Based on our last discussion of this topic we decided to go with passive alert training with our new dog. We visited a trainer the other day (are visiting many in our area) who stated that he will not teach passive alerts because they are not as precise as the active. He went on to explain that the passive dog will sit as soon as he hits the scent cone created by the drugs and will not go to the strongest source of odor. Again, our last two dogs were active alert dogs and the passive is new to us but his explanation seems flawed. We left with the opinion that training the passive alert was too much work therefour he did not teach it to new dogs. Opinions from passive alert handlers??

This can be said of an aggersive response dog also. It all depends on training and the foundation of how the dog was taught will dictate how close the dog pinpoints.

I will say though that in general an aggresive response dog is much easier to maintain, and work with; this is more true if your handlers are green, or still learning.

We also do passive alerts. Training is training. IF you let them sit away from source than that is what you get.

I did like the aggressive alerts. It is easier to teach b/c it is obvious where the dog is looking/smelling.

Bottom line - Passive no liability issues
Aggressive - Liability issue if dog is wrong.

Many people make the mistake of getting away from primary finds way to soon. Primary finds go a long way with your passive alert dogs.If you can imprint the reward is with the find the dog will work to source and focus on where the find is located because that is where it believes (and is) where the reward is.

I have worked both and have only had some minor problems with passive alerts inside cars and tight areas. Sometimes it is hard for the dog to sit, but that is were the handler must step in and read the dogs behavior. Usually, with my dog anyway, the last place she takes a deep sniff prior to sitting is where the source is. My dog has not had problems working to the source and she has a passive alert.

This issue is bigger than simply passive vs. aggresive indications.
Considerations:
1) Is the dog working via a primary motivator or a secondary motivator.

2) is your handler skilled (I have a aggresive indicating dog and have for years for narcs and NEVER destroyed stuff and received any liability issues!!!!

3) Court concerns. Nebraska lost a case in federal court a few years back because the dog didn't acheive final trained response in the words of the expert in the court. The handler had to READ the dog and was certain what it meant but still lost. It is an appeallate court decision.

4) What is your working environment?

5) What are your training resources. If you only train the secondary motivator methodology you need to shit can passive (actually you need to rethink what you are doing in general) because this causes the fringe indications.

The other issue is one of training time. Initial training tends to be less for the aggresive dog and passive takes a bit longer when done right. Maintenence trainnig is a bit more extensive with passive than aggresive but can be done in more environments than aggresive. Is the dog a multi purpose dog or single purpose dog and will you be overlapping indications? Example: the same passive response to evidence as to narcs? Could trip you up in court and you may get a bit of cross over in the training and deployments.
Just a few things to consider.

I have not read that court case, but I will asume that the handler was using the responses he was seeing from his dog to establish probable cause. He needed Probable Cause to open the container or further search the area he was already in. In this case I agree the final response is a must.
However, if the officer already has PC to search an area and is in the vehicle or location legally he need not worry about achieving the final response. He is not using it to gain PC he is trying to find the hide (no different than officers riping apart the car without a dog just quicker and more effective) . In this case read the dog and work as a team. I beileve there are many times when an aggresive alert dog can not scratch at the source (Too high, too deep -whatever). Training and documentation of your training and your dog's response is a must.

I stated that my dog has trouble in tight areas such as cars. She does however sit in almost all her finds, but it just is not always pretty.

After all that, I would rather work an aggresive response alert. Its my preference, but I think passive works also. There are just alot of excuses that people use to say aggresive is better.

The one VERY bad example of a passive alert was something I just saw last weekend when our team went to the Body Farm at U of Tenn. A very enthusiastic Golden from another team did a down when it alerted on a decomposed body. It downed just downhill from the "victim" right in the middle of all the body fluids. I realize this is a matter of training, but it wasn't pretty.

Among our detector dogs, we have both aggressive and passive response dogs for drugs, and of course all our EDD's are passive. It is purely a matter of training. The passive response, in my experience, is no more difficult to train initially or maintain during inservice than the aggressive. While I admit a personal preference to the aggressive response, it is strictly that, personal, and not based on performance or proficiency.

DFrost

My first dog was aggressive alert and my new dog is a passive. Most all of the dogs in our training group are now passive. Really no big difference, just makes training a little easier when the dogs are passive (dont have to worry about where your hiding your suff, and getting the objects scratched up). As for the legal concerns...I've not seen any case law on this subject but if I were a defense attorney I know what I would attack -
Q - "Officer do you conduct obedience training along with your regular training"
A - "Yes, we do obedience training"
Q - "If you give your dog a sit command, will he sit"
A - "Yes, he will sit when I tell him"
Q - "You stated previously that your dogs is trained as a passive indicator. Doesnt that mean he sits when he smells a trained odor"
A - "Yes, that is his final response"
Q - "So it is possible that if you were taking your dog around a vehicle doing a drug sniff, and you told your dog to sit, he would sit wouldnt he"
A - "I wouldnt tell him to sit..."
Q - "but if you did, would he sit"
A - "yes, but...
Q - etc...

You see where I'm going. Obviously the handler will have to explain the prior and post behavior of the dog and such, but all the defense attorney has to do is put a little bit of doubt in one jurors mind with the confusing questions.
When I had an aggressive alert dog, I never taught the dog to scratch for anything but trained odor. I couldnt tell him to scratch and didnt have a command to make him scratch.

Just something to think about.
Any other thoughts?
John


Originally posted by Kevin Sheldahl:
This issue is bigger than simply passive vs. aggresive indications.
Considerations:
1) Is the dog working via a primary motivator or a secondary motivator.

2) is your handler skilled (I have a aggresive indicating dog and have for years for narcs and NEVER destroyed stuff and received any liability issues!!!!

3) Court concerns. Nebraska lost a case in federal court a few years back because the dog didn't acheive final trained response in the words of the expert in the court. The handler had to READ the dog and was certain what it meant but still lost. It is an appeallate court decision.

4) What is your working environment?

5) What are your training resources. If you only train the secondary motivator methodology you need to shit can passive (actually you need to rethink what you are doing in general) because this causes the fringe indications.

The other issue is one of training time. Initial training tends to be less for the aggresive dog and passive takes a bit longer when done right. Maintenence trainnig is a bit more extensive with passive than aggresive but can be done in more environments than aggresive. Is the dog a multi purpose dog or single purpose dog and will you be overlapping indications? Example: the same passive response to evidence as to narcs? Could trip you up in court and you may get a bit of cross over in the training and deployments.
Just a few things to consider.