Wildhorse wrote:Hi Ed, it is an interesting question. My guess is that it is possible.
Hi Perry, I would also like to know more about the abilities of the dogs. Maybe Otherhand knows.
I have limited knowledge on the subject, but that usually doesn't stop me from opening my mouth. Base upon my PERSONAL experience where dogs were used in searches I was a part of, my assessment was that they were of very little use or useless. I also heard similar opinions from my team members with far more experience than I.
Some qualifiers to this.....Dogs work best in cool, humid environments where scents linger. That's typically what's not found in SoCal, and especially the deserts. Back East may be a completely different story. Also, it's my understanding there are generally two types of dogs, cadaver and tracking. I have no idea which have been fielded in JTNP for this case. In desert environments like JTNP, with the temps over 100 degrees, the likelihood of a decent scent trail hanging around for more than a few hours seems unlikely, despite what the dog handlers say.
Do dogs work? Yes, occasionally they do, which is why SAR still employs them. The biggest problem I've observed is the large amount of false positives tracking dogs can produce. This is evident in the Ewasko case where they went off on some water bottles that were eventually determined to have been hidden by another hiker. And in the case of Norman Cox in Death Valley, the dog handlers claimed their dogs tracked him down the pavement where the trail ended, and he presumably got into a vehicle (which turned out to be completely untrue). False positives by tracking dogs can divert field resources that may be better used elsewhere. It would be my guess that cadaver dogs would be more effective than tracking dogs since cadavers remain aromatic for quite some time and don't dissipate with the wind.
Woof!!
