Opps, sorry. You snooze, you lose. But it was good.
I mean no offense, Omg, but that article was a hatchet job worthy of ANTZ. There are certifying bodies for different types of search dogs, if an investigative department chooses not to use certified animals and trained handlers, that's their fault. My limited understanding of accelerant training is a second dog should be brought in to confirm what the first found. How many accelerants are in your, mine, or anybody's house? The dog was told to find chemical traces of accelerants it was trained on and it did.
The dog found a scent in or on Wolf's package and was searched. Major PITA. But the scent could have come from another package or someone's hands for that matter. A pile of packages may have been searched. Not saying dogs are perfect, but it's up to the humans to sort through the information the dogs have given them. If a machine could do it better, we wouldn't be using dogs. And it was a dog that found the 8th victim in the Amtrak wreck after two days of searching by humans.
Perhaps the author would like to go after these adorable, life-saving creatures next.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/26/world/africa/hero-rats-sniff-out-landmines-and-tb/
I had at least four posts to quote in here and now the rest are missing. Anybody else having that problem?