It's been my experience with more than one of the more recognizable certification associations, none of them require a review of training records. In fact, it's a bone of contention with me. Agencies that request our certification are required to submit 90 days of training records before they can participate in our certification. A certification gives a snapshot of a dog's proficiency. Training records give an overview of continued proficiency. Having testified in both State and Federal Court, I can assure you the dog's training records will be requested. Rarely on a misdemeanor case, but certainly on a felony where the dog was used as probable cause. Defense lawyers, with the assistance of some expert dog trainer whores (sorry, I don't care too much for them as you may tell) frequently question the overall profieciency in both training and utilization. It's best to argue against them with numbers, rather that rhetoric. We have a very active drug dog program. In the past 10 years and over 50,000 vehicles sniffed, we've paid 2 claims for scratched vehicles. It's just a cost of doing business. As for proficiency, there isn't any difference between passive and aggressive. It's still nothing more than a conditioned response to a specific stimulus.

DFrost

David,

You said with the certifications they do not ask to see training logs. If this is so, how will they know I am using pseudo? Do you have to specify that info when filling out some form of application? I thought I read in a previous post that you could put the real scent on towels and use this for training the real thing? Is that correct? Is it unlawful for a officer to allow me to train with him once or twice to work with the real thing?

Amber,

It was confusing how I worded it regarding the reward. I could mark, then reward immediately, and I do sometimes. The whole thing happens so fast. After the find, I give the verbal praise and she runs back to the room to wait for me to hide it again. Maybe she is associating the room with the reward and I am reading her wrong? She is out of control pestering me to play the game!

Stupid question-If I place the training material in a sealed container, within a plastic bag and place it in the freezer will it absorb the scent of food?

 Quote: lisa harrison

David,

You said with the certifications they do not ask to see training logs. If this is so, how will they know I am using pseudo? Do you have to specify that info when filling out some form of application? I thought I read in a previous post that you could put the real scent on towels and use this for training the real thing? Is that correct? Is it unlawful for a officer to allow me to train with him once or twice to work with the real thing?

Stupid question-If I place the training material in a sealed container, within a plastic bag and place it in the freezer will it absorb the scent of food?

It's been my experience that certification agencies do not review training records. The certification agency may not know that you used psuedo, unless you tell them. That isn't my concern. The courts will (well the defense), undoubtedly, require you to present training records. I don't use scented articles because then you have all the associated scent with the article itself, plus the threshold is generally very low vs. actual substance. A low threshold can lead to it's own problems. I'm not aware of any law that says you can't train with police officers. It's against our policy however to train with civilians, however any law enforcement is welcome. I doubt, using the scenario you suggested there would be any odor transfer of food to your training targets.

DFrost

Edited by Nancy Jocoy (01/03/2009 07:17 PM)
Edit reason: concurrent post

Nancy,

Someone had mentioned store the scent away from the training area. I only asked the question because it sounded like I needed to find another place to keep the scent, because it is currently being kept near my training area. (My house) I currently keep it in one of my refrigerators, where there is no food, only drink.

I know I will have to perform an exercise many, many times. When I said once or twice working the real thing, I meant for proofing only. In the final step for scent proofing,I do require the actual material. It will be very difficult to find any LEO that will allow me to work with them. Probability-Slim to none.

I have read a couple of books re: building searches. I know there is a technique and method. Several of the books did give a detailed method of the search. However, I know that will never compare to the knowledge gained by working with a "mentor or an LEO" . However, I gotta work with the resources that I have right now.

I did not know that about the large scent source. I don't know what I will do when and if I reach that point. Although I doubt a high school kid is going to have a bale of weed LOL! (I guess nowadays you never know)

I reward when the dog's nose touches the source.

Just curious,are you an LEO? I have not yet begun to research becoming certified at this time. I guess I better start networking with some LEO's!

Yeah, I checked into that. (LEO) Wasn't a viable option for me.

I am looking for a SAR to train with but have not found any in my area. I have joined the local kennel club and am taking my first agility class next Monday.I am hoping to find a network of trainers who may be able to point me in the right direction.

I don't live in or even near a big city. I doubt there are any private companies that do that close to me. Something to look into though.

I’m jumping in on this real late and I apologize. I think too much emphasis is being placed on the response (sit vs. scratch) and not enough is being placed on learning to read the alert itself.

When I say alert, I’m referring to the physical changes you see in the dog that tells you that he has located substance odor… the head hook… the breathing changes....etc. The trained response ends up being the crutch… the thing that gets us in trouble.

Nancy… marker training detection work fascinates me!! Need a thread on that!!

 Quote: matthew grubb

I’m jumping in on this real late and I apologize. I think too much emphasis is being placed on the response (sit vs. scratch) and not enough is being placed on learning to read the alert itself.

When I say alert, I’m referring to the physical changes you see in the dog that tells you that he has located substance odor… the head hook… the breathing changes....etc. The trained response ends up being the crutch… the thing that gets us in trouble.

When a person is working actual situations, training when the handler does not know if or where targets are planted, the "head hook", "breathing change" etc are nothing more than changes of behavior. All the handler knows is something got the dogs attention. While it is certainly necessary to recognize these changes of behavior, it is the final response that tells identifies the target.

DFrost