Dogs

LOL, I think we're more in agreement than you think. However....

The scent doesn't supposedly come from skin cells that have shed off the body, it does come from that.
True, a ventilation system being on would make a greater scent trail. However, think of a car in sinking in water, there is nothing that is air tight. So, if water can get into a car, air and particles can get out (albeit in smaller quantities than there would be with a ventilation system on, which is also smaller than if the person was walking down the same street).
I'm not going to disagree with the rest, just want to make sure that people are using factual information for confirming and dispelling things.

It would not be once cell, it would have to be a whole lot of cells and enough to remain at the location undegraded after months of dispersal. Highly unlikely IMO.

The other thing that makes these people dubious is that they tracked the trail months after she dissappeared. Presumably she was following the same route to school she allways did, so the tracks from previous trips would still be there. Not to mention, if she lived there she probably walked all over the place and her "scent" would have been everywhere. After months the various trails would have just as "fresh" as each other, so why did the dogs stop where she supposedly got into a car instead of following the older trail to the school? The dog would not be able to tell the difference between a track 180 days old and one 181 days old (assuming they could track it at all).

Natal said:

It would not be once cell, it would have to be a whole lot of cells and enough to remain at the location undegraded after months of dispersal. Highly unlikely IMO.

The other thing that makes these people dubious is that they tracked the trail months after she dissappeared. Presumably she was following the same route to school she allways did, so the tracks from previous trips would still be there. Not to mention, if she lived there she probably walked all over the place and her "scent" would have been everywhere. After months the various trails would have just as "fresh" as each other, so why did the dogs stop where she supposedly got into a car instead of following the older trail to the school? The dog would not be able to tell the difference between a track 180 days old and one 181 days old (assuming they could track it at all).

Click to expand...

Not sure about the one cell part (did I write something wrong, I'll go check). The scent trail/pool would absolutely be degraded, it starts to degrade immediately, by how much is the question (that nobody to my knowledge has a definitive answer).

You are absolutely right about the huge scent web that would be around the school, her house, the routes she took every day. And very right about them being distinguishable (or not) months later, IF there would still be enough 6 months later. We are also talking the dry desert through the summer months, another HUGE factor.

I would really like to see some case studies done, flying in people to various geographies/climates/urban/rural/hwy etc. where a trail would be placed, then left for 6 months with no contamination by the person who laid it, and then have the dogs flown in and run the trail blind. I'd also like to see a trails laid under the same conditions but in an area where the person frequented every day (like a hotel) for a week but then went 10, 20, 30 miles.

I read the UofG claims of trails degrading after 24 hours. I know that this is bad info. as I've run hundreds if not thousands of trails older than that, much older. I don't think there are many out there who would argue that you can run a 3 to 5 day old trail successfully quite easily. (I certainly hope there aren't). As you approach the two week mark, lots of variables start to come into play, but they can be done. We have run test trails at 30 days with mixed results, not what I would call reliable. I have never seen a dog be able to run a six month old trail, nor has anyone I know. Does that mean it can't be done? Unlikely, but set up the trials and show it.

For Natel: you have 2 arguments in your post. On one hand, you state, that it's is "highly unlikely" that scent would remain for months. But then say that her tracks going to and from the school would still be there. Either the scent lasts or it doesn't. Also the scent around the school is in an urban location: concrete, hard surface, lots of people and cars going through the area which that scent is in a location which people tend to think degrades faster then something in a wilderness or rural location.

I've also experimented around with my dogs (and anyone's elses that would give it a try) and we found that the wider range in trail age that you can expose the dog to, the less a factor trail age is. What I saw was that the hotter the track (ei fresher) the more wider some aspects of the trailing work was. The older, or colder, the trail was the tighter it was. Which makes me think that the skin cell fluff was gone, and the dogs were working off the lipid (fats) and/or other human chemical signature by-products which are stickier and adher to surfaces better.

Which brings up another issue of hot-track versus cold-track dogs. Not all dogs or even all dogs within a certain breed are created equal. Not all perform at equal levels. That does not make this dog or that one bad, it just means one dog may be more suited to a particular task then another which is why many trailing folks have more then one dog. I've seen some outstanding German Shepards work trails that put the Bloodhounds to shame. And vis-a-versa. Having this breed or that one does not equate to automatic success. Also how the dogs are trained make a difference.

Most LE dogs are hot-track patrol dogs. Most cue off ground scent disturbance or maybe the fear scent the suspect puts off. Department of Corrections dogs are trained to follow institutional scent more then individual scent. Most SAR trailing dogs tend to focus on only training in the timeframe they would get called out in which is 1-5 days old.

Which is why it's hard to say dogs can't do this or that. The variations are huge across the trailing dog world. I've run a dog on a 3 day old track and encountered problems but take a similar trail 7 days later and the dog slam-dunks it. Go to run what you think is a straight forward little trail and an hour later struggle to finish it in a positive fashion. You never know what the dog will do until it actually goes to do it.

For SarX: I agree that people need to experiment and try to see what works for them and how the dog responds under various conditions. I'm not ready to label anything as "impossible" as my dog has humbled me and handed me my head several times when he did something I thought was impossible. As a result I try to keep an open mind and when I hear of something weird, immediatly run home and try it with my dogs.

I completely agree, and that's why I try to stay away from the word impossible, but I also am very weary of people who claim things without having any basis to really back it. So many people are skeptical to begin with about what dogs can do, then really far fetched claims start coming out and people start treating them like they're a joke. Next people stop calling them out all together. It's a slippery slope. The last 3 cases I've followed on here all got zip from the dogs they brought out. All cases were fresh and should have been fairly straight forward, people again are losing faith in the dogs. What happened? Poorly trained dogs, bad handlers, bad luck? I don't know, but it doesn't show well for what can be a very valuable resource.
Not all dogs are created equal and not all handlers are either. I've seem some very remarkable things, I've also seen some very shady things.
Because there is no money in it, there is also know science studies put behind it. I wouldn't think with all the technology and equipment it would be that hard to figure out how long scent really lasts and how long it lasts in various conditions. They can measure so many things, this seems like it would be pretty simple.

sarx said:

SoCal, can you re-post for me, I can't seem to find the quotes from the handlers?

I don't remember direct quotes from the handlers at all, just the media saying that (though I may be mistaken, that's just how I remember it.)

Click to expand...

Sure Sarx! It's this thread: Post #'s 190; 187, 111 and there's another one after 190.

2 of the 3 articles are no longer available, however the one that is also says that

"Handler Julie Jones said the two Labrador retrievers used in that search effort"

and it was not two labs, but a lab and a springer.

I'm not nit picking this fact but rather the fact that just because it says somebody said something doesn't make it fact that actually did say it.

It also says
(bart)"The dogs were going crazy," she said. "Where they really went nuts was in the residential area across the street from the casino." (next line)
Jones said the dogs did not indicate a scent trail anywhere else. (Jones is the handler)

Multiple articles state that the trail was lost at the Pala Library.

There is a lot of different information out there.

It's hard to determine what is a "far-fetched' claim. I ran a trail with my dog and was flanked by a PD K9 officer. PD told me up front that there was no way ANY dog could have followed this guy. To old, to contaminated, etc. But I asked if I could try. No problem, says they, waste all your time. Running the trail, I was relaying to the officer the information by dog was telling me. Here he was picked up in a car, there he was let out again, this turn, then that one, etc. Base tells me that the cop was laughing as he was relaying the info. Then we caught up to the guy. Suddenly, that cop stopped laughing. So was it just a coincidence? Once I would say 'yes'. But after not after the same thing occuring time and again.

Science is trying to catch up but, unfortunately, no machine is as sensitive or reliable as a dog's nose. Current machines are only measuring into the parts per billion but research is showing dogs smelling down to the parts per trillion. Some feel that dogs are sniffing down to the DNA level. I suppose many things are possible, but a good dog is hard to beat.

Not all teams are equal (even if all certified to the same level) because some never stop training while others go "Whew, now I can take a break, I'm certified". And since I know not all dogs are created equal, I'm all for bringing in other resources if my own are not getting the job done (or even if they are). What I have to explain to others is that it's not that I think they did the job wrong, but that I want to be sure that we are right. And as the trail ages, you may get a different response due to the hot track-cold track issue. Or that their dogs may be having a better day then mine.

People need to remember it's all about the missing person. Your dog, my dog, the concerned voluntering citizen, it doesn't matter who makes the find. Just that they are found. O.K., off the soapbox....

Completely agree, 20 years ago we were almost laughed out of the county by the very high profile Police trainer I worked for I told him we had a golden retriever that we were training for trailing. He snarfed and told me that "that's bloodhound work". Long story short after he failed to stump her he started to soften just a tad! There are still many a bloodhound handler that believes that. It's such a complicated thing, and so variable depending on where the dogs are from and how they are trained. I know people who refuse to run a blind trail, I don't have enough time to go on about all the problems with that. I know a lot of people who believe their dog can never be wrong, again, big problem. It makes it really tough for those of us with good dogs, and brains in our heads that really do only care about the victim. I don't care if I make the find or Suzie's dog does, or a ground pounder does, just as long as they're found. As with anything, egos get in the way.

Ok, off my soapbox.

Natal said:

The problem with that is she would have been in a vehicle, so there would have been no scent to follow.

If you read that article it is clear that most other people who work in this field don't believe that these folk's dogs tracked her.

Click to expand...

There most certainly is an airflow - if not, you'd suffocate in your vehicle. Air is coming in through the air vents and if it couldn't get out, your car would explode.

sarx said:

2 of the 3 articles are no longer available, however the one that is also says that

"Handler Julie Jones said the two Labrador retrievers used in that search effort"

and it was not two labs, but a lab and a springer.

I'm not nit picking this fact but rather the fact that just because it says somebody said something doesn't make it fact that actually did say it.

It also says
(bart)"The dogs were going crazy," she said. "Where they really went nuts was in the residential area across the street from the casino." (next line)
Jones said the dogs did not indicate a scent trail anywhere else. (Jones is the handler)

Multiple articles state that the trail was lost at the Pala Library.

There is a lot of different information out there.

Click to expand...

Yes, you are right with the above SARX, "... just because it says somebody said something doesn't make it fact that actually did say it."
There were NOT two labs, nor a lab and a springer, but rather one lab and one German shorthaired pointer.

Crud, my bad, I meant a pointer, was doing some other research and wrote springer, meant pointer. Thanks for the correction!

SarX said: The last 3 cases I've followed on here all got zip from the dogs they brought out. All cases were fresh and should have been fairly straight forward, people again are losing faith in the dogs. What happened? Poorly trained dogs, bad handlers, bad luck? I don't know, but it doesn't show well for what can be a very valuable resource.


Sarx, this is some of the problem. LE and SAR managers have the opinion that a dog is a dog is a dog. I won't find fault with the dogs until I know where those dogs came from. Are the LE dogs? DOC (or prison) dogs? The local sar team who only works less then 8 hour old trails under ideal, pristine conditions?

Each of those dogs could be well trained but ONLY for their particular venue. But when you ask to bring in additional dogs the response is "well, we already tried dogs". Then you have to try and explain that maybe the "best" type of dog for those seach conditions were not used. Or maybe they used bloodhounds (which many equate to the best because of all the breed hype) and figure what can you do that the best (ei: BHs) weren't able to?

Couple to that the fact, that if you want to bring in an out-of-state team the local sar team gets their nose out of joint and complains to local officials who come back to you and blast you for not using 'local resources' and say "no" to your request for additional resources. It's at times like these that I begin to question exactly what is the mission of SAR and WHO it is it we are suppose to be helping. The missing? Or local egos?

I agree completely, but in the public's eye and law enforcement, what they are seeing is that the dogs didn't work. Just further perpetuating the "see, we used dogs, they didn't work" mentality.
If these dogs are that limited in their training, that they can't work trails a few days old that are seemingly pretty straight forward they shouldn't be brought out at all. If you know your dog can only work a trail that is 8 hours or younger, tell them that and stay home, because what happens is now they don't bring a dog that can work it because one has already "done the job". As I read case after case I'm starting to feel like I've lived in a SAR bubble, one where we trained so much more for so many more scenarios than a lot seem to. Everyone and every dog has their limits, but seriously, what is going on?
And yes, I firmly believe, no actually, I know, that so often the mission, unintentional or not it becomes about egos not the missing. I've worked plans and ops in too many cases to count, and almost every time a search expands into mutual aid or we were called in for MA it gets awful. I have lost it completely more than once on this issue. It is the ugly ugly side of it all.

----snip ----
Last August, Quincy, a yellow Labrador, and Jack, a German short-haired pointer, led the handlers 20 miles from Amber’s suburban home to a remote Indian village, where the dogs went into an alerting frenzy. Her family thought it could mean only one thing: Amber.

“We believe in those dogs,” said Amber’s father, Moe Dubois, an electronics engineer. “We’ve seen it firsthand.”

But police apparently weren’t convinced. They shut down the canine search, and the case grew colder.

Six months after the dogs departed, authorities found Amber’s skeletal remains on a scrub-covered hillside in northern San Diego County, about two miles from the Indian village.
----snip ----
http://www.sdnn.com/sandiego/2010-04-08/local-county-news/the-dogged-pursuit-to-find-amber-dubois

Well, it seems to me (ignorant as I am) that either the dogs are very, very lucky, or that they tracked Amber to a point very near where she was eventually found. How they did that, I don't know. But it's hard to dispute results.

pittsburghgirl said:

Well, it seems to me (ignorant as I am) that either the dogs are very, very lucky, or that they tracked Amber to a point very near where she was eventually found. How they did that, I don't know. But it's hard to dispute results.

Click to expand...

If you consider the chemistry and physics behind a "scent" it is not possible for the dogs to have done what they supposedly did, so either it was sheer luck or they were responding to their handlers.

Natal said: If you consider the chemistry and physics behind a "scent" it is not possible for the dogs to have done what they supposedly did, so either it was sheer luck or they were responding to their handlers.

Sorry for not being able to put your quote into a nifty purple box but for some reason I have not been able to figure out how to do that yet. <sigh>

Could you please tell me what you understand to be the chemistry and physics behind scent?

K9snoop, if you hit the "quote" button the post you want to quote it will come up in your reply box and then you can just type below that.

sarx said:

K9snoop, if you hit the "quote" button the post you want to quote it will come up in your reply box and then you can just type below that.

Click to expand...

hmmmm, this is what I get. I may have my firewall or browser security set to high and it's not allowing it. Thats the only thing I can think of preventing it.

addendum: good grief, it worked!!!!