M.Sc. Detection Dog Handler Thesis. Fiona Jackson.

MSc International Animal Welfare,
Ethics and Law
The effect of the detection dog handler on the
performance levels of the trained detection dog.
Fiona Jackson
2016
A dissertation submitted in part fulfilment for the Degree of Master of
Science in International Animal Welfare, Ethics and Law at the University
of Edinburgh.
Chosen journal style: Animal Cognition
Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies
Easer Bush Veterinary Centre
EH25 9RG
United Kingdom

Contents
Review paper: An overview of potential training biases in detection dog work and
the role of the handler in contributing to detection performance biases.
Abstract 5
1.1 Introduction 6
1.2 The qualified handler and handler bias 8
1.3 The human-dog relationship 11
1.4 Conclusions 15
References 17
Experimental paper: Examining the effect of the handler on the performance levels
of the trained detection dog.
Abstract 22
2.1 Introduction 23
3. Materials and Methods 25
3.1 Study area and subjects 25
3.2 Materials and experiment design 30
3.2.1 Video recording 30
3.2.2 Target scents 30
3.2.3 The Trials 31
3.3 Handler evaluation and data analysis 32
3.3.1 Trial scoring system 32
3.3.2 Handler ethogram 33
3.3.3 Data analysis 35
4. Results 37
4.1 Pair A. Experienced handler 1 and novice handler 5 37
4.2 Pair B. Experienced handler 2 and novice handler 6 39
4.3 Pair C. Experienced handler 3 and novice handler 7 41
4.4 Pair D. Experienced handler 4 and novice handler 8 43
4.5 Overall results 45
5. Discussion 47
5.1 Pair A. Experienced handler 1 and novice handler 5 47
5.2 Pair B. Experienced handler 2 and novice handler 6 48

2
5.3 Pair C. Experienced handler 3 and novice handler 7 48
5.4 Pair D. Experienced handler 4 and novice handler 8 49
5.5 Overall discussion 50
6. Conclusions 54
7. Criticisms of methodology 56
7.1 Criticisms of experiment design 56
7.1.1 Sample size 56
7.1.2 Assessing motivation 56
7.1.3 Target scents 57
7.2 Criticisms of experiment execution 58
7.2.1 Residual scent 58
7.2.2 Film recording 58
7.2.3 Technical difficulties 59
References 60
Acknowledgements 63
Appendices

3
Table Headings
1. Trial day environmental conditions. 27
2. Trial day schedules. 28
3. Detection dog information 28
4. Handler information. 29
5. Handler behaviour ethogram. 34
6. Handler 1 and Handler 5 overall trial scores. 37
7. Handler 1 and Handler 5 run times and faults breakdown. 37
8. Handler 1 and Handler 5 ethogram. 38
18. Overall handler results. 45
19. Total handler behaviour counts. 46

4
Figure Headings
1. Olfactory system 7
2. Carroll College campus car park. 25
3. Carroll College campus lawn 1. 26
6. Handler behaviour ethogram chart. 33
7. Handler 1 and Handler 5. Overall handler behaviour ethogram counts. 38
Appendices
A. Handler questionnaire
B. Detection dog questionnaire
C. Trial information and instructions

5
Review Paper
An overview of potential training biases in detection dog work and the role
of the handler in contributing to detection performance biases.
_______________________________________________
Abstract
This review paper is an analytical and critical assessment of discussions on handler
influence and bias in detection dog training. The significance of the handler/dog working
relationship in scent detection dog work is widely discussed throughout the available
scientific literature examining detection dog training. Yet it is apparent upon a review of
even the most recent available literature that a capacity for further scientific development
surrounding this complex, interspecies working relationship exists. Specifically, the
current gap in training knowledge that examines possible handler variables and influences
in detection work needs to be addressed in a bid to reduce performance biases across
different handler/dog pairings in different scent detection fields. This literature review
outlines the most recent ideological views on the role of the handler in detection dog
training. In doing so it exposes the current lack of research examining handler influence
and their ability to introduce performance biases in scent detection work.
Key words: bias, detection, dog, handler, training.

6
1.1 Introduction
The working relationship between a handler and their detection dog is widely regarded
as one of the most critical components to the success of detection dog operations within
the literature on detection dog training (Gutzwiller, 1990; Akenson et al., 2001; Garner
et al., 2001; Smith et al., 2003; Wasser et al., 2004; Cablk & Heaton, 2006; Reindl-
Thompson et al., 2006; Long et al., 2007; Hurt & Smith, 2009; Kerley, 2010; MacKay et
al., 2008). Discussions on the potential for sample collection biases when using detection
dogs is also abundant within the literature (Gutzwiller, 1990; Schoon, 1997; Garner et al.,
2001; Engeman et al., 2002; Wasser et al., 2004; Cablk & Heaton, 2006; Reindl-
Thompson et al., 2006; Long et al., 2007; Jezierski et al., 2008; Wasser et al., 2009;
Kerley, 2010; Lit et al., 2011; Dahlgren et al., 2012). Yet it is evident in reviewing the
available literature on detection dog training that a lack of research currently exists that
specifically examines the potential for handlers to introduce their own biases in scent
detection work.
The working relationship between humans and the domestic dog (Canis familiaris) can
be traced back to dogs’ domestication some 15,000 years ago (Savolainen et al., 2002;
Ostrander & Wayne, 2006; Helton, 2009). Yet our capacity to understand and utilise their
superior scenting ability is a far more recent, and still developing, progression in this
working relationship (Syrotuck, 1972; Gutzwiller, 1990; Helton 2009; Lit et al., 2011).
Scientific literature that comprehensively examined the anatomy and physiology of the
domestic dog in relation to the perception of odours for scent detection work was first
published in the 1960’s (King et al., 1964; Dröscher, 1967, cited in Schoon, 1997;
McCartney, 1968; Syrotuck, 1972; Zwickel, 1980; Cablk & Heaton, 2006).

7
The olfactory acuity of the domestic dog is roughly 10,000 - 100,000 times that of the
humans’ (See Figure 1) (Walker et al., 2003). This superior scenting ability has led to
their extensive use in both biological and non-biological scent detection and
discrimination work (Browne et al., 2006; Lit & Crawford, 2006; Helton, 2009).
Research examining the physiological (Syrotuck, 1972; Helton, 2009) and cognitive
abilities (Topal et al., 1997; Miklósi et al., 2000; Szetei et al., 2003; Range et al., 2009;
Marshall-Pescini et al., 2012) of the domestic dog has expanded our understanding of
their scenting processes and their ability to work alongside humans in detection work.
What remains an underdeveloped area for scientific analysis in this working relationship
is the influence of the handler on the dog’s scenting performance.
Figure 1. Olfactory
system. A comparative
view of the canine and
human olfactory recess.
The olfactory region
shown here corresponds to
the approximate location
of the olfactory
epithelium. Yellowish-
brown, olfactory region;
pink, respiratory region
(Craven et al., 2010).

8
1.2 The qualified handler and handler bias
An effective handler-dog relationship is generally considered to be fundamental to
competent detection work throughout the more recently published literature (Garner et
al., 2001; Smith et al., 2003; Wasser et al., 2004; Cablk & Heaton, 2006; Reindl-
Thompson et al., 2006). Handlers are therefore largely considered to be a crucial
component to the success of each field operation (Akenson et al., 2001; Smith et al., 2003;
Wasser et al., 2004; Long et al., 2007). Hurt & Smith (p. 187, 2009) summarised this
point of view when stating, “[just] as important as selecting the right dog is selecting the
right person as the dog’s handler and partner.” MacKay et al. (p.194, 2008) drew
attention to a popular expression among trainers, “[that] everything travels down the
leash”. The authors argued that a handler’s bad mood, poor focus levels or general
frustration will likely transfer down to the dog and result in a poorer performance
(MacKay et al., 2008). The need for an experienced (Gutzwiller, 1990; Akenson et al.,
2001; Smith et al., 2003; Gazit et al., 2005; Sanders, 2006) or well trained handler
(Wasser et al., 2004; Cablk & Heaton, 2006; Reindl-Thompson et al., 2006; Hurt &
Smith, 2009; Kerley, 2010) is referenced throughout the literature as a means to reduce
handler induced detection biases and therefore improve detection accuracy and
efficiency. Smith et al. (2003) suggested a lack of handler experience can affect results
in the field, whilst MacKay et al. (p.194, 2008) stated “in many cases, a detection dog’s
success or failure can be traced in part to the handler”. The complex working relationship
of the handler and detection dog is not one which is underestimated within the literature.
Broad statements relating to handler qualification or training (as referenced above) are
generally considered an adequate enough contribution to the discussion of handler input
across the literature. As such there is a general absence of any detailed explanation on

9
how an experienced or qualified handler avoids contributing to detection biases through
their techniques, behaviours or general interaction with the dog. Current information on
handler assessment and handler training for detection work is vague and of secondary
consideration.
In response to the lack of handler guideline information the Scientific Working Group on
Dog and Orthogonal Detector Guidelines (SWGDOG) published their Selection of
Handlers guidelines in 2006 (SWGDOG, 2006). The guidelines noted a combination of
certain personality traits, previous experience and training ability influence the selection
of a qualified handler (SWGDOG, 2006). Whilst generally informative, the guidelines
fall short in offering any detailed analysis of specific handler behaviours or techniques
which may influence a dog’s performance. The Geneva International Centre for
Humanitarian Demining (GICHD) stressed this point in their Mine Detection Dogs:
Training, Operations and Odour Detection report (2003) which stated, 'there was little or
no discussion about what criteria define a good handler or trainer.” (GICHD, p.146,
2003). In response the GICHD developed a checklist of abilities and competence to
“identify strengths, weaknesses and shortcomings in a person’s competence as a dog
trainer.” (GICHD, p.146, 2003). It is perhaps the most comprehensive report with a 23-
point scoring system for assessing handlers. Whilst providing trainers with a
“preliminary tool” to identify handler ability, the GICHD checklist does not provide a
specific evaluation (GICHD, p.147, 2003). Hurt & Smith (p. 187, 2009) discussed both
reports in their paper on conservation detection dogs and concluded, “no overall
assessment of humans has been developed.”

10
Definitive data specifically outlining certain handler behaviours, traits or techniques
which may influence a detection dog is currently absent from the literature on detection
dog training. Within the literature an emphasis on the handler’s ability to read their dog’s
body language for behavioural cues is evident (Cablk et al., 2006, Harrison, 2006; Wasser
et al., 2009; Kerley, 2010; Lit et al., 2011). What is not discussed in any detail throughout
the literature is the impact of a dog’s ability to read its handler’s behaviour for
communicative cues. If it is correct to theorise that “everything travels down the leash”
(MacKay et al, p. 194, 2008) it becomes necessary to understand exactly what behavioural
cues handlers are presenting to their dogs. It is highly plausible a that complex, non-
verbal language between handler and dog is occurring throughout the “art-form” (Reindl-
Thompson et al., 2006; Dahlgren et al., 2012) of detection work. If the success of a
detection partnership is interdependent of the communication between dog and handler,
then more focus on a dog’s ability to understand and respond to human behaviour is
required. Cablk & Heaton supported this theory in their 2006 paper on accuracy and
reliability in dog surveying of desert tortoise in the U.S., they concluded, “[the] evaluation
of both the dog and the handler is critical before a team can be fielded. We are actively
working to develop a set of standards and a certification program that permitting agencies
can rely on to make permitting decisions regarding the field of dog teams.” (Cablk &
Heaton, p.1934, 2006).
In two experimental studies investigating the use of visual and olfactory cues in
communicative context between dog and owner, Szetei et al. (2003) observed that when
visual information is not available to dogs they prefer to rely on human communicative
signals. It is highly possible that this occasional dependence on human communicative
skills is in operation during detection work when visual information is not available to a

11
dog. It is therefore important that the handler-dog working relationship is operating
correctly and that communication between the pair is systematic. According to Schoon
(1996) a handler must be able to read the dog but crucially should avoid influencing the
dog’s decision making to avoid bias. Exactly how aware are handlers of their influence?
And what unconscious cues might a handler be presenting to their dog? These questions
are the catalyst for my own research which seeks to test the intricate balance between
commanding without influencing a detection dog. The available scientific literature on
the social communicative relationship between humans and dogs provides a useful insight
into the possible unconscious influences a handler may have on their dog.
1.3 The human-dog relationship
Recent scientific literature has begun to examine the cognitive ability of the domestic
dog. Central to this ongoing research is an attempt to better understand the domestic
dogs’ advanced ability to read human social cues (Topal et al., 1997; Miklósi et al., 2000;
Szetei et al., 2003; Riedel et al., 2007; Marshall-Pescini et al., 2008; Udell et al., 2008;
Eliger et al., 2009; Range et al., 2009; Reid, 2009; Barrera et al., 2011; Lit et al., 2011;
Lakatos et al., 2012; Marshall-Pescini et al., 2012; Kaminski et al., 2013; Scheider et al.,
2013), the capacity of which extends far beyond that of any other species, including our
closer nonhuman primate relatives (Riedel et al., 2007; Udell et al., 2008; Reid, 2009).
Our capacity to provide animals with unconscious socio-communicative cues was
discovered at the turn of the last century with the infamous Clever Hans effect (Pfungst,

12
1911). Psychologist Oskar Pfungst demonstrated that the horse, Hans, was not
performing the mental tasks that the public was led to believe but was instead reading the
involuntary cues his trainer provided (Pfungst, 1911; Miklosi et al., 1998; Lit et al., 2011).
The advanced social learning ability of the domestic dog is evident through their
communicative interactions with humans (Topal et al., 1997; Miklósi et al., 2000; Szetei
et al., 2003; Riedel et al., 2007; Marhshall-Pescini et al., 2008; Eliger et al., 2009; Range
et al., 2009; Reid, 2009; Barrera et al., 2011; Lit et al., 2011; Lakatos et al., 2012;
Marshall-Pescini et al., 2012; Kaminski et al., 2013; Scheider et al., 2013). This ability
has been thoroughly studied in socio-cognitive science using object-choice paradigm tests
(McKinley & Sambrook, 2000; Soproni et al., 2001; Hare et al., 2002; Szetei et al., 2003;
Viranyi et al., 2004; Riedel et al., 2007; Udell et al., 2008; Scheider et al., 2013). Dogs
tested in object-choice experiments have been able to follow human social cues such as
nodding, pointing or gazing to locate hidden food in one of several distinct locations
(McKinley & Sambrook, 2000; Soproni et al., 2001; Hare et al., 2002; Szetei et al., 2003;
Viranyi et al., 2004; Riedel et al., 2007; Udell et al., 2008; Scheider et al., 2013). The
ability of the domestic dog to correctly respond to human social cues in object-choice
tasks shows a level of social communicative understanding which has been likened to the
skill levels demonstrated by three-year old children (Udell et al., 2008). The proven
socio-communicative ability of the domestic dog within recent scientific literature led Lit
et al. (2011) to suggest dogs may be particularly susceptible to the “Clever Hans effect”
in their communicative interactions with humans.
In examining the effects of training on the socio-cognitive ability of domestic dogs, both
Marshall-Pescini et al. (2008) and Range et al. (2009) found in their respective
experiments that trained dogs were more successful in problem solving tasks than their

13
untrained counterparts. Range et al. (2009) also observed that well trained dogs paid
significantly more attention to the human demonstrators than the lesser trained dogs and
concluded dogs ‘can easily learn to pay more attention to people’ (Range et al., p. 177,
2009). It can therefore be suggested relative to Marshall-Pescini et al. (2008) and Range
et al.’s (2009) findings that trained detection dogs are more susceptible to interpreting
any unintentional cues a handler may be unconsciously presenting to them due to their
superior ability to understand and respond to human social cues.
During the initial stages of scent training detection dogs are trained to display a specific
alert behaviour when locating the target scent (Smith et al., 2003; Cablk & Heaton, 2006;
Harrison, 2006; Kerley & Salkina, 2006; Jezierski et al., 2008; Wasser et al., 2009;
Kerley, 2010; Lit et al., 2011; Hall et al., 2013). This alert can be displayed through a
variety of behaviours such as barking (Dahlgren et al., 2012), lying down (Kerley, 2010),
standing and staring at the handler (Harrison, 2006) or sitting (Smith et al., 2003; Kerley
& Salkina, 2006; Wasser et al., 2009). Training a dog to perform alert behaviours upon
the detection of a target scent requires handlers to use overt cueing techniques (Lit et al.,
2011). Handler techniques include verbal commands (Wasser et al., 2009), physical
prompting (Lit et al., 2011) and reward upon detecting the target scent (Smith et al., 2003;
Wasser et al., 2004; Kerley & Salkina, 2006; Jezierski et al., 2008; Kerley, 2010; Hall et
al., 2013). It has therefore recently been suggested by Lit et al. (2011) that trained
detection dogs may not only respond to scent but also to additional, unintentional handler
cueing as a result of this overt style of initial alert training. In a study by Lit et al. (2011)
which examined how handler beliefs affected the outcome of scent detection scenarios, it
was argued that while handler cueing fades out as the training progresses, subtle and
unintentional forms of handler cueing such as “handler proximity to the dog according to

14
scent location, gaze, and gesture cues, and postural cues” may still be directed by handlers
towards their dog. Lit et al. (p. 387, 2011) concluded through their research that, “human
more than dog influences affected alert locations.”
Lit et al.’s (2011) experiment design required falsely informing the handlers that drugs
and/or explosive scents were deposited around the control area. No drug or explosive
scents were planted and therefore any alerting response was incorrect (Lit et al. 2011).
This aspect of their experiment design has drawn some criticism. In response to the paper
SWGDOG published a critical review of the experiment design, stating “It is SWGDOG’s
opinion that the authors should have provided some discussion of the extreme nature of
the bias that was intentionally created relation to a typical detector dog scenario.”
(SWGDOG, 2011). Abrantes et al. (2012) also responded to Lit et al.’s (2011) paper
through replicating the experiment design in their own study, though crucially they did
not did not falsely inform handlers scent would be present, instead they informed handlers
conditions could contain target scent. Abrantes et al (p.2, 2012) stated they “influenced
them [the handlers], but we did not lie to them.” This design more closely replicates
normal detection operating conditions in which a handler will not know if a target scent
is present or not (Abrantes et al., 2012). Abrantes et al. (2012) acknowledged handlers
can sometimes influence their dogs and noted this as a “training and procedural error that
we have observed, noted and have been systematically trying to eradicate.” (Abrantes et
al., p.1, 2012). Whilst Lit et al (2011) provided a worthy argument on the possible effects
of unintentional handler cueing, their experiment design created an unnatural detection
scenario and therefore the criticisms Lit et al (2011) received are just.

15
Lit et al. (p. 392, 2011) also failed to videotape their experiment and concluded as such
“there is no way to identify” if the large number of false alert by handlers was due to
handlers erroneously calling alerts or if handler belief that scent was present affected their
dog’s alerting behaviour who would perform alert behaviour in locations where handlers
were unintentionally indicating there was scent. In other words, there was no way to
identify if the Clever Hans effect was occurring. Lit et al. (p. 393, 2011) conclude “future
studies should directly explore underlying factors responsible for the false alerts as this
will improve development of effective remedies to optimize performance.” Videotaping
handler/dog pairings for handler behavioural analysis will provide my research the
opportunity to examine what handler behaviours may influence a dog’s performance.
1.4 Conclusions
As a relatively new method of detection work (Smith et al., 2003; Jezierski et al, 2008)
the use of detection dogs has only recently accumulated a thorough analytical approach
to its processes (Long et al., 2007). The available scientific literature on both detection
dog training and socio-cognitive relationship between the domestic dog and humans
provides a useful context in the development of my research on handler biases. The
working relationship between a handler and a detection dog as the most critical
component in carrying out a successful detection operation (Syrotuck, 1977; Akenson et
al., 2001; Garner et al., 2001; Smith et al., 2003; Wasser et al., 2004; Cablk & Heaton,
2006; Kerley, 2010; Lit et al., 2011). Yet it is evident from the available literature that
our understanding of this complex working relationship is not yet fully realised. Research

16
into how our longstanding socio-communicative bond with the domestic dog has the
potential to effect our ability to work with them systematically and efficiently in the
detection field is therefore required. The research undertaken in conjunction with this
thesis will look to question the role of handlers and the possible biases they may
unintentionally contribute in scent detection work.

17
References
Abrantes R, Costa Pinto M, Rodrigues M, Costa Pinto T (2012) Handler beliefs do
not affect police detection dog outcomes. Available at
http://en.calameo.com/read/0009488961a26abd0a577. Accessed 22 January 2016
Akenson JJ, Henjum MG, Wertz TL and Craddock TJ (2001) Use of dogs and
mark-recapture techniques to estimate American black bear density in north-eastern
Oregon. Ursus 12 203-209
Barrera G, Mustaca A and Bentoseia M (2011) Communication between domestic
dogs and humans: effects of shelter housing upon gaze to the human. Animal Cognition
14 727-734.
Browne C, Stafford K and Fordham R (2006) The use of scent-detection dogs. Irish
Veterinary Journal 59(2) 97-104
Cablk ME and Heaton JS (2006) Accuracy and reliability of dogs in surveying for
desert tortoise (gopherus agassizii). Ecological Society of America 16(5) 1926-1935
Craven B, Paterson EG and Settles GS (2010) The fluid dynamics of canine
olfaction: unique nasal airflow patterns as an explanation of macrosmia. Journal of the
Royal Society. Available at http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/7/47/933
(Accessed 22 January 2016)
Dahlgren DK, Elmore RD, Smith DA, Hurt A, Arnett EB and Connelly JW (2012)
Use of dogs in wildlife research and management. Wildlife Techniques Manual 1(7)
140-153
Elgier AM, Jakovcevic A, Barrera G, Mustaca AE and Bentosela (2009)
Communication between domestic dogs (canis familiaris) and humans: dogs are good
learners. Behavioural Processes 81 402-408
Engeman RM, Vice DS, York D and Gruver KS (2002) Sustained evaluation of the
effectiveness of detector dogs for locating brown tree snakes in cargo outbound from
Guam. International Biodeterioration & Biodegration 49 101-106
Garner KJ, Busbee L, Cornwell P, Edmonds J, Mullins K, Rader K, Johnston JM
and Williams JM (2001) Duty cycle of the detector dog: a baseline study. Report
prepared for the U.S. Government by the Institute for Biological Detection Systems,
Auburn University (FAA Grant #97-G-020).
Gazit I, Goldblatt A and Terkei J (2005) The role of context specificity in learning:
the effects of training context on explosives detection in dogs. Animal Cognition 8 143-

18
150
GICHD (2003) Mine detection dogs: training, operations, and odour detection.
Geneva: International Centre for Humanitarian Demining. Available at
http://www.gichd.org/fileadmin/GICHD-resources/rec-documents/MDD.pdf (Accessed
21 January 2016)
Gutzwiller KJ (1990) Minimizing dog-induced biases in game bird research. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 18(3) 351-356
Hall NJ, Smith DW and Wynne CDL (2013) Training domestic dogs (canis lupus
familiaris) on a novel discrete trials odor-detection task. Leaning and Motivation 44
218-228
Hare B, Brown M, Williamson C and Tomasello M (2002) The domestication of
social cognition in dogs. Science 298(5598) 1634-1636
Harrison RL (2006) A comparison of survey methods for detecting bobcats. Wildlife
Helton (2009) Canine ergonomics: introduction to the new science of working dogs. In
Canine ergonomics: the science of working dogs. Florida. CRC Press.
Hurt and Smith (2009) Conservation dogs. In Canine ergonomics: the science of
working dogs. Florida. CRC Press.
Jezierski T, Walczak M and Górecka A (2008) Information-seeking behavior of
sniffer dogs during match-to-sample training in the scent lineup. Polish Psychological
Bulletin 39(2) 71-80
Kaminski J, Pitsch A and Tomasello M (2013) Dogs steal in the dark. Animal
Cognition 16 385-394
Kerley LL and Salkina GP (2006) Using scent-matching dogs to identify individual
amur tigers from scats. The Journal of Wildlife Management 71(4) 1349-1356
Kerley L (2010) Using dogs for tiger conservation and research. Integrative Zoology 5
390-395
King JE, Becker RF and Markee JE (1964) Studies on olfactory discrimination in
dogs: 3. Ability to detect human odour trace. Animal Behaviour 12 311-315
Lakatos G, Gácsi M, Topál J and Miklósi A (2012) Comprehension and utilisation of
pointing gestures and gazing in dog-human communication in relatively complex
situations. Animal Cognition 15 201-213

19
Lit L and Crawford CA (2006) Effects of training paradigms on search dog
performance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 98 277-292
Lit L, Schweitzer JB and Oberbauer AM (2011) Handler beliefs affect scent
detection dog outcomes. Animal Cognition 14 387-394
Long RA, Donovan TM, MacKay P, Zielinski WJ and Buzas JS (2007)
Effectiveness of scat detection dogs for detecting forest carnivores. Journal of Wildlife
Management 71(6) 2007-2017
MacKay P, Smith DA, Long RA and Parker M (2008) Scat detection dogs. In Non-
invasive Survey Methods for Carnivores. Washington. Island Press.
Marshall-Pescini S, Passalacqua C, Miletto Petrazzini ME, Valsecchi P and Prato-
Previde E (2012) Do dogs (canis lupis familiaris) make counterproductive choices
because they are sensitive to human ostensive cues? PLoS ONE 7(4) e35437
Marshall-Pescini S, Valsecchi P, Petak I, Accorsi PA and Previde EP (2008) Does
training make you smarter? The effects of training on dogs’ performance (canis
familiaris) in a problem solving task. Behavioural Processes 78 449-454
McCartney W (1968) Olfaction and odours: An osphresiological essay. Berlin.
Springer.
McKinley J and Samrook TD (2000) Use of human-given cues by domestic dogs
(canis familiaris) and horses (equus caballus). Animal Cognition 3 13-22
Miklósi A’, Polgárdi R, Topál J and Csányi V (2000) Intentional behavior in dog-
human communication: an experimental analysis of “showing” behavior in the dog.
Animal Cognition 3 159-156
Miklósi A, Polgárdi R, Topál J and Csányi V (1998) Use of experimenter-given cues
in dogs. Animal Cognition 1 113-121
Ostrander EA and Wayne RK (2005) The Canine genome. Genome Research 15
1706-1716
Pfungst O (1911) Clever Hans (the horse of Mr. Von Osten): a contribution to
experimental animal and human psychology. New York. Henry Holt and Company.
Range F, Heucke SL, Gruber C, Konz A, Huber L and Virányi Z (2009) The effect
of ostensive cues on dogs’ performance in a manipulative social learning task. Applied
Animal Behaviour Science 120 170-178
Sanders CR (2006) “The dog you deserve”: ambivalence in the K-9 officer/patrol dog

20
relationship. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 35(2) 148-172
Reid P (2009) Adapting to the human world: dogs’ responsiveness to our social cues.
Behavioural Processes 80 325-333
Reindl-Thompson SA, Shivik JA, Whitelaw A, Hurt A and Higgins KF (2006)
Efficacy of scent dogs in detecting black-footed ferrets at a reintroduction site in south
Dakota. USDA National Wildlife Research Center – Staff Publications. Paper 438
Riedel J, Schumann K, Kaminski J, Call J and Tomasello M (2008) The early
ontogeny of human-dog communication. Animal Behaviour 75 1003-1014
Savolainen P, Zhang YP, Luo J, Lundeberg J and Leitner T (2002) Genetic
evidence for an East Asian origin of domestic dogs. Science 298(5598) 1610-1613
Scheider L, Kaminski J, Call J and Tomasello M (2013) Do domestic dogs interpret
pointing as a command? Animal Cognition 16 361-372
Schoon GAA (1996) Scent identification lineups by dogs (canis familiaris):
experimental design and forensic application. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49
257-267
Schoon GAA (1997) Scent identifications by dogs (canis familiaris): A New
Experimental Design. Behaviour 134(7/8) 551-550
Smith DA, Ralls K, Hurt A, Adams B, Parker M, Davenport B, Smith MC and
Maldonado JE (2003) Detection and accuracy rates of dogs trained to find scats of San
Joaquin kit foxes (vuples macrotis mutica) Animal Conservation 6 339-346
Soproni K, Miklósi A, Topál J and Csányi V (2001) Comprehension of human
communicative signs in pet dogs (canis familiaris). Journal of Comparative Psychology
115(2) 122-126
Scientific Working Group on Dog and Orthogonal detector Guidelines (2006)
SWGDOG SC1abcd-Terminology. Available at www.swgdog.org (Accessed 23
January 2016)
Scientific Working Group on Dog and Orthogonal detector Guidelines (2011)
SWGDOG membership commentary on “handler beliefs affects scent detection dog
outcomes” by L. Lit, J.B. Schweitzer and A.M. Oberbauer. Available at
http://swgdog.fiu.edu/news/2012/swgdog-response-to-lit-k9-
study/swgdog_response_to_lit_study.pdf (Accessed 23 January 2016)
Syrotuck WG (1972) Scent and the scenting dog. Pennsylvania. Barkleigh
Productions Inc.

21
Szetei V, Miklósi Á, Topál J and Csányi V (2003) When dogs seem to lose their nose:
an investigation on the use of visual and olfactory cues in communicative context
between dog and owner. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 83 141-152
Topál J, Miklósi Á and Csányi V (1997) Dog-human relationship affects problem
solving behavior in the dog. Anthrozoös 10(4) 214-224
Udell MAR, Giglio RF and Wynne CDL (2008) Domestic dogs (canis familiaris) use
human gestures but not nonhuman tokens to find hidden food. Journal of Comparative
Psychology 122(1) 84-93
Virányi Z, Topál J, Gácsi M, Miklósi A, and Csányi V (2004) Dogs respond
appropriately to cues of humans’ attentional focus. Behavioural Processes 66 161-172
Walker JC, Hall SB, Walker DB, Kendal-Reed MS, Hood AF and Niu XF (2003)
Human odor detectability: new methodology used to determine threshold and variation.
Chemical Senses 28 817-826
Wasser SK, Davenport B, Ramage ER, Hunt KE, Parker M, Clarke C and
Stenhouse G (2004) Scat detection dogs in wildlife research and management:
application to grizzly and black bears in the Yellowhead Ecosystem, Alberta, Canada.
Zoology 82 475-492
Wasser SK, Smith H, Madden L, Marks N and Vynne C (2009) Scent-matching
dogs determine number of unique individuals from scat. Journal of Wildlife
Management 73(7)
Zwickel FC (1980) Use of dogs in wildlife biology. p531-536 in Schemnitz D Wildlife
management techniques manual (4). The Wildlife Society Inc. Washington, D.C. 686pp.

22
Experimental Paper
Examining the effect of the handler on the performance levels of a trained
detection dog.
_______________________________________________
Abstract
The capacity for a detection dog handler to introduce detection biases through covert or
unconscious behavioural cues has yet to be scientifically studied in any detail. This paper
examines the handler behaviour biases exhibited within a controlled scent detection
research experiment. The experiment required two separate handlers to work the same
detection dog, under the same experiment conditions. Eight handlers were tested,
working four trained detection dogs. Handlers were scored on trial accuracy and
efficiency. The trial results found each of the four pairs recorded different trial scores
when working the same dog.
Handler experience levels were tested as a possible cause for the variation in results. Each
trial pairing consisted of an ‘experienced’ and a ‘novice’ handler. Detection dog
behaviour was influenced by each handler but the experience of each handler was not the
main cause of variation. This shows that even experienced handlers can affect dog
behaviour and the ability of the dog to perform at their full ability. Although this result
is preliminary, it suggests that more research should go into the training of the handlers
to improve the working capabilities of a handler/dog detection team.
Key words: bias, detection, dog, handler, training.

23
2.1 Introduction
The superior scenting ability of the domestic dog has led to their extensive use in both
biological and non-biological scent detection (Browne et al., 2006). The introduction of
biases in scent detection work reduces the accuracy and efficiency at which field
operations are carried out (Gutzwiller, 1990; Garner et al., 2001; Smith et al., 2003;
Wasser et al., 2004; Cablk & Heaton, 2006; Harrison, 2006; Long et al., 2007; Wasser et
al., 2009; Helton, 2009; Lit et al., 2011). This study aimed to examine handler behaviour
influence on a trained detection dog’s performance. The hypothesis was: handlers
introduce their own behavioural biases in detection dog work.
The various levels of handler experience could also affect dog behaviour (Gutzwiller,
1990; Schoon, 1997; Akenson et al., 2001; Wasser et al., 2004; Cablk & Heaton, 2006;
Long et al., 2007; Lit et al., 2011; Dahlgren et al., 2012). It is plausible that a more
experienced handler could introduce fewer handler behaviour biases due to a greater
understanding of potential biases in detection dog work. Conversely, it was also
considered plausible that a more experienced handler may present more handler
behaviour biases to a detection dog through inherent and ingrained bias-inducing
behaviours. This study aimed to investigate if handler experience was affecting the dogs’
behaviour. The hypothesis was: various levels of handler experience affects a dogs’
detection performance.
Each trial was scored on the accuracy and efficiency at which it was carried out. The
scoring system was designed to replicate field operation performance targets where
collecting the greatest amount of targeted samples in the least amount of time is often the

24
best outcome for the general welfare of any handler/dog team, who at times can be
operating in challenging and even dangerous environments (Browne et al., 2006). False
alerts in detection dog training can negatively effect the efficiency at which operations
are carried out. They may also have serious implications in some fields, for example, in
criminal identification work in which the wrong suspect can be falsely identified (Schoon,
1996). As such false alert errors should be avoided through correct training procedures
(Schoon, 1996; Garner et al., 2001; Reindl-Thompson et al., 2006; Jezierksi et al., 2006).
False alerts were therefore scored negatively in the experiment trials. For more
information on the training procedures of scent detection dogs see Garner et al., 2001;
Wasser et al., 2004; Long et al., 2007; Dahlgren et al., 2012; Parker, 2015.

25
3. Materials and methods
3.1 Study area and subjects
Ethical approval for this study was given by the University of Edinburgh Veterinary
Ethics Research Committee. Trials were conducted on campus grounds at Carroll
College, Montana, USA on April 26 and 28 2016. Each handler/dog pairing was tested
on two sites; Carroll College campus car park (see Figure 2) and three distinct search
areas on the campus lawn (See Figures 3, 4 and 5). On both trial days the car park was
at roughly half capacity with approximately 50 parked vehicles within the search area.
The search area within the car park was approximately 3428 square meters. The lawn
search areas were approximately 2240, 3244 and 1567 square meters for run 2, run 3 and
the clean run respectively.
Figure 2: Carroll College campus car park. Location for Run 1; vehicle search. The ‘X’ marks the
sport where the handling team started and the ‘o’ indicates the camcorder position. Google image

26
Figure 3: Carroll College campus lawn 1. Location for Run 2; area search. The ‘X’ marks
the sport where the handling team started and the ‘o’ indicates the camcorder position.
Google image.
Figure 5: Carroll College campus lawn 3.
Location for Clean Run; area search. The ‘X’
marks the sport where the handling team
started and the ‘o’ indicates the camcorder
position. Google image.
Figure 4: Carroll College campus lawn 2.
Location for Run 3; area search. The ‘X’
marks the sport where the handling team
started and the ‘o’ indicates the camcorder
position. Google image.

27
The chosen search sites replicate standard vehicle search and area search vicinities for
detection dog work. Each trial dog had been trained in similar vehicle and area search
environments and were therefore all well accustomed to carrying out training searches in
such areas.
As the experiment was designed to exclusively test handler variables a meticulous attempt
was made to keep any environmental or dog-induced variables at a minimal and
maintained level across all trials. Trials were conducted over two days due to handler
availability. Average temperatures, relative humidity, wind speed, wind direction and
cloud cover was therefore recorded on each trial day (see Table 1). Trial day
environmental conditions were later considered for possible environmental biases
between the two days in correlation with the trial results. Trials were also kept within a
3-hour timescale on each day to avoid any significant changes in sample conditions over
the course of a day. Both novice and experienced handlers carried out their trials at the
same time of day to reduce the influence of such environmental biases (see Table 2).
Table 1. Trial day environmental conditions.
Temperature
(average °F/°C)
Humidity
(average %)
Wind Speed
(average mph)
Wind
direction
Cloud
Cover
Trial day 1
09:30 – 12:30
50/10 60 1 N/NE overcast
Trial day 2
09:30 – 11:30
38/3.3 82 <1 N/NE overcast

28
Table 2. Trial day schedules.
The detection dogs used in the trials were supplied by Carroll College and non-profit
organisation Working Dogs for Conservation, Montana, USA (www.wd4c.org), hereafter
referred to as WDC (see Table 3 for detection dog information).
Table 3: Detection dog information.
Breed Age Years of
detection
experience
Target
scent
Previous experience on
target scent
Dog A Belgian
Malinois
10 10 ivory 3 years training.
Dog B Belgian
Malinois
2 0.4 ivory 4 months training (112
sessions).
Dog C Border Collie/
Brittney
Spaniel
5 4 ivory 6 weeks training (~15
sessions).
Dog D Labrador 2 0.5 clover oil 150 training sessions.
Each dog was allocated two handlers; one experienced and one novice. Experienced
handlers were required to work professionally as detection dog handlers. Novice handlers
First trial
(09:30 – 11:00)
Second trial
(11:00 – 12:30)
Second day trial
(09:30 – 10:30)
Handler 8 / Dog D
(novice)
Handler 4/ Dog D
(experienced)
Handler 1 / Dog A
(experienced)
Handler 6 / Dog B
(novice)
Handler 5 / Dog A
(novice)
Handler 2 / Dog B
(experienced)
Handler 7 / Dog C
(novice)
Handler 3 / Dog C
(experienced)

29
were all enrolled on the Advanced Canine Training course at Carroll College. All
handlers had varying degrees of experience within their category (see Table 4).
Questionnaires were sent out to each handler prior to the trials asking for further
information on their handling experience (see Appendix A). This information was later
analysed in correlation with the test results. All handlers were asked to state their prior
experiences with dogs A, B, C and D, if any. If there was a pre-existing relationship
between a handler and one of the trial dogs the pair were not partnered together as such
familiarity had the potential to introduce substantial trial biases within the small sample
size.
Table 4: Handler information.
Experience
level
Trial
dog
Professional
experience
(years)
Training
experience
(years)
Previous
experience
with trial dogs
Handler 1 Experienced A 0 10 Dog D
Handler 2 Experienced B 20 - none
Handler 3 Experienced C 10 - none
Handler 4 Experienced D 2 5 Dog C/Dog B
Handler 5 Novice A 0 1 none
Handler 6 Novice B 0 1 none
Handler 7 Novice C 0 1 none
Handler 8 Novice D 0 1 none

30
3.2 Materials and experiment design
3.2.1 Video recording
Trials were videotaped with a camcorder mounted on a tripod and a handheld GoPro®
(see Figures 2-5 for camcorder placement). The handheld GoPro® footage allowed
experiment observer A to film each handler at close proximity as they actively moved
around each search area. Experiment observer A was responsible for recording each run
time and filming with the handheld GoPro®. Experiment observer B was responsible for
operating the camcorder mounted on the tripod and recording any false alerts or missed
correct identified alert behaviours (see section 3.3.1 for trial scoring information).
3.2.2 Target scents
The targets scents used were ivory (dog A, B and C) and clover oil (dog D). All target
scents were supplied by WDC. Each sample of ivory was approximately 4cm x 4cm.
The clove oil was dosed in a cotton ball piece approximately 2 cm x 2cm. Each dog was
familiar with their selected scent through previous training practices (see Table 3). A
well trained target scent was used for each dog as its familiarity was less likely to confuse
the dog and therefore introduce dog-based trial errors. Approximately 5 minutes prior to
each run the target scent was randomly placed on one of the vehicles in the campus car
park or around the campus lawn by experiment observer B. Placing the target scent ~5
minutes prior to each run allowed for the scent to percolate into the trial site environment
and for experiment observer B’s scent trail to dissipate. This cautionary measure was
carried out to avoid a scenario where the dog was simply tracking the scent and/or

31
experiment observer B’s scent trail to detect the scent, as opposed to using their nose to
locate the scent (Wasser et al., 2004). Each handler/dog pairing was required to wait out
of sight from the search area during this time for all four runs.
3.2.3 The Trials
Handlers were required to complete four blind runs during their trial. Each trial session
was limited to a maximum of 10-minutes. All trials included a test run before
commencing. This gave each handler an opportunity to assess the trained alert behaviour
of their dog in preparation for their trial (Wasser et al., 2009). Handlers were positioned
at a designated starting point for each run (see starting points in Figures 2-5). For three
of the four runs handlers were required to correctly identify the location of a single target
scent randomly placed in the search area. One search area contained no target scent, this
was the clean run. During the clean run the handler was required to correctly identify
that no target scent was present. The clean run was included in the experiment design to
replicate standard field operation scenarios, as it is always a possibility that no target scent
is present in any given field operation (Gazit et al., 2005). Handlers should therefore be
able to read a detection dog’s behaviour when no scent is present in order to confidently
continue to search effectively and efficiently (Schoon, 1996; Garner et al., 2001).
Handlers were made aware prior to the trials that a clean run would be included in the
trial and needed to be identified and reported to experiment observer A (see Appendix
C). When the target scent or clean run had been correctly identified the run was stopped
by experiment observer A who recorded the time taken for the correct identification. If
a correct identification had not been made the pair was required to continue to search for
the target scent within the 10-minute time frame for each run. In the occurrence of an

32
incorrect clean run identified by a handler the run was to be stopped by experiment
observer A and marked as an incorrect clean identification.
Detection dogs are commonly rewarded with play (Wasser et al., 2004; Harrison, 2006;
Wasser et al., 2009; Thompson et al., 2012; Davidson et al., 2014) or food (Smith et al.,
2003; Kerley & Salkina, 2006) when a target scent has been located and the dog is
displaying the correct alert behaviour. All dogs participating in the experiment were
previously trained using play (with a toy) as their reward. Handlers were therefore asked
to reward their trial dog with play when they believed the dog had detected the target
scent and was displaying its trained alert behaviour.
3.3 Handler evaluation and data analysis
3.3.1 Trial scoring system
Each trial was scored on accuracy: the number of correct identifications minus any false
alerts or missed correct identification alert behaviour, and efficiency: the time taken to
complete the trial. Handlers could score a single point for each correct identification
during each of their four runs. Handlers were deducted a single point for any false alerts
or any correct identification misses. Handlers with the greatest accuracy score within the
shortest trial times generated the best scores.

33
3.3.2 Handler Ethogram
A handler behaviour ethogram was designed to assess which handler behaviours, if any,
were the cause for the predicted scoring fluctuation between each pairing. The design of
the ethogram was used as a tool to decipher the theory that ‘everything travels down the
leash’ (MacKay et al, p. 194, 2008). Handler behaviours in the ethogram were
categorised as those which were ‘handler led’ and those which were ‘dog led’ behaviours
(see Figure 6). Handler led behaviours indicated the handler was commanding the search
at that particular moment, either with a single behaviour or combination of handler led
behaviours. The single dog led behaviour in the ethogram signified the handler was
allowing the dog to command the search at that particular moment (See Table 5 for the
handler behaviour ethogram). A total of five handler behaviours were chosen to give the
research enough scope in attempting to determine specific handler behaviour which may
induce performance biases.
Figure 6. Handler behaviour ethogram chart.
Handler led
Vocalisation Tight leash Gesture
Change of
direction
Dog led
Change of
pace

34
Table 5. Handler behaviour ethogram. Detailed description of each handler behaviour for logging
purposes.
Category Behaviour Description
Handler led Vocalisation These are any vocal commands (such as “find it”), vocal
encouragements (such as “good dog”) or attention vocals (such
as calling the dog’s name). Vocalisation can be a single word or
phrase. Repetition of a word or phrase is not considered a single
commend and should be counted individually.
Handler led Gesture A gesture which encourages/commands the dog to search a
specific area. This can include a general outreach of the
handler’s hand(s) from their body in the direction of an area to
be searched, or specific pointing with a finger to a search area.
A relaxation of the finger or movement of the hand back toward
the body is then considered one gesture count.
Handler led Tightening
of the leash
When the leash is at full stretch, when there is no slack in the
leash. There is a clear tension between the handler end and dog
end of the leash. There is no time limit for this behaviour. The
tight lead only needs to last for ~ 1 second to be recorded.
Handler led Change of
direction
A change of search direction from the handler which results in
the dog also changing its course of direction. This can be
through; vocalisation, gesture or leash pull. Anytime the handler
takes the dog off its current scent course. This does not include a
change in the direction the dog is facing, but a change in its entire
body movement. This can be from a stationary position or in
motion.
Dog led Change of
pace
A change of pace from the handler in order to keep up with the
dog’s movement. A change of pace from a walk to a quicker
paced walk, slight jog or run. This needs to be three paces or
longer to count as a change of pace. The handler returning to a
regular walk is not counted as a change in pace, only an
accelerant in pace is recorded.

35
3.3.3 Data analysis
CowLog behavioural coding software was used for observation. Handler behaviours
were calculated by taking the total GoPro® tally for each behaviour and adding any
additional behaviours the camcorder managed to capture. Due to filming equipment
failure several runs were not recorded using the GoPro® (see Criticism of Methodology
section 7.2.3), therefore camcorder footage alone was used to log handler behaviours. A
second observer was added to the ethogram observations to avoid individual observer
bias. Data were collated in Microsoft Excel 2013 (Microsoft, Inc.) and statistics were
carried out in Minitab 16 (Minitab, Inc).
A preliminary inter-observer reliability test was calculated using each observers’
behaviour count averages. For each ethogram behaviour the smaller count was divided
by the greater count between the two observers, the average of that sum was then
calculated. A total average of 0.80 was calculated which resulted in an 80% inter-
observer reliability agreement. A Kendall rank correlation coefficient agreement test was
also calculated. Kendall’s 𝜏b (tau-b) is a non-parametric measure of correlation between
two ranked variables and is given by the following formula:
(Kendall, 1970)
The Kendall tau-b test generated a 78% reliability result.

36
Each pairings’ trial results were analysed in correlation with their handler behaviour
ethogram results in an attempt to better understand the possible positive and negative
trigger behaviours handlers were unconsciously or covertly presenting to their dog. The
ethogram was analysed separately for each dog as every dog is individual and will react
differently to the behaviours presented to them by handlers. A correlation between a
high or low behaviour count and a good performance for one dog does not necessarily
relate to another dog. The handler ethogram recorded potential trigger behaviours for
several of the trial detection dogs and are examined in relation to the trial results (see
Results and Discussion sections).

37
4. Results
4.1 Pair A. Experienced handler 1 and novice handler 5.
Pair A recorded the closest trial scores across all four pairs with dog A. Pair A matched
their accuracy score with 2 points each. Experienced handler 1 recorded two false alerts
during their clean run, whilst novice Handler 5 recorded their false alerts during runs 2
and 3. They recorded the closest trial time difference across all four pairings with Handler
5 recording the better efficiency score by 1 minute 56 seconds. Novice handler 5
therefore recorded the better overall trial score.
Table 6. Handler 1 and Handler 5 overall trial scores.
Table 7. Handler 1 and Handler 5 run times and faults breakdown.
Accuracy score
(Correct IDs)
False
alerts
Correct
ID miss
Total Efficiency score -
(Trial time)
Handler 1
(1st
trialist)
4 -2 0 2 00:11:33:00
Handler 5
(2nd
trialist)
4 -2 0 2 00:09:37:00
Run 1
Time
(seconds)
Run 1
Faults
Run 2
Time
(seconds)
Run 2
Faults
Run 3
Time
(seconds)
Run 3
Faults
Clean
Time
(seconds)
Clean
Faults
Handler 1 203 0 38 0 50 0 402 2
Handler 5 44 0 111 1 160 1 262 0

38
Table 8. Handler 1 and Handler 5 ethogram. Total trial behaviour count, best run behaviour count
and worst run behaviour count.
Figure 7: Handler 1 and Handler 5. Overall handler behaviour ethogram counts.
Vocal Gesture Pace Direction Leash Faults Time
Total Total Total Total Total Total Total
Handler 1 28 0 28 2 7 2 693
Handler 5 38 30 12 16 22 2 577
Best run Best run Best run Best run Best run Best run Best run
Handler 1 6 0 1 0 1 0 38
Handler 5 2 5 1 1 2 0 44
Worst run Worst run Worst run Worst run Worst run Worst run Worst run
Handler 1 8 0 18 0 4 2 402
Handler 5 5 5 5 3 3 1 160
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Handler 1 Handler 5 Handler 1 Handler 5 Handler 1 Handler 5 Handler 1 Handler 5 Handler 1 Handler 5
vocal gesture pace direction lead
Handler 1 and Handler 5.

39
4.2 Pair B. Experienced handler 2 and novice handler 6
Both experienced Handler 2 and novice Handler 6 located all target scents in their trials,
however Handler 2 recorded a false alert during run 1 and therefore scored a lower
accuracy score by a single point. In the efficiency scoring Handler 2 recorded a longer
trial time than Handler 6 by 8 minutes 39 seconds. Novice Handler 6 therefore recorded
a better overall trial score.
Accuracy score
(Correct IDs)
False
alerts
Correct ID
miss
(Trial time)
Handler 2
(2nd
day trialist)
4 -1 0 3 00:15:24:00
Handler 6
(1st
trialist)
4 0 0 4 00:06:45:00
Run 1
Time
(seconds)
Run 1
Faults
Run 2
Time
(seconds)
Run 2
Faults
Run 3
Time
(seconds)
Run 3
Faults
Clean
Time
(seconds)
Clean
Faults
Handler 2 252 1 120 0 318 0 234 0
Handler 6 126 0 25 0 92 0 162 0

40
Handler 2 15 33 18 23 30 1 924
Handler 6 32 2 36 17 27 0 405
Handler 2 1 3 5 1 12 0 120
Handler 6 9 0 2 1 4 0 25
Handler 2 9 24 2 10 5 1 252
Handler 6 6 1 17 8 9 0 162
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

41
4.3 Pair C. Experienced handler 3 and novice handler 7
Pair C recorded the most substantial variance in trial scores across all four pairings.
Novice handler 7 was the only handler in the trials to fail to identify dog C was displaying
correct alert behaviour during run 1. The correct alert behaviour from dog C occurred 1
minute 38 seconds into the run. It took Handler 7 another 2 minutes and 51 seconds
before they correctly identify the location of the target scent after dog C again presented
the correct alert behaviour next to the target scent. Handler 7 recorded two false alerts,
one in run 2 and one during the clean run. Experienced handler 3 recorded no negative
points in their accuracy score and recorded a faster trial time by 8 minutes and 38 seconds.
Experienced handler 3 therefore recorded the better overall trial score.
Accuracy score
(Correct IDs)
False
alerts
Correct ID
miss
(Trial time)
Handler 3
(2nd
trialist)
4 0 0 4 00:09:56:00
Handler 7
(1st
trialist)
4 -2 -1 1 00:18:34:00
Run 1
Time
(seconds)
Run 1
Faults
Run 2
Time
(seconds)
Run 2
Faults
Run 3
Time
(seconds)
Run 3
Faults
Clean
Time
(seconds)
Clean
Faults
Handler 3 96 0 120 0 113 0 240 0
Handler 7 269 1 304 1 38 0 503 1

42
Handler 3 18 5 13 16 25 0 569
Handler 7 164 20 63 50 24 2 1114
Handler 3 3 3 2 2 8 0 96
Handler 7 5 0 5 4 3 0 38
Handler 3 4 2 5 10 6 0 240
Handler 7 90 5 25 21 7 1 503
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180

43
4.4 Pair D. Experienced handler 4 and novice handler 8
Experienced Handler 4 scored a maximum 4 points on their accuracy score, whilst novice
Handler 8 recorded a total of 3 point due to a false alert during their clean run.
Experienced Handler 4 took 5 minutes and 5 seconds longer to complete their trial but
incurred 0 negative points in their accuracy score and therefore recorded a better overall
score.
Accuracy score
(Correct IDs)
False
alerts
Correct ID
miss
(Trial time)
Handler 4
(2nd
day trialist)
4 0 0 4 00:11:18:00
Handler 8
(1st
trialist)
4 -1 0 3 00:06:12:00
Run 1
Time
(seconds)
Run 1
Faults
Run 2
Time
(seconds)
Run 2
Faults
Run 3
Time
(seconds)
Run 3
Faults
Clean
Time
(seconds)
Clean
Faults
Handler 4 80 0 113 0 260 0 225 0
Handler 8 73 0 40 0 71 0 188 1

44
Handler 4 22 44 26 60 89 0 678
Handler 8 25 2 21 12 7 1 372
Handler 4 4 7 3 10 15 0 80
Handler 8 6 0 2 2 0 0 40
Handler 4 13 10 8 9 26 0 260
Handler 8 7 0 8 5 2 1 188
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
vocal gesture pace directon lead

45
4.5 Overall results
Novice Handler 6 generated the best overall trial result by scoring a maximum of 4
accuracy points with the shortest trial time of 6 minutes and 45 seconds (see Table 18).
Experienced Handler 3 and Handler 4 also recorded maximum accuracy scores, with
Handler 3 recording a better efficiency trial time by 1 minute 50 seconds. Novice Handler
8 and Experienced Handler 2 tied on 3 accuracy points, whilst Novice Handler 5 and
Experienced Handler 1 tied on 2 accuracy points. Novice Handler 7 recorded the lowest
overall trial results with a single accuracy point and the longest trial time of 18 minutes
and 33 seconds.
Table 18: Overall handler results. Handlers were scored on accuracy (correct identification of target
scent/blank test with minimal false alerts) and efficiency (quickest overall trial time).
Highest - lowest
individual handler score
Experienced or
Novice
Score Time
Handler 6 (Pair B) Novice 4 00:06:45:00
Handler 3 (Pair C) Experienced 4 00:09:28:00
Handler 4 (Pair D) Experienced 4 00:11:18:00
Handler 8 (Pair D) Novice 3 00:06:12:00
Handler 2 (Pair B) Experienced 3 00:15:24:00
Handler 5 (Pair A) Novice 2 00:09:37:00
Handler 1 (Pair A) Experienced 2 00:11:33:00
Handler 7 (Pair C) Novice 1 00:18:33:00

46
Table 19. Total handler behaviour counts. Highest and lowest counts for each behaviour are in bold.
Vocalisation Gesture Direction Leash Pace
Handler 1 28 0 28 2 7
Handler 2 15 33 18 23 30
Handler 3 18 5 13 16 25
Handler 4 22 44 26 60 89
Handler 5 38 30 12 16 22
Handler 6 32 2 36 17 27
Handler 7 164 20 63 50 24
Handler 8 25 2 21 12 7

47
5. Discussion
5.1 Pair A. Experienced handler 1 and novice handler 5.
Pair A recorded the closest trial scores across all four pairings with dog A, yet analysis
of their ethogram results displays a variance across behaviours (see Table 8 and Figure
7). As the closest scoring pair handler behaviour counts across the ethogram was not as
similar as could be expected. Dog A was the most experienced dog with 5 years more
experience than dog C, and 8 years more experience than dog’s B and D. Dog A had 3
years training experience on the target scent. Dog A did incur 2 negative points with each
handler and was therefore not the most successful dog in the group, but dog A was
certainly the most consistent performer.
It is possible dog A’s superior scent detection experience was the cause for his consistent
performance between the two handlers and their two distinct handling behaviour styles.
Pair A’s similar trial scores are perhaps a result of dog A’s ability to perform efficiently
and consistently, regardless of handler influence. It is plausible to suggest on analysis of
Pair A’s trial and behaviour ethogram results that the more experienced a detection dog
is, the less susceptible that dog will be to both negative and positive handler behavioural
influences.

48
5.2 Pair B. Experienced handler2 and novice handler 6.
Gesture behaviour between the two handlers in pair B indicates an area of handler
behaviours which likely highly affected dog B’s performance. A difference of 21 gestures
was recorded between Handler 2’s best and worst scoring runs (see Table 11 and Figure
8). Handler 2, who recorded the lower overall trial score, recorded the majority of these
gestures during their worst scoring run. This was the only run in which dog B falsely
alerted. A review of the footage for this run shows dog B falsely alerting when Handler
2 is presenting multiple gestures to the dog. Handler 6 recorded just 2 gestures across
their entire trial. The correlation between high gesture count and poorer detection
performance for dog B is further supported on review of Handler 6’s gesture count.
Handler 6 recorded just 2 gestures across all four of their runs. On Handler 6’s best
scoring run, no gestures were used. It is therefore possible through analysis of both
handlers that a higher gesture count used on dog B negatively influenced the dog’s
performance. It is plausible to suggest a high count of handler gestures either distracted
or confused dog B.
5.3 Pair C. Experienced handler 3 and novice handler 7.
The vocalisation counts between the two handlers in pair C produced the highest
behavioural contrast with these two handlers (see Table 14 and Figure 9). Handler 7
recorded a substantial 146 more vocalisations across their trial than Handler 3, who
recorded the better overall trial score in this pairing. Handler 7 recorded 90 vocalisations
during their clean run alone. This was Handler 7’s worst scoring run. Conversely, they

49
recorded only 3 vocalisations on their best scoring run. This was their lowest number of
vocalisations across the trial. It is plausible to deduce from these counts that an excessive
amount of vocalisations negatively affected dog C’s performance. It is possible, much
like dog B’s reaction to gesture count, that such an excessive amount of vocalisations
confused or distracted dog C.
5.4 Pair D. Experienced handler 4 and novice handler 8.
Neither experienced Handler 4 or novice Handler 8 recorded much variance in their
behaviour count across all four runs (see Table 17 and Figure 10). A standard deviation
for all behaviours was calculated using the following formula:
Handler 4 recorded the greatest standard deviation (s=9.82) for their change of direction
behaviour. Interestingly this deviation was not reflected in their highest and lowest
scoring runs, with 10 and 9 counts being recorded. The same consistency was recorded
with Handler 8 who’s largest standard deviation (s=2.16) was for their change of pace.
Handler 8 recorded the least amount of pace changes in their highest scoring run, with 2
counts, and the most amount of pace changes during their lowest scoring run, with 8
counts. As the only dog led behaviour it is interesting to note dog D performed better
with Handler 8 when less dog led behaviours were recorded. Handler 4 also recorded
their fewest amount of pace changes in their highest scoring run, with 3 counts.

50
Drawing any suggestive conclusions on dog D’s working preferences from Handler 4 and
Handler 8’s best and worst run results was ambiguous. Handler ethogram data for pair
D was arranged into a histogram (see Figure 10). The handler behaviour histogram
illustrates Handler 4, the better scoring handler of this pairing, recorded the highest count
across all five handler behaviours in the ethogram. Dog D was the second least
experienced dog in the trial with only 6 months’ experience as a detection dog. It is
therefore plausible dog D performed better with Handler 4 as the dog was led by the
hander in a much more controlled fashion, as it was not yet experienced enough to led the
searches itself, unlike the highly experienced dog A. Both Handler 4 and 8’s best scoring
runs recorded their lowest dog-led behaviour: change of pace. Better results with fewer
dog-led behaviours coupled with Handler 4’s higher count rate across the behaviours links
dog D’s performance variables to the levels of handler control over the trials.
5.5. Overall discussion
For a null hypothesis (H0): handlers do not introduce behavioural biases in detection
work, to be proven within the experiment sample, all four pairings were required to record
the same trial scores. No pairing recorded the same score with their nominated trial dog.
As such, an alternative hypothesis (Ha): handlers do introduce behavioural biases in
detection work was evident within the sample. A second null hypothesis (H0): handler
experience does not affect a detection dog’s performance, could not be disproven with
this experiment sample. Results between experienced handlers and novice handlers were
split across the sample, with two experienced handlers and two novice handlers recording

51
better scores in their pairings (see Table 18). For an alternative hypothesis (Ha):
experienced handlers introduce fewer behavioural biases in detection dog, to be proven
all experienced handlers were required to record a better score over their novice
counterparts.
Whilst an analysis of handler experience did not show any significance in the sample, an
interesting conclusion can be drawn on analysis of the two handlers who scored the best
overall trial results in relation to the behavioural ethogram (see Table 19). Across all
eight handlers, only Handler 3 and Handler 6 did not record the highest or lowest count
in any of the five behaviours. Both handlers maintained a consistent medium across the
five behaviours. This could suggest a medium amount of handler behaviour presented
during searches is the optimum amount in generating the best performance from a
detection dog. Analysis of the experiment sample indicates an ability to command the
dog without heavily influencing the dog’s search is the best technique for handler
behavioural processes. Future studies should test this theory further by predetermining a
low, medium and high behaviour counts for each run. It is expected from the results in
this sample that runs with a medium amount of handler behaviour would generate the best
performances from each dog.
The working relationship between a handler and their detection dog is widely regarded
as the most critical component to the success of scent detection across the available
scientific literature on detection dog training (Gutzwiller, 1990; Akenson et al., 2001;
Garner et al., 2001; Smith et al., 2003; Wasser et al., 2004; Cablk & Heaton, 2006; Reindl-
Thompson et al., 2006; Long et al., 2007; Hurt & Smith, 2009; Kerley, 2010; MacKay et
al., 2008). Recent scientific literature examining the use of detection dogs has

52
comprehensively recognised that proficient training is fundamental to the success of any
detection work (Gutzwiller, 1990; Zwickel, 1980; Schoon, 1996; Engeman et al., 1998;
Akenson et al., 2001; Garner et al., 2001; Smith et al., 2003; Wasser et al., 2004; Cablk
& Heaton, 2006; Kerley & Salkina, 2006; Lit & Crawford, 2006; Reindl-Thompson et al,
2006; Long et al., 2007; Wasser et al., 2009; Helton, 2009; Lit et al., 2011; Parker, 2015).
Yet in detection dog work it remains that the trainability of the dog, not the handler, is
generally assessed. As the olfactory acuity of a dog can vary amongst different breeds,
nose sizes and shapes (Helton, 2009; Syrotuck, 1972), detection dogs are usually selected
for work based on their individual character traits, physical attributes and general
trainability (Garner et al., 2001; Wasser et al., 2004; Long et al., 2007; Dahlgren et al.,
2012). Whilst the trainability of a dog is undoubtedly crucial for its use in scent detection
work, the same processes of selection and trainability should be applied to handlers who
also vary in their individual character traits and trainability. The exclusive focus on dog
or environmental-induced biases in detection dog work is itself a bias to the discipline. It
is necessary to understand all possible variables in a bid to minimise field biases and
subsequently improve detection performances (Gutzwiller, 1990; Wasser et al., 2004;
Long et al., 2007), including the handlers.
Handler awareness of their potential to introduce bias is a necessary progression in
detection dog training. It is recommended that handlers practice handler bias awareness
during scent training. Handlers should test each individual dogs’ response to handler
behaviours. It is recommended initial training trials should assess the response of both
handler-led and dog-led behaviours for each particular handler/dog pairing. Testing
handler behaviours (see handler ethogram, Table 5) to find the optimum behaviour levels
for each individual dog has the potential to increase accuracy and efficacy rates.

53
Improvements in detection accuracy and efficacy has the potential to further enhance the
reputation of the detection dog industry. Improvements in the working practices within
the various fields of detection dog work is a cost-effective measure as the resources spent
on operations should decrease with the increase in detection rates. Less time in the field
also improves the welfare of the handlers and dogs who can be operating in challenging,
even dangerous field environments (Browne et al., 2006).

54
6. Conclusions
The results from this research experiment indicate that handlers do introduce behavioural
biases in detection dog work. Each pairing recorded different trial scores using the same
detection dog and working under the same experiment conditions. The hypothesis that
handler experience was responsible for the variance in trial results between pairings was
inconclusive as both experienced and novice handlers outperformed their trialist
counterparts.
There is evidence to argue the results may also indicate that a handler behaviour spectrum
exists in which both an excessive amount of handler behaviours and clear lack of handler
behaviours may generally not be preferable for a dog’s working ability. A balance
between commanding a detection dog without influencing the dog’s work generated the
best performance from the detection dogs in the experiment sample. Future studies
should look to test the validity of this conclusion further, with larger sample sizes, when
exploring handler biases in detection dog work.
The results of the handler behaviour ethogram demonstrated the individuality and
working preferences of each detection dog. It is recommended a competent handler
should be able to work around each dog’s individual preferences. Handlers should be
flexible in their ability to change their behaviours, techniques and general interactions
with a detection dog depending on that dog’s specific trainability and working
disposition. Detection dog training should therefore not only focus on improving the
dog’s detection ability and trainability, but attempts should be made to understand the
dog’s working inclinations.

55
This research intended to contribute empirical scientific data to the general commentary
on the importance of the handler. If it is correct to theorise that “everything travels down
the leash” (MacKay et al, p. 194, 2008), it is necessary to understand exactly how a
handler communicates with a detection dog. A more data-based, empirical approach to
the ‘art-form’ (Reindl-Thompson et al., 2006; Dahlgren et al., 2012) of detection dog
handling has the potential to improve detection performances. The current lack of handler
assessment protocols should to be further researched in future studies. It is therefore
recommended on the basis of the results in this paper that a comprehensive evaluation of
handler behaviour and techniques which may influence a detection dog should be
introduced to detection dog training.

56
7. Criticisms of methodology
7.1 Criticisms of experiment design
7.1.1 Sample size.
The conclusions drawn in this paper should be considered preliminary due to the
experiment’s small sample size. Trials were set at four runs per handler due to the
available time of participants. The number of dogs used in the trials was set at four due
to the availability of dogs not currently in operation. It is suggested that future studies on
handler influences in detection dog training should look to increase the data pool by
increasing the sample size or carrying out the research over a more extensive time frame.
7.1.2 Assessing motivation
A handlers’ ability to monitor the dog’s motivational levels, positively reinforcing the
dog when levels are depleting is an essential skill in detection dog handling (Garner et
al., 2001; Reindl-Thompson et al., 2006, Wasser et al. 2009). These skills include the
ability to present the reward with good timing and to reward with a level of enthusiasm
which is appropriate to the dog’s energy level (MacKay et al., 2008). Motivation
management is particularly necessary during long, extensive searches. As trials lasted
<10 minutes motivation management was not able to be assessed in a truer likeness to
some detection field operations which can last to up 4 hours (Smith et al., 2003; Wasser
et al, 2004; Kerley & Salkina, 2006). It is therefore recommended that future studies
looking to assess handler motivational management techniques should increase trial test

57
times.
Several motivational management techniques could not be tested in the handler ethogram.
These behaviours were; eye contact counts, length of time between alert behaviour and
reward and the length of the reward. This was due to a lack of visibility across the handler
footage. The camcorder footage was unable to pick up any eye contact, whilst the GoPro®
capture quality for eye contact was very sporadic. The camcorder and GoPro® footage
failed to capture any reward behaviour as both experiment observer A and B stopped
recording early. Future studies should look to clearly instruct experiment observers on
the operation of cameras, including at which points to begin and stop recording.
7.1.3 Target scents
It is common in field operations that more than one target scent is present. Once the
single target scent was located the rest of the search area was left unsearched. The
placement of two or three target scents would have better replicated field scenarios. It
would have better tested each pairings ability, including the handlers’ ability to keep the
dog motivated.
7.2 Criticisms of experiment execution
7.2.1 Residual scent
Residual scent was responsible for two errors during the trials. Dog’s A and C alerted at

58
the same location on run two when working with Handler 5 and 7. Both dogs alerted at
the same location where targets had previously been set for both Handler 8/Dog D and
Handler 1/Dog A. Whilst the target scent was not placed in the same location for any one
handler pairing to avoid potential dog learning biases, it is possible the location of the
target scent in the same place further increased chances of residual scent as the scent
particles had longer to percolate the placement area. Future studies should not place any
target scents in the same place more than once to avoid an increase of target scent particles
in a particular area. Future studies may also look to increase the time between each trial
to allow for scent particles to dissipate from previous locations, or change the location of
the search area to a similar, but distinct site. Both residual scents were not taken into
consideration for Handler 5 and Handler 7’s accuracy trial scores.
7.2.2. Film recording
Recording capture quality footage proved a difficult task due to the dynamic nature of the
trials. The quality of footage between different across all the runs varied. The camcorder
on the tripod recorded prolonged moments of zero capture when pairings were too far
from the camcorder, or when they were obstructed by vehicles, trees or buildings. The
GoPro® also suffered from moments of zero capture when experiment observer A wasn’t
able to keep up with the pace of a pairing as they manoeuvred through the obstacles during
each run. It is recommended future studies combat these difficulties by using an extra
GoPro® operator. Having two GoPro® operators with distinct sections in each search
area would improve the chance for each operator to keep up with the run. The handheld
filming method is highly recommended for future studies as it provided greater handler
behaviour capture quality in its ability to record close-up handler behaviours and sounds

59
which the tripod footage failed to capture.
7.2.3 Technical difficulties
Technical difficulties caused a total of 8 run recordings failing to be sent over for analysis.
A battery shortage on the GoPro® and technical difficulties did not allow for several files
from this device to be uploaded onto a computer in Montana. Handler 5’s third run and
clean run, and all of Handler 7’s runs were not made available due to these difficulties.
Footage from the camcorder for Handler 2 and Handler’s 8 clean run also failed to upload
and therefore was not available. It is possible for all these runs more behaviours would
have been recorded, had assess to both filming equipment recordings been available.

60
References
Akenson JJ, Henjum MG, Wertz TL and Craddock TJ (2001) Use of dogs and
mark-recapture techniques to estimate American black bear density in north-eastern
Oregon. Ursus 12 203-209
Browne C, Stafford K and Fordham R (2006) The use of scent-detection dogs. Irish
Veterinary Journal 59(2) 97-104
Cablk ME and Heaton JS (2006) Accuracy and reliability of dogs in surveying for
desert tortoise (gopherus agassizii). Ecological Society of America 16(5) 1926-1935
Dahlgren DK, Elmore RD, Smith DA, Hurt A, Arnett EB and Connelly JW (2012)
Use of dogs in wildlife research and management. Wildlife Techniques Manual 1(7)
140-153
Davidson GA, Clark DA, Johnson BK, Waits LP and Adams JR (2014) Estimating
cougar densities in northeast Oregon using conservation detection dogs. The Journal of
Wildlife Management 78(6) 1104-1114
Engeman RM, Vice DS, York D and Gruver KS (2002) Sustained evaluation of the
effectiveness of detector dogs for locating brown tree snakes in cargo outbound from
Guam. International Biodeterioration & Biodegration 49 101-106
Garner KJ, Busbee L, Cornwell P, Edmonds J, Mullins K, Rader K, Johnston JM
and Williams JM (2001) Duty cycle of the detector dog: a baseline study. Report
prepared for the U.S. Government by the Institute for Biological Detection Systems,
Auburn University (FAA Grant #97-G-020).
Gazit I, Goldblatt A and Terkei J (2005) The role of context specificity in learning:
the effects of training context on explosives detection in dogs. Animal Cognition 8 143-
150
Gutzwiller KJ (1990) Minimizing dog-induced biases in game bird research. Wildlife
Harrison RL (2006) A comparison of survey methods for detecting bobcats. Wildlife
Helton (2009) Canine ergonomics: introduction to the new science of working dogs. In
Canine ergonomics: the science of working dogs. Florida. CRC Press.
Hurt and Smith (2009) Conservation dogs. In Canine ergonomics: the science of
working dogs. Florida. CRC Press.
Jezierski T, Walczak M and Górecka A (2008) Information-seeking behavior of

61
sniffer dogs during match-to-sample training in the scent lineup. Polish Psychological
Bulletin 39(2) 71-80
Kendall, MG (1970). Rank Correlation Methods (4th ed). London. Griffin and Co. Ltd.
Kerley LL and Salkina GP (2006) Using scent-matching dogs to identify individual
amur tigers from scats. The Journal of Wildlife Management 71(4) 1349-1356
Kerley L (2010) Using dogs for tiger conservation and research. Integrative Zoology 5
390-395
Lit L and Crawford CA (2006) Effects of training paradigms on search dog
performance. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 98 277-292
Lit L, Schweitzer JB and Oberbauer AM (2011) Handler beliefs affect scent
detection dog outcomes. Animal Cognition 14 387-394
Long RA, Donovan TM, MacKay P, Zielinski WJ and Buzas JS (2007)
Effectiveness of scat detection dogs for detecting forest carnivores. Journal of Wildlife
Management 71(6) 2007-2017
MacKay P, Smith DA, Long RA and Parker M (2008) Scat detection dogs. In Non-
invasive Survey Methods for Carnivores. Washington. Island Press.
Parker M (2015) Assessment of detection and tracking dog programs in Africa.
Available at http://files7.design-editor.com/90/9024931/UploadedFiles/520bd328-b718-
423f-b041-da20b254e24a.pdf (Accessed 25 January 2016)
Reindl-Thompson SA, Shivik JA, Whitelaw A, Hurt A and Higgins KF (2006)
Efficacy of scent dogs in detecting black-footed ferrets at a reintroduction site in south
Dakota. USDA National Wildlife Research Center – Staff Publications. Paper 438
Schoon GAA (1996) Scent identification lineups by dogs (canis familiaris):
experimental design and forensic application. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 49
257-267
Schoon GAA (1997) Scent identifications by dogs (canis familiaris): A New
Experimental Design. Behaviour 134(7/8) 551-550
Smith DA, Ralls K, Hurt A, Adams B, Parker M, Davenport B, Smith MC and
Maldonado JE (2003) Detection and accuracy rates of dogs trained to find scats of San
Joaquin kit foxes (vuples macrotis mutica) Animal Conservation 6 339-346
Syrotuck WG (1972) Scent and the scenting dog. Pennsylvania. Barkleigh
Productions Inc.

62
Thompson CM, Royle JA and Garner JD (2012) A framework for inference about
carnivore density from unstructured spatial sampling of scat using detector dogs. The
Journal of Wildlife Management 76(4) 863-871
Wasser SK, Davenport B, Ramage ER, Hunt KE, Parker M, Clarke C and
Stenhouse G (2004) Scat detection dogs in wildlife research and management:
application to grizzly and black bears in the Yellowhead Ecosystem, Alberta, Canada.
Zoology 82 475-492
Wasser SK, Smith H, Madden L, Marks N and Vynne C (2009) Scent-matching
dogs determine number of unique individuals from scat. Journal of Wildlife
Management 73(7)
Zwickel FC (1980) Use of dogs in wildlife biology. p531-536 in Schemnitz D Wildlife
management techniques manual (4). The Wildlife Society Inc. Washington, D.C. 686pp.

63
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank all the individuals who participated in the trials. This includes
Erica Feuerbacher who generously offered up her time and resources to have the trials
carried out at Carroll College. I would also like to thank McKenzie Homan of Working
Dogs for Conservation who conducted the trials on my behalf.
I would like to thank Louise Wilson whose initial correspondence in the UK guided me
towards the research topic.
I would like to thank the International Animal Welfare team at Edinburgh University.
The constant advice and guidance from Fritha Langford and Jill MacKay throughout the
year was both constructive and reassuring. Thank you.
Finally, I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to my dissertation supervisor Megan
Parker who guided me through this past year. Megan was instrumental in the
conception and organisation of the research and is a true inspiration. Without Megan
this research would not have happened. Thank you.

64
Appendix A. Handler questionnaire.
University of Edinburgh
MSc International Animal Welfare Science,
Ethics and Law Thesis 2015-2016
Handler Questionnaire
Handler ID: ……
Age: ……
Number of years’ experience in dog handling: ……
Please describe your level of dog handler experience i.e. beginner, novice,
experienced:
Please state any dog handler training qualifications you hold:
Please continue to page 2…

65
Please state any other training experiences with dogs i.e. pets
Do you have any previous experience with the dogs from Working Dogs for
Conservation? If so, please state which dog(s) and how much experience.
Thank you for taking the time to fill out this questionnaire.
Please return your completed questionnaire to Megan Parker, Working Dogs for
Conservation (megan@workingdogsforconservation.org) or to Fiona Jackson
(s1371277@ed.ac.uk).
Please explain in some detail your handler experiences: i.e. relevant
degrees, courses, jobs in dog handling:

66
Appendix B. Detection dog questionnaire.
MSc International Animal Welfare Science,
Ethics and Law Thesis 2015-2016
Detection Dog Information
Dog Name/ID: …………………………..
Age: ……
Breed: ……………………………………
Number of years’/months experience as a detection dog: ……
Does the dog have any experience with one of the experiment handlers? If so, which
handler and how much experience?
Does the dog any have previous experience with the target scent? If so, please detail
how much experience (i.e. how many operations) and the success rate with this target
scent if possible.
Thank you for taking the time to fill out this questionnaire.
Please return your completed questionnaire to Fiona Jackson
(s1371277@sms.ed.ac.uk.).

67
Appendix C. Trial information and instruction.
MSc International Animal Welfare
Science, Ethics and Law Thesis 2015-
2016
Trial Information and Instructions
Research Information:
• The aim of this research is to collect data on handler induced performance
variables during detection dog training. This study will look specifically at
efficiency and accuracy rates in a variety of training scenario trials.
• The aim to produce scientific literature for trainers examining handler biases in
detection dog training which may require the most attention for future training
improvements. An ability to better predict and improve future field detection
rates is the driving force behind this research.
Trial Instructions:
• Each handler/dog pairing will begin at the starting point (see Figure 1). On the
command on experiment observer A handlers should command their dog to
search.
• If the handler believes the dog has located the target scent they are required to
reward the dog accordingly. If the target scent has been correctly identified
the session experiment observer A will end the session and record the time
taken to identify the scent.
• If the target scent has not been correctly identified handlers will be asked to
continue searching by experiment observer A until the 10 minutes is up.
• If the handler believes their dog is indicating no scent is present they are
required to vocalise to experiment observer A that no scent is present.
Regardless of the blank test being correctly identified or not, the session will
end.
• Handlers and their dog will be required to wait in an allocated waiting area
away from the trial site between each trial session.

68
Figure 1. Diagram of canine detection training site at Carroll College, Montana. Handlers and
their dog are required to correctly identify the target scent within 10 minutes of each session.
Each pair is also required to correctly identify a blank test when no target scent is present
during the session.
Trial Information:
• Each handler will be required to carry out a routine detection training trial with
their allocated dog at Carroll College canine training facilities. Each trial will
include 4 runs.
• Trials will be recorded by both an experiment observer and with video recording
equipment.
• Handlers will be scored on their accuracy (correct identification) and efficiency
(trial times).
• All trials and results will be recorded and analysed anonymously.
• Each trial will consist of four separate blind detection tests in which the
handler/dog pair will be asked to correctly identify the location of targeted scents
around the trial site.
• Each separate runis limited to 10 minutes.
• In each trial there will be one blank scent test. In a blank test no target scent has
been placed. Handlers will be required to correctly identify no scent is present
at one point during each trial.
• All sessions will include trial run before commencing. This is included to allow
for handlers to assess and understand their dog’s alert behaviour.

M.Sc. Detection Dog Handler Thesis. Fiona Jackson.

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Destaque

Destaque (10)

Semelhante a M.Sc. Detection Dog Handler Thesis. Fiona Jackson.

Semelhante a M.Sc. Detection Dog Handler Thesis. Fiona Jackson. (20)

M.Sc. Detection Dog Handler Thesis. Fiona Jackson.