I would say that I am not a real big fan of the blocks but I was a guest of the FBI it was there thing so I did what I had to do. I did not talk my dog to alert, she ran the blocks and alerted on the odor. She had 6 options and chose the TATP one, just to clarify. They were doing a one hole fixed. I would have been happy to do a problem with there TATP but as I said I was a guest. I do see why you would not like it though. To answer David there was 17 k9s there, only mine and another dog hit the TATP right away. The other k9 was a homeland security k9, who he said that he trains with the other govt."ATF, FBI" all the time. Some of the other dogs had hit TATP before but it was like a year ago.

 Quote: david c.frost

Is the word you're looking for "criterion" or "criterion based"?
DFrost

It is interesting when we all try to fish for words used by "academics" to define what we do so well. Physicists and chemists normally use different words to define the same stuff! Is the word "verbal operant conditioning" or "verbal regulation"? Is far as i can see, it is a type of Skinnerism.

I only say that because "protocol" and "criterion based" were once the buzz words. Terminology is like underwear, we all have our preferences and it's changed frequently. You are correct however, most of us do a form of operant training, which is rooted in Skinner. It's one of the reason I have respect for SWGDOG. They are attempting to standardize some of the jargon and how it applies. Often times in discussions we say the same thing, using different words, therefore there is no real communication.

DFrost

 Quote: david c.frost

 Quote: david adebimpe

David, are you still actively involved in your training programs?

Yes, 44 dog program. A mixture of drug, explosives and dual purpose. Well at least they are still paying me twice a month. ha ha.

DFrost

David, how about if you had an opportunity to test your dogs on these synthetic training aids, would you give it a shot (remember that most "real materials" are synthetic too)?

 Quote: david adebimpe

 Quote: david c.frost

 Quote: david adebimpe

David, are you still actively involved in your training programs?

Yes, 44 dog program. A mixture of drug, explosives and dual purpose. Well at least they are still paying me twice a month. ha ha.

DFrost

David, how about if you had an opportunity to test your dogs on these synthetic training aids, would you give it a shot (remember that most "real materials" are synthetic too)?

I'd do it IF: If the test was conducted as part of a regular training session. Example, 25 cars, three targets, one of them being the synthetic. The handlers wouldn't know the location of any of the target. That's the same method I use to conduct negative tests. It's also the method I used to demonstrate the dogs would not respond to pseudo drugs. I won't use paint cans, cement blocks etc. I understand that many explosives are "synthetic" as well. There is one significant difference however; they will detonate.

DFrost

 Quote: david c.frost

I understand that many explosives are "synthetic" as well. There is one significant difference however; they will detonate.

DFrost

That is a very important fact that seems to escape a lot of people. Much like comparing a candle to a blasting cap.

Howard

 Quote: howard knauf

 Quote: david c.frost

I understand that many explosives are "synthetic" as well. There is one significant difference however; they will detonate.

DFrost

That is a very important fact that seems to escape a lot of people. Much like comparing a candle to a blasting cap.

Howard

This is one of the misunderstandings that i am trying to dispel within the detector-K9 detection community. The fact that a training aid detonates, or does not detonate, should not be of concern to a K9 handler or trainer. Psychologically i attribute that to our innate vestiges of machoism (it is nice for us to be thought of as playing with explosives although we are doing the more-gallant thing of being able to find them). What should most concern a trainer/handler is that training materials contain all the scent tendrils that are pertinent for a world-class detection-training program, and the subsequent maintenance of this program to world-class standards. While the material might still explode or give a buzz, a 2lb, 12-year old, or a 2 lb 8-year old 1 lb narcotic, will not provide a scent signature that is optimized for scent-detection training, period! If it is, then please tell me how?

Moreover, detonation is just as much a physical property than a material property because there are many physical requirements that a material has to have for it have the capacity to detonate. For example TNT powder will not detonate - it has to be crystallized and compressed to have any detonation capacity - so TNT powder, in theory, can be used as a non-hazardous training aid, by virtue of its non-explosive property and equivalent scent signature. But do you know that you can also use anything at all, as long as the scent of such a material smells so much like the original that they cannot be differentiated by the olfactory capacity of a detector-K9? Can you use Pig remains as a training aid to track human remains? Does it make Pig remains a pseuso? For those that like to mention the word "pseudo," lets try to think of what we are talking about, pseudomaterial or pseudoscent?

Last month i had the honor of attending the NAPWDA seminar and i saw over 60 certified K9's also hit on our chemically formulated explosive and narcotic aids. The few K9's that did not hit on the the formulated aids id not also hit on the real thing. For RDX and Meth, 100% of the K9's that hit on the real stuff also hit on the formulated aids. So, now, "what is scent...irrespective of the material i want to detect?" "How do i understand scent, from the perspective of a human or from the perspective of a K9?" This is what a dedicated K9-handler that loves their K9 DEARLY and wants to be the best detector team out there should want to know and apply to their training regimen. As far as we should be concerned, a candle is the SAME as a blasting cap if they smell EXACTLY the same.

If you took these aids to a vapor detecting machine would it register as the illicit material that it represents?

 Quote: austin moon

If you took these aids to a vapor detecting machine would it register as the illicit material that it represents?

Good question Austin, as your question translates to differentiating between a pseudo-material and pseudo-scent. The answer to your question is "YES, A VAPOR DETECTING MACHINE COULD REGISTER IT AS THE ILLICIT MATERIAL THAT IT REPRESENTS" ScentLogix products are pseudo materials and not pseudo scents, and this makes a big difference between it and the other training aids available.

 Quote: david adebimpe

 Quote: howard knauf

 Quote: david c.frost

I understand that many explosives are "synthetic" as well. There is one significant difference however; they will detonate.

DFrost

That is a very important fact that seems to escape a lot of people. Much like comparing a candle to a blasting cap.

Howard

This is one of the misunderstandings that i am trying to dispel within the detector-K9 detection community. The fact that a training aid detonates, or does not detonate, should not be of concern to a K9 handler or trainer. Psychologically i attribute that to our innate vestiges of machoism

I know what you're trying to say, however it's comparing apples to oranges. First off, I won't speak for Howard, with me there is no misunderstanding about whether or not a training aid will detonate. The chances of that are infinitesimal. The point is, the material will detonate. I would imagine you could cap yours until the cows come home and it won't. That is a significant difference. Secondly, since you, or anyone else for that matter has never really quantified exactly what the dog does detect when detecting, as an example only, RDX, I would assunme you could take any part of it, call it a training aid and the dog would find it. The macho thing, come on, that's nothing more than argumentative. I'm much to old for that crap. I'm not too old however to want the best possible detector dogs. To answer your question about pigs, well it's interesting you would bring that up. First off, no I don't use pig material when training cadaver dogs. Many of the good ones also don't. Yeah I know England does, they are a bit limited in that they are not permitted to use HR material.


Don't know if the dog will hit 12 year old cocaine. I've never had any that long. I guess I could keep a kilo and give it a try. I know we train with older, presumably, cocaine than we find. The fact is, we do find cocaine in kilo form. As well as heroin and meth, but then who in the world isn't these days.

If the canine community, particularly the EDD community, was that concerned, they'd be scrambling to adopt the TSA standards rather than the baloney put forth by ATF and adopted by USPCA and NAPWDA. I've asked the question before, but of course no one will give a real answer. Why is it DOD, the with the largest "fleet" of explosives detectors that seem to prove themselves on occasion, TSA and Secret Service want nothing to do with the ATF certification program?


DFrost