Jeanette, my brain is a bit fuzzy as I've been working night shifts all weekend. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> But NASAR does have canine standards, it's just not required that teams belong to NASAR. It's an organization that you can join if you want to. For instance, our team does not belong to NASAR, but that's because we certify to state standards as well as to individual team standards that were written by us.

I think one distinction that hasn't been made yet in this thread is the distinction between private groups (i.e. 501c3 nonprofits) and groups that are affiliated with law enforcement (i.e. county Sheriff's office SAR groups). In states where certification standards are not in existence, private groups can have their own standards and procedures for evaluating whether teams can perform to those standards. Groups that are under the umbrella of the S.O. have standards that are mandated through the Sheriff's office or OEM for that state, etc.

There are many advantages to being a private group. One of the biggest is funding. In states like mine, where funding is an issue, support for equipment and training is tough to get from the SO. A private group can raise funds on their own and decide how to spend them on what type of equipment and training they need. They don't have to justify expenditures to a government agency. Another advantage is independence. Private groups have more freedom in responding to callouts. For example if Sheriff Brown four counties over needs an assist, the private group can respond in a timely fashion, while the affiliated group has to wait for the request to go through channels, which takes time, sometimes up to 24 hours.

But I don't really think the Anderson case is about certification standards or lack thereof, private vs. affiliated groups, volunteers vs. paid professionals, or any of those other ongoing debates. To me, what the Anderson case is about is dishonesty.

We all know that paid professionals are always honest, right? And of course if a group has certified to a state standard, that's a guarantee of their honesty, right?

I'm all for standards and certification evaluations by outside evaluators. However, I don't think it's fair to lay Sande Anderson at the feet of SAR volunteers.

Why did all these agencies hire her without checking her qualifications? Why did they hire her based solely upon her reputation and hearsay? To me, this should be a lesson learned in "Buyer Beware". Before agencies use a resource, they should be educated on what to look for, what questions to ask, what to expect in a quality resource, and what red flags to avoid. Unqualified groups would not be getting callouts if someone wasn't calling them. As far as the ones who just show up on scene, there is something wrong if they are deployed without having been asked to come to a search. That is a search management issue.

VERY interesting Lisa, and very informative as well.
It seems that it must be a difficult issue for all involved in SAR to show a unification of standards throughout the country, esp. if it's not required that all register or operate under one governing body. Which can be, as you stated, both good and bad in many ways.

Lot's of good points...

I think that the bottom line is that the true and honest SAR teams should be commended for their contibutions to humanity. It is a vital resource.

I've seen, read about and worked with volunteer SAR groups. The dedication some have shown is remarkable. The problem, relative to law enforcement's acceptance sometimes, in my opinion, is one of credibility. I'll cite two examples. In one case, a dog from outside law enforcement circles was brought in after law enforcement attempts were unsuccessful. The handler made statements such as; I can tell the victim was here, the dog is showing the victim was in fear of her life. At another point in the investigation, after six months, heavy rain and miserable conditions, the handler made the statement, the person was here because the dog had detected the persons odor. The handler then identified a vehicle and stated the dog indicated the victim was transported in that vehicle. No forensic evidence could connect the vehicle to the crime. I said I'd list two examples, but I think I'll stop with just this one. The problem here, it has given false hope to the the friends and relatives of the victim. Who at this point will believe anything and think it's progress. In the long run it interferes with the investigation. There are certainly other examples.
While these incidents do not lessen the impact good dog teams can have on a situation, it does tend to make some skeptical. From my experience, it's not that law enforcment does not want volunteer groups to assist, it's that they want to know who they are, and what they are really capable of. While it certainly would not be politically expediant to discuss some of the problems with dog teams at the WTC site, none-the-less there were some.

DFrost

David,
I absolutely agree with you and here in Massachusetts we ran into problems a few years back with dogs/handlers showing up at searches. LE were reluctant to deploy because of just what you said. Our state has come a long way from those days to a state certification process with the MA state police. We set up certification tests with the state police only after we have passed our inhouse tests by a state recognized team. There are only 5 teams recognized in MA and if you want to be put on the state police callout list to search in this state you must belong to one of them. The team leaders as well as the state police sat down together and worked for 3 years on standards and requirements (including background checks, physical fitness tests, dog obedience, first aid, CPR etc. and much more). Guidelines and standards have been set for all areas of disciplines of searching so the state has access to certified (level 1,2 or 3) handlers/dogs at their disposal. I am on both sides of the fence as far as LE and volunteers are concerned so I hear where you are coming from and hopefully other states will adopt similar methods.
Karen Nesbitt

Karen,

I think that is an excellant approch to this particular problem. Both sides gain some confidence in what can be done, and the best utilization of the assets available. As you said, it is a tough situation because there are so many volunteer SAR groups that have so much expertise to offer.

DFrost

Jeanette, thanks. I wasn't sure if I was answering your questions or not. This night shift/school during the day schedule has me a little furry around the cranial cavity.

David, your example reminded me of something. Have you heard of the "death alert"? It's when a dog senses that a person died in a particular spot, the dog will urinate/defecate, or eat grass. :rolleyes: Thousands of people must have died in my back yard because my dogs are always urinating, defecating, and eating grass out there. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Also, I've heard of many instances of handlers overstating their dog's abilities.

One of the things about Sande Anderson that bothered me was her claim that Eagle was "never wrong". That is a huge red flag for me. No dog or handler is infallible, and one should NEVER overstate the capabilities of their dog (or themselves for that matter).

Lisa, there is something to the "Death alert" for lack of another name. We have one on our team that will take a crap EVERY time she indicates on cadaver during training. She won't do this on bone or hair, but riper "stuff" will cause it every time.

****Edit****

*****Bob, I'm referring to a different type of "death alert". Check your PMs.

I think we need one of those on the team also. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

WHAT national standards ARE out there for civilians?

I am only aware of NNDDA and NASAR for cadaver.
NAPWDA for trailing and area, and USPCA does not certify civilians

FYI, Toby has also done the poo thing with his nose directly on the scent source and I was told it was a common behavior.