Quote:

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. That's why I said "certification to those standards by an outside evaluator ought to occur.".

 Quote:

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.

Our state does have a statewide list of resources from which search managers can draw.

 Quote:

It's difficult for me to understand why some in SAR object to broadly applied certification standards.

I don't object to standards. BTW, VC, our state does have a set of standards. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

 Quote:

without QUALIFIED/OUTSIDE testing, crap teams will continue to destroy what the other's have worked for.

Again, I agree with this. It's not standards nor outside evaluation that I take issue with, rather, it's the idea of adding another layer of beaurocracy or creating some sort of system that may or may not be able to live up to its mission that I don't readily accept as being THE solution. It sounds like California has a good system in place, and that it can be a model for other states to take a look at.

Did I say anything about Oregon? I don't remember saying anything about our state? In fact when I went back and read the posts to make sure my magic little fingers didn't type O-R-E-G-O-N on their own, I was quite relieved to see they didn't.

I like to know that I still have basic control of my hands. It's good for. . .ahhh. . .well. . .ah hum. . .a lot of things.

Originally posted by Old earth dog Bob Scott:
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. The biggest frustration i have had with my limited esposure to S&R Teams, and why my exposure has stayed limited is that the dogs are for the most part not well trained or selection tested. The evaluators perpetuate the problem by allowing it to continue and e3ven encourage the participation of teams that should never ever waste training time and experiences for those teams that should be involved.
I have edvocated a professional approach to the training of these animals, not a volunteer approach. Not to exclude volunteers, but to be sure they have what they need to perform the serious task they perport to do.
If I or one of my friends or family are in trouble and need the help of S&R teams i would have little faith in the success.
I have said over and over, go find the best local police dog to search. At least there stands a good chance of success.
This is due to the fact that they have professionals driving the system.

Originally posted by Lisa Swanston:
I'd be curious to know if any HRD dog handlers have experienced any fallout from this case, or if it hasn't really had any noticeable effect on your relations with LE? Oh it has had a lot of effect. This is widely known. Since the indictment there has been a push for qualified law enforcement handlers to do more of this work.
It has also gotten more difficult to obtain training material even for law enforcement.
This isn't the only case where we will see fallout. The Peterson case is gonna give us headaches too. A HRD Dog handler, a reserve if I remember correctly, provided vascillating statements about the performance and meaning of the performance of the dog they handled.
A big problem, and the evidence was suppessed I believe.

Interesting about the status of most SAR dogs being volunteers...I know a few and they are SOOOO Ultra Dedicated, even if they are volunteers. I know that they also go through a huge financial committment.
Perhaps to form some sort of national association and standardization would legitimaize the volunteers who would join...?? Just a thought.....

Jeanette - there are several National type organizations in this Country already. - The National Association of Search and Rescue, Carda, American Rescue Dog Association, and the list goes on . . . A common problem I feel - my opinion, is lack of continuity of standards across the board between these org. and within teams.

I think the teams that are affliated with National organizations obviously hold themselves and their K-9's to a higher standard of effectiveness and competency. These organizations do the best they can to provide the tools/standards to educate/evaluate all these dedicated volunteers. We hold jobs, have families, and train dogs and ourselves to find people - it's our second full-time job. It's very unsettling to me to hear you say Kevin, that you would hold little faith in a S&R teams ability to find a missing loved one of yours. I appreciate your honest response/opinion and will speculate that you have not encountered positive examples in which you have based your opinion ... but, I can say that on more then one occassion, we have been deployed after PSD's tried and were unsuccessful . . . because that is all that we train to do, not apprehension, drugs, bombs, etc. PSD's and their handlers and SAR dogs and their handlers all have bad days, success and failure. In a perfect world, we can really compliment/aide each other . . . on finding lost persons, and we do serve with the same committment and professionalism -it's not a hobby, or shouldn't be to any civilian SAR team.
. . . (And I'm not critizing the PSD's, we have some exceptional Police K-9's in this area)

I totally agree with you on proper selection testing of dogs, etc., strong & effective standards and testing for both handler and dog.
The public deserves that level of commitment in any K-9 team that is sent to search for their loved one, or whatever their job is in service to the community- whether it's a PSD or SAR dog team.

Kevin, I hear you. I've seen some poor training and I've heard a lot of stories. However, any lack of faith that I could muster in SAR based upon my own experience is not a lack of faith in K9 teams, it would be a lack of faith in search managers. The K9 teams do not decide how the search manager deploys resources. And more often than not, search managers are paid professional LE staff. I have seen the tragic results of bad decision making on the management level. People die. The dogs aren't going to find the subject if they're not searching the right area, and that is the decision of the search manager. I think the burden of providing quality search services is shared by volunteers AND professionals, and I don't cut either one any slack based upon whether or not they are being paid for their services.

On police K9 effectiveness, consider this; a friend of mine recently had a fleeing suspect run through her back yard and hop over the fence into the neighbor's yard. She clearly saw his direction of travel and where he had exited the neighbor's yard. When the police K9 arrived just a few minutes later, the handler was overweight, redfaced, huffing and puffing, unable to get over the four foot high farm wire fence (I wouldn't put him out on a wilderness search; he'd probably have a heart attack), so a few other officers spent several minutes wrangling it out of the handler's way. Once he was in the neighbor's yard on the other side of the fence, he circled the dog for a good 45 minutes, unsuccessfully picking up a *hot* trail while the suspect was long gone. They never did catch him. I hope he wasn't a violent criminal, because he's still out there.

If anyone should be held to a physical fitness standard, shouldn't it be police officers? Based upon what my friend saw in her own yard, I have very little faith that if I were raped in my home and they brought in a police K9 to track the guy down, that they would actually catch him. I would prefer that my certified mantracker SAR volunteer colleagues be brought in before the police get there and muck up the scene. Even in our crime scene classes, LEOs tell us that it's usually the the LEOs who muck up a crime scene.

I love it when LEOs come to our tracking classes. A lot of them don't want to get down on the ground and look at tracks, and just basically grin and bear it, keeping to themselves and not really interacting with the volunteers. Some of these guys are so out of shape it's probably not a good idea for them to be on their knees all day anyway. But quite a few do get into it and end up learning valuable skills that they take into their professional work, and gaining a new regard for volunteers and what we do.

All of this aside, does anyone *really* think that state certification standards are what prevents people from planting evidence?

Understanding the stories of out of shape officer, and yes it happens. For the most part though, my experences are, officers that work dogs are in better shape than many of thier contempories, if for no other reason than the amount of training that is required in good canine units. I'm all for a state standard. While there is a great deal on resistance, even among police canine on whether or not there should be a state standard, they generally agree that some sort of standard is required. It's the primary reason organizations such as USPCA and NAPWDA are in existance, to provide some sort of standardized certification procedure. While the organizations are not mandatory, many K9 Units subscribe to thier sevices. Politics can be found in any organizaion. Having said that however, if standards are set, and it's graded on a pass/fail standard, it's pretty easy to determine whether the dog did or didn't perform. Politics is most visible it's a competitive event.

DFrost

Lisa,
i don't doubt that there are out of shape and poorly trained dog teams in law enforcement. I have certainly seen them.
Not to the degree I see in S&R programs.
I don't begrudge the dedicated volunteer. But, I do expect professional behavior and this is soo commonly lacking among the S&R crowd. The biggest part to blame is the lack of professional instruction.
That extends to search coordinators as well.

 Quote:

Jeanette - there are several National type organizations in this Country already. - The National Association of Search and Rescue, Carda, American Rescue Dog Association, and the list goes on . . . A common problem I feel - my opinion, is lack of continuity of standards across the board between these org. and within teams.

I have very limited knowledge of SAR, so thanks for bringing these organizations to my attention.

I am actually suggesting something along the lines of what you are feeling.....meaning...if there is a lack of continuity of standards that is a big problem for ANY organization that is National. THAT is perhaps a good starting point, to actually mandate uniform standards of achievement. For an example, in my profession, there are National boards that must be passed, and then state licensure(that part varies state to state) occurs. After that continuing education credits are required bi annually to maintain licensure and registry.

IF a similar type of structure was required for SAR it I can only imagine it would raise the credibility of all involved, as credentials would be automatically known by all involved. Is this idea unrealistic??

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