# Thank You WDF!



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

So I just finished 4 days at the HITS seminar in Jacksonville, Florida. I have to say that 98% of the content of the seminars I attended was information that I was already privy too. On one hand it was a bit boring. On the other, I counted myself lucky that I had the many good people of this forum to keep me up to speed throughout the year on all things K9. Thank you everyone.


----------



## Lee H Sternberg (Jan 27, 2008)

Does that include chopping my poor dog's balls off. 😀


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Lee H Sternberg said:


> Does that include chopping my poor dog's balls off. 😀


Uhhh, no. Havent had the pleasure myself. Always thought you were selfish for doing so. 

Seriously though...it's all thanks to you but I didn't want to leave anyone out.

Seriously though....


----------



## Brian Smith (May 26, 2013)

I was fortunate enough to go as well. Were you able to see the Armin Winkler presentation of street tracking? If so, what was your opinion?


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

Howard Knauf said:


> So I just finished 4 days at the HITS seminar in Jacksonville, Florida. I have to say that 98% of the content of the seminars I attended was information that I was already privy too. On one hand it was a bit boring. On the other, I counted myself lucky that I had the many good people of this forum to keep me up to speed throughout the year on all things K9. Thank you everyone.


So are you saying the WDF is up on the current knowledge?


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Id like to say thanks too...have learned a lot on here, and have been very entertained once in a while..


----------



## Lee H Sternberg (Jan 27, 2008)

I haven't learned anything but I don't believe that's WDF''s fault. ☺


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Lee, in many ways we've all learned a lot from you. :twisted: :grin: :wink:


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Lee H Sternberg said:


> I haven't learned anything but I don't believe that's WDF''s fault. ☺


if you want me to cut your one nut off, ill only do it in costa rica on your dime


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Brian Smith said:


> I was fortunate enough to go as well. Were you able to see the Armin Winkler presentation of street tracking? If so, what was your opinion?


 I did. It was the last seminar I attended before heading up to NC with the wife. Of all the seminars I attended, Armin's was the most enlightening. Most of it was fairly dry but I learned that the K9 sense of smell and discrimination is far greater than I had previously thought. I also learned that a few of the ways I was taught to teach dogs tracking were not neccessarily the best. I had to keep reminding myself that Armin is a sport guy as well and that his tracking training style has those goals in mind. Bottom line, his philosophy is sound and the dogs do track much better as opposed to the trailing type tracking that most police dogs do. He did confirm that, much like humans, some dogs are better at it than others. I know it's true because my current dog is not as good as my best dog (my second) but that doesn't keep me from trying to make him better.

One thing I found puzzling was that Armin didn't believe in scent inventory (missing man) training....which I don't do but others on my unit will do. Or the fact that the dog pretty much cannot discriminate one person from another should there be multiple tracklayers in parrallel on hard surface. It puzzles me because I do it on the regular so I know the dog can do it.


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

That's a bit odd Howard. Did he happen to explain why?


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Sarah Platts said:


> So are you saying the WDF is up on the current knowledge?


 That appears to be the case. With such a wide range of members involved in numerous venues you obviously can't go wrong signing up on this forum.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Nicole Stark said:


> That's a bit odd Howard. Did he happen to explain why?


 I'll do my best to remember. There was so much scientific data given (thus a bit dry) to support his views. There was also a load of historical research information that we had to digest. Primarily it came down to scent picture and what dogs use to identify tracks. One test involved buteric acid I believe and his view was that it was not distinguishable from one human to another the best I can recall. Buteric acid leached through foot wear would be the primary source of odor on hard surface...along with other incidental odors. He explained that in the dog world, incidental odors have no meaning to the dog and that a dog would not track those odors because in the natural world they are just regular odors not to be taken notice of should a primary, huntable odor be absent. So, bottom line is that although incidental odors may support a specific/discriminative track which includes a quarry's odor...buteric acid (human secretion) alone would be the primary odor the dog uses and the incidental odors would confirm that particular track.. If that makes any sense. If buteric acid is indistinguishable from one person to the other then ergo, different humans on hard surface cannot be distinguished on hard surface. Winkler was bigger on dogs discriminating age of tracks as opposed to specific odors on hard surface. Following an aged track on hard surface with cross tracks was possible for the dog to discriminate the proper track.

Brian..you were there. If you attended Winkler's seminar correct me if I'm wrong or mistaken.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

:-k:-k:-k If that was the case then a dog would never be able to track through a crowd or run a cross track with the cross track being laid by a separate person. 

Very curious!

My own dog would easily follow a track/trail from a pls where two people would leave from at the same time with one leaving a scent article such as a sock or t-shirt.

This was training only but it really didn't take much training at all from tracking only one person.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

I agree. I was very surprised when he kind of foo foo'ed the scent article of the target person to start the track.


----------



## mel boschwitz (Apr 23, 2010)

With all the successful evidence of dogs working tracks like described im surprised he would say that (both in double blind scenarios and real tracks). 

We don't really know what it is the dog is smelling when he tracks. So basing a belief on a test with Buteric acid doesn't seem logical. 

Im curious as to how he teaches dogs to track vs the way you do and what you learned from it/what changes you may make.


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

I will echo what Mell said. With over 450 identified components of scent to say that the dog is using only one of those items is a bit of an understatement. The info I've seen say they think the dog is keying mainly on 15-18 of those but we are really just guessing.
Take the cadaver pseuoscent. A dog train on that will usually alert on the real thing although a dog trained on real will not normally alert on the pseuodo so clearly we are missing some of the scent picture.

Howard, Do you know what he termed 'incidental odors'? Did he cite some examples?

Because here's what I'm thinking. If the dog (according to Armin) is only following the buteric acid then if the cross track was laid at the same time then both would decomposed at the same rate and thus indistiguishable to the dog. Now if Armin says that the incidental odors allow the dog to distinguish one person from the other then how would the dog know which incidentals (which according to Armin the dog is treating as a regular odor) to assign with the buteric acid smell to follow. And it could also be argued that its the incidental smells the dog is following solely because all BA smells alike.




Howard Knauf said:


> One thing I found puzzling was that Armin didn't believe in scent inventory (missing man) training....which I don't do but others on my unit will do. Or the fact that the dog pretty much cannot discriminate one person from another should there be multiple tracklayers in parrallel on hard surface. It puzzles me because I do it on the regular so I know the dog can do it.


This is one of the biggest connundrums I have. The ability of a dog to discriminate individuals has been documented again and again both clinically and in the field. So with that as a background why trainers will still argue against the ability of a dog to do that very thing. And my problem is when I listen to these guys and I'm thinking this is all sounding great and very educational when I hear something like this, I have to wonder how much of the other stuff I just learned is accurate. Or did I just learn something that's a myth and I'm going to have to disprove it?


----------



## Brian Smith (May 26, 2013)

Howard, that's pretty much what I understood as well. Given that his background is heavily immersed in IPO footstep tracking I was not that surprised by his presentation. It is always very easy to sight research that is inline with your beliefs (and ignoring differing studies) as opposed to using all available research to formulate a fact based opinion. He did say that we still don't fully understand how dogs are able to do what they do and that there are many unknowns. 
Some of the research used also provided that the longer the distance of the track before the cross track, the better the dog could successfully negotiate it. 
My overall opinion of the presentation was that he believed his way of training a dog to track gave them the best chance at obtaining the most information from the scent picture and made them more reliable. I will say though that the guy that went with me felt that all of what he presented was a push towards a Kocher Style of tracking. While not in the power point, a lot of what he said related to dogs chasing prey and using that as focus for tracking. 
For me the information he presented was good to know and gave some things to think about. You can tell he is into using scientific studies to support and further his training methods and I think with all the unknowns in tracking it is very difficult to come up with an irrefutable opinion or style. His other presentation of aggression was very good and you can tell he has a great understanding of dogs.
The detection dog presenters are what really interested me. You could tell that some had listened in on presentations made by others. They used that information in their presentation to bash the other "methods" as being completely wrong. A little comical actually.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Thanks Brian. He did bring up Kocher as well I think, along with few others old timers that have a big following.

I find it interesting that he praised Dick Stahl but had issue with the use of food. Stahl starts his puppies tracking food and he is very successful. 

Also, Winkler said he does not believe in hunt drive, only prey and defense. Didn't want to argue semantics with him but you gotta hunt it down before you can chase it. JMO of course.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Sarah Platts said:


> Howard, Do you know what he termed 'incidental odors'? Did he cite some examples?


 When I say "incidental odors" I mean additional odor the dog may use in addition to human (or prey animal) odor. That would include specific material chemicals of the footwear, the size and depth of the track on soft surface, a persons specific manufactured odor (ie: cologne, laundry soap, deodorant etc etc). Also, Winkler was not big on the dogs ability to detect skin rafts as a primary source of odor to detect. In his opinion, skin rafts disperse widely via atmospheric conditions and are therefore unreliable to track accuracy. I gotta give him that one but in a densely vegetated area I would think skin rafts play an important role in tracking. Hard surface, not so much. Then again, trailing and FST are worlds apart. If you're talking about competition tracking vs PSD tracking then there's obviously a divide.


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Do you mean that he denies or doesn't acknowledge that the very first behavior within the prey sequence does not exist? Or is he simply saying that he does not compartmentalize "hunt" as a separate drive?

I don't know what his background is with working dogs but if he's only worked with dogs like the snipe and his primary concentration is in sport, I could see why "hunt" doesn't necessarily register with him. Course, having a dog that presents a nearly complete prey sequence vs one with only segments and somewhat incomplete, yet amplified components of the prey sequence it's also understandable how perceptions could be skewed one way or another depending upon what your experience or training focus is.

Also, just more out of curiousity regarding his use or lack thereof with food. Is that in its entirety or just in tracking? Did he explain why? I know you are aware that I do my own thing here with my dogs and I am not actively working with anyone on anything specific atthe moment. But when I do train my dogs I do so based upon the need or what miight interest me at any given time. With that said, my interest in what you and Brian have shared is really just out of genuine curiosity.

Interesting feedback guys, thanks for sharing it.


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

Howard Knauf said:


> When I say "incidental odors" I mean additional odor the dog may use in addition to human (or prey animal) odor. That would include specific material chemicals of the footwear, the size and depth of the track on soft surface, a persons specific manufactured odor (ie: cologne, laundry soap, deodorant etc etc).





Howard Knauf said:


> Incidental odors have no meaning to the dog and that a dog would not track those odors because in the natural world they are just regular odors not to be taken notice of should a primary, huntable odor be absent.


You know I used to think that until I started doing blended scents. We had a tough time tracking a dementia patient who left a nursing home and being evasive. The trails were all over the place although never leaving the area. We ended up calling Jerry Yelk and he told us how to do a blended scent picture using the patient's meds. It really did make the difference in the tracks and we caught up with the guy. We experimented with it some more and what I learned was those 'incidental' smells are really an integral part of the dog's scent picture. It's a mistake to think the dog isn't using them.




Howard Knauf said:


> Also, Winkler was not big on the dogs ability to detect skin rafts as a primary source of odor to detect. In his opinion, skin rafts disperse widely via atmospheric conditions and are therefore unreliable to track accuracy. I gotta give him that one but in a densely vegetated area I would think skin rafts play an important role in tracking. Hard surface, not so much. Then again, trailing and FST are worlds apart. If you're talking about competition tracking vs PSD tracking then there's obviously a divide.


I have to agree with him that the dogs using skin rafts being the primary source of scent are pretty low in my book. Not when humans are dumping off a lot of other chemical signatures. Especially if doing aged tracks.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Nicole Stark said:


> Do you mean that he denies or doesn't acknowledge that the very first behavior within the prey sequence does not exist? Or is he simply saying that he does not compartmentalize "hunt" as a separate drive?.


 Here's how it went down...he asked what drive a dog was in when it is tracking. I answered "hunt". Another person answered "prey". He then said that it is prey and that hunt is not a drive. He further stated that the only drives a dog has is prey, defense, and basically "pack" drive. That was it. 

Regarding the use of food...I have to admit that just before the break there was a list of training methodologies up on the screen which people use regularly. I left during the break because I wanted to get on the road to NC. The best I can recall what was on the list is food, toys, TTD and a couple others. Brian can clarify Armins opinion on those training styles as I didn't stay until the end. I missed maybe half an hour or so of the seminar and that part was discussed then.

I know others on this board have attended Armin Winkler seminars so maybe they can chime in as well.


----------



## mel boschwitz (Apr 23, 2010)

I went to a talk last year where the guy (a chemist and dog trainer), said that it was very unlikely dogs were following skin rafts, since the molecular weight of odor is incompatible with the molecular weight of skin rafts. So we really have no idea what a dog is detecting. Lol


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Sarah Platts said:


> ....We experimented with it some more and what I learned was those 'incidental' smells are really an integral part of the dog's scent picture. It's a mistake to think the dog isn't using them.


Armin did advise that a dog will use incidental odors for track ID and/or verification but the primary scent would be the buteric acids leaching through footwear. I'm a believer that the dog will create a picture via existing scent present at the start of the track and then continue following said track even if there is a slight change in the incidental odors.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

mel boschwitz said:


> Im curious as to how he teaches dogs to track vs the way you do and what you learned from it/what changes you may make.



Sorry for the late reply Mel. Winkler never went into the actual training of the dogs, only the science (or quackery) behind it. I did learn that I can ensure my dog is more track sure with the information that I retained. Is it a perfect application for a PSD? Yes and no. We have a limited amount of time usually to find the perp so we trail AND track depending on the circumstances. Would I like my dog to be a better tracker. Hells yes. So I'm going to back up a little...rethink the process for my dog...then see where it goes from there.


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Sarah Platts said:


> You know I used to think that until I started doing blended scents. We had a tough time tracking a dementia patient who left a nursing home and being evasive. The trails were all over the place although never leaving the area. We ended up calling Jerry Yelk and he told us how to do a blended scent picture using the patient's meds. It really did make the difference in the tracks and we caught up with the guy. We experimented with it some more and what I learned was those 'incidental' smells are really an integral part of the dog's scent picture. It's a mistake to think the dog isn't using them.


Ah. 

If you are so inclined, I'd love to see a new thread on this. Something about this came up either in a seminar or in some reading I was doing and your post reminded me of it. I'd like to hear more.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I've done SAR tracking/trailing and FST sport tracking both with the same dog. 

I beat my head against the wall taking away all the "natural" instincts of the dog in order to keep him deep nose, as it's called in the sport track. 

90 degree corners and articles on the track were a whole new deal altogether. 

Who gives a rats ^$$ if a dog doesn't make a perfect 90 degree corner or even skips a whole track leg if he air scents the article and goes directly to it.

Although we did it I wasn't fond of sport tracking. 

The real stuff was as good as it gets working a dog!


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

I agree Bob. But, being as my current dog lacks the tracking ability as a couple of others I've previously had I'll continue to try different things to make him the best he can genetically be. For that I appreciate Winkler's input and will use what I learned to help me reach that goal. I've seen Dick Stahl's videos on tracking and he just happens to be in Florida in a couple months giving a seminar that I really would like to attend. Will do my best to get the PD to send me to it. If they won't, I'll likely pay for it myself.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I have Stahal's book. 

Good reading but pricey for basically a thin paperback. 

Over the yrs I've been to literally dozens of seminars.

The vast majority being obedience when I was competing in that regularly. 

Bottom line is you can get a little bit to a lot from most all of them. 

May we never get to the point of knowing enough to say we know it all! :wink:


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Bob, I sent my Stahl book out to someone who might appreciate it better than I did. Either it didn't fit my personal needs, or probably closer to the truth is that I figured out what he put to print on my own. Even his "making it rain" approach. I'd probably benefit more from hearing/seeing him in person.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Nicole Stark said:


> Bob, I sent my Stahl book out to someone who might appreciate it better than I did. Either it didn't fit my personal needs, or probably closer to the truth is that I figured out what he put to print on my own. Even his "making it rain" approach. I'd probably benefit more from hearing/seeing him in person.


Agree!

It was pretty much reward based training without the markers as I am used to using them. 

I'm also a much better visual learner..........but how can I explain my own personal library of training books. :-k :-o :lol:


----------



## Jim OBrien (Aug 9, 2015)

Howard, I was also at the HITS seminar. I did not have a chance to see the class that Armin Winkler taught. I must also disagree with the scent discrimination information he is giving. We train all of our canines to be scent discriminate using split tracks and paralels. In fact, just yesterday, we did several split tracks and the dogs nose never left the track he was on was despite walking right by the second track layer to get to the correct target.


----------



## Misty Wegner (May 22, 2015)

There is obviously a big difference between competition tracking and real world tracking /trailing... If this gentleman's focus is on competition then with FST being a critical component in training I can see where he might feel contamination of a scent of scent discrimination near impossible to attain.... In my experience... Definitely possible, my girl does it most everyday in training..


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Jim OBrien said:


> Howard, I was also at the HITS seminar. I did not have a chance to see the class that Armin Winkler taught. I must also disagree with the scent discrimination information he is giving. We train all of our canines to be scent discriminate using split tracks and paralels. In fact, just yesterday, we did several split tracks and the dogs nose never left the track he was on was despite walking right by the second track layer to get to the correct target.


 Hi Jim. Disregard my question to you in your introduction thread. I see you've answered in this one. 

Regarding Winkler's opinion on scent discrimination...seems lots of folks here practice this alot and are successful at it. Our teams also do split and parrallel tracks and the dogs have no problem with them. This is done on all surfaces. Winkler was in total awe insofar as how strong a dogs' sense of smell is. That is why I was confused as to what he was telling us. 

Misty...your line of thinking could be the basis of his argument.


----------

