Combining Tracking with Lowland Search Dogs
As you may have noticed from my recent writing on the POD of a Search Dog is 100%, I have been reading Greg Fuller, Ed Johnson and Robert J Koester’s book Man-Trackers and Dog Handlers in Search & Rescue – Basic Guidelines and Information. One of the reasons I was keen to get hold and read this book was because of the simple, but great idea contained within it’s pages – the idea that it is possible to successfully combine the two SAR disciplines of Tracking and Search Dogs into one field team unit.
I had been toying with the idea for some time for Lowland Search Dogs. A Lowland Search Dog team working as a Team consists of a dog, a handler and at least one support person. I have had some concerns [although this is probably too strong a word] for a while about the under-utilisation of this extra body. In my mind this person is a potential foot searcher who is being restricted from searching fully by having to accompany a search dog and handler [before you comment I am aware they do have a specific role - just that this role takes away search effort!]
I had been toying with the idea of spreading handler and support out more to allow for a “better” [?] search by the support alongside their support role. However, if LSDog support personnel were all trained at a minimum in track awareness [and better still at tracking] this would add a whole new dimension to the search dog team.
Obviously the dynamics of the team would change – but having the support walk the path, with the handler off the track so as to avoid track and sign contamination is not perhaps the most difficult change.
I’d be interested in your thoughts on this one…
January 25, 2010
· 
Robert Bradley · 
3 Comments
Tags: Bob Koester, Ed Johnson, Greg Fuller, Lowland Search Dogs, LSDogs, Man-Trackers & Dog Handlers in Search & Rescue, Robert J Koester, Search Dog Handler, Search Dog Team, Tracking · Posted in: Search Thoughts
3 Responses
Hi Robert,
I read your posts with a great deal of interest – thank you for the work you put in to them – but I am somewhat confused by this post.
I do not understand why you regard a support person for a dog search team as ‘under-utilised’. As well as providing navigation and maintaining communications with control while the handler focuses on the search dog, the support person will also keep his/her eyes and ears open in much the same way as a usual foot searcher.
I am also not clear what you are suggesting with regard to tracking. A number of LSDogs are trained to track and I agree it would be great to see many more trained to track as well as airscent. But you have lost me when you say that the support would stay on the path while the handler is off the track. Forgive me if I have misunderstood.
When a dog is tracking he has his nose along the track and the handler follows directly behind, albeit at a distance, holding the tracking line. Assuming the dog is following the scent, whether or not he and his handler are on the path will depend entirely on where the track lies.
The support person would need to tail the handler (though not necessarily immediately behind) so as to be aware of the team’s position particularly if the track wanders off from any paths, to maintain communications with control and to make notes of any relevant search details when appropriate.
I would be interested to hear the thoughts of other dog handlers/ support persons on this.
Regards,
Susan
Susan, it is lovely to hear from you [especially the kind words you have to say about the website!]
I can’t have been particularly clear with this post obviously. Let’s try to clear it up.
When I refer to Tracking I’m not talking about the dog tracking but the support person. This person could be looking out for track traps, and other evidence, track or sign, that the misper was in the area, whilst the dog and handler continue their search in the normal way. It might even be a Tracking dog, being combined with a foot tracker in support…
I really hope this reads clearer than it seems!
So the support person would be a “foot tracker” to differentiate them from a tracking dog.
I also understand that the support does search – but from a foot search point of view, two searchers walking as close to each other as I generally see handlers and support are not searching effectively. By having the support moving further away from the handler – say twenty metres further left and back (obviously depending on the wind/terrain etc.) would give a totally fresh angle to the search and cover the ground more effectively and still allow them to “support” the handler as they would normally.
Of course, if the support was a foot tracker, this further distance might not be as appropriate – the handler and support would need to be closer to coordinate their efforts better.
Don’t presume I know the answer here – but the idea is to put fresh ideas on the table and see what does and doesn’t work.
If the dog handler is also operating as a foot searcher (and I suport Susan’s view that they should be 100%) then they will be a better searcher if they train in tracking.
I have heard a huge range of views in how effective tracking is as a SAR technique, and I am not as big a supporter of it as Rob. However, I am yet to meet a searcher of any discipline who did not believe they were a better searcher as a result of participating in a decent SAR Tracking course. We have a responsibility to the misper to be the best we possibly can, and Tracking is one of the steps to realising this.
Leave a Reply