In scanning your reference, I immediately noticed some familiar names, John Bownds and Thomas Harlan, faculty members at the University of Arizona and stalwart members of the Southern Arizona Rescue Association. John's expertise as a mathematician was extremely useful on many occasions; he was also excellent when it came to boots on the ground time. Tom's specialty was dendrochronology, less applicable to SAR, but he had unparalleled knowledge of our operational areas, and incredible stamina when I lived in Tucson and volunteered with SARA (1958-1985).

I am an archaeologist, not a mathematician, but I can vouch that search theory can improve and rationalize decisions in the field during operations. I haven't kept up with developments in search theory, but I am hardly surprised that they are ongoing.

John Bownds contracted Valley Fever as a result most likely of his participation in SAR, and barely pulled through. He told me once that his ambition was to live to be 40. Hobbled by the lingering effects of his illness, he had to leave the Tucson area. He did not make it past 50. His contributions to SAR were outstanding.

If you want to see what SAR was like prior to the development of any standards or procedures, get hold of a copy of [/u]Death Clouds on Mt Baldy[u] by Cathy Hufault, which details the chaotic and confused effort to find three Boy Scouts who perished in a late fall storm in the Tucson area. The unsuccessful result galvanized the community and better SAR eventually resulted.

You mention the role of trackers. Like everything else in the SAR toolkit, it can be useful, but it isn't always appropriate or relevant. I can tell of instances where it worked fabulously, and of others where it failed as a technique. i would say that dogs are, on the whole, better trackers than humans, but they are not a panacea. The wise IC will employ as many techniques as possible, as soon as possible.