matthewaquino wrote 08/15/2006 10:59 AM Explosive scents #111380 - 08/15/2006 10:59 AM
matthewaquino Webboard User Reg: 08-08-2006 Posts: 3 Loc: Offline	I have been a trainer for 10 years,both military and police. I have always used real explosives and found the XM products to be a waste of time. I have recently tried XScent, a pseudo, at the advice of a friend. I have had incredible results and would reccomend this to anyone. My dogs could not distinguish between this and real explosives. They found it in all situations and I believe this product is the way of the future. I think dogs are not properly trained now and the airplanes plot the other day proves we need more dogs. This product will help train dogs and eliminate the need for real explosives. Feel free to ask any questions. Matthew
Top
David C.Frost wrote 08/15/2006 11:39 AM Re: Explosive scents [Re: matthewaquino ] #111381 - 08/15/2006 11:39 AM
David C.Frost Webboard User Reg: 01-23-2002 Posts: 1204 Loc: Nashville, TN Offline	I don't have any questions, but a comment. I never resist the opportunity to post my views on any type of pseudo. What's the point. It ain't real, no matter how much is smells like the real thing, it ain't real. I've done enough tests over my career to know there is a difference. 23 years with the MWD Program and 17 on the civilian law enforcement side. Purely from a training standpoint, I see absolutely to reason to train on an odor that is "similar" to the real stuff. Virtually every trainer that speaks about the use of psuedo always comments on using the real stuff to proof the dogs. Virtually every recognized certification organization will only certify on the real stuff, be it explosives or drugs. So I can't see the purpose of using anything but the real stuff. If a trainer doesn't have access to real explosives, then in my opinion, they shouldn't be training explosives detectors. DFrost Any behavior that is reinforced is more likely to occur again.
Top
matthewaquino wrote 08/15/2006 02:12 PM Re: Explosive scents [Re: David C.Frost ] #111382 - 08/15/2006 02:12 PM
matthewaquino Webboard User Reg: 08-08-2006 Posts: 3 Loc: Offline	I understand your stance on pseudo's, I used to be the same way. I do know that the ATF limit's the amount of explosives one can possess, i.e. 1 1/4 lbs C4, etc...That makes it very hard to train on 10 lbs of explosives. This pseudo is not like any other and is based in science. I think we are finally realizing what dogs are smelling and this company has re-created that. There are many bad pseudo's on the market, but the USMC is apparantly using this now as are many kennels and police organizations. I would try it out before you rule it in-efficient.
Top
Kevin Sheldahl wrote 08/15/2006 03:02 PM Re: Explosive scents [Re: matthewaquino ] #111383 - 08/15/2006 03:02 PM
Kevin Sheldahl Moderator Reg: 07-11-2001 Posts: 1052 Loc: New Mexico Offline	You say it is based in science?? What sort of science?? Do you have any experimental (not anectdotal or merely observational) studies that show a significant number of dogs that have been trained on explosives that then were tested on the pseudo vs. a control group, and another study showing the dogs trained on pseudo then being tested on exposives vs. a control group??? This is the sort of science needed to support a non-explosive being used in EDD training. I'm not against the use of pseudo at all. But, there must be something more than finding a scent fraction via HPLC or mass spectrometer that comes close to or part of the scent fraction from the exposives that are the target of our efforts. That would be "science" but not at all a study of the pseudo's efficacy.  Quote: I understand your stance on pseudo's, I used to be the same way. I do know that the ATF limit's the amount of explosives one can possess, i.e. 1 1/4 lbs C4, etc...That makes it very hard to train on 10 lbs of explosives. This pseudo is not like any other and is based in science. I think we are finally realizing what dogs are smelling and this company has re-created that. There are many bad pseudo's on the market, but the USMC is apparantly using this now as are many kennels and police organizations. I would try it out before you rule it in-efficient. K. Sheldahl http://k9services.com
Top
Charlie Snyder wrote 08/15/2006 03:28 PM Re: Explosive scents [Re: Kevin Sheldahl ] #111384 - 08/15/2006 03:28 PM
Charlie Snyder Webboard User Reg: 08-02-2001 Posts: 999 Loc: Offline	I did some poking around on the XScent word. It seems to lead back to a company called, (click on link), Pseudoscents . They have what they claim are test results on that page. PseudScent is a unit of GMAI. From their website, it looks as if GMAI is a government/military R&D contractor. It is based in Annapolis. They are involved in a variety of high-tech projects. The XScent product stems from a Marine R&D contract assigned Jan, 2004, for the development of training scents. The Navy (USMC) posted this item on a technology commercialization event. http://www.navyopportunityforum.com/abstracts.php See Abstract #3. // edited for grammar & spelling
Top
David C.Frost wrote 08/16/2006 08:07 AM Re: Explosive scents [Re: Kevin Sheldahl ] #111385 - 08/16/2006 08:07 AM
David C.Frost Webboard User Reg: 01-23-2002 Posts: 1204 Loc: Nashville, TN Offline	Like you, I'd be very interested in review the tests they've conducted. Were there double blind studies conducted. The number of dogs used and how the tests were conducted. I'd like to see the results of tests conducted where the psuedo was covertly placed and dogs proven to be consistent with real explosives, used in the search. I understand many trainers complain about the amounts limited by ATF. I don't see how a few ounces of psuedo is going to alleviate that particular problem. I remain unconvinced. I did however send an email to the contact address provided requesting information conderning the tests they claim to have conducted. If I recieve an answer I'll post it. DFrost Any behavior that is reinforced is more likely to occur again.
Top
matthewaquino wrote 08/16/2006 08:09 AM Re: Explosive scents [Re: Kevin Sheldahl ] #111386 - 08/16/2006 08:09 AM
matthewaquino Webboard User Reg: 08-08-2006 Posts: 3 Loc: Offline	I dont have any of that stuff, I would refer the the person's below link to the website. I know that they have had 100% detction since April on a variety of dogs. My 4 dogs hit on it every time. I put it in a car, in lockers and love it. I am not trying to debate anyone on this, I was just letting people know I have had success and wanted to let people know to give it a shot as well.
Top
David C.Frost wrote 08/16/2006 11:06 AM Re: Explosive scents [Re: matthewaquino ] #111387 - 08/16/2006 11:06 AM
David C.Frost Webboard User Reg: 01-23-2002 Posts: 1204 Loc: Nashville, TN Offline	Did your dog respond on the psuedo during normal training, without additional cues? Did you know where the pseudo targets were hidden before the search. Just curious. DFrost Any behavior that is reinforced is more likely to occur again.
Top
Kevin Sheldahl wrote 08/16/2006 03:56 PM Re: Explosive scents [Re: David C.Frost ] #111388 - 08/16/2006 03:56 PM
Kevin Sheldahl Moderator Reg: 07-11-2001 Posts: 1052 Loc: New Mexico Offline	I looked at what was available on the links cited. It seems to be a simple survey of utilization and results as they developed the scents. It shows a variety of dogs and they continued until they got 100% of the dogs responding to the scents. A good start point to determine if you should begin a complete study. It also posts some copies of what look like training forms where the pseudo scents were used. But, these don't really answer the questions that need to be asked and unfortunatly we know nothing about the dogs in the tests.  Quote: Like you, I'd be very interested in review the tests they've conducted. Were there double blind studies conducted. The number of dogs used and how the tests were conducted. I'd like to see the results of tests conducted where the psuedo was covertly placed and dogs proven to be consistent with real explosives, used in the search. I understand many trainers complain about the amounts limited by ATF. I don't see how a few ounces of psuedo is going to alleviate that particular problem. I remain unconvinced. I did however send an email to the contact address provided requesting information conderning the tests they claim to have conducted. If I recieve an answer I'll post it. DFrost K. Sheldahl http://k9services.com
Top
Howard Knauf wrote 08/17/2006 10:51 PM Re: Explosive scents [Re: matthewaquino ] #111389 - 08/17/2006 10:51 PM
Howard Knauf Webboard User Reg: 09-24-2003 Posts: 1555 Loc: Melbourne, Florida Offline	Matthew, Dont take offense to this but....100% detection by four dogs in a four month training span is, well...hard to believe. No dog is 100%, mine included (avg 97%+ in four years of record keeping). My dog is one of the best bomb dogs I've ever seen but no way will I ever say 100%. 95% of my searches are blind so I trust him and my ability to handle him. A 100% success rate appears that most of your hides are known. Just thought I'd call you on that one. <img src="http://www.leerburg.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> http://www.spacecoasttactical.com
Top

Previous Topic

Index

Next Topic

Page 1 of 2 12>>

When purchasing any product from Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. it is understood that any and all products sold by Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. are sold in Dunn County Wisconsin, USA. Any and all legal action taken against Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. concerning the purchase or use of these products must take place in Dunn County, Wisconsin. If customers do not agree with this policy they should not purchase Leerburg Ent. Inc. products.

Dog Training is never without risk of injury. Do not use any of the products sold by Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. without consulting a local professional. The training methods shown in the Leerburg Ent. Inc. DVD’s are meant to be used with a local instructor or trainer. Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. cannot be held responsible for accidents or injuries to humans and/or animals.

Copyright 2010 Leerburg® Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved. All photos and content on leerburg.com are part of a registered copyright owned by Leerburg Enterprise, Inc. By accessing any information within Leerburg.com, you agree to abide by the Leerburg.com Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.