# K9 redirects up leash



## wildo

I've been told recently that it's fairly commonplace for police K9s to redirect on their handler when being pulled off the bad guy. I'm curious:


Is this as common as it seems?
Is this acceptable for a police K9?
Is this acceptable for a GSD (or Mal)- temperament wise?
Does this indicate a lack of balance in the dog? I've heard breeders on this forum warn others about dogs in pedigrees known for "coming up" the lead. In most cases, the breeders weren't into the dog for that reason (and probably other reasons). No- I cannot and will not cite references to where I saw that; not sure I could find it again anyway.
Just curious. I'd tend to think this would not be desirable and would indicate an imbalance in breeding, but I could be wrong- that's why I'm asking.

I wonder if getting the bad guy at any cost would be an excuse for allowing such redirecting. We read on this forum about balance, balance, balance- but this sort of thing seems pretty common to me. Can breeders screaming balance justify a dog climbing the lease "in the heat of the moment" when getting the bad guy? I'm genuinely curious.

I mean- is this a difference between "real world work" and "sport training?"


----------



## wolfstraum

Have seen many K9s and training - I see very few that have the levels of obedience and control that the good IPO dog has....

I think alot of green dogs are sold to brokers for resale as K9s because in their initial training, they have been more difficult to get control imprinted, their grips are not full, or they have some characteristic that is more over the top than some want to work with in sport....There is a big market for green dogs in Europe and brokers there have brokers here that maintain a large inventory of dogs for resale....one dog I know was purchased for $8000 - no papers - with papers, add another $3000....in fact, that is one of the nicest K9s I have seen - super well trained, has gotten alot of street bites too....if he had papers, I would think about using him for breeding! 

As far as coming up the leash, that is just drive leaking usually, with a dog who has not been taught control and to cap his drives...my first female, Kyra, would do that as a young dog occassionally...it was not aggression, just drive leaking...when I have seen it at a couple of the K9 groups I have been able to watch, it is the same.

Lee


----------



## Jax08

wolfstraum said:


> I see very few that have the levels of obedience and control that the good IPO dog has....


A K9 officer I met over the weekend said basically the exact same thing. I believe she was specifically discussing the out.


----------



## hunterisgreat

It could be several things... Could be just simple redirection with no malice, like grabbing your friend in a bar fight and getting punched in the heat of the moment (remember, the police k9 dog is in an actual real fight here), or it could be the type of dog that gets hotheaded if you take his toy, give a correction, etc. this type of behavior isn't redirection but just being a jerk.


----------



## MilesNY

hunterisgreat said:


> It could be several things... Could be just simple redirection with no malice, like grabbing your friend in a bar fight and getting punched in the heat of the moment (remember, the police k9 dog is in an actual real fight here), or it could be the type of dog that gets hotheaded if you take his toy, give a correction, etc. this type of behavior isn't redirection but just being a jerk.


I think there are two very different types of redirection though. Just with my own dogs, Dante bit me once in protection. After I outed him off a sleeve he bit my ankle. The second he realized it was me he outed and was "apologetic" about it and it has never happened since and he has tons of fight and loves a hard battle. He bit my boyfriend once in the arm as he was breaking up a fight between Dante and the border collie, again, it was a quick bite and "oh crap! My bad" moment. He was never harshly corrected in either instance because he made a mistake and self corrected. 

My female on the other hand, as a puppy would set off in drive about something and come up leash with a grip from **** and did actual damage. It would be the oddest things like my friend taking off her sweatshirt set her off and she attached to her calf (blood drawn) and took off her pant leg when she couldn't have the sweatshirt. I had to choke and flank her off and put a ball in her mouth to stop her. She was 3 months old. We went for a hike and she must of seen something because she went off and then came up got my boyfriends hand and would not let go. There was no malice per say, it was purely not knowing how to control herself in high high drive states. Shortly after the hand incident I took her to my schutzhund coach who has been around the block a time or two, we set her up, she came up leash at my coach and got the correction of her life. I am so happy I didn't have to do it because she was just a baby and I would of felt bad. But it was dangerous and she could of really hurt someone. She has yet to come up at me since, even during high drive protection states. I think the correction came at the perfect time to make an impression. I say this because I know when I was in the military, we had MWDs,who did the same thing as my puppy when they were outed, only they were adults and I am not sure the corrections mattered anymore. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## hunterisgreat

MilesNY said:


> I think there are two very different types of redirection though. Just with my own dogs, Dante bit me once in protection. After I outed him off a sleeve he bit my ankle. The second he realized it was me he outed and was "apologetic" about it and it has never happened since and he has tons of fight and loves a hard battle. He bit my boyfriend once in the arm as he was breaking up a fight between Dante and the border collie, again, it was a quick bite and "oh crap! My bad" moment. He was never harshly corrected in either instance because he made a mistake and self corrected.
> 
> My female on the other hand, as a puppy would set off in drive about something and come up leash with a grip from **** and did actual damage. It would be the oddest things like my friend taking off her sweatshirt set her off and she attached to her calf (blood drawn) and took off her pant leg when she couldn't have the sweatshirt. I had to choke and flank her off and put a ball in her mouth to stop her. She was 3 months old. We went for a hike and she must of seen something because she went off and then came up got my boyfriends hand and would not let go. There was no malice per say, it was purely not knowing how to control herself in high high drive states. Shortly after the hand incident I took her to my schutzhund coach who has been around the block a time or two, we set her up, she came up leash at my coach and got the correction of her life. I am so happy I didn't have to do it because she was just a baby and I would of felt bad. But it was dangerous and she could of really hurt someone. She has yet to come up at me since, even during high drive protection states. I think the correction came at the perfect time to make an impression. I say this because I know when I was in the military, we had MWDs,who did the same thing as my puppy when they were outed, only they were adults and I am not sure the corrections mattered anymore.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


I believe we are in agreement.. however the latter case I don't call redirection, because it was directed at the handler, on purpose, to begin with.


----------



## MilesNY

True but not in an aggressive or jerk sense. Had my puppy been able to have the sweatshirt she would of never gone after the leg. Had my boyfriend dropped her leash, she would have never come up at him. So in my mind it is redirection due to frustration. The object that got bit was not what inspired the drive state. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## cliffson1

Can be dog, can be handler, can be training, can be situation, can be a lot of things and can be a combination of multiple elements of the above. So it can be so many reasons that for every team, the reason or core of reason is varied....therefore you cannot generalize a reason for this happening....especially with German Shepherds. You have to see the dog and handler work, then if you understand the dynamics of what is going on with dog/handler/scenario....you can assess why it occurred. Sport is different than police training, police training can be different than real life, the dogs know the difference and often respond accordingly. All police officers don't shoot their firearms with the same accuracy, and most certainly don't shoot with the same accuracy in real situation as they do at fire range. And SOMETIMES other officers or civilians get hit in shoot outs involving police.....maybe some can see the correlation .


----------



## Chip Blasiole

I think you need to consider that a lot of these dogs are kenneled their whole life until they are sold as police dogs, so they don't develop a trusting relationship with a handler. When they are sold as adults, they usually have had very little training. I saw a local news story last night about a nearby city getting several new dogs for police work and one of the handlers said how when they got the dogs, they didn't know how to sit, down, come, etc. And these dogs were probably at least 16-18 months old.
Also consider that not all K-9 handlers are that skilled. They tend to overuse compulsion without laying a positive foundation in obedience such as using a tug to train obedience. So the situation is very different than having a dog that someone raised as a pup, layed a proper positive foundation, and has a trusting relationship with the dog. Also, sometimes, coming up the leash is redirected aggression, where if the dog can't bite the decoy, he will redirect his aggression to the next closest thing, which is the handler. You can see why this would be more likely when the handler is essentially a stranger to the dog.


----------



## wildo

Here's the video that caused me to create this thread:
Chase ends with suspect ditching car, running on foot - KCTV5

I don't have the experience you guys have, but it looks to me like:

1) the cop seemed quite reserved in collecting the dog- almost afraid
2) the dog went for the cop at 1:32
3) the cop could barely get the dog off

[EDIT]- as well as the fact that the dog missed the engagement from practically straight on, went for a hand on reengagement, and only went for an arm once the guy had fallen on his own.


----------



## cliffson1

Real life police work is night and day from sport work, most police K9 officers I know have incredible bonds and trust with their dogs based on forty hour weeks of work, not including training. Dogs go through changes in drive and intensity in real life man work, as opposed to training work, and especially sport work. These increases will lead to a reflex bite on occaisons....especially in real situation. Dogs work and feed off of there handlers....most time in sport it's a positive vibe, even in police training it is a confident vibe, but in real manwork the anxiety level of the handler increases, anything can happen and it's not predictable so handlers are tensed and stressed....the dog reads this and is heightened also....you can't practice this in training( the reaction of the handler) and the sport field isn't even close....now some dogs with good handling or outstanding training perform much as they do in training, but when stress of handlers elevate off the charts and lights flashing, and chaos going on.....it's not as tidy as many think it ought to be. Dogs are human also, and people who have handled a dog on a real bite or trained for life and death understand what occurs depending on given situation. That's why you can't generalize a reason such as breeding or training or handling.....could be any, all, or just plain an accident.


----------



## wildo

Cliff- that's exactly the explanation I was looking for. I was hoping you might chime in on the video. Thanks!


----------



## pets4life

I think chip said it best also


----------



## Slamdunc

*Here's the video that caused me to create this thread:
Chase ends with suspect ditching car, running on foot - KCTV5

I don't have the experience you guys have, but it looks to me like:

1) the cop seemed quite reserved in collecting the dog- almost afraid
2) the dog went for the cop at 1:32
3) the cop could barely get the dog off

[EDIT]- as well as the fact that the dog missed the engagement from practically straight on, went for a hand on reengagement, and only went for an arm once the guy had fallen on his own.*

We must have watched a different video.


----------



## Slamdunc

Cliff,
Good post!

*I see very few that have the levels of obedience and control that the good IPO dog has.*

Well, only a select few IPO dogs could make good dual purpose K-9's. 

The difference between "sport" and "Police work" is that sport handlers train for years for one trial. K-9 handlers "trial" every day and the stakes are a lot higher then a few lost points. Being a good K-9 handler doesn't mean having the most "polished," flashy or focused obedience. Grips are not judged on points and slow outs do not mean "disqualification." A good K-9 handler has to be a good cop first and foremost, they need the skills and instincts to know where to go to put themselves and dog in place to catch the bad guys. A great dog handler or the best sport dog handler doesn't necessarily make a good K-9 handler or even a good cop. Most IPO dogs are not trained to the level of a decent Police dog and put in situations that K-9's are routinely put in. 

I'm an IPO guy and train in SchH every weekend since the mid 90's, I am also a K-9 handler. I can confidently say that the vast majority of the folks and their dogs I have met from SchH / IPO over the years, while good sport dog handlers could never be a K-9 handler. Every K-9 Handler I know could easily do a SchH 1 or 2 tomorrow with their dog.


----------



## cliffson1

Jim, I have said exactly what you just wrote many times....it is what it is.


----------



## carmspack

and trial judges who happen to be PD K9 handlers recognize and appreciate the dogs in trial that have that extra quality and comment on them afterwards .


----------



## crackem

Slamdunc said:


> Cliff,
> Good post!
> 
> *I see very few that have the levels of obedience and control that the good IPO dog has.*
> 
> Well, only a select few IPO dogs could make good dual purpose K-9's.
> 
> The difference between "sport" and "Police work" is that sport handlers train for years for one trial. K-9 handlers "trial" every day and the stakes are a lot higher then a few lost points. Being a good K-9 handler doesn't mean having the most "polished," flashy or focused obedience. Grips are not judged on points and slow outs do not mean "disqualification." A good K-9 handler has to be a good cop first and foremost, they need the skills and instincts to know where to go to put themselves and dog in place to catch the bad guys. A great dog handler or the best sport dog handler doesn't necessarily make a good K-9 handler or even a good cop. Most IPO dogs are not trained to the level of a decent Police dog and put in situations that K-9's are routinely put in.
> 
> I'm an IPO guy and train in SchH every weekend since the mid 90's, I am also a K-9 handler. I can confidently say that the vast majority of the folks and their dogs I have met from SchH / IPO over the years, while good sport dog handlers could never be a K-9 handler. Every K-9 Handler I know could easily do a SchH 1 or 2 tomorrow with their dog.


While I appreciate your service and input, I don't agree with you totally.

I've met MANY handlers over the years and dogs that would make fine k9 handlers and dogs. I am not a cop, have trained more than a handful for various depts and in 3 different states. Not as my main course of work, but doing protection work to get them certified. I do have some experience with cops and their dogs.

Cops are just people. Some are good, some not so good and everything in between. Doesn't matter if you work construction, office management, public service, medical field etc, people are people. So some dog owners wouldn't make good cops. A lot of cops won't make good hairsylists if you gave them a job at costcutters without training either.

Of course a K9 should be able to do a sch I or II at any point. IPO is the only the basic exercises. It would be a sad state of affairs if I highly trained dog couldn't pass the basic exercises.

They should be able to that any time any day. and yes a majority of IPO handlers and their dogs couldn't be k9 handlers or dogs, but the majority don't ever pass the basics either. Many people doing IPO quit before they ever pass an IPO 1 trial. Many never even get to trial, EVER. BUT many of the people I know that repeatedly title and train dogs?? COme one, give them some credit. There are more than a few that would make outstanding handlers and dogs.

The best dogs I know haven't been police k9's, they've been in the hands of private individuals. Most of the dogs i've been a part of certifying over the years, there's only a handful I would want as my personal dog. All doing great work as dual purpose on the streets today, but certainly not the best dogs I've ever worked. 

and by the same token, though the handlers are mostly great, some are there purely out of politics, I could certainly make the argument that many of them couldn't "train" their own dog to a Sch I level. They can use it just fine, but good luck with a blank slate and a dog. 

To say sport dogs can't hack the "real world" gets old. Especially when it is exactly those "sport" dogs that have laid the foundation for almost every bitch and stud for the past 100 years that are producing working K9's and I hate to break it to you, but cops don't get sold the "best" dogs. The people with more money get the best dogs and breeders that know where their value is.


----------



## carmspack

three words , tracking , hunt/search


----------



## carmspack

well not exactly "Especially when it is exactly those "sport" dogs that have laid the foundation for almost every bitch and stud for the past 100 years that "

sport is a category just like show , that sprang from the working foundation dogs of the past 100 years

specialization continues


----------



## mycobraracr

I really hate the "real vs sport" dog arguments. All I'm going to say is you guys must have very different dogs and criteria in your area then we do in mine. I have seen maybe three nice k9's and lot more that IMO should be put down. Heck just in the past six months or so we had to medically retire two officers because they were bit (one had a torn bicep and the other a torn tricep) by a couple k9's. Two different dogs, two different incidents. Zero control from handlers that took a few week course and get their bonus pays to have a "bad*** dog".

Edit- Both dogs I mentioned were not GSD's. I just wanted to make that clear. 

I should also make it clear that I couldn't care less about IPO either. Since that always seems to be the criteria for "sport" dogs.


----------



## Buggibub

I would like to know what exactly this redirect looks like versus what a trained IPO dog would do. I've been interested in this, and unfortunately don't really have any starting point references. 

Does anyone have videos for reference?


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## cliffson1

Everyone has an opinion and those opinions are formed from different sources and different experiences. I am FAMILAR with Jim's experience, but it's all good. Whatever one wants to believe is good!


----------



## cliffson1

As for SCH dogs being foundation of police dogs....I remember when SCH was not a sport, it was very natural for a SCH trained dog to be successful at transitioning to LE work....now Sch/IPO is a sport and not only is it becoming difficult to transition Sch dogs into LE, but another breed has overtaken them in sport and LE. . 
Of course that's my opinion, but fortunately there are statistics in the sport and LE world to support or refute this opinion.


----------



## Slamdunc

*To say sport dogs can't hack the "real world" gets old. Especially when it is exactly those "sport" dogs that have laid the foundation for almost every bitch and stud for the past 100 years that are producing working K9's and I hate to break it to you, but cops don't get sold the "best" dogs. The people with more money get the best dogs and breeders that know where their value is*.

You don't need to tell me who gets the best dogs. I know many of these people that compete with HOT trained dogs that Nationals and WUSV. I also know many that pay big bucks for their "sport" dogs. 

Yes, Police Dept's absolutely don't get the best dogs. We don't need the best "sport" dogs, we need the best working dogs we can afford. We deal with issues like everyone else that trains dogs. I have two GSD's in my unit that are excellent Police Dogs and would be easily be National level sport dogs. Excellent dogs with high drive, high prey and true civil aggression. We also have some excellent Malinois that do an outstanding job. We pay about $7,000 for a young green dog right now. Top sport people pay way more than that. 

You misread my post, I am a sport guy and I have an excellent GSD that I raised from a pup, did SchH with and is a National level SChH dog. I donated this dog to my PD to be my retrained as my dual Purpose Patrol / Narcotics K-9. I have done all of the training from 7 weeks. I am the trainer for my PD's K-9 unit and I see both sides of the "sport vs real" dog. I am continuously bothered with the sport vs real dog debate, especially when it is carried out by people that have never trained a sport dog. The have "real" PPD's which I find to be rather funny.

I love working line breedings and know quite a bit about working GSD's, top sport dogs and handlers. I am also continuously annoyed by those that critique the ability of K-9 handlers, like some of the comments of the excellent deployment and apprehension by the Malinois in the video shown on this thread. Most sport dogs would not be able to engage and hang in on a real bite like that dog did. It's a fact. I test, select and train Police dogs. When I go to test dogs I can tell the SchH dogs immediately, they are the ones that rarely get selected when compared to the KNPV or ring dogs. 

I have owned GSD's since the 80's, I have raised, trained, and SchH titled all of my "sport" dogs from pups that I bought. However, as Cliff correctly stated the new overall top sport dog and top Police dog is the Malinois. I believe there are stats to prove this as Cliff mentioned. I am very hard pressed to find suitable GSD's for Police work for $7,000. If I could and they worked and tested as well as the Malinois that I see I'd buy them. For Police work, I only want a dog that works reliably in all situations, has the drive and aggression that I want and I don't care about breed or color. I want the best working dog I can get.

*I have seen maybe three nice k9's and lot more that IMO should be put down. Heck just in the past six months or so we had to medically retire two officers because they were bit (one had a torn bicep and the other a torn tricep) by a couple k9's. Two different dogs, two different incidents. Zero control from handlers that took a few week course and get their bonus pays to have a "bad*** dog".*

Sounds like a selection and training problem, both for the handlers and the dogs. Not every cop is meant to be a K-9 handler, and not every aggressive dog is meant to be a Police dog. If what your saying is accurate, and I have no idea, it sounds like a small PD with a small K-9 unit that needs some serious help. They need to find a new vendor and some new trainers ASAP.


----------



## mycobraracr

Thank you Cliff and Jim for your input. I apologize if my comment pushed any buttons. I am sure you both have great dog in your departments. Unfortunately that hasn't spread to every department yet. I know a lot of things are changing for the better. 

I have no delusions that a lot of sport(IPO) dogs wouldn't make the cut. I do believe though that sport dogs are more controlled. In a perfect world I think the two would mesh. It sounds like that's what you did with your dog Jim. Anyways, I'm not really making any sense so....


----------



## Slamdunc

Mycobraracr,
No worries. I often have concerns about small PD's buying a dog with a few week training class and no one to do follow up training. I have outside agencies come and train with us almost every week. Control is great for a sport dog and it is needed for a Police K-9 as well. 

We train weekly as a unit and in our down time when working. Here are the things I need to keep my dog sharp on:
Building searches, we do those often for burglaries, alarms, open doors etc. Some can be long searches of 45 mins to an hour, in a High school for example. 90% of the time we don't find any one, it's a false alarm or door accidentally left open. 
Compare that to a SchH blind search where the dog finds the decoy every time, sometimes multiple decoys. We have to keep our dogs on "edge" and thinking that they may find some one or why would they search for so long and so intensely? 

I also work my dog with the SWAT team. I do covert searches with a laser pointer and the dog checks every room and door the laser point is put on. An advanced searching technique. 

Tracking, I primarily do hard surface, scent discrimination tracking with my dog. I train weekly and search for specific people in apartment complexes, industrial areas and Mall parking lots. I really do not like tracking on grass with my dog, it's too easy. My longest deployment track to an apprehension was 2 miles. My training tracks are routinely a mile or more and it's 90+ degrees here. A little different than SchH tracking and I love SchH tracking. 

Bitework is also different, we use suits and rarely use sleeves. Decoys are hidden in cabinets, on tables, in trees, cars, ladders, and anywhere that I think the dogs may have issues. Under crawl spaces for example. Sucks to be the decoy sometimes. Environmental sureness is critical for these dogs. We don't have a "routine" that we train and even in training it's all about keeping it "real" and tricking the dogs and handlers. This dogs catch on to training days pretty quick and is the down fall of Police K-9 training. Our dogs must out on a verbal command, recall to the handler after the out or guard (which we do silently). We have a "termination of pursuit" when the dog is sent down field and must disengage before the decoy, either downing or returning to the handler.

We do not teach a "hold and bark", we teach a "find and bite."

Article searches, we use fields and the dogs search for shell casings, coins, metal, plastic, or anything else with human odor. We use our dogs for evidence searches. I have even used blades of grass, twigs or dandelions and the dog accurately indicates the blade of grass or dandelion flower tossed back into the field. 

Obedience, obviously on lead and off lead. Under gunfire, with the handler and other Officers returning fire. The dog must be quiet and remain in a down off lead. 

Agility, the dogs must be able to jump over and crawl under obstacles. They must be able to walk across 2 x 6 planks off the ground, climb ladders and do it all on command. I have had my dog climb 3 story gang planks onto Ocean going cargo ships to assist the Coast Guard with searches. We have climbed up and down ladders searching the engine compartments. That is no fun. 

Area Searches, on lead and directed off lead in large tracts of woods, fields, junk yards, etc. 

Muzzle fighting, deployment from a vehicle, Flash bangs, smoke, OC Gas are some of the other things we do. 

My dog is also trained for Narcotics detection. We train in cars, buildings, trucks, buses, packages, lockers ( we do school searches), and luggage. Narcotics detection takes a lot of training time to keep the dog sharp. I get dope when I am working just about every day from traffic stops and my dog's alerts. 

All of these skills require training and it is virtually impossible to train them all in one training day a week. A lot of training is done in our down time while we are working the street. We certify all of Patrol and Narcotics dogs every year. Oh, yea working a Patrol dog is probably the most dangerous job on the Police Dept and several of our handlers have been involved in shootings and deadly force encounters. We also train firearms every month. Lot's of stuff to do to stay sharp and keep our dogs in "control." If a patrol dog does a great job at tracking, building searches, clean and hard in bite work, great narcotics dog, well then I can let a little slide in the flashy obedience. Because, as anyone who does IPO or competes in a sport...something has to give. I prefer to keep the edge on the dogs and the control where we need it. We don't need or want focused heeling. I have it with my dog and I no longer like it for a Patrol dog.


----------



## wildo

Slamdunc said:


> I am also continuously annoyed by those that critique the ability of K-9 handlers, like some of the comments of the excellent deployment and apprehension by the Malinois in the video shown on this thread. Most sport dogs would not be able to engage and hang in on a real bite like that dog did.





Slamdunc said:


> We must have watched a different video.


We definitely must have. This dog "engaged and hung in?" You mean after he missed the bite and the guy fell down on his own? You mean while the bad guy just sat there and looked at the cops while the dog tugged on his arm (not too hard mind you- my GSD can certainly pull me over when tugging). We really must have watched very different videos.


----------



## Slamdunc

My whole point of this post is to illustrate the things our dogs do on a daily basis and what is expected of them. In the scheme of things all of these tasks are really not that big of a deal or all that complicated. Doing all of theme well and reliably, day in and day out and keeping the dog motivated is the key. 

Yes, we use tugs in training, balls on rope and kongs. Our obedience, Building searches, bite work, tracking and narcotics searching is all done motivationally. Other wise, these dogs would not work daily for years. We have moved away from the "yank and crank" training of years ago. I go to Sport training seminars with Bart Bellon, Debbie Zappia, Bernhard Flinks, etc. Obedience is obedience and some sport people are really exceptional and I bring things back to our unit. We even use tugs as rewards in bite work for outs and recalls. Oh yea, we maintain a social dog with a high, very serious level of aggression as well. It's a Police dog, not Lassie.


----------



## Slamdunc

Wildo,
I'm sure your GSD is much better trained and bites harder than the dog in the video. 

Yea, that dog didn't take the guy to the ground????? Yea, the guy didn't require a trip to the hospital after that. My favorite part of the video was the reporter saying that the "dogs are trained not to necessarily injure them, just to grab them." LOL Yes, that nice young man was not injured at all by that dog. I will say those Officers did an excellent job overall and it was an excellent deployment and apprehension.


----------



## wildo

Never did I claim that my dog has more training, bites hard, or has more apprehensions. What I claimed is that while tugging with me, she can fairly easily pull me off balance (all 300 pounds of me). Now that skinny ass bad guy in the video was just sitting there- upright- while the dog tugged on his arm. And you're telling me that was hard, aggressive, strong tugging? I don't think so.

I've seen Border Collies in agility tug harder than that. They guy was just sitting there...


----------



## llombardo

My male redirected on me one time while he was very focused and engaged with something else. Completely caught me off guard, I only had him for less then a month. I learned(because I didn't want to get bit again) that getting them out of that focused mode can change everything. If they are in that moment, that moment is all that counts. Its hard when you have a dog that is very focused..focus is not something I had to teach mine. I can see how a K9 can be so into getting the bad guy that nothing else matters, but it should be worked on, so that no one gets hurt. I probably never would have understood it if it didn't happen to me.


----------



## Slamdunc

Wildo,
I'll agree to disagree. Maybe you should watch the video again. I have a completely different take on it and that is based on my first hand experience.


----------



## MilesNY

Willy, it's important to know that dogs have different biting styles. A lot of non schutzhund dogs sports prefer the dog bite and push in to the bit and not tug back. The goal of a police dog is to bite and stop the person, not drag them around. Some police dogs do tug more, different biting style, neither is wrong per say. Although violently tugging backwards can do massive damage this is not preferred. Muscles can be easily ripped off.... Sorry to get graphic.




Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## MilesNY

Personally, I saw a guy NOT fighting the dog and a dog that did great by staying engaged. Had he started fighting the dog, I bet we would see the dog behave differently. I hate Monday morning quarterbacking police videos. Unless there is some huge miscarriage of justice, it's not my place to say how they did. Leave it to other LEO to use it to train, teach, etc.



Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## robk

Slamdunc said:


> Wildo,
> I'm sure your GSD is much better trained and bites harder than the dog in the video.
> 
> *Yea, that dog didn't take the guy to the ground?????* Yea, the guy didn't require a trip to the hospital after that. My favorite part of the video was the reporter saying that the "dogs are trained not to necessarily injure them, just to grab them." LOL Yes, that nice young man was not injured at all by that dog. I will say those Officers did an excellent job overall and it was an excellent deployment and apprehension.


The guy in the video fell down because his pants fell down!  He had to run holding his britches up. As soon as he raised his arms he tripped over his own droopy drawers.

I am sure he did have to go to the hospital after that thrashing. However, he was already on the ground. The dog was probably released before the idiot went down but did not respond to the call back (if there was one).


----------



## robk

MilesNY said:


> I think there are two very different types of redirection though. Just with my own dogs, Dante bit me once in protection. After I outed him off a sleeve he bit my ankle. The second he realized it was me he outed and was "apologetic" about it and it has never happened since and he has tons of fight and loves a hard battle. He bit my boyfriend once in the arm as he was breaking up a fight between Dante and the border collie, again, it was a quick bite and "oh crap! My bad" moment. He was never harshly corrected in either instance because he made a mistake and self corrected.
> 
> *My female on the other hand, as a puppy would set off in drive about something and come up leash with a grip from **** and did actual damage. It would be the oddest things like my friend taking off her sweatshirt set her off and she attached to her calf (blood drawn) and took off her pant leg when she couldn't have the sweatshirt. I had to choke and flank her off and put a ball in her mouth to stop her. She was 3 months old. We went for a hike and she must of seen something because she went off and then came up got my boyfriends hand and would not let go. There was no malice per say, it was purely not knowing how to control herself in high high drive states. Shortly after the hand incident I took her to my schutzhund coach who has been around the block a time or two, we set her up, she came up leash at my coach and got the correction of her life. I am so happy I didn't have to do it because she was just a baby and I would of felt bad. But it was dangerous and she could of really hurt someone. She has yet to come up at me since, even during high drive protection states. I think the correction came at the perfect time to make an impression. I say this because I know when I was in the military, we had MWDs,who did the same thing as my puppy when they were outed, only they were adults and I am not sure the corrections mattered anymore. *
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


I understand that this is a Drago pup. I have been told that many female Drago pups are this way. A breeder friend of mine told me that he was told to not even allow a female Drago pup to go to a non working home. Pretty interesting to hear your experience. (Sorry wildo about the non related comment, don't intend to hijack your thread).


----------



## robk

robk said:


> The guy in the video fell down because his pants fell down!  He had to run holding his britches up. As soon as he raised his arms he tripped over his own droopy drawers.
> 
> I am sure he did have to go to the hospital after that thrashing. However, he was already on the ground. The dog was probably released before the idiot went down but did not respond to the call back (if there was one).


I did go back and watch it again, he was standing up when the dog reached him but he was still basically caught.


----------



## lesslis

OK, comment from a normal citizen who loves, owns, and trains in sport a fantastic WL GSD. These 2 and 4 legged officers impressed the heck out of me. Perfect take down in a situation most of us will never encounter in life. Hope this dog got free cheeseburgers for life. Wouldn't it have been nice to have time to cradle the dog off the bite! yea right, lol. Living close to Detroit, I so appreciate the Leo and k9 folks.


----------



## cliffson1

I get annoyed when I hear people reference that the police dog or handler was inept or not very good. NOT because I doubt the validity of the comment, there are police dogs and handlers in small units that sometimes leave something to be desired, and not all depts. make their dogs go through an academy even though most do these days, I get upset because I have seen countless sport dogs and handlers that were garbage. So what's the point....all police dogs must be excellent, but the area you want to compare we should overlook the deficient. Every area of life has good and bad, some of you speak from emotions, some really don't understand both sides, but I would consider a person like Jim very knowledgable about both sides of this coin....and plus he is forthright and honest in his evals of dogs, people, and situations. I know him and have immense respect for him because he walks the walk, but is still humble and balanced.


----------



## Castlemaid

I think some people see the IPO protection videos, where the routine is set, the decoy moves a certain way, the sleeve is held at a certain angle to make the bite easier, and the exercises have been practiced over and over, the handler knows exactly where to stand, where to go, what will happen next - and for some reason expect to see the same snappy, perfect routine in real life? Come on!

The perp pulled his arm away and twisted to avoid the dog, dog did an amazing job at regrouping in lest than a sec and going back for another bite. The dog DOES pull the guy down flat, the guy is trying to not escalate the fight, he knows he is done for, so yes, he is just sitting there. The handler is trying to move in behind the dog to pull him off safely. If you have ever handled a dog even in bite work, you'd be amazed at how fast everything happens, and how you have to know ahead of time what you will do before you do it - here the officer had to move because the dog and perp where moving and turning towards him, he was trying to get in behind the dog, so what you see as hesitation, I see as quick thinking and reacting and re-adjusting his own position in reference to the dog. 

Yes, the dog is pretty hyped up. Takes a couple of seconds for him to stop fighting once the officer pulls him off, but he does stop and calms down, shows good, clear state of mind. 

Wildo, you often are in contact with board members that do IPO. See if you can handle an experienced dog for a few sessions of bitework - you'll get a completely different view on the situation. In some of your questions and posts, you seem to expect the K9 to do bitework as if they were push-button robots - a dog in real-life bitework needs to be free to think and act on its own. So form, as seen by an outsider may suffer a bit, but that is not an issue for a working dog team, as long as the job gets done.


----------



## cliffson1

Look, nobody is dissing sport dogs, the problem is people often judge police dogs by sport standards, whether it is obedience or protection. THEY are different animals, one is a scripted routine often practiced for years and years, the other is a basic foundation that requires a dog to be prepared for anything that might arise, from people, to environment, to places they have no idea what lurks there, to real danger confronting them and their handler. Now if people expect to be able to judge one based on the requirement of the other, then you really don't understand the differences in the two. There are great sport dogs and great police dogs, there are dogs lacking in both, but a person experienced in both can tell by the things focused on in comments the level of understanding of comments on either subject. Different focus, different goals, and often different performances, simple as that.:help:


----------



## lesslis

Total agreement Cliff. 
I'm just fortunate to have found a Michigan breeder who could fill both niches.


----------



## TrickyShepherd

Castlemaid said:


> I think some people see the IPO protection videos, where the routine is set, the decoy moves a certain way, the sleeve is held at a certain angle to make the bite easier, and the exercises have been practiced over and over, the handler knows exactly where to stand, where to go, what will happen next - and for some reason expect to see the same snappy, perfect routine in real life? Come on!
> 
> The perp pulled his arm away and twisted to avoid the dog, dog did an amazing job at regrouping in lest than a sec and going back for another bite. The dog DOES pull the guy down flat, the guy is trying to not escalate the fight, he knows he is done for, so yes, he is just sitting there. The handler is trying to move in behind the dog to pull him off safely. If you have ever handled a dog even in bite work, you'd be amazed at how fast everything happens, and how you have to know ahead of time what you will do before you do it - here the officer had to move because the dog and perp where moving and turning towards him, he was trying to get in behind the dog, so what you see as hesitation, I see as quick thinking and reacting and re-adjusting his own position in reference to the dog.
> 
> Yes, the dog is pretty hyped up. Takes a couple of seconds for him to stop fighting once the officer pulls him off, but he does stop and calms down, shows good, clear state of mind.
> 
> Wildo, you often are in contact with board members that do IPO. See if you can handle an experienced dog for a few sessions of bitework - you'll get a completely different view on the situation. In some of your questions and posts, you seem to expect the K9 to do bitework as if they were push-button robots - a dog in real-life bitework needs to be free to think and act on its own. So form, as seen by an outsider may suffer a bit, but that is not an issue for a working dog team, as long as the job gets done.


Nicely said!! 

We work both IPO and Police K9s (and personal protection) at our training group. My trainer helps certify these dogs and he's the one who tests them out when they first arrive (before they are purchased). It's a very different experience. I have a LOT of respect for them.

I definitely agree with seeing for yourself. Handle an experienced IPO dog in protection, and if your department lets you... go watch a training session or demo. We have lots of demos here and it shows how these dogs work. It's real life, and it's a real fight. Nitpicking videos of them during an apprehension is almost like watching a video of a carjacking and saying "you should have done this."... "You were wrong to do this... instead.. do that".... It's in the moment, real life, your life is in danger work. These dogs and handlers are working in that situation every day. It's not going to be as organized as IPO.... never will be.


----------



## Slamdunc

Cliff,
Thanks! The feelings are mutual.

Castlemaid,
Excellent post!


----------



## GSDElsa

But not all PD dogs are Danny sons and not all K9 handlers are you.  I know what people are saying in this thread. .. there are lots of bad K9 handlers out there and lots of bad dogs. I think when you train and surround yourself with good handlers it's easy to forget what the "rest"of the folks are like. I get a little like that with SchH... People like Deb and Jody spoil you


----------



## kjdreyer

. Dogs are human also...[/QUOTE said:


> Mr. Cliffson, I just caught this in your post, and the first time I read it I didn't even think about it, but the second time, this caught my eye! This is awesome!
> 
> Very interesting thread - I really enjoy reading the input from all the experienced handlers, thanks!


----------



## Slamdunc

GSDElsa said:


> But not all PD dogs are Danny sons and not all K9 handlers are you.  I know what people are saying in this thread. .. there are lots of bad K9 handlers out there and lots of bad dogs. I think when you train and surround yourself with good handlers it's easy to forget what the "rest"of the folks are like. I get a little like that with SchH... People like Deb and Jody spoil you


Yes, my Danny son is an excellent dog and I am spoiled to have him. That dog makes me look good while I hold the leash. Deb and Jody are really awesome! Yes, when you see Deb and Jody work dogs I realize how much I need to learn and how much I don't know. They certainly raise the bar and give me things to strive for. 

I realize that there are some lacking K-9 handlers. Some PD's are lacking in training and support to even know how to better themselves and their dogs. K-9 is a very dangerous job and I often worry about some friends from smaller PD's. 

But to be an effective K-9 handler you don't have to be a great dog handler or even have the best dog. I have a couple of guys in my unit that are great handlers on training days. They perfect our certification routine and do everything well in training. The dogs are perfectly under control and look great. Unfortunately, these guys are not extremely effective on the street. They are not getting the loads of dope, they are not in the high speed pursuits and are not consistently tracking fleeing felons to apprehensions. But there dogs are awesome in training and at demos and they are competent handlers. In our PD they are average, in another PD they may very well be above average.

Then we have guys that every training day is like "ground hog day." We have to explain everything and review everything each training day, their dogs perform well and they do a very good job on the street. They catch bad guys and get dope.

Then we have the guys that have sound, functional, well trained dogs who get the large loads of dope, track suspects to apprehensions and are "Johnny on the spot" for every felony in progress. These are the guys that consistently lead the unit in stats and arrests. These same guys were the guys that made big arrests before they were in K-9. Simply, hard charging good cops that work a little harder than the other guys. These guys love the job, are passionate about the work and love being in K-9. 

We do have high standards in our unit. We will not tolerate sloppy or unsatisfactory handling. Poor decision making, poor work habits, lazy handlers or guys that deploy their dogs inappropriately. The surrounding agencies with large K-9 units are pretty similar. In Police work every time one cop out of several hundred thousand screws up it affects all of us. This is even more important in K-9. Bad searches and bad apprehensions reflect poorly on all of us, we take this very seriously. We have high standards and expect all of our handlers to consistently perform better and do more, mediocrity is frowned upon. That is what being in a specialty unit means in my chain of command.


----------



## abakerrr

Slamdunc said:


> Yes, when you see Deb and Jody work dogs I realize how much I need to learn and how much I don't know. They certainly raise the bar and give me things to strive for.


Couldn't have said this better.


----------



## LouCastle

wildo said:


> Here's the video that caused me to create this thread:
> Chase ends with suspect ditching car, running on foot - KCTV5
> 
> I don't have the experience you guys have, but it looks to me like:
> 
> 1) the cop seemed quite reserved in collecting the dog- almost afraid
> 2) the dog went for the cop at 1:32
> 3) the cop could barely get the dog off
> 
> [EDIT]- as well as the fact that the dog missed the engagement from practically straight on, went for a hand on reengagement, and only went for an arm once the guy had fallen on his own.


Here's my take on the video. Some of this is observation and some is my opinion based on over 30 years of training dogs for LE. 

1. It looks to me as if the dog grabs the suspect's hand but then due to the momentum of both of them, rips out from the bite. Even if it was a very hard bite, this can happen. 

2. The suspect is now turned around, he's moving backwards and his shorts have slipped down. He falls to the ground about the same time that the dog bites him on the right hand. 

3. After the dog bites the suspect on his right hand. The suspect does not fight the dog. He may be holding the dog's head but I think that's an instinctive self−defense movement, not an attempt to hurt the dog or to escape. He's not hitting the dog. The dog is fairly calm at this point, but this changes as the incident progresses. I can't see the suspect do anything different and so based on what happens in a moment, I think the dog is anticipating being dragged off the bite, and so he starts to get hectic. That's evidenced by the head shaking. 

4. It looks as if the handler warns the other officers to stay back, and they do. But now there's a problem. The handler is to the side of the other officers. Everyone has their guns on the suspect. The handler holsters and as he moves towards the suspect one of the other officers does as well. Two officers keep their guns trained on the suspect. Because this handler has decided to physically take the dog off the suspect he must move past their guns. One of the officers lowers her gun as the handler moves in front of her but the other officer does not seem to, until the handler moves past his line of fire. It's hard to tell, but it appears that the handler walks in front of the gun of the officer on the right. 

5. A key element that shows that there is conflict between the dog and the handler is that as the handler moves towards the dog, the dog circles to stay away from him. Another reason that the dog does this is to prolong the bite. He does not want to let go. He has not been trained that biting is just something that happens. He thinks that it's the end all and be all of what he does. 

6. I think that this bite lasts about 20−25 seconds longer than was necessary. Once caught by the dog, the suspect offers no resistance at all. He's completely compliant. It does not look as if he offers any resistance to the orders of the officer(s). The bite on the suspect's right hand starts at 1:14. The dog is removed from the bite at 1:46. The bite lasts 32 seconds. I think that the dog should have been removed from the bite at about 1:24, about 10 seconds after the bite starts. 

At that point, the handler has holstered his gun, signaling that he no longer thinks the suspect is resisting and that a certain level of safety has been achieved. At that time the other three officers are at the scene and they have their guns pointed at the suspect. If the handler had trained a verbal out, he could have given it at that moment and ended the bite. If he had a verbal out, he could have kept his gun trained on the suspect. But he does not. He moves towards the dog, who "scoots" away from him. One of the officers holsters his gun, in anticipation of going "hands on" with the suspect. The handler gets his hands on the dog's collar and lifts him off the bite. 

I don't think that this dog goes for the handler's hand as he reaches in. It seems to me that the dog is still biting the suspect's hand and that the handler puts his hand in the wrong place at the instant that the dog gives some more head shakes and the handler jerks his hand away from the dog's mouth. If the dog had been trying to bite the handler's hand, he would have released the suspect's hand to do so. 

I don't think that the handler was afraid of the dog. I think that his deliberate movement was because this was a potentially dangerous suspect, even though he did not offer any resistance once the dog set the bite on him. 

If that handler had a verbal out, he could have called the dog off the bite much sooner. He could have done so from his initial position, and would not have walked directly in front of the other guns. Everyone was closer than I would have liked them to be. There was no cover (stops bullets) or concealment (hides from view but does not stop bullets) available. They were on a flat, open field. I would have wanted them to be further from the suspect who had not been searched. History tells us that in such situations, distance is our friend. 

Please don't get me wrong. These cops are heroes. It's relatively easy to sit in the comfort and safety of my living room and critique in an hour, what took place in a few minutes in a highly stressful situation. Without regard to their personal safety, they went after a potentially armed, fleeing felon and took him into custody without any of the good guys getting hurt. The suspect suffered some minor injuries. 

But no deployment is perfect and the more honest one can be in examining the flaws, the less likely they are to be repeated. I spent three years on a SWAT team and have a great deal of time training with one of the most active SWAT teams in the US. Those "after action" briefings were brutal. Every movement was critiqued to determine how it could have been done better. I'd expect no less if that was me on the video. 

As to my comments regarding the time the dog spent on the bite. I don't think that the 20−25 seconds arises to the level of neglect or abuse of the suspect. I just think that if the handler had a verbal out, he and the team would have been safer and the bite would have lasted less time. Having a verbal out does not mean that it must be used every time, but here it would have been expeditious to use it. This is a fine point, but that's what critiques are about. 

At least this dog releases the bite in a timely manner once the handler has hold of his collar. Has anyone seen the video of the pursuit from Kentucky of the carjacking suspect from April of last year? It involved about 50 police units and a dog that had to be cut off the suspect's clothing with a knife! He would not release the bite even though he was repeatedly lifted off and flanked. One trainer I spoke to saw nothing wrong with this deployment, even though the handler ran up to the door of the potentially armed carjacking suspect, instead of staying behind his door and ordering the suspect out from the vehicle. That bite seemed to me to be completely unnecessary.


----------



## LouCastle

Slamdunc said:


> I often have concerns about small PD's buying a dog with a few week training class and no one to do follow up training. I have outside agencies come and train with us almost every week.


I agree, this is a great concern. It's guaranteed that issues that may not come up in the training class will come up on the street. If there's no one there to do _"follow up training"_ problems are sure to develop. When I was working we had an open invitation to any other agency to come train with us. 



Slamdunc said:


> Building searches, we do those often for burglaries, alarms, open doors etc. Some can be long searches of 45 mins to an hour, in a High school for example. 90% of the time we don't find any one, it's a false alarm or door accidentally left open.
> 
> Compare that to a SchH blind search where the dog finds the decoy every time, sometimes multiple decoys. We have to keep our dogs on "edge" and thinking that they may find some one or why would they search for so long and so intensely?


Many people have no idea of how long a PSD may have to work without making a find. On a sport field, it's rare for a dog to go more than a few minutes without getting a reward. The PSD must be conditioned not to expect a short search. If not, they'll wear themselves out on a longer one. I once searched a five story (with two basements) department store. It took us about five hours and I had to enforce several downs to rest the dog and then start him again. After the search was completed, I hid someone on a floor that we'd already searched and he made the find, confirming that he was still searching, not just going through the motions. 



Slamdunc said:


> I do covert searches with a laser pointer and the dog checks every room and door the laser point is put on. An advanced searching technique.


I'm not a fan of using lasers for this. If team members are using lasers on the firearms, it can cause issues because the dog won't discriminate between the points of light. I don't want him running towards the suspect if he appears and a team member puts his laser on him. It makes many dogs very hectic and it takes the dog out of the drive that I want him in and puts him into a drive that I don't want him in.


----------



## LouCastle

Slamdunc said:


> My whole point of this post is to illustrate the things our dogs do on a daily basis and what is expected of them. In the scheme of things all of these tasks are really not that big of a deal or all that complicated. Doing all of theme well and reliably, day in and day out and keeping the dog motivated is the key.


If you've selected the right dog motivation is not a big deal. Mostly it's a matter of putting brakes on the dog. 



Slamdunc said:


> Yes, we use tugs in training, balls on rope and kongs.


I think that using these sorts of tools creates more problems than it solves. 



Slamdunc said:


> Our obedience, Building searches, bite work, tracking and narcotics searching is all done motivationally.


My work in these is all done in drive. I think that should be the dog's motivation, following his drives. 



Slamdunc said:


> I go to Sport training seminars with Bart Bellon, Debbie Zappia, Bernhard Flinks, etc.


I do too. But since they're all focusing on OC (Operant Conditioning) these days, I don't get much out of them. 



Slamdunc said:


> Obedience is obedience


I don't think it is, anymore than a bark and hold is the same on the sport field v. a police dog doing it. The drives are different and therefore, so is the motivation. 



Slamdunc said:


> We even use tugs as rewards in bite work for outs and recalls.


I do not. I've seen them create more issues than they solve. I stick with drive training for all my work.


----------



## LouCastle

MilesNY said:


> I hate Monday morning quarterbacking police videos. Unless there is some huge miscarriage of justice, it's not my place to say how they did. Leave it to other LEO to use it to train, teach, etc.


As long as the people doing the critiquing have police expertise, I think it can be valuable. No deployment is perfect and it's best to learn from mistakes made, to avoid repeating them.


----------



## wildo

Thanks for your comments, Lou.


----------



## Slamdunc

Originally Posted by Slamdunc 
I do covert searches with a laser pointer and the dog checks every room and door the laser point is put on. An advanced searching technique.

I'm not a fan of using lasers for this. If team members are using lasers on the firearms, it can cause issues because the dog won't discriminate between the points of light. I don't want him running towards the suspect if he appears and a team member puts his laser on him. It makes many dogs very hectic and it takes the dog out of the drive that I want him in and puts him into a drive that I don't want him in.
__________________

Lou, while I agree with most of what you posted. You seem to disect every sentence of a post. I will only address a couple of your points to me.

Our team members do not use laser sights on their weapons. Since I work a Dual purpose Patrol / Narcotics K-9, the bulk of my building and area searches are with Patrol Officers. I also work my dog on the SWAT team and the laser pointer has never been an issue, quite the opposite. My dog does not "switch" drives or go into any other drive that I don't want him in while searching. He understands the task and stays focused and on task. The laser guided training came from our most elite Military special forces team handler and trainers. If it works for them it is certainly good enough for me. We train with them periodically and they are truly outstanding handlers and trainers.

Also there is a lot more to sport training and OC than feeding a dog treats. Maintaining precision, drive and a happy functional working dog is the goal of the top sport trainers and should be the goal of all K-9 handlers and trainers.


----------



## Slamdunc

By the way, all of our work is done in drive. You seem to make a big point about working in "drive." I think you are simply employing semantics to make your point. Naturally, we work our dogs in drive. Naturally, we use the dog's drive to motivate it and shape it's behavior and get the desired result. How else, except pure compulsion, would you train a dog with out putting it in "drive?"


----------



## LouCastle

Slamdunc said:


> Lou, while I agree with most of what you posted. You seem to disect every sentence of a post. I will only address a couple of your points to me.


I hope this doesn't bother you too much Jim. I've always done it. I figure if you take the time to put your thoughts down "on paper" the least I can do is read it. If I have a comment, I think it's much clearer to me, and to the readers, if I reply to each comment on its own. I've found that folks who respond to an entire paragraph often miss details and don't answer questions that are asked. My way of doing it, prevents this from happening. 



Slamdunc said:


> Our team members do not use laser sights on their weapons.


I understand. Back in the day mine didn't either. But supervisors, techniques and methods change over time. They may go to a class where lasers are used and decide that they want to try them out. Several teams are using them and they have some advantages. If they change their minds on this and DO start using them, there will be the problems that I mentioned. And it's very hard to stop a dog from following/chasing the laser dot, once he's been trained to do this, without impacting the hunt. 

I know of departments that train their dogs to follow small pebbles or marbles that they throw. I've seen those dogs chase debris that the team members kicked up as they moved forward. This turned into a huge distraction. One dog started staring at the team member's boots anticipating that a rock would be kicked up. He completely lost focus on the search. It took valuable training time to get the dog to refocus on the search, but it's an example of "training gone wrong." 'Round here it's common for handlers to use their flashlights to direct their dogs and this doesn't cause any of these conflicts, the other officers just keep their lights steady. The handler's light is the only light that moves and it's accompanied by a command. 

Many departments do what we called "outside assists" where nearby agencies call for help for more resources or for resources that they lack. I don't know if this happens where you are but If your dogs ever work with other agencies who do use lasers, they won't be able to use them when they've called you for assistance. If one of their members forgets and hits his laser when the suspect is found, the dog may follow it to the suspect, putting the dog into unnecessary danger. I think it's better to prepare for as many eventualities as possible. When you least expect it, things sometimes go south. 



Slamdunc said:


> Since I work a Dual purpose Patrol / Narcotics K-9, the bulk of my building and area searches are with Patrol Officers.


I don't think that there's a need to direct a detection dog with a laser. Do you do this? 



Slamdunc said:


> I also work my dog on the SWAT team and the laser pointer has never been an issue, quite the opposite. My dog does not "switch" drives or go into any other drive that I don't want him in while searching.


More than likely, when he's chasing the laser spot he goes into prey drive. I prefer to keep the dog in fight drive. Following/chasing a laser spot changes him out of the drive that I prefer. Do you prefer that your dog work in prey drive? 



Slamdunc said:


> He understands the task and stays focused and on task. The laser guided training came from our most elite Military special forces team handler and trainers. If it works for them it is certainly good enough for me.


My critique of it comes from the trainers of one of the busiest police K−9 teams in the world. They often work with their SWAT team. I think that sometimes it's a mistake getting advice from the military because they often have a vastly different mission than ours. Just because something works for one unit, does not mean that it's good, or even acceptable, for another. The military mission is often different from ours, and I think, so should be our response. 



Slamdunc said:


> We train with them periodically and they are truly outstanding handlers and trainers.


I'm sure that they are. But they usually have a different mission than does law enforcement. Just as much of what is done on a sport field is often not suitable for what LE does, much of what the military does is not suitable for us. I think that using lasers to direct a dog is a bad idea, and you like that technique. I can live with that disagreement. My criticism is based on real issues that exist in LE and your preference for it seems to me to be _"[They're] our most elite Military special forces team handler and trainers ... it is certainly good enough for me."_ The military does lots of things that are not suitable for law enforcement and vice versa. I prefer techniques and methods that are specific to law enforcement. 



Slamdunc said:


> Also there is a lot more to sport training and OC than feeding a dog treats.


Yes I know. Did I say something to make you believe that I was supporting such a thing? If so, please let me know and show me what that statement was. I'm pretty sure that I didn't say ANYTHING about the use of treats so I have no idea where this comes from. 



Slamdunc said:


> Maintaining precision, drive and a happy functional working dog is the goal of the top sport trainers and should be the goal of all K-9 handlers and trainers.


I don't think that _"precision"_ is very important in LE work. For example, I don't want a PSD to do "attention heeling." I also don't care if he's wide by a couple of inches. I don't care if it takes him two seconds to go all the way down on a down−out−of−motion. I'm not competing for points and so these things, while VERY important on a sport field, mean little to me on the street. 

Getting such precision means spending much time training for it, time that could be spent on improving the hunt or improving something that's actually important in LE. It often creates a great deal of conflict between dog and handler that I avoid completely. 

I don't think that _"maintaining precision"_ is important if it's at the cost of maintaining the efficiency of the hunt. I think that's best accomplished by selecting the dog with the right level and balance of drives to do the LE job and then allowing him to fulfill those drives. I don't like using rewards, like tugs, balls or other toys in the course of this work. I think it's fine for the sport field but don't think it's a good way to go for law enforcement. 

A dog that's allowed to fulfill his drives is _"a happy functional working dog."_


----------



## LouCastle

Slamdunc said:


> By the way, all of our work is done in drive.


Virtually all of everyone's work is done in drive. But often it's not a good drive for a police dog who is there to hunt bad guys. 



Slamdunc said:


> You seem to make a big point about working in "drive." I think you are simply employing semantics to make your point.


I don't think so but perhaps I'm not understanding your meaning. Can you explain further? 



Slamdunc said:


> Naturally, we work our dogs in drive. Naturally, we use the dog's drive to motivate it and shape it's behavior and get the desired result. How else, except pure compulsion, would you train a dog with out putting it in "drive?"


Since I haven't seen your work I can only base my response on what others are doing when they make statements similar to yours. Often I've seen dogs working in prey, play or rank drive. I don't think any of them are suitable for what LE does. Those dogs should be worked in a combat drive that's easily controlled and gives the desired results. For me, that's fight drive. I define that as the drive that has a dog detaining or driving off an opponent. If you use tugs, balls or other toys to "motivate" a dog you're putting him into either prey, play or rank drive. Prey drive is involved in chasing, catching and killing prey animals for food. It gives a dog a very high tolerance for pain, making him less susceptible to the discomfort of corrections, sometimes forcing the handler give harder and harder corrections to get compliance. This often causes the conflict that I spoke of, that is the topic of this discussion, dogs coming up the leash to protest what the handler is doing to him. I've seen, in some basic classes two to three handlers get bitten by their own dogs who are protesting too−hard corrections. I've been training LE dogs for almost 35 years now and have never had a handler bitten by his own dog for this sort of thing. 

Play drive is something that in the wild the leader dog never invokes. Play always comes from subordinate animals so when a handler whips out a toy, he's sending the dog the wrong message, that he's not the leader. I'm not saying that doing this will ruin the training, just that it sends the dog a signal that may be confusing, a mixed message. Confusion leads to unreliability. This technique, rewarding a behavior with a toy, treats, play etc. comes from OC and one of the drawbacks of that work is that it rarely takes the dog's drives into account. 

Rank drive is for most dogs, the most powerful of all the drives. It can shut down other drives in a heartbeat. I think that it's essential that the dog think that he's the #2 dog in the pack and that the handler is the #1 dog. I don't want him to think that he's the #6, 7, or 8 dog. Those dogs have no responsibility in the pack. This is not about dominance and submission as established by force. It's about the handler establishing himself as leader by means of the training, the force of his personality, and by manipulating the dog's drives to achieve that end. The #2 dog has responsibility in the pack and when the #1 dog is not available, he takes over. If a dog is consistently getting hard corrections he may not assume that position. 

As you say, you _"we use the dog's drive to motivate it and shape it's behavior and get the desired result."_ It sounds as if, you, like many other trainers, are shaping individual behaviors and then chaining them together to get the hunt. This is based on your comment that _"obedience is obedience."_ I disagree with this viewpoint. I'm setting up training to let the dogs drives come out. I'm only indirectly interested in the individual behaviors. If the dog's drive is correct, the behavior will be correct. He know best how to hunt, I'm just going to show him the area/building/hallway, etc., where he's likely to make the find. After that it's pretty much up to him. Obedience in such a system is just part of the hunt, it's not done for its own sake. 

Going back to your _"ob is ob"_ statement. A dog can lie down in response to a command because he knows that a reward is forthcoming. A ball, a game of tug, praise, treats or the like. Or he can obey the command because he's been conditioned that it's part of the hunt, that it will lead to a search and that will lead to a fight. There aren't any rewards other than allowing the dog to fulfill his drives. They simply aren't necessary. That means that I don't have to spend time working with a dog so that he quickly and easily releases the tug toy so we can continue. This type of reward simply isn't necessary. 

Your kind of a system depends to a very large extent on how good the handler is, how good his timing is, how well he delivers the toy. An excellent handler will have an excellent dog. But a not−so−good handler will have a not−so−good dog, perhaps barely passing minimum standards. I'm sure that you'll agree that not every handler is "excellent." Some are barely capable of passing certification. The system that I use takes the handler out of the picture. He's not involved in praising the dog because it's not necessary. So good timing is not necessary and one doesn’t have to be able to deliver a toy in a timely manner, be able to out the dog from the toy, or to even carry the toy around. I recently attended a seminar where toys were used to reward behaviors. It took a few seconds to get the behavior, the dog was moving onto a low platform, but it took some handlers five to six minutes to get the tug back from the dog. Doing this created all sorts of conflict, with one handler nearly getting bitten by his own dog, who wanted to keep the tug. While watching this, it occurred to me that the reward had long ago lost its power to reinforce the behavior and had instead, become a point of contention between the dog and handler. I see no reason to spend time in conditioning a dog to release a toy so that the next rep of a behavior can be done. I don't get the kind of precision OB that we see on a sport field, but then it's not necessary for what I'm doing. 

As you mentioned before, what happens on a sport field is over very quickly. Our searches may go on for hours. If you demand precision OB during a lengthy search you'll tire the dog both mentally and physically. He's focusing on you, instead of on the search. He's concerned if his butt is two inches too far out to the side when he sits at heel. That takes his focus off the search and puts it onto the handler. The handler in such a system actually becomes a distraction from the search ... the dog is concerned with being precise. OTOH if you don't require precision during a search, but you do during training, you're being inconsistent, and inconsistency causes problems everywhere.


----------



## Slamdunc

Lou,
You obviously miss the point on why precision is important for a SWAT / Patrol canine. Tactical obedience does not require "focused" heeding. I actually do care if it takes my dog 2 seconds or more to down on command, my dog is expected to perform the down or a down out of motion, such as a "termination of pursuit" in under 2 seconds, 1.5 is what is expected. After 2 seconds a negative marker or a correction is employed. 

You mentioned rewarding with tugs and balls and feel the handler's timing is not good enough. We train our handler's on how to reward, praise and correct their dogs. Our handler's can easily deliver a reward with the proper timing. If they can't they have no business working a dog in our unit. That is basic handling and training, although basic it is critical to a working team. 

You talk a lot about working dogs in "fight drive," IMO this is too one dimensional. Dogs can switch form hunt, to prey to defense to fight drive very quickly. Just as quickly as a Police Officer can. Working a dog in predominantly fight drive limits the dog and what it can do. 

Our dogs are trained to work independently and search on their own, they are also required to respond to commands form the handler during the search, but to not rely on the handler. I use my dog as "point" approaching buildings, he will check the closed door before we enter and is on task, intense, silent and in drive. He can be sent in and directed by voice commands-"go right or go left," he can be given hand signals for direction or the laser can be employed in low light. The dog can be downed in hallways and intersections to cover down range while we detail rooms and even though he is given an obedience command he understands the task and does not come out of drive. 

I know that you have worked with dogs for a long time, perhaps the terminology is different. I'm sure that you are not saying that "fight" drive is the only necessary drive for a Police K-9? Certainly, you appreciate the value of high prey drive for a Police K-9 as well as Defense, hunt, play and the other drives that make up the dog's temperament, behavior and working ability?

Regarding "outing" a toy, this is a basic skill that all Police K-9's must have. Handler's that have trouble getting their dog to release a toy, sport or working dog handlers, have crappy obedience. When I see a handler struggling to get his dog to out a toy it speaks volumes to me. If the dog won't out a toy, it won't out a bite on equipment and it certainly will not out a "real" street bite on a verbal command. I can call my dog off a suit, sleeve or bad guy and the dog stays locked in, in drive, intense, calm and focused. The dog gets one command and has 1.5 to 2 seconds to out. This is where consistency in training comes in and good handling. If the dog understands the command and fails to perform the desired action I will enforce the behavior in 2.1 seconds. As you well know, a dog that doesn't out a street bite bite opens us up to potential liability, litigation and excessive force issues. All of our street work is recorded by wearable video cameras, "WVR's" that we wear on our shoulders. We review video from every bite our handlers have and critique it amongst ourselves. If we see an issue it is immediately addressed and corrected in training. Slow outs on video are not acceptable. I'm sure you would agree. If a dog will not out a toy, it will certainly not out from a real bite when in "fight" drive. 

Just like driving a car the 2 second rule works wonders, when properly implemented and used consistently. The dog responds correctly there is praise and reward, if the dog does not respond there is punishment. Timing for both praise and correction is critical and reward after the dog is corrected and performing correctly is also crucial. That is the system I employ and it works for us. We train a behavior, proof the behavior and are very consistent in the timing, rewards and corrections. When the behavior is trained properly, starting by breaking it down into it's fundamental components, rewarded consistently and with meaning to the dog, proofed reliably, the dog understands what is expected and how to achieve it's reward. W never repeat commands, especially when the dog understands the command and are extremely consistent with the timing of rewards and corrections. We also reward and praise at a higher level then a correction, but the correction must be sufficient to immediately stop the undesired behavior or cause the dog to comply. When the dog is correct then it is praised and rewarded. This is all simple stuff, there really is nothing complex at all. Just consistent training and work.


----------



## LouCastle

Slamdunc said:


> Lou,
> You obviously miss the point on why precision is important for a SWAT / Patrol canine.


I didn't see anywhere that you made such a point. Can you tell me what paragraph in what post number it occurred? 



Slamdunc said:


> Tactical obedience does not require "focused" heeding.


I know. I was just using it as an example of the kind of precision that we often see in the sports. 



Slamdunc said:


> I actually do care if it takes my dog 2 seconds or more to down on command, my dog is expected to perform the down or a down out of motion, such as a "termination of pursuit" in under 2 seconds, 1.5 is what is expected. After 2 seconds a negative marker or a correction is employed.


I think what you're referring to here is a "call off" where a dog that is pursuing a suspect is given a down (or some other command) to stop his pursuit of that suspect. A "down−out−of−motion" is when the dog is walking at the handler's heel position and is given a down command, while the handler continues walking. I've been all over the US doing seminars but I've NEVER heard what I think you're describing being called a down−out−of−motion. But I'll attribute the misunderstanding to regional differences. 

In any case, I train the call off as a recall to start. But once the dog understands it, any command can be given. Dogs trained with this system down so quickly when given a call off command (which can be a command to do any number of things) that they'll kick up grass on front of them as they skid to a halt. No reward is necessary. 



Slamdunc said:


> You mentioned rewarding with tugs and balls and feel the handler's timing is not good enough.


I'm pretty sure that I didn't say this Jim. Here's what I did say,


> Your kind of a system depends to a very large extent on how good the handler is, how good his timing is, how well he delivers the toy. An excellent handler will have an excellent dog. But a not−so−good handler will have a not−so−good dog, perhaps barely passing minimum standards.





Slamdunc said:


> We train our handler's on how to reward, praise and correct their dogs. Our handler's can easily deliver a reward with the proper timing. If they can't they have no business working a dog in our unit. That is basic handling and training, although basic it is critical to a working team.


EVERY trainer trains their handlers on _"how to reward, praise and correct their dogs."_ But I've NEVER seen a department where EVERY handler was EXCELLENT with these skills. EVERY department I've ever seen has some who are excellent, some who are OK and some who are, as I said, _"not−so−good."_ If EVERY ONE of your handlers is excellent, you are the ONLY department with such teams. It defies the bell shaped curve that governs such things. What department is this? 



Slamdunc said:


> You talk a lot about working dogs in "fight drive," IMO this is too one dimensional. Dogs can switch form hunt, to prey to defense to fight drive very quickly. Just as quickly as a Police Officer can. Working a dog in predominantly fight drive limits the dog and what it can do.


Dogs can switch from one drive to the next very quickly. But if the work is all done in fight drive, there's no need for him to switch. Even if it happens as we agree, _"very quickly"_ it may not be fast enough. I'll disagree that a dog in fight drive is _"limit[ed] .., in what he can do"_ in this context. But perhaps I'm missing something. How is this dog limited? 

And I'll STRONGLY disagree that officers can _"switch from hunt to prey to defense to fight drive very quickly."_ Humans, for the most part, don't even have these drives any more. 



Slamdunc said:


> Our dogs are trained to work independently and search on their own, they are also required to respond to commands form the handler during the search, but to not rely on the handler. I use my dog as "point" approaching buildings, he will check the closed door before we enter and is on task, intense, silent and in drive. He can be sent in and directed by voice commands-"go right or go left," he can be given hand signals for direction or the laser can be employed in low light. The dog can be downed in hallways and intersections to cover down range while we detail rooms and even though he is given an obedience command he understands the task and does not come out of drive.


If you've trained as you describe, _"with tugs for rewards"_ the dog is switching drives as he gets these commands from you. That takes time, even though it occurs quickly. And if the suspect appears while he's chasing your laser, he won't be in the proper drive to engage him. He'll have to switch, again consuming time. If he stays in fight drive, he's ready for combat every moment. No switching is required. 



Slamdunc said:


> I know that you have worked with dogs for a long time, perhaps the terminology is different. I'm sure that you are not saying that "fight" drive is the only necessary drive for a Police K-9? Certainly, you appreciate the value of high prey drive for a Police K-9 as well as Defense, hunt, play and the other drives that make up the dog's temperament, behavior and working ability?


For patrol work, I like a dog that has pronounced fight drive. No defense drive is necessary and I prefer a dog that has as little as possible. Prey drive is only necessary in sufficient quantities to use to de−stress him if he gets loaded up. I've found that if a dog has pronounced fight drive, the hunt drive is also pronounced, so I don't test for it separately. I place little value on play. I use very little OC in my work and none once the basic work is done. 



Slamdunc said:


> Regarding "outing" a toy, this is a basic skill that all Police K-9's must have.


I agree. But I'm sure that you'll agree that not _"all police K−9's"_ have it. 



Slamdunc said:


> Handler's that have trouble getting their dog to release a toy, sport or working dog handlers, have crappy obedience.


Sometime, but not always, this is the case. I don't think this that this generality is accurate. I've seen handlers who otherwise have excellent OB, but have trouble getting a toy away from their dogs. 



Slamdunc said:


> When I see a handler struggling to get his dog to out a toy it speaks volumes to me. * If the dog won't out a toy, it won't out a bite on equipment and it certainly will not out a "real" street bite on a verbal command. *


Again, too general. I've seen dogs that will _"out on a bite on equipment and [they] will out on a 'real' street bite on a verbal command"_ but they will NOT out from a toy. 



Slamdunc said:


> I can call my dog off a suit, sleeve or bad guy and the dog stays locked in, in drive, intense, calm and focused. The dog gets one command and has 1.5 to 2 seconds to out.


That's great. Me too. But if he's anticipating play (and we all know that he is) in the form of a reward with a tug with the handler, he's no longer in a combat drive. He may still be biting, but his mind is on playing a game with his handler. That means that if the suspect decides to start up the fight again, the dog is not ready. Yes, he can change drives quickly but in the moment that it takes, untoward things can happen. I prefer that the dog stay on fight drive even though he's about to release the bite. Then, if the suspect changes his mind, the dog is ready. 



Slamdunc said:


> This is where consistency in training comes in and good handling.


I agree. But if the handler in question is one of the not−so−good ones, he's going to be less consistent in his delivery of the toy. The system that I use, takes the handler out of this picture. The out is just part of the hunt. It's just something that happens. 



Slamdunc said:


> If the dog understands the command and fails to perform the desired action I will enforce the behavior in 2.1 seconds.


Earlier I asked if anyone _"had seen the video of the pursuit from Kentucky of the carjacking suspect from April of last year? It involved about 50 police units and a dog that had to be cut off the suspect's clothing with a knife!"_ Have you seen this video? I'd say that this handler is one of the not−so−good-ones. The dog would not release the bite even though he was repeatedly lifted off and flanked. 



Slamdunc said:


> As you well know, a dog that doesn't out a street bite bite opens us up to potential liability, litigation and excessive force issues. All of our street work is recorded by wearable video cameras, "WVR's" that we wear on our shoulders. We review video from every bite our handlers have and critique it amongst ourselves. If we see an issue it is immediately addressed and corrected in training. Slow outs on video are not acceptable. I'm sure you would agree. If a dog will not out a toy, it will certainly not out from a real bite when in "fight" drive.


I've seen dogs that will _"out from a real bite"_ but will not _"out a toy."_ They are not the same thing to a dog that's been trained with these OC methods where they are rewarded with play for a behavior. One does not automatically transfer to the other. Lots of trainers will have more trouble outing from a bite and so they'll start the training with a toy. Since I don't use toys in this fashion, it's not even an issue. I never have to deal with the problem. 



Slamdunc said:


> Just like driving a car the 2 second rule works wonders, when properly implemented and used consistently. The dog responds correctly there is praise and reward, if the dog does not respond there is punishment.


If you consistently wait two seconds between giving a command and punishing if the dog does not respond, you get dogs that will develop a sense of time as to how much longer they can continue to do as they want to do, and the out gets slower and slower. I'm sure that anyone who competes is aware of this phenomenon. That's why one does not consistently wait _"2.1 seconds"_ as you've previously stated. It's best to mix it up. Sometimes there's no delay, the correction comes at the same time that the command is given, and sometimes you give the dog a moment to comply. 



Slamdunc said:


> Timing for both praise and correction is critical and reward after the dog is corrected and performing correctly is also crucial.


I agree that timing is critical for both. I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing that EVERY handler on your, or any, department has _"critical timing."_ I've never seen it. I don't even know of one of the top trainers in the world who has _"critical timing"_ all the time. Everyone slips and everyone gets tired, and their timing slides into "very good." 

The system that I use does not need praise to get the behaviors. They're built into the dog's drives. So I don't have to worry about a handler reinforcing at the _"critical"_ moment. 



Slamdunc said:


> That is the system I employ and it works for us.


I haven't said that it doesn't. I'm merely saying that I'm using a different system that I think is better. I've been where you are. I used to do that sort of work. Now that I've seen this system, I realize that it has many advantages. Not the least of which is removing the handler from having to deliver a reward at the precise "best" moment. 



Slamdunc said:


> When the behavior is trained properly, starting by breaking it down into it's fundamental components, rewarded consistently and with meaning to the dog, proofed reliably, the dog understands what is expected and how to achieve it's reward.


This is called compartmentalization. I used to do it too. Not anymore. ALL of the behaviors are included in the hunt. I don't need to reward anything. It comes with allowing the dog to fulfill his drives. 



Slamdunc said:


> W never repeat commands, especially when the dog understands the command and are extremely consistent with the timing of rewards and corrections.


Of course you do Jim. If you don't, you're the only trainer in the world who never does. No matter how much you _"reward consistently and with meaning,"_ no matter how well you _"proof,"_ and no matter how well _ the dog understands..."_ there is ALWAYS at some point in the work, a need for reinforcement of a command. If you correct without repeating the command, you take the chance that the dog will not understand what the correction is for. 

Every trainer in the world trains so that _it's NOT NECESSARY to repeat commands."_ but in training everyone does this. 



Slamdunc said:


> We also reward and praise at a higher level then a correction


I think you're referring to attempts to give more valuable reward than punishment to keep the dog's spirits up. If I'm wrong in this, please let me know. Of course you're guessing in this. I realize that it's an educated guess and that it's probably supported by the work, but still, it's a guess. And I'll suggest that your handlers sometimes don't have the skill that you do and that they don't _"reward and praise at a higher level..."_ It's the nature of the beast. When you're there, you can tell them to "pour it on." When you're not ... The system that I use, doesn't need it, so I don't even have to think about it. 



Slamdunc said:


> but the correction must be sufficient to immediately stop the undesired behavior or cause the dog to comply. When the dog is correct then it is praised and rewarded. This is all simple stuff, there really is nothing complex at all. Just consistent training and work.


Yeah, I know. I used to do all this stuff and say pretty much the same things that you now saying. Back then I didn't see how anything could be any better. But that was then. 

Please don't misunderstand. I’m not saying that anything you're doing is wrong. I'm not saying that anything that I'm doing is better. But it is better for me. If you're interested in simplifying your training and making your handlers better then we can talk more. If you're not ...


----------



## Blitzkrieg1

Slamdunc said:


> Mycobraracr,
> No worries. I often have concerns about small PD's buying a dog with a few week training class and no one to do follow up training. I have outside agencies come and train with us almost every week. Control is great for a sport dog and it is needed for a Police K-9 as well.
> 
> We train weekly as a unit and in our down time when working. Here are the things I need to keep my dog sharp on:
> Building searches, we do those often for burglaries, alarms, open doors etc. Some can be long searches of 45 mins to an hour, in a High school for example. 90% of the time we don't find any one, it's a false alarm or door accidentally left open.
> Compare that to a SchH blind search where the dog finds the decoy every time, sometimes multiple decoys. We have to keep our dogs on "edge" and thinking that they may find some one or why would they search for so long and so intensely?
> 
> I also work my dog with the SWAT team. I do covert searches with a laser pointer and the dog checks every room and door the laser point is put on. An advanced searching technique.
> 
> Tracking, I primarily do hard surface, scent discrimination tracking with my dog. I train weekly and search for specific people in apartment complexes, industrial areas and Mall parking lots. I really do not like tracking on grass with my dog, it's too easy. My longest deployment track to an apprehension was 2 miles. My training tracks are routinely a mile or more and it's 90+ degrees here. A little different than SchH tracking and I love SchH tracking.
> 
> Bitework is also different, we use suits and rarely use sleeves. Decoys are hidden in cabinets, on tables, in trees, cars, ladders, and anywhere that I think the dogs may have issues. Under crawl spaces for example. Sucks to be the decoy sometimes. Environmental sureness is critical for these dogs. We don't have a "routine" that we train and even in training it's all about keeping it "real" and tricking the dogs and handlers. This dogs catch on to training days pretty quick and is the down fall of Police K-9 training. Our dogs must out on a verbal command, recall to the handler after the out or guard (which we do silently). We have a "termination of pursuit" when the dog is sent down field and must disengage before the decoy, either downing or returning to the handler.
> 
> We do not teach a "hold and bark", we teach a "find and bite."
> 
> Article searches, we use fields and the dogs search for shell casings, coins, metal, plastic, or anything else with human odor. We use our dogs for evidence searches. I have even used blades of grass, twigs or dandelions and the dog accurately indicates the blade of grass or dandelion flower tossed back into the field.
> 
> Obedience, obviously on lead and off lead. Under gunfire, with the handler and other Officers returning fire. The dog must be quiet and remain in a down off lead.
> 
> Agility, the dogs must be able to jump over and crawl under obstacles. They must be able to walk across 2 x 6 planks off the ground, climb ladders and do it all on command. I have had my dog climb 3 story gang planks onto Ocean going cargo ships to assist the Coast Guard with searches. We have climbed up and down ladders searching the engine compartments. That is no fun.
> 
> Area Searches, on lead and directed off lead in large tracts of woods, fields, junk yards, etc.
> 
> Muzzle fighting, deployment from a vehicle, Flash bangs, smoke, OC Gas are some of the other things we do.
> 
> My dog is also trained for Narcotics detection. We train in cars, buildings, trucks, buses, packages, lockers ( we do school searches), and luggage. Narcotics detection takes a lot of training time to keep the dog sharp. I get dope when I am working just about every day from traffic stops and my dog's alerts.
> 
> All of these skills require training and it is virtually impossible to train them all in one training day a week. A lot of training is done in our down time while we are working the street. We certify all of Patrol and Narcotics dogs every year. Oh, yea working a Patrol dog is probably the most dangerous job on the Police Dept and several of our handlers have been involved in shootings and deadly force encounters. We also train firearms every month. Lot's of stuff to do to stay sharp and keep our dogs in "control." If a patrol dog does a great job at tracking, building searches, clean and hard in bite work, great narcotics dog, well then I can let a little slide in the flashy obedience. Because, as anyone who does IPO or competes in a sport...something has to give. I prefer to keep the edge on the dogs and the control where we need it. We don't need or want focused heeling. I have it with my dog and I no longer like it for a Patrol dog.


 
Wow this is the kind of job that you could wake up everymorning looking forward too! Very envious.


----------



## LouCastle

Blitzkrieg1 said:


> Wow this is the kind of job that you could wake up everymorning looking forward too! Very envious.


Many times while going over a training session in my mind while driving home afterwards, the thought would come to me, _"Wow! They actually pay me to do this!"_ Best job in the world!


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

In blue - Yes I did, but the follow up to the story is more disturbing then what happened with the officer and his K9. 

First to Lou and Slamdunc, a very interesting discussion it does help people like me understand, at least a little bit better, what goes into training a Police K9. I appreciate the effort and concern you both clearly put into training your K9s, you set a good example IMO!

However, and this swings back around a bit to the 'arm chair quarterbacking' of citizens. Mostly what people want to see is *accountability* when PO do not perform well or employ 'abusive' behavior AKA 'police brutality'. Then we do have a right to critique, not the specific training or lack of training but rather the outcomes if they cross a line.

I'd also argue the police are not criticized as much, indeed if anything we've become more complacent with regards to abuse of power IMO. This is not the 1960s...anymore. The new politically correct is often to turn a blind eye or even defend poor performance. 

I appreciate that you and slamdunc are willing to critique and discuss the training methods and the ultimate impacts but frankly guys, I live in small town, near a large city and I know decoys *personally* who have helped police train in different depts. in the past honestly gentlemen, a lot of depts. just don't care. To the point that an experienced decoy stopped helping them and no it was not about not having snappy downs and competition heeling but rather what the video below illustrates.

AND that, more then the incidents themselves, is what worries me the most, lack of accountability.

Case in point:

Officer involved in takedown of carjacking suspect talks to WLKY | Metro Louisville - WLKY Home






LouCastle said:


> I<snipped>
> Earlier I asked if anyone _"had seen the video of the pursuit from Kentucky of the carjacking suspect from April of last year? It involved about 50 police units and a dog that had to be cut off the suspect's clothing with a knife!"_ Have you seen this video? I'd say that this handler is one of the not−so−good-ones. The dog would not release the bite even though he was repeatedly lifted off and flanked.
> 
> 
> <snipped>


----------



## GSDElsa

Not aggressive because the tail is wagging? Oy vey!


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Yup.

It'll be interesting what Lou and slamdunc have to say because it does at least appear that the officer is using toy/tugs to train as they have been discussing pros/cons of that. 






GSDElsa said:


> Not aggressive because the tail is wagging? Oy vey!


----------



## LouCastle

Gwenhwyfair posted the video I referred to earlier of a K−9 deployment in KY. Here's the link. Officer involved in takedown of carjacking suspect talks to WLKY | Metro Louisville - WLKY Home



Gwenhwyfair said:


> In blue - Yes I did, but the follow up to the story is more disturbing then what happened with the officer and his K9.


I've looked but haven't been able to find out if there was any fallout (complaints, lawsuits, etc.) from this incident. "Back in the day" when crooks got bit when fleeing from the cops, they took it as the "cost of doing business." But today, lawsuits are the result of many bites. Local juries often come to the table with the attitude, "If he didn't run, he wouldn't have gotten bit." But appeals courts, especially on the federal level, aren't so "understanding." If this had happened in "lawsuit−happy" California, I guarantee that there would have been in a lawsuit, and I predict it would have not gone well for LE. 

There are some very interesting things going on in the video that you supplied. Some of them happen very quickly and are difficult to see. One occurs at about 0:32 on the tape. Look carefully at the roof on the driver's side of the car, as the suspect opens his door. You might notice that he raises both of his hands in an obvious show that he's surrendering. It happens so quickly that I doubt that, even with the best of control, the handler could have stopped his dog. But it seems to me that this dog should have been outed very quickly after the suspect was pulled from the car and it was clear that he did not have any weapons on him. 

At about 2;04 on the tape you can see one attempt by the handler to out his dog. He's jerking on BOTH the dog's collar and, at the same time he's flanking the dog with so much force that he picks the dog's back legs up from the ground! The dog does not release. 

THIS VIDEO shows the pertinent footage from start to finish. Particularly of interest is how the dog was FINALLY removed from the suspect, that is after at least one more attempt to get him off by flanking him. Another officer * uses a knife to cut away the suspect's clothing that the dog STILL would not release. * I wonder, is this SOP for this department? The press doesn't seem to be interested in this part of the story at all?! 



Gwenhwyfair said:


> However, and this swings back around a bit to the 'arm chair quarterbacking' of citizens. Mostly what people want to see is *accountability* when PO do not perform well or employ 'abusive' behavior AKA 'police brutality'. Then we do have a right to critique, not the specific training or lack of training but rather the outcomes if they cross a line.


I agree. LE is responsible to the people we serve. Any use of force should be closely examined. This one seems to have slipped through the cracks. 



Gwenhwyfair said:


> I'd also argue the police are not criticized as much, indeed if anything we've become more complacent with regards to abuse of power IMO. This is not the 1960s...anymore. The new politically correct is often to turn a blind eye or even defend poor performance.


I agree. When I first saw this incident it was discussed on another dog training list. One very well known LE K−9 trainer said "Tactically, not all that much to say, * it wasn't bad tactics." * 

Actually the LE tactics used were HORRIBLE. I won't go into details but suffice it to say that anyone who thinks as this LE K−9 trainer does, needs to go back to a police academy and learn how to do a felony car stop. This should be basic stuff but this incident was handled VERY badly. And overlooking or ignoring it, just about guarantees that it will be repeated. I think that this trainer was just covering up for the handler, in an attempt to maintain the "thin blue line" at all costs. 



Gwenhwyfair said:


> I appreciate that you and slamdunc are willing to critique and discuss the training methods and the ultimate impacts but frankly guys, I live in small town, near a large city and I know decoys *personally* who have helped police train in different depts. in the past honestly gentlemen, a lot of depts. just don't care.


I agree and think that this is a problem on many levels. I know of one department who "cleans up their dogs" for their annual certification and then afterwards purposefully "dirties them up" so that they will not out on a verbal command. They've stated this publically to a fairly good size audience and I had a K−9 trainer friend who was in the group they were addressing. They don't seem to realize the liability that they've opened themselves up to, nor the danger that doing this forces on the handlers. I understand that LE is a dangerous job, I spent 30 years there, but there's a big difference between necessary risks that we are all willing to assume and *UN*necessary risks that no one should be subjected to.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Obviously an Officer and a Gentleman. 

I noted some of your references earlier to military tactics as well.....well said.

All I can say is *thank you* for the work you do Lou, keep it up. Folks like you can make a difference I believe.


----------



## LouCastle

Gwenhwyfair said:


> It'll be interesting what Lou and slamdunc have to say because it does at least appear that the officer is using toy/tugs to train as they have been discussing pros/cons of that.


I can't say much based on just a few seconds showing him playing with the dog. He's never shown trying to get the ball away from the dog so one can't say whether he can or not. But based on how *UN*successful he is at getting the dog to release the bite on the carjacking suspect with no resistance or fight from him, I'd say that there are serious problems there.


----------



## GSDElsa

Out of curiosity what is the point of not having a verbal out to the point is a desired way to train for some pds?

I think there are a lot of schools of thought and ways to train. Lots are good but might be slightly different and lots are bad. 

Wouldn't you say that the example of the dogs losing their minds over the pebbles being kicked would indicate they were primarily trained in prey and/or have such over the top prey drive that it overtakes defense/fight? Sort if like the the sport dog who will turn their back on a helper to try and get to the sleeve if its on the ground...if Jims dog and others in his dept can work with lasers and pay them no mind I dont know what the issue is? I think it's too generic to say xy or z is wrong because you've seen x y or z happen since all dogs are different


----------



## Slamdunc

Blitzkrieg1 wrote:
*Wow this is the kind of job that you could wake up everymorning looking forward too! Very envious.*

Yes, I must say I love my job and look forward to going to work every day! Training days are a bonus, but I really love working the street with my dog. I have done a lot of things in the Police Dept, from Patrol, Mids, and Narcotics including UC work. I transferred out of our vice and narcotics unit and left being a detective the moment an opening in K-9 came around. I have never regretted it. The skills and training I had while in narcotics have been especially beneficial to me working a Patrol / Narcotics K-9. I can easily take a traffic stop with dope and develop it into a nice narcotics investigation. I have had some simple traffic stops develop informants that went to the DEA with information on Mexican Cartels. You never know what you will get or what the shift will bring and that keeps it fun. 

Regarding the video, I haven't clicked on the link and probably won't. I think I know which video it is and have no need to see it again or discuss it here. This thread has drifted way off of the original video and post. One lesson I have learned, (usually the hard way and countless times) is to avoid being dragged into threads that are about to devolve as this one is. One can never win an internet argument, change some one's mind or enlighten those that have their own agenda. 

GSDElsa, there is no issue with the laser it works flawlessly. It can and has been used by teams that employ laser sights on their weapons and works even better. It is simply training and the proper integration of the dog into the team. Once the team learns how to work with the dog and direct it, it is an enhanced technique when the point guy also has a laser. It is simply communication and team work, and the dog is another tool and team member. I have no idea about dog's chasing pebbles, sounds like a training issue to me and the dog not fully understanding the task. How many years ago was that?


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

RE: pebbles, Lou mentioned it in post #57 as an example of training method that was used by a dept. with unintended consequences.


----------



## Slamdunc

I know Lou mentioned it....I just have never heard of it being done lately. Hence, the reason I wonder how many years ago this happened? Any training can have unintended consequences if not implemented and trained properly. I can see the application of using the sound to direct the dog or get the dog's attention, just not a method we use.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Oh O.K. - thought maybe you had missed it, I understand now. 



Slamdunc said:


> I know Lou mentioned it....I just have never heard of it being done lately. Hence, the reason I wonder how many years ago this happened? Any training can have unintended consequences if not implemented and trained properly. I can see the application of using the sound to direct the dog or get the dog's attention, just not a method we use.


----------



## LouCastle

Gwenhwyfair posted the video I referred to earlier of a K−9 deployment in KY. Here's the link. Officer involved in takedown of carjacking suspect talks to WLKY | Metro Louisville - WLKY Home



Gwenhwyfair said:


> Yes I did, but the follow up to the story is more disturbing then what happened with the officer and his K9.


I've looked but haven't been able to find out if there was any fallout (complaints, lawsuits, etc.) from this incident. "Back in the day" when crooks got bit when fleeing from the cops, they took it as the "cost of doing business." But today, lawsuits are the result of many bites. Local juries often come to the table with the attitude, "If he didn't run, he wouldn't have gotten bit." But appeals courts, especially on the federal level, aren't so "understanding." If this had happened in "lawsuit−happy" California, I guarantee that there would have been in a lawsuit, and I predict it would have not gone well for LE. 

There are some very interesting things going on in the video that you supplied. Some of them happen very quickly and are difficult to see. One occurs at about 0:32 on the tape. Look carefully at the roof on the driver's side of the car, as the suspect opens his door. You'll see that the suspect raises both of his hands, in an obvious show that he's surrendering. It happens so quickly that I doubt that, even with the best of control, the handler could have stopped his dog. But it seems to me that this dog should have been outed very quickly after the suspect was pulled from the car and it was clear that he did not have any weapons on him. 

At about 2:04 on the tape you can see one attempt by the handler to out his dog. He's jerking on BOTH the dog's collar and, at the same time he's flanking the dog with so much force that he picks the dog's back legs up from the ground! The dog does not release. 

THIS VIDEO shows the pertinent footage from start to finish. Particularly of interest is how the dog was FINALLY removed from the suspect, that is after at least one more attempt to get him off by flanking him. Another officer * uses a knife to cut away the suspect's clothing that the dog STILL would not release. * I wonder, is this SOP for this department? The press doesn't seem to be interested in this part of the story at all?! 



Gwenhwyfair said:


> However, and this swings back around a bit to the 'arm chair quarterbacking' of citizens. Mostly what people want to see is *accountability* when PO do not perform well or employ 'abusive' behavior AKA 'police brutality'. Then we do have a right to critique, not the specific training or lack of training but rather the outcomes if they cross a line.


I agree. LE is responsible to the people we serve. Any use of force should be closely examined. This one seems to have slipped through the cracks. 



Gwenhwyfair said:


> I'd also argue the police are not criticized as much, indeed if anything we've become more complacent with regards to abuse of power IMO. This is not the 1960s...anymore. The new politically correct is often to turn a blind eye or even defend poor performance.


I agree. When I first saw this incident it was discussed on another dog training list. One very well known LE K−9 trainer said _"Tactically, not all that much to say, * it wasn't bad tactics." * _ 

Actually the LE tactics used were HORRIBLE. I won't go into details but suffice it to say that anyone who thinks as this LE K−9 trainer does, needs to go back to a police academy and learn how to do a felony car stop. This should be basic stuff, a felony car stop, something that LE does regularly, but instead this incident was handled VERY badly. And overlooking or ignoring it, just about guarantees that it will be repeated. I think that this trainer was just covering up for the handler, in an attempt to maintain the "thin blue line" at all costs. 



Gwenhwyfair said:


> I appreciate that you and slamdunc are willing to critique and discuss the training methods and the ultimate impacts but frankly guys, I live in small town, near a large city and I know decoys *personally* who have helped police train in different depts. in the past honestly gentlemen, a lot of depts. just don't care.


I agree and think that this is a problem on many levels. I know of one department who "cleans up their dogs" for their annual certification and then afterwards purposefully "dirties them up" so that they will not out on a verbal command. They've stated this publically to a fairly good size audience and I had a K−9 trainer friend who was in the group they were addressing. They don't seem to realize the liability that they've opened themselves up to, nor the danger that doing this forces on the handlers. I understand that LE is a dangerous job, I spent 30 years there, but there's a big difference between necessary risks that we are all willing to assume and *UN*necessary risks that no one should be subjected to.


----------



## LouCastle

GSDElsa said:


> Out of curiosity what is the point of not having a verbal out to the point is a desired way to train for some pds?


I think that there are several factors at work here. One is that their trainer has knows only one way to get the out and that is by applying discomfort to the dog to get him to stop biting. This causes conflict and when this become bad enough with the right (meaning wrong) dog, he does what this thread is about, comes up the leash at his handler to get him to stop hurting him. They see the out as causing attacks on the handler. 

This method also has the effect of weakening the bite, and may be the main reason that they think that having a verbal out is an issue, they don't want a dog with a weak bite on the street. I agree with this last sentiment, but if the correct methods are used, working with, rather than against the dog's drives, the bite remains strong. Using the wrong method for this, not only weakens the bite, but often the dog will release the bite in anticipation of the pain he's been conditioned to know is coming, BEFORE the release command comes. That can be a disaster on the street, and so these handlers have linked the out with weak bites and anticipation. They've simply never been shown an effective way to get and maintain the out that does not have this effect. They've closed their minds to the possibility that it even exists and refuse to take a look at methods that may give this to them. 

It's amazingly easy to get the verbal out if one knows how to do this. In the system that I use, there are no harsh corrections during the training and the dog does not shift focus from the decoy to the handler. The longest it's ever taken me to get the idea into the dog's head that it's to his advantage to release the bite, is 45 minutes. And this was with a dog that had fought through corrections from pinch collars, being triple leashed, Ecollars, and finally having a cattle prod applied _to his testicles! _ This handler's department was on the verge of buying him a leather "doo hicky," (yes that's the technical term) so that he could carry his cattle prod with him on searches to get the dog to release bites on real suspects. 

I've actually had LE K−9 trainers argue with me that there is no need for the verbal out. They say that they teach, instead, a _"tactical liftoff."_ Few of them know the history of this movement in the modern era of LE K−9's. It came into use to keep officers (not handlers) safe from the K−9 when they did the wrong thing, gang rushed a suspect who had a dog attached to him. In that circumstance it's not a good idea to use a verbal out, the dog may release the bite and then transfer to a cop who's fighting with the suspect. The problem is that these guys should not have rushed in, in the first place. Instead they should have stayed back behind cover/concealment and let the K−9 work. But as often happens, "the best laid plans of mice and men ..." Now the suspect is down, the dog is biting him, he's surrounded by cops who are actively fighting with him, trying to get him into custody, and it's time to get the dog off. In this circumstance the handler has to get physically involved, instead of staying behind cover/concealment himself, and go put hands onto his dog. Once the dog releases in this situation, he must be physically controlled because the assisting officers have to be kept safe. 

But some trainers teach this as the main way, some THE ONLY WAY, to get the dog off a suspect. The problem here is that it requires that the handler, and the team backing him up, to closely approach a suspect who has not been searched. I don't want to be close to such a person. I'd rather be back, behind cover/concealment and order him into a position that's relatively safe, face down, arms outstretched as we often see on TV. When he's in that position we have an advantage. We can see that his hands are empty and as we approach, if he makes a move to retrieve a gun that's on his body, it's clear and obvious. We can take appropriate action. You can't see this in the active motion of a fight between dog and suspect. 

Across the US I've come across many handlers who think that there is no need for a verbal out. I always ask them if their certification includes one. Usually it does. But for some reason they don't make the connection to the street. It may be that it's rarely used there, but it does give them an option that can keep them safer. I think that in some cases their trainer is a former handler who received very little training so he has very few methods or tools in his toolbox. 

But part of the problem is that there is little to no emphasis placed on the verbal out, even from entities that should be doing so. In one national certification, probably used by most K−9's across the country, there are three opportunities for the dog to be given a verbal out. To pass and certify, he only has to verbally release on only ONE of those opportunities. If he fails the other two, he can still pass certification. That's a score of only 33% on this phase, yet if his scores overall are passing, he's deemed "street ready." I think there's something wrong with such a system. I think that the dog must out verbally ALL THE TIME! But I've actually had handlers and trainers argue against me for saying this. 

I pose this question to them. If 33% is acceptable to you, imagine that your dog has bitten three people, a crook, a child and a cop. Which one do you want the dog to release when commanded? Usually I get branded as "the bad guy" for this. I've been accused of being in the discussion only to sell my training and line my pockets. They try to turn the conversation to me, instead of realizing that they have a problem! I think that those folks have lost sight of the big picture. There's that pesky Graham v. Connor court case that dictates how and when we can use force and they don't like being reminded that we're held to a standard. There's also the legal and moral obligation to use only that force necessary to effect the arrest. And so, instead of admitting that there's a problem, they try to make me the bad guy to divert attention away from their inability to train this reliably. 



GSDElsa said:


> I think there are a lot of schools of thought and ways to train. Lots are good but might be slightly different and lots are bad.


I agree. I'd place methods that use large amounts of force in the _"bad"_ category. They sometimes get handlers bit and introduce lots of conflict into the relationship. I'd also place methods that use toys as rewards for the out, in this same category. They take the dog out of a combat drive and can cause side issues such as the dog wanting to keep the toy. 



GSDElsa said:


> Wouldn't you say that the example of the dogs losing their minds over the pebbles being kicked would indicate they were primarily trained in prey and/or have such over the top prey drive that it overtakes defense/fight?


Yes, I'd agree that this might be the issue. But it can also just be that the dog is bored and so, since he's been trained and rewarded for chasing the pebbles, he does. This is one reason that I minimize the use of prey drive in my training and deselect for "too much of it" when I'm looking for new dogs. 



GSDElsa said:


> Sort if like the the sport dog who will turn their back on a helper to try and get to the sleeve if its on the ground...


This may be from too much prey drive or too much sleeve work at the expense of civil training (where no equipment is worn). 



GSDElsa said:


> if Jims dog and others in his dept can work with lasers and pay them no mind I dont know what the issue is?


On Jim's department, if I understand correctly, his team does not use laser sights on their weapons, so Jim is the only one with a laser. He uses it to direct the dog down hallways, into certain doors, etc. Some dogs become very excited over laser dots, they lose their focus on the search. But since he says that his dog(s) do not have this issue, this technique works for him. I described some issues that might arise if the team decided to go to laser sights or if they were called on an outside assist with a team that used them. 



GSDElsa said:


> I think it's too generic to say xy or z is wrong because you've seen x y or z happen since all dogs are different


Yeah, this often happens in these discussions, people get butt hurt because they think I'm saying that what they're doing is wrong and that what I'm doing is better. In a previous post I wrote this, _"Please don't misunderstand. * I’m not saying that anything you're doing is wrong. I'm not saying that anything that I'm doing is better. * But it is better for me. If you're interested in simplifying your training and making your handlers better then we can talk more. If you're not ... "_ 

But often these disclaimers go unnoticed.


----------



## LouCastle

Slamdunc said:


> Regarding the video, I haven't clicked on the link and probably won't. I think I know which video it is and have no need to see it again or discuss it here.


This thread is about dogs coming up the leash at their handlers. The most common reason for that, in my experience is when the handler delivers a heavy correction when training the out, causing conflict by going against the dogs drives. And so, it seems to me, that a segue into training the out is not off−topic. But everyone has their own opinion on such things. 



Slamdunc said:


> This thread has drifted way off of the original video and post.


Threads often drift. I've always thought that as long as the OP's original questions have been answered that this is OK. I think that training the out is part of the original topic. It seems that you disagree. 



Slamdunc said:


> One lesson I have learned, (usually the hard way and countless times) is to avoid being dragged into threads that are about to devolve as this one is.


I'd prefer to think that this thread is Evolving, rather than Devolving. LOL



Slamdunc said:


> One can never win an internet argument, change some one's mind or enlighten those that have their own agenda.


I'll STRONGLY disagree. I've learned much from people that I disagree with. In fact, if we all agreed on everything, discussions would never go anywhere. Someone would write their opinion and we'd all say, "Yep." And that would be that. I learn far more from people that I disagree with. But some folks take things personally and wind up closing their minds to new or different approaches. I think that everyone loses when that happens. I really don't care if Jim uses lasers with his dogs or not. I've seen what can happen with them when things go south, and they do so at unexpected moments. I merely described some of them. I'm not talking theory, I've seen these things firsthand. 

I'd like to think that we have the same _"agenda."_ We want to put crooks in jail and keep handlers and other cops as safe as possible. That means training the dogs with the most efficient methods possible, to do their jobs as best they can. 



Slamdunc said:


> GSDElsa, there is no issue with the laser it works flawlessly. It can and has been used by teams that employ laser sights on their weapons and works even better.


The teams that I've seen use them, where the team's weapons have laser sights, the dog has followed the dots of the lasers on the team's weapons, not just the laser dot from the handler. There's virtually no difference between them. In an ideal situation those laser sights are not activated until the suspect appears but accidents happen. And when they do, the dog goes after the dot, rarely where the handler wants him to go. Not a big deal, the handler just recalls him and redirects him. But if this was to happen at just the wrong moment, it could lead to a problem. The fact that such incidents may be rare is not reason to ignore the possibility. I think that the more issues one prepares for, the better that one is prepared. 

I think that directing a dog with a flashlight is a better option but I realize that it's not as "cool" as using a laser. Using a laser requires ANOTHER piece of gear to carry and maintain and I think that we've got enough "stuff" already. I carried two flashlights (one is none and two is one) and that tool worked perfectly well. I see no reason to add to the complexity. I've yet to see Jim present any advantages to using the laser over a flashlight. 



Slamdunc said:


> It is simply training and the proper integration of the dog into the team. Once the team learns how to work with the dog and direct it, it is an enhanced technique when the point guy also has a laser.


I get the same _"proper integration of the dog into the team"_ without using a laser and without the extra training and without carrying and maintaining ANOTHER bit of gear. I see no advantage to it and so the time spent training for it and the potential problems it brings are just not worth it to me. I get the same results with less "stuff" and so I don't use it. 



Slamdunc said:


> I have no idea about dog's chasing pebbles, sounds like a training issue to me and the dog not fully understanding the task. How many years ago was that?


Sometimes when one spends lots of time training with the best, one forgets what's going on in the rest of the world. Many agencies don't even have a trainer. They may not even have another handler to train with, much less a trainer. In many parts of the US, different agencies band together to train. They don't have a trainer, they don't have "an expert" to give them advice or guidance. And so sometimes they read these types of lists. If they were to follow Jim's advice, after all it comes from _"our most elite military special forces team ..."_ and Jim has just told us that it works well for his team, and start using lasers to direct their dogs, they'd probably come across some of the issues that I described and they'd be screwed. They'd not have any idea how to fix the monster that they'd created. That's not a good thing, and so I present the other side of the coin. 

_"How many years ago was that?"_ About one. Because of my presence on the net I get lots of phone calls from people from the middle of nowhere, asking for help with issues that they've come across. Sometimes it's of their own making, sometimes it's occurred because they tried to run before they could walk. 

There are lots of issues with K−9's today, not the least of which is people with closed minds who aren't interested in learning about new or different methods, tools and techniques. Again, please don't misunderstand, I’m not saying that Jim is one of these. But sometimes a bunker mentality sets in and instead of investigating new or different things, people argue against them without even the slightest consideration that they might be useful or that something they're doing might have side issues. I've encountered it quite a bit and the fact that I have too much spare time on my hands leads me to write at length about it. I'm probably too blunt and that puts some people off, but I'm always surprised when it's a cop that gets offended. Most cops are know are pretty much "no BS guys." The fact that Jim won't take a few moments and click on a supplied link, is troubling to me, but I'm not going to worry about it much. People make their own decisions and live by them.


----------



## Slamdunc

Lou, I wouldn't even know where to start to respond to you. It is very difficult to have a discussion with you regarding training. You speak in very vague absolutes. I understand now, that you are the only one that can train a dog and your system is the only one that works. I'm not sure what your system is, I don't think you have ever been specific in any posts that I have read. I will be signing up for your next seminar, when is it?


----------



## David Winners

Lou, I'm not going to multi quote your posts. I'm in the field on my phone. I only wish to address the laser discussion.

I see no difference in training a dog to follow a laser or flashlight, except that only some officers carry lasers and they all carry flashlights. Also, a car passing by may closely resemble a moving flashlight, but you don't see random laser pointers flashing around at night.

A dog can be trained to only respond to a moving laser as well as to only a moving flashlight, or to only respond to the laser after a command. How the dog is rewarded, and in what context the laser is introduced will determine the dogs reaction to the laser and how it can be used to interact with the dog.

Not all laser training is done in prey. I understand that some dogs go nuts after a laser, especially after encouraged to do so in prey drive. I won't train a laser nut using a laser. 

Just as different drives can be utilized in obedience, they can be utilized in other aspects of training. I would think you of all people would see the possibility of training with a laser in a different manner.

I use a laser to direct a dog in off leash detection at great distance at night. I find it much more efficient, and safer, to control the dog with a laser than with verbal commands. I train this in a way that encourages the dog to investigate the area I indicate with the laser, because it has been successful in finding odor in the presence of the laser in the past. I do not utilize over the top prey response to the laser to drive the dog blindly to the spot.

My dogs will break off the path to the laser to respond to odor. The laser is like a game trail; a proven productive area. It is not an arrow to source or a distraction.

I understand that detection involves different drives, but I feel it is possible to introduce and train the dog in a way that allows the dog to remain in the right state of mind to fight the man.

To keep from detailing the thread further, we can certainly start a new thread to discuss laser training.

David Winners


----------



## Slamdunc

David,
That was an excellent explanation. The laser has several advantages over a flashlight, IMHO. The laser has a greater ranger and is more "targeted" and exacting. The laser does not illuminate everything in it's path and is not as bright a beacon back to the handler as a flashlight. If you are the second, third or fourth person in a stack the laser does not backlight your team mates like a flashlight will. We utilize the laser primarily for covert searches and it is a better choice than a flashlight for this. The flashlight provides a very visible sign to the location of the handler and other Officers or team mates. Many cops have been shot at night simply because the bad guy aimed at the flashlight. Light discipline is very critical and although the laser can be followed back to the handler, the odds are far less. When doing this job, I believe it is best to keep the odds in my favor as much as possible. I rarely ever use a flashlight when doing a high risk track at night, I also rarely use my flashlight when clearing a building. I also do not allow officers behind me to use theirs, illuminating me like a big bullseye. If I do use my flashlight it is quick and off instantly. 

The uses for MWD"s are far greater than ours. A dog can be directed at great distance using a laser to search a specific vehicle in a village for explosives, a specific house for people or to go from tunnel to tunnel in the mountains. Often the dog may be up to a half mile away working on it's own using the laser for direction to a "target." The target may be a "target odor" as David correctly states or a person. The initial command puts the dog into the correct drive for the job at hand and the laser simply guides the dog to the potential source. 

For detection work the dog views the laser no differently than the handler using his hand to direct the dog to detail a certain area. For area searches or building searches the dog also uses the laser to go to a designated area to search, no difference to the dog than if I said "check" and pointed to a door or room. The dog understands the command and will enter the room and check the door. If I point to the right he will check the door or the room on the right, conversely I can point left and he goes left. Obviously, it is not viable to get the dog to do this in the dark when I am behind cover and my hands are not visible to him down a long hallway. This is the advantage of the laser. The dog has been taught a pattern for clearing buildings, but there are times when you want a certain area checked by the dog before you bump up to it. Left to search on his own he may bypass a closed door or room to venture deeper into a building, this may not be something I want him to do. The laser provides us with a "directed search" and certainly does not take the dog out of drive for finding and engaging anyone in that building. 

The laser is not for everyone or every dog, some of our guys use it some don't. We are working on converting the ones over that don't. All of our SWAT K-9 Handlers use it and the SWAT guys love it. I do not use it for narcotics detection as I never cut my dog off lead to search vehicles. For an EDD it is an awesome tool and a very safe way to work a dog. No different than a bird dog getting a blast on a whistle and a hand signal to go left, right or further out to search for birds. Instead of the whistle it gets a "trail" to follow as David pointed out so perfectly.


----------



## LouCastle

Slamdunc said:


> I know Lou mentioned it....I just have never heard of it being done lately. Hence, the reason I wonder how many years ago this happened? Any training can have unintended consequences if not implemented and trained properly. I can see the application of using the sound to direct the dog or get the dog's attention, just not a method we use.


Jim if you ever get into the less travelled parts of the US and/or work with departments with minimal resources you'll discover that LOTS of agencies are still throwing rocks for directionals to get their dogs to follow them during searches. It used to be taught at the SKIDDS (SWAT and K−9 Interacting During Deployments) and CATS (CAnine Tactical School) classes. Two classes on K−9 tactics that are put on around the world. It also gets "rediscovered" periodically by new folks who have not learned of the problems it can bring. 

Meanwhile, Jim I've asked you about half a dozen questions and I don't think that you've answered, even one of them. I'm pretty sure that I've answered every one of yours. Could you please return the favor?


----------



## LouCastle

Slamdunc said:


> Lou, I wouldn't even know where to start to respond to you.


Jim I'd suggest that you could start by answering the simple and direct questions I've asked of you. But based on what appear to be snide comments in this post, it appears that you'd prefer to bunker down and stay where you are. I hope I'm wrong in this but if I'm not, that's fine with me. I don't write for those with closed minds who aren't interested in learning anything unless it's from _"our most elite military special forces team."_ I write for those who want to learn more and progress in their training. And there are plenty of those folks on this list. 



Slamdunc said:


> It is very difficult to have a discussion with you regarding training. You speak in very vague absolutes.


Actually it's very easy. Simply ask questions where you don't understand something or where you think I'm being vague. As to _"absolutes."_ I'll ask for an couple of examples of what you mean. I've spoken of what I've personally seen for the most part. Those observations are hardly _"absolutes."_ 



Slamdunc said:


> I understand now, that you are the only one that can train a dog and your system is the only one that works.


Please Jim, don't go to this place. It's just silly. I've not said anything of the kind. Since you seem to disagree, please show us one of my posts where I've said anything of the kind. How about if we stick to what's ACTUALLY been said, OK? 

I've said TWICE NOW,


> Please don't misunderstand. * I’m not saying that anything you're doing is wrong. I'm not saying that anything that I'm doing is better. * But it is better for me. If you're interested in simplifying your training and making your handlers better then we can talk more. If you're not ...





Slamdunc said:


> I'm not sure what your system is, I don't think you have ever been specific in any posts that I have read.


You're right I have not. I've just described a few of the results of using it. You've not asked any specific questions and so I can only conclude that you're not interested. If I'm wrong, ask away. 



Slamdunc said:


> I will be signing up for your next seminar, when is it?


Call me naïve, but I'll take this as a genuine request. My next seminar is October 11-13, 2013. SAR CITY, Barstow, CA. SAR CITY is the largest SAR seminar that is done in California. This will be the seventh time that I've been invited to teach at this training. I’m not sure of the topics but I'll probably be teaching two classes. One will probably be an overview of the system that I use (it uses the same principles for SAR and for LE) and a class on the Ecollar. But this is subject change. If you want to make the trip I'll invite you as my guest to both classes. But a little bird tells me that your request was made sarcastically. Still I have hope.


----------



## LouCastle

David Winners said:


> I only wish to address the laser discussion.
> 
> I see no difference in training a dog to follow a laser or flashlight, except that only some officers carry lasers and they all carry flashlights.


I don't know any officers who carry lasers, unless they're using them to direct their dogs. As I said, it's an extra piece of gear to carry and maintain and we're loaded down enough as it is. I realize that it's not very heavy or very bulky but the small things add up. And if one is going to carry one, then spare batteries should be added to the load, and so should a spare laser. 



David Winners said:


> Also, a car passing by may closely resemble a moving flashlight, but you don't see random laser pointers flashing around at night.


Most of my work was done in buildings, as is the work of those I work with. It's extremely rare for headlights to penetrate into a building, especially such that it _"closely resemble a moving flashlight."_ In my 30 years of doing this sort of thing, I can't recall a dog ever being distracted or confused by headlights. That's well over 6,000 searches, both real and in training. 

Ever been to a crowd control operation these days? Many participants bring lasers with them. Watch the footage of such scenes at night shot from a helicopter. You'll see half a dozen on at any given time in some of them. I've been told that they are used to shine into the eyes of helicopter pilots (BTW a very serious crime. Man who pointed laser at aircraft lands a 30-month prison sentence - CNN.com ) and to confuse the police dogs that may be used against them. People who have seen this tell me that some of the dogs focus on the dots of light that are shined on the ground near them and lose focus on the protestors. As word of this gets out, look for more of it to happen. 



David Winners said:


> A dog can be trained to only respond to a moving laser as well as to only a moving flashlight, or to only respond to the laser after a command. How the dog is rewarded, and in what context the laser is introduced will determine the dogs reaction to the laser and how it can be used to interact with the dog.


Yes, I know. When I first heard of lasers I investigated them thoroughly. I went out and watched and spoke with half a dozen teams who were using them and spoke with several who had stopped using them for the reasons that I've previously described. To me, they took away too much valuable training time from more important things. The only advantage I saw was that they gave more precision than a flashlight in directing a dog to go to a specific place. This may be important in some work, but for searching building for hiding felons it was more trouble than it was worth. You can train a dog to do lots of things but there's always a tradeoff. If you are happy with it, that's great. I've described my experiences with it and said that I don't like it. Don't you think it's valuable for the forum members to get both sides of a discussion? 



David Winners said:


> Not all laser training is done in prey. I understand that some dogs go nuts after a laser, especially after encouraged to do so in prey drive. I won't train a laser nut using a laser.


Thanks for supporting one of my statements, that this makes some dogs so _"nuts"_ that they go crazy for it and lose their focus. I work with whatever dogs a department has. I don't get to pick and choose which dogs I'll work with. I've seen this kind of behavior quite a bit. 



David Winners said:


> Just as different drives can be utilized in obedience, they can be utilized in other aspects of training. I would think you of all people would see the possibility of training with a laser in a different manner.


I think that training must be adapted so that the weakest handler in a unit can do it. If the better handlers want to go beyond, then I'm happy to do so. I don't dumb down my training but everyone has to be able to do it. I've found that if there is one handler whose dog can work with a laser than everyone else wants to do it too. Some dogs and some handlers just can't. 



David Winners said:


> I use a laser to direct a dog in off leash detection at great distance at night.


Can you define what you call _"great distance"_ please? And what do you do during the day? 



David Winners said:


> I find it much more efficient, and safer, to control the dog with a laser than with verbal commands.


I understand. How would using a flashlight for this be any different? It seems to be that the direction phase would be the same, but perhaps not as precise. 



David Winners said:


> I train this in a way that encourages the dog to investigate the area I indicate with the laser, because it has been successful in finding odor in the presence of the laser in the past. I do not utilize over the top prey response to the laser to drive the dog blindly to the spot.


Sounds great and I'm glad that it works for you. But you've already told us that you know that it won't work for everyone or for every dog. I've asked Jim several questions, at least one of which directly addresses this, but he doesn't seem interested in answering my questions that would further understanding of this topic. 



David Winners said:


> I understand that detection involves different drives, but I feel it is possible to introduce and train the dog in a way that allows the dog to remain in the right state of mind to fight the man.


Of course it's possible, but it takes a special dog, a special handler and a special trainer. Not everyone has that dog, is that handler, or is, or has access to that trainer. There's a huge number of handlers out there that don't have dogs that can do this, aren't the right handler, and don't even have a trainer. Remember the video of the dog in KY? Remember the interview of that handler who said that his dog was not aggressive because (to the effect) "his tail was wagging?" Remember that GSDElsa wrote,


GSDElsa said:


> Not aggressive because the tail is wagging? Oy vey!


 In light of his obvious lack of knowledge of reading a dog's body language, do you think he's a good candidate to use lasers? Think his dog could handle it? Or would he be one of the _"nuts?""_ 



David Winners said:


> To keep from detailing the thread further, we can certainly start a new thread to discuss laser training.


If you'd like to, please feel free. I think we've exhausted the subject unless there's a request from a member to open that thread. 

Are you one of those _" ... military special forces team"_ members that Jim said that he'd learned from. I see from your profile that you're a MWD handler. Thanks for your service.


----------



## LouCastle

Jim earlier you wrote this.


Slamdunc said:


> This thread has drifted way off of the original video and post. One lesson I have learned, (usually the hard way and countless times) is to avoid being dragged into threads that are about to devolve as this one is.


 But yet, here you are arguing for lasers, when the topic is dogs _"redirecting up the leash."_ I thought that you said you weren't going to go here because the thread was _"devolving?"_ I guess you changed your mind?! 



Slamdunc said:


> David,
> That was an excellent explanation. The laser has several advantages over a flashlight, IMHO. The laser has a greater ranger and is more "targeted" and exacting. The laser does not illuminate everything in it's path and is not as bright a beacon back to the handler as a flashlight. If you are the second, third or fourth person in a stack the laser does not backlight your team mates like a flashlight will. We utilize the laser primarily for covert searches and it is a better choice than a flashlight for this. The flashlight provides a very visible sign to the location of the handler and other Officers or team mates.


These are all great reasons to use the laser. I wonder why it took so many posts to get you to write this? 



Slamdunc said:


> Many cops have been shot at night simply because the bad guy aimed at the flashlight.


I think that this is more of an issue on TV and in the movies than in real life. An early FBI technique had agents holding the flashlight off to the side to avoid this happening. Can you direct us to such incidents please? It should be easy, since you say that _"Many cops have been shot..."_ like this. I think that this is more fiction than fact. I found one story from 1915, nearly a century ago. Back then, flashlights were not nearly as powerful as those of today and did not have the power to dazzle a suspect and destroy his night vision. I found a story from Seattle, where in 1955, over half a century ago, an officer was shining his flashlight at a yard as he walked towards it, and was shot by the homeowner who thought he was shooting at a prowler, but again that was in the day of very weak (by today's standards) flashlights. Yet you say that _"*MANY cops *have been shot ... because the bad guy aimed at the flashlight."_ And in NONE of these cases can it be determined that the shooting occurred _"because the bad guy aimed at the flashlight."_ In either of these cases, the suspect could have been aiming at the officer, not his light. 

The truth is that in the dark, flashlights are VITAL in LE, if for nothing else, than identifying the suspect in the dark. It's not good to shoot the janitor, just because he didn't respond to a K−9 announcement. 

And flashlights have many applications during building searches. For example "pinning" a suspect in a room.


> Shining a flashlight into an open door will generally set an artificial barrier, denying that doorway to a suspect who wishes to remain hidden from police, and “pinning” that subject in place. The offender assumes that if a light is shining through the opening, an officer on the other end of the flashlight is inevitably watching the doorway.


They can also be used, as I mentioned for dazzling a suspect and taking away his night vision.


> Light is also used for temporary sight disruption and distraction. The use of white light to overwhelm a possibly threatening subject’s vision is a very valuable tool. If the situation permits, the sudden shining of a flashlight (generally 60 or more lumens is considered to be sufficient for “tactical flashlights”) into an imminent threat’s eyes disrupts his vision, creating a temporary blinding effect that can prevent the effective targeting of the officer by the suspect. This is not limited only to shooting situations. Cutting-edge defensive tactics doctrine teaches the use of temporary sight disruption during suspect contact to facilitate takedowns and other force responses more safely.


Weapon-Mounted Lights for Patrol: Necessity? Luxury? Liability? | Hendon Publishing



Slamdunc said:


> Light discipline is very critical and although the laser can be followed back to the handler, the odds are far less.


Since the laser can be followed back to the handler, as you admit it can, he's in just as much danger from being shot as is the handler who uses a flashlight. Probably MORE danger, because a flashlight will tend to dazzle the suspect, impairing his aim, and taking away his night vision, while the laser will not have either of these effects, unless the laser spot hits him in the eyes, a very unlikely occurrence. 



Slamdunc said:


> When doing this job, I believe it is best to keep the odds in my favor as much as possible.


Me too. 



Slamdunc said:


> I rarely ever use a flashlight when doing a high risk track at night


I train the dogs to track off leash so that the handler can use cover/concealment along the way. The flashlight is used to navigate so the handler doesn’t trip over obstacles in the dark. I use a low power light setting for this and the handlers are trained to move quickly after turning on the light. This same technique is used in building searches. 



Slamdunc said:


> I also rarely use my flashlight when clearing a building.


This depends entirely on how dark the building is. Sometimes there are lights left on and it's not necessary. Sometimes there's ambient light. And sometimes it's completely black and a flashlight is necessary. Surefire, the flashlight company used to put on (they still may) a course in using lights in dark environments. I've taken it several times. Great class and I highly recommend it. 



Slamdunc said:


> I also do not allow officers behind me to use theirs, illuminating me like a big bullseye. If I do use my flashlight it is quick and off instantly.


Same here. 



Slamdunc said:


> The uses for MWD"s are far greater than ours. A dog can be directed at great distance using a laser to search a specific vehicle in a village for explosives, a specific house for people or to go from tunnel to tunnel in the mountains. Often the dog may be up to a half mile away working on it's own using the laser for direction to a "target." The target may be a "target odor" as David correctly states or a person. The initial command puts the dog into the correct drive for the job at hand and the laser simply guides the dog to the potential source.


I wrote earlier,


> I think that sometimes it's a mistake getting advice from the military because they often have a vastly different mission than ours. Just because something works for one unit, does not mean that it's good, or even acceptable, for another. The military mission is often different from ours, and I think, so should be our response.





Slamdunc said:


> The laser provides us with a "directed search" and certainly does not take the dog out of drive for finding and engaging anyone in that building.


There are lots of ways to do a _"directed search."_ You mention using hand signals when they're appropriate. David agreed with me, when he mentioned that some dogs are not suited for the use of the laser. 



Slamdunc said:


> The laser is not for everyone or every dog, some of our guys use it some don't.


Pretty sure I said as much. 

Jim, the "question count" is now at well over a dozen. Any chance of getting some answers to the questions that I've asked you? I'm pretty sure that I've answered all of yours. Is there some reason that you won't answer mine?


----------



## David Winners

Lou, 

I am not the SF trainer or handler that Jim is speaking of. He and I have never met, at least that I am aware of. I have spent several months working with an SF handler, and I know several former SF personnel that are now trainers in the SF program. 

I agree that our tactical environment is vastly different, thus our training goals are just as different. Operationally, we are apples and oranges. You have far more knowledge concerning the tactical environment of SWAT than I do. You are also looking at it from a departmental view and I am looking at the individual. Departmental training, or kennels training for the MWD, is for evaluation by the kennel master to be sure your sustainment training is covering all your bases, and you remain proficient with no problems that need to be addressed. I handle day to day training with my dog, and I decide what training we are going to utilize to grow as a team.

The distances at which we work are terrain dependent, and are as great as possible while retaining control over the dog; up to 400 meters, and regularly out to 150 meters. Outside flashlight range.

This does take the right dog, handler and trainer combination. That being said, if it works in your situation, and the usefulness justifies the training hours, you should by all means conduct that training. Far be it from me to believe that I know more about your program than you do. I was simply stating that there is more than one way to skin a cat with a laser.

Noting the above mentioned need for stringent criteria for this training, it would be a special group of dogs and handlers needed to implement this training across the board. If that group of dogs and handlers exists, then go for it. I'm not in a position to judge that from my house.

It obviously works for Jim. He knows his environment, operates using the techniques he described, and is successful. That is the test for me. 

This is an interesting and informative conversation for sure. I apologize if I haven't addressed and of your points Lou. I'm on my phone, typing between missions in the field.

David Winners


----------



## Slamdunc

Lou,
I have taken the SKIDDS class, back in 2007 our dept hosted it for local agencies. 

*Meanwhile, Jim I've asked you about half a dozen questions and I don't think that you've answered, even one of them. I'm pretty sure that I've answered every one of yours. Could you please return the favor?*

Sorry, but I don't know what questions you are seriously asking? I can't tell which are actual questions or rhetorical questions? I'm guessing that somewhere in one of my posts I have offended you and that was not my intent. I respect the guys that have done the job and I am trying to be polite. If I dissected your posts as you did mine, you might see where I could detect your tone as a bit snarky, if not obnoxious and not entirely sincere. At least that is how it comes off to me. I have no desire to Monday morning quarterback officers on this forum, as that is one of my pet peeves. I have even less desire to argue with you or anyone else. 

Yes, I responded to David regarding the laser because I enjoyed his post and he is using a technique that I also use. I found his post very interesting because this is a technique that is not widely used as of yet. 

If you have a few questions for me, I'll be glad to answer them. Honestly, I'm not going to go back and wade through your posts to find the legitimate questions that you would like answered. I thought most of the questions were answered in my previous posts. If you have a question go ahead and ask and I will do my best to answer it. No hard feelings, and I hope you understand why I am not going to dig through pages in this thread. It is simply TMTR. 

Best regards.


----------



## LouCastle

David Winners said:


> I agree that our tactical environment is vastly different, thus our training goals are just as different. Operationally, we are apples and oranges.


Thanks for this David. Some people have trouble separating the two. 



David Winners said:


> You have far more knowledge concerning the tactical environment of SWAT than I do. You are also looking at it from a departmental view and I am looking at the individual.


Not only different operating environments, but also different training situations. 



David Winners said:


> The distances at which we work are terrain dependent, and are as great as possible while retaining control over the dog; up to 400 meters, and regularly out to 150 meters. Outside flashlight range.


Yeah. That's just _ a little _ outside flashlight range. LOL I can see doing that in the military environment but not for most work, especially not for man work, in LE. 



David Winners said:


> I was simply stating that there is more than one way to skin a cat with a laser.


Thanks for the info. Your post, and Jim's latest post giving more details about using the laser, were both excellent. I think that it has great application in the military environment, but not so much for LE. 



David Winners said:


> Noting the above mentioned need for stringent criteria for this training, it would be a special group of dogs and handlers needed to implement this training across the board. If that group of dogs and handlers exists, then go for it. I'm not in a position to judge that from my house.


It would be a very rare LE agency that had a group of dogs, all of whom that met this criteria. 



David Winners said:


> It obviously works for Jim. He knows his environment, operates using the techniques he described, and is successful. That is the test for me.


I agree and I've said as much. Often in this medium there are misunderstandings. The scientists tell us that half of communication in person involves body language. Since we have only half the communication going on here, it's understandable if sometimes wires get crossed and people miscommunicate. I try to take this into account, but sometimes feelings get hurt and people think they're being attacked when they're just being disagreed with. George Bernard Shaw said something about this that's appropriate, _"Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted." 



David Winners said:



This is an interesting and informative conversation for sure. I apologize if I haven't addressed and of your points Lou. I'm on my phone, typing between missions in the field.

Click to expand...

I can't imagine writing as much and as well as you have on a phone. Thanks for taking the time._


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Admittedly more esoteric > Unfortunately this is a problem in the private sector as well, big time.

I've seen directors ask for guidance/problem solving and then argue with the people they have tasked or even paid to help with process improvement. When the rubber hits the road they couldn't admit, to themselves, that their organization/process/procedures had flaws or needed improvement. 

It's big part of the reason that we aren't really much further along as an intelligent species (sure we got more tech but not the humanity to handle it).

WAY too often amongst us human beans BEING right is much more important then actually getting something right. This IMHO causes a great deal of unnecessary suffering. 





LouCastle said:


> <snipped>I pose this question to them. If 33% is acceptable to you, imagine that your dog has bitten three people, a crook, a child and a cop. Which one do you want the dog to release when commanded? Usually I get branded as "the bad guy" for this. I've been accused of being in the discussion only to sell my training and line my pockets. They try to turn the conversation to me, instead of realizing that they have a problem! I think that those folks have lost sight of the big picture. There's that pesky Graham v. Connor court case that dictates how and when we can use force and they don't like being reminded that we're held to a standard. There's also the legal and moral obligation to use only that force necessary to effect the arrest. And so, *instead of admitting that there's a problem, they try to make me the bad guy to divert attention away from their inability* to train this reliably.
> 
> 
> 
> <snipped>


----------

