The point I'm making, if they were not keeping records of the success rate the dogs achieve, how could they possibly conclude anything about their consistency?
Valid criticisms, if true, I agree... but without records to reference, it seems impossible to determine anything about the consistency of what the dogs can do. Without records, the dog's could have been as consistent as hell for all anyone knows.
If this is the report I remember, the issue was not a lack of records, but that dogs trained by differing police forces were trained and tested to differing standards. This was causing an issue where dogs from different police forces were brought in to assist in a single investigation. Because the handlers and dogs would then approach the same task in different ways.
This in turn would raise issues as to whether the work could be signed off as satisfactory by the SIO.
If you think it through, Eddie and Keela were deployed before such standards were introduced, while I believe Tito and Muzzy were deployed after standardisation was recommended.
If this is correct, there is a distinct possibility that DCI Andy Redwood would have a better understanding of what dog and handler can do than Gonçalo Amaral or Paulo Rebelo.
Please be aware I have not researched this aspect of police dogs in any great detail.
