# Bad news and good news.



## Jim Engel

The Bloodhound segment is turning out to be one of the most difficult sections of the book. There is a lot of contradictory beliefs and statements which are difficult to sort out. The temptation is to just delete the segment and move on; but you don't write important books by hiding from the difficult issues.

The good news is that there is a lot of serious, honest discussion here; I can't think of anyplace else on the web where this level of intellectual honesty and discussion could take place. My opinion is that the tightly enforced policy of full name disclosure is key to this.

The Working Dog Forum really is unique and valuable.


----------



## Bob Scott

That's easy to understand. The Bloodhound probably has as many myths about it's abilities as fact as any breed.


----------



## Craig Snyder

I'm looking forward to seeing some good discussions around this. I don't have personal knowledge of bloodhounds when it comes to tracking work. I took care of one on a DuPont estate I once worked at, but it was a resident pet, not a tracking dog. The bloodhounds I've seen in SAR work have been very spotty. I've only met two bloodhound teams, (team being a handler and dog, not SAR team), that I felt were any good. But they were very good.

I suspect that has much more to do with the handlers and their dedication to training and learning how to train, than it did the dogs. I could of course say that about many other dog disciplines as well I guess! :razz:

I'm guessing that 50% of the folks that start into training for the first time with a bloodhound for tracking do it because of the mystique around the bloodhound's reputation of being such an amazing tracker. But they probably don't understand that training that nose, and learning to be a good handler who can read the dog still takes a ton of work and training, not to mention some good physical abilities on the part of the handler. And then they learn about some of the downsides a bloodhound has, (all breeds have downsides). I bet only a small handful go on to be serious, dedicated, kick butt tracking teams that keep coming back with new hounds.

Craig


----------



## Nancy Jocoy

My own observations concerning bloodhounds (note PERSONAL observations, limited number of dogs)

They have an incredible scenting anatomy and are alleged to extract odor under very difficult situations. I guess they probably are more gifted in that regard than our herders and sporting dogs but I am not sure of tests at limits of detections to compare the two. I have also read that dogs tend to grow more target receptors for certain odors based on successful "hunts" which would be another thing to test...how much does training influence the ability to work with low levels of odor?

They are also very hard headed and if they loose odor and find something else interesting (like a critter) inclined to follow that instead. A good handler can read when they are on a critter scent vs the target human scent and can certainly read when they have lost scent. I really think herders are much more focused and once they know the job less likely to be distracted.

A lot are trained strictly for apprehension and not the long kind of heavily contaminated old trails with scent pools that SAR folks face. They and the handler need this kind of experience to be proficient just like any other kind of handler and dog. The problem is a lot of handlers seem to think that a 30 minute old trail with a known uncontaminated start point is "good enough" to work a complicated aged and contaminated trail.

Reading the trailing dog is critical to success. There is a lot of technique but a lot of folks think the bloodhound is so magical they may as well put on water skis and let it drag them to wherever. Whatever. It don't work that way.

I don't trust them temperament wise. They seem to be a bit unpredictable and I had one go after one of my dogs once and it took a steel toed boot to the head to get it off. They don't seem to have the social behavior, and bite inhibition herders and sporting dogs have. I was at a seminar where the son of a bloodhound handler had horrible scars inflicted by their own dogs. The boy was also a bloodhound handler.

The ones I have seen tend to be heavy and somewhat clumsy. Often not socialized and timid/spooked easily - nature or nurture? I don't know but it seems nothing spooks a dog with a genetically solid temperament even with minimal socialization.

Car trails? I don't know. Hard to believe. JMO. Particularly if you are talking anything of any age.

And, most importantly, I could never own one just because I could not look at that awful looking rear end for hours on end and could not deal with the massive amounts of drool.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Nancy,

Your words speak volumes. I have encountered them, especially as pups, as over eager "jump up and kiss pups."

I knew someone who bred them and was in our Dog Centre (actually she owned it). She is a vetenary surgeon. She always asked when we had finished so that she could let her Bloodhounds out. I encountered one who was a real "heartbreaker". She jumped up and kissed me.

I don't honestly think there is anyting mystical about the Blloodhounds. I have always believed that other breeds could compete equally. However, the Bloodhound only trains in tracking.

Our Fila Brasileiro (from Bloodhound heritage) was a phenomenal tracker. I wonder if the Bloodhounds are missing something. I can only explain it as something that I wonder as has happened to this breed.
They are only trained in tracking. I have now maybe trouble to explain it - are they not trained in other spheres which would explain their endurance problems?


----------



## Jim Delbridge

I've laid trails for bloodhounds and one otterhound. The otterhound was a treat as you can see some of the similarities in Airedales. Rumor has it from the old breed books that the otterhound was part of the airedale breedline.
I've tried to help one bloodhound owner start his dog with the caveat that there would quickly come a time when I'd send him on his way to a serious trailing instructor. That time never came. The hound had scenting ability, but a dog team is two pieces. The rare dog that does it all despite the handler, is just that, very rare. This bloodhound was turned into a pet with no work discipline on the part of the handler/owners. If the wife appeared while we were running a trail the dog basically shut down for "mommy." I proved to the handler that the dog could work for me once it realized I was there to work and life was simply more enjoyable for all if we were working. The handler didn't like this lesson and basically humanized his dog. I gave him a choice and he chose to enjoy his pet. His call and I wish them well. In that regard, the bloodhound is no different than any other civilian SAR breed.

As for temperment, at seminars with a lot of bloodhounds, the owners will confess to some being dog aggressive to the point of distraction. I've heard the same about many of the other breeds. As with any working dog, the handler/owner has to pick for temperment along with nasal skills, and multitude of other desired traits. The handlers that pick a dog "off-the-shelf" deserve the gamble they pay for.

As for the drooling, a fellow I worked with for 20 years bred bloodhounds and said a lot of them put salt in their water to cut down on the drooling. I don't know if that works, my dogs don't drool. 
I do have fond memories of a Dogue De Bordeau who used to board at da wife's clinic. He had this phobia that he didn't particularly like women. My wife's employees would set up new hires to go back to check on him as they knew he'd charge the kennel gate as he bellowed. He weighed about 140 lbs. When he boarded with us, I'd come up three times a day to take him out. My routine was always to open the kennel gate then step back as he would step out then shake his head from side-to-side sliinging a sticky like drool up both walls. We have plastic wall panels, so new hires got to wash the walls down afterwards as well. So, the drool on bloodhounds could be worse.


Jim Delbridge


----------



## Jim Engel

*What the skeptics say:*

Ed Frawley is a skeptic:

http://leerburg.com/bloodhound.htm

Specifically he says:


They cannot follow tracks any better than any other good tracking dog.
The cannot consistently use a scent article to pick up a track and follow it.
They cannot follow tracks on concrete that are a couple of days old in a downtown metropolitan area.
They cannot follow people who have gotten into cars and driven down the highway.
Bloodhounds can not smell human blood or human urine and then scent discriminate that person from a line up.
They also cannot follow a track that is a couple of hours old and then pick the person they were following from a line up.


Mr. Frawley is, shall we say, self confident on things canine. But these are not uncommon and to really understand the Bloodhound one must either agree or present compelling facts and evidence.


Let me ask a question:
If in April when it is a little warmer I went to the local forest preserve, which would have people wandering around, did a little jogging to work up a sweat, began a track and went say three miles
and marked the end. There would be fairly long walks on ash-fault paths, I would traverse a couple of large, active parking lots, cross a highway and a four lane roadway. At the end I take off my tee shirt, which is now damp, and put it in a plastic bag.
In one week a Bloodhound handler is given the plastic bag with my shirt and asked to find the end of the trail.

In your opinion, what percentage of Bloodhounds being called on for police or serious search and rescue search could successfully follow this week old trail?


----------



## Jim Engel

*Just for the record.*

I don't think anybody here believes that more than 5 percent of German Shepherds have what it takes to be a good police patrol dog.

In discussing Bloodhounds, we need to talk about the really good dogs that a serous person would work with, not just anybody's pet out for a play around track or trail.

That is why in the above question I specifically ask about actual in service Police Bloodhounds or those of really serious search and rescue people.

Every breed, sadly has a lot of crappy breeding, or at least breeding for the pet mrket without regard for real work.


----------



## mel boschwitz

Regarding your scenario- 

What is the temperature during that week?

Temp that day?

Humidity during the week and that day? Any rain?. How much?

What time of day is it being run?

These are questions that would help determine the viability of the trail. For instance, in Texas, where it is very dry in the summer, that trail would most likely not be viable. Scent needs moisture to help it remain viable, and in TX summers, there is none.

In the early spring/winter, assuming normal TX rain and humidity for that time of year, it would be viable. Percentage? Well, if its been trained to wprk properly, then any of them. If the scent is there and the dog has been trained to search, then why wouldnt it? 

Depending on the temps/rain during the week, the trail may actually be quite strong.


----------



## mel boschwitz

Gillian- what endurance problems? Only trained in tracking? 

Most bh's trail, not track, but to say "only" is a huge stretch. They do OB, agility, etc. My male prefers cadaver. 

Endurance? A well trained working bh will go till it drops, which is usually for miles and miles. If it doesnt, then its not a good working bh and needs to be dropped from the program.


----------



## mel boschwitz

In the early 1900's the Va. Police Work Dog Association published an article that states no dog can follow a trail over 6hrs old. 

I have been informed that is being rewritten- from a Va. District Attorney who got sick and tired of defense attorneys bringing that up in court. The attorneys then provide multiple other statements by other agencies that refute this, so it works out.

Opinions change.

Frawley has his beliefs. I agree with some of the things he says. Keith Pikett did some terrible damage to the reputation of bh handlers with his sh*t.

The thing to remember is that the dog may not successfully complete every trail, but it may help you find evidence along the way that assists in the case. Was the dog successful? Depends on how you look at it.


----------



## Jim Delbridge

*Re: Just for the record.*



Jim Engel said:


> I don't think anybody here believes that more than 5 percent of German Shepherds have what it takes to be a good police patrol dog.
> 
> In discussing Bloodhounds, we need to talk about the really good dogs that a serous person would work with, not just anybody's pet out for a play around track or trail.
> 
> That is why in the above question I specifically ask about actual in service Police Bloodhounds or those of really serious search and rescue people.
> 
> Every breed, sadly has a lot of crappy breeding, or at least breeding for the pet mrket without regard for real work.


I think when the rubber meets the road, the only way someone can substatiate their claims is with double-blind testing. I think you'll find those that brag, but find reasons not to double-blind test, can be quickly discounted. 

As Mel began to demonstrate, when a serious challenge is laid, the experienced dog handler starts to present what conditions their canine partner can best succeed in for the task at hand. So, I'd suggest laying out double-blind tests in the primo, best conditions and then see what happens. That way if the dog team doesn't perform there are no excuses.....well, except the most obvious excuse of the handler screwed it up. We are the dogs' biggest handicap.

Regards,

Jim Delbridge


----------



## Dave Colborn

Could someone describe a double blind study with dogs? Seems pretty intensive, when the researcher doesn't even know who the control group is. Can you even get that many bloodhounds together than can do anything other than eat and crap?


Double blind gets thrown around and I wonder what the users think it would describe when applied to a trailing dog.

I don't think you can get the bias out of a dog team being evaluated. I think comparing the stress of a test to the stress of a real world deployment is more relevant.

I bet courts allow certification standards to hold instead of requiring scientific study because a "double blind" study is unrealistic as it is too intensive. Can anyone put up an example in regards to trailing?

Here is what wikipedia has to say:
_*Double-blind* describes an especially stringent way of conducting an __experiment__,* usually on human subjects*, in an attempt to eliminate subjective bias on the part of both experimental subjects and the experimenters. In most cases, double-blind experiments are held to achieve a higher standard of scientific rigor._
_In a double-blind experiment, neither the individuals nor the researchers know who belongs to the control group and who belongs to the experimental group. Only after all the data have been recorded (and in some cases, analysed) do the researchers learn which individuals are which. Performing an experiment in double-blind fashion is a way to lessen the influence of the prejudices and unintentional physical cues on the results (the __placebo effect__, __observer bias__, and __experimenter's bias__). __Random assignment__ of the subject to the experimental or control group is a critical part of double-blind research design. The key that identifies the subjects and which group they belonged to is kept by a third party and not given to the researchers until the study is over._
_Double-blind methods can be applied to any experimental situation where there is the possibility that the results will be affected by conscious or unconscious __bias__ on the part of the experimenter._
_Computer-controlled experiments are sometimes also erroneously referred to as double-blind experiments, since software may not cause the type of direct bias between researcher and subject. Development of surveys presented to subjects through computers shows that bias can easily be built into the process. Voting systems are also examples where bias can easily be constructed into an apparently simple machine based system. In analogy to the human researcher described above, the part of the software that provides interaction with the human is presented to the subject as the blinded researcher, while the part of the software that defines the key is the third party. An example is the __ABX test__, where the human subject has to identify an unknown stimulus X as being either A or B._


----------



## mel boschwitz

Double blind in terms of detection dogs means that even the evaluator does not know where the source/trail is. The handler can frequently cue off a the evaluator in a typical evaluation by reading body language, where they stop/stand. Plus, it eliminates any possibility of bias by the evaluator giving hints/encouragement. If no one on the evaluation team knows where the dog is right/wrong, its entirely up to handler and k9. In trailing/area search, the dog either finds the correct person or it doesnt. In other detection work, the handler calls the locations, which are marked, then checked by the person who does know the locations, who remains out of sight/contact with the evaluation.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy

The more I talk with folks I am all for double blind though think for a certification test it may be so much to set up it would be hard to get a group of people through it...and maybe the evaluator should know what is going on because they are looking for basic competence skills.

But certainly for in process evaluations and training scenarios it should be required and documented. We started doing it about two years ago and have a field in our training record form for "double blind" 

For HR, we often hand off our training aids to a teammate, tell them to hide them so we cannot see them, and mark them with a GPS then we go find, mark and compare locations when we get back. Can't do it all the time. Can't reward an HR dog on an unknown indication but......a variable reward schedule is a good thing. They don't get rewarded on searches. Or on a car, or in a building you just say where it was. I have heard of folks doing the exact same thing for trailing (comparing a tracklayer GPS tracing with the actual GPS tracing and looking for a realistic trail) because, honestly, even double blind and experienced flanker can still inadvertently influence the outcome because they may be reading the dog better than a less experienced handler.

Have been on some SAR tests, actually been tested where you kind of know if the flankers are not crossing the stream with you or going through the brambles that they know something you don't. Same thing with reading someone when you are working a hide...it really does make a difference..


----------



## Dave Colborn

mel boschwitz said:


> Double blind in terms of detection dogs means that even the evaluator does not know where the source/trail is. The handler can frequently cue off a the evaluator in a typical evaluation by reading body language, where they stop/stand. Plus, it eliminates any possibility of bias by the evaluator giving hints/encouragement. If no one on the evaluation team knows where the dog is right/wrong, its entirely up to handler and k9. In trailing/area search, the dog either finds the correct person or it doesnt. In other detection work, the handler calls the locations, which are marked, then checked by the person who does know the locations, who remains out of sight/contact with the evaluation.


So the evaluator would just know where the start is pretty much and carry a camera. Sounds like someone should do this and video tape to the credit of all bloodhounds everywhere. Because truthfully you don't need an evaluator. you just need to be at the end when the dog gets the find, and a camera on the handler. 

Youtube!!!


----------



## mel boschwitz

Theres lots of videos already out there. Jeff Schettler makes a habit of doing that.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter

*Re: What the skeptics say:*



Jim Engel said:


> Let me ask a question:
> If in April when it is a little warmer I went to the local forest preserve, which would have people wandering around, did a little jogging to work up a sweat, began a track and went say three miles
> and marked the end. There would be fairly long walks on ash-fault paths, I would traverse a couple of large, active parking lots, cross a highway and a four lane roadway. At the end I take off my tee shirt, which is now damp, and put it in a plastic bag.
> In one week a Bloodhound handler is given the plastic bag with my shirt and asked to find the end of the trail.
> 
> In your opinion, what percentage of Bloodhounds being called on for police or serious search and rescue search could successfully follow this week old trail?


I am going to go out on a limb and say zero. A week old double blind track from a scent article in a contaminated area with a fair amount of pavement? And not just stumbling upon the finish, but actually staying on the track?

To be fair, I am basing this on NO actual experience with bloodhounds. But you asked  

I really need to visit a strong US team doing good scent discrimination work sometime, because I am a skeptic for sure (it is my nature). 

I am not saying I don't believe in scent discrimination work, but I have seen a few teams claim it, and then seen really poor performance, so I just need to see some really good folks I guess.


----------



## julie allen

*Re: What the skeptics say:*

Double blind trails are simply compared using a gps. If the flanker knows the track its usually easy to read them, the same it is in detection work. 

I see many who claim scent discrimination often aren't as accurate as they brag. One team does demonstrations using a tissue with a persons scent. They burn the tissue, scent the dog on the ashes, and have three people start at the same point, then go in different directions. Many times the dog just picks a track. When they get to the wrong person, the handler eill state the dog is ruling the person out. Haha, bullshit. You can clearly.see the handlers change in body language, and that's all the dog reads.

Scent discrimination is possible, but not as common as boasted by many teams.


----------



## Jim Delbridge

*Re: What the skeptics say:*

Ummmm, the start isn't really given in a good double blind trailing test. A Last Known Point is usually all anyone is given in a real trail, so in a double-blind the trailing team has to also acquire the start.
The key to a double blind is that no one is available to the dog team while working that has any clue as to where, if any, scent sources are. Scent souces can be a human trail, human remains, narcotics, etc.

I grew up on problems that were always Zero-to-N where N was what ever the evaluator/trainer chose it to be. N could be 3 sources plus two negatives, 1 source and four distractions, no sources, etc. N is arbitrary. Heck, my first training partner used to get giggles when she'd tell me 0-to-five, my dog and I'd locate five sources (marked with flags as I could rarely see the source), and then'd she smile and say, "I lied, there's more!"

Even if a handler gives sources to another team mate to do with as they wish, it's not a true double blind because the handler knows his/her dog is familiar with those scents. It's better if you just ask for a double-blind and ask them to bring whatever they want. In my case, one might hope its human, but I've had double-blinds where there were lots of animal remains put out, but not one human remains source. At first you get pissed, then you realize, "I've had lots of searches just like that, so what am I complaining about?"

When I set up a double-blind for dog teams, I define the area for them with markers and I'm usually nice in saying, "skeletal/dental or tissue or both." I hand the handler the maximum number of flags, N, and I sit down to wait. When they feel they are finished, we put up the dog, and I walk out into the area. If a flag is right, I leave it. If a flag is wrong, I pull it. I offer them another chance, if they want it, to finish. 
One of my students is married to a very sharp law enforcement officer who knows dogs. She was going to do a double-blind in about an acre for dental. I suggested she take hubby with her as I felt it would provide her with skill insight for years to come. When I set this one up, I placed ten teeth with no tissue under a semi-buried rock being careful not to disturb how it fit into the soil. As time was short, I poured 4 ounces of distilled water over the teeth as the soil was very dry and we were at 11,000 feet elevation. To be fair, I poured four ounces of water in three other places both under and on top of other similar rocks.
Dog handler flagged only the teeth. Hubby, acting as law enforcement, noticed their dog checking one of the water-only spots. Hubby talked handler into flagging the other spot as he'd noticed the dog pause there, but never really commit.
As I graded them for one good find and one false, I spoke calmly to the dog handler with hubby in definite ear shot, "There will almost always be a helpful deputy/officer coming along with you. Most assuredly listen to their observations, but the dog is the scent expert." This was two years ago. Every time they set me up double-blinds, hubby always tries to put a spin on it to get me back. My attitude is I'm must getting better double-blinds as it's still up to the dog to find the scent.

On trails, I would go back on the K9Forensic list (yahoo) archives searching for Jeff Schetler(sp?) as he went into great detail on double blinds for trailing. He also took lots of grief from a lot of the trailing "experts" for his stand.

As I said, I grew up on the double-blind with my dogs. I was often left alone to work a problem and then yell when I thought we were done. It's probably why I get a little grumpy when company comes along with me on a double-blind as I'm used to simply getting absorbed with the problem and the dog. I think once a dog team has the fundamentals that its the best way to learn and certainly the best way to stay humble. You'll notice if a group of handlers set up blinds for each other that the first team through takes the longest and if the problem setter works it last that they blaze through it.....Each subsequent dog team gets more clues left from the others, both good and bad clues. The problem setter, even if they work their dog honestly from a distance, knows where NOT to search.

Hope this helps,

Jim Delbridge


----------



## Dave Colborn

*Re: What the skeptics say:*

Jim. I get what you are saying, but there has to be a starting point. You can't say I saw the bad guy run in a north to south direction somewhere between california and south carolina. 

I can appreciate taking all the cues away, but it's next to, if not impossible for a trailing dog. Thats kind of what I was getting at. You get parameters for the start from someone. that can influence the test just like your LE hubby influenced below. I would think the best way to do it as near to real as possible is set the evaluator on and spot, and have the trail layer in such a fashion that the evaluator can see him. then the evaluator leaves. trail layer runs/walks away. evaluator gives the last known point to the bloodhounder but can't give a direction of travel. 

Or. here's the house. the child left from here around 6 hours ago. we arent sure where the child went or with who. here is a recently worn shirt. Go. i bet if you didn't have a trail layer, you'd have every bloodhound team that came "finding" a trail.

Even in the way you were raised, you still get a parameter to search within. even if you don't know how many hides or distractors are out. I agree with doing things this way. I successively approximate if I have a new dog. Starting with an area with a known hide, and a known blank area. Then moving the criteria up until you are searching a large number of rooms or vehicles or areas with a mix of hides, blanks, distractors, slowly making it more difficult. 






Jim Delbridge said:


> Ummmm, the start isn't really given in a good double blind trailing test. A Last Known Point is usually all anyone is given in a real trail, so in a double-blind the trailing team has to also acquire the start.
> The key to a double blind is that no one is available to the dog team while working that has any clue as to where, if any, scent sources are. Scent souces can be a human trail, human remains, narcotics, etc.
> 
> I grew up on problems that were always Zero-to-N where N was what ever the evaluator/trainer chose it to be. N could be 3 sources plus two negatives, 1 source and four distractions, no sources, etc. N is arbitrary. Heck, my first training partner used to get giggles when she'd tell me 0-to-five, my dog and I'd locate five sources (marked with flags as I could rarely see the source), and then'd she smile and say, "I lied, there's more!"
> 
> Even if a handler gives sources to another team mate to do with as they wish, it's not a true double blind because the handler knows his/her dog is familiar with those scents. It's better if you just ask for a double-blind and ask them to bring whatever they want. In my case, one might hope its human, but I've had double-blinds where there were lots of animal remains put out, but not one human remains source. At first you get pissed, then you realize, "I've had lots of searches just like that, so what am I complaining about?"
> 
> When I set up a double-blind for dog teams, I define the area for them with markers and I'm usually nice in saying, "skeletal/dental or tissue or both." I hand the handler the maximum number of flags, N, and I sit down to wait. When they feel they are finished, we put up the dog, and I walk out into the area. If a flag is right, I leave it. If a flag is wrong, I pull it. I offer them another chance, if they want it, to finish.
> One of my students is married to a very sharp law enforcement officer who knows dogs. She was going to do a double-blind in about an acre for dental. I suggested she take hubby with her as I felt it would provide her with skill insight for years to come. When I set this one up, I placed ten teeth with no tissue under a semi-buried rock being careful not to disturb how it fit into the soil. As time was short, I poured 4 ounces of distilled water over the teeth as the soil was very dry and we were at 11,000 feet elevation. To be fair, I poured four ounces of water in three other places both under and on top of other similar rocks.
> Dog handler flagged only the teeth. Hubby, acting as law enforcement, noticed their dog checking one of the water-only spots. Hubby talked handler into flagging the other spot as he'd noticed the dog pause there, but never really commit.
> As I graded them for one good find and one false, I spoke calmly to the dog handler with hubby in definite ear shot, "There will almost always be a helpful deputy/officer coming along with you. Most assuredly listen to their observations, but the dog is the scent expert." This was two years ago. Every time they set me up double-blinds, hubby always tries to put a spin on it to get me back. My attitude is I'm must getting better double-blinds as it's still up to the dog to find the scent.
> 
> On trails, I would go back on the K9Forensic list (yahoo) archives searching for Jeff Schetler(sp?) as he went into great detail on double blinds for trailing. He also took lots of grief from a lot of the trailing "experts" for his stand.
> 
> As I said, I grew up on the double-blind with my dogs. I was often left alone to work a problem and then yell when I thought we were done. It's probably why I get a little grumpy when company comes along with me on a double-blind as I'm used to simply getting absorbed with the problem and the dog. I think once a dog team has the fundamentals that its the best way to learn and certainly the best way to stay humble. You'll notice if a group of handlers set up blinds for each other that the first team through takes the longest and if the problem setter works it last that they blaze through it.....Each subsequent dog team gets more clues left from the others, both good and bad clues. The problem setter, even if they work their dog honestly from a distance, knows where NOT to search.
> 
> Hope this helps,
> 
> Jim Delbridge


----------



## Nancy Jocoy

*Re: What the skeptics say:*



Dave Colborn said:


> Or. here's the house. the child left from here around 6 hours ago. we arent sure where the child went or with who. here is a recently worn shirt. Go. i bet if you didn't have a trail layer, you'd have every bloodhound team that came "finding" a trail.


But you should not because negative training areas should be part of trailing training just as it is any detection training. I think trails and air scent (discriminating) problems from the home are the most difficult because there is so much competing victim scent (of various ages) as well as familial scent (which muddies the water )


----------



## Jim Delbridge

*Re: What the skeptics say:*



Dave Colborn said:


> Jim. I get what you are saying, but there has to be a starting point. You can't say I saw the bad guy run in a north to south direction somewhere between california and south carolina.
> 
> I can appreciate taking all the cues away, but it's next to, if not impossible for a trailing dog. Thats kind of what I was getting at. You get parameters for the start from someone. that can influence the test just like your LE hubby influenced below. I would think the best way to do it as near to real as possible is set the evaluator on and spot, and have the trail layer in such a fashion that the evaluator can see him. then the evaluator leaves. trail layer runs/walks away. evaluator gives the last known point to the bloodhounder but can't give a direction of travel.
> 
> Or. here's the house. the child left from here around 6 hours ago. we arent sure where the child went or with who. here is a recently worn shirt. Go. i bet if you didn't have a trail layer, you'd have every bloodhound team that came "finding" a trail.
> 
> Even in the way you were raised, you still get a parameter to search within. even if you don't know how many hides or distractors are out. I agree with doing things this way. I successively approximate if I have a new dog. Starting with an area with a known hide, and a known blank area. Then moving the criteria up until you are searching a large number of rooms or vehicles or areas with a mix of hides, blanks, distractors, slowly making it more difficult.


 
I'm fairly sure that the dog team is expected to cast around to acquire the trail. Go to Jeff's site and watch the trails run. When I'd taught at seminars he was teaching at, he had videos after dinner. I spent many nights in a chair in the back just watching because trailing just mystifies me. Early on when I started my first dog, we were expected to create jack-of-all-trades dogs. So, I put a basic trailing foundation on her. At two years of age, my dog and I got assigned a trailing demo which I was pretty sure was meant to make us look bad. The trail was nothing to brag about and my flanker was second guessing my dog the entire 1/2 mile trail. I think the only saving grace was it was a foggy damp day and that I kept track of when I knew my dog was on scent or not. I had no issue going back to the last point on scent and restarting. We restarted three times. At the end my dog is having me lift it up 4-to-5 foot slick boulders to a plateau. Once up, she walks over to a flat piece of ground, looks at it, and barks. Again the flanker is berating me and my dog for this foolish lark until we hear the female fireman cooing "good girl" at my dog from her hole down in the rocks. My one and ONLY trail. Our scent article was her vehicle and we were pointed in a general direction. 
Oh, all the way back, my flanker is on the radio tellling everyone what a super dog I have and what a great trail we'd run.....yea right.....oh, and no, he didn't know where she was either, so I'm guessing this made the trail a double-blind as we were out on our lonesome.

*grin* oh yea, this was an airedale, not a bloodhound....

Jim


----------



## Dave Colborn

*Re: What the skeptics say:*



Jim Delbridge said:


> I'm fairly sure that the dog team is expected to cast around to acquire the trail. Go to Jeff's site and watch the trails run. When I'd taught at seminars he was teaching at, he had videos after dinner. I spent many nights in a chair in the back just watching because trailing just mystifies me. Early on when I started my first dog, we were expected to create jack-of-all-trades dogs. So, I put a basic trailing foundation on her. At two years of age, my dog and I got assigned a trailing demo which I was pretty sure was meant to make us look bad. The trail was nothing to brag about and my flanker was second guessing my dog the entire 1/2 mile trail. I think the only saving grace was it was a foggy damp day and that I kept track of when I knew my dog was on scent or not. I had no issue going back to the last point on scent and restarting. We restarted three times. At the end my dog is having me lift it up 4-to-5 foot slick boulders to a plateau. Once up, she walks over to a flat piece of ground, looks at it, and barks. Again the flanker is berating me and my dog for this foolish lark until we hear the female fireman cooing "good girl" at my dog from her hole down in the rocks. My one and ONLY trail. Our scent article was her vehicle and we were pointed in a general direction.
> Oh, all the way back, my flanker is on the radio tellling everyone what a super dog I have and what a great trail we'd run.....yea right.....oh, and no, he didn't know where she was either, so I'm guessing this made the trail a double-blind as we were out on our lonesome.
> 
> *grin* oh yea, this was an airedale, not a bloodhound....
> 
> Jim


Amazing what a trained dog with a competent handler can do :grin:

Could you link his site please, sir.


----------



## Jim Delbridge

*Re: What the skeptics say:*



Dave Colborn said:


> Amazing what a trained dog with a competent handler can do :grin:
> 
> Could you link his site please, sir.


 
While I can hold my own in HRD, neither I nor my dog were competent in trailing. I basically was pissed at being set up to fail (politics of the time) and hoped my dog and I could muddle through it. We got lucky. If it was a real life situation, I would have refused. 
I've only observed at trailing seminars when I had a chance to catch my breath from other duties. Please know that I was not trying to brag. In the beginning, the only reason my dog and I survived was those trying to control were worse at dogs than I was. Such experiences cause some to leave SAR. I just became more determined to learn all I could. Now, I'm in a niche where my dogs and I can hunt with or/despite the SAR community, so life is good.

On facebook, you can search for "Jeff Schettler" or "Georgiak9ntc"

On the web, his main site is www.gak9.com

If you link to him on facebook, he'll send out videos and/or gps graphs of trails performed from time to time. He's a busy man these days.

Jim


----------



## Dave Colborn

*Re: What the skeptics say:*



Jim Delbridge said:


> While I can hold my own in HRD, neither I nor my dog were competent in trailing. I basically was pissed at being set up to fail (politics of the time) and hoped my dog and I could muddle through it. We got lucky. If it was a real life situation, I would have refused.
> I've only observed at trailing seminars when I had a chance to catch my breath from other duties. Please know that I was not trying to brag. In the beginning, the only reason my dog and I survived was those trying to control were worse at dogs than I was. Such experiences cause some to leave SAR. I just became more determined to learn all I could. Now, I'm in a niche where my dogs and I can hunt with or/despite the SAR community, so life is good.
> 
> On facebook, you can search for "Jeff Schettler" or "Georgiak9ntc"
> 
> On the web, his main site is www.gak9.com
> 
> If you link to him on facebook, he'll send out videos and/or gps graphs of trails performed from time to time. He's a busy man these days.
> 
> Jim


Wow.

A find and you weren't competent. Restarting 3 times. You can go ahead and argue all you want...

You read your dog, and by the evidence you presented, you found the tracklayer. Successful trail.

*you airedale people are weird with your standards of will bite and wont bite. will trail wont trail.* 

No dog is ever "finished" or perfect. May be trained to a standard, but it's the leash-holder that gives them their head to do their job and puts together the clues.

Congrats and thanks for the link.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy

I think SWGDOG involved the leadership of various certifying agencies their statistics may give insight on reliability

Trailing expectation is 75% accuracy on scent discrimination

HRD is 90% CA/ NO false alerts - whaaaat! NONE?

Accellerant, Insects, Narcotics, Explosivs - 90% CA/ 10% FA

Avalance Folks must do 100% but disaster folks have to do 75%

Well it was a good idea. Guess the SWGDOG people did not try to standardize internally but it gives an idea that nobody except the avalanche folks expect perfection hahaha. See now that is where Jennifer is coming from.


----------



## Craig Snyder

Nancy Jocoy said:


> I think SWGDOG involved the leadership of various certifying agencies their statistics may give insight on reliability
> 
> Trailing expectation is 75% accuracy on scent discrimination
> 
> HRD is 90% CA/ NO false alerts - whaaaat! NONE?
> 
> Accellerant, Insects, Narcotics, Explosivs - 90% CA/ 10% FA
> 
> Avalance Folks must do 100% but disaster folks have to do 75%
> 
> Well it was a good idea. Guess the SWGDOG people did not try to standardize internally but it gives an idea that nobody except the avalanche folks expect perfection hahaha. See now that is where Jennifer is coming from.


I believe that NASAR certification does not allow any false alerts in HRD, or any other K9 certifications if I'm reading the certifying procedures correctly. They also specify that one of the test areas must be a no-scent area. That area is of course unknown to the candidate.

I also don't think the FEMA disaster testings allows for any false alerts.

Craig


----------



## Craig Snyder

I'm also with Jennifer. I don't think a week old trail is possible except maybe with an exceptional team and the most favorable of weather conditions. Even then I'd say it's unlikely.

The two BH teams that I would trust, both had their BH's trained to give a positive indication when there was no scent. I.e. at the PLS when they were trying to locate a scent and none was found and if during the track, the BH lost the scent.

Craig


----------



## Nancy Jocoy

Craig Snyder said:


> I believe that NASAR certification does not allow any false alerts in HRD, or any other K9 certifications if I'm reading the certifying procedures correctly. They also specify that one of the test areas must be a no-scent area. That area is of course unknown to the candidate.
> 
> I also don't think the FEMA disaster testings allows for any false alerts.
> 
> Craig


No..just referencing the SWGDOG number if I don't list false alert they do not mention it. NAPWDA allows 1 miss out of 12 hides and a miss is EITHER a miss OR a false alert and a blank area (which has been, in my recent tests, that you are given 5 rooms to search and 2 have hides but you have to "Call" the room when you exit and can't go back. So those are unknown blank areas. The think about a false indication in HR is that human "remains" are everywhere so you have to be very sure you area is "clean" as someone can cut a hand and leave blood you may not know about etc.

For ongoing training and documentation is where I gather the rates are more significant.


----------



## Jim Delbridge

*Re: What the skeptics say:*



Dave Colborn said:


> Wow.
> 
> A find and you weren't competent. Restarting 3 times. You can go ahead and argue all you want...
> 
> You read your dog, and by the evidence you presented, you found the tracklayer. Successful trail.
> 
> *you airedale people are weird with your standards of will bite and wont bite. will trail wont trail.*
> 
> No dog is ever "finished" or perfect. May be trained to a standard, but it's the leash-holder that gives them their head to do their job and puts together the clues.
> 
> Congrats and thanks for the link.


Well, one trail does not a trail dog make regardless of breed. I've watched too many SAR teams declare themselves mission ready by one positive outcome. The more I do HRD, the more I realize there will always be a new situation/environment that I have trained for before. It's one of many reasons that I subject my dogs and myself to double blinds even when I suspect someone wants to make us look bad. As long as my dogs aren't screwed up, I don't worry about my ego or reputation if it means I'll get to add another twist. 

If I'd continued with that dog to where it could do mile(s) of trails double blind successfully and I was only the ticket to the show, not-the-director-of-the-search, then I might try to certify in trailing THEN deploy.

I like airedales because I find problem solvers to train amongst the breed despite conformation breeders. I strive to train the dog to the point that it will work despite me. A lot of breeds simply capitulate to the human too easily. I like attitude and tenacity which airedales tend to have in excess. One does have to have a sense of humor to work airedales though. In a vocation like HRD, a sense of humor is a must. All the various detectives, with multiple law enforcement agencies that I work with, do seem to agree that I have a twisted sense of humor and justice. Perhaps that's why I fit so well in Death investigation rather than rescue. I did tell some of the Airedale community a while back that I've learned that I'm a dog handler/trainer that likes Airedales. I am not an Airedale fan that trains/handles dogs. I'm seriously considering the next dog (if there is one) might come from cattle dogs. My wife continue to poo-poo this as so many of them are one-person dogs and my reply is always, "and this is different from all my airedales that you don't like?" *grin*

But, you're right. I've had labs, GSDs, a really great wolfdog, and pointers. While the wolfdog was a great friend, he only found HRD when he found it entertaining to show up the 'dales if he felt I was ignoring him. I've trained mals, dobies, JRTs, rotties, bloodhounds,mutts, and one duck dog. I'm wierd in that I demand a dog that loves/obsesses on the job for the job and I become the chauffer so they can go hunt. Breed doesn't really matter if the personality inside is right.

Ohhhhh, and I prefer to work my dogs off-lead if at all possible because in HRD the lead can be a very big liability. Sometimes safety requires it, but if at all possible I leave the scent expert to its job and I just manage the area.

Regards,

jim delbridge


----------



## Jim Engel

*Thanks for all the input.*

I am busy studying all of this, it does get to be a little complex.

I am reading "How to Train a Police Bloodhound" by Kevin Kocher

The things he talks about that I know a little bit about seem to ring
true, make sense.

The book as a whole, while a little bit of a selling job for their training
services, seems to be pretty realistic and reasonable.

What other book should I be reading?


----------



## Nancy Jocoy

Schettler has a book out -- on trailing training.
Kocher is an icon though. He is still traveling all over Europe now (I think he has MS or MD but keeps on ticking) - I know he also has a facebook page


----------



## john axe

a good book is by william tollhurst. below is the link to national police bloodhound assoc.

http://www.npba.com/


----------



## Sarah Platts

*Re: Thanks for all the input.*



Jim Engel said:


> I am busy studying all of this, it does get to be a little complex.
> 
> I am reading "How to Train a Police Bloodhound" by Kevin Kocher
> 
> The things he talks about that I know a little bit about seem to ring
> true, make sense.
> 
> The book as a whole, while a little bit of a selling job for their training
> services, seems to be pretty realistic and reasonable.
> 
> What other book should I be reading?


Jim, 

Please excuse, but are you reading books in order to be able to write your book?

Sarah


----------



## Jim Engel

*Re: Thanks for all the input.*



Sarah Platts said:


> Jim,
> 
> Please excuse, but are you reading books in order to be able to write your book?
> 
> Sarah



Yes, that is the usual procedure.


----------



## Sarah Platts

*Re: Thanks for all the input.*



Jim Engel said:


> Yes, that is the usual procedure.


Jim, 

Thanks, now I understand why you have a lot of confusion with your BH chapter. If you are trying to understand how BHs work, scent theory, and how they or any dog does it you really need to spend some time working with them. Normally people tend to do something, work with something, become good at it, and then decide to write a book to help others learn from their experiences. This helps to put theory in practical context with application. I read to further my understanding of what I know, have experienced, or to learn ways to finetune what I do. To just read but not undertake the actual physical, hands-on application usually causes some kind of disconnect with the student. They "know" it but don't know how to "apply" it or understand where the author is coming from when they are describing something. It's kinda like when, during the movie Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull, when the motor bike is skidding through the library, Dr Jones replys to a student's question that to be a good archaeologist, they have to get out of the library. Reading will only take you so far.

Sarah


----------



## Jim Engel

Sarah,

I do have some experience, and have put advanced tracking titles on dogs:

http://www.angelplace.net/dog/Jim EngelResume.htm

Perhaps you will share your resume with us, and perhaps even comply with
the forum rules and post it in the member bios section.

Best regards,
Jim


----------



## Sarah Platts

I can't get to the bios on this computer system but you can go to the website www.vk9sar.org which may answer some of your questions. 

I apologize if my observations are causing you to feel upset. They were kindy meant and per your request. 

Sarah

Sarah


----------

