Two things taught at every CADA Conference:

1) CADA does not support, nor do we recommend the use of the terms “Arson Dog”, “Arson Canine”, or any other terms using the word “arson” to describe canine teams utilized in the fire investigation process.

2) CADA does not support, nor do we recommend, Canine Handlers testifying in criminal or civil court to the presence of an ignitable liquid without having received confirmation through laboratory analysis.

I am proud of CADA for taking these two positions and wish other groups would take such a stand. One of the biggest produces of these specialized dogs still referrer to their program and their dogs as “Arson Dogs”.

Just two years ago the USFA put forth as their arson awareness week theme the following: “USFA’s 2015 ARSON AWARENESS WEEK: ACCELERANT DETECTION CANINES – SNIFFING OUT ARSON”. The term Arson Dog was used throughout their program. CADA took a stand against the USFA and their many supporters of this language. CADA stood alone and was criticized by many in our field. But CADA stood firm in their position.

Members of CADA are very familiar with these two positions, as when one joins, information is sent to those who become members of our group concerning the two position statements. I am not saying every abides by these two positions, but those who don’t and the directors find out, a reminder will be sent out and possible suspension of membership could be forthcoming. I know this as I am an active member of this group and have been since 2011 and participated in drafting the two position statements.

I believe the change starts with changing the language in 921. 921 basically states that the only proper objective of the use of a canine/handler team is to assist with the selection of samples. There are many more uses for the use of a canine and this language is very limiting in it’s scope and very outdated. The language in 921 suggest the only time a dog should be used is when the investigator suspects the fire is set with a liquid accelerant (arson) and the investigator needs help with pulling samples. Hence the term “Arson Dog”. Until this language is changed to allow for the use of a dog on fires to assist the investigator in locating ignitable liquids, we will continue to see our industry refer to these dogs as arson dogs. And it is not only the press, as there are many handlers, investigators and administrators who continue to refer to them as arson dogs.

There are other problems which lead to our industry referring to dogs trained to locate ignitable liquid as arson dogs. It is the monopoly associated with the two programs that give these dogs to the law enforcement and the fire service communities. So called “free dogs”. Those who train these dogs and give them to our industry continue to refer to them “Arson Dogs”. The majority of the dogs in our industry go through these programs and until our industry stands up and insist those who train them quit calling them Arson Dogs, the term will be around. But I believe it all starts with changing the language in 921 to reflect a more accurate picture of what these dogs do.

Darle L. McClintock
Vector Investigative Services
dlmcclintock@vectorinvestigations.com