Conclusion
In conclusion, there can be little doubt based on efficacy rates and
comparison with other techniques, that using CDD is an effective and
beneficial method for conducting a wide range of conservation work.
However, the variation in CDD efficacy reported across studies signifies
that substantial longstanding issues with standardisation and
methodology within the field that are interfering with the understanding
of and use of dogs in conservation. CDD are biological systems, meaning
their performance is affected by factors including traits of the dog,
training methods, experience of both the dog and handler, variables
altering olfactory capabilities, and the techniques used during a search
as well as the search environment itself. This review has critiqued and
described ongoing difficulties facing CDD methodology, namely a lack of
detail on dogs, handlers, training, experience, and study results, and
contamination of samples during training and searches. The performance
of CDD may vary for numerous reasons and as such a cause cannot be
determined in any one case without the relevant information. The
question is no longer can CDD work in conservation, but rather what can
be done to achieve the highest quality performance, whilst mitigating
error and bias. Highlighting these outstanding problems within the
literature can enhance future efforts to standardise and improve the CDD
research quality, as until then these issues will overshadow the
outstanding abilities of CDD.