The POD of a Search Dog is 100%
When writing a blog you have to always have something left to write about tomorrow. This means that when you think of something to write about you tend to note it down somewhere, to use another day. BUT, some days, you just have to jump on the computer and write something, NOW!
It might be a news item, it might be a thought or idea going through your head, or it might, like today, be something that you read.
I’ve just taken delivery of some books from dbs productions ready to sell in the SAR Bookshop. One of Bob Koester’s books that I hadn’t read was Man-Trackers and Dog Handlers in Search & Rescue – Basic Guidelines and Information - co-authored with Greg Fuller and Ed Johnson.
In the chapter Dog-Handling Misconceptions I came across the following, which I truly hope the authors don’t mind me copying here as it has some implications for the way lowland search dogs are used and viewed.
“Dogs never miss”
If the dog handler believes this, management has a problem. If the search manager believes this, the lost subject has a problem. If a dog team ever reports a POD higher than 75% and the area is not a paved parking lot, it’s likely they have over-reported their POD.
While a discussion of scent transport is well beyond the scope of this publication, it should be noted that a myriad of conditions contribute to the success or failure of each individual search task. Wind direction, spotty scent pools, contaminating scent sources, and handler fatigue can all contribute to missed detection/find by even a focused, well-trained dog. Dog teams are another “tool” for searching — they are not infallible. Many search coordinators can relate stories of ground teams finding a subject in an area “cleared” by a search dog team. In some cases a not completely trained dog actually found the subject but did not indicate this to the handler. Dogs are a great contributor and they can cover large areas effectively, but there’s never 100% POD with any one resource. In the long run, overstating a resource’s capability only decreases the value of that resource in the eyes of management. In some areas of the country overstating has resulted in resources no longer being requested.
(Man-Trackers & Dog Handlers in Search & Rescue, Fuller, Johnson & Koester, dbs Productions)
I’ll leave my thoughts on this important issue to another day – but I’m sure many of you have views on this…
January 18, 2010
· 
Robert Bradley · 
3 Comments
Tags: Bob Koester, dbs Productions, Dog Handler, Ed Johnson, Greg Fuller, Lowland Search Dog, Man-Trackers & Dog Handlers in Search & Rescue, Mantrackers, POD, Probability of Detection, SAR Bookshop, Scent Pool, Scent Source, Scent Transport, Search Coordination, Search Dog, Search Dog Team, Search Management, Search Manager, Search Resource · Posted in: Search Books, Search Thoughts
3 Responses
You knew I would reply to this Rob!!
So, how are “as it has some implications for the way lowland search dogs are used and viewed.”?
I would challenge any dog handler that gives a POD for their dog no matter whether it be 1% or 100% as I am not confident of the system for calculating the POD of a Dog. The only document that really explains this is “How Long is your Shadow” (maybe another blog post for you), but I don’t believe that it takes into account all of the variables required to calculate the POD. Furthermore, I am not confident that any calculation could accurately calculate the POD of a SAR dog as many of the variables are Unknown.
But one thing is for sure, the POD is higher if you use a SAR Dog than if you don’t (in most cases, especially as I know that some smart arse will put some comment to prove quite the opposite!)
The real problem with the 100% POD nonsense is that it has slowed people down; both dog handlers and foot searchers. From the dog exercises I have seen, it does seem common to train towards this type of POD, by accepting nothing less than 100% success (ie always finding the misper). Fortunately, many dogs are still trained to be a ‘hasty’ resource, and the data I have seen is very encouraging. A dog, moving at three times usual search pace, immediately achieved 33% of its previous search success. As it gets used to moving at the quicker pace, the success ratio increases. So, assuming we accept the argument that it is better to search a bigger area less thoroughly (see most of Rob’s other articles), searching 3 times more ground in a search period is definitely the way to go. Steve Ball (LSD Sussex) and I are planning an ex to test all of Sussex’s hasty resources; bikes, runners and fast dogs, so hopefully we will generate some useful data. Anyone else conducted any rapid resource tests? This is definitely the place to share the data!
I was talking about this over the weekend and have considered the possibility of handling a search dog from a bicycle. While there are clear access problems for the bicycle for certain types of terrain my instinct (note instinct, not proven or even circumstantially supported) is that a dog running at a ‘cruising’ speed will not have a reduction in POD proportional to the increase in speed.
Leave a Reply