Yeah . . . sorry for the dialogue Lisa, I am touchy about the subject. Yes, our team has been asked if we trained with S.Anderson by LE. No, we haven't. It hasn't seemed to affect our water recovery work at all just the *other* HRD work, can't blame them for being cautious - time and continued hard work showing honesty and integrity will heal . . .

and we to have been experiencing the mom/pop thing in this area as well . . . independants they call themselves. Invite the press, etc., and have taken credit for other reputable teams work - they don't believe in any competency standards for themselves/dogs, or testing/evals for SAR.

We even have one guy that tells the press he has the only *certified tracking dog* in the state - but joe public seems to buy it, for the time being - he openly solicits funds in the small community newspapers, etc. It's quite embarrasing.. . and they just show up on scene or call the FAMILIES, really putting the AHJ on the spot - Ambulance chasing - glory hounds, we call em.

That's why states need to have a basic certification standard for SAR dogs and handlers.

You can bet, anytime a dog handler, whether it's explosives, narctoics or in this case HRD, takes shortcuts with the law, there will be reprecussions. We (state police) have our own HRD dog. The records are maintained the same as drug or explosives detectors. Lawyers are quite capable of using a very broad brush when trying to show the dog/dog team is not proficient. Just like the moron that was convicted of fraud in the explosives detector dog case and the few handlers that use poorly trained detector dogs, bad case law is bad case law and it affects us all.

DFrost

Yes, I couldn't agree with you more VC and Mr. Frost!! I think some states are alot more proactive with this. It is true no matter what discipline your dogs works/serves in for the public, the public will ask you what happened with that dog or their handler when an incident arises, and bad press results.

Education, education, documentation, etc., and good example . . . and the support of other disciplines out there, no matter what their job in the K-9 community, there never seems to be enough opportunity to really get that across to overshadow some bad examples, but that is just the way our world works it seems.. . can only keep focused and trying!

I had no idea that "independent" teams showing up on scene without being called was such a problem in some areas. Fortunately I haven't seen that happening around here.

Yes, I was looking for some actual examples of the Anderson case specifically having an effect, rather than generalizations about how it "hurts us all". There are a lot of kooks out there that hurt us all, and there have been for a long time, and unfortunately, LE doesn't always know the difference.

VC, I'm not sure I see a need for a statewide "system" per se; I think it's too easy for politics to enter the picture and compromise the mission of the organization, or for beaurocracy to create too much red tape for the organization to be effective.

Just because someone is on the statewide list of "certified" handlers does not mean they are up to the task, and just because someone is not on that list does not mean they are not qualified. A certification test is only as fair and objective as the person giving it, and is only a snapshot of what that dog and handler were capable of on that particular day under those particular conditions. When you have politics in the picture, objectivity and fairness often take a back seat.

But certainly I agree that each team needs written standards, and certification to those standards by an outside evaluator ought to occur. A statewide or regional cooperative network of teams who may or may not share the *exact* same guidelines and standards (I think it's important for teams to have enough autonomy to write guidelines and standards that are realistic for their particular topography, the types of callouts they most frequently respond to, the size of their team, whether they're a nonprofit or under the umbrella of the SO, etc.), but who do follow effective training and certification procedures that can be measured and documented is something that I am in favor of.

A major problem as I see it is ignorance on the part of search managers and LEOs of how the dogs work and what they can and can't do. Some think it's all smoke and mirrors and won't call dogs except as a last resort if at all, while others have unrealistic expectations and see it as a failure if the dogs don't perform as expected. By building relationships with the LE agencies that we work with and by being transparent with our guidelines and standards, and by conducting ourselves with professionalism, we as individual teams can have a huge positive impact on our own credibility and integrity, at least on a local level. I would hate for agencies to see the word "certified" and automatically assume that they're getting someone "qualified". Granted, in an ideal world, they *should* be able to do that, but until we can take the politics out of SAR, I think individual teams would do better to cover their own behinds and do everything on the up and up and develop positive relationships with their own local agencies.

Okay, that's my little rant for the day. Off to fill out my training log!

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

 Quote:

Originally posted by Lisa Swanston:
relationships with their own local agencies.

Okay, that's my little rant for the day. Off to fill out my training log!

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Yes, I am already groaning at finishing up my log for last nights "Trust your dog" lesson. One of those.....her nose worked better than my ears on the radio and the subjects description of where they went.......

 Quote:

Originally posted by Lisa Swanston:
VC, I'm not sure I see a need for a statewide "system" per se; I think it's too easy for politics to enter the picture and compromise the mission of the organization, or for beaurocracy to create too much red tape for the organization to be effective.

I can't imagine a system more prone to politics and corruption than one that allows self certification or certification by colleagues within one's own unit. I agree with VC about the importance of state wide standards.

California's SAR standards have been the benchmarks upon which other states have based their standards. Up until recently these were maintained by statewide volunteer SAR groups such as CARDA. However in recent months, the CA OES (Office of Emergency Services) rolled out statewide SAR certification standards that are mandatory for mutual aid response in California (i.e. support outside of one's county SAR team). One can see these standards here: http://tinyurl.com/4lrrd (scroll down to "California Search and Rescue Mutual Aid Guidelines")

 Quote:

A certification test is only as fair and objective as the person giving it

California requires two evaluators for mission ready tests. Evaluators must have been MR in the discipline being tested, and must have responded on at least 10 searches. Evaluators must not be from among those that one trains with. For subsequent recertifications that must be done every 2 years, one cannot use the same evaluators as one used in the past. It's pretty hard to rely on an old boy network with that sort of system.

 Quote:

, and is only a snapshot of what that dog and handler were capable of on that particular day under those particular conditions.

This assumes a certification process that only involves a single snapshot test. CA OES SAR standards involve numerous tests before the Mission Ready (certification) test can even be attempted.

For example, to certify in Type 1 Trailing, a team must first be evaluated on 8 trails around 1/2 mile long, ranging from urban daytime, urban nighttime, wilderness daytime, wilderness nighttime, aged 2, 8-12, 48, 60-72, and 96 hours. All except the 96 hour trail must be run blind and successful. There are additional mandatory dog tests outside of the Mission Ready test, involving obedience, agility, swimming, sociability, "hot loading" on a helicopter, trail head ID, etc... plus a bunch of handler training/tests such as land nav, physical fitness, emergency response first aid & CPR, radio communications, knots, litter/patient transport, mantracking, knowledge of a crime scene, scent theory, helicopter safety, SEMS/ICS, survival training, etc. After doing ALL of that, then one can attempt the Mission Ready test for Type 1 Trailing. The MR trailing test involves a 1 - 1.5 mile long trail aged 18-24 hrs, in an area the handler is unfamiliar with.

 Quote:

By building relationships with the LE agencies that we work with and by being transparent with our guidelines and standards, and by conducting ourselves with professionalism, we as individual teams can have a huge positive impact on our own credibility and integrity, at least on a local level.

And what if SAR K9 resources are needed from outside of one's local area? How does one build these relationships on a statewide basis? That's one of the advantages of statewide standards.

It's not unusual in California for search teams to travel hundreds of miles, across a few counties, to get to searches. Relying on local resources won't work because there aren't enough of them in many areas. A handler/dog team that is MR under CA OES SAR standards is eligible to respond to searches in their certified discipline & Type anywhere in California through the statewide OES dispatch system.

It's difficult for me to understand why some in SAR object to broadly applied certification standards. How would folks like it if the medical profession had no uniform standards of professional "certification", and anyone could hang up a shingle calling himself a "medical doctor" and could practice "medicine", because somebody, maybe the "medical doctors" he works with, said he passed their own unique "medical doctor" test.

Laura Sanborn

Avoiding poitics would be a problem but I would LOVE to see state wide certification. Getting certified by your own team leaders or individuals brought in, and known by the team, opens the door for mediocre dogs and handlers.

Team standards are only as good as the team leaders. We have excellent, written standards, but I've seen other teams that have them also. Without quality dogs and handlers on the teams, the're only as good as the team leaders allows them to be. Yes, standards are a must, IMNSHO, but without QUALIFIED/OUTSIDE testing, crap teams will continue to destroy what the other's have worked for.

MO is trying to get SAR State Standards, but it's turning into another "team". California and Virginia both have an excellent system. Politics will be in anything you can join.

I am just amazed that S. Anderson's deal didn't make LE sit back and say they weren't using vol. anymore and just get their own dogs.
I'm even more amazed that she only got 21months and 14,500.00 in fines. I'd have thrown her away for good. Makes me sick