[deleted]
Handler beliefs affect scent detection dog outcomes (2011)
11–20 of 60 posts
Re: Handler beliefs affect scent detection dog outcomes (2011)
#12how is this nonsense even getting published?
tiny sample size, n=18 dogs 5 different breeds of dogs large variance of dog age
Re: Handler beliefs affect scent detection dog outcomes (2011)
#13does this imply that the dogs perform a similar role to dowsing rods in this situation?
Re: Handler beliefs affect scent detection dog outcomes (2011)
#14The observation seems logical, but I wonder what is actually the relevance of the study in practice. I mean, there are three common situations where these dogs are used: 1) airports, stations, traffic stops etc. where the influence of the trainer might be relevant (i.e. the trainer, even if involuntarily, may influence the dog if the person that is sniffed - or their belongings/looks/behaviours/etc. - look suspicuous…
I have heard the term "search warrant on four legs". In many jurisdictions, including the US, police officers are not allowed to search anybody or their cars, even if they are black. So if the dog learns to please his handler by indicating contraband, they have a chance to at best inconvenience anyone they (dis)like.
>So if the dog learns to please his handler by indicating contraband, they have a chance to at best inconvenience anyone they (dis)like.
Sure, but (of course it depends on countries and local Laws) it is only one of the possible ways (excuses) that can be used to target someone.
Of course if in the car there is no drugs (or explosives) the only net result is a waste of time of both the policemen and the "target".
It would seem to me much more relevant to know how many cars searched after a dog sniffed something ended up as being actually contraband free (false positives) and how many actually turned out as actually containing some drugs or whatever.
If the dogs (in experiments without the influence of the trainer) have an accuracy of - say - 90% and with the influence of the trainer (or whatever other reason causes on field differences) this drops to - still say - 55% then there will be an issue as we would be nearing the flipism convenience, but if the overall accuracy remains in the 80 or 85% range then the effect - even if noticeable - would be not much relevant in practice.
Or, if you prefer, I completely agree that a trainer can induce a dog to sniff something even when there isn't any, but the relevance of the fact depends only on how often this happens.
Re: Handler beliefs affect scent detection dog outcomes (2011)
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have heard the term "search warrant on four legs". In many jurisdictions, including the US, police officers are not allowed to search anybody or their cars, even if they are black. So if the dog learns to please his handler by indicating contraband, they have a chance to at best inconvenience anyone they (dis)like.
>So if the dog learns to please his handler by indicating contraband, they have a chance to at best inconvenience anyone they (dis)like. Sure, but (of course it depends on countries and local Laws) it is only one of the possible ways (excuses) that can be used to target someone. Of course if in the car there is no drugs (or explosives) the only net result is a waste of time of both the policemen and the "target". It…
> Of course if in the car there is no drugs (or explosives) the only net result is a waste of time of both the policemen and the "target".
Google for "civil forfeiture dog car stop". They don't need to find drugs to take the car or any cash in it, as the dog signalling is deemed enough of a cause for forfeiting, though not for prosecuting criminally.
Re: Handler beliefs affect scent detection dog outcomes (2011)
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have heard the term "search warrant on four legs". In many jurisdictions, including the US, police officers are not allowed to search anybody or their cars, even if they are black. So if the dog learns to please his handler by indicating contraband, they have a chance to at best inconvenience anyone they (dis)like.
>So if the dog learns to please his handler by indicating contraband, they have a chance to at best inconvenience anyone they (dis)like. Sure, but (of course it depends on countries and local Laws) it is only one of the possible ways (excuses) that can be used to target someone. Of course if in the car there is no drugs (or explosives) the only net result is a waste of time of both the policemen and the "target". It…
For less reputable police, they might just say the dog alerted when it didn't. What's a layman to say? No it didn't? And courts usually give the benefit of the doubt to police, even if they technically shouldn't. Because police don't need probable cause to use a dog to search your car means it is the de facto way to escalate to a probable cause search, and even if a dog isn't present, bringing one there usually makes people uneasy, leading to claims of "suspicious behavior", and allows the police to detain someone until it arrives.
Sadly, I don't think the false positive alert rate is something the police are looking at or trying to reduce. In my cynical opinion, they are just looking for more reasons to find you a criminal, even if you aren't one. If they view you as a criminal to start, that's a huge burden to overcome.
Re: Handler beliefs affect scent detection dog outcomes (2011)
#17Is this not fairly well understood? e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans
> Clever Hans (in German: der Kluge Hans) was an Orlov Trotter horse that was claimed to have performed arithmetic and other intellectual tasks.
> After a formal investigation in 1907, psychologist Oskar Pfungst demonstrated that the horse was not actually performing these mental tasks, but was watching the reactions of his trainer. He discovered this artifact in the research methodology, wherein the horse was responding directly to involuntary cues in the body language of the human trainer, who had the faculties to solve each problem. The trainer was entirely unaware that he was providing such cues.
Re: Handler beliefs affect scent detection dog outcomes (2011)
#18The observation seems logical, but I wonder what is actually the relevance of the study in practice. I mean, there are three common situations where these dogs are used: 1) airports, stations, traffic stops etc. where the influence of the trainer might be relevant (i.e. the trainer, even if involuntarily, may influence the dog if the person that is sniffed - or their belongings/looks/behaviours/etc. - look suspicuous…
I haven't read the article (it's a little late in the day for academic prose) but have done a lot of scent work with my dog as a hobby, and talked with a trainer who does it for a living (bombs, drugs, etc).
Handler bearing absolutely plays a role if you aren't careful. One way our trainer taught us to fix this was to try to pull the dog away from the scent during training. If he follows us, we leave the room and stop the activity. The idea is to tell him that humans are stupid, they don't know where the scents are, so stop trusting them, because then your game and reward goes away. It worked very quickly and now he locks his legs and won't move when he's got the odour. This avoids accidentally pulling him off the odour when you're covering a large area at a brisk pace.
Regardless, whenever possible one of us hides the odour and the other runs the dog. This helps us avoid any preconceptions (such as focusing on one corner of the room, missing potentional scent cones from cross-drafts). Humans can still mislead the dog like this so it's best to form good habits and have an open mind.
Re: Handler beliefs affect scent detection dog outcomes (2011)
#19Up to 2006 'scent identification' ( linking persons to objects ) was used as evidence in Dutch courts.
It turned out the test weren't done 'blind' and the practice has been abolished.
Re: Handler beliefs affect scent detection dog outcomes (2011)
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
>So if the dog learns to please his handler by indicating contraband, they have a chance to at best inconvenience anyone they (dis)like. Sure, but (of course it depends on countries and local Laws) it is only one of the possible ways (excuses) that can be used to target someone. Of course if in the car there is no drugs (or explosives) the only net result is a waste of time of both the policemen and the "target". It…
For less reputable police, they might just say the dog alerted when it didn't. What's a layman to say? No it didn't? And courts usually give the benefit of the doubt to police, even if they technically shouldn't. Because police don't need probable cause to use a dog to search your car means it is the de facto way to escalate to a probable cause search, and even if a dog isn't present, bringing one there usually makes…
I believe that malice is optional for the conduct of police officers to be problematical.
Perfectly honest or understandable motivations and beliefs are sufficient.