Search

The use of detection dogs in conservation studies has expanded across species, conditions and habitats. However, it is incorrect to assume the potential associated with these surveys is automatically linked to the dog's sense of smell. Instead, an accurate detection dog rate is directly linked to many caveats in dog–handler training. Selecting a detection dog is directly linked to a clearly defined study design and must balance various factors, including: olfactory ability, physical structure, energy level, personality and social traits. Selection of training samples should ensure sufficient variation in target and nontarget species, independent of whether the goal is to locate evidence of the animal (e.g. scat, feather) or the physical animal. Just as not all dogs are appropriate, not all persons are suitable for this type of work, as the handler must be consistent and attentive to details with an incredible physical and mental endurance to sustain the time in the field. Testing in controlled and field situations can determine if the personalities of the dog and handler balance, with time needed for each to gain the ability to 'read' the other. Proper training for the dog and handler is essential, with special attention paid to the innate reactions of the latter. After training of the team is complete, testing trials should mimic field conditions. While there is no single model to becoming a handler in wildlife detection dog studies, incorporating these fundamental concepts with professional training can help optimize sample detection rate, minimize handler and dog frustration, and maximize overall success with this technique. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of detection dogs in conservation studies has expanded across species, conditions and habitats. However, it is incorrect to assume the potential associated with these surveys is automatically linked to the dog's sense of smell. Instead, an accurate detection dog rate is directly linked to many caveats in dog-handler training. Selecting a detection dog is directly linked to a clearly defined study design and must balance various factors, including: olfactory ability, physical structure, energy level, personality and social traits. Selection of training samples should ensure sufficient variation in target and nontarget species, independent of whether the goal is to locate evidence of the animal (e.g. scat, feather) or the physical animal. Just as not all dogs are appropriate, not all persons are suitable for this type of work, as the handler must be consistent and attentive to details with an incredible physical and mental endurance to sustain the time in the field. Testing in controlled and field situations can determine if the personalities of the dog and handler balance, with time needed for each to gain the ability to 'read' the other. Proper training for the dog and handler is essential, with special attention paid to the innate reactions of the latter. After training of the team is complete, testing trials should mimic field conditions. While there is no single model to becoming a handler in wildlife detection dog studies, incorporating these fundamental concepts with professional training can help optimize sample detection rate, minimize handler and dog frustration, and maximize overall success with this technique. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We report the development and application of a method using domestic dogs (Canis familiaris Linnaeus, 1758) to systematically locate wildlife scat over large remote areas. Detection dogs are chosen for their strong object orientation, high play drive, and willingness to strive for a reward. Dogs were trained to detect grizzly bear (Ursus arctos Linnaeus, 1758) and black bear (Ursus americanus Pallas, 1780) scats over a 5200-km2 area of the Yellowhead Ecosystem, Alberta, Canada. DNA from scat provided the species and (for grizzly bears only) sex and individual identities of the animal at each location. Concentrations of fecal cortisol and progesterone metabolites from these same grizzly bear scats provided indices of physiological stress and reproductive activity (in females), respectively. Black and grizzly bears were most concentrated in the northern portion of the multiuse study area, where food is most abundant yet poaching-related mortality appears to be heaviest. Physiologic stress was also lowest and female reproductive activity correspondingly highest for grizzly bears in the north. The scat-based distributions corresponded to concurrently collected hair-snag data in 1999 and global positioning system radiotelemetry data (of grizzly bears) in 1999 and 2001. Results suggest that the scat dog detection methodology provides a promising tool for addressing a variety of management and research questions in the wildlife sciences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many carnivores require large ranges to meet their ecological and energetic needs; however, anthropogenic changes threaten species and their habitats. Camera traps have been used to effectively collect data on carnivores in a variety of habitat types; however, a single survey effort is typically limited to species that have similar body size, habitat use and movement patterns, and individual identification of animals is not always possible. We evaluated whether scat detection dogs could effectively survey for 4 wide-ranging felids that vary in these characteristics: jaguars (Panthera onca), pumas (Puma concolor), ocelots (Leopardus pardalis) and oncillas (Leopardus tigrinus). From June to October 2009 and May to August 2011, a detection dog-handler team detected 588 scats, from which 176 unique genotypes were detected. We assigned sex to 84.7% of the genotyped scats and identified 55 individuals multiple times. The effectiveness of these noninvasive techniques (detection dogs and genetic analyses of scat) not only opens the door for additional studies in areas that were previously difficult or impossible with standard survey techniques, but also provides conservationists with a set of tools that overcome some of the limitations associated with the use of camera traps alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Detailed ecological data on the bush dog (Speothos venaticus) have been lacking, since standard field techniques, such as camera traps, have had little success recording their presence. This study eliminates dependence on visitation rate and switches the focus to locating evidence (e.g., olfactory) associated with the species' natural behavior and movement patterns. Over a 3-month period, a detection dog located multiple (n = 11, 4 confirmed and 7 potential) bush dog areas in Upper Paraná Atlantic Forest of Misiones Argentina. These positive results demonstrate that detection dogs can provide species-specific data on the bush dog despite the rugged terrain and dense forest vegetation they may occupy. The ecological data collected using this technique allow effective conservation strategies to be developed, wildlife corridors and biological crossings to be designed, and species distributions to be examined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Detection dogs, specially trained domestic dogs (Canis familiaris), have become a valuable, noninvasive, conservation tool because they remove the dependence of attracting species to a particular location. Further, detection dogs locate samples independent of appearance, composition, or visibility allowing researchers to collect large sets of unbiased samples that can be used in complex ecological queries. One question not fully addressed is why samples from nontarget species are inadvertently collected during detection dog surveys. While a common explanation has been incomplete handler or dog training, our study aimed to explore alternative explanations. Our trials demonstrate that a scat’s genetic profile can be altered by interactions of nontarget species with target scat via urine-marking, coprophagy, and moving scats with their mouths, all pathways to contamination by nontarget species’ DNA. Because detection dogs are trained to locate odor independent of masking, the collection of samples with a mixed olfactory profile (target and nontarget) is possible. These scats will likely have characteristics of target species’ scats and are therefore only discovered faulty once genetic results indicate a nontarget species. While the collection of nontarget scats will not impact research conclusions so long as samples are DNA tested, we suggest ways to minimize their collection and associated costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]