Post by oksaradt on Jul 5, 2011 14:58:07 GMT -5
The recent case in Florida has raised the level of awareness for many dog handlers of the "Double Blind." This is a label given to a particular style of problem by SWGDOG. When the term first came out, I looked it up and was surprised to find it was the way I'd been taught for many years.
A Double Blind is a problem where the dog team is told there are zero-to-N sources to find. The dog team can have the "type" of source defined, i.e. dental, skeletal, tissue, or combinations. The dog handler has the area defined for them (I tend to walk the area with the handler). A given time may or may not be set. No time tends to be harder.
When I set these up for people, I hand them the flags (or they bring their own), wish them luck (sincerely), and go outside the area to sit in the shade to wait.
If done properly, these can be grueling. "Properly" implies it is like a real search. If the sources were in plain sight then there wouldn't be a need for a dog team to come in.
I tend to approach these like my law enforcement do. There is always a possibility that this "tip" will be productive. A good poker face is required.
This is defined as a "double blind" because the dog team doesn't know where the scent sources are and any evaluators coming with the dog team DON'T KNOW EITHER.
In fact, company can be a handicap. If a flanker or "deputy" wants to assist the dog team, I tend to allow this as on a real search I almost always have "someone with a gun and radio" along with me. Why is this a handicap? Because the "company" almost always provides their opinion. If they saw your dog do a head turn that you missed, that's all well and good. It is upon you, the dog handler, to investigate that possibility objectively via the dog working that area from a different direction.
If evaluators go along on a double blind, they should only be there to take observational notes to make sure the handler is letting the dog do the scent work.
The problem setter has to have the fortitude to give a handler all the rope they need to hang (or vindicate) themselves. If the dog handler wants to run another dog on the area, I'm good with that as long as they still don't know what's where.
If a handler calls me in to the area to ask about their flags, I will tell them which flags are correct and which flags are not by pulling those flags. I always allow the handler the opportunity to continue working if they haven't used all their flags. It is up to the handler to tell me they have completed their area to their satisfaction.
Why is this so tough? Because handlers can talk their dogs into things and need to know if they do. Because handlers may have developed bad habits and this is the only way to discover them OTHER than a real search. Me, personally, I'd rather know my gotchas in a double blind than ever on a real search.
Double blinds are almost always humbling and I really don't like doing them, BUT any dog team worth their salt that's advertising they can search must do double blinds on a routine basis to back up what they claim. By routine, I prefer once-a-month. If I get a gotcha, I then have a month to fix me or what I've screwed up in the dog before the next time.
This is a must for the HRD dog team.
This is a must for the trailing dog team where they don't end at a subject.
I think for area search dog teams, the victim should be totally unresponsive and hidden.....think drunk and scrunched down in debris to stay warm.
A lot of people set up "double blinds" and it's not the real thing. The handlers will know when they've endured a real double blind.....and usually they can't wait to give it back to the problem setter.
(crap crap crap crap crap)....yea yea, I have to do double blinds too.
This really is meant to help.
Jim
A Double Blind is a problem where the dog team is told there are zero-to-N sources to find. The dog team can have the "type" of source defined, i.e. dental, skeletal, tissue, or combinations. The dog handler has the area defined for them (I tend to walk the area with the handler). A given time may or may not be set. No time tends to be harder.
When I set these up for people, I hand them the flags (or they bring their own), wish them luck (sincerely), and go outside the area to sit in the shade to wait.
If done properly, these can be grueling. "Properly" implies it is like a real search. If the sources were in plain sight then there wouldn't be a need for a dog team to come in.
I tend to approach these like my law enforcement do. There is always a possibility that this "tip" will be productive. A good poker face is required.
This is defined as a "double blind" because the dog team doesn't know where the scent sources are and any evaluators coming with the dog team DON'T KNOW EITHER.
In fact, company can be a handicap. If a flanker or "deputy" wants to assist the dog team, I tend to allow this as on a real search I almost always have "someone with a gun and radio" along with me. Why is this a handicap? Because the "company" almost always provides their opinion. If they saw your dog do a head turn that you missed, that's all well and good. It is upon you, the dog handler, to investigate that possibility objectively via the dog working that area from a different direction.
If evaluators go along on a double blind, they should only be there to take observational notes to make sure the handler is letting the dog do the scent work.
The problem setter has to have the fortitude to give a handler all the rope they need to hang (or vindicate) themselves. If the dog handler wants to run another dog on the area, I'm good with that as long as they still don't know what's where.
If a handler calls me in to the area to ask about their flags, I will tell them which flags are correct and which flags are not by pulling those flags. I always allow the handler the opportunity to continue working if they haven't used all their flags. It is up to the handler to tell me they have completed their area to their satisfaction.
Why is this so tough? Because handlers can talk their dogs into things and need to know if they do. Because handlers may have developed bad habits and this is the only way to discover them OTHER than a real search. Me, personally, I'd rather know my gotchas in a double blind than ever on a real search.
Double blinds are almost always humbling and I really don't like doing them, BUT any dog team worth their salt that's advertising they can search must do double blinds on a routine basis to back up what they claim. By routine, I prefer once-a-month. If I get a gotcha, I then have a month to fix me or what I've screwed up in the dog before the next time.
This is a must for the HRD dog team.
This is a must for the trailing dog team where they don't end at a subject.
I think for area search dog teams, the victim should be totally unresponsive and hidden.....think drunk and scrunched down in debris to stay warm.
A lot of people set up "double blinds" and it's not the real thing. The handlers will know when they've endured a real double blind.....and usually they can't wait to give it back to the problem setter.
(crap crap crap crap crap)....yea yea, I have to do double blinds too.
This really is meant to help.
Jim
