This is an interesting thread.

I own up to not understanding the passive indicator...

It seems to me if you have a dog trained in drug detection, a part of that training is for the dog to do some thing that would be reasonably obvious to the casual observer - down, paw at, sit, bark, whatever - if it hit or detected possible contraband.

I think, as a matter of fairness - and please keep in mind I am to the right of Attila, or so my friends would opine - there should be more to an indication than the handler deescribing some mind meld with the dog.

From what I am led to believe, a well trained dog is rewarded for detecting. In the absence of some overt reaction on the part of the dog, how would one know what to reward?

Now, before anyone gets all twisted, I am merely seeking a reasonable and rational description of what constitutes a passive indication or hit. I mean, there has to be some thing that a handler could/would share with an observer.

Sum-pin don't seem right in the oh-ridge-in-all scenario. If I were the observer, I would want some clear descriptions of what I was observing or expecting to observe. or...

I was talking to a Trooper K-9 guy and he seemed pretty proud of the level of training and partnership he had with his dog. He seemed ready, willing, and even excited about describing the ability of his dog and their relationship.

My dogs give all kinds of signals off but for the life of me I can't immagine them giving off a subtle signal and then disguising their behavior.

Then too, I probably missed the whole point of the original post and responses. So, some one offer up a set of brains, por favor.

Huh. A professional warrior didn't like a citizen nanny breathing down his neck and got hostile.

That seems odd.

Mike,
I felt from the beginning the officer could've handled the question better. And said so.

You know how your dogs alert to something. It's probably(?)/maybe always active. Easy to discern.
Pastive though could be say something no more than an interested sit or down.

@Randy Allen. I am very sorry that you took my post to be snippy. It was in no way intended as such. In my job as a vet tech I have known many police service dogs and their handlers. I have tremendous respect not only for them as individuals, but also for the very important work they do. Up until this occasion, I had the impression from my previous contacts, that this work depended on precision, accuracy and intensive consistent training. What I saw from the corrections officer did not reflect that. It was an anomaly. Since these dogs were trained specifically as narcotics dogs, I thought it best to come to the experts before I make any statement to the administration. I wanted to express my concern from the foundation of knowledge, not from ignorance or supposition. This is the only reason for my line of questionning. I wanted to ascertain if someone was doing right by their dog, and by the institution. My apologies to anyone I offended.

@Mike Arnold I came from Attila's ultra conservative branch of the family. They would classify me now as commie/pinko/nazi/socialist nowadays, although I probably only a hair's breadth to the left of Attila himself! Anyway, your rationale is bang on and I am in total agreement with your posts. My role on this citizen committee is NOT as an inmate advocate. It is as an objective, interested, impartial member of the community. Whatever the offender has done, when visitors come, I understand the potential for problems with smuggling, etc. That is why the dogs are important. On an additional note, I know that the high energy of some of these dogs in active search can be frightening to a small child who is coming to see his father in prison. So how do we balance the need for institutional security, and avoid a negative impact on a young impressionable child? My feeling is that a highly trained dog, under complete control of the handler, can do the necessary search without the child feeling he is being attacked.

Intimidating a child I would think would be the lesser worry. Taking into account that that child is visiting a maximum security prison....seems like a scary dog might not be what I would worry about. And maybe visiting a prison SHOULD be a little scary. Just me.

@Sonya OK this is taking the discussion into a more philosophical frame than I intended, and is probably not appropriate in this kind of forum. My original concern was mainly this: were the dog and handler working as a well trained team that is an effective, efficient and accurate contributor to the security of the institution. If there is a means/method/technique that is considered de rigeur for narcotics dogs, then that should be maintained precisely by a handler.

I want to thank everyone for their contributions to this discussion. You all helped me generate a clear concept in my mind in which to frame my approach to administration. This is by no means meant to bash any particular corrections officer, nor to make general assumptions about any type of law enforcement canine team. I wanted to understand the purpose of the training, the importance of proper handling, and get an accurate picture of what I should be seeing. You have all helped enormously and have not only my gratitude, but my respect for the work you do.

MOD NOTE:

Before this goes too far, I'm going to add the usual generic statement that opinions given on this forum range from expert to novice level, and posters on this forum range from first-time pet owners to national level professionals - it is up to the original poster that asks a question to determine the expertise of any poster that takes the time to answers their question and to make their own determination if an answer has any factual basis.

In other words - let the buyer beware.

Will Rambeau
Moderator

I think its important to note that the Officer you spoke to was obviously hostile, and that makes it difficult to take any useful information away from the exchange.

Coming from the position you are, as a civilian member of a watchdog group, its unlikely you'd receive a cooperative response from many individual Officers.

It'd probably be far more productive to contact the kennel master and ask to see how the dogs are trained, etc; rather than simply chatting with an Officer in the course of his duties who for a variety of reasons may not be all that keen on chatting with you.