# Evaluation Standards vs. Actual Test



## Nicole Mosta

I'm dong some research and would like to have other people's opinions on taking search and rescue evaluations. Do you feel that they are true to standards when given, and according to level of training?


----------



## Bob Scott

There isn't enough regulations/control on SAR teams. Often times/most of the time the teams are regulated only buy team standards. Some are really good. Most are crap!


----------



## Nicole Mosta

There are oganizations that have standards that are good, but who enforces them? How much of an effort is put into setting up an evaluation accurately to test the K9/Handler skills.


----------



## Carol Boche

I agree with Bob. 

There are so many teams and organizations out there who offer "testing" and although those tests are great stepping stones towards a National certification, they are not meant to be portrayed as a certification to deploy the dog. 

Our team is just now implementing stepping stone certs (for building confidence in the K9 team) as well as National type certs in order for the team to get ready to certify. 

I had some members helping me with that and it fell by the wayside and the member ended up telling me that they did not understand why dogs needed to be certified because the state of SD did not require it and that it was stupid to require it. 

The member then quit the team after not feeling supported for deploying an uncertified dog. 

So, needless to say, I am quite sick of the BS that goes along with SAR....I will not bend and promote the crap that teams promote these days. I will not support risking human life with a young, inexperienced dog. 

It is too bad others cannot see that, but rather they allow politics and attitudes get in the way of being dedicated and taking the hard road to becoming a strong team. But no, they don't....they would rather go out and find the easy way. 
This is why we are working on trying to get certifications required in the state of SD. I mean if LEO K9's need it, why shouldn't the SAR dogs. 

We are dedicated to the assistance of saving human life, not for the attention of the media. Patience to train the dog and handler is a MUST and I see too many handlers in a hurry to deploy their dogs.....


----------



## Jennifer Coulter

I had no idea that there were states that did not require SOME kind of certification. I know that there are various types of certs down there...and different groups use different things..but I thought that you had to have something to be deployable.

Maybe I don't even understand the question.

If I were the OP I would contact whom ever it is that you expect would call you out on a task (sherriff?) and ask them if there are any certs that they require. That would be a good place to start. The US handlers on this board know a lot about differing certifying bodies in the States you could look into. 

Even from a liability standpoint it seems wise to me to meet SOME kind of industry approved standard. 

I am sure that most groups try to test the skills and training of teams they are evaluating. In the end we are all just a bunch of SAR geek volunteers (I mean that in the best possible way and am not trying to reduce responsibility)..... 

Does the handler know what they are doing for the chosen venue, will they (handler or dog) be a liability on a search site, can they read their dog, does the dog have the drive, can they alert the handler to what they are looking for? Pretty basic really. 

Real life training (as opposed to training for certifications only)...and real life callouts...is where you are going to get to try some wingnut things, because that is how real life goes! You shouldn't expect a certification alone to prepare you for that..that is your job.

As Carol as not so delicatly eluded to....there is lots of politics in the SAR world...but hey...have you read some of the FR threads:wink::wink:8-[


----------



## Carol Boche

Jennifer Coulter said:


> As Carol as not so delicatly eluded to....there is lots of politics in the SAR world...but hey...have you read some of the FR threads:wink::wink:8-[


LOL....

Check your Pm's in a little bit.....


----------



## Bob Scott

I will also add that certifying your own team members is one of the big problems in SAR. It should be done by an outside, impartial evaluator. 
Can certification within a team be done correctly? Yes but that's often where the favors and buddy system puts up dogs and or handlers that don't belong.


----------



## Nicole Mosta

I don't think LE will require a certification. There are so many SAR organizations, how do they choose who has better standards. Just because it says "national" organization, doesn't mean it's better. Should there be some regulations on the evaluators and/or actual certifications? I agree that dogs aren't necessarily deployable once they receive a cert and do not condone just training to pass a test. I am a cadaver dog handler and will throw the question out there .... What do you feel about visually seeing an aid on a test? Doesn't that promote .... the handler to develop a BAD habit of then looking for a HIDE on a certification test rather than paying attention to their dog. Shouldn't we make the Test Difficult enough to show that the Handler/K9 team is advanced enough for a national cert (which would be then deployable).


----------



## Konnie Hein

Nicole Mosta said:


> I don't think LE will require a certification. There are so many SAR organizations, how do they choose who has better standards. Just because it says "national" organization, doesn't mean it's better. Should there be some regulations on the evaluators and/or actual certifications? I agree that dogs aren't necessarily deployable once they receive a cert and do not condone just training to pass a test. I am a cadaver dog handler and will throw the question out there .... What do you feel about visually seeing an aid on a test? Doesn't that promote .... the handler to develop a BAD habit of then looking for a HIDE on a certification test rather than paying attention to their dog. Shouldn't we make the Test Difficult enough to show that the Handler/K9 team is advanced enough for a national cert (which would be then deployable).


Hi Nicole,
This is a huge frustration of mine. I live in a state that has no state-required standards. One wilderness group here uses outside evaluators, the dogs must re-cert regularly, and they must be certified in order to deploy on a search. Another group sometimes uses outside evaluators, never re-certs and sends dogs out based on popularity within the goup. The third group (I know, CT is a small state and our SP has a SAR K9 component, but we need 3 SAR teams??) doesn't even appear to have cert standards that I'm aware of. Guess which group has the best search dogs?

As for seeing an aid on a test, I think evaluators should make an effort to hide the aids, however, another tactic is to put out "dummy" aids. A friend of mine who recently attended an HR evaluation saw a handler talk her dog into alerting on a dummy aid and fail the evaluation. That'll teach a handler not to look for aids and instead allow the dog to make independent decisions! Overall though, no evaluation/certification is perfect and it is up to the team/handler to select the right dog, do good training and prepare for real life scenarios.


----------



## Carol Boche

Nicole Mosta said:


> I don't think LE will require a certification. There are so many SAR organizations, how do they choose who has better standards. Just because it says "national" organization, doesn't mean it's better. Should there be some regulations on the evaluators and/or actual certifications? I agree that dogs aren't necessarily deployable once they receive a cert and do not condone just training to pass a test. I am a cadaver dog handler and will throw the question out there .... What do you feel about visually seeing an aid on a test? Doesn't that promote .... the handler to develop a BAD habit of then looking for a HIDE on a certification test rather than paying attention to their dog. Shouldn't we make the Test Difficult enough to show that the Handler/K9 team is advanced enough for a national cert (which would be then deployable).


I know a lot of LE that want to see certs, as well as some that SHOULD require certs, I wish they all would require it as it would weed out a lot of yahoos in this discipline, but that is really beside the point. 
I am not saying National Certs make anything better, but as was said here before, some inside team testing in not all that great, which means some of the dogs may be unreliable when actually deployed. 
I don't ever train to "pass a test" since in all actuality, cert tests are not all that realistic. 

I agree with Konnie about the hides for cadaver. Dummy hides are an excellent way to teach the handler AND dog not to gravitate towards something that looks like a hide. 
I use them, as I think it is important to proof the dogs off of the containers (empty of course) or whatever you are using to put your source in.


----------



## Maddy Freemont

It looks as though some form of standardization is coming whether we like it or not- and there are plenty of reasons why it is a good idea. We all know "teams" that have shoddy methodology and unfortunately the naive PDs and SDs that turn to them for help...

It looks as though maybe NIMS credentialing will be the Federal Standard. It is worth looking into now as you never know when you will find yourself on the stand in a courthouse and being asked if you are aware what the Federal Standard is...

In the US, NASAR is sometimes confused as being the seal of approval on a federal standard but it is not. NASAR has created a guideline of benchmarks but does not "credential" takers of their courses. I believe "SARSCENE" (?) is the Canadian equivalent of NASAR. It also appears that Canada has more of a robust SAR element that is PAID to do the job whereas in the US it is more of an "unfunded mandate" on the shoulders of the Sheriff's Dept. There is much talk of creating "fire dept. standards" which tend to be great but expensive for SAR. In the realm of LE, there will probably be friction over this.

As a part of the National Incident Management System, FEMA's National Integration Center (NIC) has released initial minimum criteria for personnel to be deployed using a national credentialing system which involves criteria for education, training, experience, physical/medical fitness, certification and licensing...

Regardless, it is good to be aware of what the standards are federally, nationally, for your state, for your locale/county and for your very own team.

Any way you look at it, make sure your team has Standard Operating Procedures which outline the standards you follow and any deviations noted. Make sure you have a training programme that demonstrates how to bring new members into operational mode. And always keep accurate training records covering what topics where discussed, who was in attendance, who lead the training, etc.

DISCLAIMER- if I was slightly off-topic or if I have miss-represented anything, I apologize... I am doing the best I can to make sense of this world of SAR... we are in a serious business after-all... this isn't just sport when lives/criminal cases are on the line...

THANKS!


----------



## Carol Boche

Excellent points Maddy and I agree with you. 

A lot of handlers think "I will never be called into court", however, that is becoming a very dangerous statement nowadays.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy

To the original question - I know the NAPWDA testing we have to do annually is a two [but more often is done as a three] day event. A lot of work goes into the set up and it is true to the written standards.

To the value of the standards - to me there is more value in all the training and all the training records. The tests show the dog knows the scent, knows how to work it, and has a trained alert and knows not to false alert and the handler knows how to read and work the dog. That is just a basic level.

The testing scenarios cannot, however, be all encompassing and training records should show you train for what you do. For example, working a large source that has been sitting out for 48 hours is very different than working a jar of something that has only been out for several hours.

I think a systematic training plan and check points along the way is very important as is impartial evaluation. 

Believe in national standards, but have seen too many dogs that "passed" some sort of national test that I would not want on a search.


----------



## Patrick Cheatham

Sad but true of any type of certification. Yes there are SAR teams with low standards and deployment of non certified teams can be a problem.

SAR teams are only as good as there leadership just as a LE K9 unit. Thankfully we know the dog is only a tool and network with other teams that we know have high standards as we do. To help out when needed.
We don't have a state mandate for certification either and our internal test is harder than some National test. And I can't think of any of us that have passed it the first time trying including team officers.

We encourage team mates to take outside certifications as well as internal. Bottom line you want to be deployed. Train your dog pass the certification and then you can. And that included me who couldn't deploy for the past 7 months until I certified. And wouldn't deploy my dog who was trailing certified because we were changing disciplines. And had not done trailing work for those 7 months.


----------



## Nicole Mosta

I guess we are a little off topic, but it all has to deal with certifications and the end result being mission ready. I agree that our training logs should be checked (although I'm really bad at recording my trng sessions) - that'll teach me not to procrastinate. I think evaluations are good to be only check points for the handler/k9 team at certain levels in their training. However, I think the evaluations should fit the proper level ... and be set up accordingly. Here is where I'm having a problem. I am a perfectionist and would like to set up tests, because being on the other side of them, brings to light some things that need to be checked while staging the areas. I am not lazy and would rather not have someone offer to test me, if they want to be lazy in the set up. Then to me, I don't need their eval ... what good would it be?!


----------



## Nancy Jocoy

Concerning the training records - everyone I have ever talked to who has gone to court has had their training records subpoena'd. Vital part of testimony.

I think, perfectionism aside, the intent of most tests is not to guage an exact scenario as much as it is to evaluate the dogs ability to work a problem and give the appropriate response to both source and distractors [live and dead], and the handlers ability to properly direct the dog and iterpret its behavior. In my mind you could FIND the person or object on a good test and still fail the scenario because sometimes it is just dumb luck.

There is no way to make all tests "equal" and precise to many variables the evaluator simply cannot control -


----------



## Nicole Mosta

There is no way to make all tests "equal" and precise to many variables the evaluator simply cannot control -[/quote]

I understand that there are lots of variables in search work, of all types. Would you set up a negative area adjacent to an area that was used for training with decomp and blood (spilled, buried and hanging) and not run another dog on it first? Or set out a container the handler could visually see ... not even 3 feet off the ground and it be real human scent? I just think more time and planning should go into a national exam, if they offer one. What about having over a 100 acres to Area Search and work 1/2 hour, find a person and then quit. Not finish the entire area to search for 'others'? I've set up problems, but never an eval. Am I being too picky, asking for a more difficult problem on my eval? Being able to visually see a hide, to me, is cause for me to forfeit. If noone else knows, (LE, FBI, SP) but I know that I received an eval with the visual aid then shame on me. I truly think if evals were given at appropriate levels for K9/Handler teams, then SAR wouldn't be that LAST to be called to a scene. I watch my dog and he tells me when he has the "hide" and I listen. Because if I don't the malinois in him, will tell me .... to listen. That is what he taught me in training and I taught him what to sniff for.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy

I understand that there are lots of variables in search work, of all types. Would you set up a negative area adjacent to an area that was used for training with decomp and blood (spilled, buried and hanging) and not run another dog on it first? Or set out a container the handler could visually see ... not even 3 feet off the ground and it be real human scent? 

_The NAPWDA evaluator we used always ran her dog before testing people and kept up with the behavior of all the various dogs running the problems throughout the day - never saw a container - _

I just think more time and planning should go into a national exam, if they offer one.

_Who is they? Our exam took 2 FULL days for 5K9s and evaluator said next time really needs to be 3 days - planning - yes I think so, the requirements are very specific_

What about having over a 100 acres to Area Search and work 1/2 hour, find a person and then quit. Not finish the entire area to search for 'others'? I've set up problems, but never an eval. Am I being too picky, asking for a more difficult problem on my eval? 

_Are 'others' missing? Why would you search for more if your scenario was only one victim? That is what I said - sometimes you can set up the best problem in the world and the handler can get lucky - do you fail them if they did everything right? I would not want to pass them if they stubmled into the vitcim but maybe they found the victim in half hour because they used an excellent search strategy coupled with a good dog_

Being able to visually see a hide, to me, is cause for me to forfeit. If noone else knows, (LE, FBI, SP) but I know that I received an eval with the visual aid then shame on me.

_So what if the aid is visual - it could be a trap - How do you know it is the real thing? We had one at a seminar where they put a realistic plastic skull under a building but the real hide was in the dirt at the side of the building - you would not believe how many people talked their dogs into alerting on the skull _

I truly think if evals were given at appropriate levels for K9/Handler teams, then SAR wouldn't be that LAST to be called to a scene. 

_I don't think LE gives a rat's patootie about the details of all the tests - other than they are expected in HRD work - they are looking for reliability and performance and you get that by establishing a relationhsip with them, training with them, and being professional on searches. All that stuff is what pays off._


----------



## Nancy Jocoy

Typically cert testing is not done in an area used for training - handler gets too familiar with area could make strategy "too easy"

I just think you are expecting an eval to be a comprehensive test of everything you know but you really can't test for everything you have ever done - just when you think situations cannot get stranger or more different, they will so you test to ensure you are solid on the basic skillsets.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy

Maddy Freemont said:


> It looks as though maybe NIMS credentialing will be the Federal Standard. It is worth looking into now as you never know when you will find yourself on the stand in a courthouse and being asked if you are aware what the Federal Standard is...!


Question - we set up our training and classified our teams to NIMS resource typing buckets as well as took credentialing requirements into our standards quite a few years ago [I think the most recent thing I saw from NIMS was the credentialing in 2006 and the resource tyiping, I know was out when our first standards were drafted in 2005]

Is there NEW information regarding NIMS?

Now, I have not seen any of this go ANYWERE other than the requirment for IC classes and training [all members have to have 100/200/700/800 and some of us are taking 300 and 400 classroom training soon. Was told by a FEMA person at a TEEX seminar [took Wide Area search with the local CERT team] that the NIMS is still pretty much for national level disasters and not for local response and they did not think it would ever go beyond that.

Of course, I guess if they want us to search for a body in a farm pond ....... and I don't have a helmet we are SOL


----------



## Konnie Hein

Nancy Jocoy said:


> Of course, I guess if they want us to search for a body in a farm pond ....... and I don't have a helmet we are SOL


Nah, it just means you are excluded from the "Helmeted Avengers" club. For shame!


----------



## Nicole Mosta

Nancy, 

I appreciate the replies and the ability to discuss certifications. The feedback is great and helps to see different points of view. I don’t wish to name the organization at this time, because I haven’t yet spoke with the president and have plans to do this next week. We are going to discuss the standards, setup and execution of the eval. I understand the lucky air scent handle and the ability to search for ½ hour in the large area find the missing person (although I believe she was given hints – her K9 was limping that morning). I personally watch my dog work and can explain to anyone watching him what he is doing when. I was disappointed that the visual aid wasn’t a trap. In fact, asked my k9 to search the entire area and he kept alerting on that hide …. We both KNEW, but I was greatly disappointed. The standards state, “Location of all scent sources will be unknown to handler”. The standards give a description about how far a buried source should be, how high a surface source should be, but never lists the requirements for the hanging source. Find that odd. I too did not have a copy of the standards before performing the eval. I believe these standards are still open for revision. Thanks for all the input. 

I agree that developing a relationship with LE, FBI and agency that is in your area will improve the Search and Rescue persona. 

Thanks everyone!!


----------



## Nancy Jocoy

Typically the hanging hides must be about 6 feet above ground - .


----------



## Michele Fleury

Welcome to the world of volunteer K9 SAR. As everyone has said, the quality of teams and tests vary immensely. No matter what the test standard is, it is only as good as the evaluators running them. Even in professional testing organizations, no 2 evaluators set up and run the tests exactly the same. Three things:

Always train for the real world, not the test. If you train for the real world then you will be ready for anything in a test. The tests is just a snapshot of a minimum proficiency level.

Always know the details of the standard you are testing under. If you don't, then you can't complain until it's too late. 

Trust your dog, assume nothing.

I agree that outside evaluation is the ideal. That being said, our team is one of "those teams" that certifies in house to a standard accepted by the state. We have been doing so for over 20 years. Our standards are strong and suited to our search environment. Our group is one of the few that is not plagued by egos and folks in it for the glory and not the mission. We all take evaluating tests very seriously and no one gets anything they don't earn. We try to be consistent in how the tests are set up and run, so that everyone is treated fairly. The agency that runs wilderness SAR in our state cares nothing about outside evaluations or certifications because we have spent 25 years building a relationship and have proved our proficiency and professionalism time and again. Some of us have ventured out and gotten outside certifications, especially in cadaver, but that is because we want to, not because we have to.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy

Michele - excellent post - can't think of a single thing that would make it better.


----------



## Bob Scott

Michele said
" Our group is one of the few that is not plagued by egos and folks in it for the glory and not the mission."

There is the HUGE issue I've seen often. 
Your a lucky person from the vast majority of the teams I've seen.


----------



## Michele Fleury

Bob Scott said:


> Michele said
> " Our group is one of the few that is not plagued by egos and folks in it for the glory and not the mission."
> 
> There is the HUGE issue I've seen often.
> Your a lucky person from the vast majority of the teams I've seen.


I know, we are very lucky, but also very good at screening potential members. Definitely no glory hounds here, everyone runs back into the woods when the press arrives.:-$


----------



## Nancy Jocoy

Michele Fleury said:


> I know, we are very lucky, but also very good at screening potential members. Definitely no glory hounds here, everyone runs back into the woods when the press arrives.:-$


LOL that is exactly what we do. It is like "YOU talk to them", "No YOU do it","No, YOU do it, bye"


----------



## Jennifer Coulter

Maddy Freemont said:


> I believe "SARSCENE" (?) is the Canadian equivalent of NASAR.


As far as I am aware, SARSCENE is a Canadian Search and Rescue conference, I have never seen a document outlining dog standards from them. 



Maddy Freemont said:


> It also appears that Canada has more of a robust SAR element that is PAID to do the job whereas in the US it is more of an "unfunded mandate" on the shoulders of the Sheriff's Dept. There is much talk of creating "fire dept. standards" which tend to be great but expensive for SAR. In the realm of LE, there will probably be friction over this.


I would say that SAR and SAR dogs is WAY more robust in the US. WAY more SAR dogs working in different venues. You likely have a lot more need for it as well. 

As far as paid SAR workers in Canada goes....well there is the airforce SAR techs. They have NO dogs. Their mandate is for water and downed aircraft pretty much, not for general ground search type things. The responsibility for ground SAR falls to the RCMP in much of Canada and they rely on local volunteer SAR groups much of the time. Around cities and other centers there other police forces in charge of SAR. I am unsure of their rules.


There are some Parks Canada wardens that get paid to do SAR type work within the parks. They are typically high end accredited mountain guides that are trained beyond the capabilities of volunteers. In the dog search environment, Parks Canada has 2 dogs trained in avalanche/area search/tracking for example, those dogs come from the RCMP kennel and training center I beleive.

So that is not a whole whack of paid SAR work around my neck of the woods anyways. I mean in the avy profile many handlers work in the avalanche industry at ski hills with their avalanche dogs, so you could say that they are paid I suppose. But generally they don't get paid to be a dog handler, they are paid to be a patroller. This is also very common in the US with ski hills with avalanche programs so is not a Canada thing, though our certification process is different from the US in the avalanche profile.


----------



## Michele Fleury

I'd have to agree, at least on my side of the continent. For years we have been called by New Brunswick to assist the RCMP and local Police with our cadaver dogs (we're in Maine). Just recently one RCMP K9 handler trained his K9 in cadaver, and he is the first in eastern Canada as far as I know. There are a few wilderness live find volunteer K9's in New Brunswick, but I'm not sure how much they are utilized. There are some very good ground SAR teams, and they do get used by the RCMP.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter

Michele Fleury said:


> I'd have to agree, at least on my side of the continent. For years we have been called by New Brunswick to assist the RCMP and local Police with our cadaver dogs (we're in Maine). Just recently one RCMP K9 handler trained his K9 in cadaver, and he is the first in eastern Canada as far as I know. There are a few wilderness live find volunteer K9's in New Brunswick, but I'm not sure how much they are utilized. There are some very good ground SAR teams, and they do get used by the RCMP.


There is no cadaver cert in my province either. Mostly because it is used so rarely up here. I have thought about working a dog in this dicipline, but for the very rare callout, after talking with an RCMP mentor, I have decided to leave it for now. I would have to do a lot of travelling and work training and getting training aids and so on.

It makes more sense for them to call people from the US that use it more often...I think that there is more expertise in that field down there currently. Maybe one day when I have more time. 

It is great that you have cultivated the relationship needed to be used, even accross the border. Keep up the good work, those relationships are precious.

In my province (BC) the RCMP dog program is nice enough to provide mentorship, help to train and be the examiners for the wilderness, tracking and avalanche profiles. They helped to create the standard set out by our Provincial Emergency Program. It is the only recognized standard in the province.

If non RCMP dog resources are used in this province it is always from this pool of PEP/RCMP certified volunteer dog handlers. You could train to whatever standard you want, but you won't be used in BC unless you have certified with PEP and the RCMP. The exception would be in something like the odd cadaver case, and we don't have those expertise so they would have to pull resources in from elsewere. 

I may pm you for the RCMP member's name that has trained a cadaver dog in NB. It would be a good resource down the road. Do you know off hand if it was a general purpose patrol dog that he trained, or was it cadaver only?


----------



## Maddy Freemont

Jennifer Coulter said:


> As far as I am aware, SARSCENE is a Canadian Search and Rescue conference, I have never seen a document outlining dog standards from them.
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that SAR and SAR dogs is WAY more robust in the US. WAY more SAR dogs working in different venues. You likely have a lot more need for it as well...
> 
> 
> So that is not a whole whack of paid SAR work around my neck of the woods anyways...
> 
> 
> 
> Jennifer- thanks for clearing that up as I was just commenting on hearsay...


----------



## Michele Fleury

I don't recall if it was a patrol dog or strictly cadaver. I think patrol.


----------



## Patrick Cheatham

Testing.............. know your dog "Trust Your Training!!!!!


----------

