Does anyone have experiance training narcotics detector dogs with both psudos and real drugs? I have come across information that some dogs trained on psudos will hit on other drugs not origionally trained with. Which do you prefer?

Youll get different opinions to that question, here is what I say, its easy and convenient to start the dogs off on psuedo to imprint the scents. After that has been established start using real drugs on the finds and dont go back to using psuedos again.

Kevin and I had a healthy discussion on this board about it.

http://www.leerburg.com/ubb//ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=000019

I have used both and in general agree with what David said.

The main advantage arguments would be convenience and safety. There is also the argument of a greater scent quantity because you can "represent" more drugs than is perhaps more practical for training. This has been promoted as useful for beginning scent association but considering the dog’s real capability of scenting and experience has taught me the dog learns fine on lesser quantities than many psuedo proponents use and claim need.

Then we can all go to the firing range and qualify with blanks. There is certainly no danger of anyone getting hit that way. Psuedo is just that, fake, not real. It is neither illegal to possess or partake of fake drugs, if you would want to. Whether or not it is "close" to the real odor of drugs is not important. They are NOT real. I've never understood why anyone would train a dog to find something that will not be part of what they will be looking for. Having said that, I know of no court cases that have been overturned or lost because the dog was trained on pseudo. I do know that from my own experiences, dogs trained on real drugs will not respond on psuedo.

DFrost

Matt, we have two narcotics K9s that we experimented with one was trained on psuedo and switched to real narcs, the second was trained on real stuff from day one, even though I prefer using the real stuff both dogs have super find ratios the first dog hits on psuedo and real the second only on real this could pose a problem if the suspect is carrying psuedo but then that should raise a question as to why are they carrying it. If they a legit they will understand.Id like to see more on this Topic.

If your dog has been trained on psuedo, try a little experiment on your own. Be honest about it the results. Conduct the trial without your handlers knowledge. When setting out a training problem, place 10 or so crushed aspirin in whatever containers you use for your regular training. Treat it like any other training aid, and of course don't contaminate it with any of the real substances. Allow the dog to work the problem and see what happens.

DFrost

I don't have any personal experience with it but I've been present many times when it's been used. Dogs who hadn't seen it before alerted on it just as they did to real.

Donn Yarnall uses it frequently. That's good enough for me.

We had a similar discussion on a different thread a little over a month ago. My opinion is not founded on the training of the K9, but on the pursuit of the court case at trial and on appeal. I think you can run into some problems with probable cause if you are training with pseudo.

While there are no recorded appellate cases which exclude evidence based on a dog's training record with pseudo, I believe it is a matter of relatively short time before this changes. This opinion is based in part on information I've received from notable, published K9 trainers who, like David Frost, have conducted the acetic acid (aspirin) experiment.

The other basis for my opinion on this subject is my experience with K9 cases on appeal. I have worked on two such cases recently in the Illinois Supreme Court, and in March I wrote a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court in one of the Illinois cases we lost on appeal. The U.S. Supremes have since ordered the defendant's lawyers to respond to our petition, which is a good sign that they may take the case. If they do, we may see (for the first time) a clear and concise rule on K9 deployment. But even if we get a good rule, it may significantly change some aspects of training or deployment.

The recent decision in Illinois (a legally incorrect one handed down in People v. Anne Cox) seems to require reasonable suspicion to deploy a canine during a traffic stop. This is, as I have stated several times, clearly NOT the intent of the U.S Supreme Court in its decisions on the issue.

Basically, while the courts have much faith in the abilities of the dog, they are not generally friendly when it comes to their trainers/handlers. If I were involved in that end of the law enforcement spectrum, I'd do everything I could to distance my dog from training with pseudo.

I once posted a highlight of my thoughts on how dogs use their nose to discriminate scents. It is my belief they detract scents before they discriminate. For now it is only a hypothesis and I hope in short time we will come up with some funds to experiment on a larger scale.

It is my general belief detraction is when the dog suppresses the most common elements first when given the task of finding something. From there it (for lack of better terms) it "logs" the targeted scents it is looking for AND "logs" new scent particles for further discrimination. If the substance has the scents that are similar to the target scent even if not a pure scent the dog can recognize it. We don't know exactly how a dog catalogs scents. For my own mind and understanding I have made a guess that seems to be holding up.

I will use color marbles represent scents and to better illustrate what I think:

Imagine the scents as marbles. The non-targeted scents represent the most marbles so they are pure white.

Now imagine any scent the dog is looking for as shades of red marbles. With a limit that individual dog uses to define "red". The street narcotics have the full range of red and can be represented from the brightest most pure form to the remaining “contaminates” of the scent as the shades. The psuedo represents perhaps ONE or TWO of those shades of red but not quite the full range of the exact street narcotic.

When the dog is trained to find the "shades" of a scent the dog looks for this representation. When the dog is trained to find only the most pure form of the targeted scent found in the real narcotic it detract the common scents and perhaps the cut off of the shades of the scent with it but finds what is needs and indicates.

If the scent is new and pure and the dog has experience with "other" pure scents like those found in psuedo it will based on its previous experiences "being a creature of optimism" and may try to indicate it.

I don’t know the exact process of how sigma chem. makes the psuedo narcotic "shades" but I do think it is an isolated fraction of the real scent.

When the dog is trained on street quality narcotics with all its impurities the dog catalogs the entire scent with impurities so it is looking for the close patterns and allowing more "marble variances" so when asked to find psuedo it says..."Um well...one "scent/marble" but where are the others?

Some will decide, especially those dogs proofed away from false finds, not to indicate the isolated scent.

Now, just the opposite happens (I think) for some dogs trained on psuedo.

The dog notices pure isolated forms and thinks, "Ah ha...PAY DAY!"

It is logical to assume some pure or chemical scents fool the dog. This is maybe because of the purity (too clean) or there are similar scent “shades” during the breakdown of certain substances like aspirin. It is possible, I believe, to further refine and proof the dog away from pure form substances when combined with the use of the real drugs but why bother with it.

The real narcotic is without question. I know others have had great success still there is too much icon worshiping in the dog world. Good trainers deserve respect a pioneers but not as gods or least you find yourself shelved. The question of psuedo use is in fact in question and it os only a matter of time before this question is enough “doubt” I think.

Went to a K9 seminar today...some interesing points came up regarding narc detection... they are:
1) Always switch up your "training containers" to prevent the smell from being imprinted on the dog... ie is the dog hitting on the narcs or on the canvas training bag. Use what you will find on the street... film containers, plastic baggies, paper bags.

2) Always roatate fresh narcs into training whenever possible instead of using old stock. The suggestion was to have another officer hide his arrest's narcs in a file cabnet or other location for you to find. The instructor's logis was the same as Dennis' that this way you get the dog use to all of the different cuts and additives the dealers are adding.

3) Video tape all your detection training so you can go back and see your mistakes as a handler.

They all seem basic but everyone saw something in their program they can improve!