Why not use sniffing dogs instead of frisking and porno scanners?

[MannyGoldstein]

I remember reading once that a dog's can detect one drop of urine in a swimming pool, and I saw a MythBusters where dogs performed some amazing olfactory feats. Does anyone know why we don't use nice doggies instead of expensive and intrusive stuff?

[Billy Burnett]

1. Dog poop?

Where does one take the dogs for a "walk" at an airport?

[Retrograde]

8. SFO has an area outside for animals

Customs uses dogs, and people do travel with animals, so some places do provide for them.

[Xicano]

19. Ask these people..

National Geographic: "Terror Fighting Dogs"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6Y7pBN7toE

[rucky]

32. They already use dogs in airports...

The APHIS airport inspection program was begun in 1984 at Los Angeles International Airport. In 2004, there were more than 60 Beagle Brigade teams at 21 international airports. The canine members of the Beagle Brigade have either been donated by private owners and breeders, or rescued from animal shelters. The dogs are evaluated for appropriateness, such as friendliness and intelligence. Those beagles that are not selected for the program are placed in adoptive homes. None are returned to animal shelters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beagle_Brigade

[Divernan]

63. Sniffer dogs are far cheaper and much more effective.

The FBI uses "sniffer" dogs to protect its DC Headquarters building. So does the US military in Iraq & Afghanistan. And these dogs are used in Moscow's Airport. In Moscow, the dogs actually detected a "bra-bomb". The dogs cost $8500 each, as opposed to $150,000 plus for Chertoff's radiation scanners. The dogs are inoffensiv­e and never fail. We should be going through metal detectors and be greeted by a dog waiting to give us the okay to proceed to the boarding gate. Dogs should be swarming the cargo holds, going through checked and carry on baggage, and walking through planes before boarding. These scanners and intrusive pat downs are absurd. It's nothing more than a money making scheme for some highly placed former Bush colleagues, enabled by Obama's administration.

[mattvermont]

2. because

there is not near enough money to be made doing that. More importantly not enough money for the right people to make (Chertoff etc)

[RKP5637]

3. Yep! Follow the money trail! n/t

[pnwmom]

10. The dogs are actually quite expensive, and they work with

handlers who also require salaries. They also can work only a few hours at a time before tiring. It would be much more expensive to have several shifts of dogs at each screening spot.

[Divernan]

64. Nope. At $8500 per dog, quite cheap.

Where do you get your info they can only work a few hours? Granted you would give them occasional breaks throughout a working day. But think about working dogs who are herders. They certainly expand more energy and work far longer than 2 or 3 hours per day. As to having to have handlers, the Chertoff machines' operators are trained as well. (Although they do not receive nearly the level of training of operators using the machines in other countries.

But the biggest reason to use dogs is that they are more effective at detecting explosives than the machines. That is why the FBI and the US Army choose to use them.

[liberal N proud]

21. You Nailed it!

[merh]

33. That is part of the answer.

There is also a need to continually train the handlers and to keep the certification of the handlers and their dogs current, to require work outside of the 40 hour work week of the normal TSA worker who sits and watches a scanner.

It is easier to propose the huge, up front expense of the machine than it is to pay the high salaries and living expenses and costs associated with canines and their handlers.

Canines are much more reliable than the electronic sniffers and the scanners, the military knows that and uses the canines.

[TroglodyteScholar]

40. Winner. n/t

[amerikat]

4. They will hump your leg if they like how your explosives smell.

That might embarrass the passengers.

[pnwmom]

5. Sniffing dogs can only work for a few hours before tiring.

And the cost of their training and upkeep, and paying for the salaries of their trained human handlers, really adds up. Can you imagine how many we'd need for covering each 24 hour shift at every airport?

And what would you do for people who were allergic to dogs? Or for religious reasons couldn't go near them? (Muslims)

[hlthe2b]

11. Yes, it would be extensive and costly... but if you even try to estimate

the cost of all these TSA scanners, I doubt it would compare that unfavorably. The fact is that no one makes money off of such effective, yet low tech intervention as bomb-sniffing dogs.

As for allergy to dogs, that is way over stated. In terms of common allergies, those who are truly allergic to dogs (and not to other confounding allergens primarily, including house dust, cat dander and plant based allergens) is actually rather small. And clearly, if we force Muslims to essentially electronically strip in front of men, to remove their coverings and to allow extensive groping, I doubt the dog to be the issue. As one who has worked in the Middle East, it isn't that Islam mandates that they can't go near them, it is that they are taught not to KEEP them because they are perceived as unclean.

[LisaL]

22. Since when has TSA started to worry about "religious reasons?"

There are some cultures which are very modest, do you think TSA is worrying about that with their x-ray scanners and enhanced pat downs?

[Cleita]

6. That would make too much sense.

I believe dogs are used some airports, specifically Beagles.

[pnwmom]

7. Sure, if we had an unlimited amount of money to spend. n/t

[Cleita]

12. Apparently we do to bail out banks and Wall Street and

support two wars we know of and possibly four other covert ones our leaders aren't talking about. But God forbid we want something that helps the ordinary American.

[hlthe2b]

17. Do you even have any idea how much we have spent on

technology that most experts agree is not going to be effective. And that is AFTER we spent all that money on sniffer technology that didn't work, not to mention all those TSA agents and retrofitting airports and aircraft to diminish risk.

I have to laugh when you say that an extensive bomb sniffing dog program could not be initiated because of cost $$$. REALLY? :rofl:

[pnwmom]

20. The costs of the technology are spread over the lifetime of the machines.

The costs of tens of thousands of dogs and their handlers would have to be paid year after year. It would be a much more expensive alternative than even these expensive machines.

[hlthe2b]

29. Technology such as those scanners have short lives...

They do not stay in place for their "theoretic" life span. Further TSA agents, turnover, training, etc. have to be factored in as well. No, I strongly argue that you are wrong on that one. Given that much of Europe depends on bomb-sniffing dogs to strongly supplement their other procedures-- after having reviewed the effectiveness of these scanners, our choices are nuts.

Having working procedures would seem to be the goal. Even if by chance the scanners could be argued to be cheaper, what benefit is it if they won't detect explosives. Since their purchase and installation, it has been shown that that is the case.

[pnwmom]

35. If you'd traveled to Europe recently, you'd know

they are using the scanners, too. Scanners and dogs. They must be spending a fortune.

[hlthe2b]

39. WRONG: Not true... Dogs yes... Not US-type scanners

The European Commission requires that each airport use metal detectors, but beyond that, it leaves protocols up to each nation, which means inspection systems vary. Few of them use full-body scanners, which authorities have not widely adopted because "the privacy and health of passengers must be protected" and "scanning alone cannot stop terrorism," the European Parliament's Transport Committee said in a statement.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40318044/ns/travel-news/

European security officials pointed to a test of the body scanners earlier this year at Roissy-Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris, which concluded that scanners "are not a mature technology for now."

Martin Broughton, chairman of British Airways , said recently that European authorities should resist pressure from Washington to adopt U.S.-style measures, saying they should not have to "kowtow to the Americans every time they want something done."

[pnwmom]

41. Interesting that your link is an article about profiling.

Which apparently is acceptable to many countries but would be unconstitutional here.

[LisaL]

43. You are worried about the constitution?

What about the fourth amendment?

[pnwmom]

45. What about the 4th amendment?

[LisaL]

50. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

"Courts evaluating airport-screening technology tend to give great deference to the government's national security interest in preventing terrorist attacks. But in this case, there's a strong argument that the TSA's measures violate the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/24/AR2010112404510.html

[pnwmom]

55. I support the 4th amendment, but disagree with you on what constitutes unreasonable.

That said, I would prefer if all our airlines used the scanners that use radio waves instead of backscatter radiation.

[LisaL]

57. How many three year old terrorists do you know?

How is it reasonable to scan or pat down little kids?

[jberryhill]

62. Isn't the answer really blitheringly obvious?

Gee, when they catch a baby with cocaine in its diaper at the airport, do you really think it was the kid's idea?

You think there is some international cartel of 10 month old drug kingpins? Or do you think some smugglers are betting that babies' diapers won't get close scrutiny?

Let's put up a big neon sign that says, "Yo, hi-jackers, hide your weapon on a kid!"

[pnwmom]

71. Just reminded me -- I just watched an old movie again, Cry Freedom.

A very good movie set in apartheid South Africa. In one of the scenes, Stephen Biko's wife -- to thwart a search -- hides the paper's he's been illegally writing in their baby's diapers. And her ploy works. No one touches the baby.

[hlthe2b]

46. What does that have to do with correcting the point you' d made?

:shrug: Yes, I do travel extensively. NO, US-style scanners are not being adopted throughout Europe.

[pnwmom]

48. My husband also travels extensively in Europe and he has frequently

been required to use them.

[hlthe2b]

51. they are not the same time of backscatter scanners.

[pnwmom]

53. Only half of OUR scanners are backscatter scanners.

I agree that the type that use radio waves are better and safer. Personally, I'd choose a pat-down-grope over the backscatter scanner, but I wouldn't be afraid of the radio wave type. And you can tell which is which because they look completely different.

[hlthe2b]

47. they are referring to behavioral profiling.

[pnwmom]

49. No, they're not. Israel, which is mentioned in the first few paragraphs,

relies heavily on "background" and "associations." Which means if you aren't Jewish and from Israel, you'll have much more extensive screening than if you are.

From the link at the OP:

"The state airline, El Al, which coordinates security at Israel's airports, is unapologetic about its use of passenger profiling — making judgments about a passenger's likelihood of posing a threat based on his or her background, behavior and associations."

And if you're at El Al and you've got the wrong last name or if you're a young man with brown skin or a beard, prepare yourself for a strip search. You'll start wishing for the TSA.

[hlthe2b]

52. You make a lot of assertions, which when disproven...

you never seem to acknowledge. I don't mind debating and I don't mind admitting when I am wrong, but I find it distressing when others will not. So, I think we should simply agree to disagree. What perhaps we could agree on is that our system is not working.

[DainBramaged]

9. If beagles can sniff out bedbugs.......

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/09/nj_extermintators_use_dogs_to.html

[madinmaryland]

13. Probably because the threat of animal abuse lawsuits. Let's face it..

a dog forced to sniff my crotch is some serious animal abuse!

:P

[madokie]

14. The powers to be, want and are, conditioning, us for the day

they take what few remaining freedoms we have away.

[sabrina 1]

15. Not enough money in dogs for Chertoff and his buddies.

Do people really think this is about security? Just wondering ~

[KeepItReal]

16. Because former DHS head Chertoff ain't paid to promote it

Backscatter x-ray vendors pay (or once paid) his firm.

[Auggie]

18. Coming back from Jamaica I was sniffed by a dog looking for dope

A German Shepherd -- took one sniff of me and my carry-on and hurried onto the next passenger. Took about two seconds.

[liberal N proud]

23. Saw dogs in use in Chicago

They were using a combination of profiling and dogs. The scanner was there but did not see it used while in line.

The profilers were walking up and down the ques asking questions to travelers and the dogs were lead through the lines. The dogs went nuts on one guy, turned out he had peanut-butter sandwiches in his briefcase.

[LisaL]

24. Peanut-butter sandwiches?

What did TSA do to the guy?
:rofl:

[liberal N proud]

27. They confiscated them

No food through security

[Rosa Luxemburg]

25. other countries use dogs

[Ozymanithrax]

26. Bomb sniffing dogs and others don't do well working a solid eight out shift.

The nose gets tired, and they get bored, unless a seeing eye dogs gives them a message in urin.

[badtoworse]

28. Great idea!

Instead of a TSA Agent groping your crotch, you get a dog smelling it. I guess that's an improvement

[datasuspect]

30. or strip them naked and transport them in cattle cars.

[notesdev]

31. Sniffing dogs don't dehumanize as effectively

You can still retain your dignity after being sniffed by a dog.

[FSogol]

34. 1. Not enough dogs. 2. High Cost and (most importantly) 3. Chertoff won't get rich off of dogs

Michael Chertoff = Corrupt puke

[PurityOfEssence]

36. Scanners don't bite

Some people are truly afraid of dogs, and even the best-trained ones revert to their inherent savagery.

[LisaL]

37. Dogs don't emit radiation.

[Blue-Jay]

44. LOL!

"even the best-trained ones revert to their inherent savagery"

[hlthe2b]

59. Oh for God's sakes. "even ..best-trained..revert to their inherent savagery.."

Honest to God, you really don't know a thing about dogs, do you? :eyes: Absolutely unbelievable. :eyes:

[hunter]

61. Tiny chihuahua set to join Japan police...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=9557555&mesg_id=9557555

I'm having a tough time imagining this little guy's "inherent savagery."

[obliviously]

38. I say sniffing aardvarks!

[Kip Humphrey]

42. Wet dog noses leave spots in embarrassing places

...sometimes.

[Starry Messenger]

54. Dogs don't have a union to bust.

:sarcasm:

[Tunkamerica]

56. how many millions of dogs do you want to be living in airport kennels?

[rhett o rick]

58. Big money is being made in selling the taxpayers scanners to invade their privacy. nm

[Justitia]

60. My nephew is a bomb-dog handler in the Air Force. I say "let loose the hounds"!

He's done presidential security detail in the past.

If the pups are good enough for the POTUS, they're good enough for me!

I'd much prefer the doggies to the x-rays and the groping.

[timtom]

65. Sadly, the issue is finally not about security

but about shredding the Constitution and the spirit of America. And obscene profits for filthy scum like Michael Chertoff.

[xchrom]

66. recommend -- the arguments against using dogs are pretty weak. nt

[northoftheborder]

67. After reading through all above answers I have heard another one>>>

I heard this same answer asked about why not use dogs, and the answer was that dogs could not smell the new type of explosives that are being used in the latest attempts to bomb planes and places.

[Jackpine Radical]

68. Because, as your namesake would tell you,

you need to get the masses used to intensive and intrusive surveillance so that they will understand that they have no actual personal rights.

[jeff47]

69. Because PETN doesn't smell (nt)

[MannyGoldstein]

70. At least some people claim that dogs can smell it

http://diag-nose.com/K9blog/can-sniffer-dogs-detect-petn-concealed-in-baggage-or-cargo-shipments