I'm not a SAR expert either, but a 1-mile radius translates to over 3 square miles, or almost 8 square kilometres.

Simply throwing a bunch of untrained volunteers together and saying "go search this area" is a recipe for disaster. First of all, they may not even be able to search the right section; I volunteered for the local candidate in our recent federal election, and we had volunteers who dropped flyers off in the wrong section of town, even with a map and a street address, so I wouldn't trust most volunteers with a topo map and a GPS unit.

Checking the volunteers to make sure they were properly dressed, and not likely to get lost themselves (in the dark, in the woods, and in sub-freezing temperatures), takes time. Walking past the kid in the dark, if he's sleeping or hiding, is a definite possibility; so is searching the wrong area (see above) and trampling potentially valuable clues. (I've heard of volunteers picking up discarded candy wrappers they found and sticking it in their pockets without telling anyone, unaware that it might be a vital clue.)

Given a line of trained searchers, 10 meters apart, 100 searchers could take a couple of hours to properly search a square kilometre.

And all that assumes that they *knew* the missing person was within one mile.

I think 21 hours to get organized, get the volunteers on site, make sure they were trained and equipped, move them into position, and conduct the search is properly pretty good going.

But I'm not an expert. Just MHO.

I've heard that there is approximately a 4-hour window of opportunity for a tracking dog to find the scent and follow it from the point of disappearance. And even that depends on weather. The kid disappeared during the night, and I didn't see anything that indicated how much time elapsed between him leaving and anyone discovering it, and then how long the family searched before they called for help, and then how long it took for the search to get organized.

From what I've read, most searches NEVER call the dogs in first. They have a bunch of people trampling the area first, and let a lot of time go by, and then finally someone says, "Why don't we get a dog team in here?"

Scent-trained dogs probably find a lot of the victims by picking up their scent when they cross it during a more random search.

Those were pretty small pups, maybe large Beagles or Foxhounds. Considering the story, I was expecting a couple of large hound pups or something.

Lucky.

Sue

Good comments. I can see how something that seems simple (viewed from my comfy armchair) becomes quite complicated in the field.

It's sad but true that some SAR teams have a hard time getting the police to call them. The two teams with whom I've worked have had to get an official call from the jurisdiction in charge. You can't just show up.

By the time we got there, you can bet that a half dozen volunteer firemen had been driving around the area on ATVs for hours.

Yep, think of a scent trail as a phosphor trace. As the target moves across the terrain, the trail they leave behind fades out over time. However, if a dog can catch the tail of the trace, which as you say decays in roughly 4 hours, then they can speed up the recovery considerably. All they have to do is cross that line once or twice to get the orientation, and then they can home in on it. Dogs are limited, but they do certainly help when used properly and within their known limitations.

Wow this sure is a judgemental crowd. I haven't read this story so maybe some of you know something that I don't. However there are a lot of details we don't know, I personally have no idea of the circumstances in which the boy wandered off, so I don't think we should be so quick to make assumptions and judgements. Besides, I'm willing to bet that the babysitter felt pretty horrible when this happened.

I've noticed on many occasions people on this forum are quick to condemn others as irresponsbile or stupid. Certainly this is true sometimes, but often people make honest mistakes or simply do not have the benefit of the knowledge that we have. I often read posts that strike me as condescending, and I don't think that is helpful to anyone, especially to new readers who are not active on this forum.

Not condescending, just responsible where human life is concerned. When I watch over someone and I am responsible for their safety, I make damn sure I know where they are at all times. If it is a small child and at my home, that includes locking our dog door so the tyke cannot get out and putting up an extra safety fence around the pool. If I sound condescending I sure am sorry, but not as sorry as if I lost someone's child.
Maybe I was raised different from other folks, but if I tell you I have control over someone's child you can bet that child is safe or I am dead.

Judgement and conclusion are based on the facts as presented. If what is known doesn't add up, then you call a spade a spade. Of course any situation we read about here or elsewhere may have aspects or conditions we are unaware of, and so the observations we make are based on limited knowledge of the actual event(s).

Knowing that, it is in the context and magnitude of the available information from which we would pass such judgement, and so on the face of it, we offer our opinions, however condemning they may seem, because the available facts allow for no other conclusion. If, in fact, the babysitter in this case was not doing what she was supposed to be doing, which is to watch over and supervise the child, then she is negligent, and on the face of it, deserves a high level of criticism. If more information is made available upon which to condition such judgement, then it would seem both prudent and fair for us to change our minds about the matter.

Based on what is known to us, if it had been my child, I can gaurantee that the babysitter would be feeling pretty horrible, and most likely from a hospital bed if I got my hands on them. I have little tolerance for mistakes that place my family at risk of harm.

Assumptions, no, conclusions based on a limited amount of information, yes. Judgement, well, if we didn't offer up our opinions to one another, I suppose we'd have no discussions.

So based on the information provided, I would think that a conclusion of irresponsibility and/or stupidity would indeed be germaine and relevent. If we knew more of the circumstances or they whys and wherefores, it would likely be a wholly different story we'd be reading about, even though the outcome was the same.

Honest mistakes that put my family in peril will get a person in dutch with me almost as much as deliberate acts would. I tend to give most people a lot of leeway, but somethings I just can't afford to tolerate. If there's one thing I would strive to demonstrate to any new member on this forum with regards to the topic of survival, it is that, first and foremost, you need to be accountable for your actions. Without this, you will forever remain at the mercy of your enemies and beyond the assistance of the most magnanimous among us.

My "judgemental" comes from raising a couple of kids, and watching over a gaggle of grandkids. I never failed to know where my charges were. If we were in a store, I had a kids hand in mind unless they were using both of theirs to look at a toy, while I was standing nearby. If we were at home, I might not have them in sight, but I knew that all of the exits to the house were secured in a manner that a child could not defeat. Every day I see kids running thru stores with not a parent in sight. That is just wrong. If you are in charge of a child, you have to watch them every minute. If you don't, bad things can happen...

I don't doubt this is true, or even necessary (in an evolutionary sense), but it's things like this that make me avoid children in public. There is something in that protective instinct that makes parents slightly insane.

If I see a kid in a store, lost and screaming in terror, and there are any other adults anywhere close, I'll fight my desire to help, and then turn and walk the other way. Because of the parents. I don't want to be anywhere in the vicinity when the parent arrives, fuming at everyone else, when they should really be looking in the mirror.

It's as if, where kids are concerned, there is no concept of honest, daily risk acknowledged any more. The only language spoken is blame, as if the world would be perfectly secure without humans to make mistakes in it. To be honest, that's bull. Accidents happen, especially to kids, who can be little Houdinis and Indiana Joneses as they explore their surroundings without fear. Most of the time it turns out fine, and probably every one of us has the minor scars to prove it. Sometimes it doesn't, and that is a tragedy, but not always a crime.