Grid Search/Scent Overlap

[bonefinder]

We had an interesting set of blinds to work today. We are at 10,000 altitude, weather was ideal ( 72 in shade), terrain is forrested, lots of pine needles, fairly open scrub brush, shaded. Area worked was approxiately 40 by 60 yards. Sources were clean bone only. Number unknown. I asked for some scent ovelap, maybe around 5 or 6 feet. I got that, and THEN some.
The area used also had a number of animal bones in there. All were vertebrae. Rick cleverly placed two human sources quite close to the animal bones. It was not pretty. Porter alerted in "the vicinity" on a few occasions, and that is not going to work for me, as you know.
I'll give a breakdown of the two problem areas and then my suggested solutions.
1. Partially articulated vertebrae, some residual blood staining evident- appears to be either elk or deer. Clear visual. Human metatarsal placed about 8 inches away, partially covered ( not buried) with pine needles. Porter ploughed right over the area, meven gave the vertebrae a light dig, and then moved on. It took some work to get him to pinpoint the actual human bone. He dismissed the animal bone but still, they are awfully close and I don't like thinking he might try to alert on an animal bone.
2. Single sun bleached animal bone on the surface. Small HUMAN vertebrae is covered with pine needles again, about 6 to 8 inches away. Porter, once again, plowed OVER the animal bone, totally missed the human bone, had to be worked back to the area ( I was by then, advised of where the human bone was) and then alerted on the scent pool by literally sitting on the animal bone. Nose never hit the animal bone and because I can read my dog well, I know he was in scent, but not close enough for my liking.
My solutions are as follows:
Do some work stations, in a similar setting, NOT blinds, and have both animal and human bone there for him to pinpoint on human bones. Also, mix it up in terms of the visual.........these scenarios were very visual for animal bones, clandestine for human......maybe it should be varied more?
I could kick myself for running these problems after we'd already done a splendid hour of cemetery work, and then let him play with those two silly pugs for over a half hour. I should have insisted on giving him a good rest and recovery time. He also needed more water. Those errors are on ME though, so no excuses there.
If this were a year or so ago, I'd be freaking out (ha ha) but I know him well enough now to see when there is something amiss in my training, and that the results are not because of the dog.
Any suggestions on setting up booger problems with human and animal bones? He has never had any interest in alerting on animal bones but somehow today, with the scent pools being on top of each other, he seemed confused. Thanks for your feedback. Bonnie

[oksaradt]

Ok, your post brings up three great discussion points with animal versus human:
Visualization, the handler, the dog, and/or both.
Overlaps
Targeting
For visualization, I’m going to recount a problem set up at the Scottsville seminar 3-4 years ago by another instructor, but I was asked to manage it. There is a chapel on the grounds with a little fenced in yard with a wrought iron fence around it. Under this yard is a drainage pipe that channels water around the yard from upslope to down-slope. The other instructor (someone I mentored in past years) thought it would be cool to place human bones in the drainage pipe under the yard and then place a coyote skull at the outflow of the pipe with air currents blowing the human skeletal scent onto the coyote skull. Could this happen? Sure. In the boonies on real searches (one in the past year), human bones can be co-mingled with animal bones at locations where scavengers feel safe cleaning said bones of any tissue. We then ask our dogs to separate them for us. Often times the dog team doing this hasn’t ever trained on doing this, but has trained on skeletal so hopes their faithful HRD dog can do it.
This being a seminar and I the responsible instructor, it is my job to improve the dog teams submitting themselves to this torture such that they have a plan to solve it in the real world. One such team was from the great white north. The dog handler studied under one of the other instructors teaching in a different venue and it was obvious the handler simply tolerated me. That’s ok. My job was to improve the dog’s understanding. The dog comes up and hits human skeletal remains scent about 15 feet away and hones in on the pipe, but targets the coyote skull. The handler was mortified because they were intending to do the NASAR test that same week. I explained to the handler what was going on. I got the look from the handler of “you set us up to fail, you egotistical butt.” I asked if I could have a conversation with the handler’s dog to clarify the situation. I got the expected look of “this guy is crazy”, the smirk, and “sure, knock yourself out.” I proceeded to convey to the dog that while the find was correct that the target was not good enough. We got into a playful debate (remember dog’s are around 4-8 y/o human personalities – definitely not human though) where upon I demanded the dog show me the human remains and not what the scent was slapping on. The dog proceeded to push the skull away and then target the pipe correctly. All this was done with me about six feet away, no finger pointing, no clicks, but simply vocalization on both my part and the dog’s.

So, the handler visualized on the coyote skull thinking the dog was not proofed off of animal remains and would have corrected the dog in human remains scent. The dog visualized the object that human skeletal remains scent was coming off of as the source even though it knew it was also animal remains because the coyote skull was a scent trap. Simply by raising the dog’s expectations to problem solve to the actual source as close as it could, the dog’s tool belt increased in size.
The big key here is the handler has to know at first what is going on to be able to trust their dog later. When Tempe worked this problem afterwards (they had to see what my dog would do), she approached, sniffed the coyote skull, brushed it aside, stuck her nose in the pipe, then downed at the pipe. Tempe had already been tortured with similar problems.
So, first set of training problems is to create skeletal scent traps of varying difficulty that are trapped by anything including animal remains, wood, concrete, Q-tips (Bonnie remember Murphy hitting on a used sucker stick in Kansas from dental overlap….a classic example of visualization on the dog’s part where they know the scent is there and look around to figure out what the source is….then guess.). We have to train them from guessing. Worst case is where the source is directly under an object that the handler believes the dog is hitting on. In my evil days, I was known to hide some teeth under a dog turd to screw with handlers. I don’t do that anymore without letting the handler know and only then if I believe the dog can deal with it. Those I had done it to would invariably challenge me with, “Surprise me.” A word of advice, never ask your blinds setter to “surprise me.” They almost always go beyond the call of duty. A blind is to check that you and the dog can do what you already think they can do from your known problems. Even then the blind should show issues you and the dog still need to work on.

Ok, next – Overlaps:

Overlaps are distance between sources and/or distractions. Overlaps are when multiple sources co-mingle their scents and the dog must be able to distinguish between them. Worst case in my real life experience was when I was asked to work a scattered skeletal scene where the bones still had a lot of tissue on them. Law enforcement had located and flagged 40 unique scent sources of varying size. They asked me to use my dogs to find what they missed…OH, and no the remains already flagged had to stay there till they were photographed, catalogued, and mapped. Worst overlap in that real search was two feet away from a flagged source. LE had no idea the level of training it takes to get a dog to this skill level and I simply took it as business as usual. I had trained for it, but it was still not easy. One of my local students recently got to witness the struggle her (really nice) working dog was having with the overlaps of two historic level teeth placed ten feet apart. Considering cemeteries can have graves crammed together as closes as three feet from head to head, there’s still work to do.
Overlaps should be part of regular training with the attitude of gradually bringing sources closer together and paying close attention to how the dog deals with it before you place them even closer. A long time ago I had to work a blind with one of my more evil cohorts where Dax made a find and barked. She was at a mailbox with raised flowerbeds on either side of it. I asked her to “show me”. She literally tap-danced to tell me there was one source in the flowerbed corner under the mailbox and one source in the mailbox. The blind setter laughed and said, “she’s spot on.” The overlap on the horizontal plane was 4 inches and on the vertical plane was 22 inches. Something for you all to think about.
So, when you set up your problems, remember to (very gradually – baby steps) decrease overlaps between sources AND distractions over time. The dog’s training never ends until your expectations do. You can either state, “it’s too tough, a dog can’t do that.” OR “Let’s figure out a training program to see if the dog’s expertise can be raised to that level.” I guarantee you that with the dogs that were born to do this that the latter is more appropriate an attitude. For the dogs doing this just because that’s what their handler decided they wanted the dog to do, there will most likely be a plateau the dog will hit and not be able to get over. That can be the result of the dog, the handler/trainer, or both.

Last, but definitely not least, TARGETING.
I don’t care what alert/indication the handler uses to find HRs, they need to also have a targeting mechanism that also builds with time. My current two dogs have natural touch indications, so I was forced to train an alert that allows me to know they made a find where I can’t see the touch done. The other alternative is I have to always work close to my dog and I feel that burdens the dog with my influence (usually detrimentally) on the find. Unlike some experts, I like the bark because it allows me to find the dog at the source if they stay committed to the source. Once there, I can then ask, “show me” and the dog should do only a light touch where the source is. Don’t reward the touch quick enough and it can turn into a dig and you have contaminated evidence. For really fine targeting, I often watch where the dog’s nose goes as the really subtle small sources have to be located again before they can confidently touch the right spot. Working with dogs with a natural touch, I find I often am working backwards to the way most people train their dogs as most start with the alert first and the target second. We both get to the same end result in often the same amount of time.
Targeting has to be precise. Targeting becomes precise by expectations of the handler. Last weekend we were working with that great young lab again. It was obvious that without targeting that the dog’s alert would only give us proximity rather than a find. Working together, we played a game with the dog that it had a great time at (I got to become Pee Wee Herman) to where it only got the ball (that I was having a great time with otherwise) if it targeted precisely. In the frustration of the game, the lab worked out that it would place both front paws on either side of the source. If it did that, Pee Wee Herman immediately launched the ball and made a great a fuss. We did this so many times that the lab began refusing food trade (from the dog’s handler) for the ball, but dropped it at my feet to “DO IT AGAIN!” The dog understood the rules of the game now, it was being entertained, and it didn’t want the fun to end. Now, if we can get the handler to find her inner-Pee Wee Herman, life will be good.
I worked my dogs Sunday on some bones I had wedged between grass and soil in a field. When I do this, I try to memorize where the bones are but sometimes my memory blurs. Eventually, I want my bone back to use another day. Thorpe had located two of the bones precisely, but was having trouble with this fibula in tall grass under a 20-foot pecan tree. I thought the bone was one place, he thought it was another (due to a scent trap)….we were both off about a foot. I was on hands and knees looking at the grass and stroking his back, talking to him like “we’re in this together buddy. We gotta find my bone.” Thorpe did what all of my dogs have done at one point in their development. He suddenly became serious and glued his nose to the ground and hovered till he located the bone. While his touch had been playful before, it suddenly became very confident and serious as he gently laid his paw down on the bone at which time I could see it. It’s one of those epitome moments you live for when training dogs like this because it’s one more step towards them becoming a partner rather than the dog you command. I whooped, threw balls, and rewarded him with multiple times going back to that same bone to convey to him that this is what I needed from him. I just described two techniques in training targeting. There isn’t one right technique and as I told the lab’s handler, “I can never tell when it’s time to be Pee Wee Herman, but sooner or later that aspect of you has to come out in your dog training.” It’s not something I can tell anyone to do at a certain time. The handler tries different techniques until a chord is struck with the dog and training goes forward.

Anyway, these three issues all have to be addressed to deal with the original issues presented: Visualization, overlaps, and targeting.

It’s not a big deal, just a result of raised expectations and how to achieve them.

Hope this helps,

Jim

[rthonor]

This is a good topic. So, how do you estimate the overlap.... ex: if the bones are 20 feet apart, is there an overlap? or more like 10 feet? or can you know for sure? rt

[oksaradt]

Overlap is linear distance between sources and an estimate of mingling of unique scents even though possibly identical. Mingling of the scents can be a function of time the sources are in place, humidity (or lack there of), temperature gradients, thermals due to variations in the environment, wind.
Sensitivity to overlap can be dog dependent as with the case of my current sub-surface transition grid I have set up for Thorpe and another young dog. Sources are placed ten feet apart per a 100 foot tape measure. At each 10 foot hashmark, a 1-inch diameter shaft 1-inch deep was cut into the soil with care taken to suffer minimal vegetation damage as it serves as camoflage from visualization. In each hole was placed the equivalent of two historic-level molars using what shards and teeth were grasped with gloved hands. Water sufficient to fill this shaft was poured over the teeth.....maybe an oz. The problem was left to "simmer" for two days before any dog worked it.
The first time through, it was evident that Thorpe only picked up scent in shaded areas. Murphy was run after that to insure it was workable and he located 8 of the 12 shafts before I moved him on (with my intent to keep 4 holes pristine from contamination). The second young dog worked it a day after Thorpe and Murphy. It was evident by the dog's scent behavior that overlap was complete as the dog often paused between sources in obvious dilemma. The young dog needs to be trained targeting so that it can communicate to its handler where the sources are and we are working on that now.
As the problem continues to sit, diffusion will be complete and there will be a "scent field" present in the topsoil with rains and winds causing variations above the top of the grass/vegetation height. Current vegetation height in this area is 4 inches and growing. I won't mow that area until I pick the teeth up, so in some ways it will get easier and in other ways it will get harder. For the dog that places its nose into the grass, the problems will get easier and that's more than acceptable as the best way to solve these problems is nose-to-ground.
Consider this problem is now like going into a foggy area with lots of little red lights pulsing randomly and your job is to locate each specific bulb.

Overlap can mix source types and I've had my dogs tested by others this way. I often wonder what scenario would create an historic level tooth with two strong decomp sources two feet to either side such that the dog is going to gravitate away from the tooth to the obvious decomp sources, but such was my final test on a certification with Dax in the old CSI days. That the tooth was wedged between the crack of portable concrete steps and a sheet metal warehouse with the decomp sources in the wall of the warehouse to either side made it even more interesting. In real life I doubt we would have found it, but this test had a known number of sources(ten) and I was allowed to map the area with a flanker as we worked it. On the same test there was a tooth in a crack of concrete and I spotted it as my dog showed scent behavior in the area. I told the evaluaors that I had seen a source and asked what they wanted me to do as I didn't want to be accused of cueing my dog. Their response was, "The dog has to find it and determine if it is a real human tooth or otherwise."
The tooth was in sun, so I knew it would be difficult to target. I had my dog check the continuing crack downslope some 20 feet away and from that her nose to the crack drug up to that tooth where she indicated. I called it as a real tooth per her alert and was told I could continue testing. Sometimes being able to visualize a source IS the handler's biggest nightmare.

Oh yea, in this same test area was a decomposing feline that was there naturally and a large beef bone dropped down literally next to my dog from a stairway and deck above from a previous exercise run by the same group months previously.......so, more overlaps. This problem was all about overlap.......oh and a wee bit about pressure as I was the last to test that day and was observed by over 45 people by best estimate. The witnesses actually defined my borders as they were told where they could not go further and I was told that anything not occupied by a person was fair game.......so a cross-trained dog would have been in utter hell. I also had evaluators and my flanker in my area with me. I do recall Dax bumping several people out of her way as she was pursuing a particular scent.

Jim

[rthonor]

ok, that makes sense. Just curious, is it possible for a dog not specificaly trained to find buried bones that were there for 3 years to make this type of find?

[oksaradt]

Sorry, didn't see the question.

Is it possible for any dog to get lucky? You bet! This is how some of my searches start. Someone's fluffy wuffy wanders into the bushes and comes out with a human bone. Does fluffy wuffy take them back to the other bones? Normally not. The bone may have been left there by a scavenger that wanted to snack on it in peace and then got scared away. Accidental finds happen all the time on surface bones, usually by hunters in the winter months when the ground cover drops away.

For buried bones to be found by a dog not trained for it, conditions have to work out to where the scent slaps them in the face. Soil temperature is very warm versus air temperature. Ground moisture is higher than air moisture. Sun/shade effects help move the scent up to the dog's nose level and whoo hooo we have a find.

When Dax and I worked her first native burial ground it was at an invitational gathering of HRD dogs. The area was high up over what used to be a river. The area was totally shaded by trees and infested with mosquitos. Handlers were racing out as soon as their mosquito repellant would wear off. I tend to avoid spraying myself as I always wonder if it's going to affect my dog's nose like a woman walking into the office and you smell her perfume 30 feet before she arrives.
I didn't know what to expect as the remains were buried with the flesh already removed by nature up in trees. We were told where 12 known graves were and after we worked those we were then to work the rest of the area to the best of our abilities to see how we did.
Dax and I walked in when the area was cleared out. Dax walked into a depression that I'd been told was a grave. Dax became a standing statue and her eyes literally glazed over.
I sat down on a log some 4 feet away and simply waited, watching my dog. Dax was known for everyone being able to read her as her bark literally started at the tip of her tail, the more scent there was then the faster it waggged like a gieger counter. The wag would work through her body and come out her head as her bark. When Dax first stepped into the grave, her tail was only barely perceptively moving. For what seemed like twenty minutes (and was probably more like one minute) she didn't move except the tail slowly twitching at the very end. She finally barked with excitement. Her nose never dipped to the grave as I watched her do so many times which told me the scent was up at her nose level due to the environmental conditions. Dax and I then proceeded to knock out the rest of the burial ground, known and not. We were observed and graded. Dax and I tied with a Canadian fellow and his lab, Angus, for finding the most and being the most accurate. I didn't know this till later.

Dax and I went back up later and a handler that is now very famous for historical HRD was working her new dog. She likes to click. I'll never forget the question she asked me, "Jim, where is the scent in this grave? I want to know when to click my dog."

I told her, "I can't see it. I had to rely on Dax. I suggest you do the same with your dog."

Of the experts, she's one of the nicer ones.......but ya still gotta wonder about those "expert titles."

So, knowing how to take advantage of conditions, I worked Thorpe on the sub-surface historical teeth on Sunday just after dawn. What was a struggle before was now puppy play. I got 27 finds on 12 sources because he wanted his reward enough that he'd race back to others he'd found and target them again. Using the outer flags, I could tell that he was precisely on the money, so I rewarded for each find. We did all this in ~25 minutes starting slow then building speed. I stopped at the end. He was having a great time and would have made more finds.

Thorpe can now move on to buried work. Next level is 2-3 inches deep, 2-4 historical teeth.


Jim

[rthonor]

ok, thanks.

If a group of dogs search and area that supposedly has the remains that have been buried for 3.5 years, and they all alert, but in 20 /50 yard increments.....what do you think that means besides possibly the scent poole is large?

[bonefinder]

<< The overlap on the horizontal plane was 4 inches and on the vertical plane was 22 inches. Something for you all to think about.>>

Great point. Horizontal and vertical differentiation can be SO tricky. Depending on the wind direction and ground cover, the vertical drop of scent is amazing, even when there is no second source there. You have to "think smart" and realize the scent has gravitated to the lowest point and then work your way back to the STRONGEST scent source. If there are TWO sources ( one at the lowest vertical and one at the highest), it gets even trickier. It's like a giant puzzle to figure out.


>> For the dogs doing this just because that’s what their handler decided they wanted the dog to do, there will most likely be a plateau the dog will hit and not be able to get over. That can be the result of the dog, the handler/trainer, or both.>>

Yes, so true. I really lucked out with a dog that is obsessed with this work. He would have been obsessed with any other endeavor I chose for him, but his nose work is what he lives for. Joan's dog is the same. Rommel is spectacular. I've seen a few others that I would categorize as spectacular, but not too many.


<<Last, but definitely not least, TARGETING.
I don’t care what alert/indication the handler uses to find HRs, they need to also have a targeting mechanism that also builds with time. My current two dogs have natural touch indications, so I was forced to train an alert that allows me to know they made a find where I can’t see the touch done. The other alternative is I have to always work close to my dog and I feel that burdens the dog with my influence (usually detrimentally) on the find. Unlike some experts, I like the bark because it allows me to find the dog at the source if they stay committed to the source. Once there, I can then ask, “show me” and the dog should do only a light touch where the source is. Don’t reward the touch quick enough and it can turn into a dig and you have contaminated evidence. For really fine targeting, I often watch where the dog’s nose goes as the really subtle small sources have to be located again before they can confidently touch the right spot. Working with dogs with a natural touch, I find I often am working backwards to the way most people train their dogs as most start with the alert first and the target second. We both get to the same end result in often the same amount of time.>>

This is where working rows and rows of graves is SO helpful or, in your case, working those rows of teeth. The trained alert is almost useless when you are asking your dog to get so much closer to the actual source and target. Sitting ( or down) is almost not good enough and it wastes so much valuable energy and time on the part of the dog. Also, I've seen the sit or down done ON the source without the dog really ever TARGETING the source. This is exactly what happened with that animal vertebrae being so close to the human bone........alerting on source yes, but targeting, no.
For me, the word "closer" is what I use when I want my dog to actually put his paw or his nose RIGHT ON IT. With a Doberman, you have issues with too much foot work, which can be a disaster.You know Porter could have been a terrible digger but with ALOT of work, we have honed that dig to a light touch, and what started out as a problem, have become a useful tool. He uses that light touch to stir up scent and then work the scent from there. I give the dog WAY more credit than the handler because he was doing this naturally all along and I simply didn't have the handler skills to see that, in the beginning. It evolved over time.

<<Targeting has to be precise. Targeting becomes precise by expectations of the handler. >>

Yep, and if anybody plans on doing historic stuff, you better plan on precise. If a dog can do precision work such as this, one can see how truly easy it is for a dog to find a cadaver level body in a hundred acres of land. "IT'S RIGHT OVER THERE!"

<< Last weekend we were working with that great young lab again. It was obvious that without targeting that the dog’s alert would only give us proximity rather than a find. Working together, we played a game with the dog that it had a great time at (I got to become Pee Wee Herman) to where it only got the ball (that I was having a great time with otherwise) if it targeted precisely. In the frustration of the game, the lab worked out that it would place both front paws on either side of the source. If it did that, Pee Wee Herman immediately launched the ball and made a great a fuss. We did this so many times that the lab began refusing food trade (from the dog’s handler) for the ball, but dropped it at my feet to “DO IT AGAIN!” The dog understood the rules of the game now, it was being entertained, and it didn’t want the fun to end. Now, if we can get the handler to find her inner-Pee Wee Herman, life will be good.>>

This brings back a great memory of a frustrating day with me, Porter and you. Remember that time of training inside the theatre building in Wichita, where the teeth/bones were on top of the trash can cover, and I was not able to get Porter to TARGET and you WERE? I was not thrilled with your style of doing it, at that time, because you were the ULTIMATE Pee Wee Herman, and I am not. I was concerned about keeping Porter "calm and methodical" and you wanted to "rile him up." Well........guess who got the results?? It was not the calm and methodical me. It was the day I commented "Porter works better for you than he does for me." That was a wake up call.


<< He suddenly became serious and glued his nose to the ground and hovered till he located the bone. While his touch had been playful before, it suddenly became very confident and serious as he gently laid his paw down on the bone at which time I could see it. It’s one of those epitome moments you live for when training dogs like this because it’s one more step towards them becoming a partner rather than the dog you command. I whooped, threw balls, and rewarded him with multiple times going back to that same bone to convey to him that this is what I needed from him. >>

It gives you goosebumps, doesn't it? When you really realize they've taken that giant step forward and are starting to problem solve independently. Gives me goosebumps just reading it.

I ALWAYS remember my first true real goosebump day. A couple of months previous, I had put some historic level source in a glass jar and covered it in an open field, which was mostly sand/clay and very low scrub. It was next to the Schutzhund field where we were doing Schutzhund that day. I forgot where I put the darned thing and it was one of those "everything looks the same" type areas. It was hot as hell out and although Porter found the two other sources out there, I opted to "call it a day" when we couldn't locate these bone chips in a jar.
A couple of months later, when we were back out for Schutzhund, I figured......what the heck. I might as well let him try to find the darned jar. Bad handler that I was then, I was trying to get him to look in the approximate area *I* thought it was in.........nope. Porter raced off about 30 feet away and does a solid alert "over there." I was disgusted at first, thinking "what is he doing?" Of course, he was right. I started moving the soil a bit, and bingo, there's the jar. At that point, I knew I had to start learning to trust my dog, and I DEFINITELY did the major PeeWee Herman. He earned that.

<< I just described two techniques in training targeting. There isn’t one right technique and as I told the lab’s handler, “I can never tell when it’s time to be Pee Wee Herman, but sooner or later that aspect of you has to come out in your dog training.” It’s not something I can tell anyone to do at a certain time. The handler tries different techniques until a chord is struck with the dog and training goes forward. >>

Yes, it is a different time for all of us, but it sure is when "the dance" starts.

Jim, as always, this was a SPLENDID post, as are the subsequent ones. Also, it was VERY helpful for me to go back over some of the previous posts that have addressed targeting and scent pools. I suggest that others do this. There is alot of info in those other threads. Bonnie

[bonefinder]

<<If a group of dogs search and area that supposedly has the remains that have been buried for 3.5 years, and they all alert, but in 20 /50 yard increments.....what do you think that means besides possibly the scent poole is large? >>

For me, that would not be even close to good enough. 20 to 50 yard increments would not impress law enforcement. That would be ALOT of digging, and maybe to find nothing. The dogs have not been trained to pinpoint or target. It would be like pointing to half a football field and telling folks "it's in there somewhere."
Bonnie

[rthonor]

THis is kind of what I thought too.

[oksaradt]

If they can't target then they haven't made a find. Targeting is required so that Law Enforcement can come it to recover evidence.

Last time I heard of something like what you are describing is when I consulted with a state investigator in another state that had cross-trained dogs come in to search a 160-acre field for possible buried remains. The teams, multiple dogs, narrowed their find down to an area that was 75yds by 75yds and said that was the best hey could do.
After I stopped laughing, I asked the investigator if this area happened to be a low spot in the field. He said yes. I told him either the scent was collecting down with the water OR (more likley), poorly trained dogs were hitting on the blood meal the farmer was putting in his fertlizer on the field....cow's blood meal.

If they can't target the buried bones then they haven't made a find. The dog exhibiting interest is some scent does not make a find.
If the dogs all alerted on the same spots in 20/50 yd increments, it could be small bones from scavenger scattered remains. If this was so then a new dog should be brought in told that there could be multiple buried remains to find and we see what wee see. The dog team should not be told what the other dogs did not any information on the case. It should be a blind search. If they don't find anything then most likely it was a case of one handler's dog hit on something (whatever we might not know) and the other handlers cued their dogs as they thought they should make a find.

If the dogs are cross-trained and used to working the air instead of the ground then determine was the wind was doing the day of the finds. Work a new dog (nose-to-ground type of dog) upwind of all the finds and cross-trained dogs can be prone to alerting on scent traps.

Jim

[rthonor]

I think that there were 4 dogs in all and they all alerted at different places but in the same general area. I felt that what yall are saying might be the case, but I was not asked for my input as I am new to SAR. I am overall concerned about the training ideas that float around and pass for good, yet, in my mind, are not really good enough. I want to train my dog to target and not alert in scent pooles. Its rather hard to do this, especially when I dont have access to the right training materials but I am working my dogs on teeth as much as possible.

[oksaradt]

One must tread lightly when joining a SAR K9 group as many form for reasons other than making the find. Watch, listen, and learn to see if this group is on the right track. You are far enough along that you should be able to set up blinds for them as well as them setting up blinds for you. If they are cross-trained dog teams then you'll quickly spot their limitations.
Don't set up the blinds to fail as you should be able to work them with your dogs as if they were blind for you as well. How a handler deals with the difficulty of a blind will tell you loads about them. If my dog and I aren't performing well, I might get frustrated but that frustrated is directed towards myself, not the problem setter. If I find later that the problem was set up for failure then that's a lessoned learned. It doesn't mean I'll try to set them up as payback. Most people that set up blinds will set up a booger by accident. Almost always the handler raises the difficulty of the problem due to a weakness in training or handling. The blind is intended to demonstrate what the handler needs to improve. Sailing through a blind is always an ego boost, but we don't improve from it.

so, if they blame you on a fair problem for their failures that will give you valuable insight as to how they operate. If they ask for help, give it as they need it but they should still work the problem out with the dog on their own as much as possible.

If they are a decent group, they'll leave their egoes in the truck when they get the dog out to work.

Jim

[rthonor]

Thanks:)