# Debate on Drives



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

I placed this here as to get more comments from the trainers and handlers that have experience of the different drives in the working dogs and choosing them for programs. This can apply to LE dogs, SAR dogs and any other odor detection based discipline program.

Got into a semi-debate today while working dogs.

Situation is as follows:

Dog #1 (2.5 yrs) that "hunts" a ball for over 5 minutes, still looking when given a little direction and has not stopped at all. This dog did NOT see where the ball was thrown as he was held away from the search area. This dog carries a ball EVERYWHERE and would rather chase a ball than pee first thing out of a crate or kennel in the am. May be more "hard headed" than dog #2 but will do ANYTHING for a ball or tug. \
This dog is small (53 lbs) and is a Lab.

OR

Dog #2 (1.5 yrs) that hunted for 45 seconds and then went back to person for approximately 15 seconds but went back to "hunting" when told to do so. This dog knew the person had the ball but did not see where it was thrown. This dog will possess a ball but drop it to investigate things, do his business ect.... and may or may not pick it back up. This dog also will focus on a ball when interacting with the person throwing it but does not necassarily bring it back right away.

This dog is larger (60 to 63lbs) also a Lab.

Both dogs were asked to "go find", and are just being started in odor detection based disciplines (one bird hunting and one cadaver). They are both intact males.

DEBATE: Which dog would you pick and why? AND, is there a difference when asking the dog to go search for bird scent as opposed to human remains scent or narcs?

Personally, I would take dog #1 as I like HIGH possession of the toy as I feel it makes it "easier" to train with but obedience may be a challenge. Although, I agree that dog #2 could be built up in the possession department with some hard work but obedience would be easier.
I also feel that odor detection is odor detection whether it be bird, narcs, HRD or any other specific scent you want the dog to search for and indicate on, although there are subtle differences in the training process, you need a dog that has the "will" and "want" to hunt until the "reward" is found.

(I posted this over on another forum as well and am interested to see what opinions are out there)


----------



## Anna Kasho (Jan 16, 2008)

I don't know much about SAR... But I like #1 dog that will keep going and going and going... Isn't this kind of drive what's needed in a search dog? And would a less driven one be able to work in challenging terrain under stress for long periods of time? Small is good too, I tend to think a smaller lab would have more stamina and be more agile, if he's not small due to a health issue.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

I would pick number one in a heartbeat- seems obvious. Is this a trick question? What else is there to know about the dogs - nerve strength, social behavior [can dog 1 work ok around other dogs], health, etc.?


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Door number 1. I fully believe in the concept of work smarter, not harder. Dog number 2 sounds like he might have some potential. With some hard work, you might well make a dog like that. Why bother.

DFrost


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

Depends on the job...dog 1 has more focus on the task and is less dependent upon the handler. Dog 2 needs redirection from the handler and is frustrated/distracted quicker. Both hunt, one hunts harder, both show interest. Size doesn't matter!8-[


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

Numero uno. Dog 2 will do the job but with more help from the handler. Dog 1 would be a handlers dream and probably better at a job of SAR.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

#1 hands down! Not even close if your looking for a good working dog.
#2 sounds like it "could" be a nice competition dog at best. A great pet at least. 
Obedience is about leadership, not control.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Carol Boche said:


> DEBATE: Which dog would you pick and why? AND, is there a difference when asking the dog to go search for bird scent as opposed to human remains scent or narcs?
> 
> Personally, I would take dog #1 as I like HIGH possession of the toy as I feel it makes it "easier" to train with but obedience may be a challenge. Although, I agree that dog #2 could be built up in the possession department with some hard work but obedience would be easier.
> I also feel that odor detection is odor detection whether it be bird, narcs, HRD or any other specific scent you want the dog to search for and indicate on, although there are subtle differences in the training process, you need a dog that has the "will" and "want" to hunt until the "reward" is found.
> ...



So I think everyone agrees on dog # one! ME TOO!

That said, I do think that there is perhaps a difference in bird vs. other odor detection.

I hear it talked about all the time on a toller list. Some dogs may be nutbar for a ball or toy, but not naturally birdy if that makes sense. They will not naturally pick up a bird with no training or exposure. There is some reason that pretty much all feild dogs are FF, but some need it more for polishing than convincing to pick up a smelly old thawed out bird used in a field test.

Also I think a major difference is that for a bird dog the retrieve IS the reward. Period.

Not neccessarily so for a good detection dog. Possession of the toy may be the reward (not good for a bird dog), a tug session with handler/victim may be the reward (not good for a bird dog), a bite may be the reward for a PSD (not good for a bird dog) and so on. 

Maybe a dog will search for a ball for a simple retrieve for just so long...but if it's thing is to bite or tug....it would search forever for that.

Of course I agree that odor is odor but the motivation to find the bird or the drug may be different.

For example there is a reason that a lab is a better bird dog than a GSD. Both may be equally as good in sniffing out drugs or missing people however. For that reason there has to be some difference in the motivation towards the desired goal. Now if you just wanted the GSD to find bird scent and indicate, and then it would be rewarded instead of having to retrieve it to the handler, THAT would be just the same as finding any other odor and the lab and GSD would be on a more level playing field.

Maybe these are just the subtle differences you are talking about?

I feel I am not explaining myself well. I had a beer after work.


----------



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> Also I think a major difference is that for a bird dog the retrieve IS the reward. Period.


I agree with your post Jennifer, although I would tend to disagree with the above statement as I have seen and worked with "retriever" breeds that have a passive sit or down, or a recall/refind as an indication or alert that are perfectly happy to be rewarded at source. 

Unless you mean the retrieve as "found source, reward at source and then return to handler for playtime party". Then I would agree with the above statement. 

The hardest part about this is that there are more variables to test in the process of seeing which dog a specific person would accept. This one test alone is not enough really to make a firm commitment with, which I completely understand. 

But based on this test, I was wondering which way people would lean....I hope that makes sense...(and I have not even had a beer as I am on ambulance call....O :mrgreen: )


----------



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

Howard Gaines III said:


> Size doesn't matter!8-[


Ahhhhh, but this is also where I would disagree a bit. Size may not matter in certain circumstances, however, it really does in the SAR world. Especially in a wilderness setting where you may have to pack your dog out on your shoulders. 

My Bloodhound is 90# and all other dogs are 60# or less. Much rather pack the smaller dogs out but will and have practiced carrying the Bloodhound. Sucks but doable.......


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Carol Boche said:


> Ahhhhh, but this is also where I would disagree a bit. Size may not matter in certain circumstances, however, it really does in the SAR world. Especially in a wilderness setting where you may have to pack your dog out on your shoulders.
> 
> My Bloodhound is 90# and all other dogs are 60# or less. Much rather pack the smaller dogs out but will and have practiced carrying the Bloodhound. Sucks but doable.......


The first SAR dog I trained was a 35 lb Aussie. I could carry her on my shoulders all day long. ;-)


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Carol Boche said:


> I agree with your post Jennifer, although I would tend to disagree with the above statement as I have seen and worked with "retriever" breeds that have a passive sit or down, or a recall/refind as an indication or alert that are perfectly happy to be rewarded at source.
> 
> Unless you mean the retrieve as "found source, reward at source and then return to handler for playtime party". Then I would agree with the above statement.


I really meant neither.

I was trying to say that a dog that IS a hunting dog, works hunting for a living (not a SAR dog) it has love retrieving as that IS the reward for hunting. No one is going to bring out a ball or tug when it finds the duck. If the dog was a SAR dog you would have more leeway. The dog could be a mediocre retriever, but if it had over the top possession, or loved to tug, it may still be a great SAR dog. Like you said, it would be most happy to be rewarded at the source by some toy.

Crap, I hope that made more sense, now it is before work and I don't drink coffee so my brain may be a little foggy!


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Howard Gaines III said:


> Size doesn't matter!8-[


I like em small too. Besided the carrying and lifting of the dog that is constantly required in what I do, there are many travel considerations as well.

A 90 lbs dog riding on your lap while you drive a snowmobile or ATV is NOT the same as a smaller one.

Most of the time we will get flown to the scene in a smallish helicopter. My dog and my combined wheight (155 lbs) is less than that of most handler's without their dogs! A 90 lbs dog takes up a whole seat and counts as a whole other person weight wise in the helicopter. The more resources and manpower you can get on a flight safely the better IMHO.


----------



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> I really meant neither.
> 
> I was trying to say that a dog that IS a hunting dog, works hunting for a living (not a SAR dog) it has love retrieving as that IS the reward for hunting. No one is going to bring out a ball or tug when it finds the duck. If the dog was a SAR dog you would have more leeway. The dog could be a mediocre retriever, but if it had over the top possession, or loved to tug, it may still be a great SAR dog. Like you said, it would be most happy to be rewarded at the source by some toy.
> 
> Crap, I hope that made more sense, now it is before work and I don't drink coffee so my brain may be a little foggy!



Here is the thing.....

Dog #1 is Marley. Our Lab. He has over the top drive and does nothing without a ball in his mouth. He climbs on, over and under whatever to get at the ball, has been in the parades we have here in town and either walks with me off-lead or rides on the back bumper of one of our Engine trucks. 

Great with kids, although he is SO rambunctious that knocking one over is totally possible. 

He ignores other dogs and people when working birds. 

We are a little unconventional with him as after hunting, he is rewarded for his work with a ball or a game of tug. Handles birds like they were fine china and although we would like him to hold the bird for me to take from him, he retrieves and drops them at our feet. 
There are hunters out there that disagree with allow a "bird" dog to play tug or fetch a ball and although he is a "dumb" lab, he seems to get the difference. 

We have tried and tried the "hold" command to no avail. 

He has been in an e-collar for start work, and now works decent when it is not on. I always have said his love of the game makes him too stupid to know the whether the collar is on or not. 

SO, yes, I agree with you on the retriever breeds, however, this dog is one that we trained by what works for the dog. Trying to conventionally train this dog would have made a grown man cry!!! Hee hee. 
But that is how I train, I train with what comes natural to the dog and so far it has worked great with all of my dogs. 

I have worked dogs with all kinds of different tools from the tool box because that is what worked and made the process fun for the dog and myself. If I tried to make a dog do something that was not working I would pull my hair out, and more and more I see people trying to do this because "so and so" told me too.....I call BS on that and tell them to use what works for the dog.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

That's why I say, it's a lot easier to work smarter than harder. In my younger days I had that macho thing going where I would say; I can make that dog. I probably still could, but what's the point. One of the problems I've seen, particularly in SAR work; someone has a dog and is more attached to the dog, than the importance of the job. Train what works, keep the other as a pet.

DFrost


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

David Frost said:


> That's why I say, it's a lot easier to work smarter than harder. In my younger days I had that macho thing going where I would say; I can make that dog. I probably still could, but what's the point. One of the problems I've seen, particularly in SAR work; someone has a dog and is more attached to the dog, than the importance of the job. Train what works, keep the other as a pet.
> 
> DFrost



Another good reason why, when working new team applicants, you want to make sure folks understand up front that we are only looking for people who will get another dog if their dog does not work out or participate in some *other* capacity. It is not about the dog. 

Took me 3 dogs to get the right one - my 2nd dog was good, but the HD was why she got washed, my 1st dog had decent drive but bad nerves - 3rd dog - awesome.


----------



## Kim Gilmore (Feb 18, 2008)

Carol Boche said:


> Situation is as follows:
> 
> Dog #1 (2.5 yrs) that "hunts" a ball for over 5 minutes, still looking when given a little direction and has not stopped at all. This dog did NOT see where the ball was thrown as he was held away from the search area. This dog carries a ball EVERYWHERE and would rather chase a ball than pee first thing out of a crate or kennel in the am. May be more "hard headed" than dog #2 but will do ANYTHING for a ball or tug. \
> This dog is small (53 lbs) and is a Lab.
> ...


Not that it should matter with a dog that is over the top in terms of toy rewards (seeing anything presented to it as a potential reward/play-thing that all have equal value), but is the ball dog #2's regular reward? Know you and I discussed this previously, but got to thinking when reading your post that maybe dog #2 isn't a "ball dog" but would demonstrate similar hunt for something that it saw as a more worthy reward (i.e. stick, frisbee, kong, etc.). Perhaps in the demo that was set up, dog #2 didn't see the ball as something that deserved his intense concentration and energy in the search for/possession of?

Reason I bring this us is that we have two labs on our team. Both would go out and nonchalantly search for a ball if tossed and would probably bring it back and definitely would attempt to engage humans into playing with it if nothing else that possessed a higher value was present. However, take their high value SAR reward toys (for one it is a set of rubber tug rings, the other an old cloth frisbee with a length of rope for tugging) and the two would search for their respective toys until they dropped from exhaustion...first test might look like moderate hunt drive with moderate possession, second test high hunt with extreme possession tendencies (as neither gives up their respective toys willingly once earned). My own dog would hunt and chase a ball if I engaged him with it, but if tossed over a cliff, would call off of it easily and would probably stash said ball while doing recreational sniffing, etc. However, get his frisbee out and not only would I not be able to call him off of a cliff jump should frisbee fly over the edge, but he ain't puttin' it down for nothing short of a crowbar between the jaws or another toy of equal value in his eyes (i.e. another frisbee :?) was presented .

Just a thought...

Kim Gilmore


----------



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

Yep, #2's reward is the ball after the locating and alert/indication on source....however, I am not sure if any other toys were tried to see if something else is higher in value. 
I do know that the dog does the same thing with a tug......


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Carol Boche said:


> We are a little unconventional with him as after hunting, he is rewarded for his work with a ball or a game of tug. Handles birds like they were fine china and although we would like him to hold the bird for me to take from him, he retrieves and drops them at our feet.
> There are hunters out there that disagree with allow a "bird" dog to play tug or fetch a ball and although he is a "dumb" lab, he seems to get the difference.
> 
> We have tried and tried the "hold" command to no avail.
> ...



I TOTALLY agree with you about using what works for the dog!!!!! And if I had a duck hunting dog I probably would not care if the dog dropped the duck at my feet instead of delivering it to hand, or how I trained the dog to do that like trading for a ball for example. 

However a field trials competion trainer would not reward a dog with a ball, or food or a tug for a retrieve of a bird (they may at lower levels) They want the bird and retrieve to be the thing that is most rewarding. Even dogs that hold objects like a ball all the time are usually FF and e-collar trained so they can be convinced that they MUST pick up and deliver a bird to hand. Even when it is not a nice freshly killed bird, but a bird that was killed by gas, then frozen, then thawed, then in a bunch of other dogs mouths and so on....

My impression is that they can turn most fetch crazy retrievers into good field dogs with e-collars and FF, but thay are also looking for dogs that are genetically crazy about birds....ie "birdy". They naturally want to pick up things with feathers, no matter the condition, and over other toys. Of course imprinting has a lot to do with it too.

My point was really that I think that a SAR trainer and a Field Dog trainer may be looking for slightly different things/drives in a dog....though over all if they have great prey and hunt drive they would likely be great at either though the rewards and motivation may differ slightly. That is what I was trying to explain when I said that a GSD may exibit the same types of high possesion and hunt drives for a ball as your Lab, but that does not nesseccarily mean it will be a good competition field dog, though it may be able to be trained to retrieve ducks.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Kim Gilmore said:


> Not that it should matter with a dog that is over the top in terms of toy rewards (seeing anything presented to it as a potential reward/play-thing that all have equal value), but is the ball dog #2's regular reward? Know you and I discussed this previously, but got to thinking when reading your post that maybe dog #2 isn't a "ball dog" but would demonstrate similar hunt for something that it saw as a more worthy reward (i.e. stick, frisbee, kong, etc.). Perhaps in the demo that was set up, dog #2 didn't see the ball as something that deserved his intense concentration and energy in the search for/possession of?
> 
> 
> Just a thought...
> ...


I thought the same thing but Carol answered that!
So Carol...why are you wasting that dog on your husband and a few ducks????  Maybe he should be a SAR dog!!!


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> Another good reason why, when working new team applicants, you want to make sure folks understand up front that we are only looking for people who will get another dog if their dog does not work out or participate in some *other* capacity. It is not about the dog.


We have the same kind of deal. At an assessment a few things can happen:
1) handler and dog make the grade (first step only)
2)handler makes the grade and is told to get another dog and return
3)both handler and dog are not invited back, even if the handler does get another dog.

The LE we work with call those iffy dogs 70 percenters. You could work and work and work and MAYBE certify them, but why bother for a dog that will only give you 70% of what you want out of them a the best of times. You would be told to get another dog.


----------



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> I thought the same thing but Carol answered that!
> So Carol...why are you wasting that dog on your husband and a few ducks????  Maybe he should be a SAR dog!!!


HA HA....I am kicking myself for that decision as well. 

I would never certify him, although that is entirely possible AND probable, because he has already been started and works as a shooting/bird dog. 

Therefore, if we were ever called into court, we would get picked apart by defense. 

Main question would most likely be: "How do you know the dog was not trailing a bird and just happened upon the victim?" 

Since most people do not understand "body language" of dogs, that would be a hard one to explain during a trial.


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Carol Boche said:


> Therefore, if we were ever called into court, we would get picked apart by defense.
> 
> Main question would most likely be: "How do you know the dog was not trailing a bird and just happened upon the victim?"
> 
> Since most people do not understand "body language" of dogs, that would be a hard one to explain during a trial.


Since I don't currently do cadaver, maybe I'm missing something? Why does it matter in what manner the human remains are found? Human remains are human remains regardless and can be proven to not be ducks by simple DNA testing, even if in unrecognizable pieces. I could see the logic if you were talking about a trailing dog trailing a criminal and ending up in a location where a murder was committed and you had to prove he walked that route. However, in a cadaver recovery case, I can't see the issue.

For example, if I used to have a job as a waitress and then I decided to get a degree in Forensic Science and collected HR at a crime scene in my new job, would the defense attorneys use the same logic against me? That would mean a person would have to be groomed as a forensic scientist from day one. Hard to find that kind of person for the job. 

What about all the other things we teach our dogs? I would think adequate training records would clear up any issues if you're concerned about it. Right?

I'm just not following the logic here. Enlighten me, please.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

There have been recent cases where defense attornies goal in life is to throw out the correct findings of a cadaver dog by raising questions about the credibility of that dog/handlers training. If you could quesiton the alert and say the dog could have alerted on "duck", maybe that backhoe would not have been brought in.........................

I don't think it is so much a probable cause issue because I think *most* cadaver dog handlers are really careful about making sure they are just a tool and not used to establish probable cause as are narc dogs.


----------



## Ashley Hiebing (Apr 6, 2008)

Dog #1 sounds EXACTLY like my Lab. He would jump off a cliff to get a tennis ball.


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> There have been recent cases where defense attornies goal in life is to throw out the correct findings of a cadaver dog by raising questions about the credibility of that dog/handlers training. If you could quesiton the alert and say the dog could have alerted on "duck", maybe that backhoe would not have been brought in.........................
> 
> I don't think it is so much a probable cause issue because I think *most* cadaver dog handlers are really careful about making sure they are just a tool and not used to establish probable cause as are narc dogs.


Thanks for the explanation, Nancy. I think good training records showing that the dog does not alert on ducks (or any other distraction) would easily solve this problem. 

Carol - stop goofing around with those ducks and get that dog a real job!  

Really though, back to the original post, the information provided is not enough for me to make a decision either way. Dog #1 is a good start, but I would need more info (somebody earlier said this as well, can't remember who). Personally, Dog #2 already failed my test, so I would find that one an active family home. To me though, a dog's willingness to play tug with me means more than hunting or possession or retrieval (although I do evaluate all of those things, especially the intensity with which they do them).


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Carol Boche said:


> Personally, I would take dog #1 as I like HIGH possession of the toy as I feel it makes it "easier" to train with but obedience may be a challenge. Although, I agree that dog #2 could be built up in the possession department with some hard work but obedience would be easier.


The desire to possess a toy is something that is created when the sperm hits the egg, so to speak. The degree to which a dog is possessive is genetic. I seriously wouldn't bother with Dog #2. He's showing you who he is by dropping the ball to investigate other things. Like you, for SAR I would want a dog who is much more possessive. 

You can do exercises to make a dog look more possessive, but for real work, you want to make sure the behavior you're seeing is genetic and not trained. There's a big difference, IMO.

And, as for obedience, use the ball as the reward. If you do all of the obedience using positive reinforcement, you can get pretty good results with a dog like that.

One of my favorite quotes:
*"Dogs with high drive and attraction to work are jewels - they do not need commands and do not respond well to commands - they only need to be directed to bring out the best in them." *Manfred Heyne


----------



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

Update: 

Dog #1: (remember this is the very beginning of trailing with this dog.....)
First visual walkaway was great.....dog works quick, and blew one corner but worked back. (was presented with a scent article from "victim"), second was a visual runaway, off lead....dog "marked" victim as he saw her after she rounded the corner at the end, but he did go right to her even after I circled him before turning him loose.....third was a blind and off lead..dog picked up short parts of the trail/track but would veer off and circle/cast back and pick it up somewhere else. IMHO it was not bad for the first sets. 

Dog #2: Three HRD hides, went to each one first without performing the trained indication, went and ran around somewhere else, then came back and indicated on each hide very well. (he is only 1.5 years old so I gave him a mulligan for age) Played well with the ball today, but if I remember right...he decided to end the game....

So....bad day the other day for dog #2???? Would that make some experienced handler wonder about reliability? 

Konnie, 

I am starting this dog in trailing to give him "a job" during the off season. So this would get probably would get picked apart in court.....

Can a dog be trained in multiple disciplines? ABSOLUTELY....but when it comes to human life or catching an escaped child molestor....do we really want to chance it being thrown out on a technicality like the dog being trained to hunt animals as well. 

Controversial discussion the whole K9 in the courtroom thing is..... but it is a good debate.....


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Carol Boche said:


> Can a dog be trained in multiple disciplines? ABSOLUTELY....but when it comes to human life or catching an escaped child molestor....do we really want to chance it being thrown out on a technicality like the dog being trained to hunt animals as well.


I still think proper training records would suffice, but like I said, I'm not part of the whole cadaver scene. I only do live find.

However, what about dogs who are rescues and their history is unknown? What about dogs who do recreational dog sports on the weekends? What about dogs who like to eat?

David Frost, what are your thoughts on this?

(sorry, I know this is a topic change, but now I'm really curious!)


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

I agree that proper training records should suffice. It does in probable cause cases with drug dogs. What Nancy said though makes sense as well. Most incidents with cadaver dogs is NOT a probable cause issue. It's either in conjunction with a warrant, consent or on property where neither is required.

DFrost


----------



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

David Frost said:


> I agree that proper training records should suffice. It does in probable cause cases with drug dogs. What Nancy said though makes sense as well. Most incidents with cadaver dogs is NOT a probable cause issue. It's either in conjunction with a warrant, consent or on property where neither is required.
> 
> DFrost


I forgot to say that I do not necassarily disagree that it should not matter. 

I think their is a fine line with it when you start delving into "new" people that need to learn how to run a working dog and want to start "Fido" who has been hunting animals previously......

Experienced handlers may have no issues with running a dog that is trained for animal and human disciplines.....I really think experience levels have a lot to do with it. You need to have experience in body langage and the way the dog works in each discipline.


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Carol Boche said:


> I forgot to say that I do not necassarily disagree that it should not matter.
> 
> I think their is a fine line with it when you start delving into "new" people that need to learn how to run a working dog and want to start "Fido" who has been hunting animals previously......
> 
> Experienced handlers may have no issues with running a dog that is trained for animal and human disciplines.....I really think experience levels have a lot to do with it. You need to have experience in body langage and the way the dog works in each discipline.


Maybe I misunderstood - are you talking about situations where the dog does both recreational hunting and cadaver work? I wouldn't think that would be a good idea for a variety of reasons. I was talking about completely quitting the duck work and then starting with a new detection discipline - not doing both with a dog. 

I do think we're both on the same page, either way.

As an aside, my lab doesn't care at all about ducks. He was "imprinted" on wings by his breeder at an early age. My husband bought him at 8 weeks and never did any further bird work with him. He doesn't look at ducks or any other kind of animal at all, not even squirrels. Makes me think the whole scent imprinting thing (regardless of what scent a person is trying to imprint) is useless. He loves to tug too, which is his reward for finding. His breeder (a field retriever breeder and competitor) would die if she saw how hard he tugs!


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

I guess my take on it was you should documented in your training logs that you have extinguished the dog on the original imprint odor if the dog has another scent in its "catolog" of scents to alert on. But it would better not to have one.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

The first dog I taught to FST was a Border terrier that I had hunted for a couple of years previous to the tracking training. I never titled him because he was totally unreliable to stay on a sport track when there were critters in the area. To much exposure to doing what he was bred to do. 
I have also trained my older GSD in air, trailing, tracking, article, cadaver, boat work and FST. I've been considering getting back into SAR work but IF I do it will be cadave only. 
Do I think my dog can do all of it, Yep! He's a great dog.(not JM somewhat biased O) Do I want to bet someone's life on it by the very small possibility of loosing a live find by being distracted by a cadaver scent? Absolutely not!!!
I think I'm a reasonably good trainer but, again, I don't want to bet someone's life on it.


----------



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

I really am appreciating this discussion. 

I run three dogs, All of them certified to NIMS standards. Trailing, Airscent and Cadaver. I keep them all mission and certifiably ready although I do not train to test type standards. My training is a mix of scenarios, even going back to basics even at times.

I like having single purpose dogs, as I think reliability is higher with them. 

HOWEVER, I am looking for a pup to train in Live and Cadaver work. I want to see what the difference is between one discipline and two. 

I have seen a TON of dual purpose SAR dogs, but only a few that I would bring home due to the great work ethics in each discipline. I really wanted to train different breeds for one thing first so that I could concentrate on learning and doing it correctly, rather than worrying about when to start the next discipline and how to keep up one and then train another.....now that I am confident in what I do, I feel that a live/cadaver trained dog is my next goal.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Carol - is your dual dog going to be a cadaver dog or a CADAVER dog.

You know, I mean the difference between a dog that might find a dead person 4 days out on a search versus the cadaver dog being worked on 10 year old shallow graves, disarticulated bones, etc. as well as all permuations? You know vehicles, hanging, buildings, water, everything .............................

Just to see if you can train it or a deployable dog? The more I get into it, I have to think single-purpose is very much the way to go given all the complexities of all the permutations of cadaver work. It is reassuring to have a dog where all you have to do is take them out of the car, show them your open hands and know they are going to do one thing, regardless of whatever they are wearing or wherever thay are.

I know NIMS standards have multiple levels of human remains work - so certifying to NIMS could be anything from scent recognition to the whole shooting match.


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Carol Boche said:


> HOWEVER, I am looking for a pup to train in Live and Cadaver work. I want to see what the difference is between one discipline and two.


My wilderness SAR dog was trained for both live and cadaver. I did that because we never knew if the person we were looking for would be dead or alive. I see no problem with doing such a thing for a general wilderness search dog.


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> I know NIMS standards have multiple levels of human remains work - so certifying to NIMS could be anything from scent recognition to the whole shooting match.


The whole _certification of a dog who performs scent recognition_ to me is just plain wrong. Any certification evaluation that doesn't require an alert of some sort is useless. I once watched a guy work his driveless dog at a cadaver seminar - the dog was unable to find the cadaver scent in the box right in front of him. The dog had no desire to search - totally disinterested when given the search command. The very next day this guy went to a certification exam (IPWDA, I think?) where he PASSED. I was surprised, until I found out that an alert was not required to pass the exam. Totally bogus, IMO. This guy has since had loads of trouble trying to pass the ARDA cadaver evaluations, which require an alert.

Really, couldn't a person just grab any old dog who is interested in cadaver scent (a lot of dogs naturally are, especially if it's really stinky) but not really trained to reliably find it and pass that type of test??? 

Sorry, Carol, this is really not on your original topic (I did mention the drive of the dog though, does that count??!)


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Konnie Hein said:


> My wilderness SAR dog was trained for both live and cadaver. I did that because we never knew if the person we were looking for would be dead or alive. I see no problem with doing such a thing for a general wilderness search dog.


To me, that is profoundly different than looking for someone who was buried somewhere 15 years ago or is nothing but bones scattered by wildlife............. but you know part of the problem there with training a general dog for a full blown cadaver find is the same problem you have with training any detector dog trained on small quantities for a massive scent pool................. We have driven upwards of 4 hours to have access to full body scent because it is often a hard part of the "picture" for civilians to get.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Konnie Hein said:


> The whole _I once watched a guy work his driveless dog at a cadaver seminar - the dog was unable to find the cadaver scent in the box right in front of him. The dog had no desire to search - totally disinterested when given the search command. The very next day this guy went to a certification exam (IPWDA, I think?) where he PASSED. I was surprised, until I found out that an alert was not required to pass the exam. Totally bogus, IMO. _


_

There is certainly a big range of tests - - and difficulty levels. We looked at them all and decided on NAPWDA because of the difficutly level and because USPCA and NAPWDA seem to be the most represented organizations in our state- and USPCA won't ceritfy civilians

-------but I may still like to do NNDDA mainly because the folks who DO NNDDA seem to work with larger quantities of material and that is a different scent picture [I think it would be a good complement to the NAPWDA cert, but do not think that alone, it would be adequate]

I am not sure any certificaiton test is a be all and end all. Necessary, but to me, my training records are more important. [and the realization there is always more to learn than you know.....]_


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> To me, that is profoundly different than looking for someone who was buried somewhere 15 years ago or is nothing but bones scattered by wildlife............. but you know part of the problem there with training a general dog for a full blown cadaver find is the same problem you have with training any detector dog trained on small quantities for a massive scent pool................. We have driven upwards of 4 hours to have access to full body scent because it is often a hard part of the "picture" for civilians to get.


Agreed!


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> There is certainly a big range of tests - - and difficulty levels. We looked at them all and decided on NAPWDA because of the difficutly level and because USPCA and NAPWDA seem to be the most represented organizations in our state- and USPCA won't ceritfy civilians
> 
> -------but I may still like to do NNDDA mainly because the folks who DO NNDDA seem to work with larger quantities of material and that is a different scent picture [I think it would be a good complement to the NAPWDA cert, but do not think that alone, it would be adequate]
> 
> I am not sure any certificaiton test is a be all and end all. Necessary, but to me, my training records are more important. [and the realization there is always more to learn than you know.....]


It really is too bad that your way of thinking isn't the "prevailing wisdom" in SAR. Keep up the good work - maybe it will bleed over into other groups!


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> I am not sure any certificaiton test is a be all and end all. Necessary, but to me, my training records are more important. [and the realization there is always more to learn than you know.....]


I don't disagree with that per se. However, a recognized certification does lend some credence until you've established yourself. Training records are always more important than any certification. Training records give a complete picture of proficiency. Certification gives a one, maybe two day snap shot.

DFrost


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Nancy Jocoy said:


> To me, that is profoundly different than looking for someone who was buried somewhere 15 years ago or is nothing but bones scattered by wildlife............. but you know part of the problem there with training a general dog for a full blown cadaver find is the same problem you have with training any detector dog trained on small quantities for a massive scent pool................. We have driven upwards of 4 hours to have access to full body scent because it is often a hard part of the "picture" for civilians to get.


Just to add to this comment.
We went to the Body Farm in Knoxville Tenn and the Aussie I was training at the time was totally thrown off by a "full body" cadaver. Stress up the whazoo! Up to this point this particular dog was very accurate in training scenarios.
There was also a team there that had flown in from California and one of the members decided to give up cadaver training about 2 mins after she walked through the gates. 
It takes special dogs and special people. 
I personelly wouldn't do dual purpose (live and cadaver) again. My present GSD was always accurate in training but I wouldn't want to bet someone's life on it in a real world situaton.


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> I personelly wouldn't do dual purpose (live and cadaver) again. My present GSD was always accurate in training but I wouldn't want to bet someone's life on it in a real world situaton.


So, how would you train a wilderness dog who is looking for a particular person, whether dead or alive? I've been on several searches where we didn't know if the person we were looking for was dead or not.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Konnie, that would be hard for me to answer because the team I was on had a feeling of being invincable based on the original dog that was trained by someone other then the person who started the team. He never did understand that being handed a good dog and becomming a handler had nothing to do with being a trainer. 
I trained my dog to ignore live when he had a cadaver command and to ignore cadaver when he had a live command. He did that correctly in training. That was the only answer I could get to the situation you commented on. Train for both and let the dog make the decission. I had a hard time accepting that. 
Hopfully David, Nancy or others could give that answer. I'd like to know it myself.


----------



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

Konnie Hein said:


> So, how would you train a wilderness dog who is looking for a particular person, whether dead or alive? I've been on several searches where we didn't know if the person we were looking for was dead or not.



Correct me if I am incorrect here....a trailing dog that follows specific human scent would that is trained correctly, should, in all reality pick up trail and follow until A) the victim is found, B) the dog can no longer locate scent or C) the person is found. 

My hounds HATES cadaver smell, so much so that he throws very specific body language. When he displays this, I know to send in a ground team to search the area he will not enter. 

As far as an area or air scent dog, not sure what would happen there. 

This is why it is vital to get as much detail about the situation as we can so we can decide which dog to deploy. And chances are, we are not going to be the only dog team called in. 

I do run scenarios with live find dogs that also have cadaver source in the search area. IMO, it is a great way to learn body language of different dogs while running a live find scenario.


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Like I said earlier, I trained my wilderness dog for both. She was rewarded for and allowed to find either. I never asked her to find one exclusive of the other because we didn't know if the person was dead or alive (except for water recoveries where they were most certainly dead, but I used the same command). 

I would look at it from the perspective of being similar to a drug dog who is trained for multiple odors. They will find marijuana, cocaine or whatever else they're trained on. The dog isn't given separate commands for each substance, they are just given one command and expected to find any of those substances in the search area. That's the rationale I followed when training my wilderness dog for live and cadaver.

David - do narcotics detection dogs develop a preference? For example, if cocaine and marijuana are both present in the same vehicle, will they prefer to alert on one over the other?


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Carol Boche said:


> I do run scenarios with live find dogs that also have cadaver source in the search area. IMO, it is a great way to learn body language of different dogs while running a live find scenario.


(Carol - we posted at the same time - my post was in response to Bob's comment and I didn't read yours until after I hit send)

I would argue that all wilderness search dogs should be trained for both live and cadaver. After all, in most cases we have no idea whether the person is alive or dead, right? The dog needs to find the person either way, or else you risk missing the person or using umpteen dogs who are each trained for something different. I wouldn't want to experiment with body language (see my post about the scent recognition evaluations!). I want a well-trained alert. (although I do agree that for live-only dogs it is important to find out in training, note their body language and deal with any issues, just like you said, Carol)

The only reason why I have a live-find only dog is because we do disaster SAR only now. FEMA only wants my dog looking for live people (officially as of right now), so I can't chance my dog alerting on cadaver as well.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

My understanding of SAR work today has caused me to make that dececission. I had never done disaster training until I had left the original team. 
When I did the disaster training the comments were made that they wouldn't want the dog to pass up a possible live victim by being distracted by a cadaver scent. For that reason I didn't folow up on the disaster training.
From my understanding, at 911single purpose live find disaster dogs were sent in first.


----------



## Kim Gilmore (Feb 18, 2008)

Deviating from the original topic, but oh well (nothing new eh Carol 8-[ ?)

My dog is cross-trained live/dead and also possess a cadaver-only command. The first is for the scenario's that have already been discussed...unknown if misper is alive or dead, dog needs to indicate on both. Our dogs are rewarded equally for both. The latter is simply a "find me dead, ignore anyone in the search area that is alive" as we may have hikers, LE, other SAR individuals, etc. walking around (we can't close down the wilderness in order to look for a suicide or potential animal mauling, we just have to work around those that are still walking). We don't have a "live-only, ignore-dead" command as, in our area we never know until they are found what condition they may be in.

I FULLY support cross-training of wilderness dogs live and dead (large aids) as I personally know and helped correct the issue of certified and deployed dogs who ended up ignoring the deceased victim in their area (confirmed the dogs were near the body). Dog avoiding scent? Possibly. Dog ignoring scent as it was a different scent picture? More than likely. This is the reason I feel so strongly that live find wilderness dogs need to be at least imprinted on cadaver aids (and I'm not talking teeth, I'm talking large quantities to simulate a body or at least a disarticulated body).

My dog is also certified to first responder disaster dog status. I was honest with our RA (local fire department) who is in charge of disaster response in our area that I could not guarentee that the dog would ignore dead on his way to live. My belief is that he would indicate on the higher threshhold of scent, whether that be breathing or not. HOWEVER, that said, I have had several opportunities to run problems where there was both cadaver (suicide, large amounts of remains, body removed) and a live individual in the same building and dog ran past the room containing the dead (head check) while doing inventory on the rest of the building (literally taking seconds) and giving final response at the room containing live (scenario set up where there would be minimal amounts of live scent, more dead scent and dog would have to run past dead in order to find live). When sent back in the second time, went into immediate final response at the door closing off the room containing the remains. Would I bet my paycheck that this would happen 100% of the time? No. Is our tasking agency in charge of disaster pleased with what they have seen? Yes. As in our county chances would be next to nil that FEMA would ever be deployed, their feedback is what is important in how they would like to deploy the dogs knowing they are cross-trained.

Kim Gilmore


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> From my understanding, at 911single purpose live find disaster dogs were sent in first.


Well, first there was chaos and every yahoo with a dog showed up, trained or not. The first official USAR team (NJTF-1) arrived that day, followed by MATF-1 (live find only dogs) shortly thereafter. So yes, "officially" it was live-find only. Then the HRD dogs were deployed both on site and to where the rubble was trucked. 

My husband was deployed as a member of MATF-1 with his live-find only dog, Elvis. He and Elvis didn't find anybody alive (none of the dogs did, not even Scott Shields!), but they found quite a few corpses (mainly in pieces). Elvis had previous experience with cadaver material in USAR training, just to see what his reaction was. He hated it, but would work around it. He worked just fine at the WTC, but Mark definitely knew when Elvis came across cadaver. He marked the areas, alerted his team leader and moved on. So, there's one example of watching the dog's body language and being able to determine cadaver is present (like Carol alluded to in her post above). However, in no stretch of the imagination would we have ever considered the dog to be a cadaver dog, or use him as such. Elvis was also a certified wilderness SAR dog, never trained on cadaver. Of course, that was before hubby met me and I forced him to see things MY WAY :twisted:


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Kim Gilmore said:


> . As in our county chances would be next to nil that FEMA would ever be deployed, their feedback is what is important in how they would like to deploy the dogs knowing they are cross-trained.


I think it also depends on the type of disaster you're responding to. In certain small disasters (localized tornadoes or avalanches being such examples), local agencies want to find everybody, dead or alive ASAP. I see no problem with a cross-trained dog for those situations. 

I have my own personal opinion on what I would train my dog to do, but since I'm a member of FEMA, I train my dog to find what they tell me they want him to find. (and let's not get into the FEMA deployments - shuttle crash - where they deployed canine handlers with their non-FEMA cadaver dogs, because that's another whole ball of wax). 

Hey, I wonder if Jen trains her avi dog for live only or if they ever do cadaver work? Jen?

Agggh - now Carol's post about drives is going to turn into a "when does a dead person go from smelling like live to smelling like dead to a dog??" Sorry Carol! We can talk about drives now...how's the lab doing?


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Konnie Hein said:


> Hey, I wonder if Jen trains her avi dog for live only or if they ever do cadaver work? Jen?


I have really been appreciating all the discussion and have been learning some great stuff about everyones work!

I feared responding for getting this great topic totally derailed.

I hold an avalanche profile and a summer air-scent profile. Both are air-scenting really. In the winter our alert is digging (the only one allowed) and in the summer it is sustained barking as training a refind might have bad consequenses for my winter profile. There is no cadaver profile in this province that I know of.

With CARDA (Canadian Avalanche Rescue Dog Association) we train with lives, but also with human scented articles. Every time I bring that up I have to spend a few pages talking about why we do that. 

99% of the avi victims in Canada are dead. The people like myself that work at ski operations are the only ones that really have a chance at a live find because of how fast we can be on scene. 

CARDA and avalanche trained RCMP dogs (same standard as CARDA) have had a very successful record of finding dead avalanche victims both whole and in parts. 

Most are found very soon after the avalanche. 


I was asked if I could go and work a search in CO (I think) this spring for some snowboarders that had been missing since the winter. I politely declined. For me the scent picture by that point would be signifigantly different enough(even clothing would have lost much of it's scent) for me to be out of my comfort zone in regards to my training. That is what cadaver dogs are for IMHO.

Do I think that I would likely be able to read my dog on that type of cadaver...yes. But I have no training there and would not endanger that kind of operation and my credibility on that kind of a hunch. 


In the summer we train on lives and large articles as our profile requires us to here. Like mentioned earlier in the thread, we train for certification and for real life too, so mix up the types of problems that we possibly could be called out on.

Any time a SAR dog is used in this province, no matter what the callout type it is with the OK of the LE orginization that certified us in the first place, so they know exactly the quality of team and level of training they are expecting for the chosen job. 

We don't search for criminals or when foul play is suspected.

On my own I have introduced my dog to cadaver scent (older), my dog had no adverse reaction to it. We are encouraged to introduce our dogs to fresher cadaver when the opportunites present themselves to note the dog's reaction. 

Hope that gives you a small window on how things work with my profiles up here.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

I really want to come back to this discussion - forgive me if a few days late - will check in Wed.

We had a callout last night [live], training tonight, and a cadaver search [scheduled] Tuesday........got to fit my day job in there somehow .......too much info on thread to digest right now.

Oh, Carol - Cheri and Mike on Foothillls team were hot on the victim's scent when the helicopter located him [alive]. I know you know them well.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Konnie Hein said:


> Well, first there was chaos and every yahoo with a dog showed up, trained or not.


There were also quite a few well qualified people who had been called by NYPD to come help. 



Konnie Hein said:


> My husband was deployed as a member of MATF-1 with his live-find only dog, Elvis. He and Elvis didn't find anybody alive (none of the dogs did, not even Scott Shields!)


Just a small correction, and an off topic one at that. There was ONE find of a live person at the WTC. It was made by a police K-9 from Canada and confirmed by a police K-9 from the US.


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> There were also quite a few well qualified people who had been called by NYPD to come help.


Absolutely. I didn't mean to leave my friends on NYPD out. They were actually the first to arrive as part of a qualified team. Just a little touchy on the non-qualified people who showed up, sorry.




> Just a small correction, and an off topic one at that. There was ONE find of a live person at the WTC. It was made by a police K-9 from Canada and confirmed by a police K-9 from the US.


Who was that? Can you give me the names of these people so I can confirm? According to my NYPD canine buddies, and all the FEMA folks I know and my FDNY contacts there were none.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Konnie Hein said:


> Just a little touchy on the non-qualified people who showed up, sorry.


No problem Konnie, we all should be touchy on that. 



Konnie Hein said:


> Who was that? Can you give me the names of these people so I can confirm? According to my NYPD canine buddies, and all the FEMA folks I know and my FDNY contacts there were none.


The guy who confirmed the find was Josh Lewis. I don't know the name of the guy whose dog made the initial alert. 

I doubt that you can confirm it from any official source as no one was keeping records at that time. And since there was only one live K-9 find made, it would be a short list. 

It's a convoluted story that's entirely off- topic for this thread so perhaps either another thread or PM's would be better. 

Unless of course people want to hear the story here. Be prepared if you ask. Remember I'm not know for brevity. Please let me know if you start a new thread.


----------



## Kim Gilmore (Feb 18, 2008)

Konnie Hein said:


> Hey, I wonder if Jen trains her avi dog for live only or if they ever do cadaver work? Jen?
> 
> Agggh - now Carol's post about drives is going to turn into a "when does a dead person go from smelling like live to smelling like dead to a dog??" Sorry Carol! We can talk about drives now...how's the lab doing?


To my knowledge, avi dog handlers, no matter if on a ski resort (fast response) or SAR group (which may take up to several hours to get to the scene which would essentially result in a recovery) all train with live victims (or articles). This goes back to the "when does a person start smelling dead" discussion. Basically it's the refrigeration theory where the deceased is essentially packed on ice. Like a fish market, the fish is dead, but the colder it is kept/more ice it is packed in, the fresher it stays (maybe a bad analogy, but hoping you get the idea). Based upon this concept (and I am just guesstimating here as I don't think there is anything scientific to support this), the victim could smell "live" for up to several days/weeks. If body becomes frozen (don't typically see this in an avi context due to the insulation properties that snow possesses...body will only be as cold as the snow around it which may not be freezing), becomes just like that steak in the freezer. As that steak is taken from freezer, placed in fridge and progresses to the counter to completely thaw, the rate of decomp starts to progress.

Now I have seen a dog trained live only throw some funky behaviors on surface blood which was in near proximity to the buried victim (deceased). They still gave their trained indication, but not with the same vengence as what was typical of this particular dog and believe it was presence of human blood that was clouding her scent picture. Again, something that probably wouldn't have meant much to her should she have been introduced to the scent of human blood/fresh cadaver in her training.

Kim Gilmore


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> Train for both and let the dog make the decission. I had a hard time accepting that.
> .


The purpose of a SAR dog is to rescue. I'm not trying to be a smart butt, but that is the purpose. Time should not be spend recoving the dead when living may still be buried. To that end, I think mixing the two is a mistake. Many SAR teams actually conduct a negative test to ensure the dog will not respond to cadaver.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Konnie Hein said:


> David - do narcotics detection dogs develop a preference? For example, if cocaine and marijuana are both present in the same vehicle, will they prefer to alert on one over the other?


In my experience, I've seen dogs have a preference of one drug over another, but that doesn't play into whether or not a dog responds. Also, you have to look at the amount of odor present. The odor of marijuana will generally be stronger than the odor of cocaine. As far as a search of a vehicle, you wouldn't know which one the dog was responding too, only that the dog responded. 

DFrost


----------



## Kim Gilmore (Feb 18, 2008)

Carol Boche said:


> I would never certify him, although that is entirely possible AND probable, because he has already been started and works as a shooting/bird dog.
> 
> Therefore, if we were ever called into court, we would get picked apart by defense.
> 
> ...


Maybe it's just a Montana thing, but I know of quite a few Labs in this state that are cross-trained for hunting as well as being certified/operational SAR dogs. One Lab is cross-trained as an upland game dog and is cross-trained in avalanche (it's only SAR discipline), two others are duck/goose retrievers in conjunction with being multi-tasked SAR dogs. The latter two belong to very accomplished handlers who have had many, many years of training under their belts (in SAR and hunting) and work very accomplished dogs.

On the other hand, know of several herding dogs that herd in addition to SAR.

To echo what David stated, it comes down to training logs. It also comes to proofing that same dog when doing a SAR exercise and suddenly he's faced with a planted bird (sheep, etc.) in it's area.

I am a pretty big believer that dogs are smarter than we give them credit for and learn to associate different jobs by the different gear/rituals that we place around it. Not many SAR handlers I know are going to pack the shot-gun to the search or put on their bird vest. That SAR shabrack is a pretty good indicator to the dog that we are hunting people and not pheasants.

I'm sure those handlers I know would be the first to tell you that it takes work and would probably drop hunting in a heartbeat if it started interfering with the performance of their SAR dogs, but they are successfully doing it

Kim Gilmore


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> The guy who confirmed the find was Josh Lewis. I don't know the name of the guy whose dog made the initial alert.


Thanks, Lou. I know who Josh is so I'll just contact him directly.

Thanks again.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Kim Gilmore said:


> To my knowledge, avi dog handlers, no matter if on a ski resort (fast response) or SAR group (which may take up to several hours to get to the scene which would essentially result in a recovery) all train with live victims (or articles). Kim Gilmore


Yes. Our motto is still "to save the lives of avalanche victims" so we train for that. Lives do happen, there was one at my work (couple years before I became a handler).



Kim Gilmore said:


> This goes back to the "when does a person start smelling dead" discussion. Basically it's the refrigeration theory where the deceased is essentially packed on ice. Like a fish market, the fish is dead, but the colder it is kept/more ice it is packed in, the fresher it stays (maybe a bad analogy, but hoping you get the idea). Based upon this concept (and I am just guesstimating here as I don't think there is anything scientific to support this), the victim could smell "live" for up to several days/weeks. If body becomes frozen (don't typically see this in an avi context due to the insulation properties that snow possesses...body will only be as cold as the snow around it which may not be freezing), becomes just like that steak in the freezer. As that steak is taken from freezer, placed in fridge and progresses to the counter to completely thaw, the rate of decomp starts to progress.
> 
> Now I have seen a dog trained live only throw some funky behaviors on surface blood which was in near proximity to the buried victim (deceased). They still gave their trained indication, but not with the same vengence as what was typical of this particular dog and believe it was presence of human blood that was clouding her scent picture. Again, something that probably wouldn't have meant much to her should she have been introduced to the scent of human blood/fresh cadaver in her training.


Glad you brought this up...I was gearing up for a similar post. I would differ somewhat in my assesment of snowpack temperatures but generally agree with the ideas put forth and how they may prolong the "live-ish" smell.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Kim Gilmore said:


> One Lab is cross-trained as an upland game dog and is cross-trained in avalanche (it's only SAR discipline
> Kim Gilmore



CARDA has an avalanche certified field golden that works in the summer with his owner for his bird hunting outfit.

Not too many ducks on an avalanche to worry about!! He has never pursued a summer profile however.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Lou Castle said:


> Unless of course people want to hear the story here. Be prepared if you ask. Remember I'm not know for brevity. Please let me know if you start a new thread.


I would never say no to hearing a story like that! Start a new thread! As long as it is appropriate for a board that is.


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

David Frost said:


> The purpose of a SAR dog is to rescue. I'm not trying to be a smart butt, but that is the purpose. Time should not be spend recoving the dead when living may still be buried. To that end, I think mixing the two is a mistake. Many SAR teams actually conduct a negative test to ensure the dog will not respond to cadaver.


That's the purpose of a USAR dog. A wilderness SAR dog should find the person regardless of whether they are dead or alive. 

Agreed?

I agree mixing the two for larger scale USAR could be a mistake. I have yet to see any concrete evidence either way, unfortunately. I did see one study from a group in California, but I didn't like how it was set up and given the nature of different training styles and the differences in abilities between individual dogs, I don't know that concrete evidence can be obtained.

This all goes back to one of my very favorite debates (sarcasm) - standards. Not just evaluation standards, but the standards employed when selecting a dog and the "level" of dog an individual is satisfied with before the training even starts. 

So, Carol, how is Lab #2 doing in training? Updates?


----------



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

Kim Gilmore said:


> Maybe it's just a Montana thing, but I know of quite a few Labs in this state that are cross-trained for hunting as well as being certified/operational SAR dogs. One Lab is cross-trained as an upland game dog and is cross-trained in avalanche (it's only SAR discipline), two others are duck/goose retrievers in conjunction with being multi-tasked SAR dogs. The latter two belong to very accomplished handlers who have had many, many years of training under their belts (in SAR and hunting) and work very accomplished dogs.
> 
> On the other hand, know of several herding dogs that herd in addition to SAR.
> 
> ...



Kim....Marley will be coming to the September event....we will be in your class when I have a break in teaching cadaver.....he is rocking out short trails like a fiend so I want you to take a look at him. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: 

Nancy: Thanks for the heads up on Dave and Cheri, I will have to call them today. 

AND: 

I am a firm believer in listening and learning and NOT being close minded about dog training. I am set in my ways on the single purpose thing, however, seeing Kim's team work their dogs tell me it CAN be done. Therfore, my next pup will be trained dual purpose. 

I can see multiple trips to MT in the future!!!!!

I am not so close minded that I will not agree with all of the points brought up here, and I appreciate each and every one. 
The Lab in question is kicking some butt and is starting to "get the game" when asked to "suke". At first I got the Tim Allen "HUH???? ya want me to do what??" but I have always said, floppy ears make for selective hearing....:mrgreen: :mrgreen:


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> Unless of course people want to hear the story here. Be prepared if you ask. Remember I'm not know for brevity. Please let me know if you start a new thread.


You're kidding, right?

Start the darned thread! :lol:


----------



## Kim Gilmore (Feb 18, 2008)

Carol Boche said:


> Kim....Marley will be coming to the September event....we will be in your class when I have a break in teaching cadaver.....
> 
> I can see multiple trips to MT in the future!!!!!


Thanks for the forwarning on the Marl-Man...fastest tongue in South Dakota. Shall make sure I have the rainwear at hand to stay dry.

And you know you are always welcome up here (and in time, sure we'll have you desensitized to whatever may be lurking behind that wall of them 'thar trees! :-o ).


----------



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

Konnie Hein said:


> So, Carol, how is Lab #2 doing in training? Updates?


Lab #2 is actually doing well at cadaver work. Wouldn't complain about anything and due to his age, him running the "lab lap" will get better as he matures over time. Still not a dog I would bring home though. [-( [-( :mrgreen: 

Lou- yes, please start the thread. Will make for an interesting read IMO.


----------



## Kim Gilmore (Feb 18, 2008)

Lou Castle said:


> Unless of course people want to hear the story here. Be prepared if you ask. Remember I'm not know for brevity. Please let me know if you start a new thread.


*SNORT* Yeah Lou, was a-thinkin' you wasn't feeling so good these days as these are the shortest posts I think I have seen from you in years :razz:


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Carol Boche said:


> Lab #2 is actually doing well at cadaver work. Wouldn't complain about anything and due to his age, him running the "lab lap" will get better as he matures over time. Still not a dog I would bring home though. [-( [-( :mrgreen:


Ahhh, the "lab lap!"

I think it would be really cool if you video-taped the initial evaluation of the dog and then did subsequent tapings of training along the way to post here. That would be great info. I really regret not doing that for a litter of Mal pups I helped raise. If I ever do that again (which I probably won't!), I will get as much footage via video that I can.


----------



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

Konnie Hein said:


> Ahhh, the "lab lap!"
> 
> I think it would be really cool if you video-taped the initial evaluation of the dog and then did subsequent tapings of training along the way to post here. That would be great info. I really regret not doing that for a litter of Mal pups I helped raise. If I ever do that again (which I probably won't!), I will get as much footage via video that I can.



I have TONS of video and am just too lazy to download it, put it on youtube and get it out there.   

Not to mention getting the time to do it without feeling rushed the whole time. ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Carol Boche said:


> I have TONS of video and am just too lazy to download it, put it on youtube and get it out there.
> 
> Not to mention getting the time to do it without feeling rushed the whole time. ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)


 
Gee, you can't put some video together for us in your "spare time?" :razz: I feel your pain!


----------



## Beth Moates (Nov 30, 2007)

I pick door number 1. I like a dog that works for drive satisfaction first and formost,and not one easily distracted like wanting to go pee here and there. I also don't like a dog that wants to return to me. Dog number 2, I wouldn't waste my time with. Some dogs do have the drives but lack the proper character traits to complete the package and or vice versa. Those dogs tend to be the environmentally condidtioned dogs. Ex: The dogs you see handlers have to drag through a search or coax and baby them along.Also they can start out well initially but fall apart the longer they have to search. Those types will always crumble under stress. Dogs will always revert back to genetic drives/character traits when stressed...not training. So again my pick dog number 1 is the better candidate for further testing.\\/


----------

