Dennis

I'm in total agreement with you on the issue of psuedo drugs. I've seen some mighty fine dogs trained intitially on psuedo, but my point has always been, why train on an odor that the dog does not need. Like you, it's a personal,I just chose not to use anything but real thing. Fortunately for our program, obtaining quanities of drugs is not a difficult process. What's always interested me however, is the number of people that will take exception with you, because you prefer not to use psuedo. Having said it before, I can't help myself, it just goes to prove the only thing two dog trainers can agree on is that the third one is wrong. Happy hunting.

DCFrost

What's always interested me however, is the number of people that will take exception with you, because you prefer not to use psuedo.

David,
whether you use pseudo or not to start dogs is pretty irrelevent at this point in regards to the courts and as far scientifically we're still trying to figure out what it isd that the dogs are really doing. Experience shows it has been working well. Any one who says that some one is wrong because they do not start the dogs off w/ pseudo is pretty much way off the mark. But, often the argument that i have heard is that you are ruining the credibilty of the dog, or that by training on a non-controlled substance, that you cannot testify appropriatly about your dogs, etc. It becomes important that as a community we don't shoot down a proven technique based on subjective information and personal preference. This creates a rift among us, something unnecessary in the profession, and something to muddy the waters for the defense attorneys to use in suppression. I've already had to testify as an expert dodging the methyl benzoate studies out there that were being used just to make things unclear and for no other purpose. Fortunatly Auburn left us an out and that was a statement that roughly cautions against trying to translate the data to field use since they're using pound puppies in lab settings that don't even approximate what we do with detector dogs. But, then a recent news article quotes a well known PhD from Holland and one from Auburn. One of the quotes was that dogs lie. Hummm, anyone see trouble on the horizon other than me?

It will not serve our purpose as pro law/anti-drug to debate the value of beginning training when the conclusion of that training obtains the goal. The use of psuedo-scents can remain a valued training aid for some. Again, we know good dogs come from both training method ideologies. To completely understand how a dog uses his scenting ability has been the topic in my head for many years. I have read and rolled over in my mind and on paper this topic and though unsatisfactory, my exploration of this subject has not been entirely barren.

There are real reasons for my position that should not be debated here as it is off topic and would not serve our mutual goals. I will start a new thread on dog scent discrimination and theory and apply my position more clearly.

Kevin,

I don't disagree with what you've stated. I've said many times that using psuedo was like qualifying with blanks, and still hold to that. If that is a trainers choice however, it is thier decision. I really try very hard not be the self-rightous type trainer that holds it's my way or no way, unless of course someone is attending my school. My dislikes of pseudo drugs are based on research conducted in part at Auburn, and in the early 70 at Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio Texas. It was clearly shown in double blind studies that dogs could dectect and discriminate heroin, from a variety of commonly used diluents and acetic acid that was prepared in a ratio as low as 1:10,000. Having said that, my argument has always been, why train the dog on something that is not needed. AS far as training methods, it does not matter to me how a trainer trains a dog, the important thing is will the dog work. That is one reason I've always been a supporter of a national certification. NOt a system to regulated training, but a program that merely validates the stated proficiency of a dog.
The FAA has had a very solid certification program for years. Failures are not uncommon because it measures the true proficiency of a team. A similar objectively based program could be developed for of the regimens we train dogs to perform.

Just as a personal note, I assisted in training two of the first bomb dogs assigned to the airport in your city back in the early 70's as part of the first group of FAA dogs that were employed. My wife is from your beautiful state, and actually I'd like to retire in that state in a few years.

DFrost

Just as a personal note, I assisted in training two of the first bomb dogs assigned to the airport in your city back in the early 70's as part of the first group of FAA dogs that were employed. My wife is from your beautiful state, and actually I'd like to retire in that state in a few years.

It is a great State. Except that the pay is substandard and we're in the middle of a terrible drought! I moved away for a little while. Just had to come back!