# Importing Pseudo Scents across borders ..



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

What type of paperwork do I need to do this? Anybody have experience with this? The cheapest place that I've found is Elite K9 they sell Sigma and it is a heck of a lot cheaper than ScentLogix. But they won't export the product, I have friends not far from me across the border where I could have it shipped and pick it up and import it myself. But I don't want to get drawn and quartered at the border.


----------



## Butch Cappel (Aug 12, 2007)

Geoff,
First let me be clear I have no _First Hand_ experience bringing pseudo scents across the Canadian border, I have brought them back and forth across the Mexican border a lot. 

Pseudo scents are not an illegal substance and should not really pose any problems for you at either border, unless of course your dog took a dump at the station and the guard checking your car stepped in it on the way to question you! 

Maybe someone else knows more about the Canadian border than I but I am guessing that you should have no problem, you can always call your authorities and see if they have any thing written on the substance, I know the US side has no problem with it.

Butch Cappel
www.k9ps.com


----------



## Phil Dodson (Apr 4, 2006)

Oh No, David Frost is going to go haywire over this thread!!

I see no problem either, they are not an illegal substance, unless your customs considers it as being same.


----------



## Tanya Beka (Aug 12, 2008)

i've ordrerd from elikt k9 and no problems coming to canada 3 years ago. hopefully nothing has changed since then although border stuff is more complicated now.


----------



## Mike Di Rago (Jan 9, 2009)

Geoff,
If you pick it up yourself, just keep the bill or order form with you if questions are asked. The pseudo is not illegal. keeping the paperwork will save time!
Miss Sasha at training!
Mike


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Thanks everyone, I had a few PMs over the subject as well and thanks to those people too! 

Yeah Tanya Elite K9 now don't ship Pseudo internationally. I suspect for the same reason why I can't get a blank gun shipper across the border either. Overzealous Customs . . A blank gun is legal you don't need a FAC to own one but importing one is a whole different ball of wax, according to the talking heads who run the X-Ray machines. 

I understand as long as I have the MSDS info in printed form, I won't have a problem. My only concern was having a customs dog go ape on the car while at the border and having to explain myself. I think the best bet for me is to just declare it and present the MSDS info. Heck if it is a slow day at the crossing they could do a training scenario on my car if they wanted!  

Yeah Mike Sasha hasn't bit since the Canadian Champhionships. We miss you guys too, though for the sake of my family I needed to take a break. I've put in over 55,000 km the past year training and trialing and need to be home or next year will be toast before it even starts.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Phil Dodson said:


> Oh No, David Frost is going to go haywire over this thread!!
> 
> I see no problem either, they are not an illegal substance, unless your customs considers it as being same.


No sir, I intentionally stayed out that discussion. The OP wasn't asking for opinions about training with the junk, just shipping it. Of course I wouldn't know anything about that, so remained quiet. Of course if one of my dogs were to sniff a vehicle loaded with the stuff, they wouldn't respond either. Imagine that.

DFrost


----------



## Kyle Sprag (Jan 10, 2008)

David Frost said:


> Of course if one of my dogs were to sniff a vehicle loaded with the stuff, they wouldn't respond either.DFrost


Like the stuff or not I hope you are not serious:?:


----------



## Angela Fleming (Aug 27, 2009)

Hey Geoff, 
I ordered some sigma from Elite K9 about 6 months ago and it was shipped courier no prob. 
But, they have since changed their policy according to the website. So, let me know how it all works out for you...I know that there is a Canadian distibutor of the scentlogix but as you said, it much more costly.
~Angela


----------



## Kyle Sprag (Jan 10, 2008)

Geoff Empey said:


> Thanks everyone, I had a few PMs over the subject as well and thanks to those people too!
> 
> Yeah Tanya Elite K9 now don't ship Pseudo internationally. I suspect for the same reason why I can't get a blank gun shipper across the border either. Overzealous Customs . . A blank gun is legal you don't need a FAC to own one but importing one is a whole different ball of wax, according to the talking heads who run the X-Ray machines.
> 
> ...


 
Can you just have someone Here in the US buy them for you and ship them to you as "Dog Training Aids" or something like that?


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Kyle Sprag said:


> Like the stuff or not I hope you are not serious:?:


I'm serious as lip cancer. They will not respond to pseudo scents. Why should they? They've never been exposed to it. They've never been trained on it. I wouldn't expect them too.

DFrost


----------



## Kyle Sprag (Jan 10, 2008)

David Frost said:


> I'm serious as lip cancer. They will not respond to pseudo scents. Why should they? They've never been exposed to it. They've never been trained on it. I wouldn't expect them too.
> 
> DFrost


 
"should" no I say Would.

Why Wouldn't they, if a dog can performe with the Real thing trained on nothing but Pseudo?


I understand your personal feelings but believe there is a whole lot more important things going on with Detection, training, handling, reading, drive, reward, timming etc..........that determins the quality of the End Product (dogs) near the bottom is if the dog is/was trained with Pseudo or not.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

I'm not arguing dogs trained on pseudo won't find drugs. I'm saying, from personal experience, dogs trained on real drugs won't respond to the pseudo. It's not real folks. They can make any claims they want to make. I've conducted enough of my own research to see for myself. I'm not trying to convince anyone. I will however, anytime the discussion comes up, state my views, based on my own experiences. The only way to test it yourself is do it with dogs that have never been exposed to pseudo. Don't even let the handler know pseudo is in the problem. Set it up and run it. That's all I've ever asked anyone to do. Has nothing to do with what the dog does other than; does the dog give the final response. As for your comments; "believe there is a whole lot more important things going on with Detection, training, handling, reading, drive, reward, timming etc..........that determins the quality of the End Product (dogs) near the bottom is if the dog is/was trained with Pseudo or not."

What pray tell might those "more important" things be than finding the real drugs. Remember, I'm not doing this for trials or fanfare. My 40 dogs are out there every day, doing this task. In my opinion, I'm judged on my final product ---- daily.

DFrost


----------



## Kyle Sprag (Jan 10, 2008)

David Frost said:


> I'm not arguing dogs trained on pseudo won't find drugs. I'm saying, from personal experience, dogs trained on real drugs won't respond to the pseudo. It's not real folks. They can make any claims they want to make. I've conducted enough of my own research to see for myself. I'm not trying to convince anyone. I will however, anytime the discussion comes up, state my views, based on my own experiences. The only way to test it yourself is do it with dogs that have never been exposed to pseudo. Don't even let the handler know pseudo is in the problem. Set it up and run it. That's all I've ever asked anyone to do. Has nothing to do with what the dog does other than; does the dog give the final response. As for your comments; "believe there is a whole lot more important things going on with Detection, training, handling, reading, drive, reward, timming etc..........that determins the quality of the End Product (dogs) near the bottom is if the dog is/was trained with Pseudo or not."
> 
> What pray tell might those "more important" things be than finding the real drugs. Remember, I'm not doing this for trials or fanfare. My 40 dogs are out there every day, doing this task. In my opinion, I'm judged on my final product ---- daily.
> 
> DFrost


 
David what I am talking about is dogs finding "real" drugs. Why do you think the 100s of dogs out there trained on Pseudo Finding 'real" drugs every day? Not arguing either.

Will your dogs indicate on the Cut used for Meth and/or Cocain or only the very small percentage of actual substance?

I have my beliefs as to Why some are so Against the use of Pseudo and IMO most are self serving, no I don't mean you, please don't take it that way.


----------



## Butch Cappel (Aug 12, 2007)

I would add David, in my experience, dogs trained on pseudo are hell on hitting Tylenol and Midol as well!


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Is it the same for explosive pseudo? I understand David's reasoning and even more respect his experience, so I have no doubt. But I never expected it to be that black and white.


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

Geoff Empey said:


> Is it the same for explosive pseudo? I understand David's reasoning and even more respect his experience, so I have no doubt. But I never expected it to be that black and white.


 
Thats because it isn't!!!! 

There are many Pseudo Scent companies out there. I beleive and NEVER saw a dog imprinted on actual explosive/Narcotics then training on psuedo later EVER fail to find the source, not even show signs of difficulty. A dog trained and imprinted on Pseudo was a different story. 

I wouldn't imprint on Pseudo unless I absolutely had to, however there are cases where you can use it to your benefit.......late night urban training event and you don't want a guard on your explosive, not to mention the pain in the ass to get it out and paperwork etc.......

Also, I would NEVER use the Ray Allen NEST....complete garbage. Two Pseudo's that I find good are Scent Logix and Pseudo Scent.com 

Everybody has a different take on this, however over 100's of dogs and like David says, daily stats tell me something, there is NO PROBLEM using Pseudo.........as long as they were imprinted on real odor.....and obvioulsy train with real odor at least monthly, but no issues with hitting on Pseudo.......


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Kyle Sprag said:


> Will your dogs indicate on the Cut used for Meth and/or Cocain or only the very small percentage of actual substance?
> 
> I have my beliefs as to Why some are so Against the use of Pseudo and IMO most are self serving, no I don't mean you, please don't take it that way.



No my dogs will not respond to the cut. We know this because we test for it. It's truthfully the only way to know the answer. 

Whether you mean me or not doesn't really matter. I am curious though how is using only actual drugs for training self-serving. 

Funny you say that. I think that trainers that don't use real drugs are being lazy. I don't exclude anyone from that. It hasn't won me any popularity contests, but it is the way I feel about it.

If you want to conduct a test, take a bottle of aspirin. Open the lid and leave it open in for a week. Take five pills, crush them, hide them like you would any training aid. don't tell the handlers. You don't have to tell me the results. If the dogs were trained on pdeudo, I know what the result will be. 

DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Butch Cappel said:


> I would add David, in my experience, dogs trained on pseudo are hell on hitting Tylenol and Midol as well!


Can't say, I know we don't have those problems. Again, I know that because we test for it. Just like I do plastic bags, the handler's wallet, vasoline, Bounce, uncirculated currency, etc., etc., etc.

DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Jody Butler said:


> Thats because it isn't!!!!
> 
> Everybody has a different take on this, however over 100's of dogs and like David says, daily stats tell me something, there is NO PROBLEM using Pseudo.........as long as they were imprinted on real odor.....and obvioulsy train with real odor at least monthly, but no issues with hitting on Pseudo.......


This is the point I just don't understand. If you have the real stuff, then why even bother with the pseudo.

DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Geoff Empey said:


> Is it the same for explosive pseudo? I understand David's reasoning and even more respect his experience, so I have no doubt. But I never expected it to be that black and white.


In my experience, it's the same old story. There is a newer pseudo out, although they claim it's not a pseudo. I challenged that remark basically saying, if it was real it would blow up. This stuff won't blow up. I was also told they were going to do a double blind study, that never happened either. Quetioning the studies that were conducted seemed to "insult" someone, so I just left it. I was presented with two studies that were both, in my opinion, very flawed. I certainly wasn't convinced. I asked why DOD, TSA and Secret Service (the largest users/trainers of EDD's) wouldn't use the material and was given a run aronund answer. Have I ever tried the material, no, have not. I did offer to give it a fair test, but that offer was kind of ignored. Yes, I recognize I'm old school. Yes, I know I have some serious congnitive dissonence going on. I also know that just because something is new, doesn't mean it's better. All I ask for is a study conducted by someone other than the manufacturer. 

DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Geoff Empey said:


> What type of paperwork do I need to do this? Anybody have experience with this?



Back to the OP's question. My apologies for getting off track. 

DFrost


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

David Frost said:


> Back to the OP's question. My apologies for getting off track.
> 
> DFrost


No no that's quite fine. You've saved us a lot of B.S, as well as cash. We just have a few dogs in our club who are not going to make it in our sport program for whatever reason. But they still work and retrieve just the bite is weak for what we want, so we were thinking about putting some 'scent' foundation on them to try to rehome them in a detection working environment. 

Knowing now that the pseudo is not the way to put the foundation on the dog, the plans will obviously have to change. Thanks ..


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

If you can access a little pot, train the dog on that. Adding additional odoers is a lot easier after the first one. I know Canada has some good pot, ha ha, we find it all the time. That BC Bud stuff you have going on up there is some high dollar chronic, h aha.

DFrost


----------



## Kyle Sprag (Jan 10, 2008)

"Whether you mean me or not doesn't really matter. I am curious though how is using only actual drugs for training self-serving."


Obtaining a DEA liscense for the actual Material is not all that Easy.

Some trainers I have seen and heard the whole Pseudo suck crap have shitty dogs and are shitty trainers, they want to keep the business to themselves and the Claim to the REAL DEAL is one way they try to do it.


again, I am not refering to You in any way


----------



## Tim Bartlett (May 21, 2007)

I have worked a past military dog on pseudo explosives several years ago and the dog initially trained on real explosives will respond to pseudo. I have, however, seen a dog started on pseudo that would NEVER respond to the real thing. I am not saying that is always the case, but in this instance it is the facts.


----------



## Tim Bartlett (May 21, 2007)

I will also add that the military does not train with pseudo explosives. In the case that I mentioned above, a local police department started their dog on pseudo and wanted to test the dog on real explosives to see how their training with the pseudo was going. Needless to say, it was a complete disaster with the dog who had all its foundation on pseudo......


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Kyle Sprag;151250
Obtaining a DEA liscense for the actual Material is not all that Easy.
[/QUOTE said:


> I still don't see how that is self-serving. If a person has taken the intitive to obtain a DEA license, that would show that it can be done. I don't train anyone but law enforcement, so I'm not in competition with anyone. My training is only open to law enforcement. Any law enforcement agency can attend any of my training, free. I also offer a department certification to any law enforcement agency. It is also free. There are some limited requirements that must be met prior to doing so, but it is at no cost.
> 
> DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Tim Bartlett said:


> I have worked a past military dog on pseudo explosives several years ago and the dog initially trained on real explosives will respond to pseudo. I have, however, seen a dog started on pseudo that would NEVER respond to the real thing. I am not saying that is always the case, but in this instance it is the facts.


Tim, my experiences were a bit different. Of course they preceeded yours by several years. ha ha. We also did some testing on psuedo drugs. The dogs that had never been exposed to the pseudo, would not respond. Showed a lot of interest, but would not respond. The pseudo explosives were still in the innovation stage. The dogs didn't even show interest to some of them. They did respond to one pseudo, but not the other 4 (at the time). I would hope they could improve and I'm certain at some point they will. 

DFrost


----------



## Kyle Sprag (Jan 10, 2008)

David Frost said:


> I still don't see how that is self-serving. If a person has taken the intitive to obtain a DEA license, that would show that it can be done. I don't train anyone but law enforcement, so I'm not in competition with anyone. My training is only open to law enforcement. Any law enforcement agency can attend any of my training, free. I also offer a department certification to any law enforcement agency. It is also free. There are some limited requirements that must be met prior to doing so, but it is at no cost.
> 
> DFrost


 
Did you miss this?

Some trainers I have seen and heard the whole Pseudo suck crap have shitty dogs and are shitty trainers, they want to keep the business to themselves and the Claim to the REAL DEAL is one way they try to do it.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Well, can't argue that I guess. But then I've seen some pretty sucky dogs that were trained on both pseudo and real. I don't think the material had anything to do with it, the dogs and or training, just sucked. 

DFrost


----------



## Tanya Beka (Aug 12, 2008)

It is training the bahavior, not the scent that is the important part. Once you have the behavior you can add new scents over time.

Train with pseudo, get the right behavior and then the people who purchase the dog can add the real deal after they purchase the dog. Heck, you could train your dog to find green tea and then transition it to cocaine if you want...teaching the right behaviors, the search and the desire to find and the actual "find" behavior are the most important.

JMHO.


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Tanya Beka said:


> Heck, you could train your dog to find green tea and then transition it to cocaine if you want...teaching the right behaviors, the search and the desire to find and the actual "find" behavior are the most important.
> 
> JMHO.


I don't train narc dogs, but I train dogs for detection work. What you've said is wrong in my book. Certainly choosing the right dog and training him well are important, but God forbid a good lawyer find out that you've started your narc dog on green tea!

Geoff - maybe you're better off just selling those dogs as "green dogs?" Regardless, I can show you what equipment we use to train our HR dogs when you're here.


----------



## Kyle Sprag (Jan 10, 2008)

Konnie Hein said:


> I don't train narc dogs, but I train dogs for detection work. What you've said is wrong in my book. Certainly choosing the right dog and training him well are important, but God forbid a good lawyer find out that you've started your narc dog on green tea!
> 
> Geoff - maybe you're better off just selling those dogs as "green dogs?" Regardless, I can show you what equipment we use to train our HR dogs when you're here.


 
There is a element of truth to this, I understand Auburn University uses a NON-Natural occuring substance to imprint dogs. When the dogs are sold they just need to have Odor added.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Kyle Sprag said:


> There is a element of truth to this, I understand Auburn University uses a NON-Natural occuring substance to imprint dogs. When the dogs are sold they just need to have Odor added.



That is true. When I worked for Southwest Research Institute, we had dogs trained on a substance we made up in the lab (well I say we, but it was our chemists). Then it was just a matter of training the odors we wanted for a particular dog. 

Konnie has also made a valid point. You would want to ensure that whatever odor is used, it would not be something that is naturally occuring, or that you may come across in an actual situation. It could cause some problems with probable cause etc.

DFrost


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Green tea seems to be in everything these days!

I guess if you start a dog on something that doesn't exist in the "real world," then there's not a problem. Why would a trainer bother spending time on that though?


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Konnie Hein said:


> Green tea seems to be in everything these days!
> 
> I guess if you start a dog on something that doesn't exist in the "real world," then there's not a problem. Why would a trainer bother spending time on that though?


Konnie, with Auburn for example, they may not know what the dog is going to be trained to do, drugs, explosives or even some other detection task. The dog has the basics as far as a basic search and a response. there is a considerable time savings, which translates to a money savings for the student attending a particular couse. The stuff I was refering to at SWRI was a lab concocted substance. YOu would not come across something like it in the real world. We could grab a dog and start training it on whatever we needed at the time. since it was a research facility, you just never knew exactly what that might be. 

DFrost


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

David , 

I agree with you on this . For all the reasons you've given . When I was training we only used the real stuff . Now I see they are using some pseudo for some explosives stuff that is too dangerous to work with the real thing . I think it's only 1 or 2 odors . Not sure though . 

Otherwise , everything else is real . We train our own dogs and even more dogs for other agencies . We don't make a cent off of training or supplying dogs . As trainers we didn't even get a step up in pay . The other agencies would pay our department a small fee . But the fees combined still didn't make up for the trainers pay for being off the street answering calls with their dogs . It was just to offset the loss they were taking putting on a much needed class . I'm sure they're out there but I don't know of any Law Enforcement agencies that are doing it for a profit . 

David also kind of answered this but if you are trying to prepare a dog in hopes an agency is going to use it I know I would prefer a dog just started off on 1 real ordor like MJ for a Narc dog and maybe blackpowder for a Bomb dog and just getting a good foundation in it's indication . Sit , scratch , whatever . 

Like David said from there training the other odors is a piece of cake . Leave it for the potential agency to do that .


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

David Frost said:


> Konnie, with Auburn for example, they may not know what the dog is going to be trained to do, drugs, explosives or even some other detection task. The dog has the basics as far as a basic search and a response.


I'm assuming all these dogs are trained for a passive alert then. 

So, let's say that a person could hypothetically get a hold of some MJ for training purposes and they started a dog. Then they advertised a dog as "started" on narc. Wouldn't that person be putting themselves at risk of getting in trouble for possession of the MJ?


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Jim Nash said:


> David ,
> 
> Now I see they are using some pseudo for some explosives stuff that is too dangerous to work with the real thing . I think it's only 1 or 2 odors . Not sure though .


yes sir, and I'm sure we are both thinking the same odor. I can see some benefit here. Although I still want to train on the real stuff as often as possible. I'm really fortunate, our FBI folks here only need a couple of days notice to assist us with that. Unfortunately, they are also making pseudo for other odors as well. I won't go into that again, I just don't see the need. As for the drugs, if they can't get the real stuff, then maybe they shouldn't be training. If it's law enforcement, shame on you, it's just plain lazy.


DFrost


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

Yep . Still on the same page .


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Thanks everyone I sure have learnt a lot on this thread. Appreciate you all telling it like it is.


----------



## steven sheridan (Sep 21, 2009)

I have seen and helped run exercises with the army mwd on Scent Logix aids. They had no problems with any of the exercises. To be honest, I have met the individual that makes the product and his partner who helps selling it, and they have had serious talks with the U.S. Army in a contract for training. As for initial odor imprinting, I know personally many dogs in Va who have been initially imprinted with Scentlogix, with maintenance training and have certified on real explosives and narcotics with multiple certifications ranging from Va Police Work Dog Assoc., National Police Work Dog Assoc., ATF, and USPCA. I can not vouch for Sigma, I have never used it or seen it in use. I work for a local Law Enforcement Agency and know exactly what has to be done to get a state pharmaceutical license and DEA license for Narcotics. I know it can be a huge pain in the butt. I do understand that it is even a larger pain in the butt for civilians to get the same licensees as LEO. I know in VA, it is only legal by VA state code for LEO canine handlers to possess illegal narcotics for the purpose of training canines. This can be done by civilians, but it is a hassle and a lot more paperwork. I know for smaller LEO departments who have specific accreditations, they do not have the money for explosive bunkers for proper storage, and would fail a annual accreditation audit carrying C4, water gel, and data sheet in their trunk all year, so ScentLogix can be stored anywhere. A lot cheaper in context for a small police chief. Don't quote me on specific explosives though as Im a narc guy not EOD. Really I believe the technology is getting better every day and would be open minded to try a new product before discouraging it.


----------



## Tanya Beka (Aug 12, 2008)

Konnie Hein said:


> I don't train narc dogs, but I train dogs for detection work. What you've said is wrong in my book. Certainly choosing the right dog and training him well are important, but God forbid a good lawyer find out that you've started your narc dog on green tea!


 
Ultimately, it depends on what the dog will be used for and by whom. If the dog will be used for a law enforcement agency, then detailed daily training logs are necessary and the agency that purchases the dog would need to know the substances the dog was started on. Absolutely, I agree with you on that one. The training and the training logs make or break the case in law enforcement. 

I certainly wasn't suggesting that anyone who wanted to train for an odor use green tea, it was just an example...but it is the same premis as using a tennis ball or a kong to start detection work and then adding the substance in with the toy to get the behavior. Obviously your dog is not going to alert on a random tennis ball in a field because you have added another odor in the dog's brain and stopped rewarding the dog for finding the ball, hence extinguishing the tennis ball finding behavior. You reward when the dog finds the narcotics and the dog wants to indicate on narcotics, not the ball or kong.

BUT, should the dog indicate once every few months on a ball for a brief second and as a handler you KNOW that the narc is not there, you ignore the find, get the dog to keep searching and reward on the narc. I don't think an indication on a toy every now and then is really going to hurt the dog's career and once the toy finding (or green tea finding - as an example) is extinguished, odds are pretty slim that it happens and if the item is not common, then no worries!


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Tanya:
FWIW, I NEVER train my dog to give his final response on anything other than the target odor, and especially never on his reward toy, regardless of the stage of training. I also never stuff/soak reward toys with the target substance (which in my case would be human remains), but that's just the way I do things. 

I understand that other folks may do it differently, but in my line of work (disaster SAR), there is very little room for error. It would be absolutely unacceptable for my dog to ever alert on a ball or toy in the rubble.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Konnie Hein said:


> FWIW, I NEVER train my dog to give his final response on anything other than the target odor, and especially never on his reward toy, regardless of the stage of training.


I'm in agreement with Konnie. I know there are others that train the response on a scented toy, I've just never done that. 

DFrost


----------



## Jim Duncan (Jan 19, 2009)

Hello David,
I enjoy reading your posts as well as others here. There are honest, concise, accurate and well thought out. I have recently started cross training my patrol dog for narcotics. Each handler in our PD is issued "real" narcotics for training aids, some from the DEA, others from closed cases that have been tested by our state lab. We never use Pseudo because we have access to actual narcotics and don't want to have our training challenged in court. I recently went to the VPWDA seminar and did some narcotics training there. My dog was never exposed to pseudo before and I ran 5 or 6 rooms and a couple of blanks with actual dope. Then they had some pseudo set up in a seperate area. I ran my dog on that and he indicated just like the real narcotics, it was interesting to see. The guy who set the pseudo out stated it was the equivelent of several kilos of heroin. I was interested in the dog's response both for the pseudo and the threshold of that amount.

I don't plan on ever using pseudo again but it was an interesting test, FWIW. 

Jim


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Jim, thanks for the kind words. I've done similar training with my handlers. I never tell them about the psuedo though. I just put it out and let what happens, happen. Two things always concern me when conducting tests like this; 1. If the handler knows the location, they can subconsciously affect the results. 2. Contamination.

To be fair; I'm not aware of any court case where the use of pseudo had an adverse effect on that case. My only argument is, and always has been; it ain't real. That means that by golly there is something different. 

I don't know how far along you are in training your dog. You said you "recently" started cross training your PD. One thing that can happen with a dog "in training", particularly with the introduction of a lot of strange odor (kilo could be pretty potent) the dog responds because that's what he's been doing lately. Make sense?

DFrost


----------

