge multiagency searches. Even then, people are picking up the phone and cherry picking resources based on who they know and trust.

Passive vs. Agressive....you know for a lot of cadaver it probably does not matter but when you get into forensics type stuff where there is a higher liklihood of a crime it could, but it is really a moot point to me because even if a bear ate half the victim, the police still demand a passive alert dogs and that is what we give them.


----------



## julie allen (Dec 24, 2010)

julie allen said:


> Personally, no, unless I have experience with the handler, I will not rely on certifications from any entity when asking for assistance. There are a few people I would trust, if the say the handler is competent, then yes I would rely on their word.
> I would not use a dog that has no certification, for legal aspects.
> 
> If you stop a dog during the search, for example, the dog wants to scratch at an area, then you are only getting an area of interest, which isn't an alert, do you waste valuable time and resources where you can use a dog that would give an accurate alert so what is the point in using the first dog on a search that requires minimal disturbance?
> ...


Craig, originally here is what I said. There are a few I would trust to say the dogs are worthy. ( teams I should clarify)

The scenes we go to, usually have one deputy that should have gone home three hours ago, and he has no clue who is coming in, and as soon as you say k9, you hey flagged through with no questions. No offence to LE, but many have no idea about certifications or who to avoid.

I try to train with as many people and teams that I can within surrounding states. It doesn't take long at all to see who is competent. 

Of course on large searches, as in the world trade center, I have no say anywhere lol. 
On the recent tornado that hit KY/OH, there was a huge foul up. I can't say much more, other than I believe they are now working on who can come in and who can't. 

I have no problems working with good teams, sorry if I sounded snotty. I just see how screwed up a poor team can be, and leave a bad name for all k9s that can be utilized after them.


----------



## Craig Snyder (May 7, 2012)

I won't disagree with anything you posted Nancy. To me, that means that maybe we don't quite yet have the testing right. In your example, anyone taking the NASAR 40-60 acre test should know you can't find the subject in the first ten minutes. So keep the dog close to you and make sure you waste the first ten minutes if you are that good! Of course, working to get that requirement removed might be the better option in the long run.

An argument can be made that if he found the subject that fast, any average team had to probably be ranging really far away and maybe he got lucky. Maybe working like that his dog might miss an area cause he ranges so far. No idea and it doesn't really matter, just playing devils advocate as to why the requirement is there. They might have been the greatest team to ever fail and be the exception that makes the rule.

I know a guy who did the same thing but he was just over the ten minute mark and they had no choice but to certify him. 

I guess my point is that standards need to be set, used, and recognized. A national framework is required. We can't just be caviler in dismissing them and use our own. The next chief will just put their own standard in. If we don't like them or have problems with them we need to work to improve and change them. 

Craig


----------



## Craig Snyder (May 7, 2012)

julie allen said:


> Craig, originally here is what I said. There are a few I would trust to say the dogs are worthy. ( teams I should clarify)
> 
> Of course on large searches, as in the world trade center, I have no say anywhere lol.
> On the recent tornado that hit KY/OH, there was a huge foul up. I can't say much more, other than I believe they are now working on who can come in and who can't.
> ...


:-D. I understand where you are coming from. We can have many of the same issues. I think you clarified it just fine. That first posting kind of threw me.

Craig


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

I don't know that any test is going to tell if someone is prepared to do a specific job. To me all these certification tests do (at least for SAR) is say the handler and dog "get it" and have a basic skillset.

It is still up to the training records, integrity of the dog handler to know their own limits, and knowledge of people fielding that team to know how to use them.


----------



## julie allen (Dec 24, 2010)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> I don't know that any test is going to tell if someone is prepared to do a specific job. To me all these certification tests do (at least for SAR) is say the handler and dog "get it" and have a basic skillset.
> 
> It is still up to the training records, integrity of the dog handler to know their own limits, and knowledge of people fielding that team to know how to use them.


So true. I feel it is important to have certifications, yet its not a be all end all deal.
The passive alert, as you mentioned, most of the time wouldn't matter at all. Though many will not utilize aggressive alert dogs. For good reason on some searches. 
More and more with LE here, and narc detection dogs, I see them.wanting to get away from possibly destructive dogs.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> It is still up to the training records, integrity of the dog handler to know their own limits, and knowledge of people fielding that team to know how to use them.


In my not so humble opinion, properly kept training records are the single most important part of determining the proficiency of a team. 

DFrost


----------



## Craig Snyder (May 7, 2012)

Not disagreeing. Certification is just a starting point. 

Just because a FF is pro board certified doesn't necessarily mean I'd want him as my partner going in on a working fire. I've seen some bad FF's too. But I'm more comfortable with that than someone who had nothing.

Craig


----------



## Ariel Peldunas (Oct 18, 2008)

julie allen said:


> With all the wilderness areas, and disaster areas we cover, it would be next to impossible to work a dog on lead.
> 
> The digging is an aggressive behavior, hence why it is discouraged for hrd. One of mine loves to dig, we have taken it down to just a couple of scratches now, but still she wants to be as close to source as possible. So there have been times when she couldn't work certain scenarios where that would matter.
> 
> ...


I agree with you, Julie. In my experience, detection dogs are typically much more efficient without their handler on the other end of the lead. I can certainly work my HRD dog on lead if I have to, but I am more of a hindrance than a help when she is working odor. I understand a leash may be required for safety, but whenever possible, I encourage handlers to allow their dogs to work off leash (provided they have a solid recall). If the handler has to be tethered to the dog and direct where the dog puts his nose in order for the dog to be an effective detection tool, I believe that defeats the purpose. Of course, there are times that I need to detail an area my dog may have missed, but I find that being able to stand back and just watch the dog work is a more advantageous approach. 

As you mentioned Julie, when we have a dog on leash, we can interfere with air currents or the dog's natural search pattern, especially during large area searches. Scent does not always move in a perfect cone that the dog can easily follow. Trying to allow the dog to work scent while on leash often results in the handler impeding the dog's efforts.

Just my observations based on my experience, but I am happy with the success I have had.


----------



## Ariel Peldunas (Oct 18, 2008)

David Frost said:


> Whewww, you scared me. When you said aggressive, I formed a mental picture of your dog bringing you a femur, or a still articulated leg ha ha. I see the "bark" as the aggressive. I feel much better now.
> 
> DFrost


When I was overseas, a number of the other HRD dog handlers had aggressive alert dogs. I am not sure if they chose aggressive alert because they were unable to train a passive alert or if they actually preferred the dogs to dig and bite at the source. If it was a conscious choice, I don't understand it, but I believe it was a matter of ability. One handler wanted his dog to bark, but she would just disregard his commands to bark and tear at the source until he dragged her away and forced her reward into her mouth. I believe he trained using scented towels and the dog just enjoyed playing with the source more than anything. Another dog would scratch for a few moments and then get impatient and carry the training aid back to his handler. In training, this was a disgusting inconvenience, but on a search when the dog sat a body up and tried to drag it out of a ditch back to the handler, it was disturbing.

Your post just reminded me of that ...


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Ariel Peldunas said:


> Julie. In my experience, detection dogs are typically much more efficient without their handler on the other end of the lead. .



I've hunted over some amazing dogs. I get a laugh thinking of them working a section of ground, on-leash trying to find quail, pheasant etc. ha ha Or watching retrieving trials and seeing the handler trying to keep up with the dog when the dog is working double blinds, ha ha. Quite an image. I imagine there are some people that just don't have the ability to train a dog to work properly off-leash. 

DFrost


----------



## Ariel Peldunas (Oct 18, 2008)

David Frost said:


> I've hunted over some amazing dogs. I get a laugh thinking of them working a section of ground, on-leash trying to find quail, pheasant etc. ha ha Or watching retrieving trials and seeing the handler trying to keep up with the dog when the dog is working double blinds, ha ha. Quite an image. I imagine there are some people that just don't have the ability to train a dog to work properly off-leash.
> 
> DFrost


I always preferred to work my detection dogs on leash, but after working for the USMC and spending time with the working group that created the IED Detector Dog program (which uses labs trained to do blinds and to handle off leash as field trial dogs do) there was no doubt in my mind that off leash detection dogs were much more reliable and efficient. I worked for a civilian company training dogs modeled after the IED Detector dogs and I actually believe it was easier to train and handle those dogs because the human error factor and handler cues were minimized greatly. 

Staying on topic, I believe using an aggressive alert can also minimize the effect of handler cues and errors. The handler can reward a naturally occurring behavior rather than trying to associate a trained behavior with the odor. Even the best handlers still make subtle changes to their behavior when their dog is in odor and being masters of body language, dogs pick up on these very quickly. In my experience aggressive alert dogs seem to check back less with the handler than passive ...although I have certainly seen aggressive alert dogs that have learned to check back and read handler cues.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Ariel Peldunas said:


> Staying on topic, I believe using an aggressive alert can also minimize the effect of handler cues and errors. The handler can reward a naturally occurring behavior rather than trying to associate a trained behavior with the odor. Even the best handlers still make subtle changes to their behavior when their dog is in odor and being masters of body language, dogs pick up on these very quickly. In my experience aggressive alert dogs seem to check back less with the handler than passive ...although I have certainly seen aggressive alert dogs that have learned to check back and read handler cues.


I think it's all in the training. If training is being conducted blind to the handler, the handler won't know to cue the dog. Therefore, the dog will not be able to pick up a cue from the handler and has to rely on the nose. Training not using blind hides can and will cause problems. 

DFrost


----------



## Chris Keister (Jun 28, 2008)

Thanks for the replies. Kind of de-railed a bit but an interesting thread with some good input. 

I have some time cuz the pups just 10 weeks. I'm gonna be trying some new things and some things I have never done before ie tracking. So i am leaning toward sticking with what i am familiar and what the pup is doing naturally.

I still have to pitch the department at some point. They will be much more open to bomb than dope. I'm not holding my breath on either though. 

So I'll wait a bit, work on all the other stuff and if I get a no go hopefully there is some department somewhere that will want me and my dog 

Thanks again for the info


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> We have an in-house certification. It is written into the General Order and the Department K9 Manual. Drug dogs are required to be 90% proficient with less than 10% false/unproductive response rate. Perfection has never been required for probable cause in any court.


First let me tell you how much I love your term _"unproductive response rate."_ lol. The initial term for this was the "No BS one" that I still use, "False alert." Trainers, in efforts to hide the fact that their dogs sometimes alert when no drugs are present, and none have ever been present, have invented the term that you favor. You use the term to cover both false alerts and alerts where no drugs have been found after the alert. Some will use the excuse of the dog having found "residue." Some do it automatically without ever attempting to verify the truth of it or not. If you've set up a certification where there is the possibility that "residue" is present, you've done something horribly wrong. So let's simply admit the fact that your in-house certification allows for a dog to *false alert *10% of the time. OK? 

Courts have been dumbed down by handlers who have told them that it's not possible to have a dog that does not false alert. Yet the cert that most agenices use don't allow for false alerts on searches for humans or bombs! If, during a cert, your dog is allowed to false alert 10% of the time, it might mean that during street work, he's false alerting at the rate of 50%, 60% or even higher! If an agency is you're using their dogs for probable cause to gain entry to cars, if they're working at even your claimed 10% false alert rate, they're violating the constitutional rights of 10% of the people whose cars they gain entry to. It would seem, based on your cert, that's OK with you. It's not with me. 

And if a dog is false alerting, he's probably also missing, allowing 10% of the drugs he might find, to walk. That's if he works at the 90% level. Chances are that he falls much lower when he's certified and out of school and the direct observation of the trainer. 

I’m wondering if you allow a 10% false alert rate for the certification of your patrol dogs and/or your bomb dogs? I can't imagine a bomb dog that's allowed to miss 10% of the bomb that he finds?! If you don't allow false alerts for finding humans or bombs, why do it for narcotics? Quite a few certs allow for false alerts on narcotics searches. I don't know of one that allows it for bombs or for humans. Do you? 



David Frost said:


> Our program has been upheld in state, district, CCA (6th) and reviewed as part of a case during a USC decision.


Great news. Look for that to change as courts become more educated, as they learn that the OC system that you use allows handlers to cue their dogs into false alerts. 



David Frost said:


> Conducting training so the dog is never wrong is possible.


Yes, I know. So why don't you train to that standard? 



David Frost said:


> It's just not realistic.


Sure it is! Perhaps you can tell us why you think that it's not realistic? 



David Frost said:


> I've always been of the opinion, you will never know what you dog is capable of doing until you find out what it can not do.


What a great saying! It must really entertain your students and the audiences you do PR demos for. Philosophy is fun! lol



David Frost said:


> At any rate, I wouldn't believe there was a dog out there that was perfect


There's a difference between "perfection" and a dog that doesn't false alert. I've never claimed "perfection" in anything. 



David Frost said:


> if used during actual searches regardless of who told me. I've been around too long to believe in fairy tales.


Another great saying. 



David Frost said:


> As for not following me around. thank you.


Then it's foolish of you to think that I'd know about everything that you've said on the forum, as you seemed to think I should with your comment, _"I've said that on numerous occasions."_ chastising me for not knowing that you've discussed this before.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

julie allen said:


> No, a test doesn't cut it. Almost any dog handler team can pass a test, hence the reason we have both seen crappy certified teams. Seeing the dogs work in real life, or training with the teams are what gets them used or not.


This is quite different from what you said previously. And you somehow missed my question asking if you were in a in a position on your team/LE agency that you make such decisions? 



julie allen said:


> Again, the aggressive alert dogs are not preferred here for hrd, so the scratching isn't an alert, a passive alert dog isn't going to be scratching, so you are going in circles.


No circles on my part. We were talking about aggressive alert dogs. You said, _"if you stop a dog during the search,"_ when he _"wants to scratch at an area"_ _"was [not] an alert."_ You said that it was _"an area of interest."_ You were wrong. For the type of dog that was under discussion, it IS an alert. 



julie allen said:


> I have yet to see a dog that can alert when not in odor. So during certain conditions, the dog will be well passed where the actual item is located.


I'm guessing that here you're referring to the part of the discussion where you talked about working the dog off-leash and were talking about _"walk[ing] all over evidence"_ if the dog was being worked on leash. And of course in the situation you now describe, where the dog has to walk downwind of the source before he can detect it, THE DOG might be "walking all over the evidence" and the handler probably would have following him in doing that. Working a dog off leash hardly guarantees that this won't happen. Pretty much a pointless argument on your part. 



julie allen said:


> Have you worked an hrd dog on rubble piles not cleared for searchers yet? Or large brush piles? Sink holes? Thick undergrowth wooded areas in Illinois or Tennessee? Rock cliffs? Sure it can be done onlead, but I would like to see the man or woman capable of doing it without hindering the dog.


I have not worked HRD in such areas. I don't see what any of the situations or locations has to do with this discussion. Environments such as you describe can be found just about everywhere, they're not limited to those two states. This is just another form of the silly argument, "My situation is harder than yours." If your dog sits, you won't even see it in some of those areas. The slight hindrance that a handler gives when he's working a properly selected, trained and handled dog on leash, is minimal. There's no rush to search for HRD on a _"rubble pile not cleared for searchers."_ Searching for live in such a location certainly is desirable, but that's not part of this discussion. And so this part of your question makes no sense and lacks a point. 



julie allen said:


> The whole reason to use the dog is to make it easier and faster for us.


Imagine my surprise. I thought we used dogs because their sense of smell was better than ours. Now, after all these years I learn that it's because they make it _"easier and faster for us."_ 



julie allen said:


> A dog having to work at the pace of the handler is not doing either.


Yes, I know. But in truth, he's being used because of his sense of smell. Not because of his speed or convenience. 



julie allen said:


> Narcotic dogs make finds, the handler themselves could make, but it would take an awful lot of work. Same with us.


Really? You have officers who can sniff a door crack and tell if there's a gram of cocaine in the console. WOW! I'm very impressed. ROFL. 



julie allen said:


> We could go probe every inch of two hundred acres, but its a lot more efficient to use the dogs.


Love the straw man argument!


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> Passive vs. Agressive....you know for a lot of cadaver it probably does not matter but when you get into forensics type stuff where there is a higher liklihood of a crime it could, but it is really a moot point to me because even if a bear ate half the victim, the police still demand a passive alert dogs and that is what we give them.


Such _"demands"_ from the police are often based on what they've seen on TV, what they've been told by people who have reasoned things out without any real knowledge or on a hunch. In reality, I don't know of an agency that even asks which kind of alert is in use by the dog handlers that they call out. The agencies that I know of don't even care about aggressive or passive alerts, sometimes they don't even know the difference. They just want a dog that will find the evidence. Any disturbance that occurs, and again, restraining the dog minimizes that, can be accounted for. Can you cite some case where, because a dog disturbed the evidence that a case was not filed or was lost? 

Talking theory is great, but real life is something else quite again.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

julie allen said:


> More and more with LE here, and narc detection dogs, I see them.wanting to get away from possibly destructive dogs.


If people try to work an aggressive alert dog off leash but don't have control, which is probably the case, more often than not, their admins will think that a passive alert will cause them less issues. But that has nothing to do with properly training or working a dog. On another note, many admins think that having a patrol dog that barks, rather than bites when he makes the find, will reduce their liability. They're wrong too. 

An aggressive alert dog worked properly is NOT _"destructive"_ but many uninformed people think that they are.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> In my not so humble opinion, properly kept training records are the single most important part of determining the proficiency of a team.
> 
> DFrost


I think that spot checks and double blind testing, where the handler is directly observed by the trainer, is far more important than training records. If a handler is intentionally doing the wrong thing, you'll never know it from his records. He'll falsify them to make himself look good and/or will simply omit things that make him look bad. There are teams that take credit for finds when they roll up on other agency's searches and stops, after the illegal substances have already been found. There are handlers who simply don't log searches on stops they make where nothing is found, to keep their find ratio high. 

Even if a handler is completely honest and above board in keeping his stats, it will take quite some time, maybe weeks and sometimes even months, for poor work, filled with false alerts, to be discovered by looking only at records, even if the handler is completely honest. By then dozens of people may have had their rights violated. 

Records are but one facet of determining _"the proficiency of a team"_ and they're certainly not the most important. "Eyes on" by a trainer, coupled with double blind testing, is far more accurate in determining the quality of a detection team.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Ariel Peldunas said:


> I agree with you, Julie. In my experience, detection dogs are typically much more efficient without their handler on the other end of the lead.


Of course. With the training system that you use, a handler can easily influence a dog into an alert or dissuade him from one, even if he's on scent. 



Ariel Peldunas said:


> I can certainly work my HRD dog on lead if I have to, but I am more of a hindrance than a help when she is working odor.


I understand this too. If someone has not been properly trained, it's easy to be a hindrance. 



Ariel Peldunas said:


> I understand a leash may be required for safety, but whenever possible, I encourage handlers to allow their dogs to work off leash (provided they have a solid recall).


If a dog does not have _"a solid recall,"_ he should not be fielded, even if he's kept on leash all the time. Leashes and collars break. Sometimes dogs pull their collars off over their heads. Sometimes dogs pull the leash from the handler's hand. 



Ariel Peldunas said:


> If the handler has to be tethered to the dog and direct where the dog puts his nose in order for the dog to be an effective detection tool, I believe that defeats the purpose.


I've not seen anyone in this discussion say that they MUST be _"tethered to the dog"_ in order to _"direct [him] where to put his nose. "_ Straw man arguments abound here with some. 



Ariel Peldunas said:


> Of course, there are times that I need to detail an area my dog may have missed, but I find that being able to stand back and just watch the dog work is a more advantageous approach.


Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't. 



Ariel Peldunas said:


> As you mentioned Julie, when we have a dog on leash, we can interfere with air currents


ROFL. It's positively ridiculous to think that a handler can significantly interfere with air currents even in a building search, where the air currents are much more subdued than outdoors. If any such _"interfere[ence]"_ exists, it does so only for a few seconds. At worst, the handler's presence creates a very slight swirl that disappears, a few feet from him. Almost ALL narcotics detection dogs that work on the road do their searches on leash to keep them safe from traffic. To think that this interferes with the work is beyond absurd. Really grasping at straws here. 



Ariel Peldunas said:


> or the dog's natural search pattern, especially during large area searches.


Again, proper training mitigates this. 



Ariel Peldunas said:


> Scent does not always move in a perfect cone that the dog can easily follow.


No kiddin'! Good to know! 



Ariel Peldunas said:


> Trying to allow the dog to work scent while on leash often results in the handler impeding the dog's efforts.


Yep, especially if the handler has never been properly trained in doing this.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Ariel Peldunas said:


> When I was overseas, a number of the other HRD dog handlers had aggressive alert dogs. I am not sure if they chose aggressive alert because they were unable to train a passive alert or if they actually preferred the dogs to dig and bite at the source. If it was a conscious choice, I don't understand it, but I believe it was a matter of ability.


Kinda surprised that you didn't show them "the light." Perhaps you tried and they just laughed? 



Ariel Peldunas said:


> One handler wanted his dog to bark, but she would just disregard his commands to bark and tear at the source until he dragged her away and forced her reward into her mouth. *I believe he trained using scented towels * [Emphasis Added]


Sounds like you don't really know. Sounds like you're guessing. For the record, scented towels should only be used for the initial training or in problem solving, not in ongoing training. 



Ariel Peldunas said:


> and the dog just enjoyed playing with the source more than anything.


Yeah, that's a problem if you train search work as a game or a trick as most people do. 



Ariel Peldunas said:


> Another dog would scratch for a few moments and then get impatient and carry the training aid back to his handler.


As with narcotics training, HR training should be set up so that the dog can't do this. Don't want a dog getting into narcotics due to the potential for injury or for loss of the training aid. In HR the first is not so important but the latter still is. 



Ariel Peldunas said:


> In training, this was a disgusting inconvenience, but on a search when the dog sat a body up and tried to drag it out of a ditch back to the handler, it was disturbing.


Hmm. Maybe this is one of the handlers who did not have a _"solid recall?"_ Sound like you were the only one over there who was properly trained! Of course, you've already told us that you would hinder your dog if you had to work on-leash for some reason, so perhaps there were some holes?


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> I've hunted over some amazing dogs. I get a laugh thinking of them working a section of ground, on-leash trying to find quail, pheasant etc. ha ha


First let me ask, has anyone in this discussion suggested that such dogs be worked on leash? 

Comparing how work is done in one venue with how it's done in another may be entertaining for some but it's really just plain ol' dumb as it concerns this discussion. The work is different, the requirements are different and so is what the dog is expected to do when the find is made. Some may be amused by such comparisons but as far as furthering the discussion goes, it's worthless. 



David Frost said:


> I imagine there are some people that just don't have the ability to train a dog to work properly off-leash.


You really don't have to imagine this David. Go to any dog park and you'll see people who have to chase their dogs down to put leashes on them, when it's time to go home. 

I advocate that patrol dogs be worked off leash all the time except during training or crowd control. We have a few here, at least one in this discussion, who advocates that patrol dogs be kept on leash almost all the time. They say it's for _"liability reasons."_ The real reason is that they don't know how to get or maintain control in the street. Now they're advocating that the dog work off leash. Funny how their comments change with the wind! 

But this situation is different only because some have imposed the artificial requirement that the dog not touch HRD material at all. In truth, one or two paw marks is not going to change anything significantly and as long as the investigator is told that it happened, there's never been an issue. In this discussion we have heard from someone whose dog jumped into the trunk of a car, spit flying everywhere, right on top of the HR material. We haven't heard that it affected the case. Most such criticism is people who have little courtroom experience but IMAGINE what it's like, based on their wide experience at the movies or in front of their TV sets. 

With your vast experience I'm sure that you have many cases where because a dog touched some HR, the killer went free, right? Perhaps you can link us to some of them?


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> I think it's all in the training. If training is being conducted blind to the handler, the handler won't know to cue the dog. Therefore, the dog will not be able to pick up a cue from the handler and has to rely on the nose. Training not using blind hides can and will cause problems.
> 
> DFrost


Just about every dog knows the difference between training and working. It's very difficult to set up training that is completely realistic under the purview of the trainer. Sometimes just his presence is enough to tip the dog off that it's a training situation.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Lou says: "First let me tell you how much I love your term "unproductive response rate."

Thank you. I wish I could claim it as original. We all aspire for perfection, it's just not possible in the real world. Even the best built machines in the world have tolerances. It's not surprising there are tolerances when working with animals and humans. 

DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> If a handler is intentionally doing the wrong thing, you'll never know it from his records. He'll falsify them to make himself look good and/or will simply omit things that make him look bad. There are teams that take credit for finds when they roll up on other agency's searches and stops, after the illegal substances have already been found. There are handlers who simply don't log searches on stops they make where nothing is found, to keep their find ratio high.
> 
> .


I did qualify the statement by saying properly kept training records. I don't automatically assume my handlers are lying to me. I do however monitor training and on occasion make them find my training aids. You might have that problem with the people with which you know, train or work. I can't imagine a local department standing by while one of our Trooper's brags about his success, while taking the glory for someone other agency's drug find. Not to mention the stink that would arise if there was a cash seizure as well. We have newspapers and TV stations here in TN. I would imagine they like stories like that. We've caught up with the "outside" world. We have video and everything now.

DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> Great news. Look for that to change as courts become more educated, as they learn that the OC system that you use allows handlers to cue their dogs into false alerts.
> 
> 
> 
> .


Let me see, when was the last time I heard that??????? oh yeah, in court from one of the latest defense whores. They do like saying that. In fact there is one out there specifically and that is his tag line "cue their dogs into false alerts". He's a one trick pony. I did edit this only to say how petty and accusatory a statement like that is. Really a cheap shot. ha ha

DFrost


----------



## julie allen (Dec 24, 2010)

Lou, there are some things done that work well in training, as the things you have described above. Then there's real work, and some of that doesn't cut it lol.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> Such _"demands"_ from the police are often based on what they've seen on TV, what they've been told by people who have reasoned things out without any real knowledge or on a hunch. In reality, I don't know of an agency that even asks which kind of alert is in use by the dog handlers that they call out. The agencies that I know of don't even care about aggressive or passive alerts, sometimes they don't even know the difference. They just want a dog that will find the evidence. Any disturbance that occurs, and again, restraining the dog minimizes that, can be accounted for. Can you cite some case where, because a dog disturbed the evidence that a case was not filed or was lost?
> 
> Talking theory is great, but real life is something else quite again.


Why would I say I had been asked for something if I had not? Report direct observation is not "theory". I am one of the ones on or team who manages calls and they sometimes do ask for both of these things. It really doesn't matter to me what you have dealt with. I am stating what I have experienced in my locale.

I have been asked more by larger agencies with their own dog units as opposed to smaller agencies without any dogs so I really doubt it is a "TV" thing for them but probably folks who have dealt with torn up vehicles enough to have a passive indication mindset...which they have transferred to HR. Iimmediately when any body is found where I have been on a search it has been taped off and managed as a crime scene by LE even if it is pretty clear to everyone that it was probably natural causes or suicide. 

As far a caselaw - I already said that, for me, whether or not it is an issue was a moot point we have been asked for passive indications. Where did I say anything about caselaw? There is precious little cadaver case law, and the ones I know of are more concerned with training records than anything else.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Just because a dog is trained to respond aggressively, you don't have to let the dog scratch the paint down to bare metal.
Mensch, David, you always have the correct answer


----------



## julie allen (Dec 24, 2010)

Almost every agency has asked what the dog does to alert. On new missing persons, they normally don't care. If they are looking for evidence, they tell you fast they do not want a dog that is going to scratch up things. I would guess they get this from past experiences with k9s, not tv.
Yes I am in a position here to choose who comes in with k9s. What's pretty cool, is after we have worked with other agencies, we get calls about who we would recommend or who not to use. 

As far as searching off lead, you won't step on anything yourself, because you are far away from the k9 working. When they are out of sight, that's what the bark alert is for, as that is an aggressive alert which was pertinent to the thread Lou. You can easily stop a dog offlead or onlead with proper training, doesn't matter.

Yes there are times when asked to search for bodies where the scene isn't safe for handlers to enter. Of course the dogscan detect odor better than humans, which makes our job faster and easier so what are you even arguing there lou? 

Dogs will react differently when finding fairly fresh bodies, no matter how you train, unless you have access to train on whole bodies which few do. It's quite different when they see the person, vs scent in a can. Unlike narcotics where you train with samples in a bag, and usually the dogs actual finds are samples in a bag. Dogs know death, and know humans aren't supposed to be lying there bloated, no matter the scent. So the first few reactions to the actual body are usually different than the dog shows on training aids.

The scent cones vary greatly especially with high finds as in trees, and buried. They don't come straight up or straight down, sometimes vegetation is holding the only real scent depending on time the remains have.been there, so its common to move quite a way past these types until the dog gets in scent and works his way back. Then in some situations only scent is where its carried towards water especially with burieds. 
Almost every death is considered a crime scene while the hrd dogs are there, until proven otherwise, except in disaster situations. 

As far as case law, I can't provide you any info, but you may be interested in a recent case in Memphis tn, where no body has been found, but the k9s provided what led to the murder charges. I believe its one of the first. But I'm just a handler, so you can research that aspect if you would like to know more.


----------



## Chris Keister (Jun 28, 2008)

Even though this thread has traveled way off my original intent, it's loaded with good info. 

One thing I have found about dog boards is its very easy to figure out those who really know and do, from those that you have to strap on your waders to get through the BS. 

Defense "experts" gotta love em. ](*,):wink:


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Chris Keister said:


> Even though this thread has traveled way off my original intent, it's loaded with good info.
> 
> One thing I have found about dog boards is its very easy to figure out those who really know and do, from those that you have to strap on your waders to get through the BS.
> 
> Defense "experts" gotta love em. ](*,):wink:



although ya have to admit, you did get an answer. Some do still train an aggressive response. I still do on occasion. 

DFrost


----------



## Chris Keister (Jun 28, 2008)

Yes I did. Thank you


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> Imagine my surprise. I thought we used dogs because their sense of smell was better than ours. Now, after all these years I learn that it's because they make it _"easier and faster for us."_
> 
> Yes, I know. But in truth, he's being used because of his sense of smell. Not because of his speed or convenience.
> 
> ...


I think the "easier and faster" is exactly why many agencies use detector dogs. Your CPB dog teams can check hundreds of cars every day with a good chance of discovering contraband. Lots of cargo can be checked in ports and airports. It would take dozens of people to inspect the number of cars or the quantity of cargo that 1 dog team can do. And of course that is because of his sense of smell.


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> First let me tell you how much I love your term _"unproductive response rate."_ lol. The initial term for this was the "No BS one" that I still use, "False alert." Trainers, in efforts to hide the fact that their dogs sometimes alert when no drugs are present, and none have ever been present, have invented the term that you favor. You use the term to cover both false alerts and alerts where no drugs have been found after the alert. Some will use the excuse of the dog having found "residue." Some do it automatically without ever attempting to verify the truth of it or not. If you've set up a certification where there is the possibility that "residue" is present, you've done something horribly wrong. So let's simply admit the fact that your in-house certification allows for a dog to *false alert *10% of the time. OK?
> 
> Courts have been dumbed down by handlers who have told them that it's not possible to have a dog that does not false alert. Yet the cert that most agenices use don't allow for false alerts on searches for humans or bombs! If, during a cert, your dog is allowed to false alert 10% of the time, it might mean that during street work, he's false alerting at the rate of 50%, 60% or even higher! If an agency is you're using their dogs for probable cause to gain entry to cars, if they're working at even your claimed 10% false alert rate, they're violating the constitutional rights of 10% of the people whose cars they gain entry to. It would seem, based on your cert, that's OK with you. It's not with me.
> 
> ...


We know about your perfect towel-shredding system. Now please come with evidence that there is no fale alerting in this system and convince us all or please stop the BS about other systems.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> Lou says: "First let me tell you how much I love your term "unproductive response rate."
> 
> Thank you. I wish I could claim it as original. We all aspire for perfection, it's just not possible in the real world. Even the best built machines in the world have tolerances. It's not surprising there are tolerances when working with animals and humans.
> 
> DFrost


It seem that in his efforts to be clever and avoid the hard questions David reveals the truth. Based on his failure to answer my simple questions, it seem that his cert REQUIRES a 100% success rate for dogs trained to find humans and bombs. They also FAIL a dog that false alerts for either. It's ONLY for drugs that he allows for what he calls _"tolerances."_ In truth, this _"tolerance"_ that he mentions should result in those who don't false alert or miss to pass the certification, while those who do these things, fail. This shouldn't be "graded on the curve." Doing so allows for the violation of people's 4th amendment rights. 

This is for the overwhelming part, the way it is in the rest of the industry! Why is it that they required 100% for finding humans and bombs but allow excuses for finding narcotics? Hmmm, makes ya think doesn't it? If not, it should! 

Coincidentally, the alert for narcotics is the only one that allows officers to search cars without a warrant. 

In a recent thread I cited a number of SAR certification requirements that have dogs who search for HR or for live humans failing if they miss or false alert. The question that I asked then is just as appropriate now. If unpaid, civilian volunteers can train to a "no false alert" standard why is it that paid, professional law enforcement officers can't? No one answered it then. I doubt that anyone will now.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> I did qualify the statement by saying properly kept training records.


As the saying goes, "Garbage in. Garbage out." 



David Frost said:


> I don't automatically assume my handlers are lying to me. I do however monitor training and on occasion make them find my training aids.


If they're doing the wrong thing by cuing their dogs, they simply won't do it when you're watching. Do your cars have dashcams? How often do you monitor their activity on them? Since your system allows them to false alert and to miss, this means very little. 



David Frost said:


> You might have that problem with the people with which you know, train or work.


My agency isn't immune to officers doing the wrong thing. Neither is yours. No agency is. To think that yours is, is stupid. It means that those who do it, will get away with it, since you're not looking for it. Perhaps before you start throwing veiled accusations my way you should make sure that your own house is in order? 

David, isn't this your agency? "Tennessee Trooper Arrested On Drug Charge. The trooper, who at times worked narcotics, was caught off-duty, but in full uniform * and with his patrol car and K-9 unit.*" [Emphasis Added] Did you train this officer? He was eventually convicted by a jury. 
http://www.newschannel5.com/global/story.asp?s=12798822

David, isn't this also your agency? "Former State Trooper Arrested In Criminal Roundup. The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation ... conducted a law enforcement round-up ... arresting 22 individuals on a wide array of indictments Among the 22 was 47-year-old Robert Wayne Williams, who resigned during an investigation into whether he was buying methamphetamine without authorization. * He was a K-9 officer for the Tennessee Highway Patrol.*" [Emphasis Added] Did you train this officer? 
http://www.abc24.com/news/state/sto...-Criminal-Roundup/7IFqydqu7UmjPbZkN_ow7Q.cspx

So while you assume a "holier than thou attitude" and _"don't automatically assume [your] handlers are lying to [you]."_ all the while pointing your finger at me and _" the people that [I ] know, train or work [with]."_ it would appear that you have some problems right in your own back yard! Of course, neither of these officers could have been lying to you about their stats. Of course they never kept any of their seizures for their own use or sales. Of course they were completely honest ... except for these tiny little errors, right? 

Cops are among the most honest group of people around. If, for no other reason, that the selection process weeds out most of the dishonest applicants during the intake process. But that doesn't mean that they can't go wrong along the road. And it doesn't mean that they can't do the wrong thing, in the name of a so−called "higher good," putting criminals in jail. It's a very small minority who are doing the wrong thing, but pretending that it doesn't happen, just allows it to continue. 



David Frost said:


> I can't imagine a local department standing by while one of our Trooper's brags about his success, while taking the glory for someone other agency's drug find. Not to mention the stink that would arise if there was a cash seizure as well.


They don't brag about these false seizures. They just put them into their records. Do you compare the statements made in records by the officers as to their gross seizures, as measured every month (or whatever period you use to capture this data – if you even do) with their arrest reports? If you don't it's possible that they're claiming many more seizures than they're actually making. Now we're back to _"properly kept training records."_ That’s a two phased situation. The officers must keep accurate AND HONEST records and you must monitor the officers reports directly, to ensure that they're accurate and honest and that the stats agree and are properly collated. Do you do that? 



David Frost said:


> We have newspapers and TV stations here in TN. I would imagine they like stories like that. We've caught up with the "outside" world. We have video and everything now.


Now that we know that you have dashcams, how often do you monitor the activity of your officers?


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> Let me see, when was the last time I heard that??????? oh yeah, in court from one of the latest defense whores. They do like saying that. In fact there is one out there specifically and that is his tag line "cue their dogs into false alerts". He's a one trick pony.
> 
> DFrost


Who is that _"defense whore"_ David, the one with the clever _"tag line?"_ What was the case? Got a link to the transcript? 

I wonder if you've seen some of the videos floating around YouTube that show this. In a previous discussion on this topic we have someone saying this,


> when driving home for Christmas, Missouri troopers stopped us and asked to search my car. I said no. Then they called the dog out. They walked that thing around my car at least 15 times, then said it indicated and searched my car. * There wasn't anything in my car but suitcase full of clothes, two dogs and about 40 pounds of dog food. * After seeing that happen I can't help but wonder if some dogs will alert if given a long enough time and repeated commands to find something, just because they think they are supposed to ... But the way they had that dog walk around a thousand times until it got tired and sat down makes me think they don't trust the dog to do its job right. [Emphasis Added]


That member asked,


> ... those of you with detection dogs of any kind: If you walked your dog around a car or room with nothing in it and asked for him to search, how long would it take before he gave a false positive?


And got these responses,


> Then there may have possibly been a little inadvertent handler influence to get an indication.


And this,


> I think we all agree that one the face of it and on the info given that the use of the canine is this matter was questionable


And this,


> If a handler runs a dog around a car many times * he's either deliberately forcing the dog to alert or he's just stupid and poorly trained. * [Emphasis Added]


And this,


> If it WAS a b/s dog deployment, then it should be addressed. * We have one of the best tools available to LEO's in our toolbox that is supported by the general public and courts alike, and if we don't keep ourselves in check, we will lose that and be left with nothing. * [Emphasis Added]


I'm sure that none of your officers do this David. It's ONLY the other departments right?


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Earlier I wrote,


> Such "demands" from the police are often based on what they've seen on TV, what they've been told by people who have reasoned things out without any real knowledge or on a hunch. In reality, I don't know of an agency that even asks which kind of alert is in use by the dog handlers that they call out. The agencies that I know of don't even care about aggressive or passive alerts, sometimes they don't even know the difference. They just want a dog that will find the evidence. Any disturbance that occurs, and again, restraining the dog minimizes that, can be accounted for. Can you cite some case where, because a dog disturbed the evidence that a case was not filed or was lost?
> 
> Talking theory is great, but real life is something else quite again.





Nancy Jocoy said:


> I have been asked more by larger agencies with their own dog units as opposed to smaller agencies without any dogs so I really doubt it is a "TV" thing for them but probably folks who have dealt with torn up vehicles enough to have a passive indication mindset ... which they have transferred to HR.


Yeah, people who have seen bad work don't want to see it in their investigation. This is a result of either poor handling, poor training or a combination of these. Just because a dog has an aggressive alert does not mean that he'll damage something. 



Nancy Jocoy said:


> As far a caselaw - I already said that, for me, whether or not it is an issue was a moot point we have been asked for passive indications. Where did I say anything about caselaw? There is precious little cadaver case law, and the ones I know of are more concerned with training records than anything else.


I said nothing of case law. I merely asked if could _"cite some case where, because a dog disturbed the evidence that a case was not filed or was lost?"_ Based on this response, it's apparent that you can't. If seems to me that if this was as important as some pretend, there'd be several of them.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

julie allen said:


> Almost every agency has asked what the dog does to alert.


This might be the case in your area, probably because someone has filled their heads with this nonsense, but here's it unheard of. 



julie allen said:


> As far as searching off lead, you won't step on anything yourself, because you are far away from the k9 working.


You might be far away or you might have just sent the dog out from your side and then moved forward, walking over the evidence. 



julie allen said:


> When they are out of sight, that's what the bark alert is for, as that is an aggressive alert which was pertinent to the thread Lou.


Julie could you please make up your mind? Earlier you wrote, _" With cadaver dogs ... so the passive alert is preferred."_ Now you argue in favor of an aggressive alert. 



julie allen said:


> You can easily stop a dog offlead or onlead with proper training, doesn't matter.


Yes, I know. I'm the one who's said this a couple of times now. Suddenly, when it suits your statements, you change your position. 



julie allen said:


> Dogs will react differently when finding fairly fresh bodies, no matter how you train, unless you have access to train on whole bodies which few do. ...
> The scent cones vary greatly especially with high finds as in trees, and buried.


I’m not sure what either of these paragraphs have to do with this discussion. 



julie allen said:


> As far as case law, I can't provide you any info


I've never asked for any _"case law."_ You and at least one other poster seem a bit confused on this. I have asked if people know of any cases where the theory that a dog disturbing some HR will affect the case, actually has. So far no one has responded with such a case, leading me to believe that no such facts exist. It's nice theory but it does not seem to have any basis in fact. 



julie allen said:


> but you may be interested in a recent case in Memphis tn, where no body has been found, but the k9s provided what led to the murder charges. I believe its one of the first. But I'm just a handler, so you can research that aspect if you would like to know more.


Got a link? It does not sound as if it has anything to do with this discussion, but I'll be happy to read whatever you provide.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Chris Keister said:


> Even though this thread has traveled way off my original intent, it's loaded with good info.
> 
> One thing I have found about dog boards is its very easy to figure out those who really know and do, from those that you have to strap on your waders to get through the BS.
> 
> Defense "experts" gotta love em.


Pretty sure there aren't any _"defense experts"_ in this discussion. If law enforcement officers don't train such that they are covered from attacks from them though, they'll lose in court. The way things are going right now, the use of dogs for PC is in jeopardy. There are several courts considering it right now. 

If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend that all is wonderful, I guess you can. 

You got quite a bit of information in response to your question, though didn'tcha? Bitch, bitch bitch.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jan Wensink said:


> We know about your perfect towel-shredding system. Now please come with evidence that there is no fale alerting in this system and convince us all or please stop the BS about other systems.


So wrong on so many counts. 


it's not my system. It's Donn Yarnall's. 
It's not about towel shredding. That's just the end result of allowing the dog's prey drive to be satisfied. 
It's not perfect. It just doesn't have dogs false alerting and the dog works without cues or reward from the handler. He's directed to the area to be searched and the dog does the rest. 
If I were to show you a thousand videos without a single false alert, you could say, "Yes, but he might false alert on the next video." Hence the saying, "One can't prove a negative." 
I guess that you've forgotten that in another thread, one member wrote _"We used Mr. Yarnell's system with the last group of dogs we trained. It worked as "advertised" with no falses."_ 
in that same thread I wrote this, _"Ten handlers worked [using this system] for over three years doing nothing but highway interdiction without a single false alert. There were a few alerts on residual odor and each time there was a sophisticated hidden compartment located in the vehicle."_ 
I'll never _"convince [you] all, and I have no need to do so. Some people are so invested in a handler supplied reward system that they'll never be convinced. They've spent their entire careers doing it and can't admit that there's now something better. I'm reminded of my many arguments on pet dog sites that are anti Ecollar. I've never hoped to change the minds of EVERYONE. I'm happy with the few that have open minds and are willing to learn. 
[*]When you get to be a moderator, then perhaps you can tell me what to write about. Until then ... 
[*]If you don't like reading what I write, feel free to pass it by. My feelings won't be hurt in the slightest. 
_
_ 

Even if the drive training system didn't exist, the problems of false alerting and handlers cuing their dogs still exist with handler supplied reward systems, so even if it's not OK with you, I'll keep making comments about problems with the system._


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> So wrong on so many counts.
> 
> 
> it's not my system. It's Donn Yarnall's.
> ...


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Lou since I have certified, as a civilian, under both NAPWDA (several times) and IPWDA-Advanced (once) for cadaver one comment on false alerts. I think the "zero" tolerance for false indications statement is misleading. Also, none of the bomb dogs or cadaver dogs I know were trained using an ecollar and all have passive indications.

The failure comes if the dog false alerts AND the handler calls it as a positive. If the dog gives a false indication which is called as false by the handler then it is not counted against the team.

I think IPWDA and NASAR allow 0 failure
I believe NAPWDA allows one (either a failure to find or a false indication not identified by such as the handler).

(have to go back and look-that is just memory which I will refresh when it is time to test the next dog)


----------



## Jim Delbridge (Jan 27, 2010)

Yea, a miss-call on the handler's part or a miss on a find on scent source is both considered your one allowed "miss" in the certification process. Dog can be barking all over the area, but unless the handler calls it as a find the evaluator doesn't call it (unless it's obvious to all that the dog isn't working). 
I've observed this on many dog teams, law enforcement, federal, and civilian when testing with NAPWDA.

I'm not even going to get into it with Lou. I've been on the recieving end of his jihads many times. Doesn't matter if he's right or wrong, he'll just keep wearing at you until you decide it's just not worth it to exchange dialogue. I'd heard that his wife had calmed him down there for a couple of years, but I've seen the old Lou showing up the past couple of months. I don't have anything to prove any more. Let him blow.


Jim Delbridge


----------



## julie allen (Dec 24, 2010)

Lou, I don't know if you don't read the full threads or just have a comprehension issue. You can read back and every question you have asked has been answered and nothing changed. 

If you knew anything about sending hrd dogs in a scene, you wouldn't even have the questions you posted. 

Same as the passive/aggressive alerts, which was also posted, as to why I do both and many hrd dogs only use passive. 

You can look up napwda, IPWDA, awda, USAR, susar, and all the other nationally recognized certifying agencies to see what they allow as far as misses for sar dogs, live or hrd. You will see you are wrong on the miss/ false alert deal. 

Nothing is 100%, and if you worked sar dogs, you should know that. It's a tool that makes our job easier, faster (due to the dogs capability to scent lol) and every dog has its thresholds to odors.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Earlier Jan Wensink wrote,


> We know about your perfect towel-shredding system. Now please come with evidence that there is no fale alerting in this system and convince us all or please stop the BS about other systems.


And I responded,


> So wrong on so many counts.


Jan then placed his comments in bold.  My responses to him are in blue.  


it's not my system. It's Donn Yarnall's. 

* But you keep on promoting it and critcizing other systems. *

 That still doesn’t make it my system. It was invented by Donn Yarnall, not me. Credit where credit is due. 



It's not about towel shredding. That's just the end result of allowing the dog's prey drive to be satisfied. 

* I know it's not about shredding but I bet you immediately knew what system I meant. *

 Yes I did, but your reference to it, shows how little you understand of it.  



It's not perfect. It just doesn't have dogs false alerting and the dog works without cues or reward from the handler. He's directed to the area to be searched and the dog does the rest. 

* I'm sure it's not perfect. *

 That's what I said. Good that you are able to read simple sentences. It's obvious that you have great difficulty with more complex ones, such as are in the details of the drive training system.  



If I were to show you a thousand videos without a single false alert, you could say, "Yes, but he might false alert on the next video." Hence the saying, "One can't prove a negative." 

* There are other ways to prove it than by showing a thousand videos. * 

 Always open to suggestions as to how this could be done! I'm sorry Jan that you're unable to grasp the concept that one can't prove a negative. But that's your failing, not mine.  

* If it really was such a terrific system wouldn't it be widely spread by now. *

 No, it wouldn't _"widely spread by now."_ It's only been in use for a couple of years and it goes against the status quo which has been in use for decades. People like you don't want to change. They've got too much invested. Some are threatened by it and will fight it tooth and nail. For years they've been selling their dog training services. For them to change now would be admitting that what they've been doing all this time was not as good as it might have been. Some have spent decades in the OC system that teaches detection as a game and a trick, hence allowing handlers without ethics to cue their dogs into false alerts. It also allows for the inadvertent cuing of dogs by incompetent handlers.  



I guess that you've forgotten that in another thread, one member wrote _"We used Mr. Yarnell's system with the last group of dogs we trained. It worked as "advertised" with no falses."_ 

* That's 1 person. *

 You asked for _"evidence."_ I've provided it twice now.  



in that same thread I wrote this, _"Ten handlers worked [using this system] for over three years doing nothing but highway interdiction without a single false alert. There were a few alerts on residual odor and each time there was a sophisticated hidden compartment located in the vehicle."_ 

* Did you witness this personally or did you see their properly kept training records? * 

 Neither. I got this information from the trainer.  



I'll never _"convince [you] all"_ and I have no need to do so. Some people are so invested in a handler supplied reward system that they'll never be convinced. They've spent their entire careers doing it and can't admit that there's now something better. I'm reminded of my many arguments on pet dog sites that are anti Ecollar. I've never hoped to change the minds of EVERYONE. I'm happy with the few that have open minds and are willing to learn. 

* You'll never convince me *

 ROFL. I just said that I have no need to do so. But when you say this it shows us just how closed your mind is. Even if I was to point out that the _"disadvantages in the system"_ that you perceive are wrong, you won't be convinced! Fine by me. I happen to think that a closed mind is dangerous. It makes it sound as if * YOU * think that you have all the answers!  

* because I see a lot of disadvantages in the system, not because I'm so invested in a handler supplied reward system. We have a system that works fine for us without these disadvantages. When we see something in other systems that we like, we try it and perhaps keep on using it. *

 Please point out what you think are the _"disadvantages in the system."_ Of course you've repeatedly demonstrated that you really don't understand the system so perhaps that's why you think that these _"disadvantages"_ exist. Of course, there are "disadvantages" to every system, but let's hear what you think they are with this one. When we look at your comments, let's keep in mind that you don't work where people are protected by the Constitution and the 4th Amendment from unreasonable searches, so you are in a different situation. Nonetheless, I'd love to hear your criticisms. Perhaps you'll learn from your errors and misconceptions what this system is about.  



When you get to be a moderator, then perhaps you can tell me what to write about. Until then ... 
If you don't like reading what I write, feel free to pass it by. My feelings won't be hurt in the slightest. 

* I won't be a mod so I keep on reading all the BS. *

 You've been invited to pass it by. Perhaps we could take up a collection and buy you some will power? Lol It's clear that you don't understand the system, but you call it _"BS."_ That vividly display your ignorance, on many levels.  

* My problem is that you pretend to have all the wisdom. * 

 Jan, let's just say that you're mistaken and not a liar, OK? I don't _"pretend to have all the information."_ I've said many times that I don't have all the answers, and I've just said it again. It may be your perception based on my writing that I _"pretend"_ this, but after all the times that I've given this disclaimer, it should be obvious that I know the reality. As I've written dozens of times, "I just know a few things."  

* You were a dog handler for 5 years almost 30 years ago and have't worked a K9 since than. 5 years make you little more than a rookie ... fact is that you lose touch with that work if you don't handle a dog yourself. One can be a perfect trainer and tell a handler what he should have done and what not but it's different with a leash in your hands. So you haven't added experience like that since the early 80's. *

 Good to see that you've taken up the torch of the personal attack. It means that you have no reasonable, rational or logical response to the discussion, and so you attack me on personal level. In any case, I was a K−9 handler for my department for about 5 1/2 years. Then I was the in-house trainer for the next 15 years or so, until I was forced out of it by an injury. The Department did not hire an outside trainer until that happened. I was the in-house trainer for the Department for a total of about 20 years. I've been training dogs ever since. 

You've made the stupid assertion that because I only handled a dog for _"5 years"_ that I'm _"little more than a rookie"_ when in fact I've been training dogs for about 33 years. A handler knows little more than how to work his own dog. I believe that's where you are. Perhaps you've even HANDLED more than one dog but still, you're just a handler. I'm a TRAINER. That takes far more knowledge than just handling a dog. Assuming that I've not handled a dog since my police K−9 retired, is an assumption on your part. It's yet ANOTHER error and shows more of your ignorance. I've trained and handled my own dogs, several of them, since my police K−9 dog retired, so I've never, as you claimed, _"los[t] touch with that work."_  

* Although you may ot may not have been a trainer since than, *

 Jan I've done 57 seminars and as always, will be happy to supply references to that fact to anyone who requests them privately.  

* Despite this you know everything better about things (like my work) that you have no experience with. * 

 Jan I don't believe that I've commented on _"things (like [your] work"_ in this discussion. Can you show us somewhere that I have?  


Even if the drive training system didn't exist, the problems of false alerting and handlers cuing their dogs still exist with handler supplied reward systems, so even if it's not OK with you, I'll keep making comments about problems with the system. 

* And we will keep on laughing about your videos of the dogs doing bite work in the drive training system. *

 I must have missed a memo! When did this discussion become about _"dogs doing bite work."_ Imagine my surprise. I thought it was about detection work! But again, they're not my videos. And it appears that you're simply too dense to understand what's being shown in them, in the proper context.  

To get back on topic and away from the distraction that Jan has brought in with his comments about bite work, here are some videos of dogs doing detection work in the drive system. These dogs are only part way through the training with this system. 

Here's an aggressive alert. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpXxuCAetUE&feature=player_embedded

And here's a passive alert. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=S0_PbEW_0ec

Wondering SAR folks, would this alert be "passive enough" for HR work?


----------



## Craig Snyder (May 7, 2012)

julie allen said:


> You can look up napwda, IPWDA, awda, USAR, susar, and all the other nationally recognized certifying agencies to see what they allow as far as misses for sar dogs, live or hrd. You will see you are wrong on the miss/ false alert deal.


Just as a note: 

I just reveiwed again and looked at NASAR, (which I know you didn't mention), and I don't believe they have any allowances for any misses in HRD work in any discipline, (water, disater). And no misses allowed in live find for avalanche, disaster or wilderness and no false alerts allowed either. It's possible I might have missed a clause somewhere though. 

IPWDA does allow one miss in HRD as well as arson and article search. And a miss can be a true miss or a false alert. 

I didn't check all the others. (yet)

Not trying to stoke any fires, just mentioning it.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Craig Snyder said:


> Just as a note:
> 
> I just reveiwed again and looked at NASAR, (which I know you didn't mention), and I don't believe they have any allowances for any misses in HRD work in any discipline, (water, disater). And no misses allowed in live find for avalanche, disaster or wilderness and no false alerts allowed either. It's possible I might have missed a clause somewhere though.
> 
> ...


No fires. Read the NASAR HRD regulations again. 

21. Candidate, upon interpreting the dog‟s final response, shall advise the Evaluator(s) and identify/mark the location of the substance by placing a survey flag or wand into the ground.
NASAR Canine Certification Program: 2010 Criteria Revised 6/30/11 Page 25
22. Any response on the part of the dog that the candidate identifies as a final response which is incorrect will constitute a failure of that station.


----------



## Craig Snyder (May 7, 2012)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> No fires. Read the NASAR HRD regulations again.
> 
> 21. Candidate, upon interpreting the dog‟s final response, shall advise the Evaluator(s) and identify/mark the location of the substance by placing a survey flag or wand into the ground.
> NASAR Canine Certification Program: 2010 Criteria Revised 6/30/11 Page 25
> 22. Any response on the part of the dog that the candidate identifies as a final response which is incorrect will constitute a failure of that station.


Why read them again? Isn't that saying that no misses are allowed? Doesn't #22 mean any false alert is a failure? Isn't that what I said?

Unless you are saying dog can clearly give a false alert, but if the handler ignores it and doesn't plant a flag then it's not counted?

I would interpret 22 as saying that if the handler communicated to the evaluator the trained response in the begining of the evalution and the dog clearly performed it but the handler choose to ignore it that it would be a failure unless the handle can give a rational explanation for ignoring it. Maybe if it was a reponse on an already indicated sample.

I would thiink it would be hard for a handler to ignore it if the dog performs the trained response. 

Craig


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

No it still relies on the handler to INTERPRET the indication and call it. 

Any response on the part of the dog that *the candidate identifies as a final response *which is incorrect will constitute a failure of that station

If they intended it the way you are reading it the whole bolded statement should be deleted.

What they are doing is consistent with the others here.


----------



## Craig Snyder (May 7, 2012)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> No it still relies on the handler to INTERPRET the indication and call it.
> 
> Any response on the part of the dog that *the candidate identifies as a final response *which is incorrect will constitute a failure of that station
> 
> ...


Hmm.. not really... I can interpret "the candidate identifies as a final response" as being what the candidate told the evaluator in the begining of the test. If the bolded part was removed, it would say 
"Any response on the part of the dog which is incorrect will constitute a failure of that station" would be bad because "any response" would be way to open to interpretation.

In any case, if the dog indicates, I wouldn't know why the handler would ignore it.

Looking at item 8, it appears that the handler can even change what the trained response is during the testing which I find quite odd. 

In any case, regardless of however you interpret a false alert (dog alerts and handler marks), it is not allowed in NASAR. But in some of the others one miss is allowed, including false alert or if you will, a false marking.

Craig


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Craig, have you trained, ceritfied and worked an HRD dog?-everything is not so black and white

I certainly know of times where my dog has false alerted when I forced him to rework a training area that had odor but no source. One of the great things about working blind problems. 

Fortunately it was not on a test but one of my certification comments has be "dog knows what he is doing; don't talk him into something "


----------



## Craig Snyder (May 7, 2012)

BTW: I check the NASAR wilderness requirements and I don't see anything regarding false alerts. Seems you can false alert all you want for wilderness as long as the dog indicates on the final subject and you find them.

I can kind of understand that for wilderness.

Craig


----------



## Craig Snyder (May 7, 2012)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> Craig, have you trained, ceritfied and worked an HRD dog?-everything is not so black and white
> 
> I certainly know of times where my dog has false alerted when I forced him to rework a training area that had odor but no source. One of the great things about working blind problems.
> 
> Fortunately it was not on a test but one of my certification comments has be "dog knows what he is doing; don't talk him into something "


 
Absoluetly not Nancy. It's why I'm here to learn and understand and its why I'm asking specific's about the testing and standards. I don't have anyone who has been through the NASAR testing to guide me. It's why I'm using you and this forum! :razz: I'd like to test to NASAR's wildernes level I and then cross train to HRD.

Trust me, I know it's not black and white. My orignal reply on the standard was that NASAR does not allow a miss. I thought a false alert was included as a miss in NASAR. But it looks like its not as we have discussed. But placing the flag is a false reading if you will and would be failed. Hence, as Lou suggested, 100% correct is required, at least for NASAR. But as Julie indicated earlier, not for many of the other national standards.

Craig


----------



## julie allen (Dec 24, 2010)

I don't know with nasar, but with other testing organizations I have been through, you may have an alert, for example, that isn't close enough to qualify. So just because the dog alerts, isn't necessarily a false, but you have to be able to read the dog, and know where and why it is communicating to you at this point.

So you can tell the evaluator, this is an alert, but we need to work through the problem, and it isn't a false. 

The tests are only an evaluation to see what the dog and handler know, working together. This is a major issue I have with some of the certifications. If conditions are just perfect a dog can get through the easily set problems, I have seen handlers literally point out sources to dogs and have no interest in the find, get the dog to alert and they are certified. By book, they passed, yet don't have a clue. 

Or you may have ten good dogs, all fail a specific problem, due to issues of the scenario, and instead of factoring this in the dogs are not certified. Hr especially, since its not always that the odor comes through. 

If you have an evaluator that considers this, its one thing, but when you have specific text on pass or fail, you can pass Crap dogs and fail good ones. 

There are so many issues to factor into any type of detection, its not always cut and dried. The more real scenarios you do, the more you see that a test isn't the best option. However, when you spend time with dog/handler teams on many problems, you can see the full picture. A more accurate system may be to set many scenarios in as real life like situations as possible and evaluate teams over the entire period. 

Certifications are necessary I feel, as a back up now for judicial systems more than anything. Even with certifications, training logs are pulled in and picked apart, for the very reasons mentioned above. I have certified through only one organization that has asked to see logs. With them, even if you pass specific tests, if the evaluator feels the team is not capable, the team works more problems to prove themselves.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

My comment there is maybe you can pass the NASAR HRD test with a wilderness dog but how many times do you think you will be looking for 15 grams of human being with your dog and it has been out from 1 to 6 hours? [FWIW some of the other tests require hides to be out ovenight and the longer it is out the more interesting the scent pool becomes to work out - and small sources are not necessariy harder to pinpoint]

In my own opinion, any dog crosstrained for wilderness needs to be trained on most people really can't get which is fresh whole bodies. 

Live find dogs will usually show a strange enough change of behavior around a recently dead body that experienced handlers know something is up and call in the cadaver dogs. We always load the cadaver dogs up when we have a search. But they only have ONE job and that is all ranges of cadaver age and size. 

You can pass all of these certs but maintaing a proficient cross trained dog would be a bear. Put the extra time into expanding your dog's experience in live scenarios. JMO.


----------



## Craig Snyder (May 7, 2012)

HRD is a ways away for me Nancy. I might not even undertake it. I'll have to see as time goes. I might go live find disaster work later. I don't know.

I will familaize my dog with cadaver work if for nothing else to gauge and understand her response to it in the field. Who knows if I will certify or not. But I want as good an understanding as I can before I start.

We do as you say. We use live find when we can and call in HRD specialist dogs where it's indicated. We usaully always respond with both types of dogs to most general searches unless it is a known HRD problem to start with.. i.e. LE specifically requests an HRD dog(s).

Craig


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

julie allen said:


> The tests are only an evaluation to see what the dog and handler know, working together. This is a major issue I have with some of the certifications. If conditions are just perfect a dog can get through the easily set problems, I have seen handlers literally point out sources to dogs and have no interest in the find, get the dog to alert and they are certified. By book, they passed, yet don't have a clue.
> 
> Or you may have ten good dogs, all fail a specific problem, due to issues of the scenario, and instead of factoring this in the dogs are not certified. Hr especially, since its not always that the odor comes through. .


Yes whe had a test problem like that. Evaluator sets it up works it, but changes in the day and the odor does something wonky. They get to see all the dogs doing the same wonky thing and take it into cosnideration. 

The distance indication is a good one too, We had a problem where the evaluator set up source on the sunny inside wall of a metal warehouse with a peak roof. There was a big peice of construction equipment in the middle of the room. One by one the dogs climbed the equipment and gave VERY confused indications. (scent dropping over equipment) Evaluator said what just happened? And, without telling us, gave us the opportunity to work it out. [of course we did not know it happened to everyone until everyone had tested)....but we all were like .....naaaaa, its not quite right because had it been there the dogs nose woulda been somewhere and its a tail woulda been waggin....etc...and each one of us read our dogs and said it was "not right"

Honestly, I would rather have a difficult problem and the evaluator gets to see how we work through it and have some latitude than cut and dry so easy anybody can get it straightaway.


----------



## julie allen (Dec 24, 2010)

We do blinds a lot, just Sunday we had some sources set out. The officer that set it up is pretty experienced. I sent Greta into a field beside the shooting range, while we remained on the road. She gave her alert, I moved in closer ready to throw her toy. The officer said she was wrong. 

It was hot, in an open field, had been sitting four hours, and the source was teeth, but I know the dog and she is awesome . Sure enough the officer was wrong.
In his defense, when I worked the pup, we were standing still at the road, but in a different location, and it looked at the wrong spot. Of course this wasn't a blind now, but working on getting the pup ranging and staying with the find. 
Anyway after working with some folks, I have really learned to double check always. Glad he wasnt an evaluator on a test  he argued until I took him out and pointed the teeth out to him lol.


----------



## Jim Delbridge (Jan 27, 2010)

For wilderness, the handler would have to be brain dead not to see the "victim" to call it when the dog alerts.

As Nancy stated, HRD, it's an entirely different situation. I can easily set up problems common in real life where the strongest collection of scent is not where the scent source is. Part of training an HRD dog is to give it the skills where it can work through such situations and work to the source (or as close as possible). 

If your dog works a lot of buried and it comes upon a depression where scent has collected, only experience is going to allow it to work through the situation where it doesn't automatically identify that depression as a buried source. The norm in non-live-human scent work is the handler does not have the luxury of seeing the scent source. The handler has to be able to know the difference between dog frustration and dog alerting with its "final answer." 

Lou's example of reward driven versus scent source driven is worthless when the dog "thinks" the scent source is there, both dogs are driven to the find for whatever reason. But, Lou does have a point when the handler "thinks" the scent source is somewhere and cues/suggests/reinforces the dog's activity into making it a full blown alert. With both training philosophies, the dog is in scent, but without accurate targeting the dog team can easily be labeled as worthless if the evidence recovery team goes solely on what the hander tagged as "the spot." 

Jim Delbridge


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> It's not about towel shredding. That's just the end result of allowing the dog's prey drive to be satisfied.
> *I know it's not about shredding but I bet you immediately knew what system I meant.
> *Yes I did, but your reference to it, shows how little you understand of it
> *Yeah, right.*
> ...


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

Now also a reply on topic.
In Customs over here our narcotic dogs and tobacco dogs that are used to search goods such as vehicles, containers, cargo, warehouses etc are usually trained with an aggressive alert often barking. A few times we made the choice for a passive alert when a dog was very hectic and we wanted to build in moments of calmness.
EDD dogs and dogs that are used to search for drugs, currency or cites products on people and in the luggage they are carrying are trained with a passive alert. For obvious reasons.
Most of them work in the airports. Those dogs are certified to search goods and persons.
The police are also using dogs with such a certificate more and more.
Their management requires it from them for they can be deployed for more types of jobs.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

I've got nothing to add just wanted to be the 100th post.
I always find it amusing when someone posts a video showing X and then 3 minutes in you hear them say OH SHIT ;-)
Aggressive alert video


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Two former Trooper/handlers arrested. Darn tootin'. Both convicted, darn tootin'. Like I said, we don't tolerate trash. I'm certainly not embarrassed, beyond them wearing the same uniform I did, about them being caught, tried, conviceted and punished. Neither of the charges involved misuse of their canines to search citizens. 

The rest of your trash is nothing but a sales gimick or lining yourself up to work for some other defense whore. I won't mention his name, either go to Nopes or Fleck's website, both have extensive files on him and his one-trick pony show. I've already stated I don't trust you. If you feel the need to feed your ego by making pages out of a few sentences, have a good time.

DFrost


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> Lou since I have certified, as a civilian, under both NAPWDA (several times) and IPWDA-Advanced (once) for cadaver one comment on false alerts. I think the "zero" tolerance for false indications statement is misleading.


Nancy, I'm not sure what statement you're referring to regarding _"the 'zero' tolerance for false indications"_ that you think is misleading. I've not used the term. I've said that the drive training system does not give false alerts. Is that what you're referring to? If so, what's misleading about it? 



Nancy Jocoy said:


> Also, none of the bomb dogs or cadaver dogs I know were trained using an ecollar and all have passive indications.


What has the Ecollar to do with this discussion? 



Nancy Jocoy said:


> The failure comes if the dog false alerts AND the handler calls it as a positive. If the dog gives a false indication which is called as false by the handler then it is not counted against the team.


I'm only talking about situations where the handler calls his dog's behavior an alert. Let's not get confused on this. In either the certification situation or the working situation, chances are that when a dog gives his trained alert, then 99% of handlers will call that an alert. If the source odor is not present and it never has been, then it's a false alert. 



Nancy Jocoy said:


> I think IPWDA and NASAR allow 0 failure


I haven't looked at those certs but that's the standard for CARDA, the largest state SAR organization. A false alert or a miss for live or HR is a fail. Yet in many, if not most, national certifications for detection work, false alerts are allowed and the team can still pass. 



Nancy Jocoy said:


> I believe NAPWDA allows one (either a failure to find or a false indication not identified by such as the handler).
> 
> (have to go back and look-that is just memory which I will refresh when it is time to test the next dog)


From the "NORTH AMERICAN POLICE WORK DOG ASSOCIATION, SEARCH and RESCUE AREA SEARCH TEST"


> * The team may not miss any victims  in the time permitted, as  this will constitute a failure. A team miss is  any incorrect response  by the K9 team.  [Emphasis Added] *


* 

Misses or false alerts are a fail. The handler and dog will be considered as a team. 

Yet in the "DETECTION TEST," the rule is



As defined by the NAPWDA narcotic detection rules for testing, the minimum acceptable level required to pass is 91.66%.

Click to expand...

Not sure how one would measure this out to two decimal places during a certification, it would take a huge number of hides to be accurate, but it DOES allow for false alerts at about a rate of 9%. 

In the "NORTH AMERICAN POLICE WORK DOG ASSOCIATION, EXPLOSIVE DETECTION TEST,"



The canine should show a change in behavior and a recognizable passive alert on each can or block containing an explosive training aid.  The canine should detect all 10 explosives odors with no team miss.  [Emphasis Added]

Click to expand...

A few paragraphs later the issue of false alerts is discussed,



To successfully test for certification, the dog’s final response must be passive and  the canine team CANNOT miss more than one (1) explosive aid in all phases of testing. A “team miss” is defined as any incorrect response by the K9 team. 

Click to expand...

Since ten odors are tested, missing one would be a false alert rate of 10%, close to the allowable miss rate for narcotics. 

For the "NORTH AMERICAN POLICE WORK DOG ASSOCIATION, CADAVER SEARCH TEST,"



For certification the team CANNOT miss more than one (1) aid in all phases of testing. A “team miss” is defined as any incorrect response by the K9 team.

Click to expand...

A miss or a false alert are allowed for HR. 

Why the difference between live, HR, bombs and narcotics? Why are misses not allowed for live finds of humans but they are for detection work?*


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jim Delbridge said:


> Yea, a miss-call on the handler's part or a miss on a find on scent source is both considered your one allowed "miss" in the certification process.


Not quite accurate, Jim, as I've shown. Misses or falses are allowed for detection of various kinds including HR, bombs accelerants and narcotics. * They are not allowed for live finds. * Why the departure? 



Jim Delbridge said:


> I'm not even going to get into it with Lou. I've been on the recieving end of his jihads many times. Doesn't matter if he's right or wrong


You're VERY wrong Jim. Anytime I've been shown to be wrong, I've admitted it as quickly as I could get the next post out. But there's no _"right or wrong"_ here, it's opinion. 

I think it's wrong that any certification allows for misses or false alerts and still allow for a dog to pass. I understand that those who take these tests want to keep the status quo. Who wants to volunteer to take a HARDER test that they might fail? 

I DO. ALL the certifications that I've taken have ALWAYS failed the teams for either misses or false alerts, no matter what the search is for. I realize that people with dogs that do not meet the highest standards, and who DO false alert and miss, would not want to take such tests. THAT is another reason that the drive training system is not widely accepted. People simply do not train to that standard. The fact that some national certifications allow this, speaks volumes. This standard that allows for misses and false alerts is rife in the industry. 

How would you like to have surgery performed on you by a surgeon who only passed his application tests at the 90% rate. Would that work for your plumber or your auto repair guy? Or do you expect, demand even, that their work be at the 100% rate or you get the repair done again? 





Jim Delbridge said:


> I don't have anything to prove any more. Let him blow.


Sorta like "withdrawing and declaring victory?" LOL.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

julie allen said:


> Lou, I don't know if you don't read the full threads or just have a comprehension issue.


I do read the full threads. At times, like everyone else, I may misunderstand something. 



julie allen said:


> You can read back and every question you have asked has been answered and nothing changed.


You've answered my questions Julie, but many others avoid them. 



julie allen said:


> If you knew anything about sending hrd dogs in a scene, you wouldn't even have the questions you posted.


It's an error on your part to make assumptions about what I do or don't know, based on a difference of opinion. You do not have all the answers any more than I do. 



julie allen said:


> You can look up napwda, IPWDA, awda, USAR, susar, and all the other nationally recognized certifying agencies to see what they allow as far as misses for sar dogs, live or hrd. You will see you are wrong on the miss/ false alert deal.


No. Julie, you're the one who is wrong. I've just cited the requirements for NAPWDA and they fail a team if the dog misses (or falses and the handler calls it) on live find. Yet they allow for misses and falses on all the detection work including, bombs, narco, accelerants, and HR. This is beyond argument. It's a fact. 



julie allen said:


> Nothing is 100%, and if you worked sar dogs, you should know that.


I've never said that anything is 100%. I have said that dogs trained with the drive system do not false alert. Those two things are not the same. 

Please tell us the difference between working a SAR dog and working an LE K−9? Generally the areas searched by SAR folks are larger, but not always. I used to think that LE searched for people who did not want to be found, and that SAR searched for people who did want to be found. But after more experience, I quickly changed that position. The only significant difference I see is in what the dog is expected to do when he makes the find. 



julie allen said:


> It's a tool that makes our job easier, faster (due to the dogs capability to scent lol) and every dog has its thresholds to odors.


If it were not for the dog's scenting ability, we'd not be using them for detection work. You've got the cart before the horse again, but it's a minor point. Not sure how _"threshold"_ enters into this discussion. Can you elaborate?


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

julie allen said:


> I don't know with nasar, but with other testing organizations I have been through, you may have an alert, for example, that isn't close enough to qualify. So just because the dog alerts, isn't necessarily a false, but you have to be able to read the dog, and know where and why it is communicating to you at this point.


Craig and others, but especially Craig. Some are getting caught up in the minutiae of this "false alert" terminology. The dog can do whatever he wants. If the handler "calls the alert" that is, he says that the dog has found the source, and the source, is not present and never has been, it's a false alert. It's a pretty safe bet that if the dog performs whatever behavior he's been trained to do, the handler will call it an alert unless there's a very good reason for him not to. 



julie allen said:


> The tests are only an evaluation to see what the dog and handler know, working together. This is major issue I have with some of the certifications. If conditions are just perfect a dog can get through the easily set problems, I have seen handlers literally point out sources to dogs and have no interest in the find, get the dog to alert and they are certified. By book, they passed, yet don't have a clue.


Certifications are but a snapshot in time of what the handler and the dog were like at that moment. I think that they should be a minimum standard that the team must pass to go further in training and to work basic problems. In the situation that you describe, I would not pass the team. The dog must make the find and the handler must interpret the dog's alert as such. It's not just a matter of making the find. If some agency allows this, they're making a mistake. 



julie allen said:


> Or you may have ten good dogs, all fail a specific problem, due to issues of the scenario, and instead of factoring this in the dogs are not certified. Hr especially, since its not always that the odor comes through.


I guess I’m not understanding something. If HR is hidden and the test is set up properly so that there is scent available to the dog, what other _"odor comes through?"_ 



julie allen said:


> There are so many issues to factor into any type of detection, its not always cut and dried. The more real scenarios you do, the more you see that a test isn't the best option. However, when you spend time with dog/handler teams on many problems, you can see the full picture. A more accurate system may be to set many scenarios in as real life like situations as possible and evaluate teams over the entire period.


It's not possible to do this (meaning _"spend time with ... teams,"_ unless you're going to have teams certify their own members. And that path is fraught with problems too.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jim Delbridge said:


> For wilderness, the handler would have to be brain dead not to see the "victim" to call it when the dog alerts.


Not always Jim. Sometime the person is too well hidden for the handler to be able to see him. There are dozens of situations where this may occur. 



Jim Delbridge said:


> As Nancy stated, HRD, it's an entirely different situation. I can easily set up problems common in real life where the strongest collection of scent is not where the scent source is. Part of training an HRD dog is to give it the skills where it can work through such situations and work to the source (or as close as possible).


I think that's a matter for the handler to interpret, not the dog. Dogs don't find people. They don't find HR, narcotics, bombs, termites or gas leaks. They find the strongest source of scent that they can get to. In many scenarios, particularly in buildings and in some wilderness situations as well, it's impossible for them to get to source. If the handler can direct the dog so that his nose can find stronger scent, he should, but often it's not possible. Many reasons for this exist. 



Jim Delbridge said:


> If your dog works a lot of buried and it comes upon a depression where scent has collected, only experience is going to allow it to work through the situation where it doesn't automatically identify that depression as a buried source. The norm in non-live-human scent work is the handler does not have the luxury of seeing the scent source. * The handler has to be able to know the difference between dog frustration and dog alerting with its "final answer." * [Emphasis Added]


I doubt that there are many handlers who are going to be able to tell this difference, especially after a few hours of searching, when both he and the dog are tired. Perhaps someone with decades of experience might be good at it, but the average handler is not going to be able to do this to any reliable degree. One of the problems is that many people think they are capable of doing this, when, in fact, they are not. They may be able to when they and the dog are fresh, but when both are tired, not so much. 

When a dog can't get to source, which is much of the time in detection work, he should alert at the strongest source of scent that he can get to. This is very common in narcotics detections work on the road. The dog is walked around the outside of the car and alerts on a door seam. He's not going to go to source. When this occurs the handler can either put the dog into the car or search it himself. If he can't find the source then it's appropriate for him to put the dog into the car. 



Jim Delbridge said:


> Lou's example of reward driven versus scent source driven is worthless when the dog "thinks" the scent source is there, both dogs are driven to the find for whatever reason.


Jim in the case of the drive system, the dog is driven to get to his prey. There's only one way he can do that, dig, unless, of course, he's trained for a passive alert. The dog trained with the handler supplied reward is driven to get his toy. Looking for, and finding, the scent is only a means to get to the toy. The difference is significant. 

Since dogs don't find "things" they only find the strongest source of scent that they can get to, dogs probably "think" that the scent source is at that point. An experienced dog may realize that he's not at source and that he must alert at the strongest point of scent that he can get to, in order to get to source. An example of this is a dog who finds narcotics odor at a door seam and digs there. Through experience he learns that he can get to source after the door is opened. 



Jim Delbridge said:


> But, Lou does have a point when the handler "thinks" the scent source is somewhere and cues/suggests/reinforces the dog's activity into making it a full blown alert.


Yep. That's a significant issue with handler supplied reward dogs.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Earlier I wrote,


> Yes I did, but your reference to it, shows how little you understand of it





Jan Wensink said:


> Yeah, right.


Jan you've said several times that you understand the drive training system, but in fact, you don't. You've shown this over and over. You'll probably show it again, in this post. You've never bothered to join the website of the guy who developed the system so you've never read about it in depth. Your only source of information on it is my posts here and your imagination, so really, it's IMPOSSIBLE that you now understand the details and intricacies of it. 

Earlier you wrote,


> There are other ways to prove it than by showing a thousand videos.


And I responded,


> Always open to suggestions as to how this could be done! I'm sorry Jan that you're unable to grasp the concept that one can't prove a negative. But that's your failing, not mine.


No response to my question Jan? About what I expected. Short of videos or your personal, direct observation of someone who's using the system, there's no way to prove it to you, and again, I feel no such need. 

Earlier I wrote,


> No, it wouldn't "widely spread by now." It's only been in use for a couple of years and it goes against the status quo which has been in use for decades. People like you don't want to change. They've got too much invested. Some are threatened by it and will fight it tooth and nail. For years they've been selling their dog training services. For them to change now would be admitting that what they've been doing all this time was not as good as it might have been. Some have spent decades in the OC system that teaches detection as a game and a trick, hence allowing handlers without ethics to cue their dogs into false alerts. It also allows for the inadvertent cuing of dogs by incompetent handlers.





Jan Wensink said:


> So it has nothing to do with dog training but training the handlers to work in an ethical way.


I thought that you had a small grasp of this system, but now I can see that even that, has escaped you. It has nothing to do with _"training handlers to work in an ethical way."_ Handlers should already be operating ethically. You can't train ethics into someone. That's something that they should have learned as children. This system is much easier to teach to the handlers because they have much less involvement in it than with a handler supplied reward system. Handler supplied reward systems require lots of input in the form of praise, rewarding, playing and whooping and hollering in the "proper tone of voice." It's also easier to train the dogs for a drive system because the behavior is natural to them. It comes directly from their drives, not from an outside reward system. 



Jan Wensink said:


> It would be an easy thing to produce lots of handlers who work the OC system saying they never had a false alert in their life.


Except that we could easily show it by simply setting up some training for them. If you doubt the claim made on this forum, then I'd suggest that you talk to the member who made it. 



Jan Wensink said:


> And their trainer is always there during tfeir highway interdictions?


He was there often enough to ensure that the dogs were working properly. It's obvious and easy to see when a problem starts to develop with this system. As we've been told, David requires an analysis of records to determine if a team is having a problem. As we've seen, he's had some problems with some of his people obeying the law, much less keeping accurate records. 



Jan Wensink said:


> I bet he has no reasons not to trust them and their training records.


As I've said, record keeping is only part of monitoring K−9 teams. Far more important is "eyes on" and this trainer did a lot of that to make sure that the program was running properly. 

Earlier you wrote,


> You'll never convince me


And I responded,


> ROFL. I just said that I have no need to do so. But when you say this it shows us just how closed your mind is. Even if I was to point out that the "disadvantages in the system" that you perceive are wrong, you won't be convinced! Fine by me. I happen to think that a closed mind is dangerous. It makes it sound as if YOU think that you have all the answers!





Jan Wensink said:


> I have an open mind and don’t think I have all the answers.


Sorry Jan, but your previous statements puts the lie to this disclaimer. You think you understand the system but you don't. And in your ignorance, you've said _"You'll never convince me."_ That belies your statement that you have an open mind. 



Jan Wensink said:


> I / We regularly use things I see from foreign colleagues or things from the internet but this has no value for me.


Thanks for again proving my point. In any case I'll refer you back to my original statement on this. _"I'll never "convince [you] all" and I have no need to do so ... I've never hoped to change the minds of EVERYONE. I'm happy with the few that have open minds and are willing to learn."_ Your mind is not open and you're not willing to learn. 

Earlier I wrote,


> Please point out what you think are the "disadvantages in the system." Of course, there are "disadvantages" to every system, but let's hear what you think they are with this one ... Nonetheless, I'd love to hear your criticisms.





Jan Wensink said:


> I discussed them with you in another thread but you didn’t seem to understand.


Then please provide a link to that discussion. I'm sure that the lack of understanding was on your part as it's clear that you don't understand this system. It's really not that hard, if one's mind is open ... It's also necessary that you have an understanding of the system before you can point out any _"disadvantages"_ that may exist within it. Otherwise you're just guessing as to what it's about. And since you've never read about it, instead relying on your imagination and my brief descriptions of it here, you really have no insight to offer. 



Jan Wensink said:


> You are constantly lecturing people who work on the street, in the fields every day. They will have successes and failures but from brhind you keyboard know that they are poorly trained, have crab dog and are doing everything wrong.


Sorry Jan but again, you're wrong. I know that they're certifying under systems that allow them to miss and for their dogs to false alert. I think that's a problem. If you don't then you'll never get it. Does your certification allow for such things? I've NEVER said that anyone has a _"crap dog"_ but let's call that another mistake and not a lie, OK? Ditto for telling people that they _"are doing everything wrong."_ 



Jan Wensink said:


> I’m sure you know a few things, mainly theory.


In order to be able to fix problems that the handlers and trainers have created, I have to know a bit more than theory. At my seminars I take whatever dogs with whatever problems show up. I don't prescreen them, as do many trainers. 



Jan Wensink said:


> Training is not the same as handling.


Yes, I know. I fix the problems that you handlers create. 



Jan Wensink said:


> That is a constant learning process.


If you were a trainer you'd know that training is also a constant learning process. 



Jan Wensink said:


> Here we say your first dog is your learning project.and the real work starts with your second dog.


That's true, as far as being a HANDLER. Since, as I pointed out, I've continued to handle dogs since my dog retired, I come at this equation from both sides. You are still, a handler. You know how to get your own dog to work and that's about it. You've probably made fewer mistakes as you handled more dogs but still, you need a trainer occasionally, to fix the issues that you've created. 

Earlier I wrote,


> Jan I've done 57 seminars and as always, will be happy to supply references to that fact to anyone who requests them privately.





Jan Wensink said:


> Seminars have very little to do with the problems and challenges you face when handling a dog.
> 
> In order to solve the problems of dogs that are brought to my seminars, I have to know what caused them AND how to fix them. That experience starts with being a handler. But it becomes more complete with being a trainer.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> Two former Trooper/handlers arrested. Darn tootin'. Both convicted, darn tootin'. Like I said, we don't tolerate trash.


David, your last sentence sounds like you personally had something to do with their arrest. The truth is that you had NOTHING to do with it. BOTH of those officers from your unit, the ones that you say that you _"don't automatically assume ... are lying to you"_ were arrested by others, outside your unit. In fact, one of them was arrested by the TBI, completely outside your agency! So in fact, you DID tolerate them. You supported them in positions of trust, through which they could easily steal drugs and cue their dogs into false alerts violating the rights of the people they had sworn to protect. 

You relied on them to be honest in reporting their stats to you when it's obvious that they lacked the ethics to do so. And so you have no idea if they were cuing their dogs regularly or not. Yet you want to pretend that you keep track of this by monitoring stats. What a crock of sh!t! Maybe if you'd gotten off your ass and actually gone out and monitored them, as I advocate, for a complete picture of what they are doing, you might have caught onto their activities. But given your glaring lack of "police instincts" I'm doubting it. 

At the same time you had the audacity to insinuate that I might have a problem with people that I _"know, train or work [with.]"_ When in fact it was your agency, hell, YOUR UNIT, that had the dirt. All the while you were pointing your finger at me and telling me that I need to check the people that I deal with, you knew about these two. You covered it up to make yourself look good as if somehow your unit was above the corruption that sometimes runs through law enforcement. You somehow forgot to mention that little detail about your unit. You make me sick. 



David Frost said:


> I'm certainly not embarrassed, beyond them wearing the same uniform I did


You should be David. You trusted them when you should not have done so. As you told us, so gallantly, you never _"assumed [or even guessed] that [they] were lying to [you]."_ Looks like you were asleep at the switch there! Not one but TWO drug dealers operating in uniform, using their K−9 units, operating literally, right under your nose! Great police work there David! 



David Frost said:


> Neither of the charges involved misuse of their canines to search citizens.


Right David. When the DA has a cop dirty for selling dope, he's not interested in what he considers to be "small stuff." I'm sure that they were perfectly honest in ALL of the rest of their dealings with the public. Yep, of course they were. I'm 100% sure that they turned in all the dope that they seized from people. I'm sure that they never cued their dogs to alert so they could search cars of their competitors. I'm sure that they never planted dope on anyone. Aren't all dope dealers completely honest except for that little dope dealing thing? 



David Frost said:


> The rest of your trash is nothing but a sales gimick or lining yourself up to work for some other defense whore.


Fact is that I've never testified for the defense and I never will. I don't play for that team. I believe you've made this allegation before, without the explicit rudeness, and you've gotten the same answer. Nothing has changed here. This is nothing but your way of hiding from my many questions that you've now spent a couple of days evading. You know that they'll reveal EVEN more holes in what you do. As if having two dope dealers working in your unit wasn't enough! Talk about trash! 



David Frost said:


> I won't mention his name, either go to Nopes or Fleck's website, both have extensive files on him and his one-trick pony show.


I wonder why you won't mention his name? I'd bet that you're talking about Steve Nicely, a worthless POS if there ever was one. I've been to both Wendell's and Terry's website and seen what they have to say about him. I echo their comments about his betrayal and his lack of expertise. BTW it may interest you to know that I've taught at seminars with both Wendell and Terry. Feel free to call them up and ask where my allegiance lies. They know me well enough to talk to you about me. 



David Frost said:


> I've already stated I don't trust you.


I'm trying to think if there's something on the planet that I care about less than your opinion of me. Nope, drawing a blank. This statement, that you don't trust me is nothing but a cover-up. 
Let's examine some facts, OK David? I'm advocating that people try a training system that makes it so that their dogs DO NOT violate the constitutional rights of people to be free from unreasonable and unlawful searches. You advocate for a system that allows such violations and even encourages it through certifications that permit false alerts and a system of monitoring stats that delays detection of any wrongdoing that they may be engaged in. 

I've found corruption on my department in the form of a police officer who was dealing drugs. I rooted him out and arranged for his firing. There have been several others where I've been instrumental in arranging for them to GTFO of law enforcement. You had, not one but TWO officers dealing drugs while in uniform and while using their assigned K−9 units and you had no idea it was going on right under your nose. You were either incompetent as a police officer to detect this, the arrests came from outside your unit and one even outside your agency or you somehow managed to overlook it. Either way, you've shown that you can't be trusted. 

I'm here to educate those who want the information that I have to offer and there's no shortage of them. I know about my ethics and we now know about yours too.


----------



## Ariel Peldunas (Oct 18, 2008)

Lou Castle said:


> Of course. With the training system that you use, a handler can easily influence a dog into an alert or dissuade him from one, even if he's on scent.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lou,


Do you ever have anything valuable to add to a thread or do you just enjoying contradicting everything? Did I say anything you actually disagree with and can support with a logical argument, or was your goal just to point out how you believe my training methods and handling are incorrect or ineffective? How many detection dogs have you, personally, actually trained and handled? How many hours do you, personally, have working a detection dog in an operational environment? How can you possibly know what training system I use? Have you ever trained a detection dog with me or asked me what training system I use? 

Honestly, I hardly even read your posts anymore. They are all just you trying to tell everyone how they are wrong and how you know so much more than them without really providing anything tanglible to back your arguments up. I just happened to see my name so I figured I should see what you had to say this time. Conversations, for the most part, seem to be much more productive without you.


----------



## Ariel Peldunas (Oct 18, 2008)

Out of curiosity, has Lou posted a breakdown of how he trains detection dogs or has he just contradicted everyone else? I haven't had a chance to read through the entire thread so maybe someone who has can help me out.

And Chris, I would certainly train an aggressive alert for drugs if a department requested it or if I had a need for a drug dog and wasn't concerned about property damage.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

This is all ust way too much to read. Bottom line for me..... it was stated earlier by Lou that HR certifications do not allow the dog to offer a false alert. I merely pointed out that it is not considered a false alert even if the dog gives its trained indicaiton and the caller does not handle it. And several do allow even that at some rate.

I think the statement that 99% of handlers can't tell the difference is a gross exageration. Maybe because HR handlers serve at the request of LE and won't be called back if they don't do the job right, they tend to be very cautious at calling an indication because that often means calling in a backhoe, digging up a slab, and worse.

That is why David is so right on working blind problems because you can't do this if you can't read the dog.


----------



## Craig Snyder (May 7, 2012)

Lou.. you lost me about 50 "quotes" ago! 

I've totally lost interest in this post! 

I did learn some more about various standards since I researched more of them. I learned some more about some minor details between calling an alert and a false alert. So I guess it wasn't a total loss.

Chris I hope you got out of the post what you wanted!!!

Craig


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> That is why David is so right on working blind problems because you can't do this if you can't read the dog.


Nancy, it's not so much that I personally, am right on. It's just that what is right, is right. There is a big difference between those that actually do work, and those that talk about working. When posters have to aggressively take a subject off topic for their own agenda - - - well you can read the responses yourself and tell those that do and those that talk. I probably should have read more of the posts, but one-trick pony shows get boring after a time. 

DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Craig Snyder said:


> Lou.. you lost me about 50 "quotes" ago!
> 
> I've totally lost interest in this post!
> 
> ...


Craig, if you'd like, I would be more than happy to discuss how we figure the percentages and our explaon ourterminology. It really isn't rocket science. It has served us well at every court level. Our record keeping is probably a bit more comprehensive than most, certainly more than I've seen in many departments. It's free for the taking, I'm a trainer not a salesman. 

DFrost


----------



## Craig Snyder (May 7, 2012)

David Frost said:


> Craig, if you'd like, I would be more than happy to discuss how we figure the percentages and our explaon ourterminology. It really isn't rocket science. It has served us well at every court level. Our record keeping is probably a bit more comprehensive than most, certainly more than I've seen in many departments. It's free for the taking, I'm a trainer not a salesman.
> 
> DFrost


 
I might just take you up on that someday. With any luck I might be in Maryville next spring. Maybe we can get togehter for a tutorial over a few beers.

Craig


----------



## Jan Wensink (Sep 17, 2010)

deleted

See below


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

We're not doing this any more.

No more threads like this.

Pages and pages and pages of nothing but back-and-forth crap that drives every person trying to have a real discussion away in frustration and disgust.

No more.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Trying to return to the topic:




Jan Wensink said:


> In Customs over here our narcotic dogs and tobacco dogs that are used to search goods such as vehicles, containers, cargo, warehouses etc are usually trained with an aggressive alert often barking. A few times we made the choice for a passive alert when a dog was very hectic and we wanted to build in moments of calmness.
> EDD dogs and dogs that are used to search for drugs, currency or cites products on people and in the luggage they are carrying are trained with a passive alert. For obvious reasons.
> Most of them work in the airports. Those dogs are certified to search goods and persons.
> The police are also using dogs with such a certificate more and more.
> Their management requires it from them for they can be deployed for more types of jobs.


----------



## Jim Delbridge (Jan 27, 2010)

In search venues where discretion (such as airports) is necessary, a sit or down alert is very useful.

In search venues such as dense woods where the handler and flanker spend as much time trying to figure out how to dlimb under, over, through, etc while the dog works scent, a bark comes in very handy. If for nothing else, it tells me which way I have to break trail. While I'm a big fan of double blinds, searches in environments like this free the handler up of having to worry if they know what or how many as the exercise becomes more the dog waiting for you to get to it. 
A caveat against dogs obsessing on the scent source is if they don't have a reward coming from the handler then they can self-reward with their "prey" all they want. So, while I do pick dogs that are high in scent drive and search for their own enjoyment, I do also select dogs high in ball drive such that they have a reason to include me in on the find.
If the dog is always on lead (or on "stim"...same thing as on-lead in my mind) then this is a moot point with training.

So, my point in the original post is that the dog team must decide early on what communication system is needed to announce a find in the environments they search. While some HRD dogs never leave their handler's sight, mine do all the time in pursuit of scent and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Jim Delbridge


----------



## mel boschwitz (Apr 23, 2010)

I only read this thread peripherally to start but then last week at training we were discussing passive and aggressive alerts in HR, specifically towards my dog that we started HR with. He gives a natural passive alert (a sit), but we were discussing whether or not to work for an aggressive alert. While my hound has a great nose for HR, and prefers it to everything else, I don't see him giving an aggressive alert. He just doesn't have that kind of drive/energy level. However, it was nice to be able to discuss with her the merits of each.


----------



## Jennifer Michelson (Sep 20, 2006)

I like a bark alert, which technically is active, correct? My guy also likes to dig, which I would prefer he didnt do and I probably inadvertently encouraged. I have spoken to many people about this including experienced working handlers and LE. None of the LE cared about the digging and most of the experienced handlers had a no problem either. It may depend on the area you are in. 

I will attempt to train a down or sit with a bark with the next HR dog.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Jennifer Michelson said:


> I like a bark alert, which technically is active, correct? My guy also likes to dig, which I would prefer he didnt do and I probably inadvertently encouraged. I have spoken to many people about this including experienced working handlers and LE. None of the LE cared about the digging and most of the experienced handlers had a no problem either. It may depend on the area you are in.
> 
> I will attempt to train a down or sit with a bark with the next HR dog.


"My guy also likes to dig, which I would prefer he didnt do and _I probably inadvertently encouraged_. "

How? (Curious.)


----------



## Jim Delbridge (Jan 27, 2010)

Both of my current dogs' natural indications is a touch. If you push too hard on the touch or ignore it, this can become a dig. I train the bark because when the dog is in vegetation where I can't see it, a down or sit is useless. My second dog had a very solid down and she was very committed to source such that search or training often degraded into "find the dog downed at the source" rather than search. I trained a down on her because of the politcal correctness of the time where a bark was not considered controllable. I think that's because many handlers reward in pool for the alert instead of at source. I prefer the bark as it allows the dog the freedom to pursue scent without worrying where the handler is as to whether the handler can see the alert. With a passive alert, you will have to always keep your dog in sight.

Jim


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

This is one thing I have struggled with because you want committment to source and Grim would naturally offer a sort of recall-refind on his own. 

IOW when he got in strong odor he would leave me but then he would do all sorts of things to establish eye contact then run back to sit at source-not in keeping with the mantra of staying at source.

It was natural for him and consistent and I did not dicourage it because he was very creative in making sure I knew where he was (Once he stood up like a meerkat and just started at me) but then always went back to the sit.

I might like to add a bark to Beau. Do you rekon it is too late? I am going to try to ceritify him in early October (at 14 mos) though I am mainly going for the sake of the seminar and have another chance in Jan/Feb. He is consistenly offering a sit indication at source and is doing a good job of working to source. Of course in another way I don't want to change the game.

Yes for HR you always want to watch them working but if it is a strong odor source you want the dog to commit and leave you.

Edit-I never actually considered the bark to be an agressive alert..mmm? The dig though - a big problem there is yes you can stop it quickly if you are right there but the kind of source that is going to pull a dog away from you means it may take some time to both relocate the dog and stop the behavior. Particularly if it is NOT barking but digging. I could easily see it buidling with a handler not right there.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I don't see a problem adding a bark now.
As for the digging it's quite possible it's a timing issue when the reward is marked or offered. If the dog is in the middle of digging when the handler rewards then it's going to dig again.
They sure learn the stuff easily when we don't want them to. :wink:


----------



## Jim Delbridge (Jan 27, 2010)

I'd wait until after October if you do try to complicate the alert. My observations over the years is that once an alert behavior is set then it's better to stick with it as long as it's consistent and easy to read. I've seen way too many handlers try multiple alerts on their dogs to create a mess when they cert as they are forced to tell the evalutor all the possible alerts they'll accept from the dog. If the dog is stressed or tired, it invariably migrates back to its foundation. What you might do is put strong odor sources in situations where you don't have to worry what the dog does if you aren't there such that once you know the dog is on scent then you dissappear from its sight. Observe what the dog does without you present. If it sits there at the source without a concern for you then you might consider options. Why complicate things this early on?


Jim


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Good call on waiting till after the certification!


----------



## Ariel Peldunas (Oct 18, 2008)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> This is one thing I have struggled with because you want committment to source and Grim would naturally offer a sort of recall-refind on his own.
> 
> IOW when he got in strong odor he would leave me but then he would do all sorts of things to establish eye contact then run back to sit at source-not in keeping with the mantra of staying at source.
> 
> ...


Regarding the sort of recall/refind, both my HRD dog and my explosives detection dog do this ...the HRD dog more consistently. I never trained for it, but I like it and don't discourage it. What I do like is, once they can see me, their alert is solid ...a down with sniffing/nose poke. 

Also, talking about adding a bark, I also agree that waiting until after cert is a good idea. It was fairly easy for me to take a dog that had a simple down alert and add in the nose poke after I attended a Randy Hare seminar and liked the concept. I wouldn't think it would be too difficult to add a bark, provided the dog is an easy barker.


----------



## Chris Keister (Jun 28, 2008)

Barking gives me something to think about. Do/ would you guys teach a separate nose touch to indicate location?


----------



## Jim Delbridge (Jan 27, 2010)

With HRD, regardless of the alert, a targeting mechanism is fairly essential for bones and teeth. If you have a whole body it's not necessary. I had a trooper once ask me to have my dog to demonstrate targeting a whole body. She looked at me like I was a moron, but circled the body once and then did a gentle touch on the hand. She hadn't found the body as we were in an adjacent sector, so it was a good excuse to reward her. I was working as a death investigator after the fact and didn't see the need to imprinting her on a whole body, so just tied her up to a nearby tree. On an aside that's pertinent to the discussion, we were in very dense woods and we had to use her bark to guide riders back to the site for recovery at dusk.

Jim


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Ariel Peldunas said:


> Regarding the sort of recall/refind, both my HRD dog and my explosives detection dog do this ...the HRD dog more consistently. I never trained for it, but I like it and don't discourage it. What I do like is, once they can see me, their alert is solid ...a down with sniffing/nose poke.
> 
> Also, talking about adding a bark, I also agree that waiting until after cert is a good idea. It was fairly easy for me to take a dog that had a simple down alert and add in the nose poke after I attended a Randy Hare seminar and liked the concept. I wouldn't think it would be too difficult to add a bark, provided the dog is an easy barker.


Well it is, as I understand, a very natural behavior for a herding dog to do this (eye contact and tell you). I agree with and understand Jim's concern about adding a twist to the indicationand he does a nice stare to pinpoint. Seen some live find dogs messed up that way. Reality is that very few of our searches involve whole bodies with a lot of odor.

Folks I have talked with in LE have a little more concern about asking the dog for additional pinpointing (e.g. "show me") after the find. ..something about the handler being too involved, and I guess if we are targeting within a close enough distance, that is what forensics folks are for.....at least that is the feedback I have been given but it is an interesting question. Any dog I have seen with a "touch" has not disturbed the training aid.

Something to think on for awhile. Certainly after testing makes sense, . Have a training next week with some of the LE folks who use us so a good discussion to be had there. I have to take PTO to get up there to work with them but when I did, it was very helpful.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

I don't want to pull off course again. Its all so darned interrelated that it is easy to jump from one aspect to another.

HR dogs often work offlead-and go out of visual range on a large odor source.

Offlead dogs, IMO - the aggressive indication *could* be more problematic if you can't see them

Is a bark really an "aggressive" indication?
I know it is very active but is it agressive since it does not disturb the source?


----------



## Jim Delbridge (Jan 27, 2010)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> Folks I have talked with in LE have a little more concern about asking the dog for additional pinpointing (e.g. "show me") after the find. ..something about the handler being too involved, and I guess if we are targeting within a close enough distance, that is what forensics folks are for.....at least that is the feedback I have been given but it is an interesting question. Any dog I have seen with a "touch" has not disturbed the training aid.
> 
> .


As a death investigator, I'm considered in a grey area between L.E. and civilian. I can't be connected with any law enforcement to maintain my objectivity in collecting evidence and reporting to my pathologists.
My experience has been with large metro law enforcement that you are correct in that a dog with a target isn't really desired as they have all the CSI toys and skills to do this on a planned agenda. Leave the metro area and budgets and skills are often limited such that such a resource as a targeting dog can come in handy to find the little bones the critters haven't carried off. One whole tooth or a small bone is enough to get DNA if the goal is to identify against a known missing person. As the handler, you do have to be careful how you work a directed search. You and the dog have to have practiced this many times before an actual search where you, the handler, control the grid spacing, but leave it up to the dog to still leave your direction if it gets into scent to target. Just like a narcotics search, the handler has to maintain a rhythm of movement and sound whether the dog is working scent or not so as to avoid cueing the dog.

Even then, the dog may take you to an area where the dog and several persons are trying to use the dog's nose for recovery unless you have sifters and archeology/anthropology grad student slave labor to sift through the debris for the small stuff. A favorite exercise done to me and that I've done to other historic dog teams is to take ten histroic level teeth (no tissue or blood remnants) in a gloved hand and throw them up into the air over either tall grass or (better) a parking lot with 4 inches (or more) gravel. Finding eight of the teeth usually happens pretty quickly, but I've literally spent an hour a tooth for the last two with me laying on my stomach and the dog at my side such that I can ask it to "check" once again then I gently sift through the material to avoid the tooth sinking deeper into the mess. Without a deliberate gentle target on the dog's part this can be an impossible task for many dog teams. 
I set up a requested historic tooth grid for some historic dog handlers from out west and before I started we defined the rules of overlap and source size. They wanted overlaps as tight as three feet and source size to be equivalent to a single historic tooth. We've done this with overlaps as tight as a foot. Overlap distance is the expectation the dog can tell the difference between multiple identical sources; Otherwise, it's common that the dog will go back to the first find it was rewarded on. This is a developed skill on the dog's part via gradually tighter scent problems. Handlers quickly figure out that they have to step out to let the dog work or they make it worse. Moving between the sources can disturb scent flow as well. No, this is not something any of the national groups test for...........


Jim Delbridge


----------



## Jennifer Michelson (Sep 20, 2006)

Connie-

Remus is my first HR dog. He had a natural touch and he is a fast guy, so he offered a lot. He was easy to teach (initially reward for the find) and the bark was fairly easy to incorporate. We didnt have a problem until I started working on buried hides. My lack of experience and confidence in the scent coming up caused a delayed reward which started the digging (again he is a fast, high drive guy with no patience for my inexperience lol). Plus the one year we had a lot of snow and I forgot that I had put a bone out in my back yard. I let him out to go potty, he found the bone and had a fantastic time digging it up and kicking it out behind him......lessons learned lol. At this point it is self rewarding happens more often when he is 'high'.

I think I will teach an initial sit or down for the next dog and add the bark.


----------

