Explosive Sniffing Dogs?
 

Can someone please explain to me why we can't use dogs to sniff for explosives at the airports? Aren't they used to detect missing people, drugs, suspects, and other things? Even if dogs and training cost a lot, doesn't it cost a ton of money to buy the new scanner machines and hire the people (above minimum wage) to run them? If I were in charge, I would just have everyone walk through the metal detector, get wanded if necessary (with no touching), and have an explosive dog walk around each passenger and around the terminals. :)
I'm pretty sure that this would be a less offensive to most people.

They aren't provided by Michael Chertoff ;)

oh, I didn't realize that the world revolved around him. Thanks for letting me know!

During the Congressional Sub-Committee hearing on the TSA and the body scanners, Rep. Issa asked the TSA clowns why they didn't use dogs and they said the dogs were not as effective as the body scanners. Issa then went on the attack and said he was in Iraq and Afghanistan and the military used dogs to weed out explosives, and he further stated that he didn't see one single body scanner.

His last comment was to point out the absurdity of the TSA stating the dogs aren't as effective as the body scanners when you would want the most effective means of determining if you had someone trying to smuggle in explosives in a war zone where the enemy is trying to kill you.

The TSA clowns just sat there and said nothing.

Wow, that is such a good point!! I'm pretty sure that dogs are effective, why else would police use them to look for missing people or suspects? I am starting to think that the TSA purposely only uses methods that are deemed ineffective. Why are they not accountable to anyone? They use our tax money! Doesn't the current government need to look for ways to cut down on the budget?

TSA is very effective at reacting after the fact. They also enjoy wasting millions of our tax dollars, while the economy is in the tank. :mad:

You know, it all makes me mad. If explosive sniffing dogs are good enough to use in a warzone, why is it not good enough for the airports? We all have to bow down to Chertoff and Janet and do whatever they say? :mad:

I know exactly how you feel, and trust me, it really "grinds my gears"! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkK0z...eature=related)

I am amazed at how much power the white house has given to Nappy.. Need $$$$$$$ for some idiotic machine? Here you go! :mad:

Hopefully Rep. Chaffetz will be able to reign in the TSA. It is time that the giant waste of money was put to death, or reborn as an organization that does not react to threats after the fact, but uses intelligence to catch potential terrorists before they even reach the airport.

Rep. Chaffetz posted on his facebook wall this weekend that he favors bringing in dogs.

So that's something.

It's still not clear to me why the "oversight" committee is having such a hard time actually overseeing the TSA. Can't seem to change a darned thing about it.

How many hearings do we need?

I wonder if TSA will ever show up with more than the crappy answers they are providing... :rolleyes:

No, they won't. At least not until Congress starts threatening them.

Rep. Chaffetz gave into the TSA demands that they not have to sit next to any of their critics at his last hearing.

Apparently, the TSA are a tender bunch with fragile sensitivities.

The argument these clowns put forth is that dogs have a short attention span, and are good for a half hour at a time.

Some of us might think this could be scaled by adding more dogs and handlers. The TSA would rather spend resources on visual strip searches and hand searching our groins, butts, and breasts.

They fall back on the argument that they have to process 2 million pax a day, and this is how they must do it, the only way they can do it. So, the problem is framed as, "how do we process 2 million inanimate things (passengers) a day" rather than, how can we best screen large numbers of passengers in ways that (1) do not violate Constitutional guarantees, and (2) do not humiliate and embarrass these human beings.

They have framed the problem incorrectly, and therefore they have an incorrect solution.

Sounds like the totality of their workforce.

Sounds like the way they frame all their problems.

well that is a 100% improvement on their bipedal hires.

Is it really necessary to point out that the machines aren't mobile.. (unlike dogs) so would be of rather limited use in anything other than the most benign environment...

..not to mention power supplies etc... So the fact that he "didn't see a single body scanner" is hardly surprising...:rolleyes: (BTW Surely THAT comment ranks with anything dumb the TSA have ever come out with!)

I bet he didn't see a CAT scan machine or any of the other (big) wonders of modern medicine in the field hospitals over there either... Where is the rant about "only the best for our soldiers?" It would make as much sense....

Seriously.. why is it that rationality seems to go out the window when the chance to abuse the TSA arises?

There are PLENTY of legitimate things to criticise them for (nachtnebel nails a beauty there!) without making a big deal out of something ridiculous like that.......

And I'll bet he did. British forces have them, and they are part of the TO&E of Combat Support Hospitals and Evac Hospitals of U.S. forces.

The world might be a better place if he was kept real busy having puppies, though.:p Not that I condone puppy mills....

Excuse me but if the dogs aren't useful, why is the TSA promoting the training program all over television:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4631110/e...-sniffing-dogs

and why is there this thread at PV:

http://blog.tsa.gov/2011/04/tsa-welc...0th-puppy.html

It ticks me off no end, however, that TSA persists in its fear-mongering by naming these dogs after those who died on 9/11.

Explosive Sniffing Dogs?
 

It's what you get when you put too much meat into their diet - just don't go near their back ends with a naked flame :D

For better or worse, the TSA is indeed developing such dogs:

http://www.tsa.gov/lawenforcement/pr...y_program.shtm

1) The current TSA employees don't want smarter creatures replacing them.
2) The dogs won't vote to unionize.
3) Michael Chertoff doesn't make any money on dogs, so Napolitano and Pistole can't get any kickbacks for using them.

I don't personally know any TSO's and can't comment on their IQ levels but I've met some really smart dogs!

Seems a fair assertion that a dog has a limited attention span of about 20-30mins of constant working. They also need time out to be rewarded. It is also true that they are trained by commodity and whilst some are multi-scented they would be of little use for electronic / electrical component parts or offensive weapons such as knives. I suppose there are a large number of chemicals that could be used in a device and it stands to reason that the dog is not going to be able to cover all the potential threats by scent. Can't see it working on an industrial scale as a primary system. Seems to me that they would be of more use as a focused resource used in a targeted way and supplementing the primary regime, as imperfect as it may be.

Dogs that are trained to sniff for explosives do not find drugs or large amounts of money.

They would not find hand lotion, hair conditioner, fertilizer, and other such substances that falsly alarm the ETD, would they?

I would rather have dogs sniffing my butt and crotch than being felt up by some dude i don't know.

Actually, being very focused on explosives only, the dogs would be quite effective around large crowds. I once witnessed a dog point out one guy with a box of ammunition (but no gun) among hundreds of people. Which is why organizations like the military, the Secret Service, and police bomb squads use dogs - but I guess by TSA standards any of those would be an incompetent organization.

Ideally one would not want large lines of people in an exposed environment like that awaiting security screening...and the WBI machines have lengthened lines due to their being sooooo slow. WTMD is incredibly effective at detecting metal, and metal is far and away the most effective material for constructing a reliable gun. Twenty years ago, when the big concern was the potential for someone with a ceramic knife to hijack an airplane, hold everyone hostage and demand something in return, WBI might have been useful; but with passengers that assume anybody taking over the plane will kill them, very secure cockpit doors, and heat wielding pilots, ceramic knives are of ABSOLUTE ZERO concern to me now.

Effective airport security should be much simpler than it currently is. Have dog handlers walking around in the areas outside security, letting the dogs work, and switching off periodically. Use WTMD to scan passengers, and bring back the hand held wands (also very effective - why did they go away?) for use when alarming. Pat downs should be based on standard law enforcement practice, perhaps even done by LEOs, only when wanding does not reveal issues. If the underwear bomber was carrying 80g of explosives, the dogs probably would have detected it as soon as he entered the terminal.

Are they proposing getting rid of WTMDs as well?

this so reminds me of Bush's search for WMD in Iraq...

how many boobs and crotches will they have to feel before they give up looking for explosives in our underwear?

are erect nipples in a cold airport and/or a large male organ now probable cause for "pat-down/feel-up" searches, because they "might" be explosive devices?

If so, I'm in trouble...:D

If TA employees are going to be the ones working the dogs I'm betting they will screw the pooch!:D

TSA has fouled up everything else it has touched.

Did anyone else see the thread title and go to a really bad place?

Mike

Indeed correct. That is what I meant when I stated they are trained by commodity i.e. the commodity being either drugs, or FX, or currency etc. Multi-scent is something different e.g. in the case of drugs having the ability to detect different classes of drugs which have a different scent. The scent of the constituents of Cocaine being different to that of Cannabis for e.g.

Yeah, I just wanted to say something that was a little more meaty than 'This!' :)

I am guessing they might do just that by 'airing up' around anything with certain chemicals in it but any K9 expert feel free to correct me.

If dogs were used, they would boost the collective IQ of TSA. TSA does not want to be shown up. :)

They are having a hard time because Rep Peter King, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, provides authorization oversight of the TSA. At the FY 2012 budget hearing shortly after the new Congress took office, he told Nappy and Pissy that his committee was the only one providing oversight of the TSA. So, King gave them the top cover they need to blow off any other House Committee. Pissy has taken full advantage as recently as last week when he blew off Mica's hearing on universal pilot licenses. Worse yet, Mr. Speaker is allowing this to happen. Bohner could fix this with one conversation.

Another powerful advantage of dogs is their mere presence at a checkpoint would have a profound deterrent effect. A suicide bomber could swallow a bunch of condoms full of explosives and a small detonator and approach a strip search scanner with absolute confidence his terror mission would be successful. However a terrorist approaching a checkpoint carrying explosives and encountering a dog would have to feel serious doubt about the likelihood of successfully avoiding detection, irregardless of the dogs actual skill level. I suspect he would be many many times less likely to even try that checkpoint in the first place.

IMO the last two bombing attempt failed specifically due to a similar deterrent effect from WTMD's. Both the shoe bomber and the panty bomber failed in their terror missions due to not having a proper detonator for their bombs. The only plausible reason they did not have a proper detonator is, it would contain metallic components and they were not confident it would pass through a WTMD undetected. So they didn't bring a proper detonator and their bombs BOTH failed because of that simple fact. Dogs would present a similar and even more profound deterrent effect. OTOH Strip search scanners and groping don't have the same deterrent effect because they are easily defeated with almost 100% certainty by using tactics to carry things internally.

I happen to know someone who trained dogs to sniff out drugs, explosives and other contraband/illegal items for the federal government and military. She tells me that dogs are very effective at this type of detection. She also said that they are similar to people in that they get fatigued, are moody or can get distracted. A good handler knows when the dog simply isn't up for the task.

Using explosive detection machines as the routine detection technology is not a waste of money. Using explosive detection dogs to follow up on a package that alarmed the ETD (after ruling out other possibilities) is smart; however, it all depends on what's a reasonable time limit if the dog isn't immediately available. To say that there should be a dog at the checkpoint constantly may sound reasonable, but once again, dogs tend to get bored, distracted, moody, tired and restless.