Airport security—dogs vs. machines

Congress held hearings last week on the best way to provide security at airports and it came down to which is better—an invasive imaging machine costing hundreds of thousands of dollars that can see through your clothes or a friendly dog who might lick your hand. According to CNN:

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, led the dog caucus, arguing that canines are cheaper and less invasive than body scanners. Dogs are exceptional at sensing explosives, do not require software upgrades, don't depreciate with use and might even be able to detect bombs implanted under a person's skin.

Canines are missing one thing that body scanners have, Chaffetz said. Lobbyists.

Transportation Security Administration Assistant Administrator John Sammon stated that the TSA has used both dogs and body scanners, but dogs have limitations. They require frequent breaks while the imaging machines can be worked constantly.

And he said a dog can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

"How do you come up with hundreds of thousands of dollars. I mean Alpo only costs so much," Chaffetz said. "I challenge you to verify that number."

Sammon said the cost of trainers and handlers is substantial.

"I assume that your whole-body imaging machines require an operator too," said dog fancier Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas. The machine at his local airport requires three, he said. "One to stop you going through, one to listen on the (walkie talkie), and the one in back (to review the image)."

Chaffetz proposed a contest to Sammon:

"You take a thousand people and put them in a room, I'll give you 10 whole-body imaging machines. You give me 5,000 in another room. You give me one of his dogs and we will find that bomb before you find your bomb," he said. "Let's see who can find more bombs, and let's see who is less expensive."

Sammon promised to check on the cost of dogs and report back to Congress.

Lobbyists have pushed through the sale of the machines at a cost of well over $100,000 each, even though TSA officials have told Congress that “body scanners can not detect implanted devices, although they may detect modifications to body contours.”

Whatever that means.

Inspector William Parker, head of Amtrak's K-9 unit was asked whether dogs can detect implanted devices.

"Scientifically, right now there's no data that says a dog can or cannot," Parker said. But he noted that dogs can detect cancer and tumors. "Dogs can detect anything that they're taught. I think if the dog is taught to do that, he'll be a very good asset for that."

Source: CNN

Of course the only way to “scientifically prove” that a dog can detect a bomb implanted in a human body is to actually implant a bomb in a human body and “prove” that the dog can detect it.

Which would require volunteers with a deeply ingrained death (and pain) wish.

Comments

[Deb in AZ]

Um, it sure wouldn't hurt to pilot a test program using dogs. I'd vote for that.

[jansfunnyfarm]

We'd "lobby" for the dogs.

[Jerard Kramer]

You are sadly misinformed if you think the scanners haven't saved hundreds maybe thousands of lifes. This is modern technology at it's best. All it takes to throw a dog off is a whiff of hamburger. Your ignorant prejudice is showing.

[Jan]

Jerard,

You are sadly misinformed if you think a trained sniffer dog
is going to pay any attention to hamburger while they are working.

And prejudice? Well, this is The Poodle (and dog) blog, not
The Poodle (and overpriced technology) blog.

[BunGirl]

Jerard, I have to second what Jan noted above. No trained sniffer dog will be thrown off by a hamburger. They routinely work in areas where there is plenty of food around. They are trained to handle it. Perhaps it is your ignorance showing?

Also, please provide some data to back up your claim that these machines have saved lives. Perhaps they have. If so, I wonder why it hasn't been blasted all over the news. I'm sure the media would love to run such a story.

[Anji]

I'm with the dogs. These are working dogs not pets, they do not behave in the same way. I think they'd be good as prevention too. Have you see tne jaws on some of the larger dogs? (comment more for Jerard that Jan)

[Linda]

I'm for the dogs...and I think the body scanner people could be the test objects for the dogs to practice on!

Linda
http://coloradofarmlife.wordpress.com
http://deltacountyhistoricalsociety.wordpress.com

[Anne Gibert]

I'm interested in the assertion that the scanners have saved hundreds of lives. I follow the news pretty carefully, and I have not heard of a single bomb found by a scanner.

The last time I went through a scanner (I am a 79 year old grandmother) about every third person had to be patted down after going through. In my case they only found it necessary to pat down my left leg, but they had to go find a woman to do it. Can this be cost effective?

I'm sure dogs would be an improvement. And they don't emit harmful rays.

[Hudson & MJ]

I'll vote for the dogs any day of the week and just put weed in your pocket or anywhere else on yourself and see how fast they become your best friend and you end up in a special little room. Two months ago we came back from a week vacation in Jamaica and two different sets of people had the dog sniff out pot on them and were sent into a special room I never hope to go. Image machine VS a canine...easy choice !!!

[Mary]

In the past, I have seen dogs from the USDA at Dulles airport in Washington, DC. They check luggage coming in on international flights to find food items that may be bringing in viruses, etc. that could infect crops grown in this country. They are beagles, and wear vests identifying themselves as Agricultural Dept. employees. I saw one dog flag a sandwich with sprouts, lettuce, and tomato, but ignore packaged yeast, plain bread and other foods. I know this because I was standing next to the sandwich lady in the line while the dog investigated her. I had the bread yeast and another baked item in my luggage because German yeast makes wonderful sourdough. These dogs are very highly trained as to what food items (if any) they need to find. I would put my life in their paws over that of technology any time.

[Dr. Liz]

Well, the dogs MIGHT emit harmful rays, depending on what they're fed! ;-D Seriously, I'm all for having having dogs do the detecting - they have brains; last time I checked, the detectors do not.

[cube]

I'm sure Jerard has his own agenda to push, but I was under the impression that trained dogs aren't going to hit on hamburger or any other food when they're on duty. What's the point of training these dogs if a simple morsel can throw them off the scent they've been trained to find?

[east midlands airport parking]

I dont think a hamburger would phase one of these hounds, they know what they are doing.

[jackie]

makes sense to me

[Discount Airport Parking]

Much goes on behind the scenes to keep you safe...at the x-ray screenings and metal detectors. This is hi-tech stuff. But sometimes being hi-tech isn't always enough. Sometimes a highly trained dog is better than all the security gadgets we can dream up.