Real Search/Real Questions

[terrierlvr]

Jim, I want to run something past you and get your feedback. Feedback from others is also welcomed!

A county in Colorado recently called in some HRD dogs to possibly locate a man whom, they believed, committed suicide. I will state only the facts, as I know them, and the findings, as I have been relayed them, and then I would like your comments, questions, concerns.

Person missing was a 51 year old male, who was reported missing last November in a mountainous area, fairly close to a lake. Car was found a month later at a specific lake area, after the area was closing for the season. No suicide note, and "indirect communications" that he may have killed himself.

Three weeks ago, a county agency was scouting the area and found a boot and a sock, a 1/2 kilometer away from the car area which "looked like the victim's." Not sure what that means.

This weekend, in order to gather more info/provide closure to family, three dogs were brought in to help locate any human remains. Two dogs are NAPWDA certified. I do not know about the third, but assume some certification. All three dogs are cross trained and/or certified in air scent. Law enforcement did not seem to care about that, or any certification at all. They were very appreciative of the help.
Dogs were assigned different areas to search. Two were placed in the "high probability area" where the car and the "boot" were found. The third dog was placed in a different area. These first two dogs "showed consistent high interest" in this area and "one dog alerted twice." At area of alert, no visible remains were found. Additional clothing items were found, but were determined to NOT be related to the victim. Bones were also found and a coroner was called in but he determined they were animal bones. Dogs did not alert on the bones.
The third dog was brought to the area where the first two dogs were and that dog also showed "strong interest" in the area but did NOT alert.
I know I am a newbie ( and I was not involved in this search in any way) but I have questions and concerns. Questions.........if a dog alerts in a setting such as this, how the heck can you ensure that the dog is not FALSE alerting, when there is no clear evidence of any HRD? I suppose the dog could be alerting on embedded ground scent, but would it be reasonable to want to try and verify that? If you have never ever seen this dog work before, and nobody else has really seen this dog work before, and you do not train with/around this dog on a regular basis, my first suspicion is that THIS dog is false alerting, and the other two dogs are "spot on" by NOT alerting? How would one know that?

The dog that false alerted was not being handled by her primary trainer. She was handled by that person's partner, who does not train this endeavor with the dog. What kind of issues, either training or legal or whatever does this raise? Is this an unusual scenario to have somebody do this or no? I don't believe I have heard that one before.

I see this as a GREAT learning experience and it also makes me realize how little knowledge there is on this subject, on the part of law enforcement as well as many SAR folks. You and I both know that or future in SAR is in finding the dead. The living are saving themselves, with GPS, tracking devices, cells, etc.
I think this is going to be a real eye opener for many people I train with. Really appreciate your comments or questions, which I will be happy to answer.
Oh, and the search is over.
Thanks, Jim. Bonnie

[terrierlvr]

<<The dog that false alerted was not being handled by her primary trainer. >>
My mistake. I meant to say "alerted", not false alerted.

[oksaradt]

Jim, I want to run something past you and get your feedback. Feedback from others is also welcomed!

A county in Colorado recently called in some HRD dogs to possibly locate a man whom, they believed, committed suicide. I will state only the facts, as I know them, and the findings, as I have been relayed them, and then I would like your comments, questions, concerns.


>>>
First, start seeing every search as a potential crime scene. In the future, if you want me to comment on something, I’d prefer you email me directly about it. Discussing a case at all with anyone can get an HRD dog handlers in trouble as well as jeopardize the case against any future bad guys. I understand the need to learn, but discretion is the rule. I rarely talk about any searches I do except in general terms when teaching and then I change facts to make sure no one can work back to an ongoing investigation. It’s just better not to talk about cases. I never advertise when I've done searches. I see teams that do this on their websites. This tends to demonstrate how few searches they really get and it opens them up for all sorts of litigation if a search goes to court. One's logs should be enough.

<<<<<


Person missing was a 51 year old male, who was reported missing last November in a mountainous area, fairly close to a lake. Car was found a month later at a specific lake area, after the area was closing for the season. No suicide note, and "indirect communications" that he may have killed himself.

>>>>>>


So, if it’s assumed the fellow died, unless he was buried then we’re considering skeletal remains and most likely scattered skeletal remains.

<<<<<<




Three weeks ago, a county agency was scouting the area and found a boot and a sock, a 1/2 kilometer away from the car area which "looked like the victim's." Not sure what that means.


>>>>>

Sock and boot have remains in them? If not then this is just a clue and an obscure one unless his name is written in his boot or he buys rare boots.

<<<<<<

This weekend, in order to gather more info/provide closure to family, three dogs were brought in to help locate any human remains. Two dogs are NAPWDA certified. I do not know about the third, but assume some certification. All three dogs are cross trained and/or certified in air scent. Law enforcement did not seem to care about that, or any certification at all. They were very appreciative of the help.
Dogs were assigned different areas to search. Two were placed in the "high probability area" where the car and the "boot" were found. The third dog was placed in a different area. These first two dogs "showed consistent high interest" in this area and "one dog alerted twice." At area of alert, no visible remains were found.
>>>>>

“Interest” is a very dangerous concept. “Interest” can mean the dog exhibited scent behavior of some kind. Does “interest” mean it was human remains scent behavior or critter behavior or does the handler have a clue?


“The dog alerted twice”…..does the dog alert in scent rather than at a source?

What is the dog’s alert?

Did the handler ask for closer or is there no targeting trained on the dog because it’s primarily used for live finds and they can see their victims…… Targeting is essential for any human remains work for just this reason.

Did the dog suggest buried? Did the dog suggest in the water?

Basically you have cause to bring in a real HRD dog and nothing more IF the handler of the cross-dog can explain what their dog is doing. An alert with no information is sometimes worse than no alert at all.

<<<<<<<







Additional clothing items were found, but were determined to NOT be related to the victim. Bones were also found and a coroner was called in but he determined they were animal bones. Dogs did not alert on the bones.

>>>>>>

The clothes were either a product of someone spotting them or a case of the cross-trained dogs hitting on scent articles. It’s comforting the dogs ignored the animal bones.

<<<<<<





The third dog was brought to the area where the first two dogs were and that dog also showed "strong interest" in the area but did NOT alert.
I know I am a newbie ( and I was not involved in this search in any way) but I have questions and concerns. Questions.........if a dog alerts in a setting such as this, how the heck can you ensure that the dog is not FALSE alerting, when there is no clear evidence of any HRD?

>>>>>>

What is clear evidence of HRD? I work lots of searches where I never get to see my find. I flag and move on. Sometimes I’m asked to bring my dog back to help recover the remains. That’s why a target is essential.
If this was a clandestine burial, you’d see signs of the burial with only 7 months in the ground. If remains were in the water, get a boat and a dog that can target on water. If the remains were high…such as someone climbing a tree to kill themselves, the dog should be doing look-ups, jump ups, something that communicates to the handler that the scent is coming from above. A dog that indicates in scent-only must be trained to get as close as possible to the strongest collection of scent and demonstrate its inability to reach the source by attempting to get closer. If someone is buried, it’s common for a dog to plaster it’s nose to the ground, suck in hard, then indicate. That’s pretty plain that the scent is underground. If the scent is in the water, you often see snorkeling or the dog is trying to retrieve the source if it can wade. If you are in a boat, the dog indicates at the strongest point. The dog must MUST be taught to communicate in a way that it’s obvious to not only it’s handler but to those law enforcement with it.


<<<<<<




I suppose the dog could be alerting on embedded ground scent, but would it be reasonable to want to try and verify that? If you have never ever seen this dog work before, and nobody else has really seen this dog work before, and you do not train with/around this dog on a regular basis, my first suspicion is that THIS dog is false alerting, and the other two dogs are "spot on" by NOT alerting? How would one know that?

>>>>>>>

ANY TIME you have one dog alert, you still bring that dog in from another direction and see if the dog does it again. If the dog repeats, THEN you tell that dog team to go away and bring in another dog team that has no clue what is going on. You ask that dog team to work the area WITHOUT suggesting anything. You watch that dog, no alert. You said you have three dog teams, then get the last and do the same. This is common practice. My first dog, Dax, always had to go last on checks as she’d bark at the source. If the other handlers could hear her bark then they might talk their dogs into something. Checks MUST BE BLIND for any subsequent dog teams. Walk in telling the next dog team, “yea, we got a hit.” …..well, you have just screwed the pooch on any objective finding. What you have done is tell the new dog team, “we have a find…..you better get a find…” On many dog handlers, they are not secure enough in their training not to talk their dog into something whether there is anything or not, so this can make matters worse and you have addition hits where the last one didn’t… It becomes a FUBAR very quickly.

The dog teams must be kept clueless from what each other has done. They can find out later at a debrief. I’ve been on lots of searches where we were sequestered away from each other for this very reason. It keeps you honest and has to be done.




<<<<<<



The dog that alerted was not being handled by her primary trainer. She was handled by that person's partner, who does not train this endeavor with the dog. What kind of issues, either training or legal or whatever does this raise? Is this an unusual scenario to have somebody do this or no? I don't believe I have heard that one before.


>>>>>>

Basically this dog team was worthless. Certifications are on DOG TEAMS, not on dogs. That dog team should not have deployed no matter how good their intentions were. I can work lots of handlers’ dogs just fine, but I won’t. Especially on HRD work, the scent can sometimes be so subtle that the handler and dog have to know each other very well or lots of issues will arise. If this dog handler wishes to do this in the future, then he/she needs to cert/test/whatever with this dog as well. If this went to court and this dog team was the one that caused remains to be found, a person to be arrested, search warrants to be issued, yada yada yada…then it could all be thrown out by the judge as “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree”. It depends on the judge and how good the lawyers are.


<<<<<<

I see this as a GREAT learning experience and it also makes me realize how little knowledge there is on this subject, on the part of law enforcement as well as many SAR folks. You and I both know that or future in SAR is in finding the dead. The living are saving themselves, with GPS, tracking devices, cells, etc.
I think this is going to be a real eye opener for many people I train with. Really appreciate your comments or questions, which I will be happy to answer.
Oh, and the search is over.
Thanks, Jim. Bonnie


>>>>>

I have no problem discussing this issue, but in the future drop out any references that can point to a possible on-going case. The discussion is best kept in the hypothetical.

Regards,

Jim

[doylecpd]

Wow...Jim, thank you. That was incredibly insightful!!! I'm personally not interested in SAR work but I really enjoy reading just about everything you post!

Thanks again for sharing your expertise here!

Chad

[terrierlvr]

<<First, start seeing every search as a potential crime scene. >>

When you are in a scenario, called in by a law enforcement agency, wouldn't it be up to them to treat the area like a crime scene?

<<So, if it’s assumed the fellow died, unless he was buried then we’re considering skeletal remains and most likely scattered skeletal remains.>>
Yes. It is high altitude. We have had a very cool/rainy spring and alot of snow in the mountains throughout the winter. My understanding is that there is a fair amount of summer pedestrian traffic in good weather, thus the propensity for clothing items, debris.


<<Sock and boot have remains in them? If not then this is just a clue and an obscure one unless his name is written in his boot or he buys rare boots.>>

No, no remains. Just a boot/sock.

>> “Interest” can mean the dog exhibited scent behavior of some kind. Does “interest” mean it was human remains scent behavior or critter behavior or does the handler have a clue?>>

I do not know. I have never seen this dog work.


<<“The dog alerted twice”…..does the dog alert in scent rather than at a source? >>

I actually don't know that either as I have not seen this dog train/work. Could be either.


<<What is the dog’s alert?>>
Don't know that either.

<<Did the handler ask for closer or is there no targeting trained on the dog because it’s primarily used for live finds and they can see their victims…… Targeting is essential for any human remains work for just this reason.>>
I don't know, honestly. I don't believe there was any targeting done.


<<Did the dog suggest buried? Did the dog suggest in the water? >>
Neither, that I am aware of. I do know that the two dogs that did NOT alert, were "interested" in the area.

<<Basically you have cause to bring in a real HRD dog and nothing more IF the handler of the cross-dog can explain what their dog is doing. An alert with no information is sometimes worse than no alert at all.>>

Your last statement is what puzzles me. I am trying to put myself in the same place. If I were out on a search such as this, and my dog alerted, what would I do and what would that mean? If there is no plan for any type follow up by law enforcement, what does an alert really mean? Since you can't DISPROVE that your dog alerted correctly, where does that leave a team?
I have watched videos of teams who have alerted, marked the spot and moved on. I know you do this as well, as I recall. Clearly, to be at this level, you trust your dog. I am very close to that, trusting Porter. I need many more blinds done by many more people.
I guess I am wondering what it looks like, what it really means, when you have dogs who don't alert and one dog who does.


<<The clothes were either a product of someone spotting them or a case of the cross-trained dogs hitting on scent articles. It’s comforting the dogs ignored the animal bones.>>

Yes, very comforting on the animal bones. Of course, there was no charred mouse out there ;D



<<What is clear evidence of HRD? I work lots of searches where I never get to see my find. I flag and move on. Sometimes I’m asked to bring my dog back to help recover the remains. That’s why a target is essential.>>
Ok, that is what i mean.......when your dog has identified and you have flagged, is there always follow up on those areas of alert? Are you informed/advised after that fact if, indeed, the alert was spot on?


<<If this was a clandestine burial, you’d see signs of the burial with only 7 months in the ground. If remains were in the water, get a boat and a dog that can target on water. If the remains were high…such as someone climbing a tree to kill themselves, the dog should be doing look-ups, jump ups, something that communicates to the handler that the scent is coming from above. >>
I don't think anybody really knows.


<< Checks MUST BE BLIND for any subsequent dog teams. Walk in telling the next dog team, “yea, we got a hit.” …..well, you have just screwed the pooch on any objective finding. What you have done is tell the new dog team, “we have a find…..you better get a find…” >>

I am sure this was not done. The other teams called in were not prepped.

<<The dog teams must be kept clueless from what each other has done. They can find out later at a debrief. I’ve been on lots of searches where we were sequestered away from each other for this very reason. It keeps you honest and has to be done.>>

I believe this was done.

I guess my lingering questions are in a scenario where you have one or more dogs who alert, and other dogs who don't.
My INITIAL thought is.....when one dog does, and others don't, there is a training issue somewhere. All qualified/certified dogs should alert, no?
As always, thanks for your valuable insight.

[oksaradt]

<<First, start seeing every search as a potential crime scene. >>

When you are in a scenario, called in by a law enforcement agency, wouldn't it be up to them to treat the area like a crime scene?
>>>>>
Sometimes LE calls in dogs to show the family they are doing something with little expectations. Dax’s very first find was a search just like this. A game ranger had walked the area in a tight grid three times. He never walked near the area under ground level the find was in. The area had been searched countless hours by lots of man power. Two dogs, mine and another HRD dog literally ran when we started them. The remains were 150 yards from the road in some thick woods. I left my dog with the other handler and walked to locate the law enforcement so they could treat it however they wished. They literally dumped their coffee on themselves when I knocked on the window and said we had their lost person. As the person had warrants out, it went from a lost person to a crime scene.

We never know how our “victim” became a “victim.” We suppose they got lost, fell, tripped, wandered into the lake, yada yada yada, BUT there is always the chance that someone else caused our victim to become the victim by foul play. Even if you are looking for a “lost live child”, there is always the chance even when the child is found that the child is where it is because of foul play. ALWAYS Always assume it could become a crime scene even if LE does not. That’s the nature of HRD and should be the nature of any search. What if you walk into a marijuana patch while searching? They are known to be laden with booby traps and we are trained to walk about backwards exactly as we went in…another crime scene.

The point is none of us know, so we should be trained to treat all searches the same.

<<<<<






<<“The dog alerted twice”…..does the dog alert in scent rather than at a source? >>

I actually don't know that either as I have not seen this dog train/work. Could be either.


<<What is the dog’s alert?>>
Don't know that either.


>>>>>>
Ya know, it would probably get you in hot water with the powers that be, but ask them if you can set up a skeletal blind for the dogs to work. If they felt qualified to go out to search for HRs, they shouldn’t have a problem working a blind to show they were justified in their opinions.


Bet they don’t take you up on it though.
<<<<<<





<<Did the handler ask for closer or is there no targeting trained on the dog because it’s primarily used for live finds and they can see their victims…… Targeting is essential for any human remains work for just this reason.>>
I don't know, honestly. I don't believe there was any targeting done.


<<Did the dog suggest buried? Did the dog suggest in the water? >>
Neither, that I am aware of. I do know that the two dogs that did NOT alert, were "interested" in the area.

>>>>>>
Gotta tell ya, “interest” is a word used by handlers that were in over their head. IF my dog exhibits “scent behavior” then we investigate that behavior. The dog has to make a call, “IS IT HRS OR NOT??!! C’mon Dog, make the call. YOU ARE the Scent Expert! That’s what all that training on HRs were for.”

The crux of the entire problem are none of these dog teams were trained for the task they were asked to do. When dog teams claim “interest” and can’t explain it then they are in over their head. Remember how we forced the dog handlers to tell us what was going on with scent by how their dogs reacted. Many dog teams don’t do this. They train to elevated no higher than six feet, surface, and shallow buried, usually just decomp. They don’t try to train to for all the situations that can happen yet they have no inhibitions going out to search in such situations. This goes back to the saying, “Search as your Train and Train as you search”. If you haven’t exposed your dog to scattered skeletal remains searches, should you agree to go do such a thing? If you’ve never been on such a search either, then it’s the blind leading the blind and we’re all hoping for “Lassie rescued Timmy from the well.”

<<<<


Your last statement is what puzzles me. I am trying to put myself in the same place. If I were out on a search such as this, and my dog alerted, what would I do and what would that mean? If there is no plan for any type follow up by law enforcement, what does an alert really mean? Since you can't DISPROVE that your dog alerted correctly, where does that leave a team?

>>>>
If all the dogs train on the same team, the same materials, the same way, THEN they should either be able to make the same finds AND/OR make the same mistakes.
BUT, many dog teams are susceptible to problems such as the dog is asked to work longer than normal. The dog’s handler ALWAYS has a find for the dog within ….say 30 minutes….the dog doesn’t get the reward when it thinks it’s due, so it starts to *sigh* guess. Usually, dogs that guess were taught to do so by their handlers (unconsciously) as the dog might have been close and the handler wanted it to win.
Handlers can screw up their dogs in all sorts of ways. This is why we work blinds as a check to see if THE HANDLER IS SCREWING UP and to see if the dog can do what the handler claims he/she can do.

As for the “check” against other dogs. Let’s say only one dog team does a definitive alert and target…(NOT INTEREST). The handler says, “I’d really be happy if you ran other dogs over this area.” (this happens and it’s always great to have a back-up to check you). So, the other two dogs don’t find anything. What’s this mean?

IT could mean:

1) The first dog was right and the other two dogs weren’t.
2) The first dog was guessing and the other two dogs didn’t.
3) Scent conditions changed after the first dog and LE and the other handlers don’t recognize this. Who is to say the scent the first dog hit on wasn’t being carried in from somewhere else, but the dog doesn’t know how to work out of scent traps, scent voids, etc. The handler isn’t experienced enough to spiral out to see if there is more scent to be had.
4) The first handler cued his/her dog without knowing it. The other two dog handlers prevented their dogs from doing anything by their stress. I’ve seen dogs trained on fresh earth that all swore a find was there were the first dog PAWED. The handlers would swear by their dogs because they never knew to dig and proof off of blank holes.
5) Gotchas…without being there, I’ll continue to be guessing.

Many times LE watches all the dogs, says, “thanks for coming”, digs where the dog “HAD INTEREST”. If they find something, the first dog was great and the others sucked. If they found nothing, ……. they’ll privately label the one dog as “not to be called back” OR if it comes back with a team, they’ll probably try to put that dog team where they don’t think anything is. This is a bad option as sometimes the find is made where no one thought they’d be.

It comes down to this, there should be no wishy-washy in a search. If the dog shows “maybe”…get the dog out of there and run other dogs through the area without any clues. We train our dogs to commit to HRs scent. It could be the scent was a window of HRs that the dog has never seen because the handler only trains on decomp or blood or whatever. The more windows of decomposition that I can introduce my dogs to from fresh to nearly bone dust with as many increments in between….well, someday I’ll be happy, but we strive to find more in-betweens.


<<<<<



I have watched videos of teams who have alerted, marked the spot and moved on. I know you do this as well, as I recall. Clearly, to be at this level, you trust your dog. I am very close to that, trusting Porter. I need many more blinds done by many more people.
I guess I am wondering what it looks like, what it really means, when you have dogs who don't alert and one dog who does.


>>>

It happens a lot more than people like to talk about and it almost always demonstrates either a lack of training or a disparity in training.

<<<






<<What is clear evidence of HRD? I work lots of searches where I never get to see my find. I flag and move on. Sometimes I’m asked to bring my dog back to help recover the remains. That’s why a target is essential.>>
Ok, that is what i mean.......when your dog has identified and you have flagged, is there always follow up on those areas of alert? Are you informed/advised after that fact if, indeed, the alert was spot on?

>>>>
*laugh* It’s much more common that you never know rather than you find out. This is not a stress-free career that you’ve chosen for your dog. I’ve had cases years old where I get called out again and ask, “what ever happened to that search?” Sometimes I find out. That they called me back out….that usually implies my dogs and I didn’t screw up.
My dog is a resource no different than a Ground Penetrating Radar. Many times those tools will run over a location and an interpreter will say, “welllllll, you could have a body there.” I do my job and leave. I’ve handed my officers another piece of the puzzle and it’s for them to decide what to do with it whether that means we found nothing or we put out some flags.


<<<<




I guess my lingering questions are in a scenario where you have one or more dogs who alert, and other dogs who don't.
My INITIAL thought is.....when one dog does, and others don't, there is a training issue somewhere. All qualified/certified dogs should alert, no?
As always, thanks for your valuable insight.



>>>>>

Your assumption is correct except if environment changes. I’ve shown you conditions can promote scent diffusion for the dog’s nose or inhibit it. I set Murphy up this morning with problems I knew would drive him crazy in trying to target simply by using the environment. My goal was to get his drive to work through it rather than just jump there and bark in frustration that he had scent but couldn’t figure out from where. Problems like these I don’t even unleash on the advanced dog students at a seminar as they would decide I was an evil *&^^%$#$%^& whose only intent was to make both their dogs and their head hurt. I do it with my dogs so I can drop that flag with confidence and move on. It’s all about training with checks and balances.

Jim

<<<<<<

[terrierlvr]

<<Sometimes LE calls in dogs to show the family they are doing something with little expectations.>>
I am sure this was the case.

<< Dax’s very first find was a search just like this. A game ranger had walked the area in a tight grid three times. He never walked near the area under ground level the find was in. The area had been searched countless hours by lots of man power. Two dogs, mine and another HRD dog literally ran when we started them. The remains were 150 yards from the road in some thick woods. I left my dog with the other handler and walked to locate the law enforcement so they could treat it however they wished. They literally dumped their coffee on themselves when I knocked on the window and said we had their lost person. As the person had warrants out, it went from a lost person to a crime scene.>>
The power of the dog's nose is an amazing thing! Would loved to have seen their faces


<<We never know how our “victim” became a “victim.” We suppose they got lost, fell, tripped, wandered into the lake, yada yada yada, BUT there is always the chance that someone else caused our victim to become the victim by foul play. Even if you are looking for a “lost live child”, there is always the chance even when the child is found that the child is where it is because of foul play. ALWAYS Always assume it could become a crime scene even if LE does not. That’s the nature of HRD and should be the nature of any search. What if you walk into a marijuana patch while searching? They are known to be laden with booby traps and we are trained to walk about backwards exactly as we went in…another crime scene.>>

This makes total sense to me. It turns out there were EIGHT DOGS that day searching. EIGHT. Enough to have a Brad Dennis type person running the operation, I would think, but not sure there is anybody like that to do this.
I know the cops don't really care about certification, etc. but it surely should be something that SAR folks are aware of and should be concerned about. By many folks, HRD is considered a little "job to do on the side".


<<Ya know, it would probably get you in hot water with the powers that be, but ask them if you can set up a skeletal blind for the dogs to work. If they felt qualified to go out to search for HRs, they shouldn’t have a problem working a blind to show they were justified in their opinions.>>
Ha ha. I don't think that is about to happen any time soon. I occasionally go early for practice and set stuff up for the one other person who does this. There are no other takers.


<<Bet they don’t take you up on it though.>>
Bingo.

<<Gotta tell ya, “interest” is a word used by handlers that were in over their head. IF my dog exhibits “scent behavior” then we investigate that behavior. The dog has to make a call, “IS IT HRS OR NOT??!! C’mon Dog, make the call. YOU ARE the Scent Expert! That’s what all that training on HRs were for.”>>

AMEN. I cringe when people use the word "interest". I can see when MY dog has picked up scent in a specific area and I know there is something close by, but it doesn't mean a damned thing til he finds it.


The crux of the entire problem are none of these dog teams were trained for the task they were asked to do. When dog teams claim “interest” and can’t explain it then they are in over their head. Remember how we forced the dog handlers to tell us what was going on with scent by how their dogs reacted. Many dog teams don’t do this. They train to elevated no higher than six feet, surface, and shallow buried, usually just decomp. They don’t try to train to for all the situations that can happen yet they have no inhibitions going out to search in such situations. This goes back to the saying, “Search as your Train and Train as you search”. If you haven’t exposed your dog to scattered skeletal remains searches, should you agree to go do such a thing? If you’ve never been on such a search either, then it’s the blind leading the blind and we’re all hoping for “Lassie rescued Timmy from the well.”



<<If all the dogs train on the same team, the same materials, the same way, THEN they should either be able to make the same finds AND/OR make the same mistakes.>>

There were dogs from other teams but two are from the same. these two dogs NEVER train together.


<<Handlers can screw up their dogs in all sorts of ways. This is why we work blinds as a check to see if THE HANDLER IS SCREWING UP and to see if the dog can do what the handler claims he/she can do.>>

Yup. We're on the same page.


<<As for the “check” against other dogs. Let’s say only one dog team does a definitive alert and target…(NOT INTEREST). The handler says, “I’d really be happy if you ran other dogs over this area.” (this happens and it’s always great to have a back-up to check you). So, the other two dogs don’t find anything. What’s this mean?

IT could mean:

1) The first dog was right and the other two dogs weren’t.
2) The first dog was guessing and the other two dogs didn’t.
3) Scent conditions changed after the first dog and LE and the other handlers don’t recognize this. Who is to say the scent the first dog hit on wasn’t being carried in from somewhere else, but the dog doesn’t know how to work out of scent traps, scent voids, etc. The handler isn’t experienced enough to spiral out to see if there is more scent to be had.
4) The first handler cued his/her dog without knowing it. The other two dog handlers prevented their dogs from doing anything by their stress. I’ve seen dogs trained on fresh earth that all swore a find was there were the first dog PAWED. The handlers would swear by their dogs because they never knew to dig and proof off of blank holes.
5) Gotchas…without being there, I’ll continue to be guessing.>>

Thanks. This is exactly what I wanted to read/hear.

<<It happens a lot more than people like to talk about and it almost always demonstrates either a lack of training or a disparity in training.>>

So you can see why I am in a bit of "hot water" even MENTIONING that one dog alerting, and other dogs not, likely comes down to a training issue. That went over like a lead balloon!






<<Your assumption is correct except if environment changes. I’ve shown you conditions can promote scent diffusion for the dog’s nose or inhibit it. >>
Nope, no change in conditions. I specifically asked that.

<< I set Murphy up this morning with problems I knew would drive him crazy in trying to target simply by using the environment. My goal was to get his drive to work through it rather than just jump there and bark in frustration that he had scent but couldn’t figure out from where. Problems like these I don’t even unleash on the advanced dog students at a seminar as they would decide I was an evil *&^^%$#$%^& whose only intent was to make both their dogs and their head hurt. I do it with my dogs so I can drop that flag with confidence and move on. It’s all about training with checks and balances.>>

Yesterday, I had a new person to work with, somebody with LOADS of air scent experience, etc. but never set up blinds for HRD before. I gave her the perameters of how big an area to use, etc. and then said to take her pick of anything out of the big glass jar. Make it all clandestine. Instead, she took a SMALL GLASS JAR I had, with very tiny bone chips in there, VERY OLD bone chips. She also used one rib. As you can imagine, these were BOOGERS to find. He found all of them but one TINY little bone chip gave us fits. When I saw what it was he finally found, I realized she had used ALL single little bone chips to hide. POOR instruction, on my part, but I was very happy he managed to pull it off. Whew. It was very tedious.

If I offered to set up a scenario like this for anybody else in HRD, they would think I had lost my mind.
Thanks once again for all the great advice. Bonnie

[oksaradt]

This makes total sense to me. It turns out there were EIGHT DOGS that day searching. EIGHT. Enough to have a Brad Dennis type person running the operation, I would think, but not sure there is anybody like that to do this.
I know the cops don't really care about certification, etc. but it surely should be something that SAR folks are aware of and should be concerned about. By many folks, HRD is considered a little "job to do on the side".



>>>>>
I’m hoping that our local civilian team is soon going to have a new member that’s taking all the right NASAR classes and he has the background to be a decent SAR dog search manager. We get his head right on how to use the dogs and he’ll know how to deploy us. If that happens then I can be happy just working my dog in the field where my dog and I can make the greatest contribution to the team effort.
Too many times SAR K9 teams take over a search from LE when neither really has experience at how to utilize the dogs efficiently to make the finds. The rules are the search belongs to the LE agency with the highest recognized authority. That agency can hand off management to someone more experienced at it, such as Brad Dennis, or to someone that means well, says all the right things, but doesn’t know what they are doing. Since neither you nor I were at this search, we have to hope that someone was in charge that knew what they were doing. It’s not our call.

<<<<<





AMEN. I cringe when people use the word "interest". I can see when MY dog has picked up scent in a specific area and I know there is something close by, but it doesn't mean a damned thing til he finds it.

>>>>>>

There ya go. You must depend on the dog’s expertise in the field as a result of all the problems you’ve helped it work through in its training. The dog’s expertise is limited by the dog trainer/handler’s experiences. Teams that never go to seminars or train with other groups can easily stagnate. Someone that never works a blind doesn’t know the weak points they need to improve on. All this is to teach the handler confidence in the dog, trust in the dog’s abilities and attitude, and increase the dog’s scent experiences.

<<<<<<<











<<It happens a lot more than people like to talk about and it almost always demonstrates either a lack of training or a disparity in training.>>

So you can see why I am in a bit of "hot water" even MENTIONING that one dog alerting, and other dogs not, likely comes down to a training issue. That went over like a lead balloon!


>>>>>>
Oh yea, there’s never a good way to address this situation. Even if you come off as the newbie preaching to the “old hands”…and it doesn’t matter if the old hands have been doing this for a year or 20 years. People do SAR for all sorts of reason, many I just can’t fathom. I started into it to help. I stay because I’m good at the hunt and enjoy it; Otherwise, there’s no reason to stick with the soap operas that routinely crop up.

Sometimes it’s just better to listen and learn, pick your time for battles later. This is also why a lot of decent HRD handlers go independent and just quietly work with LE on their own.


<<<<<<<






<<Your assumption is correct except if environment changes. I’ve shown you conditions can promote scent diffusion for the dog’s nose or inhibit it. >>
Nope, no change in conditions. I specifically asked that.







Yesterday, I had a new person to work with, somebody with LOADS of air scent experience, etc. but never set up blinds for HRD before. I gave her the perameters of how big an area to use, etc. and then said to take her pick of anything out of the big glass jar. Make it all clandestine. Instead, she took a SMALL GLASS JAR I had, with very tiny bone chips in there, VERY OLD bone chips. She also used one rib. As you can imagine, these were BOOGERS to find. He found all of them but one TINY little bone chip gave us fits. When I saw what it was he finally found, I realized she had used ALL single little bone chips to hide. POOR instruction, on my part, but I was very happy he managed to pull it off. Whew. It was very tedious.

If I offered to set up a scenario like this for anybody else in HRD, they would think I had lost my mind.
Thanks once again for all the great advice. Bonnie



<<<<<<<
I have a new student with the local group. She’s very intelligent, has good natural dog handling abilities even if she’s somewhat new at it. I’m sure you seen “natural dog handlers” before, right attitudes, good timing, etc.
She’s quickly learned that any blinds she sets up for me then she has to work with her dog. It’s ok if her dog isn’t to that level yet. There’s no harm in honestly running a dog over an area where it can’t make a find yet because it doesn’t have the needed skills yet……..as long as the handler doesn’t try to talk their dog into something. This handler is honest with her dog and me which is a major plus. Too many dog handlers live vicariously through their dog such that any miss is a personal failure to the handler; Thus, many dog handlers aren’t honest with themselves as to what their dogs can do and can’t do, i.e. “how hard can HRD be?”
The big point with having someone that sets up your blind work it themselves is you both get to learn about scent from the dogs AND the really difficult problems tend to be judicial.

What you described in your blind is common with a search where LE is hoping to find anything 5, 10, 15, 20 years after the fact where the critters have scattered your victims bones all over the area, chewed them up, and left small fragments and teeth. Many times the small pieces are down in critter holes or imbedded in what used to be mud and is now hard earth. Get one tooth though and you might be able to get DNA from it. That tooth can give a family closure and place the victim at the scene, possibly giving another piece of the crime puzzle to put away a bad guy. That’s why I torture my dogs with buried teeth.

Sounds like you got a good learning blind, intentional or not. Wait until you get one of Maria’s “single tooth in the gravel road” problems.


Jim



>>>>>>>

[oksaradt]

I was discussing this situation with one of the dog handlers I learn from. She reminded me that when she and I were starting out that we got routinely tortured with intentional situations. Situations where a "ringer" dog was sent into an area first. The other dog handlers would hear the ringer bark (it's alert/indication) and the problem setter and that dog handler would walk out together all smiles, laughing, exclaiming on what a great dog this was.

You'd go in knowing, JUST KNOWING that there was something in there to find and it would be a negative. You either had the confidence in your dog that it didn't have anything or we got our butts chewed out royally. You either learned to trust your dog or you didn't come back. Many didn't come back anyway as their egoes just couldn't take it. Those that stayed were the ones that wanted their dogs (AND THEMSELVES) ready for any situation they'd come across on a real search.

Once the dog team went about the blind, nothing further was required by the problem setter to make this an "evil problem". The handler did everything that was required to screw themselves up. One quickly learned to be extremely honest about their skills and their dog's....or they enjoyed being psychologically eviscerated.

Could this be done at most seminars today? Probably not as there are too many fragile egoes out there. I think such blinds do us all a world of good, but then I am labeled as "one sick puppy" on more than one occassion.

The point is it doesn't ever come down to what the other dog did. You are out there with your dog and no one else. You do your best and be happy with it. If your best isn't good enough, you train harder, both you and your dog.



Jim