the cadaver dog

Status
Not open for further replies.
Saphire you are incorrect and misinterpreting and misunderstanding your own quotes.

material is dead regardless of whather the donor is dead. An arm will decompose in the exact same way regardless of whether the donor is dead or alive. the tissue is dead that is the important thing, so it produces the exact same chemicals when it decomposes.

You are assuming that death means the donor's death, when in fact it just means the tissue death. Once the tissue has died it is going to decompose regardless of the donors status.

And you had said cadaver meant post mortem, when it does not mean post mortem.

This is also a moot point because eddie is a enhanced victim recovery dog, and is trained to alert to bodily fluids too.
 
Saphire,
You interpretation of your own quotes is incorrect. not one of your posts says the donor must be dead for decomposure to occur in a certain way.
 
yes I can understand it. death of a tissue does not require death of the donor. I cannot see why you are insisting it does, or where you are getting your ideas from. Do you think that you need to have a stomach to get decomposure, is that it?

decomposure does not require the donors death, and whilst in entire donor death the stomach is obviously involved as it decompses, it does not create the decompsure process. If someone cuts their arm off and dies, the arm is not going to decompse any less because it was cut off seconds before death.

Also I think you have misunderstood the bit about amino acids. all proteins and enzymes are formed by amino acids. When the protein or enzyme is subject to decomposure they will break down into their component parts i.e amino acids. This will happen regardless of whether the donor is dead, or just tissue from the donor is dead. The quote you have posted is a fairly simplistic description of decomposure to an entire body. It is misrepresentitive and a misunderstanding of the quote to claim it means an entire body is needed for decompsure to occur.
 

Once again, you seem to have skipped the vital information, even though I bolded it, so I will repost -

when a person dies decomposition begins immediately protein synthesis in the body stops. With nothing to maintain the protective lining in the gut digestive enzymes eat the body from the inside out creating amino acids. While this is happening bacteria feed on those amino acids.

These amino acids, which are ONLY PRODUCED ON DEATH, is what a CADAVER DOG is trained to alert to.

You can chop off as many limbs as you like and leave them to decompose for days, but if they are off a live person they will not have these amino acids. They are called "the scent of DEATH" for a reason - they are only produced by a CADAVER.


These amino acids are not the only odor the dogs are using to define their target odor. However, if this is what it takes to float your boat then carry on. You can OCD this to death if you like and I will continue to respectfully disagree with you.
I have been taught (and I have trained and certified 5 dogs in the field) that if you want the dog to locate and indicate on a certain odor or make-up of odors, during the training process, those odors (and only those odors) are presented to the dog during the shaping process. Due to the complex make-up of human decomposition, I am not sure how you can pull off isolating just the amino acid component and only presenting that to the dogs as the only scent marker they are suppose to be using for indication. I would sure appreciate telling me how your group manages this.

Dogs find dis-articulated body parts all the time. Dog handlers in the U.S. are routinely given body parts from living humans to train on. The dogs do not seem to have any issue with this. Perhaps this is purely a human mindset concern?
 
A proliferate pro mccann ter has tonight posted on another board that cadaver dogs are trained to alert to liquorice, how sadder can it ever get i ask, i rest my case

Oh its solaughable, how the mccanns and their supporters try and diss the dogs and must continually fail fail and fail again
 
And lets not FORGET that the apologists insist the dogs found innocent material in the mccanns flat villa car and clothes bit failed to indicate to all other innocent material in everyother place they were deployed, what are the odds, oh extremely dodgy at best
 
These amino acids are not the only odor the dogs are using to define their target odor. However, if this is what it takes to float your boat then carry on. You can OCD this to death if you like and I will continue to respectfully disagree with you.
I have been taught (and I have trained and certified 5 dogs in the field) that if you want the dog to locate and indicate on a certain odor or make-up of odors, during the training process, those odors (and only those odors) are presented to the dog during the shaping process. Due to the complex make-up of human decomposition, I am not sure how you can pull off isolating just the amino acid component and only presenting that to the dogs as the only scent marker they are suppose to be using for indication. I would sure appreciate telling me how your group manages this.

Dogs find dis-articulated body parts all the time. Dog handlers in the U.S. are routinely given body parts from living humans to train on. The dogs do not seem to have any issue with this. Perhaps this is purely a human mindset concern?

Perhaps you would like to suggest exactly what body part fell off the live Madeleine that the cadaver dog alerted to then?
 

In actuality, the process is still being researched and is not yet thoroughly understood, however indications are -


Search and rescue dogs detect human scent. Although the exact processes are still researched, it may include skin rafts (scent-carrying skin cells that drop off living humans at a rate of about 40,000 cells per minute)[1], evaporated perspiration, respiratory gases, or decomposition gases released by bacterial action on human skin or tissues.

There are a myriad of chemical changes that occur instantaneously in a person who has just taken their last breath. These changes are still being studied, so it is inaccurate for ANYONE to claim that there is no difference in the scent of CADAVER to the scent of DECOMPOSITION.

Once the heart stops beating there are immediate cellular changes. A live body becomes a CORPSE. To a CADAVER dog, there is a marked difference in the scent of a body part from a CORPSE, to a decomposing body part from a LIVE PERSON.

Science is still lagging behind in discovering how these dogs do what they do, but the fact remains that they can discern the difference.

This is why Madeleine is suspected to be DECEASED, not DISMEMBERED.

The CADAVER (read:CORPSE) dog scented a CORPSE, not a relic from a LIVE CHILD.

No one with any degree of education in the matter can definitively say why this is so yet, as science still doesn't know. The respitory gases may be a clue, clearly they will be in an altered state for a person who is no longer living.

It is fallacious and misleading to say otherwise, and I would request a link which clearly states that the scent from a cadaver is exactly the same as the scent of decomposition if you are going to continue to insist on superior knowlege.


Search and rescue dog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Eddie, according to Grimes, alerts to bodily fluids, so he would alert to the contents of a nappy. .


You are getting funnier by the minute. i wonder why the dogs did NOT alert in rachel oldfields apartment when she admitted she left her sick daughter alone every night having diarroreah and it leaking all over the place
 
In actuality, the process is still being researched and is not yet thoroughly understood, however indications are -

Search and rescue dogs detect human scent. Although the exact processes are still researched,it may include skin rafts (scent-carrying skin cells that drop off living humans at a rate of about 40,000 cells per minute)[1], evaporated perspiration, respiratory gases, or decomposition gases released by bacterial action on human skin or tissues.

There are a myriad of chemical changes that occur instantaneously in a person who has just taken their last breath. These changes are still being studied, so it is inaccurate for ANYONE to claim that there is no difference in the scent of CADAVER to the scent of DECOMPOSITION.

Once the heart stops beating there are immediate cellular changes. A live body becomes a CORPSE. To a CADAVER dog, there is a marked difference in the scent of a body part from a CORPSE, to a decomposing body part from a LIVE PERSON.

Science is still lagging behind in discovering how these dogs do what they do, but the fact remains that they can discern the difference.

This is why Madeleine is suspected to be DECEASED, not DISMEMBERED.

The CADAVER (read:CORPSE) dog scented a CORPSE, not a relic from a LIVE CHILD.

No one with any degree of education in the matter can definitively say why this is so yet, as science still doesn't know. The respitory gases may be a clue, clearly they will be in an altered state for a person who is no longer living.

It is fallacious and misleading to say otherwise, and I would request a link which clearly states that the scent from a cadaver is exactly the same as the scent of decomposition if you are going to continue to insist on superior knowlege.

Search and rescue dog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Well, for one, no one has said the child was dismembered. Since you are disagreeing with me, it’s not my burden of proof, it’s yours. What I am seeing is someone who is snipping bits of information as proof without understanding the relevancy and how it relates to different search disciplines. The first snip has nothing to do with the second. This tells me that the individual doing the snipping knows absolutely nothing about the subject they are claiming to know.

“Cadaver dogs can locate entire bodies (including those buried or submerged), decomposed bodies, body fragments (including blood, tissues, hair, and bones), or skeletal remains; the capability of the dog is dependent upon its training.”

Which is right from the wikipedia link you listed. I will also point out that this site also calls them HRD dogs. The two terms are considered synonymous among dog handlers. Your mileage may differ. I suggest if you want to argue this to contact wikipedia.

Now for the link that says that the scent of decomposition smells the same as the scent from a corpse, I would direct you to the real experts on the subject: my dogs. (whom have forgotten more about scent than I will ever learn). They indicate to me that there is no difference. I have to take their professional (and clearly) more expert opinion on the matter before I would entertain yours.

Sapphire, I have been verified by websleuths as an expert/professional poster. I have never claimed to know everything, nor have I ever done so. What I do claim is that I have an expert’s working knowledge of HRD dogs, training them, working them, and making sure that my work stands up in court. Do you have the same experience? Do you have or have you had a cadaver or HRD dog? Do you have the field experience to back up your theoretical gibberish? You can chose to disagree with me. That is your priviledge. Since you claim to have a superior knowledge of HRD dogs and what they use to perform their work, I would suggest that you submit your resume to Tricia and get verified as an expert/ professional. Until that time, I cannot take your post as “…professional information but rather just as another opinion…. As much as would any member of the general posting membership.”
(websleuths, general discussion, professional posters thread)
 
Well, for one, no one has said the child was dismembered. Since you are disagreeing with me, it’s not my burden of proof, it’s yours. What I am seeing is someone who is snipping bits of information as proof without understanding the relevancy and how it relates to different search disciplines. The first snip has nothing to do with the second. This tells me that the individual doing the snipping knows absolutely nothing about the subject they are claiming to know.

“Cadaver dogs can locate entire bodies (including those buried or submerged), decomposed bodies, body fragments (including blood, tissues, hair, and bones), or skeletal remains; the capability of the dog is dependent upon its training.”

Which is right from the wikipedia link you listed. I will also point out that this site also calls them HRD dogs. The two terms are considered synonymous among dog handlers. Your mileage may differ. I suggest if you want to argue this to contact wikipedia.

Now for the link that says that the scent of decomposition smells the same as the scent from a corpse, I would direct you to the real experts on the subject: my dogs. (whom have forgotten more about scent than I will ever learn). They indicate to me that there is no difference. I have to take their professional (and clearly) more expert opinion on the matter before I would entertain yours.

Sapphire, I have been verified by websleuths as an expert/professional poster. I have never claimed to know everything, nor have I ever done so. What I do claim is that I have an expert’s working knowledge of HRD dogs, training them, working them, and making sure that my work stands up in court. Do you have the same experience? Do you have or have you had a cadaver or HRD dog? Do you have the field experience to back up your theoretical gibberish? You can chose to disagree with me. That is your priviledge. Since you claim to have a superior knowledge of HRD dogs and what they use to perform their work, I would suggest that you submit your resume to Tricia and get verified as an expert/ professional. Until that time, I cannot take your post as “…professional information but rather just as another opinion…. As much as would any member of the general posting membership.”
(websleuths, general discussion, professional posters thread)


Please go back and read every single one of my posts, and then read your responses.

We actually agree.

Except on one point which is -

The scent from a body part/relic from a person who was deceased when that body part/relic was left behind, IS DIFFERENT to the scent from a body part/relic from a person who was not deceased when that body part/relic was left behind.

I never said I was a K9 expert, I never challenged YOUR particular qualifications or lack thereof (there is a poster on here claiming to be a professional who is not verified, and it is not you) so please do not keep accusing me of either of these things.

I am, however, well read and educated. I cannot tell you exactly where or when I read or heard it, but I definitely learnt somewhere that the scent from a deceased person is unmistakeable to a cadaver dog, and is NOT confused with anything decomposed from a live body. Obviously the dogs cannot talk so can't confirm this, but I know they have been proven in testing to be able to tell the difference, due to their almost incredible sense of smell...you would know as an expert, how many different scents they can discern, so I'm not sure why you are so insistent that this is not true. This is just another example of how amazingly precise they can be.

We are actually on the same side. It was not my intention to criticise you or your skills or verification in any way. I would have hoped that you would research my assertion yourself instead of blindly dismissing it because you are the expert and I am not. Perhaps ask the question yourself of your seniors and colleagues, now I have bought it up, and you may surprise yourself by learning something new...or perhaps you will surprise me by being able to provide a link proving I'm wrong. Just to dismiss what I say as incorrect because you personally are not aware of this particular fact, is an insult to both our intelligences, and this thread.

As they say, you learn something new every day...which is why I would welcome a link explaining that I'm wrong too.

I will keep trying to find the back up info for my assertion as it's bothering me now too.
 
the dogs do not alert to specific people, so they have no idea who the material came from. It could be they alerted to a microscopic amount of gerry mccann's blood on the card fob, it could be they alerted to the hair, nails, or cellular material in the boot, or on the tiles. As bodily fluids were present the dogs certainly should have alerted there.
Grimes has stated in his report in the pj files that both eddie and keela alert to blood, and that eddie alerts to other bodily fluids and cadaver scent.

And as for my claim to work with dna, this is true. But I have not posted anything that requires any specialist knowledge beyond a-levels or first year ug work. The inheritance of dna is fairly simple so anyone should be able to understand the concept. the fact that some people mistakenly think finding fifteen or even 100% of a person's components in a mix of three to five people in an area where their parents and other close relatives can be expected to leave dna, means that there is a high chance of that individuel being a donor, is just a sign of their lack of knowledge and basic understanding, and it does not need an expert to correct that.
 
Please go back and read every single one of my posts, and then read your responses.

We actually agree.

Except on one point which is -

The scent from a body part/relic from a person who was deceased when that body part/relic was left behind, IS DIFFERENT to the scent from a body part/relic from a person who was not deceased when that body part/relic was left behind.

I never said I was a K9 expert, I never challenged YOUR particular qualifications or lack thereof (there is a poster on here claiming to be a professional who is not verified, and it is not you) so please do not keep accusing me of either of these things.

I am, however, well read and educated. I cannot tell you exactly where or when I read or heard it, but I definitely learnt somewhere that the scent from a deceased person is unmistakeable to a cadaver dog, and is NOT confused with anything decomposed from a live body. Obviously the dogs cannot talk so can't confirm this, but I know they have been proven in testing to be able to tell the difference, due to their almost incredible sense of smell...you would know as an expert, how many different scents they can discern, so I'm not sure why you are so insistent that this is not true. This is just another example of how amazingly precise they can be.

We are actually on the same side. It was not my intention to criticise you or your skills or verification in any way. I would have hoped that you would research my assertion yourself instead of blindly dismissing it because you are the expert and I am not. Perhaps ask the question yourself of your seniors and colleagues, now I have bought it up, and you may surprise yourself by learning something new...or perhaps you will surprise me by being able to provide a link proving I'm wrong. Just to dismiss what I say as incorrect because you personally are not aware of this particular fact, is an insult to both our intelligences, and this thread.

As they say, you learn something new every day...which is why I would welcome a link explaining that I'm wrong too.

I will keep trying to find the back up info for my assertion as it's bothering me now too.

I will tell you right now, I never stop learning. I can’t. My dogs make sure I stay behind the curve. And just to make things more confusing, be aware that I also work mantrailing dogs. In addition to my own, I’ve helped train dozens of them across a variety of breeds. And yes, I would be considered an expert in them too. You’ve never indicated that you have had or worked a search dog. If this is accurate then what I see happening is that you are reading a great deal but lack the experience to put it into context. There are times when the dog does something and I don’t know why. Then I read something and go “Aha! that’s why….” On the flip side I can read a paper and scratch my head in confusion but then I see the dog put the words into action and suddenly it all makes sense. You need both sides to make the whole.

First, I need to lay some groundwork and basic explanations so that other readers can understand what I’m about to explain. Be aware that I am over-simplifying everything.

Mantrailing dogs are dogs taught to follow the scent of a specific human to the exclusion of all others. These dogs use a variety of odors to accomplish this. These odors can depend upon race, age, diet, chemicals ingested or applied topically, be generated: from the sebaceous skin glands, vapor pressure, eccrine and apocrine glands, skin cells, bacteria by-products on the skin (which in turn is sloughed off with the dead skin cells), and so-forth-and-so-on. Humans are shedding this odor and topical material constantly. Bathing can actually increase scent production due to temporary body temperature increase. Humans are nothing but a walking scent stick leaving behind them a cloud of skin dust and oil.
Sapphire, what you are confusing is the odor of the dead skin cells or skin rafts that are sloughed off by the living body during the normal skin rejuvenation process and are utilized by trailing dogs to assist them in following their subject. HRD dogs to define their human decomposition scent do not use these skin cells. Trailing dogs have their “decomp” scent. Cadaver dogs have their “decomp” scent. The two are not the same even though both odors are degrading human smells and the same chemicals can be present in both. The difference is learnt during training. And just to make things even more confusing, I can have a person take a walk. Along that path, I can lay out some HR material. Using anything that person has touched or handled, a trailing dog will follow that human – using the dead skin cells, lipids, glandular secretions, etc - ignoring the HR material. Bring that same dog back, give him the command to find HR material and that same dog will ignore the trail of human skin cells, lipids, and glandular secretions and only work to locate HR odor.

Handlers in the U.S. are fortunate in that we are allowed to have human material. Even then very, very few have or even have access to a whole or mostly whole body. Instead they train on bits and pieces or gauze pads saturated with decomp odor. Even though they only have a limited selection these dogs can and do locate whole bodies. And the reverse is true too. We call them cadaver dogs even though we don’t train them on cadavers (a whole dead body). One individual trained their dog for it’s entire career solely on the tip of one finger. And most of our stuff is collected from the living. We troll and solicit friends, neighbors, and co-workers in our quest for human material. Placentas from childbirth, tooth extractions, uteruses from hysterectomies, limb removals for various reasons, traumatic amputations. These items are removed from living bodies. Once you remove these items from a living body, they will undergo a normal decomp process.

Dogs tell me that the odor of human decomp is unmistakable (and if you ever get the chance be sure to take a good sniff and I’m sure you will agree). There is no way I would EVER mistake it for a living human. When the one site you listed from Australia mentioned that dogs do not react to the tissue of a living human as they would to a dead one. The “tissue” they are referring to are the minute skin cells that humans shed by the millions on a daily basis. These are the cells that mantrailing dogs associate with a living human. Even though these cells are dead and undergo their own decomp process, HRD dogs do not associate these cells with human tissue/death decomp. Britt is correct that HR odor is, at this time, considered a generic odor and not indicative of any particular dead person.

In the U.S., the term “cadaver dog” is a general term and not meant to be an inclusive description. While they originally earned their name assisting with locating whole bodies, their job has become more all encompassing and complex while retaining their original name. In the U.S., the terms cadaver dog, HR dog, HRD dog are considered synonymous and interchangeable. The Cadaver Dog Handbook defines a cadaver dog as one “specifically trained to find human decomposition scent and alert their handlers to its location. … They are used in a variety of forensic contexts, including the search and discovery of human cadavers, body parts, or body fluids.”
Also the term cadaver, as it relates to K9 scent work, is a general term. In the U.S., we interchange, without regard to the actual definition of the word, the terms cadaver, human remains, and odor of death. For you the term “cadaver” has a specific meaning. in certain aspects of the medical field. In the K9 world, we are less picky. Just because I say ‘cadaver’, I’m not talking about a whole body.

What I would recommend that reading books and stuff off the internet is nice and certainly extends the range of knowledge in order to understand you really need to get out and see this stuff in action under actual field conditions. By doing it, seeing it, working with it, it helps to put into context what is actually occurring. It will also help you understand what component of ‘degraded’ human scent each discipline is using to get the job done. Get out and get involved with your local SAR team. A couple of hundred hours later it will make a whole lot more sense.

The web site www.pawsoflife.org has a lot of very in-depth scientific articles on decomp, odor in general, and other topics. Books I would recommend include:

K-9 Suspect Discrimination – Schoon & Haak
The Police Textbook For Dog Handlers – Tolhurst
The Cadaver Dog Handbook – Rebmann, David, Sorg
Canine Ergonomics: the science of working dogs – Helton
The Silent Witness: scent – Tolhurst
Handbook of Applied Dog Training Behavior – Lindsay
Practical Scent Dog Training – Button
 
I will tell you right now, I never stop learning. I can’t. My dogs make sure I stay behind the curve. And just to make things more confusing, be aware that I also work mantrailing dogs. In addition to my own, I’ve helped train dozens of them across a variety of breeds. And yes, I would be considered an expert in them too. You’ve never indicated that you have had or worked a search dog. If this is accurate then what I see happening is that you are reading a great deal but lack the experience to put it into context. There are times when the dog does something and I don’t know why. Then I read something and go “Aha! that’s why….” On the flip side I can read a paper and scratch my head in confusion but then I see the dog put the words into action and suddenly it all makes sense. You need both sides to make the whole.

First, I need to lay some groundwork and basic explanations so that other readers can understand what I’m about to explain. Be aware that I am over-simplifying everything.

Mantrailing dogs are dogs taught to follow the scent of a specific human to the exclusion of all others. These dogs use a variety of odors to accomplish this. These odors can depend upon race, age, diet, chemicals ingested or applied topically, be generated: from the sebaceous skin glands, vapor pressure, eccrine and apocrine glands, skin cells, bacteria by-products on the skin (which in turn is sloughed off with the dead skin cells), and so-forth-and-so-on. Humans are shedding this odor and topical material constantly. Bathing can actually increase scent production due to temporary body temperature increase. Humans are nothing but a walking scent stick leaving behind them a cloud of skin dust and oil.
Sapphire, what you are confusing is the odor of the dead skin cells or skin rafts that are sloughed off by the living body during the normal skin rejuvenation process and are utilized by trailing dogs to assist them in following their subject. HRD dogs to define their human decomposition scent do not use these skin cells. Trailing dogs have their “decomp” scent. Cadaver dogs have their “decomp” scent. The two are not the same even though both odors are degrading human smells and the same chemicals can be present in both. The difference is learnt during training. And just to make things even more confusing, I can have a person take a walk. Along that path, I can lay out some HR material. Using anything that person has touched or handled, a trailing dog will follow that human – using the dead skin cells, lipids, glandular secretions, etc - ignoring the HR material. Bring that same dog back, give him the command to find HR material and that same dog will ignore the trail of human skin cells, lipids, and glandular secretions and only work to locate HR odor.

Handlers in the U.S. are fortunate in that we are allowed to have human material. Even then very, very few have or even have access to a whole or mostly whole body. Instead they train on bits and pieces or gauze pads saturated with decomp odor. Even though they only have a limited selection these dogs can and do locate whole bodies. And the reverse is true too. We call them cadaver dogs even though we don’t train them on cadavers (a whole dead body). One individual trained their dog for it’s entire career solely on the tip of one finger. And most of our stuff is collected from the living. We troll and solicit friends, neighbors, and co-workers in our quest for human material. Placentas from childbirth, tooth extractions, uteruses from hysterectomies, limb removals for various reasons, traumatic amputations. These items are removed from living bodies. Once you remove these items from a living body, they will undergo a normal decomp process.

Dogs tell me that the odor of human decomp is unmistakable (and if you ever get the chance be sure to take a good sniff and I’m sure you will agree). There is no way I would EVER mistake it for a living human. When the one site you listed from Australia mentioned that dogs do not react to the tissue of a living human as they would to a dead one. The “tissue” they are referring to are the minute skin cells that humans shed by the millions on a daily basis. These are the cells that mantrailing dogs associate with a living human. Even though these cells are dead and undergo their own decomp process, HRD dogs do not associate these cells with human tissue/death decomp. Britt is correct that HR odor is, at this time, considered a generic odor and not indicative of any particular dead person.

In the U.S., the term “cadaver dog” is a general term and not meant to be an inclusive description. While they originally earned their name assisting with locating whole bodies, their job has become more all encompassing and complex while retaining their original name. In the U.S., the terms cadaver dog, HR dog, HRD dog are considered synonymous and interchangeable. The Cadaver Dog Handbook defines a cadaver dog as one “specifically trained to find human decomposition scent and alert their handlers to its location. … They are used in a variety of forensic contexts, including the search and discovery of human cadavers, body parts, or body fluids.”
Also the term cadaver, as it relates to K9 scent work, is a general term. In the U.S., we interchange, without regard to the actual definition of the word, the terms cadaver, human remains, and odor of death. For you the term “cadaver” has a specific meaning. in certain aspects of the medical field. In the K9 world, we are less picky. Just because I say ‘cadaver’, I’m not talking about a whole body.

What I would recommend that reading books and stuff off the internet is nice and certainly extends the range of knowledge in order to understand you really need to get out and see this stuff in action under actual field conditions. By doing it, seeing it, working with it, it helps to put into context what is actually occurring. It will also help you understand what component of ‘degraded’ human scent each discipline is using to get the job done. Get out and get involved with your local SAR team. A couple of hundred hours later it will make a whole lot more sense.

The web site www.pawsoflife.org has a lot of very in-depth scientific articles on decomp, odor in general, and other topics. Books I would recommend include:

K-9 Suspect Discrimination – Schoon & Haak
The Police Textbook For Dog Handlers – Tolhurst
The Cadaver Dog Handbook – Rebmann, David, Sorg
Canine Ergonomics: the science of working dogs – Helton
The Silent Witness: scent – Tolhurst
Handbook of Applied Dog Training Behavior – Lindsay
Practical Scent Dog Training – Button

All I ever said was, cadaver dogs can identify a cadaver from a live body part. This remains true because the respiratory gas relics in a deceased person's body part are different to the respiratory gas relics in a live person's body part.

That is not under dispute so we are not in disagreement.
 
K9,
Eddie is not actually a cadaver dog anyway he is an EVRD, and according to Grimes' report alerts to bodily fluids, including blood, and cadaverous material.

Is it true that in the US dogs are trained using body parts including those from amputations. We cannot do this in the UK, as it is against the human tissue act.
 
yes, Grimes does state that, but as Eddie is an EVRD and according to Grimes alerts to bodily fluids, including blood, the cadaver training is a moot point. I am just interested in the US use of cadavers, as our laws are extremely stringent (although why they could not ask people having amputations to donate the tissue I do not know, you can donate it for other scientific research, so as long as they are clear what the use is, what is the problem?).
 
yes, Grimes does state that, but as Eddie is an EVRD and according to Grimes alerts to bodily fluids, including blood, the cadaver training is a moot point. I am just interested in the US use of cadavers, as our laws are extremely stringent (although why they could not ask people having amputations to donate the tissue I do not know, you can donate it for other scientific research, so as long as they are clear what the use is, what is the problem?).

The problem is, as I have repeatedly stated, amputations off live donors ARE NOT CADAVER so cannot be substituted for cadaver.
 
The problem is, as I have repeatedly stated, amputations off live donors ARE NOT CADAVER so cannot be substituted for cadaver.

While you may feel that they cannot be substituted, the dogs do not seem to share your position. They have demonstrated to me and others that the degredation of material received from a living donor (removed limbs, body parts, internal organs, etc) are equal and consistant with the degredation of the same material received from non-living donors. I have spoken to other HRD handlers to see if there is any validity to your argument. As one put it ".... then we should be running into situations were some dogs alert and others don't. But all the dogs are alerting......all the dogs can't be wrong." You see at seminars, everybody brings stuff to use. To the dog, every dog, have alerted without prompting to amputations received from living donors and to amputations received from dead ones. It's not me telling you this. It's the dogs. The dogs are telling you this. Maintain to your beliefs if it pleases you, ..... in the end, the dogs do not support your allegations.
 
While you may feel that they cannot be substituted, the dogs do not seem to share your position. They have demonstrated to me and others that the degredation of material received from a living donor (removed limbs, body parts, internal organs, etc) are equal and consistant with the degredation of the same material received from non-living donors. I have spoken to other HRD handlers to see if there is any validity to your argument. As one put it ".... then we should be running into situations were some dogs alert and others don't. But all the dogs are alerting......all the dogs can't be wrong." You see at seminars, everybody brings stuff to use. To the dog, every dog, have alerted without prompting to amputations received from living donors and to amputations received from dead ones. It's not me telling you this. It's the dogs. The dogs are telling you this. Maintain to your beliefs if it pleases you, ..... in the end, the dogs do not support your allegations.

I understand what you are saying.

The dogs alert to what they are trained to alert to.

What I am saying is that their sense of smell is so refined that they can be trained to know the difference between a live human body and a deceased human body.
No argument.

This is why dog trainers do not accept live body part donations from people who have had surgical amputations. The body parts do not come from a deceased donor therefore cannot be used as cadaver.

The gases and decomposition in a deceased body are different to the gases and decomposition from a live body.

I keep re-explaining the same scientific principle which you keep endlessly avoiding, and you are responding by bringing up arguments with things I have not actually disagreed with. The dogs are called cadaver, cadaver means corpse, Madeline is suspected deceased as cadaver was located by a cadaver dog, the end.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
121
Guests online
3,782
Total visitors
3,903

Forum statistics

Threads
593,061
Messages
17,980,383
Members
229,000
Latest member
Kyry73191
Back
Top