# Working on my police dog book.



## Jim Engel

OK, advance apologies if these are old questions.

Been thinking a lot about search and aggression as regards selection and training.

My assumption is that the search and rescue dog must be and be perceived as friendly to the found people, who are often under great stress.

Does this preclude protection trained dogs, that is, dogs such as Schutzhund dogs which do an aggressive bark and guard on the blind search?

As to the dogs themselves, what is "to aggressive by nature" to do search and rescue? Is a naturally aggressive dog which would be a good patrol dog candidate generally not suitiable for search and rescue?

Perhaps not the right place to ask, but what about police dogs, if a child or fragile old person wanders off, is the probably fairly aggressive building search trained dog useful for a search?
Do they need to wait for another dog, or can the aggressive dog be used under tight control?

I have some opinions and ideas on this, but want to see what the general consensus is here.


----------



## will fernandez

The use of a patrol dog for the search of civilians is usually done under tighter control not because the dogs are aggressive but rather because they have been taught to apprehend. Most patrol dogs are social. It is more about liability and murphy's law.

Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Nancy Jocoy

One of the police agencies we train under does not use aggression trained dogs for searches of missing persons and cites, Melgar v Greene (at least they did in a class I took there). That particular agency understands schutzhund as a dog sport but stated any word gets out on a bite trained dog and they just don't want to face the backlash the press could put on it. So they will not work with a bite trained team. Different agencies certainly would have a different take. Bottom line - the department is liable for anyone it deploys.

http://emainehosting.com/mesard/pdf_documents/Search and Rescue for Patrol K-9s.pdf

So they save the kids life and get sued because he got bit.

Good discussion. I think Deb Palman writes for USPCA, is respected by the SAR community and is retired game warden for Maine. It gives Terry Fleck's analysis.


----------



## Jim Engel

Nancy, thank you very much !

Exactly the kind of thing I have been looking for.

I will study this and then perhaps bother you with
more questions...


----------



## Craig Snyder

Caroline Hebard, I believe considered an early adopter of dogs for SAR, used all schutzhund shepherds for her personal dogs.

I would say that a lot of what makes for a good, *stable*, patrol dog, makes for a good SAR dog. But as Nancy said, caution must be used when using a dog trained for apprehension for SAR work.

Schutzhund work is training the dog under very specific condiitons using specific commands. There is no reason a stable schutzhund dog can't train in SAR. The dog learns a new command for the search work, all the keys for the search, (the vest, the bell, the handler's prep, what ever else leads up to actually working the dog), indicate to the dog that this is a totally different exercise. The dogs are intelligent. They can understand. They get multiple reps several times a week in training so the search behavior will become dominant. I wouldn't recomend however to continue a dog in both disciplines, at least not the bite work.

On the other hand, a patrol dog is drilled in apprehension every week. It would be the exception for them to NOT apprehend upon finding a subject. They also are usually always working on fresh scent. In our area, they are always used on leash when used. 

We always ask Police to allow us to redo areas they have covered which, depending on the department, gets mixed results. if the police aren't called right away for a missing person, they might be working with a 5-10 hr scent trail which they usually don't train on. (maybe only 10-20% of their training runs?). SAR tracking dogs usually try to use older scents as we rarely get called early enough to have a scent under 5-6 hrs.. Most of the time, on actual missions, we are looking at a scent trail aged 24-48 hrs.

If an officer tries to use a patrol dog as an air scent dog on leash, there is a good chance the dog will miss. The officer would have to do a very tight grid compared to an off-leash SAR dog and handler. Plus we all know that handlers can transmit a ton of info via the leash. This would especially be true if you don't train on leash a lot.

It really comes down to what you train the most for. I'd say it's analogous to trying to use a typical patrol K9 as a military or SWAT K9. If you don't train for it regularly, don't do it.

Craig


----------



## Jim Engel

Craig, is that Shepherds from "Schutzhund Lines" or actually trained and 
titled Schutzhund dogs?

Huge difference, it is possible to pick dogs, and bitches, out of working 
lines that are more social and less actively aggressive, dogs which might
not be right for breeding, police or schutzhund training.

I am skeptical about converting a strong Schutzhund titled dog to civilian
search, the search is going to look pretty much like the blind search, and
the aggressive bark and hold is going to convert to bite as soon as the subject
moves or reacts.


----------



## Craig Snyder

Hebard used all titled schutzhund dogs. III's I believe. Her last was an import from Germany. 

I also know of a gal on another local team that has a schutzhund titled dog that she uses for SAR. Primarily as a tracker however in her case, not an air scent.

Correct me if I'm wrong but for schutzhund trials don't they do the blind work using those cute little red canvas teepee's? I don't think I've seen one of those in the woods yet. :-k

:-D

I'm sure that's a topic of discussion's in a lot of circles. If a dog is always trained on red blinds for competition is he REALLY learning to find and hold? I know handlers train their dogs elsewhere, but you get the point. As Will said, the dog is taught to apprehend. It shouldn't come as a result of an over the top desire to take someone's arm off.. Many of these dogs are going to be able to figure out the difference. I get worried that competitions can/will result in lines of dogs that are overly hot dogs and don't really have the even temperament that a good Shepherd should have. 

That's not to say all schutzhund dogs can be good SAR dogs though. Like anything else, it depends on the dog. But I don't think you should automatically rule out a dog for SAR work just because it's done bite work before. You have to be aware of it and tailor the training to make sure the proper behavior is encouraged and selected for.

All IMHO. You get what you pay for.

Craig


----------



## Nancy Jocoy

Carolyn Hebard was also known for having nasty aggressive dogs. This is first hand experience from several long time SAR folks I have talked with who knew her personally. Ask around-it is pretty commonly acknowledged by way too many people who either knew her or worked with her. Many of us got into SAR after reading and being inspired her book, but there are some very interesting stories about the personality not presented in print.

The schutzhund or not debate goes on like a broken record. There is no information I know of saying an offlead air scent schutzhund trained dog is intrinsically safer or better than one without schtuzhund training though people make the argument. I actually know of a case in Germany where one bit the head of a child, though it was discussed years ago on a K9-SAR forum by a German lady who worked GSPs not GSDs. The handler is not present when the dog makes the find and the dog must make a decision should the victim get scared and run. My own preference is the SAR dog should have one function in life. Better to be an expert at one job than a jack of all trades. Jim's argument is the one that has been made. 

The general public and the press and the courts would not have the same understanding the dogsport community may have and I am certain any bite would spell the end of years of hard work done by a team and it would become a circus if the dog were bite trained.

But it comes down to a decision by the state (some), or the team or in conjunction with the dispatching agencies. I am not going to argue pro or con here - just stating one perspective on where it came from in the first place followed by a court case that further cements the viewpoint in some cases.

FWIW, the disaster dog does not have the same kind of direct contact with its victim than a wilderness dog working out of sight of the handler may have...could be a factor.


----------



## mel boschwitz

We were talking about this at a seminar I went to late last year. There were several Schutzhund dogs on the team. I wish I had paid more attention (I run hounds, not exactly Schutzhund material!). They did talk about the different drives, and what was appropriate for a SAR dog to be worked in. But darn if I can remember! 

I am like Nancy, prefer a specialist dog, rather than Jack of all trades. When I take a dog out, I want there to be no guesswork as to what it shoupd be doing. A persons life could hang in the balance.


----------



## Craig Snyder

I agree totally that a dog should have one job. I specificllly said that if a schutzhund dog was to be utilized for SAR work it should no longer participate in bite work. And I totally agree, one bite from a dog can be devestating to a team. 

I can't debate on Caroline as i never knew her personally. Howver I have worked with her former team before. Can't say I ever heard anything bad or good about her but never really inquired either. I just know she had at least three schutzhund titled dogs and did extensive travelling with them. I'm sure like any good GSD they would have been protective of her, her car and property. I have never heard of actual bite incidents on subjects but again, I never really asked or actively pursued the questions.

If you start with a good, stable, schutzhund dog that has a propensity for SAR work, you are ahead of the curve in a lot areas. So I think it can be an advantage. Again.. don't judge the dog by it's titles. Judge the dog for the dog.

Craig


----------



## Nancy Jocoy

There, the argument has been made that under stress, a dog will revert to its original training. By the time a dog has acquired all its various sport titles it is also getting older. I think there is a lot of good to be said about starting a live find dog in tracking, though to give them that tool in their kit. 

RE Caroline - they were first hand accounts from people I believe, and given to me independently, but not my own accounts; I never met the woman. 

My first cadaver-only dog had preliminary training in bitework (no titles) and he was a bit too intimidating for many with a built-in bark and hold that was more than fun and games. About the sweetest most stable dog you would ever see.


----------



## Craig Snyder

One more thing. It also depends on the type of SAR you are talking about. 

With tracking, it's onleash and not much different than the issues a patrol dog has when tracking. But if you stop doing all bite work and discourage any such behavior, it shouldn't be a major concern.

With HRD, you typically aren't looking for live victims, so unless the dog likes cadaver material, again probably a non-issue. 

Of course you still want good social skills for PR and general safety of team members and the public.

That leaves live find dogs. On rubble as Nancy said there is often limited access to the subjects and these subjects are rarely moving or trying to escape.

For wilderness live find you usually have two types, a bark-alert dog or a re-find dog. 
Personally, I'd suggest training a re-find for any ex-schutzhund dog. That entails a totally different response than a bark dog. There is none of that barking at the subject and keep them here type of thing which might remind the dog of their bite work.

Unless a handler has a desire to pursue FEMA disaster dog work which requires a bark alert dog, we usually always encourage new handlers to train the re-find. But some dogs just aren't as suited for re-find as they are bark alerts. So it depends.

So in the end, the major risk area is training an ex-schutzhund on wilderness live find air scenting using a bark alert. All the other forms are different enough activities that if the dog is socially acceptable under normal circumstances, there shouldn't be a problem with a schutzhund dog that has what it takes to be a SAR dog.

I have a good friend that has his Mali trained as a re-find live find and an HRD dog, (court approved). She is a bite dog as well but you'd never know it. Unless you tried to smack around her handler.

Craig


----------



## Nancy Jocoy

I would not have any personal issue with an on lead or cadaver dog with former bite training. Our team does though as do the police. (Well for the trailing). 

Even the arguments on the article by Deb Palman differentiate a bite on find dog from those who bite on command or other situation and I don't think any schutzhund dog is ever trained to bite on the find.


----------



## Craig Snyder

Nice article BTW Nancy. Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen it before. :grin:

Craig


----------



## Nancy Jocoy

I think it also points out what we have seen. The demographics of the missing people seem to be changing. Most of our calls are now dementia and small kids, often with some level of autism. 

Folks whose reaction to the dogs can be unpredictable and folks who are on the more frail sides of life (though what a 3 year old kid can survive is amazing)

Hikers have GPS and Cell phones anymore...though we did have one about 2 years ago where a woman took a wrong turn on a walk and fell off a rock face and crawled into a shallow cave. So, not a hiker, but someone out there with tennis shoes and no equipment. Two dogs pulled that way, it was too dark and dangerous to continue work them and the next morning they put out the helicopters to detail that same rock face and found her alive with a broken bone. Thankfully she was able to pull herself on the ledge.


----------



## Craig Snyder

Nancy Jocoy said:


> I think it also points out what we have seen. The demographics of the missing people seem to be changing. Most of our calls are now dementia and small kids, often with some level of autism.


Very true. That also enforces the need to expose live-find dogs to a variety of folks. I've found dogs often don't like things new or strange to them. (some couldn't care less!). So a child with autism, Down's syndrome, or a child with a handicap or deformity can sometimes display unknown behaviors to the dog. Same for people with dementia. 

I had mine at a Special Olympics event and it was initially stressful for her. Especially the first time a group of Down's syndrome kids approached her all at once and encircled her. They took me by surprise! These kids are just so sweet but many have no idea of how to approach a dog. I'm sure patrol dogs, or bite trained dogs could easily misinterpret the intentions of some of these people.

Craig


----------



## Christopher Smith

Craig Snyder said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but for schutzhund trials don't they do the blind work using those cute little red canvas teepee's? I don't think I've seen one of those in the woods yet. :-k


Since you asked, yes you are wrong. Not in your direct statement but in your inference that schutzhund dogs don't bite outside of a blind or schutzhund field. The majority of schutzhund dogs have nothing to do with the blinds until the dog is already biting well. Also most schutzhund dogs are worked outside of the schutzhund field for various training reasons.


----------



## Jim Engel

Mr. Smith is correct.

Although there are more recently some who are only concerned about style and
points, many old school Schutzhund trainers are quite concerned about the
inherent aggressiveness of their dogs in difficult, unusual or more intimidating
situations, and train and test accordingly.

I like to see a dog go on a strange field and go out 200 yards, twice the normal
distance, to bite a helper he has never seen before. Surprise attacks in off field
situations are also not uncommon.

Furthermore, although there is some variation, most police programs require, 
demand and test for relatively highly aggression in their dogs.

Why else would they seek out Malinois and German Shepherds from more
demanding working lines?

Aggression is a good thing, not a bad thing. A football player must be aggressive.
Although he must play by the rules, or not get caught, he is effective and respected
according to his controlled, focused aggression.

The same with dogs.

Some people like to portray police dogs as just family dogs that happen to go
off to work with momma or daddy, but I think this is a mistake.


----------



## Jim Delbridge

Just some observations on this type of topic. I really think it depends on the dog and the handler when it comes down to brass tacks.

1) Lou Castle likes to brag that the only real live find on the WTC rubble pile was by a police apprehension dog.

2) I know of one handler/self-proclaimed trainer who toyed with drive-through-play for a rubble pile dog. She ended up washing the dog from pile work because it started biting the victims. Such would fail in a FEMA test and you quickly scrape the barrel looking for victim volunteers if your dog has a rep for biting.

3)The group I originally started with were four Schutzhand dog teams that decided to try SAR. Of those four, three were trying to cross-train their Sch dogs and only one really made it into the field as a trailing dog rather than area search dog. I came shortly after. I helped in training some of the Sch requirements, but never saw the need for it personally as I didn't intend to breed.

4) One of my students that is now a compatriot with an awesome HHRD/NAPWDA HRD dog that has a BH on her dog, but did not get into bite work. She has one of those dogs that's pretty much a natural at everything but decided on her own that not doing bitework would avoid any accidents in public relations. LE tend to respect your dogs, but civilians tend to see all dogs as fluffy-wuffies even if they like to find dead people.

5) I personally think that specializing to a task is best for the handler and the dog. New handlers may take ten or more years to finally get what searching is really all about. It's not something you can teach in a class. Until the handler becomes truly focused on doing an honest search, the dog is at the handler's mercy. I will never tell another dog owner/handler what is the right decision for them as that's part of the journey via mistakes made. I do think it is better if a handler wants to become versed in many dog specialties that they should strive to find the best dogs for each specialty. I can tell you that training two dogs in the same work on my own can be challenging at times. Training multiple dogs in multiple specialties would not work for me, but so many seem to like to string titles and certs after their and their dogs' names. Like in martial arts, a title or cert is like the first degree black belt. Now the student is truly ready to learn.

6) When someone wants to crosstrain their live find search dog on fresh remains with me, we go through lots of caveats for the handler to consider. HRD work will slow down the area search speed of the dog as the dog becomes versed at HRD. I advise the dog always end with a live find problem at the end of training as that's still its primary job. With Sch, the handler is going to have to decide what they want the dog to excel at, Sch or SAR. Chances are that it will be fair to average in both and not at the top of the game in either.

7) I truly believe that the handler myth of "my dog knows which job it is to do by what I equipment I put on it" is so much hooey. The dog will first choose to work the game it likes best. If that's not available, it will seek out the other possibilities the handler has presented to it that the dog gets stroked for either via self-reward or handler-reward. Sooooo, if the dog really likes bite work and you sent it to go find the Alzheimer's patient that has the mentality of a 4 year old that runs from dogs.....chances are it will think the spazzy human wants to play the bite game regardless to if you have a harness on it, a search frape, or that special collar with a bell.



Jim Delbridge


----------



## Jim Engel

Although my personal knowledge beyond schutzhund tracking is second hand, what Jim Delbridge rings true in my ears. ( Which is why I started this.)

Looking back over the years, if I took most of my highly trained dogs out in the woods or fields they would think they were there for tracking, but as soon as it became apparent that it was something different they would hope that they were having a lucky day and there was going to be a surprise attack.

I am spending a fair amount of time with a friend who runs a police dog training business and watching, mostly the drug detection training. I am hoping he will let me bring my own dog for testing and initial drug training, so I can see the process first hand.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy

I am surprised there is more consensus right now on this topic thus far. Normally it becomes a raging battle with everyone proclaiming that folks wanting a dog to exclude schutzhund trained dogs and require them to be single purpose just "don't understand.the sport.."


----------



## Craig Snyder

I think we are all pretty much in agreement in most of the things stated here. 

I do understand that most schutzhund follks don't work just on red blinds on a field. I'm not stupid. i was just using that to overemphasize that i do think dogs can and do learn to key on situational aspects of the training. 

I don't think a bite dog should be doing bite work and be engaged in live-find air-scent work. But again, evaluate the dog for the dog. Just because it's a titled bite dog doesn't mean it should automatically ruled out as a SAR candidate. Just as a title or cert doesn't necessarily make good dog, neither does it make it a bad dog.

I do however disagree (and its a personal bias as I don't think there is a wrong or right here), that bite dogs should be overly aggressive. It might be what some departments choose to pick, but I don't think it is good. I think there is a big difference between being agressive and having heart. Personally, having had bite dogs, (no not titled but one was a state police dog), and gettting to know my local K9 officer's, and being a general member of the community, I don't think overly aggresive K9's should be allowed on the street. Not after what I've seen can be done in trainiing with a good dog with a lot of heart. Hot dogs are not needed.

Picking for aggression to me harkens to the macho "my dog can kick your dog's butt" attitude. Picking for heart is different. A dog that won't give up and is willing to die for their handler is a measure of heart. That's not aggression. The one that is willing to die because he's just down right mean and see's red all the time is not a dog that should be in public. There is a difference. Same outcome, but a lot less liability.

Craig


----------



## Bob Scott

I was involved in SAR with my dog while we were also training in Schutzhund. This dog has always been one of the clearest "thinking" dogs I've ever owned. I probably wouldn't do the two together again mainly because of the time involved in both. 
I commented on something the other night in a different post about his clarity. When playing tug with him he will just about pull my arm out of socket. At the same time my 5 grandkids have also played tug with him. He does nothing more then stand with the tug in his mouth while the kids are tugging and pulling on the tug. This was nothing he was taught. He's a very clear headed dog!


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Bob Scott said:


> I was involved in SAR with my dog while we were also training in Schutzhund. This dog has always been one of the clearest "thinking" dogs I've ever owned. I probably wouldn't do the two together again mainly because of the time involved in both.
> I commented on something the other night in a different post about his clarity. When playing tug with him he will just about pull my arm out of socket. At the same time my 5 grandkids have also played tug with him. He does nothing more then stand with the tug in his mouth while the kids are tugging and pulling on the tug. This was nothing he was taught. He's a very clear headed dog!


Not just clear, INTELLIGENT!!!! And thank god I ranked right up there with the grandkids in the tug department. I was thinking about Thunder when reading this thread. He would know the difference.

T


----------



## Bob Scott

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Not just clear, INTELLIGENT!!!! And thank god I ranked right up there with the grandkids in the tug department. I was thinking about Thunder when reading this thread. He would know the difference.
> 
> T


T I think about you tugging with Thunder every time one of the kids ask to do it. :lol:;-)


----------



## Kat Hunsecker

Well, 
i am used to even police dogs going to search for lost people, but this is in germany. 
but also this said, the Drives for a great SAR dog are the drives for a great Schutzhund/ Working police dog also.
If you compare the two venues, SAR and Schutzhund i.e protection it utilizes the same traits.
Well some do not beleive in extensive Obedience in a SAR dog- i do. then i guess you should select for a dog that just can run ild and find people...

Our Group/SAR team, trains dogs in both venues...
We are training towards the IPO as well as the IRO and not as a sport but as the real deal to find people (i know that so far lots of organisation push it towards sport to gain bigger membership)

you need a stable temperament, nerves, tons of drive, problemsolving skills obedience etc etc...
also there are more possible alerts then a bark and hold!!
If you are worried, that a dog will intimidate a victim- and i bet most do that forefully bark-reghardless of training for this or protection( sports).
and if you train right the dog will know what task they are out to do...

overly agressive was mentioned, often they are just out of control and the peopel like the so called bad a** attitude ... I like a calm collected dog that does it's job when it needs to, not beeing overly agressive.

i don't think i need to emntion that not all dogs are suited to do both, but lots of them are... Well most of the GSDs i have seen and the ones we train in both venues... some you just ahve to pick which direction you want to go... they are well capable of doing all, but it takes a lot of time and work.
I like a determined dog....
As said before... you got to look at each dog individually....


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Kat,

Thank you for restoring my faith in dogs and their trainers.

I have been reading so many posts that have really had me reeling. 

Every dog should have a certain amount of aggression - it doesn't mean it has to display it 100 % of the time. It is an important part of the dog's nature without which it would not otherwise survive. I don't know how to put this properly but aggression is for me tantamount to endurance and without endurance, neither Schuthzhund or SAR dog could be of use.

We have SAR competitions in Germany and Switzerland and after Level 3 in SAR, it is possible for the handler to take a test to become part of the country's SAR teams, if suitable. Even if the dog were suitable, the handler must also live up to the rather gruelling qualifications.

The reason that there are not so many dual purpose dogs can be probably attributed to the fact that both SAR and Schutzhund require many hours of training, often not compatible with another, also considering many of the handlers in SAR have to be athletic, and requiring a profession that allows enough free time to train dogs.

I did competition SAR and IPO but had to drop competition SAR due to other priorities. However, I really enjoyed the relaxed atmosphere in the SAR training. The handlers were far more relaxed than those in IPO.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy

You are talking about competition in SAR as opposed to expecting a dog to work hours offlead, often out of sight of its handler and facing unusual circumstances and victims who may have medical or psychological problems. 

I also understand that 40-60 acre search areas (per dog), often at night, and victims whose "tracks" may be 12-24 hours old, have no known start point and are trampled on by family members and friends and vehicles before you get there are not represented by IRO standards..or even most patrol dog training which has a different focus. 

I am certain there may be the exceptional handler and dog that can "do it all" but I would still maintain that if my kid was missing I would want the dog and handler whose every fiber of training was focused on one thing and one thing only and it is many many hours to do this level of (non competition) training. The certifications we all must get are merely a starting point.

I do see a difference. I know my cadaver dog does not need a collar or special clothes or a command - the minute he is cut loose lead or is on lead on a harness, he is entirely hunting for human remains. There is nothing else to think about. 

And it does not matter if the do it all team can do it all if organizational requirements or department policies say no.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Nancy, are you talking to me?

Even in SAR training, for competition or for the furtherance to the Swiss Rescue Team:

http://www.deza.admin.ch/en/Home/Activities/Humanitarian_Aid/Swiss_Rescue

the dog is in 99% off lead. There are some handlers who prefer to use the line - mostly the unathlethic.

I do not wish to underestimate Schutzhund or SAR dogs but do believe that canines could achieve both, if not their handlers.


----------



## will fernandez

I do believe that some of the dogs on the NL Heavy USAR team are PH 1's


----------



## Nancy Jocoy

I gather most of these this (certainly IRO) are geared towards disaster training and deployment where the dog is under direct handler control as opposed to the wilderness air scent dogs we have talked about who have to cover large areas offlead and often out of sight. 

I think that is the concern being stated - air scent dogs - out of sight of the handler - disaster is different in all these regards

Maybe I am wrong. I don't know much about Europe though I understand the IRO test area is about 2 acres while it is up to 160 acres in various wilderness disciplines over here.

---

And there are wilderness teams who have schutzhund dogs as there is no standardization concerning that other than state control, police department requirements for sar folks, or team requirements due to concerns about insurance etc.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

I am probably in an area that I do not know enough about but the Swiss Sar Teams are not only employed in Europe.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy

I think we are getting afield. I was mainly stating the IRO testing covers far less acreage in a given search area with dogs under more visual control...........it was the comment about visual control of your dog vs an offlead dog being away from the handler and having to make a decision based on its past training about what to do with an exposed victim and a strange new situation. 
.


----------



## Charlotte Grove

I firmly believe you have to look at the individual dog. My wilderness certified SAR dog is also a SchHII, and she is far more stable then a lot of other SAR dogs I have met. Excellent at meet-and-greats and awesome in classroom settings with kids. Would never know she has done anything else.


----------



## Kat Hunsecker

IRO tests far more then just disaster. Area search, tracking, water etc
And the OB asks for different exercise that tests agility and temperament on multiple levels, which includes a gun shot.
Though the tests are in smaller areas, it tests not only the dog , and area is a" minor" factor in a test. The UN deploys IRO dogs ..
as for out of sight, that is not an issue....
A determined dog will show loyalty to the task and victim.


----------



## Craig Snyder

Well the IRQ standards have certain separate tracks just like NASAR. You test for the discipline you want to do, not necessarily all of them. The basic OB part is required for all. 

I do think the air scenting areas are much to small though. The highest level tested is 3 subjects placed in a maximum area of 40000 sq. meters, or roughly 10 acres. Find all three in 30 minutes. One false alert is permitted. 

30 minutes and 10 acres hardly tests a dog and does nothing to test a handler's navigation skills. I also didn't see any night test or availability of scent specific testing. The most challenging aspect I think could be the time limit. 

That versus 1.5 hrs for 40-60 acres, (NASAR III) 1.5 for 60-80 (NASAR II) and 4 hrs for 140-160 acres with 2 moving subjects (NASAR I). NASAR I also requires the 60-80 to be done at night in 2 hrs. I & II can also be challenged as scent specific. 

I can't see how you can state that area is a "minor" factor. The whole point of using area air scenting dogs is to cover a large area quickly. A ten acre area can be searched by people in 30 min with a high probability. I don't want to sound glib but my dog would probably be scenting two of the subjects from her crate in the car. Three if the wind was blowing right. The block I live on is 16 acres and she tells me when the neighbors three houses (3 acres) up are out.

Like Nancy, I want to know the dog continues to work for 2-4 hrs. More importantly that the handler can! And can navigate the terrain. I've seen many an air scent handler that had no business in the woods.

Fortunately, I know that the IRQ area standards are just a start for those wanting to be mission ready for a national search team and that more testing is done before they are deployable.

Craig


----------



## Jim Engel

*The fly in this ointment.*

The problem with this discussion is the assumption that a contemporary Schutzhund
title means anything, which it does not unless you know the circumstances, that
is the judge.

Anybody seeing the "protection" tests leading up to SV conformation shows knows
this.

There is no real relationship between Schutzhund title would pass a hard core 
police service screening process.

Of course, there are a lot of soft cop dogs out there, & lots of cop canine operations
that are pretty Mickey Mouse.

I am going to guess that there is a difference between the various certifications
and what the hard core old timers would consider a real proven search dog.

I know there are a lot of variations, the 9/ll sort of thing is a lot different
than a wilderness search.

When I look this over, and add in some private responses, I don't see really 
experienced people who believe that high level police patrol dogs, especially
the increasingly common find and bite doctrine people or search people talking
about experience rather than certifications think that high level police patrol
and effective search are compatible.
Sure, you are going to take your cop dog out on a short leash rather than
just say "Oh well" if a fragile kid other person is out in bad weather, but it
is always a risky, last choice.

What I am thinking about now, is there a fundamantal difference in the dogs,
that is, can a really high potential police patrol candidate make a good search
dog, or is he just too high up the aggression chain.


----------



## Craig Snyder

Jim,

I was thinking of this more and how, if I was to put up a web page for novices, what I would say.

- Over the yrs many Schutzund trained and titled dogs have gone on to serve as SAR dogs.
- That said, many SAR agenceis, including many government agencies, ban bite trained dogs from serving on their teams, primarily due to potential liability issues.
- Each bite trained dog should however be judged on its own merits as to it's suitability for a particular aspect of SAR work and the handler should check with the local SAR teams to determine if they would be automatically banned due to previous bite work. No sense in training if you can't be utilized.
- Once SAR work is undertaken, all bite work should cease.
- Police patrol dogs and their handlers typically don't make the best, first choice for a lost subject incident. But in the event of a emergency, or when the tracks are known to be very fresh, (<4 hrs), they shouldn't hesitate to deploy as a tracking team. Off-leash air-scenting is to be avoided at all times.
- When used as a tracker team, the handler should always be accompanied by a fellow officer, preferably a K9 officer, familiar with tracking and how the K9 works.

Maybe some other items could be added but I think its a good overview of what has been said through out this thread.

Craig


----------



## Jim Engel

Craig,

I would pretty much agree, but with one big notation.

Fine for public consumption, but the decision makers
must absolutely understand that a Schutzhund title
in and of itself is a pretty low bar, because it is essentially
a two level system, show dog and casual trainer titles,
and the more old fashioned hard call trainers.

Each dog / handler team needs to be evaluated, and
my limited but long term experience and gut feel is that
there are a significant number of old fashioned patrol 
dogs out there that should only do civilian search under
extreme circumstances and tight handler control.

To me, probably the most important thing for the police
administration is matching up the right dog with the right
handler.

One problem I see is believing your own propaganda,
the higher level police leadership and the civilians they
report to should not be of the mind set of "Well, we have
three police dogs, so we have search for distressed 
citizens situations covered." They might have teams
that can do it or pinch hit, but they need to do better
evaluation and planning.

Again, I have never been an officer or handled a police
dog, but these are my opinions having been involved 
in sport training, and around a lot of cops and their dogs.


----------



## Kat Hunsecker

Craig Snyder said:


> I can't see how you can state that area is a "minor" factor. The whole point of using area air scenting dogs is to cover a large area quickly.
> Like Nancy, I want to know the dog continues to work for 2-4 hrs. More importantly that the handler can! And can navigate the terrain. I've seen many an air scent handler that had no business in the woods.
> 
> Fortunately, I know that the IRQ area standards are just a start for those wanting to be mission ready for a national search team and that more testing is done before they are deployable.
> 
> Craig


So partially you answered your question yourself... 
The AD is often required... so physical and menatl fitness are a must. And if you are in shape and have the dogs with the right drive, they work for 2-4 hours... 
for the area beeing "minor"... the area test coveres more then just search and find. it tests teamwork, directability and in higher levels also a plan of attack... 
It is a test, that was cooked up by several countries, so My feeling it it was well thought through, and the exersizes and set ups have a purpose- same like Schutzhund- what you make of it is a different story..

Which brings me back to the oriiginal question: Schutzhund and SAR
Schutzhund used-and i wish it still would be- a suitability test. A test that was supposed to touch on the traits of the dog, to test some basics skills and drives... to ensure you achieve the goal- a working German Shepherd. that This moved over far more in a sport then a hobby and the requirements of presentation get way tough-so it is harder for joe bloe to do it is a different story.


----------



## Craig Snyder

Kat,

I did to an extend. But I reviewed the MRT cert test for the advance area scent and it only expands the area test to 18 acres. Still a very small area and not a difficult challenge for handler or navigation.

Maybe for many places and teams that is suitable. But it is probably the smallest area search test of any standard test I have read yet. And I've read everyone I can get my hands on. Of the standards I've read it does have the most specific requirement for obedience I think. At least in terms of it all being done in a very specific way. There certainly are aspects of the OB portion that I would have to specifically work on to get through that section if I were to test against them.

Craig


----------



## Nancy Jocoy

Well back from all day training. I guess the bottom line in the regard of multi discipline dogs is if I had all those hours to spend training it would be to have the best single purpose dog out there.

I think also we have those NIMs ESF9 buckets that we all use and on which our testing is supposed to be based. That is what the NIMs strove to standardize. So I believe IRO testing should meet the NIMs requirements clearly defined by our country for wilderness as they exceed the IRO expectations. 

Maybe you don't need 80 acres (or what you use) for an evaluation** but I would definitely hope that is a clear objective prior to any deployment because yes, the dog with the right drives will work 2 to 4 hours but there is a point...where the dog changes over from active searching to going for a walk and the handler knows by observing their dog when that happens. I think even with a high drive dog the "nose time" construct is a valid one for even high time dogs, so you need to train to exceed your deployments. K9 Cop had a good article recently on scenario based training.

Whether or not schutzhund can be pursued with a SAR dog is a moot point on our team. We have former teammates who have done it (with other dogs) and a current one who wants to get into it but with a second dog, not his SAR dog. Works for us provided it does not kill the time he spends on the SAR dog.

**our team does a 20 acre test in daylight but it does not confer any operational status..it is just to make sure the pieces are together so they can proceed to 80 acre day / 40 acre night tests internally, then NAPWDA externally (to get the national cert) -- Then they are provisionally operational and used within the limits of their training.


----------



## Craig Snyder

Nancy Jocoy said:


> I think also we have those NIMs ESF9 buckets that we all use and on which our testing is supposed to be based. That is what the NIMs strove to standardize. So I believe IRO testing should meet the NIMs requirements clearly defined by our country for wilderness as they exceed the IRO expectations.


Yes. But NIMS is only US. IRQ is international so there is no requirement for them to meet the US standards. 

My belief is that IRQ was designed to get people into this area as a sport. With those that get interested in it having a clear path and basic training to move into the advance mission deployable training. I'm am disappointed they didn't get the area size up to at least meet the lowest level of NIMS. Basically, for wilderness airscent, even advance mission ready IRQ teams could not qualify to be used in the US under NIMS guidelines.

I haven't compared the rubble IRQ testing to the NIMS classes for rubble work but I suspect that they are more in-line with each other. 

Wilderness teams are not internationally deployed so it's not a big deal. At least to the US. Maybe in Europe they deploy across borders but if they all use IRQ than I guess it's fine. I wonder of there are any specific country standards? I might have to try to finds some.

Craig


----------



## Kat Hunsecker

The IRO was designed to standardise the work and evaluation. To be able to deploy teams effectively and give search coordinators the knowledge of the training as well as level. Since all the different standards lead to hindering the searches and organisation thereof. 
As we train to IRO standard we also utilize internal standards, that include NIMS 

Unfortunately in the US it is at risk to become a sport.
Nothing wrong if one wants to do it as a sport, but it shouldn't be advertised as such.

I do not know about any training manuals for the German police dogs, my cousin ist the Polizei and looked into it, but didn't find any official work on it. I only know of one book written by an police person so I can't help with his the Germans handel SAR and protection.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy

Kat, I think you have portrayed a clear picture on this with the sdona organization. I found the MRT after looking but Unfortunately, I feel some of the folks I have run into think anything European is "better" and have even stated that because it is international it will "replace" our current processes and is far better than any testing over here. The fact that you are supplementing with NIMs compliant testing verifies IRO to be incomplete for "over here" and our wilderness situation with, I gather, larger search areas.

Some level of standardization is necessary but even police K9s are not standardized except through expectations of voluntary organizations. Until then, the decisions on bite trained dogs or not is going to be at the organizational or departmental level and some may do case by case - others may choose not to do at all-their insurance, their team, their call. 

The obedience test I would select, it would be NAPWDA plus dog on chain lunging at dog, managing loose dogs, dogs charging fences, cats running around, toss a deer out in front of the dog, hand dog off to someone else, someone else unload your dog and break your dog, dog walk on loose lead, walk on log over creek, and don't drink the groundwater, gunshot (because we often hear hunters), going up and down open stairs, and whatever you need for your particular discipline


----------



## Kat Hunsecker

The NIMS compliencey is for only here, yes, while i find it tidious... only thing you really need to know is who you report,too. your incident command.
Main reason we put it in our standards is not of the incompletion of the IRO, but for the reason, that people here have no concept of it.
Another reason is, that the system and judging is clear, above all other organisation, there is not much wiggle room. 
While i expereinced as well as heared of a great buddy system in other organisations, as well as the money thing- that really bugs me. all is about money. I had memebership to other organisations before we were able to go IRO, and the only time you heared from them is -when it was time for money or they wanted money... This is not what SAR is about for me.
Above and beyond the Certidfication through the IRO, there are other trainings to get mission ready.
We added things to our "mission readyness" to ensure a good team beeing deployed- all the way arround, including Land nav and First aid.
The IRO also will give you a map of the area to be searched.also the judge is able to block a sideline for the handler, which in return might result in utilizing the skill of beeing able to direct your dog into certain areas... also you have to state your plan of attack to the judge and inform him of changes throughout. It is also judge the nintensity of search, agility and independence of the dog.
The small areas, especially in Level A, made it more difficult to train for, since you have to stay on center line and direct your dog. which occationally can be hard, cause they got wind of one victim but the scent could send the others smell away. You have to work -in Level A from center line, it is a valuable excersize.
Level B is free to be worked by the handler as they please. But it still touches on all major points. agility is looked at and witht hat not how high they can jump but the physical fittness...

We were very fortunate so far, that some of the local law inforcement as well as a more distant Sherriff as well as their local homeland security is aware of the drives necessary for the work in both areas. And they do not have a problem with it. 

Above all certifications- we did expereince that officials like to see the dogs in action. Screw the Certs!! We have NAPWDA Certified dogs in the area- and local law enforcement will not touch them. they prefered to call us, eventhough we were just starting- with only officially suitability tests done. 
We were even told, that they would call us without any Certification, but we like to do it to prove our capabilities... And people have a Certificate to look at... :lol:


----------



## Nancy Jocoy

Agree. The certificate is a piece of paper, a CYA move in some regards but having IRO-RH this or that does not make one immune to the same mentality.

Learned a long time ago that certification is just one part of the thing, working a cadaver dog it better be in line with what SWGDOG has to say. (and NIMS/SWGDOG a lot of overlap and SWGDOG used in court)..certification is no guarantee of quality...but a part of the package.

Educated sherrifs with plenty of solid K9 experience can also differ on their opinion of whether or not they want to deploy bite trained dogs.


----------



## Erik Berg

Searching for non hostile persons is a part of the job for many policedogs in the nordic countries for example, looking at the basic certification for a PSD i sweden there is a "SAR" part included. Most handlers have a muzzle on the dog in such situations, for added safety and also as a signal for the dog it´s SAR and not searching for a bad guy.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy

The article by Deb Palman linked early in the thread discusses what Terry Fleck does not like about the muzzle. I have no input there, I am SAR not LE but it is counterpoint.


----------



## Erik Berg

The muzzle used should be suited for searchwork, not an agitationmuzzle with less room for breathing freely.


----------



## Jim Delbridge

Well, I see the chest thumping has begun. One of the downsides of civilian SAR K9 is bragging, earned or not. Dog teams tend to judge themselves by their little ponds and lots of stretching of truths can happen. This is the main reason national standards are required. It provides the unknowledgable with a minimum of expectations. Unfortunately, usually the unknowledgable is emergency management or law enforcement. Often their only exposure to K9 search is narcotics dogs and sometimes bomb dogs. Narcotics and bomb dogs tend to be directed searching rather than gridding for scent. LE gets a comfy feeling when they see a dog on a lead with the handler walking along saying check a lot. Do that over 160 acres and everyone quickly gets tired of it including the dog and handler. But, directed searching does look impresssive as it appears as obedience to the unschooled. They don't realize the experienced handler is beating him or herself up to avoid cueing the dog and letting only scent be the trigger. If the demo isn't a double blind then it should look impressive. 

A while back, a dog handler from another state that knows me and my dogs well called me up to tell me they'd met a dog team from my state at a seminar. This was a water seminar and the dog handler was kicking the dirt and doing that dance that they pretty much had to cover the entire state for water work. I asked the friend if they were any good as I'm all for sharing in the work if someone knows what they are doing. In fact, I'd called in that same handler's team not two months prior as they were closer to a drowing than I was. They made the find and that's what is important.

I was told they appeared to be new at water work. So, a few months later I get a call for a drowning in this team's back yard and I told them to contact this team as I was told they were all over it. Thirty minutes later I get called back as they suddenly needed more training. I had to give them credit for not taking on something they weren't really prepared for even if they thought blowing smoke at a seminar made them look more credible.

My point was that if they'd stuck with their story that their local Law Enforcement probably wouldn't have known the difference until they sent down divers to no body. In our muddy lakes, the dog can be right on and it can still take a lot of work to recover.

Oh, and NIMS and ICS are more important than knowing who to report to. It means the resource does not become a lliability or hinderance to the search by knowing the rules to work by and the skills required not to get lost on the search themselves. It still gripes me on one search 10 dog teams had to work twice because two teams didn't think it was important to stay on compass cource causing a 1/4 mile swath to get unsearched. Of course, that's where the body fell out of the sky to, literally. That state agency probably won't call back civilian dog teams again because of that experience.


Just thoughts to ponder for that book,

Jim Delbridge


----------



## Jim Engel

One of the primary reasons for this whole exercise is to get as much hard, critical review as possible.

With that in mind, I am posting a segment under a new topic.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy

One thing to consider, though is that if you are basing a book on this, the responses here represent a very small subset of those involved in searching for missing persons! More voices, more info. Any SAR forum I am on is closed to "by referral only" and to active members of teams......so you are not reaching those people.


----------



## Jim Engel

My policy is to use research all possible resources and then write according to my best judgement.

In some areas I have gained individual confidence to achieve more information, often there is another
layer of private communication.

The main reason I mention the book is not to impress people, but to be entirely open so that people will not later feel that I am taking advantage.

Police agencies and volunteer service organizations are ultimately dependent on and under control of the civilian authorities, that is, politicians. My view is that the most open and honest relationship, aside from truly material or tactical information which needs to be secret, the better.


----------



## Jim Engel

Would there be another forum which would be appropriate to seek a reference?




Nancy Jocoy said:


> One thing to consider, though is that if you are basing a book on this, the responses here represent a very small subset of those involved in searching for missing persons! More voices, more info. Any SAR forum I am on is closed to "by referral only" and to active members of teams......so you are not reaching those people.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy

I am on yahoo forums k9forensics, k9sar, and k9specialty

k9forensics is for HR dogs of all types, not for live find dogs.

You could probably email the list owners and ask about posting your questions or seeking contact references.


----------

