Anybody seen this, know this guy?
http://www.msnbc.com/news/923973.asp

I've heard of the case. He's being tried for fraud.
I am quite interested in this as I have often wondered at the efficacy of a great number of the private sector dogs based on the size of the contracts they seem to accept with a minimum number of animals and in an environment where not finding anything is often conjsidered success.
Usually it is narc dogs. But, since this is a pretty critical skill area with explosives and given todays worries, it appears to have been given some concern.
I had even looked into some private work at one time but felt I couldn't compete with the frauds in the market.

Yeah I would like to keep tabs on this also.

Off subject some I again would rather see a national standard to all k9 trainers in this market to have a 3rd party to certify the certification folk. as a business man I am not a big fan of moregovernment regulation but in this area the loops for scamm artist and worthless trainers is too large. The good ol' boy system of try and try again until pass has seen its day . We cannot afford substandards anymore and I really don't care who bitches about it or how many "years they have working the street"..step up and make the grade or step off.

Mr. Hasley

I agree with you on a mandatory certification, either on the state or national level. Although after all these years of working canine, mandatory state standards are almost nonexistent. Being a state agency, we have a state standard that is mandatory only for dogs in our department. Any law enforcement agency is welcome to attend our certification, free of charge. Some take advantage of it, others try it and when they are unsuccessful never come back. Our inservice training is also open to any law enforcement agency that wants to attend. And while we have many that do, there are also some that after training with us once, elect to not comeback. It is also free of charge. Certifying agencies are certainly a major player in an attempt to establish proficiency standards. Agencies though do rely on paid membership. To the case in point, the Federal Government has, at it's disposal, professional trainers within the Secret Service, ATF, TSA, and the Department of Defense. There is no excuse for them allowing a dog that is as poorly trained as was reported in the Washington Post to work for the Federal Gov't. The TSA has probably the strictest Explosives Detector Dog standards in the country. One would think that the gov't could at least seek thier advice when it comes to dogs that are employed by them. There are many fine private trainers that supply dogs for law enforcement work, unfortuneatley there are also those that couldn't train a dog to piss on a fire hydrant if he was third in line. It a dangerous situation to apply a "buyer beware" tag when purchasing an explosives detector dog.

DFrost

Aealistic set of standards and the knowledge to understand and adhere to their intended levels would be nice. Yet, state standards tend to lean towards the weakest link when they are produced. Then there are good standards with piss poor evaluators out there among them who are well known to the wekest links. It creates a big problem with standards.
I always like the court questions that seem to be used to determine if your a good expert. One of which is: How many dogs have you certified as an evlautor? (some outrageous number quoted meaning that they are experts and yet, the real expert has a moderate number because he actually has a failure rate and people who aren't top notch avoid that person). In a voting membership guess who attains status....the popular guy handing out certs like door prizes. In a revenue hungry organization who draes the most recurring memberships....the guy who hands out certs like candy.
be firm, but fair, maintain the respectable number of failures and you are seen as a hard ass.
When a group of people form a committee to make standards undoubtedly there are several trying to protect what they do, and several trying to protect another approach, resulting in watered down standards, grandfathered evaluators, and ovber all a weaker program than anyone can honestly defend.
i have rallyed against such standards in my state. I will continue to based on the states history of creating standards where we do as little as possible to get by and it it managed by less than knowledgeable people, and decision are kept away from the real experts in the field for fear of disssention. better to have a good standard and a plan to defend it based on all the lesser standards floating around out there.

I could not agree more with both David and Kevin on this. Unfortunately $$,$$$,$$$ is always a player in such things and a difficult thing to spoon feed to the mass of administrators that their standards and training practices are really substandard.

I am curious how many groups contract out the training for this stuff - as I know nothing about it. I have been approached by the OPP, small police forces and most recently a group that from what I understand (I will speak more with him tomorrow) provides explosive detector dogs to the Toronto International Airport and wonder if there is any type of regulating as far as the training here in Canada? Sorry if I am off topic.

Laureen,

The problem is anyone can be a "dog trainer". Since there is no particular standard applied by most states, (can't speak for Canada), there seems to be very little objective evaluation of the dog's ability or proficiency level. As this thread ,and my association with many police and private trainers many reputable trainers has shown, both civilian and police would welcome a mandatory standard. It's the process of getting an objective based, objectively administered certification procedure that is tenuous at best. As long as there is money to be made in the business of finding bombs, particularly now, there will be reports of trainers such as the one highlighted in the Washington Post article. Personally I'm not permitted to operate a personal business of training dogs. It has been deemed a "confict of interest". I am however permitted to train and certify dogs and handlers from other law enforcement agencies. After more years in this business than I care to remember, my experience is, certification is not dependant on what organization, or group you may align yourself with. It is specifically aligned with a documented program, with written standards for both training and work. The ability to demonstrate through documention, how your dogs were trained, how that training is maintained, an observable and measurable performance standard, and a realistic approach to applying that standard through evaluation. Finally the documentation of these items baring all to see, so to speak. Dog training is not smoke and mirrors, but rather an applied science. There is no mystery, why try to make it appear as if there is one.

DFrost

I am going to break down this article some and I hope Kevin and a few others join in. The dogs being handed and handlers “certified” as trainers/franchisers after one week of training is more then appalling.
I happen to be on of the trainers opposed to Mr. Russell Lee Ebersole’s envelope pushing techniques. We have brushed what this article brushed on as to why we don’t train “duel purpose detector dogs. This guy was asking for it.

Now on a trouble shooting stands point: The defense might be able to demonstrate the dog’s can and will find explosives. I give this guy a 50/50 chance of weaseling out of this. It will come down to who they have as an expert witness for the prosecution and a lot like a chess game of counter and counters of counters will take place if Ebersole knows more then he practices. After all it is hard to catch a fox without some good hounds. I am not convinced the state government can produce the kind of trainer they will need to win the case without some doubt. But we will see…

My thoughts are this. Maybe the dogs can do the work but the dogs did not work with a large quantity of the explosives they used in the sting op. It may be hard concept for some that even if the dog can say find a gram of a substance he may miss a kilogram unless he has been exposed to the quantities given.

While it looks like a cut and paste and close case the way the news report plays this. The truth is the prosecution will have their hands full. I also I bet and there will be numerous ramifications if this case goes forward in appeals for trainers. Some will be good some will enhance the problems I think.

Any thoughts anyone?

My thoughts are this. Maybe the dogs can do the work but the dogs did not work with a large quantity of the explosives they used in the sting op. It may be hard concept for some that even if the dog can say find a gram of a substance he may miss a kilogram unless he has been exposed to the quantities given. I was wondering about that too. Could anyone elaborate on this point?