Hi Guys;

First of all, I agree with what I've read about scent... And sticking with real materials. Due to time lines, the urgency to get the dog operational, and length of time it takes to get a drug kit from the Gov't, my dog was started with Sigma, and, switched over to "real" with no issue. She has been validated on Heroin, Cocaine, and, Marijuana. She also reliabily hits on E. (But is not validated yet for it).

In less then two weeks I'm doing a new validation with my dog, and, the Province is requiring that she is now validated to Meth, even though on our coast we very (extremely) rarely run into it.

The question I have is how is the Scentlogix material?

I am not looking for a salesmans answer.

What I am looking for is another handlers point of view on it. Should I have any issue with it? I know from speaking with another handler here, that if the dogs nose isn't pretty much on top of Meth, they'll miss it...

Thanks for any or all help!

P.

I would guess if you've read about scents on this board, you've read my opinions. At any rate, I'm not bashful about giving it. First about meth: depending on the meth that is present in your local area, it's not at all difficult for the dog to find. There are several different methods of manufacturing, in my experience, which is considerable as I live in one of the top 3 "meth" states, it's not at all hard to detect.

As for any type of pseudo drug. I can only tell you my experiences. My dogs (I have 30 drug dogs currently working) have never been trained on any type of pseudo drug. They will not respond to it. They call it pseudo for a reason - - - it's not real. I've always been straight forward with my opinion and have also pointed out; to date, pseudo has not been a problem in court. Although, none of the certification agencies allow pseudo use for certification. My problem is, why train on something that; 1. Isn't real 2. Can't be used for certification 3. Legal to possess and 4. Even trainers that swear by the stuff always state, they then switch over to the real stuff. I would also point out, I have no specific experience with Scent Logix. I'm also fortunate to have no problem obtaining any of the drugs in more than adequate quantities.

DFrost

I will give you another handlers view on Scentlogix because I use scentlogix. I have a explosive k9 and a dual purpose narcotic k9. I use scentlogix in both applications. I can tell you that scentlogix works. The reason I know this is I use scentlogix and my k9 just recently got recertified on 5 odors in narcs. And also in Explosives. In both real narcs and explosives were used. Again I am sure you have read other posts in this forum if you took a scentlogix training aid and put it on a vapor detection machine it would come back as the aid that it represents. These aids can do so much more for you then conventional aids. For example could you put 500 pounds of meth in a drawer, with scentlogix you can. You can ensure that the k9 is alerting to the real target odor and not cutting agents with scentlogix you can. No need for DEA licenses, no need for destruction orders when they need to be replaced. No need to worry about leaving or people stealing the training aids. My advice is to try them and make your own opinion. I have tried sigma and didnt like it as well as nestt and didnt like it. Let your own experience guide you on if they work or not. I hope this helps you.

Austin

For some reason I find this topic of Scentlogix really interesting as whether or not it works doesn't really impact me on any level. Mostly I think the interest is because of just how finely a dog can detect a definitive smell as opposed(?) to what we humans can substitute to fool him into thinking it's smelling something else.

As a non participant on either side of the drug war(?) I think an interesting test would be for dogs from a program like officer Frost's to be given a run through with Scentlogix in one location amongst the hidden real deal drugs/explosives/contraban.
Separate places, cars, boxes, etc in the same area but different batches in each.

If the dogs really can't tell the two apart, then Scentlogix should be controled or sold under a bonding system as well.

Austin Moon says: "I use scentlogix in both applications. I can tell you that scentlogix works. The reason I know this is I use scentlogix and my k9 just recently got recertified on 5 odors in narcs. And also in Explosives. In both real narcs and explosives were used."

Austin, first off, I never said Scentlogix didn't work. Secondly, if you've trained on it, as you say, and have used real drugs and or explosives, I would expect the dog to respond to both. They will respond to both because they've been trained to do so.

Randy Allen says: "As a non participant on either side of the drug war(?) I think an interesting test would be for dogs from a program like officer Frost's to be given a run through with Scentlogix in one location amongst the hidden real deal drugs/explosives/contraban."

I stated in this discussion that I had no experience with Scentlogix, so I really can't comment. In another discussion on this board, I was asked if I would be willing to try it. At the the time I said yes under certain circumstances. Basically those circumstances would be in an operational type training environment, not an ORT scenario, conducted without the handlers knowledge. The offer wasn't made again. Also during the discussion, I was told a double blind study would be conducted. While there was a study, it was not double blind. Since then there have been other circumstances, that in my mind make results suspect. That's only my opinon though. I really wish DOD, TSA or Secret Service or even SWGDog or Auburn would be willing to do a true double blind study. It would make training easier and under certain circumstances safer. It seems though, it's difficult to discuss the merits of any product without offending someone. Or in my case being told I'm old and out of date. I don't get offended, but one just gets tired of hearing it. Like old Tricky Dick once said, well actually a poor summerization; it won't be long till they won't have old David to kick around, ha ha.

DFrost

I remember that decussion officer Frost, I was rather wondering how it all played out. Thanks for updating.

I guess my point is; doesn't it become all very problematic from a law enforcement stand point if the dog CAN'T or doesn't distinguish between a pseudo substance (particularly one that is readily available) and the real thing?

The work I did is summerized in an article on scentlogix on this web site. Interested parties can search scentlogix and find it.

David is still teed off I didn't do it double blind. That will come in time.

Here is a basic set of facts about some of the aides being produced. The canine nose can only smell within a given range what is in the air surrounding the target substance. This often is different than the target substance itself. In some cases this can be replicated because it is substantially different than the target without infringing on the laws governing possession of certain items.

If we replicate this and use it then from the perspective of the canine nose it is the same.

Problem: convincing a judge in a suppression hearing of this.

Problem: developing the numbers for a study to demonstrate the effectiveness in training a detector dog to standard.

Problem: convincing the devil's advocate type out there that it works even when the numbers and science hold up.

Advantages if we see this fully developed over time: access to the odors in quantities unavailable before. Assurances that contamination is minimized. In some cases carcinogens can be eliminated from the aid, decreasing risk to the canine. Security risks are decreased.

Disadvantages: aides need refrigeration. They are not divisible into smaller quantities (there may be solutions to this). They have no large number studies to support their use as of yet. Are unsuitable for training in the primary reward system (at least at the foundational level).

Somethings I am anxious to see are aides for human remains detection, termite detection, cancer detection?? Kinda interesting stuff eh?

Kevin, I'm not going to get involved in the discussion. I've already stated my opinion. I only responded to a question in which my name was specifically mentioned. I would like to point out however, I'm not at all "teed off".

DFrost

I have just been made aware of this thread and do apologise for not being on the forum for a while. I have been busy making a marijuana training aid and i have just succeded making one :-). Now, my level of knowledge extends from the synthetic materials (which covers all explosives and most narcotics such as coke, meth and heroin) to the natural materials (such as marijuana) and this is reflected in the efficacy and effectiveness that Scentlogix products has provided all those in the K9 community that have used the products to date. Everybody loves our training aids and it works 100% of the time! (i know that sounds unbelieveable...ask somebody that has used the product)

Dave, it is time to make you a believer in the power of science and the powerfully applicable understanding that it affords to the subject of scent detection. I will be very hapy to send you an explosive and a narcotic training aid to test out. Please do forward me your address. It will be very intersting to see your K9s hit "pseudos" for the first time ever, just as if they hit a brick wall, and i think that will say much about the pseudos then, right?

Kevin, you do have the scentlogix narcotics and have tried it out (i hope...since i have not heard from you since you received them). I (We) have heard your initial report about scentlogix explosives training aids but nothing about the narcotics. Please tell us, how did the training aids work out with those canines that had already been trained on narcotics?

Mr. Adebimpe said: "Dave, it is time to make you a believer in the power of science"

Sir, being a cancer survivor, I have the utmost respect for the power of science. I'll contact our legal department and see if I'd be permitted to accept a training kit. The department is very strict such matters. For example, I'm not permitted to "sell" training. We do it free. I'm not permitted to charge departments when I act as an expert witness for them. The department provides those services free. It's against state policy to promote any commercial product. I will check to see if I can accept the kit, conduct a test and report on that test.


DFrost