# Question



## Steve Estrada (Mar 6, 2011)

I was speaking to a firefighter today and he said their search dogs wouldn't find a body that they worked off the breath of the person. This doesn't sound right, so what's the difference between a cadaver dog & SAR. I know the obvious but is there something I'm missing here. Obviously this isn't my forte but love any discipline. Been on the forum long enough someone really smart will tell me how much I don't know and that's the point exactly. What are those two disciplines keying on specifically, thank you!


----------



## Ariel Peldunas (Oct 18, 2008)

Cadaver dogs are detecting the odor of human decomposition. Live find dogs (SAR, USAR, etc.) are detecting live human odor. 

I suppose until we can ask the dogs, we can't know for sure what they are smelling on a live human, but I believe it's more than odor from the person's breath. Our body constantly sheds skin rafts and the convection effect of the heat coming off of our body distributes them and they are carried by air currents. I'm sure our breath could also help to carry them. 

As for cadaver dogs, decomposition starts as soon as we die so it's not unrealistic to believe that a dog can differentiate between a live human and a cadaver dog pretty easily.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Strange statement coming from a firefighter.
The SAR team I was on was made up of mostly firefighters and LEO. I was one of the only civilians on the team. I've helped work a couple of burned out buildings with the firefighters looking for victims. It's a matter of economics for the city. Find the victim quickly with dogs or spend the day (or more) going thru the rubble Tying up many man hours plus the need to give answers/closure to family. A burned building has a few different issues when it comes to finding a victim but I've never heard of any dog that works off of a victims breath. Not that it couldn't or hasn't been done.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

During a disaster, the focus is on the living. Initially, the concern is to find survivors. It is why combining a live find with a cadaver is discouraged with most rescue units. Initially, after a disaster, you don't want to spend valuable time digging up dead people. The focus is always on the living, first. Recovery can begin later.

DFrost


----------



## Steve Estrada (Mar 6, 2011)

Ok thanks but I can understand finding decomposition & I read Syrotuck years ago (more than once, had too!) what I can't get clear in my mind is why a SAR dog would miss a dead/cadaver body? Wouldn't the point being finding someone dead or alive? Really thanks it's a point of education for me. Maybe David comes closest to explaining???


----------



## Steve Estrada (Mar 6, 2011)

Also I remember this country's first International assistance SAR in Mexico (also 911) how the dogs finding dead were often depressed until they set up live finds. Maybe this is why I'm confused. That fact also touches me deeply!


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

If the dog is trained on live victims it should ignore dead and vs a vs. 
Some teams train for both as my old team did. I wouldn't do it again for the reasons David mentioned. 
Why take a chance on missing a live person in a disaster because the dog went to a cadaver scent first?!


----------



## Steve Estrada (Mar 6, 2011)

Thanks Bob for the clarification, that's why I'm here.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Hopefully the firefighter was not a dog handler or was just trying to put it in a construct he thought you could understand.

Not sure how it works with disasters, but in water I know live find dogs can find someone dead only a few hours and that happened on a search a few years ago where a child went in and two live find dogs with no cadaver training and one cadaver dog all pinpointed the child in the stream.

There is a transition period where both types of dogs will hit. Not sure how the disaster/avalanche people deal with that? I know the dogs can differentiate between the live, the dying and the dead (Even bot flies know the smell of a creature that is alive but dying)

We don't cross train our live find dogs on cadaver other than some exposure to see how they behave but you almost always see a change in body language and the ones we have seen on real searches have not gone all the way in to the body.

I would think the issues with depression would be (1) Handler stress and depression and (2) working long periods of time without a reward. 

You don't reward a response unless you know it is the proper response so the dog works a long time without a reward. I worked a search where we worked from shore the same area the dog had already indicated in the boat. (This was after a lot of other area coverage as it was a suspected homicide). 

After 5 indications on the water dog had enough and jumped up and bit the ball through my pocket. We decided to leave the scene and work some motivational problems because he was ready to get paid. I don't see that frustration if we work a long time without any finds - just if I get repeated indications and no reward.


----------



## Jim Delbridge (Jan 27, 2010)

While Syrotuck is a great theory to train new people on live scent, it is a theory. As mosquitos can attest, humans put out lots of gases in the living state. Mosquitos are attratcted to CO2 breathed out by mammals and put out by our skin. There are lots of glands in our skin that put out various oils and liquids. Each of these put out unqiue scent.
As soon as a human dies, the decomposition process begins because basically it is held at bay while we are alive. The "body farms" have been studying what gasses are put off by the decomposition process and the tally so far is up to 478 unique chemical compounds come off a decomposing body. No one really knows exactly which ones the dogs qualify as "dead human". In the regular training of a Human remains detection dog, the handler/trainer tries to show the dog all the various windows of decomposition they want the dog to pick. Mine are trained from old teeth/bone with no tissue to recently dead because that's the gamut I'm asked to search for. Dogs that specialize in historic (just old bones and teeth) will be better at that than mine. Dogs that specialize in recently dead will be better at solving 0-3 weeks dead (relatively as environment affects this window greatly).

There are some handlers that think their live-find only dog will still find recenly dead. There's been no scientific proof and one has to wonder if the live-only dog hasn't been introduced (even by accident) to some fresh or simply blood.

My opinion is that the best live-find dogs will walk right over human remains without reacting because I want them to find only the live humans even in a sea of remains such as the WTC. I'm happy to give the live-find dog teams all the time they need to save lives as unfortunately there is always an endless supply of remains to work afterwards.

Hope this helps,

Jim Delbridge


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Jim Delbridge said:


> My opinion is that the best live-find dogs will walk right over human remains without reacting because I want them to find only the live humans even in a sea of remains such as the WTC. I'm happy to give the live-find dog teams all the time they need to save lives as unfortunately there is always an endless supply of remains to work afterwards.
> 
> Hope this helps,
> 
> Jim Delbridge


Very well said! I absolutely agree with you. In an earlier post, I had mentioned the goal of the SAR is find the living first. Time is of the utmost importance during a catastrophe for the living. For the dead, not so much. It is a waste of time and effort to worry about recovery, until all that can be done, is done, to rescue the living. 

DFrost


----------

