# Scent detection



## Anna Kasho (Jan 16, 2008)

Messing around with my non-working-bred mutt dog, before I go screwing up the good ones... :lol:



Comments? Thoughts? Are we on the right track?

The one problem initially is that prior to this we were practicing long sends to "place" (down on a mat), so she thinks that's what she should be doing... But she remembers the game quickly enough. There are two scented q-tips, she hit on the first right away, then hit on the second (I saw by body language) but got confused and downed on the rug instead of following the odor to the source. Then keeps going back to the first one where she's guaranteed to get paid. Finally gets #2 at the end. Short and fun 

I am thinking the next step is to take the show on the road and start working one find one time in new locations, also starting to extend the time she spends looking for it. I don't want to do too much on leash because (I'm guessing) it would create a problem with her looking to me for directions, due to previous training. So I'm thinking she'll just just let me steer her instead of searching on her own, because I already know where the q-tips are hidden? I can't really work with someone else doing the hiding at this stage, first problem is lack of help, second is a too-smart dog that will learn to false indicate because at this point I am rewarding from a distance. I need to introduce more distractions, and lengthen the time between indication and reward, to include walking over and actually checking what she found.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Reward at the source! You don't need to add distance and distraction until the proficiency goes way up.
Your kitchen cabinets are sure taking a beating!:wink:


----------



## Anna Kasho (Jan 16, 2008)

Thanks! I dream of replacing those cabinets someday, so no big deal. :lol:

OK... How do I go about rewarding at the source using food? Have a hard time picturing it, when I can't hide a toy along with a scent. 

What would you like to see, as far as "decent" proficiency. My mals blow her out of the water, anyday, as far as drive and ability goes - but the training is FOR ME, not because she needs it. 8-[


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

I agree with Bob - before you start extending searching you need to build a consistent and fast alert. nose on source. Bam.

I am not sure of reinforcing double dipping [repeated alerts at the same source - it looks like the dog is learning to just run to the door and down and is to focused on whipping around to get the food]. 

Not really sure I have a problem with using the blocks because you can mix it up by moving the blocks and the dog has to associate and tie nose on source - alert but nose on block no source - no alert. 

We started our last dogs with throwing PVC pipes with material in them....and switching from retrive to prompting the alert and it worked out too.

For a food dog, I don't really know but I think clicker training would be a real benefit here ............ it is a lot easier to work with a toy dog here.

I am NO expert though - trained and certified and worked ONE toy driven dog........people who do a lot of dogs better experts


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

just my .02, but if your going to do serious detection with any dog for any type of odor, a toy/ball driven dog is the best in my personal experience. No need of depriving him of food to work, etc etc. Maturity issues etc etc. 

Throwing a PVC pipe........If you are going to do a passive alert, then you are automatically hurting yourself by allowing the dog to mouth the odor/hide, etc. Later you will have to train it out of him for a passive alert. Which is trainable and fairly easy, HOWEVER, why do it? If you have a toy driven SOB and he already has some OB, (Sit/Down) you can simply train him using other methods of passive indication.


----------



## Michael Santana (Dec 31, 2007)

I agree with Bob, and would like to add.. if your dog gets used to being rewarded at a distance than the possibility of the dog breaking from its alert to come find you and its reward it much higher.. especially if you hesitate on its reward. 

oh.. and as many have already said.. Toys are the way to go!


----------



## Jennifer Michelson (Sep 20, 2006)

The dog needs to stay at the source. You are rewarding the dog for leaving and facing you, so that is going to be her indication. I see my hrd handlers stand closer (until the dog understands that the source brings the reward) so that they can take a few quick steps forward to reward when the dog's nose is at the source. You can be a bit closer and when the dog turns back to the source, move in and put the food between the dog and the source--or at least toss the food when she is facing the source. We do use an active alert, but the dog needs to pinpoint and stay at the source. 


The indication should be taught separately from the search. I know one guy who built boxes that had a remote control mechanism to release the ball--similar to Randy Hare's box method.

I use a passive alert for my dog for article searches. He downs for his alert and he knows he has to be directly over the article to get his reward (he generally downs with it between his front legs).


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Jody Butler said:


> Throwing a PVC pipe........If you are going to do a passive alert, then you are automatically hurting yourself by allowing the dog to mouth the odor/hide, etc. Later you will have to train it out of him for a passive alert. Which is trainable and fairly easy, HOWEVER, why do it? If you have a toy driven SOB and he already has some OB, (Sit/Down) you can simply train him using other methods of passive indication.


The guy who trained us this way got his start at Lackland and has handled/trained a lot of bomb dogs and airport bomb dog handlers after 9-11 that way. He banks his life on the dog not mouthing t he source. But I know most folks don't go from agressive to passive................But I still don't know what is wrong with the boxes..........


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> The guy who trained us this way got his start at Lackland and has handled/trained a lot of bomb dogs and airport bomb dog handlers after 9-11 that way. He banks his life on the dog not mouthing t he source. But I know most folks don't go from agressive to passive................But I still don't know what is wrong with the boxes..........


I didn't say it was right or wrong, just gave some advice.......banking your life on a dog.....cmon now get in touch with reality, its still a dog afterall. And I have seen so much garbage come out of Lackland its riduculous! 

Just because someone has x years of experience and/or trained x amount of dogs, doesn't mean they have been doing it correctly and/or mean they are a good trainer, simply means they trained x amount of dogs in x amount of years.........


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> Reward at the source! You don't need to add distance and distraction until the proficiency goes way up.
> Your kitchen cabinets are sure taking a beating!:wink:


Totally agree. Any time you are training a dog a specific behavior you always deal with time and distance. The time the dog is required to perform the behavior; the distance the dog is required to perform the behavior. Only work one at a time. Only increase (time or distance) as the dog displays the required proficiency at the level currently being worked. 

In our detection program I use a criterion of "10". The dog must perform a specific behavior, 10 consecutive times, unassisted, before moving to the next "level". 

DFrost


----------



## Michael Wise (Sep 14, 2008)

Good thread. Thanks for posting the vid.


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Jennifer Michelson said:


> The indication should be taught separately from the search. I know one guy who built boxes that had a remote control mechanism to release the ball--similar to Randy Hare's box method.


Just a note that Randy's box method does not have a remote control mechanism to release the ball. The trainer stands behind the rack of boxes and drops the ball (which is on a string) through a tube, tugging with the dog through the box itself. 

I actually prefer not to teach the indication separately from the search. I like the alert behavior to be shaped in the presence of (and as a result of the dog finding) target odor. IMO, teaching the alert separately makes it much more likely for the dog to exhibit the alert behavior for reasons other than finding target odor.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Konnie Hein said:


> . IMO, teaching the alert separately makes it much more likely for the dog to exhibit the alert behavior for reasons other than finding target odor.


And detector trainers everywhere say Amen.

DFrost


----------



## Jennifer Michelson (Sep 20, 2006)

Konnie--yep thats why I said 'similar', meaning more that the reward is given immediately at the source. I have seen Randy's work.

Also, meant indication taught separate from the search not separate from the source.--as in using the boxes etc, not having the hide in a field etc. where you are asking the dog to perform a search and then figure out what to do when it gets there. No point in teaching the indication in absence of the source.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Just because someone has x years of experience and/or trained x amount of dogs, doesn't mean they have been doing it correctly and/or mean they are a good trainer, simply means they trained x amount of dogs in x amount of years.........[/quote]


can we have another AMEN


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Dave Colborn said:


> Just because someone has x years of experience and/or trained x amount of dogs, doesn't mean they have been doing it correctly and/or mean they are a good trainer, simply means they trained x amount of dogs in x amount of years.........


 
can we have another AMEN[/QUOTE]

I said it before; some people have 20 years experience training dogs. some have one year's experience twenty times. 

DFrost


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Jennifer Michelson said:


> Also, meant indication taught separate from the search not separate from the source.--as in using the boxes etc, not having the hide in a field etc. where you are asking the dog to perform a search and then figure out what to do when it gets there. No point in teaching the indication in absence of the source.


If you are using boxes, you are still not separating alert/indication training from the search. The dog must still search the boxes.

I think we're saying the same thing, I just interpreted what you originally wrote a bit different than you intended. I've seen HR folks train the indication (usually a passive one, like a sit) separately from the target odor and it's something I prefer not to do.


----------



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

Konnie Hein said:


> I've seen HR folks train the indication (usually a passive one, like a sit) separately from the target odor and it's something I prefer not to do.


Why is that? I am just curious as I don't think we have talked about it before. 

I was taught to train the alert separate and that is how I did it with Jesea...I think I am lucky that she picked it up really quickly. 

This will definitely be more tools for my toolbox. =D>:mrgreen:


----------



## Jennifer Michelson (Sep 20, 2006)

yeah, we are saying the same thing. I know that finding the right box in a series of them is still searching, but I meant teaching the indication in a controlled manner (with similar props, so that the only difference is scent), rather than asking the dog to do a search scenario (field, rubble, cabinets etc) before the indication is set. I do see people trying to do too much and not understanding why the dog is confused and not performing the indication.


----------



## Anna Kasho (Jan 16, 2008)

Thanks! Great information, I really appreciate it. 

I get the point about toy-driven dogs. When I need a breath of fresh air, I play with one of my mals.  The reason I decided to use Candy is because she gives me a chance to work out all the problems. I am the one learning here, and if I do the training with one of my good dogs, the fewer mistakes I make, the better.

With this dog, it is also uphill going b/c of previous training - which has been service dog type tasks. She knows to stay with me, watch me, do what I say, then come back and watch me. When confused stop in place and watch me for directions. Etc. (I know, I know...#-o[-X)




Nancy Jocoy said:


> I agree with Bob - before you start extending searching you need to build a consistent and fast alert. nose on source. Bam.
> 
> I am not sure of reinforcing double dipping [repeated alerts at the same source - it looks like the dog is learning to just run to the door and down and is to focused on whipping around to get the food].
> 
> ...


Gotcha. Her "alert" is the nose touch, sitting/downing and looking at me is a default behavior that she's already been trained to do in other circumstances. It is trained same as with clicker. Nose on source, mark "yes", then she whips around going "pay me". So I have to have her stay nose to source (and/or sit facing it) and extend the time she does this? For how long?

"Double dipping" (thanks for the terminology) is why I've been thinking of new areas and working each find only one time with her. I can't NOT reward her for repeated alerts on the same source, can I?

I have a problem with her with objects like boxes and bricks. She goes back on her training, searches visually, and retrieves everything. She can retrieve anything that's not bolted down, including cinderblocks. (again, #-o) 




Jody Butler said:


> just my .02, but if your going to do serious detection with any dog for any type of odor, a toy/ball driven dog is the best in my personal experience. No need of depriving him of food to work, etc etc. Maturity issues etc etc.


Totally agree that this is not the best dog for the job! :lol:



Michael Santana said:


> I agree with Bob, and would like to add.. if your dog gets used to being rewarded at a distance than the possibility of the dog breaking from its alert to come find you and its reward it much higher.. especially if you hesitate on its reward.





Jennifer Michelson said:


> The dog needs to stay at the source. You are rewarding the dog for leaving and facing you, so that is going to be her indication.We do use an active alert, but the dog needs to pinpoint and stay at the source.


Stay with source. Got it. Why is a return/refind a bad thing in scent detection?



David Frost said:


> In our detection program I use a criterion of "10". The dog must perform a specific behavior, 10 consecutive times, unassisted, before moving to the next "level".


A concrete number like this, helps A LOT. Thanks!



Konnie Hein said:


> I actually prefer not to teach the indication separately from the search. I like the alert behavior to be shaped in the presence of (and as a result of the dog finding) target odor. IMO, teaching the alert separately makes it much more likely for the dog to exhibit the alert behavior for reasons other than finding target odor.


Already had that - she tried false alert, to other scents, and running back to alert on food. If I was teaching her to detect food, I'd be all set. :lol: 
This was also my problem with using a sit as alert behavior with her.



Michael Wise said:


> Good thread. Thanks for posting the vid.


More vids will be coming as training progresses. Now that she doesn't completely suck at it. :grin:


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Ok for the fellow who goes from active to passive. I think a lot of folks start dogs on scented toys then move to passive alert but I would not try it without one on one. We have not had any problem - but that said..........As is your dog is scratching on the cabinet - I would prompt the down as soon as the nose hit source.

I don't think there is anything wrong with drills and boxes as long as you keep it short and don't bore the dog to tears. They are also great for imprinting new sources. 

For repeated alerts at same source. Right now I probably would but would get away from it - now if we get a second alert at the same source it is just a "good boy" with no ball. - where I have seen that happen is when we are searching an area and the dog makes a find then hits a negative for awhile and wants to go back to the same source. You can kind of figure out if the dog is going back for the toy or is really a "new" second find of the same source based on his body language and reward accordingly.

Recall Refind - had a long talk about this with some other cadaver dog handlers. Normally the dog is in sight and you really need them to be to check the body language but I have had a few training problems where the dog hit and took off, alerted [I was told] Looked for me, did not see me, ran back to me and took me in. I have also had him jump up and down out of a hole to make eye contact. After a good long talk with Kathy Holbrook, I don't think the eye contact is such a bad thing as long as the dog is alerting AT source.

I was concerned about him leaving source like this and was told by some other experienced cadaver dog handlers that that was just fine. I still don't encourage it and try to build duration. Not sure how others think but if your dog is offlead in the woods and sitting still.........you would have to rely on a tracking collor of some sort if they didn't come back [or do a bark alert]...............We had one on the real thing where the body was a good 200 yards away and the dog took off towards it like a lightening bolt. How do you keep up with that?

------

Teaching the alert independant of the source? Isnt that like you want the dog to know how to sit on command before you pair it with scent training? Then when you introduce the odor you pair it with the sit command. What is the issue? 

We always train the recall refind sequence before going to far into scent training with air scent dogs.......


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> Teaching the alert independant of the source? Isnt that like you want the dog to know how to sit on command before you pair it with scent training? Then when you introduce the odor you pair it with the sit command. What is the issue?
> 
> We always train the recall refind sequence before going to far into scent training with air scent dogs.......


Nancy, to the last sentence above - when you are teaching this with air scent dogs, you are using a live human being, right? You do not teach the recall refind sequence in the absence of a helper, who is essentially the dog's target. At least, that's what you said when I asked you about this before. I think that's significantly different from teaching a dog to sit in complete absence of target odor and then asking for the sit when the dog is initially presented with target odor (which is what I don't/won't do).

To answer both Carol and Nancy - the reason that I don't train the alert totally separate from the target odor is exactly what Anna says here:


Anna Kasho said:


> Already had that - she tried false alert, to other scents, and running back to alert on food. If I was teaching her to detect food, I'd be all set. :lol:
> This was also my problem with using a sit as alert behavior with her.


I've seen several dogs trained for HR where they were taught to sit at a distance from the handler first, with no target odor around (the dog is at a distance, the handler says "sit," the dog sits and then the handler tosses the ball out to the dog). All of these dogs had problems with false alerting when frustrated or confused. I don't like to prompt my dog to alert at any time, especially not in the very beginning when I am working on the foundation of the dog's training. Teaching a dog to sit, then putting it in front of the odor and saying "sit" is just something I don't do because I don't ever want my dog to think my actions/voice mean anything in relation to the location of the hide. IMO, doing so puts you on a slippery slope to false alerts and the dog cueing off your behavior/voice. JMO


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Have to go back - maybe you answered - HOW do you train a passive indication if you don't cue it? Is this like operant conditioning and you wait for the dog to offer it?

What kind of problems? We have about a 2% false alert rate but that is well within most expectations.....


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Nancy - we use behavior shaping. Perhaps you do something a bit different from the folks I've seen and that makes the difference. False alerts are a big problem with the dogs I mentioned. Their handlers don't seem to see it that way though.

Anyhow, it's just the way we train and I know you guys do good work. Not knocking what you do at all.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Konnie Hein said:


> Nancy - we use behavior shaping. Perhaps you do something a bit different from the folks I've seen and that makes the difference. False alerts are a big problem with the dogs I mentioned. Their handlers don't seem to see it that way though.
> 
> Anyhow, it's just the way we train and I know you guys do good work. Not knocking what you do at all.


Not worried about that - just trying to understand HOW that would work. False alerts can be a huge problem! Who wants to tell someone to dig up an area and there is not a body there? But I would not call a trained indication without associated body language - it is like you need both to call it. With body language and no alert, I may have another dog check the area, blind, to see what they do. In my training records though even if I call them at the time as false because I know the dog is messing with me they are counted as part of that 2%.

We do break down the live find recall/refind into peices and backchain so one element, "grab toy at handlers belt" would be trained independant of the sequence and with a command, then brought back into the sequence at the appropriate point ---


----------



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

I have not had issues with Jesea false alerting at all....fringing yes, but still within 5' of odor. But then again, I have never rewarded her for a false alert either. 

She has to be right close to source or she "knows" the tug does not come.....I did reward her at source with the tug when she was little though, maybe that was the difference. 

All I know is that she is reliable, might not work for some other dogs, but it definitely worked for her. 

I do understand what you are saying though.....


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

The bottom line in detection training is a consistant alert, be it passive or active AND keeping acurate records of any and all alerts.


----------



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

Bob Scott said:


> The bottom line in detection training is a consistant alert, be it passive or active AND keeping accurate records of any and all alerts.


Yep, I agree.....I LOVE learning all kinds of methods....makes it so much nicer to work with a dog. If one does not work or is not working like it you want it, you can tweak it a bit (without cueing or leading) and watch the lights go on....AWESOME!!!!=D>


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Ok, my kids have this crazy ass beagle mix - young dog - gets along with my dogs [actually the dog has a GREAT temperament] and I am thinking of taking him off their hands because he is too much dog for them- to be fair, he was very laid back when they rescued him from the neighbors but as he matured another dog came out - a wild and crazy dog - We did some runaways and he was really into it but I am going to focus on cadaver and cadaver only ........ so if he shows excitement about the scent we will start him.

Normally I would imprint him with the scent in a toy and play tug fetch etc. [and he does like tug and ball play a lot - enough to be worth it? - we will see]. He already knows sit but not at a distance. He picks up very quickly on obedience and tricks. 

Then I would do the lineups, reward recognition and build on that by asking for a sit. Konnie - what would you do different? How would you get him started.....since I have no investment in this dog I get to play and maybe make a second cadaver dog out of a dog that is driving everyone else crazy.
So..............


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> Then I would do the lineups, reward recognition and build on that by asking for a sit. Konnie - what would you do different? How would you get him started.....since I have no investment in this dog I get to play and maybe make a second cadaver dog out of a dog that is driving everyone else crazy.
> So..............


Hi Nancy:
I would first evaluate the dog's suitability for the method I use. The dog needs to be obsessed with tugging on a ball-on-a-rope. The dog also has to have the natural desire to push the ball back to where the fight/tugging occurs, which is back to me. If the dog doesn't have these traits, it will not be suitable for the method I use.

If the dog shows me what I want to see, then I'll start him on the boxes. Through self-discovery and some manipulation of the environment (ie. dog is on a leash and only allowed to move back and forth in front of the boxes), the dog learns that he only gets the tugging game in the box containing the target odor. This is also what we do with our disaster dogs, only we use a long barrel instead of a box to contain the target odor, which is a live human. Since the dog is highly driven to play the tugging game, he pushes himself to find the container with the target odor. He learns very quickly that his game only happens there.

I don't have video of this on the detection boxes, but I do have a video of my dog starting on the barrels (the props are different, but the methodology is very similar). This was his first day on the barrels. I did no prep work for this, other than evaluating him as described above. Note that we do not ask for an alert at this point, just to find the target odor.
http://www.youtube.com/focusedscenting#p/a/u/0/xKcrQf9lvLk

You can see at about 1:45 in the video that the dog has inadvertently taught himself to go to the left to look for the target odor. When he doesn't find it, he becomes slightly confused. Note that we don't direct him in any way. He does not give up and drives himself to solve the problem.

You can see that nobody is directing the dog and I never talk to him, he is pushing himself to find the barrel with the target odor because he knows that is where his reward is. The same thing occurs with the boxes. Once the dog shows that he fully understands how to get his reward, we'll shape his alert behavior. This article describes how we shape that behavior in our disaster search dogs:
http://focusedscenting.blogspot.com/2009_04_01_archive.html


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

I will have to think - now for this dog no, I know THAT dog - the one who won't leave you alone and pushes the toy at you - that is the dog responsible for a 5 inch plate in my ankle. This dog is not THAT dog. Toy driven but not obsessed enough to chase you around with toys.

Now - what I am not getting is taking this to a passive alert - - 

What you describe is very much like how we train for water search [and our team has had very succesful real world results on the boat] because the dog is frustrated and we work with what they naturally offer to get to the ball and there is some variation between dogs in that alert. That is also how we get the dog to learn to "steer" the boat by moving away from a strong known source and the dog gets when he moves the boat so nose and body are pointed at source - the reward is we turn the boat into source and he gets his reward- The ball "pops out of the water at source" in much the way any other ball dog detection problem is trained.


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Nancy - the alert behavior is shaped based off what the dog offers. If you want a passive alert, there are some minor differences in the training, but it is basically just a shaped behavior. Also, the passive behavior (sit or down) is usually paired with another alert behavior, such as a nose poke. In a nutshell, it's all autoshaping.


----------

