# Unintended Blinds



## Jim Delbridge (Jan 27, 2010)

I think these can make the best training situations for handler and dog. The potential for it becoming a bad experience for either dog and/or handler is there. It's up to the handler to make it a positive experience for the dog and for both to grow out of it.


Ok, what the heck am I talking about?

A blind is defined as a problem where the handler doesn't know where the scent source(s) are. It's not a double blind as the handler knows how many and may know what type they are. How does it become unintended?

One of the weaknesses of team training is the time factor. With HRD, at team training we scramble out first and make our hides so that there is time for the scent to diffuse into the area and it becomes a somewhat honest problem. I can say "somewhat honest" as most real searches involve remains that have been in place for days, weeks, months, years, decades, centuries, and even older for the real historic dogs. Yet, most handlers put their bones and/or teeth out then work them an hour later. On my personal problems that I set up for my dogs, I like to leave the bones out a couple of days (I've lost three bones in 12 years to critters).
Sometimes the environment plays havoc with our training program. In Oklahoma, we've experienced two months of 100+F heat and mostly drought. My land has been like the ignored child at a baseball game team creations when it comes to rain lately. I've watched storms skirt around us mere miles away only to watch the dirt continue to turn to dust.
Yesterday, a major storm system is on radar heading my way. Just like pre-snow, I ran out and proceeded to place three mounds of seven historic-level teeth.
(Historic level teeth have no tissue what so ever in or on them. The roots have popped due to the cleaning process. All that's left is the tooth itself, just like in an old grave.)
In my placement, I decided to run them all in a shallow wash. Due to the drought, many of my trees have lost their leaves, so I had fall-like cover. I found little depressions along this wash of some 180 feet in length and placed the teeth down in those. At each spot, I located landmarks for intersections so that I'd have a good idea of where they went.
In two hours, we got 0.75 inches of rain and all my teeth became buried in their locations, my visual markers no longer valid as they could have rolled with the water.
I discovered my situation this morning when I intended to work in the cool of the day before heat returned. I walked the general area and surveyed the blessing nature had bestowed upon me. Mother Nature and I have a love/hate relationship and I could hear her laughing with the wind.
Silting action could be see through out my tiny wash and the teeth were no where to be seen. I now had shallow buried problems....an unintentional blind.
The older, experienced dog got to work first and I let him free search to tell me if there was any scent. He got into the area and then we went into a cemetery-like grid, 180 feet by 50 feet. I was slightly disoriented, so I told Murphy to get closer on his first find. He went out about three feet then came back to the exact same spot, a bit ticked with me and brushed the ground just enough with his paw to expose a tooth under the silt. I was properly chastised as a handler and profusely rewarded him accordingly with praise. Murphy prefers hotdogs after the ball throw and thought I was screwing with him with the added-on praise instead of more "coin of the realm". My mind right, we proceeded to grid the rest of the area and located the other shallow burials with me having to work it in the mind of a real search rather than training.
I noticed when it came to the younger Thorpe's turn that he became more serious and would continue searching an area even if I asked him to move along. He stopped and indicated away from my now three known "graves." Having been properly chastised once, I went over to check with a "show me." He'd found one tooth that had floated up away from the pile before it was covered. His standing with me immediately elevated one more notch as he truly learned his handler was a scent moron and it was upon him to keep me straight.
Time worked: Murphy 16 minutes 20 seconds Thorpe: 12 minutes 48 seconds

(Shorter time for Thorpe can be attributed to help from Murphy's scent and by the handler in more of a comfort zone.)
Soil Type: Sandy Loam (more sand than clay in this area) 
Air Temp was 72.0 to 73.9F
Rel Humidity was 81 to 77%
Wind Speed was E to SE at 4 to 8.7 mph
Sun/shade over area due to partial tree cover

Jim Delbridge


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Jim Delbridge says: "A blind is defined as a problem where the handler doesn't know where the scent source(s) are. It's not a double blind as the handler knows how many and may know what type they are."

I understand the scenario you are describing, but you definitions, unless they are you own, aren't quite correct. A blind would be; the handler doesn't know IF, how many, or what type of targets are in place. A double blind means the evaluator doesn't know IF, how many or what type, and only records the results. Short description granted, but basically correct. I've been in a couple of discussions recently of this nature, blind v. known targets. I'm a firm believer that nearly 100% of the training with scent should be blind targets. The only time my handlers are even allowed to conduct training a known, is if they document a specific problem they are trying to correct. I believe working known targets for regular training teaches bad habits. There is much more potential for harm than good.

DFrost


----------



## Jim Delbridge (Jan 27, 2010)

Typed a long reply, but this server timed me out and it was lost. I should have copied it just in case.

A double blind can also be where a dog team (with or without flanker) is sent into an area pre-set where they work on their own with 0-N sources. 
I have been doing these types of problems for over 12 years before I was told they have an "official, by committee name." Like "nose time" by a trainer, I thought "well, isn't that special."

I have used the term "blind" for long before the committee decided it meant an area with 0-N sources where the evaluator can be present that knows where sources are and can give clues either purposely or unconsciously.

So, I suppose it's my own term and does not comply with the "official SWGDOG definitions". Please excuse me if I don't care when someone like Renee Utley can convince the "committee" to put an "or" in the evaluations such that evaluating agencies don't have to use double blinds. I did standards work for the telephony industry and consider it all political.

To me "blind" means the dog handler doesn't know where the sources are. If they don't know how many, so much the better.
I do agree that most dog work should be double blind, but not all for a very important reason. Their is a national group now that the dog handlers are basically given the dogs ready trained. They certify with these dogs and the government is happy. Do most of them know how scent works? Don't think so.
I find that handlers should become experienced at observiing scent action using their dogs....this does require the dog handler be honest and walk away if the dog isn't hitting on the scent in the path they felt it would travel. Either means the scent didn't go that way or the dog sucks. I think part of a dog teams regular training should be where they are required to set up problems and predict where their dog will pick it up and how the dog will pursue to source. The handler has to leave the ego in the vehicle if the dog shows him/her that scent traveled differently and then learn why it did so. As long as the dog hasn't been trained to lie via handler cues, the handler and dog should improve by problems such as this. 
The need for this arises when the scent is controlled by the whims of thermal changes, sun light, wind, humidity, on and on. One of my last certification problems would have been a failure if I blindly took what the dog did. Instead, I realized there was a possibility of a scent trap occuring and pulled my dog out to work from a different direction. Turns out I was right. The evaluator told me nearly every handler had similar issues and some didn't pass. I run lots of scent experiments where my intent is to further the dog's work experience and my scent theory knowledge. You don't get those with double blinds. 

Know scent travel problems, blinds, and double blinds should all be part of the dog teams training venue. 

If my term is not politically correct, well, wouldn't be the first time that I wasn't PC. It definitely won't be the last.


Jim



David Frost said:


> Jim Delbridge says: "A blind is defined as a problem where the handler doesn't know where the scent source(s) are. It's not a double blind as the handler knows how many and may know what type they are."
> 
> I understand the scenario you are describing, but you definitions, unless they are you own, aren't quite correct. A blind would be; the handler doesn't know IF, how many, or what type of targets are in place. A double blind means the evaluator doesn't know IF, how many or what type, and only records the results. Short description granted, but basically correct. I've been in a couple of discussions recently of this nature, blind v. known targets. I'm a firm believer that nearly 100% of the training with scent should be blind targets. The only time my handlers are even allowed to conduct training a known, is if they document a specific problem they are trying to correct. I believe working known targets for regular training teaches bad habits. There is much more potential for harm than good.
> 
> DFrost


 




David Frost said:


> Jim Delbridge says: "A blind is defined as a problem where the handler doesn't know where the scent source(s) are. It's not a double blind as the handler knows how many and may know what type they are."
> 
> I understand the scenario you are describing, but you definitions, unless they are you own, aren't quite correct. A blind would be; the handler doesn't know IF, how many, or what type of targets are in place. A double blind means the evaluator doesn't know IF, how many or what type, and only records the results. Short description granted, but basically correct. I've been in a couple of discussions recently of this nature, blind v. known targets. I'm a firm believer that nearly 100% of the training with scent should be blind targets. The only time my handlers are even allowed to conduct training a known, is if they document a specific problem they are trying to correct. I believe working known targets for regular training teaches bad habits. There is much more potential for harm than good.
> 
> DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

It's not SWG Dog's definition, it's the scientific definition of blind, double blind etc. I don't agree most training should be double blind. I do believe almost all training (past initial training) should be single blind. I do believe if you really want an objective evaluation of the proficiency of a dog team, double blind evaluation should be used. A true double blind is where egos have to be left in the truck. It boils down to an either the dog did or didn't. 

DFrost


----------



## Jim Delbridge (Jan 27, 2010)

As I was driving home, I got to thinking. This really was a blind, even by your definition as I found four sources when I thought there were three. Gotta love teeth that can float.

A true double blind does not boil down to just the dog. It boils down to the team. I set up three double blinds for three good dog teams. One area was tissue, one was skeletal, and one was dental. It didn't matter if a dog team followed another as I maintained lack of source locations until all dog teams were done.
One dog team handler's hubby was there. He's a deputy and a good guy. I suggested he could go along with the handler as he didn't know what was out there any more than she did. Turns out the deputy convinced the dog handler to plant an extra flag by his observations of the dog in the area. The deputy sat in the truck for the other areas. 
On each area, when a handler was done, I went with the handler and they showed me flags or lack there of. Any flags that were incorrect, I pulled and handed back to them. I asked each handler if they wanted to keep working to be sure they were done. If they did, I walked away and sat back down on my rock under a tree. Each area was defined as zero to three. One area was a negative. One handler used two dogs and planted five flags total. She was the first dog team. Second handler in the negative watched her dog for 15 minutes, came out with no flags planted and said, "I just don't like the way the dog is working. I'd like to take a break." I said, "sure." I let the last dog handler into the negative and that dog team placed one flag where the first dog team had planted two around a tree. I asked that dog handler (as I pulled the flag as incorrect) if she'd like to continue the area and she said, "no. that was the only area the dog had interest and it didn't seem right." I said, "ok, do me a favor and as you walk out, wave the flag and tell the hubby that your dog did good." (dog did as it did not alert there, HANDLER placed the flag.) The one that wanted a break went back in, but I gave the handler a limitation of only ten more minutes (as it was getting hot). Handler came back out in exactly ten minutes and took me to two flags. I pulled them both and asked if the dog had alerted. Handler said, "no, he just lingered there." I asked, "you just felt you had to plant a flag?" She nodded. As she was the last, I told her it was negative. Her reaction was priceless. This is a very polite woman who told me, "Get the _____ out!" 
On the dental there was one source of ten teeth (non-historic) under a large rock surrounded by pine needles that I went to great lengths not to disturb. I also went around the area and poured clean water on three other rocks just to see what would happen. To their credit, all dog teams found the teeth, but two found a wet rock instead (deputy helped on one.) 
I was not doing a favor to the handler letting her deputy go along as I know from many experiences of helpful law enforcement that suggests my dog has something. It's simply human nature to want to be part of the search. I felt it was the best lesson I could teach either one of them. They were both good with it.
The skeletal had two sources and all three dog teams nailed with placing only two flags. I did consider it the easy area. Both sources were surface, but hidden well before a dog (or two) dug my sources out. I re-hid them.

None of them got to know if they were right or wrong till all three were done and I was the only one to know the results. So, they basically got the best real search simulation they could as we're often asked to run our dogs over the same area someone else did. A very big fear should be the previous dog teams screwed it up and we (as a dog team) have to be the best WE can be. All of the dog handlers were very honorable and did not discuss their search areas. I also kept them hopping, keeping wait time to a minimum.

HRD can be very subtle such that the handler has to have eyes on their dog at all times. If a head turns, the handler has to make sure the dog investigates without talking the dog into something that isn't there. If the dog alerts, we must have mechanisms in place to determine if the dog is alerting on scent or scent source. Dogs that work a lot of buried have a finer sense of scent level than the dogs that work mostly surface and elevated, especially big decomp sources. The handler has to work with the dog to determine if its scent-but-no-source or scent-at -source or scent-with-buried-source.
This is not like area search where the handler gets the victim by visual. This is not narcotics where the only naturally occuring scent source is marijuana. HRD dogs have to be able to discern buried human from buried non-human, charred human from charred non-human, etc.

I do a double blind at least once a month. I'd prefer to have one weekly. I train my dogs 3-5 times per week on my own. I would dearly love to have a training partner for those sessions, but it just hasn't happened in six years since my first training partner died. Finding a good training partner is extremely difficult. Finding newbies with good intentions and no discipline is easy. 
So, I have ways to try to take myself out of the equation as far as knowledge of where the source(s) are, but I know the number. I log my trainings as they come. Dog screws up, it's there. I screw up, it's there. It's a team effort. I create high precision tools in my dogs and like any precision tool, the operator can screw them up in a heartbeat.

Make no mistake, even after all this time I detest working double blinds, but I rarely turn away from an opportunity to do one as it's what keeps me sharp on real searches.

Jim Delbridge




David Frost said:


> It's not SWG Dog's definition, it's the scientific definition of blind, double blind etc. I don't agree most training should be double blind. I do believe almost all training (past initial training) should be single blind. I do believe if you really want an objective evaluation of the proficiency of a dog team, double blind evaluation should be used. A true double blind is where egos have to be left in the truck. It boils down to an either the dog did or didn't.
> 
> DFrost


----------

