The tracker dogs

[misty]

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/INFORMATION-SERVICE.htm

Service Information 9 May 2007
To Dr G Amaral
From Vitor Matos, Chief Inspector

Search by GNR dog team

- As you know, yesterday, 8 May 2007 at 23h45, the undersigned joined a search effected by the GNR dog team which targeted Blocks 5 and 4 of the Ocean Club resort and adjacent areas, with the objective of trying to reconstruct the possible route taken by the missing child on 3 May 2007.
- The search was led by GNR 1st Sergeant A.F.Silva, head of the search and rescue team who coordinated all the work done by the "dual track" [method] which was performed by two tracker dogs with their handler, GNR officer P.Fernandes.
- The members of the GNR advised that the tracker dogs are trained to search mainly in rural areas, given the fact that the best capability of the animal is to identify a different and strong smell in a wide, open area, it being sure that in terms of timing they said that after 48 hours from the event it is difficult to obtain positive results. Concerning urban areas, or areas with identical characteristics, they advised that due to the fact of there being a large number of odours in the air, it becomes impossible for the tracker dog to manage to identify/locate the "target smell", because it is diffuse [dispersed; broken up], [the dog] ending up becoming confused and indicating its disinterest in continuing the search........snipped.

How much more proof do people need that these were air scenting dogs?

[Robittybob1]

Service Information 9 May 2007
To Dr G Amaral
From Vitor Matos, Chief Inspector

Search by GNR dog team

- As you know, yesterday, 8 May 2007 at 23h45, the undersigned joined a search effected by the GNR dog team which targeted Blocks 5 and 4 of the Ocean Club resort and adjacent areas, with the objective of trying to reconstruct the possible route taken by the missing child on 3 May 2007.
- The search was led by GNR 1st Sergeant A.F.Silva, head of the search and rescue team who coordinated all the work done by the "dual track" [method] which was performed by two tracker dogs with their handler, GNR officer P.Fernandes.
- The members of the GNR advised that the tracker dogs are trained to search mainly in rural areas, given the fact that the best capability of the animal is to identify a different and strong smell in a wide, open area, it being sure that in terms of timing they said that after 48 hours from the event it is difficult to obtain positive results. Concerning urban areas, or areas with identical characteristics, they advised that due to the fact of there being a large number of odours in the air, it becomes impossible for the tracker dog to manage to identify/locate the "target smell", because it is diffuse [dispersed; broken up], [the dog] ending up becoming confused and indicating its disinterest in continuing the search........snipped.

How much more proof do people need that these were air scenting dogs?

How do you define "air scenting dogs",  because what you have described is the work of ground scenting dogs.
OK it says "odours in the air" but there is air between the ground and the dogs nose (there is always the need for air) whether they are air scenting dogs or ground scenting dogs.

[misty]

How do you define "air scenting dogs",  because what you have described is the work of ground scenting dogs.
OK it says "odours in the air" but there is air between the ground and the dogs nose (there is always the need for air) whether they are air scenting dogs or ground scenting dogs.

An air-scenting dog is trying to locate & track a specific scent through the air (see Eddie trying to locate cadaver scent on the videos.
A ground-tracking dog works with its nose to the ground, working from the odour of deposited skin cells & trying to locate their track on the ground.

ETA I do hope you're not just extracting the proverbial................

[Brietta]

How do you define "air scenting dogs",  because what you have described is the work of ground scenting dogs.
OK it says "odours in the air" but there is air between the ground and the dogs nose (there is always the need for air) whether they are air scenting dogs or ground scenting dogs.

Family members SHOULD NOT handle belongings owned by the lost person. Once they do, the items are contaminated and cannot be used by a trailing dog.
http://www.ussartf.org/dogs_search_rescue.htm

scent article - This is any article touched only by the subject that can be used by the tracking or training dog to gain the scent of the subject. Gathering the scent article is done with care so no other scent is present to confuse the dog. Preferably this article is one of clothing and is gathered with tongs or a stick, then placed in a paper or plastic bag. The dog then is offered the scent article, still in the bag or emptied onto the ground, to gain the subjects scent The dog is then given the command to start the search.
http://www.vsar.org/vocab.html#scentarticle

From what I have read in the files the above procedures are not mentioned; if they were not carried out, it seems the work of the dogs used, whatever their speciality may have been would have been compromised if not made entirely irrelevant.
It was a long shot - the handlers said as much - but one well worth taking in my opinion when trying to locate a missing child.  It could have worked against the odds.  Maybe one day we will discover whether or not Madeleine was taken to a car in the car park opposite the tapas.

At the time the only concrete evidence was an eye witness account ... pity that wasn't investigated more assiduously.

[Robittybob1]

An air-scenting dog is trying to locate & track a specific scent through the air (see Eddie trying to locate cadaver scent on the videos.
A ground-tracking dog works with its nose to the ground, working from the odour of deposited skin cells & trying to locate their track on the ground.

ETA I do hope you're not just extracting the proverbial................

http://www.vsrda.org/about-vsrda/using-air-scent-dogs
How air-scenting dogs work
All humans constantly emit microscopic particles bearing human scent. By the millions, these particles become airborne and can be carried by the wind for considerable distances. Airborne scent is concentrated near its source, follows the air currents, and becomes more dilute the further it travels. An air scenting SAR dog is especially trained to locate the scent of any human in a specific area and close in on the source of the scent, and can do so from hundreds of metres away, in heavy bush or in the dark. SAR dogs are not restricted to following the missing person's track and can search long after the track is obliterated, zeroing in on where the person is now, regardless of how they got there.

[G-Unit]

I believe what Harrison said in his report.
Please provide a cite from the Portuguese dog handlers that their dogs were ground-scenting trackers as opposed to air-scenting search & rescue.

Mark Harrison was called in to review the searches already done and to suggest future action. He spoke to the search coordinator and repeated what he was told. Major Seqeuira told him how the searches had been organised over the seven days they lasted. The S and R air scenting dogs were used in these searches. Harrison was quite correct.

Harrison doesn't refer to the four tracking exercises. Perhaps because searches were being discussed and the Major didn't mention them to him.

Why would a handler say 'My dog is a ground scenting tracker dog'? The clue is in the name; that's how tracker dogs work.

Tracking is a technique in which dogs are trained to locate certain objects by using the object's scent,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracking_(dog)

The search was led by GNR 1st Sergeant A.F.Silva, head of the search and rescue team who coordinated all the work done by the "dual track" [method] which was performed by two tracker dogs with their handler, GNR officer P.Fernandes.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/INFORMATION-SERVICE.htm

[slartibartfast]

What I am trying to understand is what difference this makes, they didn't find her?

[G-Unit]

What I am trying to understand is what difference this makes, they didn't find her?

Like most threads it begins for one purpose and then goes all over the place.My purpose was to refute ferryman's constant refrain that tracker dogs weren't used. They were and they tracked someone. Who they tracked isn't clear, but the type of dog used isn't.

[G-Unit]

Family members SHOULD NOT handle belongings owned by the lost person. Once they do, the items are contaminated and cannot be used by a trailing dog.
http://www.ussartf.org/dogs_search_rescue.htm

scent article - This is any article touched only by the subject that can be used by the tracking or training dog to gain the scent of the subject. Gathering the scent article is done with care so no other scent is present to confuse the dog. Preferably this article is one of clothing and is gathered with tongs or a stick, then placed in a paper or plastic bag. The dog then is offered the scent article, still in the bag or emptied onto the ground, to gain the subjects scent The dog is then given the command to start the search.
http://www.vsar.org/vocab.html#scentarticle

From what I have read in the files the above procedures are not mentioned; if they were not carried out, it seems the work of the dogs used, whatever their speciality may have been would have been compromised if not made entirely irrelevant.
It was a long shot - the handlers said as much - but one well worth taking in my opinion when trying to locate a missing child.  It could have worked against the odds.  Maybe one day we will discover whether or not Madeleine was taken to a car in the car park opposite the tapas.

At the time the only concrete evidence was an eye witness account ... pity that wasn't investigated more assiduously.

It might be possible to get an uncontaminated item of clothing from an adult, but children are dressed and undressed by others, so all their clothing is contaminated. The tracker dog handler did his best with the item he was given and used a plastic bag.

The eye witness account of a man carrying a child has been almost certainly ruled out by SY, just as it was by the PJ. Not for the same reasons as far as we know, but the PJ managed to reach the correct conclusion nevertheless.

[misty]

What I am trying to understand is what difference this makes, they didn't find her?

Madeleine was barefooted when she went missing. A ground-scenting dog, given the correct scenting item, stood a much better chance of tracking her if she'd wandered, don't you think?

[jassi]

Madeleine was barefooted when she went missing. A ground-scenting dog, given the correct scenting item, stood a much better chance of tracking her if she'd wandered, don't you think?

I think that's the crucial bit.  What scent were the dogs actually following?
If they had used her shoes, there should have been no doubt.

[misty]

I think that's the crucial bit.  What scent were the dogs actually following?
If they had used her shoes, there should have been no doubt.

On reflection, her shoes would not have been the best item. Walking around barefoot  or wearing socks, she would have been contaminated by skin cells deposited on the floor by others which would have then been transferred into her shoes.

[Brietta]

It might be possible to get an uncontaminated item of clothing from an adult, but children are dressed and undressed by others, so all their clothing is contaminated. The tracker dog handler did his best with the item he was given and used a plastic bag.

The eye witness account of a man carrying a child has been almost certainly ruled out by SY, just as it was by the PJ. Not for the same reasons as far as we know, but the PJ managed to reach the correct conclusion nevertheless.

By the time they were Madeleine's age my children were dressing and undressing themselves, the only problem for them being shoe laces. 

In my opinion the cite I used demands almost clinical conditions for a scent source which must be almost impossible to achieve under normal circumstances.
I think the most logical scent source for the dogs was Madeleine's blanket with other contaminating scents being overridden by the strongest, which must have been hers.

The witness sighting was discarded without further investigation when it was found that it did not fit the senior investigator's then working hypothesis.  The information used by Scotland Yard to "almost certainly" rule it out was available to that investigation in 2007.
The fact that it was at a remove of seven years that a foreign force "managed to reach the correct conclusion" using information available to the original investigators is a measure of the incompetence which evidences their neglect of elementary procedure.

[ferryman]

Brietta, Misty and others are doing a sterling job, here, in establishing that the Portuguese deployed air-scenting dogs, including (as above) that other family-members (of the person searched for should not touch items used for scent-article purposes).

And yet, and yet, it is (after all!) just possible that G-Unit may have a point.

Here is what G-Unit rests his/her case on (that the Portuguese had ground-tracking dogs).

At about 23.00 the extra teams that had been requested for reinforcement arrived (Officer Rosa with Oscar and Officer Martins with Fusco, both from the search and rescue unit and Officer Fernandes with Rex and Zarus from the tracking team).

And in the light of the research Brietta, Misty and others have done (I suggest) this comment takes on a whole different perspective:

With regard to this task, Officer Silva referred to the fact that the time that had passed would be a crucial condition for the dogs' work in obtaining results and that the entirety of the human odours existing in the apartments and access paths could make the dogs' searches very difficult. However, in spite of not being a normal situation for tracking, it could be attempted, whilst the operation should be carried out as quickly as possible and not directed towards one but to all the apartments in the resort, it being appropriate for the handler not to know which apartment was chosen, so as not the be conditioned.

I (reluctantly) concede that G-Unit may (after all) have a point.

The abnormality of the situation (for tracking purposes) being precisely what Brietta and Misty have highlighted.

[Brietta]

Brietta, Misty and others are doing a sterling job, here, in establishing that the Portuguese deployed air-scenting dogs, including (as above) that other family-members (of the person searched for should not touch items used for scent-article purposes).

And yet, and yet, it is (after all!) just possible that G-Unit may have a point.

Here is what G-Unit rests his/her case on (that the Portuguese had ground-tracking dogs).

And in the light of the research Brietta, Misty and others have done (I suggest) this comment takes on a whole different perspective:

I (reluctantly) concede that G-Unit may (after all) have a point.

The abnormality of the situation (for tracking purposes) being precisely what Brietta and Misty have highlighted.

I think the most important sentence from that is " ... whilst the operation should be carried out as quickly as possible and not directed towards one but to all the apartments in the resort, it being appropriate for the handler not to know which apartment was chosen, so as not the be conditioned."

Which illustrates the total professionalism of the Portuguese handlers who seem to have had complete understanding of and no problem with acknowledging the possibility for dogs to be influenced subconsciously by the handler.