# Still doing my research.



## Jim Engel (Nov 14, 2007)

Especially interesting web pages:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/for.../fsc/july2004/research/2004_03_research03.htm

http://www.jimmyryce.org/Bloodhounds.html

Apparently the ability to follow a person in a vehicle even when entirely closed is possible, partially because of the forced air ventilation system.

In general Bloodhound trailing up to a week old in favorable circumstances is more or less routine.

Greatly longer than that seems to be more anecdotal.

Of course, we all know if it is on the web, it must be true.

Are Bloodhounds used in search and rescue or law enforcement generally AKC registered ?


----------



## mel boschwitz (Apr 23, 2010)

Supreme Court rules concerning the use of bloodhounds/trailing dogs is that it must be of pure stock and of breeds known to hunt humans. It does NOT say they must be registered. I have a friend who has testified in murder trials as a result of his dogs work, and his dog is NOT registered, but of obviously pure blood. (Good thing about bh's is they have a very obvious look). All his paperwork (from rescue, vet, etc), label the dog as a bloodhound. Lawyers on either side didnt think twice sbout it once handler confirmed the dog was a purebred bh. 

I know another bh handler who insists the dog should have papers. 

My D.A doesnt care.

That ruling is however, one that is falling into disfavor, and in VA, it is no longer necessary for the dog to be of pureblood.

FYI for your information, the rules for bh's in LE can be found in 29th AMJ, 2nd edition. In index it states page 975, but its actually the next page.


----------



## Jim Engel (Nov 14, 2007)

AMJ would be ?

American Medical Journal ? On line someplace?

Interesting. What do you know about Bloodhound / **** hound crosses ?

Other crosses?

I hate the AKC so much it drives me crazy to see them get any sort of credibility...


----------



## mel boschwitz (Apr 23, 2010)

AMJ-American Justice Journal

The basic ruling can be found on-line ..relevant case law through law websites.

The only thing the AKC papers show is the credibility of the bloodlines. Doesnt have to be AKC registered. Bloodhound brought in from europe wouldnt necessarily be. Papers just make that standard easier to prove. Other states are following suit like VA and accepting non purebloods. There is actual case law that does NOT require papers, just that the handler states the dog is pureblood under oath, and that it is of stock known for its ability to follow human scent. i.e.-under Supreme Court rulings, you might have a tough sell with an Irish Wolfhound or Presa. Lol

Dont know anything about bh crosses.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I believe Terry Holstine of this forum man tracks with hound crosses.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

It's funny that a court would seem to care about a dog breed vs. competence of the actual dog in question, verified by a certification. That would support all i have ever heard about the mythical blood hound.

Realistically I have only seen a couple, and none any better than a pointy eared dog. But the amazing non-provable stories I have heard....wow.

Maybe courts will start only taking testimony from pure bred cops.......

Next they'll talk about full blooded....I thought they were all full of blood....Not the pointy eared dogs. They are only 3/4 full of blood....Wow.

Also it's nice to see the use of acronyms is still more confusing than helpful.
A little tidbit.

The acronym used for OC (operant conditioning most used on this forum) has over a hundred meanings. To include my favorite, Octopus Card....

http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/OC


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

mel boschwitz said:


> Supreme Court rules concerning the use of bloodhounds/trailing dogs is that it must be of pure stock and of* breeds known to hunt humans*. It does NOT say they must be registered. I have a friend who has testified in murder trials as a result of his dogs work, and his dog is NOT registered, but of obviously pure blood. (Good thing about bh's is they have a very obvious look). All his paperwork (from rescue, vet, etc), label the dog as a bloodhound. Lawyers on either side didnt think twice sbout it once handler confirmed the dog was a purebred bh.
> 
> I know another bh handler who insists the dog should have papers.
> 
> ...


----------



## Steve Estrada (Mar 6, 2011)

Dave Colborn said:


> It's funny that a court would seem to care about a dog breed vs. competence of the actual dog in question, verified by a certification. That would support all i have ever heard about the mythical blood hound.
> 
> Realistically I have only seen a couple, and none any better than a pointy eared dog. But the amazing non-provable stories I have heard....wow.
> 
> ...


I live in O.C. Operant conditioning, I mean Orange County, CA, both! #-o


----------



## mel boschwitz (Apr 23, 2010)

There are several other items that are a part of the Supreme Court ruling, which focus on competence. Since Jim was asking specifically about bloodlines, that is the part I focused on.


----------



## Jim Delbridge (Jan 27, 2010)

Jim Engel said:


> Especially interesting web pages:
> 
> http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/for.../fsc/july2004/research/2004_03_research03.htm
> 
> ...


 
I'd check facts on the vehicle following as this passed around the rumor mill a lot, but about four-five years ago several offers were made for dog teams to prove they could do it with double-blind studies. I don't think anyone ever took up the multiple offers.

I'd also touch base with Jeff Schetler as his research on double-blinds on trails suggests that trails older than 24-hours are not being completed by dog teams.

Jim Delbridge


----------

