# Evaluators....should they be certified????



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

Should a person who is an evaluator be certified with a dog that they are performing evaluations for?

If the evaluator is certified with another organization, whether it be a lesser or better "test", should that suffice for a different organization that they are only just a member of?

What qualifies an evaluator? The fact that they passed a test OR that they have experience both in training and actual missions?

Too often, IMHO, evaluators are chosen in some organizations because they are popular or play the politics game well.....I have seen it first hand, and I do not like it. I have also seen K9 Teams that PASS the test, be failed because they are not liked or known well by the evaluator.....

I don't get bothered by politics too much in any other organization, HOWEVER, when people start playing games like this when ultimately there is going to be a human life at stake, then it begins to aggravate me......

Reason I am posting this is that there IS a "situation" going on that is not good with a major org.......


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

While politics can and do play a role in most of the certification organizations failing a dog, just for spite is hard to do. They may lose points, but if the dog detects and responds, they'll get enough points to pass. On the patrol side, there are lots of people watching, the dog would have to really blow it in order to fail. Usually there is more than one evaluator. Unless the evaluators are in cahoots, an evaluator that is intentionally scoring a dog(s) low would be noticed. Does politics play a role, generally I'd say yes. I can only speak for one organization though. I've been a member for many many years and haven't participated in other ones.

DFrost


----------



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

I have only seen this in with non LEO organizations and teams.....I have never seen favoritism in LEO based orgs....want to clarify that. I also need to clarify that it does not rear it's ugly head all the time, but it does happen. 

I do not belong to the organization that is rumored to be doing this, but they have done it before. Not to me, but to someone that I know and highly respect.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

CONTROL FREAKS IN THE DOG WORLD ??

When did this happen ??

You should see the CGC evaluators, or the temperament test evaluators.

There was a lady whose dog blew it's anal glands and about jerked her arm out of the socket running from the agitator/weird guy.

She had the balls to try and explain to the judge that the dog was trained as a service dog, and was trying to help her escape.

Some just have NO shame.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Carol, that was one of many reasons I left SAR. When your doing the testing and have never even trained a dog yourself, then the results have to be based on politics/favors/stupitidy. None of which can develope good dog teams. Individual efforts with good dogs can be on any team but that's no gaurantee for success without legit testing.


----------



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

Bob Scott said:


> Carol, that was one of many reasons I left SAR. When your doing the testing and have never even trained a dog yourself, then the results have to be based on politics/favors/stupitidy. None of which can develope good dog teams. Individual efforts with good dogs can be on any team but that's no gaurantee for success without legit testing.


I agree 100%.....quite the reason I still stick with it....to stop this kind of crap.....probably futile on my part but I won't go down without doing my best!!!


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Bless you girl! 
I was the only civilian on a team of firefighters and LEO. I just say to much bs because of....well....he's a fire fighter or LEO. 
I was in charge of starting new dogs and handlers and was undermined at every turn by folks that had never themselves trained a dog. My temperment couldn't handle that. :lol:


----------



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

Bob Scott said:


> Bless you girl!
> I was the only civilian on a team of firefighters and LEO. I just say to much bs because of....well....he's a fire fighter or LEO.
> I was in charge of starting new dogs and handlers and was undermined at every turn by folks that had never themselves trained a dog. My temperment couldn't handle that. :lol:


:lol::lol:
Oh, I have been questioning my temperament lately....:-\":lol::lol:


----------



## Tim Lynam (Jun 12, 2009)

I won't go into the horror stories of civilian teams here in MI.

It can wear you down Carol...

Ever hear of Sally Santeford? Just curious.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

We certainly had a major national SAR organization have a cadaver dog person run a trailing dog certification test. 

They admitted they did not have enough evaluators so people would judge disciplines in which they had not experience.

We have encouraged police certifications, when we can get them.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> We have encouraged police certifications, when we can get them.



The one thing I really like about most of the police certifications is; even though some of them do thrive on points, it's primarily based on go/no go. some of the organizations throw in the points to make it a mini-competition within the certification. The bottom line however is; can the dog do the job. 

DFrost


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

One observation I have made is that volunteer SAR evaluators seem to: 

[1] ascribe far too much significance to a one time event - i.e., I have known folks who got lucky on a test who clearly did not know what they are doing and others who knew what they were doing but failed because of some odd set of circumstances** Maybe this is no big deal but, given how hard it is to set up and get to some of these tests, it becomes a big deal.

[2] not really understand the goal of certification is - does the handler know how to work the dog, and read the dog and does the dog do what it is trained to do?


**for example I know one fellow had a dog with many live finds fail an exam because his dog found the victim "too fast". There was no cheating. The guy looked at the terrain and the weather, figured out how to optimally place his dog and the dog found the subject in a few minutes...........


----------



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> **for example I know one fellow had a dog with many live finds fail an exam because his dog found the victim "too fast". There was no cheating. The guy looked at the terrain and the weather, figured out how to optimally place his dog and the dog found the subject in a few minutes...........


And then this opens up the whole: 

If he would have passed, other handlers may (and some would) start claiming that the evaluator played favorites and the handler had some kind of help to pass that fast......

Whatever happened to watching the dog and handler work and congratulating a good, solid, fast find to someone who knows what they are doing? 

It is just getting so "juvenile".....drives me batshit.....


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

And also someone who accidentaly makes the find but does not have a clue how they did it should be failed.

People need to understand the seriousness of what they are doing.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> And also someone who accidentaly makes the find but does not have a clue how they did it should be failed.
> 
> People need to understand the seriousness of what they are doing.


Deciding someone "accidently" made the find would be subjective. Obviously the more objective a test is, the more fair it's going to be.

DFrost


----------



## Michele Fleury (Jun 4, 2009)

Easy on the SAR bashing again! Our civilian SAR team requires our team evaluators to have a certain number of years as a certified handler and have worked a set number of searches in the discipline they are evaluating in, as well as having worked with an evaluator in that discipline for a couple tests. Any outside evaluators must be certified to a standard that meets or exceeds our own.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

I don't think that is SAR bashing. Carole and I are both on SAR teams and I am talking about some nationwide testing. 

My team takes our internal testing very seriously, too.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> Bless you girl!
> I was the only civilian on a team of firefighters and LEO. I just say to much bs because of....well....he's a fire fighter or LEO.
> I was in charge of starting new dogs and handlers and was undermined at every turn by folks that had never themselves trained a dog. My temperment couldn't handle that. :lol:


Having to solid of a temperament Bob, you would obviously fail the temperament test. LOL


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Off topic... but how do the SAR people feel about the SWG?


----------



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

UGH...big long post, but better that I don't post it....

Absolutely NOT SAR bashing here, but we do need to be realistic and open our eyes to the crap that goes on. It won't get better if we all assume someone else will fix it.


----------



## Matthew Grubb (Nov 16, 2007)

Just a shameless plug.... S&R and Cadav people can always join and certify with NAPWDA!!!


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Matthew Grubb said:


> Just a shameless plug.... S&R and Cadav people can always join and certify with NAPWDA!!!


God Bless those NAPWDA cadaver master trainers because their must be a labor of love....there are not too enough to go around. Very thorough and exhausting test, too.


----------



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

Matthew Grubb said:


> Just a shameless plug.... S&R and Cadav people can always join and certify with NAPWDA!!!


Been there and done that three times....long story and I miss everyone that I worked with except for the one......:-(


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

What is SWG? Is that like the first part of SWGDOG? If it is, then I agree with standardization efforts but it is always a very painful process and often agreement leaves you with such vague standards they don't really mean much. I do use their reliablity and false alert formula though for my hr training logs 

- but I still strongly believe in scent discriminating wilderness area search dogs, something they don't address. It took awhile but even NASAR came around to that one.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> What is SWG? Is that like the first part of SWGDOG? If it is, then I agree with standardization efforts but it is always a very painful process and often agreement leaves you with such vague standards they don't really mean much. I do use their reliablity and false alert formula though for my hr training logs
> 
> - but I still strongly believe in scent discriminating wilderness area search dogs, something they don't address. It took awhile but even NASAR came around to that one.


Nancy, I know. You know? ha ha but for those that don't.

http://www.swgdog.org/

DFrost


----------



## Patrick Cheatham (Apr 10, 2006)

I'm not so sure that I would agree with the certified part. But they should have a lot of hours under the belt in dog training and watching evaluations.

A person that has been doing and training scent detection work for a long time should be able to evaluate a dog in HRD or Drugs.

The biggest problem I've seen is those who certifiy tracking, trailing and area search. Those are the folks who like to muddy the water with their own beliefs and not evaluate the discipline fairly.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

I believe there is too much emphasis placed on the experience level of an evaluator. An evaluator "should" be doing nothing more than saying if a dog has reached the minimum standard. It doesn't take a lot of experience to do that. If I select 15 vehicles and hide drugs on two of them anyone should be able to say if the dog(s), at minimum, responded to the two vehicle that had the drugs. I bury HR material material in a two acre field. No need for excuses and whatifs', did the dog located the burial site. The standard states; On command, the dog will pursue and engage the suspect. On command the dog will release and return to the handler. It doesn't take a genious to evaluate that sequence. When evaluators get to the point where they are dictating how a handler works an area, they are teaching not evaluating. An evaluation is nothing more than measuring the performance against an already set standard. when it gets more than that it is no longer objective. when objetivity is removed then you have the individualism start slipping in. That never works in an evaluation setting. 

DFrost


----------



## Jim Engel (Nov 14, 2007)

David Frost said:


> I believe there is too much emphasis placed on the experience level of an evaluator. An evaluator "should" be doing nothing more than saying if a dog has reached the minimum standard. It doesn't take a lot of experience to do that. If I select 15 vehicles and hide drugs on two of them anyone should be able to say if the dog(s), at minimum, responded to the two vehicle that had the drugs. I bury HR material material in a two acre field. No need for excuses and whatifs', did the dog located the burial site. The standard states; On command, the dog will pursue and engage the suspect. On command the dog will release and return to the handler. It doesn't take a genious to evaluate that sequence. When evaluators get to the point where they are dictating how a handler works an area, they are teaching not evaluating. An evaluation is nothing more than measuring the performance against an already set standard. when it gets more than that it is no longer objective. when objetivity is removed then you have the individualism start slipping in. That never works in an evaluation setting.
> 
> DFrost


Well stated.

A lot to think about here.


----------



## Patrick Cheatham (Apr 10, 2006)

Well said by an experienced evaluator


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

David Frost said:


> I believe there is too much emphasis placed on the experience level of an evaluator. An evaluator "should" be doing nothing more than saying if a dog has reached the minimum standard. It doesn't take a lot of experience to do that. If I select 15 vehicles and hide drugs on two of them anyone should be able to say if the dog(s), at minimum, responded to the two vehicle that had the drugs. I bury HR material material in a two acre field. No need for excuses and whatifs', did the dog located the burial site. The standard states; On command, the dog will pursue and engage the suspect. On command the dog will release and return to the handler. It doesn't take a genious to evaluate that sequence. When evaluators get to the point where they are dictating how a handler works an area, they are teaching not evaluating. An evaluation is nothing more than measuring the performance against an already set standard. when it gets more than that it is no longer objective. when objetivity is removed then you have the individualism start slipping in. That never works in an evaluation setting.
> 
> DFrost


 
I agree 110% with that David.
My problem was evaluators that took liberties with setting up the test.
The standards call for such and such but "we don't have time for that" or "we can't leave that here overnight" even though it calls for a 24 hr time period between placing scent and searching. 20 mins seems just a bit short. ](*,)
When standards call for the scent to be 40-50-whatever paces of the trail. 10-15 doesn't cut it.](*,)
I don't want my dog certifyed under crap like that.
I've done a ton of things with my dogs. Always have, always will but SAR was one of those things I could have stayed with forever because of it's reality, usefulness and downright fascination I had for it. 
Even the blind pig finds the acorn under the right circumstances. I just walked away from to many situations thinking (as a team) we could have/should have done that better. 
The team I was on had many great finds, all the right equiptment+, great pr and said all the right things. I just expected more in the way of dog training knowledge from those that should have had it.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Bob, that's why I made the statement about objectivity. An evaluation is a measurement against an already set standard. It's no different than you and I using a ruler to measure a cut. A foot is a foot is a foot. If someone comes along and says; well that may be a foot, but I like to see it a bit longer, they are no longer applying the standard.

DFrost


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

David, you have probably forgotten more than most people know...........

I agree - criteria should be objective but some problems I have seen have been from test setup and the certifying official not knowing basic scent theory. 

And sometimes even a skilled evaluator can have a strange change in conditions, particularly for problems that must set overnight or longer.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> I agree - criteria should be objective but some problems I have seen have been from test setup and the certifying official not knowing basic scent theory.
> 
> And sometimes even a skilled evaluator can have a strange change in conditions, particularly for problems that must set overnight or longer.


I know it's a tough concept. Evaluating (working dogs) basically is; can the dog do that job. We don't get to select conditions when we are deployed, so within reason, conditions shouldn't matter all that much. Objectively, the measurement should be; did the dog find it. It's not the evaluators job to know basic scent theory. It's the evaluators job to determine if the dog/team found what was hidden. Drug dealers, bombers, murderers do not go to a special school to learn how to hide their contraband, whatever it might be. A truly prepared team has to be able to operate in the environment they are presented with. Unless competeing, I'm not into "points" as an indication of whether or not a team is ready for work. Measurment, in my opinion should be based on a go/no go standard. Bottom line; did the dog do what we say it can do. The caveat to this is, there must be an established standard. It doesn't take pages of typewritten material to state an objective. 

DFrost


----------



## Matthew Grubb (Nov 16, 2007)

David... did you ever have any issues with your admin certifying your own dogs?


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

David, I can see it with your caveats.

Many standards they have written for SAR have a lot more details than "did they find it" and are not truly objective.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Matthew Grubb said:


> David... did you ever have any issues with your admin certifying your own dogs?


No sir, none at all. More importantly, it's never been an issue in State or Federal Court. Having said that, the handlers are free to certify with USPCA or one of the other organizations, if they want too. Some do, some don't. Regardless, they still must undergo the departmental certification. You also have to understand the organization. None of the dogs work for me. They are assigned to the 8 districts throughout TN. The program is heavily documented with specific guidlines. The handlers forward their monthly training and utilization records. Those records document all the training and every deployment during the month. Certification is not only an annual exercise, but a review of past training and performance. 

DFrost


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

David Frost said:


> Certification is not only an annual exercise, but a review of past training and performance.
> 
> DFrost


YES! Something none of the major certifying agencies do that I know of.

I have never been asked for my training records but I know if we go to court they will want them and cadaver dogs do wind up in court.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> YES! Something none of the major certifying agencies do that I know of.
> 
> I have never been asked for my training records but I know if we go to court they will want them and cadaver dogs do wind up in court.



Exactly. I can prove more with a years worth of records, than I can with a one-time certification by whomever.

DFrost


----------

