I have always found it interesting that successful dog trainers are seldom of a mind to explore new options. Dope is a pretty simple deal. Change it out frequently, get qualitative analysis on the stuff you work with and you are golden. I agree 100%.

But, I have noticed a lot of variability in regards to some EDD's. Smokeless powders where one team bangs it and another doesn't. A little looking into it and we find that the teams are using different brands and yet, the explosive ingredients are the same in double and single based powders?? Some "experts" have even published their opinion that there is a difference between military c4 and commercial c4 due to their experiences. I travel to see other places and their training and see the same sorts of issues. Ultimately what we must identify is just what a dog learns when we train him to do ED. We cannot say exactly at this point in time. Then we have to decide if that is what is best for our purposes and if there is something we would rather they learn that would serve us better and whether or not they can learn that in the context of ED.

To work as you say David is fine, but if we can find a better way? Then we would be remiss in failing to do so simply because we are satisfied with the status quo.

Today the security threats are diverse. We have never done a good job of training on things like peroxide based products. The 1-2 gram samples the feds show up with 2-3 times a year aren't effective. If simulant products can help us in this arena it will present an improvement on our goals.

I was presented with a number, 21,000 plus explosive products manufactured legitimatly worldwide back in about 2000. That does not include things that are are too dangerous to manufacture or handle that might be made or possessed by those with bad intentions. It doesn't include archaic formulations that can be found in various publications. Nor does it include some highly researched substances that have not yet been seen in circulation but have the potential to appear.

If we can narrow what the dogs learn, but widen the products they will locate we are presenting a vast improvement to security.

It is like I say to a friend of mine who is still carrying a wheel gun. Yep, it works just fine. But, I would never go back to issuing cadets revolvers when I can hand 'em a modern firearm like a Glock.

 Quote: David C.Frost

I dont' get my drugs from DEA. I have them qualitative analysis on done on them. As for explosives, they are changed on a regular basis, it's not a difficult process. I've always found it interesting that I can place the different types of psuedos in a training area, without the handlers knowledge, and the dogs don't respond. It's also interesting, no reputable certification agency will allow the use of psuedo during any type of certification. As for the age of drugs, you'd have to understand drug trafficking a little better to understand that most drugs, except for marijuana, does not go directly from the manufacturer to the user. At any rate, I let the success of our 45 dogs speak for the program. My way of thinking is; if the dog is finding dope, then something must be right with the training.

DFrost

I carry a Glock. Just as an example, I answer questions such as; is there a difference between military c-4 and commercial c-4, the old fashioned way; I use both. When the question comes up on other explosives, I answer those questions by testing do the same thing. Your example of smokeless powder is a good one. In fact, Auburn U. and the Secret Service did a study on different SP's years ago. The study did have some interesting revelations. Mostly the problems were centered around one type of SP. Their study was a true double blind. I'm not resistant to change. I've changed considerably since training our first bomb dogs in 1971. However, just because there is "a" change, or a new flavor of the day, it doesn't always mean it's for the better. As for the ability to change, why shucks Kevin, I trained the first food reward detector dog for the military back in 1970, geez louise talk about change.

DFrost

David F, as Kevin mentioned, it is not the old shool explosives that we need to worry about, but the newer ones which, albeit readily available in the field, are never spoken about. Do you have K9's trained on TATP and HMTD? If so, how many grams do you use for your training? Now, with your knowledge of K9's do you think a K9 trained on 1 gm to 10 gm of TATP will find an explosive device made of 50 pounds of TATP?

Also, as a matter of interest and with no disrespect intended, how long did it take you to change from a wheel gun to a Glock? :-)

 Quote: David Adebimpe

Do you have K9's trained on TATP and HMTD? If so, how many grams do you use for your training? Now, with your knowledge of K9's do you think a K9 trained on 1 gm to 10 gm of TATP will find an explosive device made of 50 pounds of TATP?

Also, as a matter of interest and with no disrespect intended, how long did it take you to change from a wheel gun to a Glock? :-)

Yes we do. I'm not at liberty to say how much we use. I think dogs only exposed to gram levels of any odor can have problems with much larger amounts. Not including peroxide based, we've worked on targets as large as 5,000 pounds. I can see a difference on targets that large and targets of the normal 5 to 10 pounds. I first started carrying an auto (S/W Sigma) in '96, the Glock in 99 or 2000. We must carry department issued weapons.

DFrost

 Quote:

I first started carrying an auto (S/W Sigma) in '96, the Glock in 99 or 2000. We must carry department issued weapons.

Just an example David. I carry a wheelgun off duty!

The thing that interests me about EDD is that even after reading all the available stuff Auburn has out, and as much as I have discussed with training programs abroad, there are soo many unanswered questions about explosives. I have had a chance to explore some of the irregularities we see, subject dogs to a variety of substances that would be out of the realm for most handlers, and frankly, I end up with more questions. Between EDD and human remains detection I see a vast number of questions and a hand full of answers and a whole lot more supposition than anything else.

I don't disagree with your approach...I just want more. More answers, more research, and maybe less work.

Kevin, I certainly can't disagree with you on wanting more answers. I've been forutunate as well, working for a research outfit, working with the military etc, gave me an opportunity to be exposed to a wide range of difference compounds. Currently we have a fairly large large EOD unit, working for the state sometimes has it's advantages. We've been able to train on some commercial demolition charges, for example, that many may not have access. You are right, the possibility of compounds is extensive. We also have to be realistic, rely on available intelligence and train for the "most probable". Research is great and I loved working in such a capacity. We still have to live, train and deploy in the real world. The best we can do is all we can do, being as ready as we can.
Edited to add: I'm not an idiot, I'd still like to review your results from the double blind study you were/are conducting. My email is available on this forum.

edited again cause I can't shut up. I normally carry my little Walther PPK .380 off duty. It's not the best gun, I know, but I've always wanted one. I've had it for well over 20 years. It's raunchy, not very accurate, noisy, fire spittin' little gun, but hey, I really do like it. ha ha.

DFrost

Dave and Kev, the experience that both of you harness in the K9 world cannot be overemphasized! I find conversations with you refreshingly endearing, since I am conversing with guys that know what they are talking about and have a passion for this work.

Apart from Ken Furton and his group at FIU, most of those involved in the detector-K9 R&D business are behavorialists and psychologists. I am not a K9 trainer by any respects but I am one of the few people in the world with combined research and university-level teaching experience in olfaction, neurology, structure/odor relationships, organic syntheses, biochemistry, neural networks and behavioral and social psychology…all of which are necessary in pursuing applied scientific R&D in detection. I went into the detector K9 world with a motive, which is to contribute to the knowledge pool of antiterrorism and social justice in honor of the 11 friends that I lost during the 9/11 attacks. K9's are, by far, better detectors than any vapor-detecting instrumentation available and it was just natural for me to think that making optimized training aids for them is necessary. The difference between Auburn and I is that I have evolved from being an academic (who publishes papers and writes reports) to an applied scientist (who makes products that work). This is evident in work that I did for the US Navy, for whom I developed and produced the first official non-explosive replacement training aids to replicate each of the 10 explosives within the MN01 and MN76 kits used by the USMC and USN respectively – a feat that I completed within a period of less than 20 months. I have been an active researcher in a variety of subjects for over 20 years and it is the e amalgamation of my knowledge that I am now translating into products that the real people in the field can use. I make 30 gram training aids that smell like 1000 (yes 1000) pound explosives, I make narcotic training aids that even Sigma cannot make, and I am proud to say that my aids are being used in Iraq and Afghanistan to great success and I have had numerous feedbacks that it really has saved lives. For me, this is all the motivation I need to continue working in this field.

Yes, it is true that there are still some unanswered questions about explosives and the reason is partly mine, as I have not been making my knowledge and expertise in odors known to the K9 world. I have been busy with my fascination with other aspects of science (such as nanotechnology and electronic noses), and with scrounging for money to continue R&D activities in this area. I have not received a single grant in the odor work I do (most of the money is earmarked for detecting machines), and until recently, my mode of thinking is that those that have been receiving the millions of dollars in research money should at least show some return and find and disseminate the answers that I have found but they have been paid to find. This is why I like Kevin's style – like a true scientist, he is unbiased until he sees proof. I hope to continue working with Kevin in researching and optimizing training aids that could help in the explosive and narcotic detection world...as it is reflected in the 21st century. Kevin, if I could get the research money to do research in the things you want to see, and I can devote all my time to it, I guarantee you that I could have the primary questions answered in 6 months. At per the question to if there is one singular compound that can represent the odor of all explosives, the answer will be NO. This is not possible for many reasons, most of which have to do with the way the olfactory system works…but I probably can reduce the number to three (if I have the monies to devote time to it). Dave, as for the "most probable" I can assure you that these will certainly include the peroxide explosives. At the moment I know of some police departments already catching high school kids making this stuff. Also, I cannot think of what will happen when most of our veterans come back home and find an economically-depressed country waiting for them. Very soon, we will have internal security issues that we will need to address in addition to protecting ourselves from the non patriotic. There is a lot of work to do and I am happy that people like Kevin are around to take the time to exhaustively investigate any thing that might make the job of the K9 trainer and handler more efficient. If you guys want answers, I'll be happy to be involved in finding them for you. We are all awaiting Kevin's report on his current research endeavours.

p.s. I love the PPK .380. It was my first!

"as for the "most probable" I can assure you that these will certainly include the peroxide explosives."

The probability of peroxide based materials shouldn't be a surprise to anyone in the explosives detection business.

"I am not a K9 trainer by any respects but I am one of the few people in the world with combined research and university-level teaching experience in olfaction, neurology, structure/odor relationships,.........."

I am a K9 Trainer. I'm not vendor, I don't train dogs and sell them. My "customer" is the end user and they are used on a near daily basis. While I appreciate the need for science and am certainly congnizant of advances, no where have I ever intimated that "nothing will ever change". Canine explosives detection has changed and continues to change since I trained my first one in 1970. That was for Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX if you are familiar with that organization. I applaud efforts to make training materials that are safer, easier to use etc, and I sincerely hope that they do indeed are made available some day. While I have no doubt you could give me a lesson on odors, I think you might be surprised what I can teach about operational dog teams. I understand dog trainers are a dinosaur in a star wars world, but as you said yourself, they are still the most portable, most efficient and most proficient detector system available today.

DFrost

If i am to be called a vendor, it is certainly not of the type that it seems you presume that i am, and of which i hope is not the general opinion of my esteemed co-members of this forum also. I am a vendor of any contribution that i can make to assist the detector-K9 community to be the best that they can be within the extreme environments they work in. I cannot do they work that they do on the field, but i applaud their gallantry, so this is the best that i can do in order to support their efforts (and probably to feel less puny :-). And my best contribution can only be from the area for which i am best suited, which in the area of scientific R&D. The development of a product is secondary, but stands out as a applied testament of the new science that trainers and handlers need to add to their already-existing repertoire of knowledge, something to help them go to work with a higher probability that they will return back home, day-after-day, until retirement...and i am willing to share such (non-classified) knowledge with trainers and handlers within this forum of ours. However, if dog trainers are really "dinosaurs in a star wars world," then they will need to shown and allow for them to field-test, products that really work to convince them of anything at all, most especially, the true etiology of odor and the new foundations of odor detection. I know about SWRI, in fact, i was there last week. From your comments, it seems that these training aids are "pseudos." If SWRI has inert training aids that can be disbursed/sold to those trainers and handlers that are at the real grassroot level of providing law, order, national security and social justice, protecting both our citizenry and infrastructure - and which you can vouch for - why are they making such aids so secret? Are 99.9% of other trainers and handlers non-worthy? Is it because they have no "secret" classification, or because government handlers are superior to state police handlers, who are superior to private handlers etc, etc. The last time i looked the color of American blood was just red. Training aids need to be made available to all trainers and handlers now, and i am standing up to make this a reality. It is time we rid ourself of the different stratas of bureaucracy that prevent good trainers and handlers from doing their jobs well, more especially since they are in a job where there is by no means a 100% guarantee of getting home to their families in any give working day. I will be honored to learn from you about operational dog teams and your other esteemed experiences and (as you know, scientists are always broke) promise to certainly would come down if you can invite me with an airline ticket and hotel accommodation...really, i would be delighted :-). In the meantime, i am here not to market a product, but to discuss and give my two cents about odors, training aids and applied detection, and also to learn from guys like you and Kevin so that i can become better at my art. Members of the forum, i salute you.

I didn't mean to infer you were a vendor trying to sell something. If you took it that way, my apologies. It wasn't my intent. I was stating I'm not a vendor. My product goes directly to the streets where it's worked on a daily basis. When we did the study at SWRI, we used real explosives. If they've developed an inert training aid, I wouldn't know anything about it. That was many years ago. As for the Government, well that's a horse of an entirely different color. A question though, has ATF, TSA, or Secret Service had an opportunity to test your products?

DFrost