Interesting
https://www.policeprofessional.com/news/inconsistencies-highlighted-in-training-of-cadaver-dogs/Inconsistencies highlighted in training of cadaver dogs
The operational practice and training involved with victim recovery dogs is inconsistent and national standards should be implemented across the UK, a University of Huddersfield study has concluded.
Oct 7, 2015
By Chris Allen
The operational practice and training involved with victim recovery dogs is inconsistent and national standards should be implemented across the UK, a University of Huddersfield study has concluded.
The study into how dogs recognise the smell of a decomposing body discovered inconsistencies in how police forces use the animals, known as cadaver dogs, and train handlers.
There are 70 cadaver dogs currently active across the country, with around one in three UK forces using them.
The claims have been made six years after a review of their use highlighted similar issues. The National Policing Improvement Agency – now part of the College of Policing – reviewed the use of the dogs in 2009 and concluded there was inconsistency in how and why they were deployed.
It also said there were no national standards for accrediting dogs and handlers and no records were kept of the success rate they achieved.
The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) then created national guidance on how police dogs are trained and used in 2011, but researchers claim it does not include sufficient detail on the use of cadaver dogs and the way forces train and use them and that this leads to variations in effectiveness.
During the study by the University of Huddersfield, conducted by PhD student Lorna Irish, the individual components of decomposition odour were presented to a wide variety of dogs from forces across the UK to see which elements of the scent they responded to.
It found that all of the dogs involved, even those trained in the same way, responded completely differently.
The study also identified the following discrepancies in training standards:
•There is nothing within the ACPO manual stating that pig remains – which are similar to human flesh and therefore the best training aid – must be used as an analogue for human remains. Forces have gravitated naturally towards pig meat, but some use only whole pigs, while others will only use bits of pork from a butcher;
•Forces will use meat at different states of decomposition as training aids – meaning the meat will have a slightly different odour and that as a result some dogs will be more effective than others;
•The manual is guidance only – meaning instructors can have very different interpretations of it;
•Grave specifications in the manual are vague and it only states they should vary in depth, age (ranging from three to 12 months) and terrain. No other direction is given – again this results in variable detection standards across the country;
•Refresher training is meant to be designed to “challenge” the dogs – however, no further direction is given and this therefore varies by force;
•There is no specification in the manual for the use of distractor scents or controls within training searches. In contrast, in the US dogs have to show that they can deal with distractor scents; and
•There is no specification in the manual for negative or blind searches during training, as there is in the US.
“There should be a national standard, everybody has their own different interpretation and there isn’t much communication between forces – you see good and bad things all over the place, as they have interpreted the guidance differently,” Ms Irish explained.
National policing lead for police dogs, Deputy Chief Constable Gareth Wilson, said: “Clear standards for training victim detection dogs throughout England and Wales are laid out in a national manual to ensure high standards are followed.
“These guidelines involve clear instructions on how training is carried out, which locations are used, and which materials can be legally used to ensure the best results for their essential work.”
The College of Policing would not comment on the research findings, but said that victim recovery training is a success and the guidance is always being reviewed and updated.
