“By making the dog do a commanded act rather than something spontaneous for its identification, the handler incorrectly removed the ID as a natural extension of the trail. Does the dog think he’s being rewarded for the trail he just ran, or the discipline of sitting? I’ve seen many dogs that noticeably improved once allowed to react naturally at the end of the trail rather than being forced to do a discipline” (Excerpt from How to Train a Police Bloodhound and Scent Discriminating Patrol Dog)

The jump up identification is the industry standard for most of the professional Law Enforcement Bloodhound Handlers.  It has reached that level of prominence for a reason ……. it is something most dogs do naturally when excited. Consider this thought ….. your dog stayed focused on finding the trail layer and because of the reward that awaits it at the end of the trail (hence the correct rabbit is crucial) The moment  the dog has found its prey and knows it is about to be rewarded it is at its peak of excitement. The jump up identification is just a natural reaction and easily solidified. I know there is some self proclaimed instructors that sell their misguided product by saying the possibility of injury to lost people is too great. Again I turn to what is the industry standard which is used by the professionals and ask you to think …… would they be using something so “dangerous” if it truly was? Remember you are the handler on the scene and in control of your dog.

Our philosophy is to keep it as simple as possible for the dog to learn and the handler to read and/or imagine what the dog is trying to say. So we always recommend teaching the same identification in the dog whether it is a “NSI” no scent identification, fence crossing or a door ID. So we recommend training the same behavior or identification in the dog for all of the different components or endings.

OK I’ve finished offering the information for you to make an informed decision on what to train. If you are dead set on training the sit identification I suggest you break the training all the way down or remove that component or behavior from your trailing training and get your dog comfortably and instinctively sitting just prior to receiving a reward followed by boisterous praise. So I would approach it similar to what was suggested in the “How to Train a Police Bloodhound and Scent Discriminating Patrol Dog” book on training a targeting command. Once you have the dog reacting happily without any voice commands, you can reintroduce that ending component or identification into your trailing training program.              

 I cannot give an absolute final answer as to how long that bacterial process lasts. I think it is in the days range not the months that some handlers claim. A study of how long bacteria lasts in a controlled environment was conducted I believe the results showed there was nothing left in the test tube after twenty or so days. So if you believe in that scientific study and what is commonly thought that dogs follow one would have to conclude that to be correct.

 But then there are so many known and unknown factors that may cause the scent to dissipate quicker or possibly cause some to linger longer. We still are talking days not months and certainly not years that I have heard some handlers have claimed.

Some patrol dogs are trained to bite at the end of the track/trail without being prompted or commanded to do so. I don’t really want to address whether that is appropriate here but will say The International Association of Chiefs of Police’s (IACP) opinion is that police departments should train their dogs to bark rather than to bite when they locate the target of a search. Now I’m not talking about area searches in this forum but strictly applying that opinion to tracks/trails. I have no opinion in the area search debate reference the bite with a recall verses the bark and hold. No matter which one your agency uses in the area search arena I think your dog can be trained to bark at the end of a track/trail prior to biting ……but the dog can still be counted on to bite if and when that level of force becomes necessary. There is case law supporting the use of a patrol dog in an attempt to locate missing people even juveniles but of course look at totality of every case and make sure your agency’s general orders support it. I realize there are passionate feelings on the bark and hold verses bite ending in area searches which has spilled over into the track/trailing discipline but no matter which type of ending your agency determines is best our method of training will increase the abilities and success rate of the dogs. The bite is an obvious strong identification and can be solicited within our system by always offering the sleeve or a bite at the end of each exercise. The bark can be solicited by teaching the dog to bark "give me my ball, give me my ball" before it is offered as the reward at the end of the exercises.

We have helped some SAR dog handlers that were having difficulty getting their dog to go right in and offer the identification. The handler’s complain the dog runs the trail but does not go right up to the person once he gets there but seemly ignores the trail layer and just starts wandering around. Obviously if it is a skittish issue (afraid) I would personally wash that dog out. Sometimes it is a simple modification of your training regimen that will produce a quicker dog. If the dog is not allowed to relax and explore or just be a dog on the walk back to the vehicle before it is put back up, the dog may start self rewarding before it ends the trail. Normally this behavior points to the larger issue of a dog not being offered the correct rabbit (reward.) Once the correct rabbit is located for that dog the problem will heal itself.

It’s hard for me to answer some questions directly because so many things are intertwined. You need to train some sort of ending to your tracks/trails or identification in your dog. You need to be able to recognize that ending because the dog may tell you something completely different than you expected. The courts have been lenient on this matter and have even accepted the testimony of one handler who said his dog sniffed the person it followed. It seems the courts position is the strength of the identification would go to the weight not the admissibility of the testimony. I have testified in a grand jury hearing about the value of the identification once it occurs. I would suggest training a strong one so you don’t mistakenly misread your dog’s behavior. Training some sort of subject identification in your dog it is an integral part of all successful tracks/trails.   

I hope this answered your seemingly simple question.   :>)

A.   I’m trying to address both the LE and SAR handlers and/or supervisors because ultimately we all should follow the same guidance our courts have given us. That being said …..Because all of the Supreme and/or Appellate Courts of the states that allow "Bloodhound Testimony" have ruled that as long as logs are kept showing that a dog is trained and it is used within its realm of training (age of trail, etc.)  and the other foundational requirements are met they will accept the testimony ……. which would mean they consider the dog deployable.

So there are many agencies that do not require their Bloodhound Teams to be "certified” ……they just rightfully ensure that all of the foundational requirements have been met before they deploy. That being said I think if a group or agency has rules stating dog teams need to be evaluated independently before they are considered deployable, I think those rules should be followed. But I am just not sure any enhancement to the real possibility of being sued would happen as long as the foundational requirements are met. If any enhancement does happen it would occur because the group or agency did in fact have a written rule that it chose to ignore....... but not because a dog working for an agency or team that did not have that rule did deployed. All that being said some courts have accepted certifications as showing the dog was trained such as a patrol dog’s initial or basic school with no or very little logs 

As a grandparent I would be more comfortable knowing a dog that has demonstrated a level of proficiency is out looking for my grandchild rather than a dog in which no level of proficiency has been established I’m no attorney so don’t bank on my answer. I just always just tried to do the right thing ……………… but sometimes that doesn’t even stop the law suits