Quote: Norman Epstein

In training if you reward away from the source on a continuing basis the dog will begin looking back for the reward and if continued, leave the source looking for its reward.

I know that this is not done in training, but couldn't an experienced dog have the reward occasionally delayed slightly, if need be?

Yes.

 Quote: amber morgan

And finally, are there other commonly used active alerts besides scratching? Sorry if these are obvious questions, but again...just trying to learn more.

I'm not sure this is a "common" alert, but I know of a dog who does a sit with a nose-poke (pokes her nose at the narcotics) for her narcotics alert. I thought that was pretty cool and it seems to address a lot of the issues folks talk about with active alert dogs. Not much damage can be done with a nose poke, that's for sure!

I think we can all agree that none of the alerts is completely foolproof. The sit is difficult for the dog to physically perform in certain situations and can sometimes make pin-pointing difficult. The scratch can do unwanted damage. I think, in the end, it boils down mostly to personal preference.

Hi Amber,

The method that I am using does not use scratch boxes at all.For scent proofing, I am just going to use 3-4 empty containers along with the target container. Upon indication of the correct article,I will reward.I think this method is similar to the box, minus the box.

My timing actually is not off, in fact it is spot on. The instant the dogs nose touches the article, I go overboard with the verbal praise.I make a hell of a big deal about it.Similar to the jackpot We then go to the other room, not to reward, but to keep her from seeing the next hide. She doesn't think the reward is coming from the room, because the reward is coming from my hand. The reward should not always be associated with that room because I do change it up constantly.

Norman,
Your comment re: the bucket of balls being dumped over the dog,doesn't even phase him, he is more interested in the find.
I don't think food will be a distraction in the future. My GSD eating a rawhide (I know their bad)in the same room does not even distract her, she wants the find. And her food drive is awesome, so I would think that rawhide would be a huge distraction. The distractions are being added slowly, we are not proofing, we are still in the learning phase.

If anyone has time, go to this website http://www.elitek9.com.This is where I got the instructions for the training. Go to the link on the left, scent detection, then go to psuedo. Let me know what you think.

Does it really matter if the dog is being trained on pseudo vs. the real thing? If the dog hits on the "dope" with no false alerts, isn't it doing it's job? I don't feel that it matters what method you use to train as long as you get the end result. Do they review your training logs before allowing you to take the test to certify? Do they ask if you used pseudo or the real thing? Do they even care what method you used...the wall or the scratch boxes?

I think it is difficult to envision something without actually seeing it.I don't know how to use You tube, but I will try to record her doing a search so you can see how I am training. I appreciate your help.

 Quote: lisa harrison

If anyone has time, go to this website http://www.elitek9.com.This is where I got the instructions for the training. Go to the link on the left, scent detection, then go to psuedo. Let me know what you think.

Are you talking about the Sigma training article? I stopped reading at this paragraph:
"The use of tug toys has proven to be effective in dog training. It does have some drawbacks,however, in scent training. In such training, the search itself should be the reward. If the tug toy is the reward, the dog's mind is on the toy rather than the search; it may stop searching and badger the handler for the tug toy."

This sentence is absolutely not true if a dog is trained properly. For that reason, I'll pretty much ignore that article as any sort of valid training advice. We use tugs as rewards for our disaster search dogs. Our dogs could care less about their tug toys during a search, even though they are part of the reward. If you watched my video, you'll see there is no badgering of the handler for the tug toy. The dog completely ignores all of the tugs, except for the one presented to him by the "victim."

Here's an article that might help you:
http://www.randyhare.com/rewarding_final.pdf
It's a great article, complete with links to demo videos.

 Quote: lisa harrison

Does it really matter if the dog is being trained on pseudo vs. the real thing? If the dog hits on the "dope" with no false alerts, isn't it doing it's job? I don't feel that it matters what method you use to train as long as you get the end result. Do they review your training logs before allowing you to take the test to certify? Do they ask if you used pseudo or the real thing? Do they even care what method you used...the wall or the scratch boxes?

Wait 'til David Frost sees this! Seriously though, there are a lot of people on this forum with a lot of narcotics detection training experience. Hopefully they'll chime in. One thing I know for sure is that your training logs will be under review if you ever end up in court. And, I would argue that the method does matter. At least it does for me. I can use an inferior method that takes me 2 years to reach certification, or I can use a highly effective method that takes much less time. I don't have time to waste, so I'll pick the effective one that takes less time. If 2 methods are equally effective, then it doesn't matter. BTW, I'm not saying your method is inferior at all, just addressing your statement.

I know David is opposed to psuedo. But you have to use whatever means is available to you at the time. Of course, there's nothing like the real thing. I want to use the dog for high school lockdowns. Possibly mold detection or finding lost pets. Maybe SAR. (I start my first agility class on Monday.) I doubt those instances, (for the most part) will be brought to court.

Yes, I am talking about the sigma training article. I think they were just making a general statement re: the possibility that some dogs may hit on a tug. (ball, food, whatever.)

The dog they are currently using at the high schools in the 3 counties hits on everything from tobacco to candy. Needless to say, the sherriff dept. is not happy with the dog. The dog, a Lab, is owned by a private company. I don't understand why they don't use one of their police K9's?

Whewwwww, this thread has taken some wild twists and turns. There is also a lot of misinformation. I won't even try to address them all. A coupld of things though I do want to address. As for a difference between a passive (sit) and aggressive response. Someone made a statement that an aggressive response is desired with a drug dog because it pinpoints location better. That is basically not accurate. For example, if drugs are hidden inside a car, say a glove compartment for example, the aggressive response dog can't get any closer than the passive response dog. Remember, "Source", to the dog should be the location where the strongest amount of odor is located. Unless you train where the dog can always put his nose right on the target, the dog is rarely "pinpointing" the location of the target itself, only the location of the strongest odor. A passive dog should have no more frequency of false responsess because of frustration than an aggressive response dog for the same reason. I also sends chills down my back when people talk of a 100% dog. If your dog is always 100%, you aren't challenging it in training. You'll never know how good your dog can be until you find out what it can not do. Scratching a car and not finding dope is a cost of doing business. It may well happen. There are three basic reasons why a well trained dog will respond and nothing is found; 1. It was there and you didn't find it. 2. It had been there and the dog responded on residual odor. 3. The dog responded because he felt he should at the time. That could be a training issue or a handler issue. In order for the court to recognize the dogs response they look at; Is it observable, measureable and consistent.

As for pseudo drugs, I never miss the opportunity to ask why? They aren't real, it's why they are called psuedo. You can possess as much of it as you want. If it isn't real, then you aren't training on drugs. You are training on something close. My personal opinion, if you can't access real drugs, then leave the drug training to those that can. No certification organization, that I'm aware of, allow pseudo for certification. To be fair, to date, there is no current case law where the use of psuedo has been detrimental to a case. It's a dog training matter. Why train the dog on something that it won't be looking for.

DFrost

 Quote: david c.frost

Whewwwww, this thread has taken some wild twists and turns. There is also a lot of misinformation.

That's pretty much what keeps happening when I read and talk to people about narc training! It's amazing to me not only how many different people have different (and strong) opinions on this. It's a lot of information out there to weed through and it makes me think about what I did (or am doing) wrong or could have done better. So I really appreciate all the input this thread is getting and David, thanks for joining the fray!

And FYI, I don't think any dog is 100% in any kind of training, not just narcotics. It's just not possible. That was actually why I was saying that it made sense (to me) to use the passive alert vs. an aggressive response: because "unless you have a 100% dog" then better safe than sorry and use a passive alert. I should have added in "and since you can't have a 100% dog..." but I thought that was understood.

It makes sense to me that a passive response would be prefered over the risks associated with using an aggressive response, but since so many people seem to like the active response I was wondering what the upside is to it. There must be one or it wouldn't be so common. Norman said something about the dog's body language but didn't elaborate so I'm still a bit confused about that point. David, are you saying that you prefer the passive response or are you saying that it doesn't really matter one way or another?

Lisa,

 Quote: lisa harrison

She doesn't think the reward is coming from the room, because the reward is coming from my hand. The reward should not always be associated with that room because I do change it up constantly.

My comment about her associating the reward with the room is because you said this:

 Quote: lisa harrison

I then take her to a back room, throw the food in there as her reward and close the door.

and this:

 Quote: lisa harrison

After the find she automatically runs to the back room and waits for me to come and get her to start the new search.

So it sounded room specific, frequent enough to cause anticipation action, and as if going to the back room was part of what she need to do (in her mind) to get the reward. And that seemed like it could set up problems when you remove that part when you train elsewhere. If I misunderstood you, I apologize...it's the hazard of trying to communicating with only a keyboard! But I'm still not clear on why you don't reward the dog immediately after the marker and why you move her to the back room first? Why not just mark, reward, and then move her out of sight?