Dog Talk

The official unofficial newsletter for FEMA dog handlers
November 2003 - Volume 6, Number 4

From The Editor

A special thanks to everyone who submitted articles/information to this months issue - Great job! 

WMD for DOG

Many of us have completed FEMA's WMD Enhanced class, and were briefed on the use of the Mark I/CANA autoinjector kits for personnel exposed to nerve agents. During the class that I attended, several questions were raised regarding the use of these kits in canines with similar exposure. Although it is highly unlikely that our canines would be deployed into an environment with known nerve agent contamination, it is possible that they could be subjected to a secondary device containing such a chemical. I did some research after my WMD class and got the following information from Animal Poison Control and my workplace, regarding the use of these drugs in dogs. Canine Search Specialist Pat Grant, DVM, has also verified the dosages.

Atropine:
Dosage for treatment in nerve agent exposure is 0.2 - 2 mg/kg IM. For the average 30 kg (66#) canine, the IM dose would be 6 to 60 mg of atropine. The Mark I injector contains only 2 mg. An additional dose of atropine would be safe for the handler to administer, if it is necessary.

2-PAM Chloride:
Dosage for treatment in nerve agent exposure is 10 - 20 mg/kg IM. For the average 30 kg canine, the dose would be 300 to 600 mg. The Mark I injector contains 600 mg. The LD50 for dogs is 190 mg/kg, so the injector dose should be relatively safe for even our smallest search dogs at around 10kg, especially considering the alternative of death by nerve agent. Additional doses of 2-PAM should only be administered under vet or medic care. 

Diazepam:
Dosage for seizure control is 0.2 - 2 mg/kg IV, used to effect. For the average 30 kg canine, the dose would be 6 to 60 mg IV. The CANA injector contains only 2 mg, and since diazepam is poorly and unpredictably absorbed when given IM to dogs, it is unlikely to be effective when administered through the autoinjector. The best course of action would be to administer additional diazepam via the IV route as needed, under vet or medic care. It is also effective when given per rectum, at the upper dosage level, using a needle-free syringe. Diazepam has a high safety margin and repeated doses are often given to seizing patients. 

Every effort should be made to quickly get the canine under the supervision of a veterinarian (or at least the team doc) with equipment to gain IV access and monitor vitals, as well as drugs to counteract any life-threatening side effects of the antidotes. 

One last problem with using autoinjectors in canines is that they lack the depth of muscle mass in the thigh that the average firefighter would have (not to mention that the canines aren't wearing all those layers of protective clothing!). This means that the femur and major nerves in the dog's leg do not lie as well protected under muscle tissue, and a misplaced injection could lame the dog. Dr. Grant recommends considering injecting the drugs into the lumbar epaxial muscles (on either side of the lumbar spine)--something our dog handlers and med folks should learn to do. I would recommend asking your vet to show you where this injection site is, and that you go for a practice run with a little sterile saline under his or her supervision.

And the last problem is: how many people does it take to hold down a dog for that painful 10-second injection period? :-) 

Jane David (and Kita)
Registered Veterinary Technician
Canine Search Specialist
WA-TF1

HEIDI'S LEGACY

Indiana Type I test, October 11, 2003

I knew She would be watching. When they walked up to our site - the Mine 
Shaft, the limited access pile - I felt her presence.

Even the interview was different. Ondo never took his eyes off Rory as he 
gave the scenario. Oh, we know it was Rory's water bottle that had his 
attention - or was it?

Then the search started. Up and out of sight he went, never looking back, 
never hesitating. Just like She taught him.

He found the first victim. We all watched as Ron climbed the ridge to the 
back side of the pile. He marked the alert, cared for his dog, gave follow-up recommendations. Just like She taught him.

Then Ondo was off again. Over the ridge, through the valley, over another 
ridge and into the second valley.

This time it was different. It was just Ondo and I and the victim - a live 
person buried under feet and tons of car and concrete; unresponsive, with no 
hope for rescue except a dog with a heart for search. Soon Pat, my fellow 
evaluator, topped the ridge. But for a moment it was just the three of us. 
And She was watching.

Ondo caught the scent. He tried to penetrate to the victim and got a nasty 
gash on his ear. No yelp, no quitting; he was focused on his job. Just like 
She taught him.

When the day was over, VATF-1 had a new Type I team, Ron Sanders and Ondo. 
And she was there.

Ondo may have been Heidi's once-in-a-lifetime dog. I don't know. I know she 
loved him. She chose Ron for him. She taught them both Japanese. She 
taught them to be a team. She taught them the importance of doing it right. 
Just like she taught us.

Submitted by Elaine Sawtell, Lead Evaluator

Is POD just another FEMA acronym?

Submitted by Mike Agnew, STM NETF-1
There has been a lot misunderstanding about the proper use of Probability of Detection (POD) and how we determine the percentage of coverage. Over the years I've heard POD described as anything from surface area covered to how well my dog worked the area. Don't get me wrong these may very well be an accurate description of the chance that they would have found what they where looking for. The fact of the matter is that we all need to be on the "same page" and be consistent so that when we do integrate with other Task Forces and their Search Team Managers that we are speaking and understanding the same language. This language is the assigned probabilities to our realistic assessment of our search effectiveness we believe has been accomplished in the search area.

The definition of Probability of Detection is the probability or chance, usually expressed as a percentage, that a clue (scent in our case) or subject will be or would have been detected (in retrospect) by the search action if a clue or subject was in the search area, Search is an Emergency, ERI, Fourth Edition. When we complete a search area and debrief we are evaluating our performance in a given search area. We may say that we searched over this portion of the area but not this portion. We may also describe how well our dog work at this given time. Our description may go something like this "Kenya worked pretty hard in this search site. I'm fairly sure she would have found some one here." This may very well be an accurate estimate given the experience of the handler/dog team and the difficulty of the area being searched. The Search Team Manager (STM) needs to take this information and quantify it for statistical analysis to determine wither or not the area should be searched again and by what resource with what POD. With this in mind we must transform the statement "fairly sure" into a numerical expression. By doing so the STM can use the numbers to express relative indications of probabilities and manipulate combinations of variables and calculate results of alternatives. In other words you need numbers, percentages, to accomplish this not abstract words. The heart of this is estimating the POD, numerically, by the search team of a given search in a given area on a given day, as accurately as possible. Let me suggest a couple of guidelines: 
1- numbers, percentages, are relative expressions, not absolutes. Say you gave a 70% POD to an area you just searched. This number alone is meaningless. You must think of it as being relatively better than 60% but not as good as 80% (playing the odds or trade off) 
2- turn abstract words into percentages
BET MY LIFE ….. 100%
I'M POSITIVE ….. 90%
I'M SURE ….. 80%
I'M FAIRLY SURE ….. 70%
A GOOD CHANCE ….. 60%
IT'S 50-50 ….. 50%
I THINK SO ….. 40%
COULD BE ….. 30%
MAYBE ….. 20%
PERHAPS ….. 10%
I DON'T KNOW ….. 0%
The statement above may then read, "Kenya worked pretty hard in this search site. I'm 70% sure that she would have found someone here". Now STMs have a way of calculating, mathematically, POS, POA and what to do next. I hope that this clears up a lot of uncertainty about POD and take some stress off of you when faced with committing a result of your search. We all do the best we can and that is for certain.
A lot more information can be found in Managing the Search Operation, ERI or NASARs version (same book). You can also contact me for questions and comments at brocandme@aol.com. 

Getting it right……………..

This past weekend (10/9 to 10/12), Indiana (INTF-1) was the host of four days of testing. The first two were Type II evaluations and the last two were Type I. The first day went very smoothly with very few discussions. However the second day started off rough. A canine aggression issue occurred during the first portion of the test. Two canines started a scuffle with each other during the figure-8 heeling exercise. The evaluators discussed the altercation and after a short period of time both handlers were asked to leave. The test continued until the break following the obedience elements. It was then that the evaluators reviewed the rules once again regarding the display of aggression. Both handlers were allowed to retest the figure-8 to determine if this aggression was an isolated incident. The element was completed with out any other signs of aggression. Both handlers were allowed to continue. The extra time the evaluators took to review the incident was well worth it. Anne McCurdy, Bob Macauley and Rory Rehbeck - job well done. It's this type of review and careful interpretation of the rules that demonstrates the fairness of the evaluation process.

Anne McCurdy also has an excellent group of INTF-1 teammates who are very willing to help out in one way or another. One of these members is Brenda Sullivan. She was in charge of staging and directing the handlers to various element-testing locations. Brenda's job was not easy this weekend. For example, during the second day of the Type II test an observer wanted to talk to a teammate during the test. Brenda asked these individuals to refrain from conducting a conversation. Brenda was verbally abused by one of these individuals because she did what the lead evaluator asked her to do. There are two issues to discuss here. First, handler aggression is not called for at any time during the test. Second, those who are watching the test need to understand they are not to wander into the staging area to talk to test participants. The staging officer is in charge and we all need to understand that. Asking handlers to refrain from discussing the evaluation is not a reflection on any one person's integrity. It is simply a method to keep the test completely fair for all participants. We as handlers participating in the evaluations need to understand these staging officers are under the direction of the lead evaluators. We should respect these staging officers for the jobs they have been asked to perform. 

To Anne and her teammates - job well done. 

Mark Dawson
MATF-1

UPCOMING TESTS 

Type II November 14-16 Miami FL Application deadline passed 


Type I & II December 6-7 San Diego, Miramar area Apps. due by 11/12/03 at 0800 PST

Contacts: Mike Scott 
619-441-1616 Office
619-843-7076 Cell
mscott@ci.el-cajon.ca.us

Gerry Brewster 
619-533-4348 Office
619-533-3775 Fax
gerald_brewster@fire.ci.san-diego.ca.us

Applications must be received by Gerry Brewster fax or e-mail applications can be down loaded from - fema.gov/usr/canine.shtm 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The National Certification List of FEMA Certified Disaster Canine Search Teams is provided by Lynne Engelbert. (Lynne's e-mail: lengelbert@mail.arc.nasa.gov) It is available on this web page.  To view it - click here.

**NOTE from Lynne**

We have begun to track the Date of Birth of all certified dogs. If you have a certified dog, please send your dog's DOB to Lynne Engelbert: lengelbert@mail.arc.nasa.gov

Return to top of page

KUDOS TO.......

DOGTALK is pleased to announce that the following Canine Search Teams have recently gained certification (or re-certification) as FEMA US&R Type I or II Canine Search Specialists:


??, CA Results - September 2003
SO SORRY… For some reason the results of the September CA test are not included on the attached roster, so I don't have the info. Rumors that K9's Rosa and Daisy passed (from CA-OES). All pertinent info will be in the NEXT issue of Dogtalk!!!


Indianapolis, IN Results - October 2003
Type II Certified: Ellie Chamberlain & Katy (MO-TF1), Linda Neimeier & Molly (VA-TF2), Roger Tanner & Sabot (TX-TF1), Gary Hay & Boone (IN-TF1), Jackie McCarty & Logos (IN-TF1), Kathy Petrere & Nunzi (IN-TF1), Blake Wallis & Scout (IN-TF1), and Tony Zintsmaster & Kaiser (IN-TF1)

Type I Certified: Ann Wichmann & Torie (CO-TF1), Monica Barger & Zima (NE-TF1), Ron Sanders & Ondo (VA-TF2), Bob Sessions & Skyraider (PA-TF1), Julie Noyes & Hoke (CO-TF1), Michael Pohl & Tan (TN-TF1), James McHenry & Jas (PA-TF1), Susan Martinez & Breley (TX-TF1) and Daniel Solis & Sandi (CA-OES)

Return to top of page

UPCOMING SEMINAR:

no announcement at this time - please check the web site calendar for updates

Return to top of page

ROTATIONAL SCHEDULE

see the web site for a schedule

Return to top of page

FEMA K9 WORKING GROUP UPDATE

We say goodbye to Chris Selfridge, Region C Representative. He is moving on to Rescue with PATF1-thanks, Chris, for your time with the Subcommittee.

We welcome the new Type II Evaluators, Cindy Fajado (STM) WATF1, Mary Flood (handler) UTTF1 and Mike Scott (handler) CAOES. We'll be talking to y'all on the next evaluator conference call. J

Our new Level I Evaluators are two Search Team Managers-Mike Marks FLTF1 and Mike Agnew NETF1. Way to go, Mikes!

The Subcommittee, with the assistance of FEMA, held 3 Evaluator conference calls in September to address the testing process to ensure uniformity nationwide. I will report the highlights herein, but see the attached minutes for all of the information from the calls. We plan to have these calls every six months, the next set scheduled for March 2004.

The big recurring question -- why all of a sudden the shift in Policy concerning non-system personnel? This was first addressed at a level way above us dog folks. The Federal government is sponsoring (paying for) FEMA events and is therefore responsible for the participants. Until the Legal Issues Work Group advises that non-system personnel are not a liability risk, persons not attached to a FEMA Task Force cannot participate in these events. It's not the FEMA K9 program getting uppity, it's the government doing its job. But any USAR team can host a test and request FEMA evaluators. There are many evaluators who will be happy to help out as needed, even if the test is not FEMA sponsored. But the FEMA certificate will not be issued. The hosting team would devise an equivalency certificate. 

Speaking of certificates….those of you anxiously awaiting yours-the hold up is due to the reorganization of DHS and FEMA. It's the artwork-the seal is being re-done and anything with the old FEMA seal is on hold until they decide what picture to use.

Concerning the never-ending quest for rubble on the East Coast-GIVE US SOME, WEST COAST! The recycling here is way out of hand. A building comes down and it appears as another building somewhere else before we can scoop it up. With the 2004 test schedule set, we in the East are scrambling to construct Type I sites. This raises the question of how much travel time is allowed between piles. And the answer to the question is 20 minutes. The 3 Type I test piles must be within 20 minutes of each other. The idea of using Montgomery Co, Fairfax and Virginia Beach as three piles won't work. 

Clarification--Any new applicant for Lead Evaluator (Type I and II) must now be a Type I handler, effective 7-1-2003.

After a bumpy start, the new testing process has smoothed itself out, with the help of your input and the cooperation of the majority of the participants. The process will always need reviewing and tweaking (sometimes overhauling). Remember that Test Day is stressful for all involved. Participate, cooperate and afterwards forward your comments and ideas to the Subcommittee. With your help, we remain committed to maintaining a system that will produce qualified dog teams to help save lives.

Teresa MacPherson, 
Secretary, FEMA Canine Sub-Group
11-11-03

An archive of all minutes from the FEMA Subcommittee is provided on this web site. 

Return to top of page

Please forward any news, scheduled events, letters to the editor, or other info you want disseminated via DOG TALK, the underground canine newsletter to Anne Trout:  amccurdy@clarian.org