Post by oksaradt on Jan 3, 2008 10:31:54 GMT -5
Unlike controlled searches where the handler has the dog on lead the majority of the time, most Search and Rescue/Recovery dogs are worked off-lead. I know of some teams that work their dogs on-lead, but not successfully(in my opinion). In rescue work, it's not uncommon for a dog to leave the handler's sight and work independently, drawn by scent. Again, there are always exceptions and I know of some dog teams where the handler just can't give up control of his/her dog to work out-of-sight. Most of the people I work with term such dogs as "titty babies" which is more a critique of the handler than the dog.
A rescue dog usually has to make three finds with any typical single-victim search. It has to find the victim, go back to collect the handler who has continued to move through the area, and find the victim a 2nd time, bringing the handler with them.
The work I do with my dogs requires the dog to accommodate the scent sources we are looking for in how tightly they search. If we are looking for recently dead, i.e. tissue in active decomposition, then the dog is basically given the same freedom as a rescue dog. I've observed my dogs 2-3 football field lengths away on scent of a decomp source without a concern. If we're looking for scattered skeletonized remains, the dog is most likely going to be working 30 to 40 feet away from me as I dictate the search grid pattern to insure we cover the area efficiently. If we're looking for historic or someone just has to see that (yes) my dogs can find a single tooth in the mud, then the dog and I will be in a cemetery-style grid where we're working a 6-8 foot lane, again all of this is off-lead.
Regardless of rescue or recovery work, the handler's job in a real search is to keep their eyes glued on their dog (as much as possible) to insure the area has been searched effectively. This means I must understand topography, multiple styles of maps that might (or not) be supplies, compass work, GPS work, weather conditions, canine athletics (is my dog dehydrated, healthy, focused...yada yada). When working my dog, my job is keep my eyes on my dog as much as possible. The dog is the star and the dog will find the remains, not me.
To accomplish this task effectively, well-trained scouts or flankers are critical in an effective search. When I'm with my local civilian SAR team, I scout for the live-find dogs and those handlers scout for me on recovery searches. In training, we do this all the time to learn each others' dogs and ways of working. If I have a scout or flanker I can trust, I have no problem with them warning me of impending doom if I'm about to step off into a gully while I watch my dog on a rise.....that's their job....keep me safe and use their eyes on everything else. They deal with the radio. They keep a log if necessary. They flag potential clues. I do the dog....that's it. Now, often times I get a new or green flanker/scout and I end up having to train as we go OR I get assigned a deputy or officer that's more used to the streets than the backwoods. If that's the case, I'll try to get a second flanker so they can keep up and I can just work my dog.
The best thing about using L.E. as scouts or flankers is they can think about the crime scene agenda. They will know the bad guy (if there is one) much better than I and will know his/her habits. They can think about the trivial matters such as if the bad guy had a favorite place to go (or in the case of suicides where the "pretty spots" are as often times suicides want to go out with something nice to look at).
Now, if my DOGS have taken me to an area exhibiting scent behavior and appear flummoxed THEN I may give pause and look around. The dog is working on the problem, it's not going anywhere. I know what to look for as far as clandestine and organized graves. Normally, I'll again point this out to my flankers and let them look with this in mind and I can again stay focused on my dogs.
Why am I harping on this?
Several reasons:
There have been cases in the courts lately where the case was lost because of the dog handling and misinterpretations by the handlers. It is very VERY common for dog handlers to get something in their heads as to where remains are. They've watched way too much CSI soap operas or they've been told some killers look for something so they assume all killers like certain spots. If it was that easy, the dogs wouldn't be necessary. L.E. would simply target those spots. In my investigative work this is best phrased as working the evidence with foregone conclusions, i.e. I've already decided what happened and so, I'm just going to look for the evidence that confirms it.......bad bad police work.
Recently, dogs' responses were used by the prosecution in lieu of evidence. This boggled my mind because I consider my dogs as simply one tool in the L.E. arsenal. My dogs are not Rin Tin Tin. They are trained to show me the presence of human remains. They are trained not to disturb those remains in doing this. Sooooo, my dog does its trained display of getting its moronic handler's attention to say, "hey stooopid, that scent you like so much is here......right here! HEY are you watching?!!!" My dogs are trained to stick with a source a minimum of a minute...called commitment...even if I blow them off. If I tell them to "Leave it!" then I truly am a moronic handler as they are only doing what I've trained them to do.
Soooo, my dog has indicated something is there. I flag it, my scout or flanker contacts whomever is in charge, and they send in someone to recover it. It's not uncommon for me to never see what my dog indicated on. If it's a grave, authorities may excavate the right way by carefully, painstakingly using trowels from the side so that the actual grave stays pristine. This can take days if done right. They don't need the dog once they know where the grave is.
So, why would a prosecutor and law enforcement fail in recovering the evidence that the dogs suggested was there. ATF Arson dogs are the only dogs I know that currently have the status that if they indicate on someone or something that it's insured that accelerant was present. To achieve this status, those dogs make fifty confirmed finds every day of their career. If their handler goes on vacation, the dog is handed off to a different handler for that time to continue working. ATF dogs get their daily meal by their rewards for finds. No other working dogs have this distinction.
So, with all that soap boxing, my point is the dog handler is best served to have trained, alert, informed scouts/flankers and just work their dog, nothing more, nothing less. That means let the dogs tell you where scent is (IF ANY) and the handler makes sure the dog worked the entire area (up to three times completely from different directions, wind, sun, etc.)
I have a SAR Tech II rating with NASAR that basically states I passed a simple test years back that says I can survive in the woods, navigate in the woods, and be an asset at a search. I think all search dog handlers should be equally trained and that all search dog handlers should double as flankers/scouts when they are not working their dogs. You learn loads watching other dog teams work and I always pick something new up from other handlers regardless of their expertise or experience level.
What we AS dog handlers SHOULD NOT do is try to do law enforcement's job of trying to figure out where our find is with the dog simply being secondary. It's been my experience that this takes years for dog handlers to learn as we always want to solve the puzzle ourselves.
Let the scout do his/her job and we should do the best we can simply handling the dog.
Stay safe,
Jim
A rescue dog usually has to make three finds with any typical single-victim search. It has to find the victim, go back to collect the handler who has continued to move through the area, and find the victim a 2nd time, bringing the handler with them.
The work I do with my dogs requires the dog to accommodate the scent sources we are looking for in how tightly they search. If we are looking for recently dead, i.e. tissue in active decomposition, then the dog is basically given the same freedom as a rescue dog. I've observed my dogs 2-3 football field lengths away on scent of a decomp source without a concern. If we're looking for scattered skeletonized remains, the dog is most likely going to be working 30 to 40 feet away from me as I dictate the search grid pattern to insure we cover the area efficiently. If we're looking for historic or someone just has to see that (yes) my dogs can find a single tooth in the mud, then the dog and I will be in a cemetery-style grid where we're working a 6-8 foot lane, again all of this is off-lead.
Regardless of rescue or recovery work, the handler's job in a real search is to keep their eyes glued on their dog (as much as possible) to insure the area has been searched effectively. This means I must understand topography, multiple styles of maps that might (or not) be supplies, compass work, GPS work, weather conditions, canine athletics (is my dog dehydrated, healthy, focused...yada yada). When working my dog, my job is keep my eyes on my dog as much as possible. The dog is the star and the dog will find the remains, not me.
To accomplish this task effectively, well-trained scouts or flankers are critical in an effective search. When I'm with my local civilian SAR team, I scout for the live-find dogs and those handlers scout for me on recovery searches. In training, we do this all the time to learn each others' dogs and ways of working. If I have a scout or flanker I can trust, I have no problem with them warning me of impending doom if I'm about to step off into a gully while I watch my dog on a rise.....that's their job....keep me safe and use their eyes on everything else. They deal with the radio. They keep a log if necessary. They flag potential clues. I do the dog....that's it. Now, often times I get a new or green flanker/scout and I end up having to train as we go OR I get assigned a deputy or officer that's more used to the streets than the backwoods. If that's the case, I'll try to get a second flanker so they can keep up and I can just work my dog.
The best thing about using L.E. as scouts or flankers is they can think about the crime scene agenda. They will know the bad guy (if there is one) much better than I and will know his/her habits. They can think about the trivial matters such as if the bad guy had a favorite place to go (or in the case of suicides where the "pretty spots" are as often times suicides want to go out with something nice to look at).
Now, if my DOGS have taken me to an area exhibiting scent behavior and appear flummoxed THEN I may give pause and look around. The dog is working on the problem, it's not going anywhere. I know what to look for as far as clandestine and organized graves. Normally, I'll again point this out to my flankers and let them look with this in mind and I can again stay focused on my dogs.
Why am I harping on this?
Several reasons:
There have been cases in the courts lately where the case was lost because of the dog handling and misinterpretations by the handlers. It is very VERY common for dog handlers to get something in their heads as to where remains are. They've watched way too much CSI soap operas or they've been told some killers look for something so they assume all killers like certain spots. If it was that easy, the dogs wouldn't be necessary. L.E. would simply target those spots. In my investigative work this is best phrased as working the evidence with foregone conclusions, i.e. I've already decided what happened and so, I'm just going to look for the evidence that confirms it.......bad bad police work.
Recently, dogs' responses were used by the prosecution in lieu of evidence. This boggled my mind because I consider my dogs as simply one tool in the L.E. arsenal. My dogs are not Rin Tin Tin. They are trained to show me the presence of human remains. They are trained not to disturb those remains in doing this. Sooooo, my dog does its trained display of getting its moronic handler's attention to say, "hey stooopid, that scent you like so much is here......right here! HEY are you watching?!!!" My dogs are trained to stick with a source a minimum of a minute...called commitment...even if I blow them off. If I tell them to "Leave it!" then I truly am a moronic handler as they are only doing what I've trained them to do.
Soooo, my dog has indicated something is there. I flag it, my scout or flanker contacts whomever is in charge, and they send in someone to recover it. It's not uncommon for me to never see what my dog indicated on. If it's a grave, authorities may excavate the right way by carefully, painstakingly using trowels from the side so that the actual grave stays pristine. This can take days if done right. They don't need the dog once they know where the grave is.
So, why would a prosecutor and law enforcement fail in recovering the evidence that the dogs suggested was there. ATF Arson dogs are the only dogs I know that currently have the status that if they indicate on someone or something that it's insured that accelerant was present. To achieve this status, those dogs make fifty confirmed finds every day of their career. If their handler goes on vacation, the dog is handed off to a different handler for that time to continue working. ATF dogs get their daily meal by their rewards for finds. No other working dogs have this distinction.
So, with all that soap boxing, my point is the dog handler is best served to have trained, alert, informed scouts/flankers and just work their dog, nothing more, nothing less. That means let the dogs tell you where scent is (IF ANY) and the handler makes sure the dog worked the entire area (up to three times completely from different directions, wind, sun, etc.)
I have a SAR Tech II rating with NASAR that basically states I passed a simple test years back that says I can survive in the woods, navigate in the woods, and be an asset at a search. I think all search dog handlers should be equally trained and that all search dog handlers should double as flankers/scouts when they are not working their dogs. You learn loads watching other dog teams work and I always pick something new up from other handlers regardless of their expertise or experience level.
What we AS dog handlers SHOULD NOT do is try to do law enforcement's job of trying to figure out where our find is with the dog simply being secondary. It's been my experience that this takes years for dog handlers to learn as we always want to solve the puzzle ourselves.
Let the scout do his/her job and we should do the best we can simply handling the dog.
Stay safe,
Jim