# Do we really need Police K-9's that Bite?



## ponyfarm

This is my question: is there really a need in today's society for police K-9s that bite? In my limited knowledge, only looking at this from a civilians point of view: my answer is NO.

Here are my reasonstaking this information from Local Police Dept)

1. Our k-9s are never off leash. Too risky for the dog. Too risky for society.
So, if dog is never off leash, and handler has a gun, then why does dog need to have bite capability? Bark and Hold, yes, bite?? I say not necessary. A few years back a K-9 was released in a hospital parking lot and took down a nurse..big problem for the department. 

2. When our K-9's bite someone, they usually "maniac" the guy. He needs surgery and the department gets sued. We rarely let them get in a bite, unless we are right there, know where the guy is and can quickly stop the bite. "The dogs need to get a bite in occasionally anyway!) Quote
So, again, if liablity is an issue, then I see the search aspect very important, but why bite?

3. The training is inhumane and unnecessary. Again, my opinion. I feel it is unneccssary to breed and train dogs that "can take this type of training". Its painfull to watch and inhumane. 

I believe K-9's are very valuable for SAR, Narc detection, scent work, guarding, crowd control..not biting.

So, food for thought. I am sure folks have many varied opinions. I would like to hear them.


----------



## doggiedad

police having a dog that won't bite is the same as having a gun
with no bullets.


----------



## Chip Blasiole

Cretinism can be easily treated by adding iodine to the diet.


----------



## Courtney

K-9s are so valuable to both law enforcement & the military.

There's a time & place for everything and we must rely on the training & judgment of the handler before the dog is deployed. This asset cannot be taken away. They must be able to do their jobs and sometimes that means physical contact, countless lives have been saved, situations stopped before they happed.

I could see how for some the training could be hard to watch. But as civilians we don't need to. Let them do their jobs. Thank God for those who can for those that can't. It's a occupation that requires the right mind frame. Just my opinion.


----------



## Jax08

I hope Cliff tackles this question.


----------



## doggiedad

what does cretinism have to do with a police dog biting and science
suggests iodine as a treatment?



Chip Blasiole said:


> Cretinism can be easily treated by adding iodine to the diet.


----------



## Courtney

doggiedad said:


> what does cretinism have to do with a police dog biting and science
> suggests iodine as a treatment?


ha ha I have done this before. Pretty sure they posted in the wrong thread


----------



## wildo

doggiedad said:


> what does cretinism have to do with a police dog biting and science
> suggests iodine as a treatment?


Seems to me to be one of the most blatant insults I've seen on this forum. Pretty tasteless.

From wikipedia: "Cretinism is a condition of severely stunted physical and mental growth due to untreated congenital deficiency of thyroid hormones"

It would appear that Chip Blasiole is indicating that ponyfarm has a mental deficiency due to her beliefs. Rather asinine thing to say in my opinion. And if Chip didn't mean that, he probably should have elaborated.

*EDIT-
*


Courtney said:


> ha ha I have done this before. Pretty sure they posted in the wrong thread


...or that happened.


----------



## wildo

To the original post- I think it's a really interesting question. Would suspects be easily apprehended if the dog does a bark & hold rather than bite & hold? I don't know. Would the suspect realize that the dog won't bite and just run passed the dog? I might guess that the short time it takes for the dog the catch a running suspect is sufficient enough time for the suspect to be distracted and the police to get there and make the apprehension. ...But I really don't know. Perhaps a suspect chase might be different from a suspect search.

I just did a quick google search on this as I was curious if there are other countries who use dogs without the use of bite. I didn't find anything in a 15 second google search on other countries, but I did find this 216 page dissertation on exactly this topic. http://www.policek9.com/FTPResearch/florida_study.pdf



> The D.O.J. recommendation of interest to thisstudy is the paradigmatic shift from “bite and hold” to
> “bark and hold” in canine apprehension methods. As there
> is no prior literature to base this decision upon, the
> question remains, will this reduce the number of suspect
> bitten by police dogs?






> The results from Chapter 4 denote a number of
> findings. First, measurement differences were obvious
> between traditional reporting and the Bite Ratio Data
> Collector. Simply asking handlers to provide bite ratios
> tends to underestimate the actual amount of canine force.
> Second, handlers with “bark and hold” trained canines
> reported higher bite ratios than handlers with “bite and
> hold” trained dogs. Finally, additional factors such as
> dog breed, Shutzhund training, the number of canine calls,
> and whether or not the dog was sexually intact were all
> significant correlates of canine force in the final model.


----------



## MilesNY

I, too, hope Cliff answers this, but from my part. My boyfriend is a sergeant in the NYPD, and while not k-9 himself, it makes me feel better knowing the dogs are there. A gun is lethal force, a dog is not. At the end of the day I want him to come home, I want his fellow officers to make it home. Dogs serve an important role on many levels and yes biting is one of them. 



Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## wildo

Check out page 171:


> Research Question 2
> To what extent are bite ratios affected by the apprehension
> method that the canine is trained?
> 
> Measurement issues between the data collection methods
> continue to be a problem across each analysis. As has been
> previously shown, bite ratio data collected through self-
> report (self-computed) may produce spurious findings.
> Accordingly, this data will not be used in the formulation
> of these conclusions.
> 
> Using the only the BRDC data, bite and hold dogs had
> lower mean bite ratios (15.7) than bark and hold trained
> canines (22.4) and there was a statistically significant
> difference (using an independent samples t-Test) between
> the two apprehension methods. Consequently, any mandated
> changes in apprehension training are not a feasible
> solution to combat canine use of force issues. This may
> seem odd; dogs trained in what was perceived as a reduced
> level of force actually generating higher levels of force.
> However, several concepts may better explain how this is
> so.


Very interesting!!


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

*Really need* k9s that bite, probably not. It is, however, a less lethal and more controllable use of force then bullets or even night sticks. You can recall a k9 not a bullet, if a k9 bites it's probably going to be superficial and not life threatening where a bullet usually inflicts more severe damage.

So from that perspective it's actually safer for the suspect AND the general public if the dog can subdue the suspect without bullets flying.

Having said that (and as mentioned in another thread) I think over time the use of dogs for this purpose will decrease do to many factors but probably cost and efficiency comparisons to tech options will weigh in more and more...

btw-


As luck would have it I was chatting with an on duty police officer who stopped to compliment my Ilda  in our local little town just yesterday**. Based on our convo where I asked him about K9 use, three separate PDs (two small towns, 1 co. sheriff) and only 1 K-9 unit for the entire county (sheriff) which is part rural, part suburban.

Most calls for K-9 back up are for tracking.

The supervisors in our town don't think having K9 units is cost effective enough.

(**they generally like German Shepherds, that's not the first time that's happened)


----------



## lhczth

If there was no fear of the dog biting would they be suitable or respected in crowd control or in guarding? A dog is respected because it may be used and because people don't want to be bitten.


----------



## mycobraracr

I guess I look at it differently. The dogs are biting criminals(in most cases, I know accidents happen). So I don't feel bad. Fallow directions from the LEO and most likely you won't get bit. Be an idiot and run and.... Well you made your own decision. Also these K-9"s are partners the their human handlers. Just as I would want a human partner to shoot if needed, I would want the dog to bite if needed.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Good find. :thumbup: 

Stepping back from that there definitely is a psychological aspect, deterence factor that comes into play.

I'd be interested to know how many times a dog (no matter bite trained or not) de-escalated a situation by it's mere presence reducing the need for any kind of physical force to begin with?






wildo said:


> Check out page 171:
> Very interesting!!


----------



## Castlemaid

I know of RCMP police dogs and handlers, and have occasionally trained with them (our club helper works with the RCMP dogs all the time).

Training is no more inhumane than the training I do with my dogs. Focus is on developing confidence and building relationship with the handler.

Dogs are off leash when sent to apprehend a suspect. Dogs do save lives by disarming suspects. Dogs have been sent into tight areas where suspect is hiding and pulled them out (yes, doing some damage along the way, but in this case, the suspect was seen in bright daylight brandishing a weapon, hitting a security guard in a store, and taking off with stolen goods. 

The presence alone of a police dog helps to control crowds and prevent escalation of violence. Often a suspect ready to shoot and attack police, will give themselves up when told the police K9 will be sent after them. 

The dogs and handlers I have seen had all amazing control on their dogs, being able to recall them once sent off for a bite. 

The standards of training and the quality of the dogs vary greatly. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.


----------



## martemchik

I don't believe the dogs bite as much as we're led to believe by watching all the cop shows out there. They mostly do tracking, drug sniffing, and crowd performances.

In the story about the nurse...that's got to be police error. I don't understand how you would just let a dog out without giving him a target to go after. You can't just let a dog roam a parking lot until it finds something to latch onto. And if you do...maybe you should make sure all civilians are out of the area.


----------



## Freestep

I can't believe this question is even being asked. Of course we need to deploy K9s to apprehend criminals, and of course they need to be able to bite. Otherwise, criminals would not fear the dogs. Criminals who do not fear a cop with a gun, are terrified of a hairy beast with teeth coming at them, and will often surrender just with the threat of having the dog sent. Take the teeth out of the dog, and you take the teeth out of the law.


----------



## LoveEcho

ponyfarm said:


> This is my question: is there really a need in today's society for police K-9s that bite? In my limited knowledge, only looking at this from a civilians point of view: my answer is NO.
> 
> Here are my reasonstaking this information from Local Police Dept)
> 
> 1. Our k-9s are never off leash. Too risky for the dog. Too risky for society.
> So, if dog is never off leash, and handler has a gun, then why does dog need to have bite capability? Bark and Hold, yes, bite?? I say not necessary. A few years back a K-9 was released in a hospital parking lot and took down a nurse..big problem for the department.


Accidents do happen, but they are rare, and this is a case of gross negligence on the part of the handler.



> 2. When our K-9's bite someone, they usually "maniac" the guy. He needs surgery and the department gets sued. We rarely let them get in a bite, unless we are right there, know where the guy is and can quickly stop the bite. "The dogs need to get a bite in occasionally anyway!) Quote
> So, again, if liablity is an issue, then I see the search aspect very important, but why bite?


Where are you getting your facts from that suspects bitten need surgery? I have never heard of this happening (not to say it hasn't, just saying that it's not at all a common thing). Stitches, sure. But, don't run if you don't want to get bit :shrug: You keep saying "your" K9's...it sounds like this is a less than stellar operation, between dogs at large and uncontrollable biting...not a reflection of k9 units as a whole. I'm still not sure where you're getting your facts from.



> 3. The training is inhumane and unnecessary. Again, my opinion. I feel it is unneccssary to breed and train dogs that "can take this type of training". Its painfull to watch and inhumane.


Again....have you ever actually watched REAL k9 training? There have been multiple discussions from K9 handlers here (Cliff, DFrost, etc) as well as people who train with clubs that often have K9 units train with them... it's not inhumane. There are the exceptions to the rule, of course-- but again, often from shadier operations. It sounds like whatever experience you may have is with a less than reputable operation. 

It sounds like an awful lot of judgement with very little experience to back it up. I'd be very interested to hear from Cliff, DFrost, and the several other LEO handlers on this forum...


----------



## martemchik

I want to add...the city's police department where I live (very large department) trains their own K9s. They have a trainer on staff. I've seen demonstrations from these dogs and the trainer in a bite suit...their bites were not full. It was quite interesting to watch because I saw one dog do it and thought maybe just that dog...but then the other 3 did it and they only had about half their teeth sunk into the suit. So no...I don't believe the bites even come close to "maniac"ing the guy...I've seen much stronger, fuller bites on a Schutzhund field than I did when those dogs did their thing.


----------



## FlyAway

ponyfarm said:


> This is my question: is there really a need in today's society for police K-9s that bite? In my limited knowledge, only looking at this from a civilians point of view: my answer is NO.


 
Whenever, I hear of a K9 shot in the line of duty, I also ask myself this question.


----------



## carmspack

yes , for the protection of the handler , with minimum , non lethal damage to the victim. 

This is VERY true for RCMP and code of conduct for Canadian police dogs -- control - dog must out "The dogs and handlers I have seen had all amazing control on their dogs, being able to recall them once sent off for a bite. "
Just talked to one who has had two dogs of mine in his career. One passed away 2 months short of 14 years. His 9 1/2 year old , solid black , as able and fit as a 2 year old not even one white hair on his muzzle . I am arranging to get some of his semen put on ice . I did have a lengthy conversation with him since at the time this thread was on fire http://www.germanshepherds.com/foru...ods/261897-style-training-dog-old-school.html

this type just would not fly here , so over my conversations over the week it was confirmed 
confirmed - dog not under control -- dog is removed from service -- big issue right now with Vancouver division being trained by a different system -- some of the sport people may recognize Doug Deacon in this clip --- illustrates iformation re bite and hold , bark and hold . All the depts. I know are bark and hold --VPD, RCMP dogs bite far more often than counterparts: probe | CTV British Columbia News


----------



## ponyfarm

Chip Blasiole said:


> Cretinism can be easily treated by adding iodine to the diet.


HAHAH ..that's funny. Thanks! I got the same response 25 years ago when I suggested employees should not smoke at the workplace...hmmm!

You know, its always advisable to think outside the box. We need people who question the way its always been. 

I was NOT recommending/questioning trying to apprehend suspects with a "pretend" dog that does not bite. I was trying to make a point, that in the future dogs may not be needed or used for apprehension. (I make no comment toward the military.)

I make my comments from direct sources, and yes I have watched training. I have high regard and respect for Police K-9's and their handlers. I respect the work and time they put in to the training and care. A wonderful family friend I grew up with was a K-9 handler, and fostered my interest and love in the breed and the many jobs a K-9 can do in service for their community.


----------



## carmspack

locating , tracking down are the bread and butter of service - that is where the k9's value is


----------



## ponyfarm

carmspack said:


> locating , tracking down are the bread and butter of service - that is where the k9's value is


 
Thank You!


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Absolutely!! 

:thumbup:




ponyfarm said:


> HAHAH ..that's funny. Thanks! I got the same response 25 years ago when I suggested employees should not smoke at the workplace...hmmm!
> 
> *You know, its always advisable to think outside the box. We need people who question the way its always been. *
> 
> I was NOT recommending/questioning trying to apprehend suspects with a "pretend" dog that does not bite. I was trying to make a point, that in the future dogs may not be needed or used for apprehension. (I make no comment toward the military.)
> 
> I make my comments from direct sources, and yes I have watched training. I have high regard and respect for Police K-9's and their handlers. I respect the work and time they put in to the training and care. A wonderful family friend I grew up with was a K-9 handler, and fostered my interest and love in the breed and the many jobs a K-9 can do in service for their community.


----------



## jafo220

It seems to me, really what your getting at is if dogs should be allowed into policework in the first place. If the dog can't bite, there is no reason for him being there. JMO. Your puting your dog partner at a high disadvantage in serious situations say in the case someone brandishes a firearm. If the dog is trying to hold him, it would be like shooting fish in a barrel and k-9 deaths would skyrocket. I want that dog to have every tool at his disposal and that includes biting.


----------



## NancyJ

I have watched folks from a couple of different departments train and there is a *world* of difference and reflects the training and attitude of the department. Unfortunately, sometimes it takes a big lawsuit to set things straight. Even the selection for K9 handlers can be very "political" within the departments and have nothing to do with their potential ability as dog handlers.

I would rather see stringent requirements set forth than take away such a valuable tool. Our state only recently adopted a vague requirement that "biting" police dogs have some kind of certification and I don't think it is that uncommon for it to be that way........ Most of the police K9 organizations that serve to train and educate (maybe all for what I know) are voluntary and not required but really push for proper handling, teach k9 case law, etc.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang

mycobraracr said:


> I guess I look at it differently. The dogs are biting criminals(in most cases, I know accidents happen). So I don't feel bad. Fallow directions from the LEO and most likely you won't get bit. Be an idiot and run and.... Well *you made your own decision*.


*This!!*


----------



## Chip Blasiole

Ponyfarm,
Good to see you have a sense of humor. Someone commented on seeing half bites with K-9's. Not all departments are that sophisticated in training and selection of dogs. Some don't care if the dog bites fully as long as they have the drive and courage to do the job. 
Ask a K-9 officer if they need their dogs to bite.


----------



## carmspack

yes , the bread and butter is in locating the suspect -- but they have to be able to make an aggressive apprehension - if required, and be in and under control.


----------



## NancyJ

If the dog is biting the criminal that is one thing but there ARE cases where an innocent bystander is bitten. I was even told by a fellow at one city-sized department that if the dog was on the chase, they would bite the first person they encountered and even another police officer if he got between the handler and the dog. That kind of thing is what needs to be weeded out or a dog with this behavior need not be deployed offlead unless there is high assurance passerby are not near.

Like anything, we are tuned into the "bad eggs" and not the ones who do an everyday excellent job but the damage can be profound so it makes sense to do what can be done to ensure the dogs are trained and deployed properly.


----------



## martemchik

Chip Blasiole said:


> Ponyfarm,
> Good to see you have a sense of humor. Someone commented on seeing half bites with K-9's. Not all departments are that sophisticated in training and selection of dogs. Some don't care if the dog bites fully as long as they have the drive and courage to do the job.
> Ask a K-9 officer if they need their dogs to bite.


I actually think they purposely train them to do that...as to not inflict more damage than necessary to disarm the suspect. Trust me...this is a very sophisticated police department with all imported dogs. In a very very sue happy city where anyone tries to find any reason to sue a cop...I think the police chief is currently under investigation. It's one of the US top 30 most populated cities...


----------



## Gretchen

If you get the opportunity, you should go to a K9 demonstration. Sometimes they are offered at city events by a local police dept and our former breeder would get our Sheriff to do demonstrations. Then you might see their benefit.

Our local law enforcement did real life practice drills near our business property with and without the K9. They are definitely a good, non lethal way of stopping a suspect. A K9 can help pull someone out of a vehicle too. I just learned last night, depending on the type of bullet, once fired it can travel 1 - 2.5 miles. So if an officer misses his target/suspect, an innocent person may be shot. I think a bite is better than a bullet for both the suspect and innocent bystanders.


----------



## erfunhouse

As a police officers wife I am very grateful to have dogs out there. Several times he has had to call k-9 because a suspect was baracaded in a hard to get area and no one was going to go crawling in after the guy. He has also called them in because the suspect was loose in a neighborhood and had to be found. Additionally, as a former MP I did some work with k-9 (mostly volunteered to get bit, LOL)...and their dogs were trained to go after movement, before releasing the dog everyone was told to hold still and the dog would go after the moving suspect. I am not sure if my husbands police department trains their dogs the same way, but as an ER nurse I've seen some GNALRY dog bites (family dogs) that have shreded skin, never seen a k-9 shred the way a family dog will shred...usually just puncture holes, any ripping was caused by the suspect flailing around trying to get out (the bites are COMPLETELY different in appearance). 

The nurse in the OP? Possible she freaked out and ran! Many nurses I know dont have to stomach to just do what they are told in a situation like this and for some freak reason wanna either run away or run toward the danger...kinda silly IMO. 

I am VERY glad there are k-9s that bite! That means my husband WONT have a use of force issue and he WONT be gone for 24+ hours to undergo debriefing and shooting investigations. I've been there---hearing there was a shooting and my husband was involved and NOT hearing from him or knowing if he was ALIVE or SAFE for more than 24 hours. It sucks. Had a dog been available perhaps that wouldn't have happened. 

That being said, I do feel "sad" for his departments dogs. They are not to be treated as family dogs and must be in a specified kennel when not at work.  I think that ruins or hinders a bond between handler and dog. Makes me rather upset, but if that's how they train, that's how they train.


----------



## Cheyanna

Where did you get never off leash? I have seen with my own eyes, cop release the dog to go get bad guy. 

You ask why bite when you have bullet? If you think they get sued because of dog bite, imagine the lawsuit from a life ending bullet. Never known a k9 to kill, but bullets do.

I would rather kill bad guys, but this whole justice system requires a trial. So bite over bullet.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Exactly.

I know of two unrelated (not same group or trainers) who have volunteered to decoy for LE K9s training and both have commented about these issues.

The first man who mentioned it I sort of thought, well, that's just one account. Then out of the blue another person (both knowledgeable in sport and protection training) mentioned the same issues. Then you hear nonchalant comments about the dogs not needing a good 'out' followed by a wink wink...it's that sort of thing that makes one wonder.





jocoyn said:


> I have watched folks from a couple of different departments train and there is a *world* of difference and reflects the training and attitude of the department. Unfortunately, sometimes it takes a big lawsuit to set things straight. Even the selection for K9 handlers can be very "political" within the departments and have nothing to do with their potential ability as dog handlers.
> 
> I would rather see stringent requirements set forth than take away such a valuable tool. Our state only recently adopted a vague requirement that "biting" police dogs have some kind of certification and I don't think it is that uncommon for it to be that way........ Most of the police K9 organizations that serve to train and educate (maybe all for what I know) are voluntary and not required but really push for proper handling, teach k9 case law, etc.


----------



## cliffson1

Big Lol....there are many civilians that think we shouldn't own guns....and the beautiful thing is in America everyone has an opinion. Fortunately, these kind of decisions are made by people who have to serve and protect, and an overwhelming amount of local, state, county, and national law enforcement agencies in this country and many other countries feel the need is there. You cannot make an informed decision about proper use of a K9, by watching your local dept or someone telling you this and that, or taking the example of one local dept in a town.....the use of dogs today are governed by Attorney General guidelines and experts in law Enforcement. People really don't have a clue how much oversight and guidelines regulate 95% of the depts today. With all of that scrutiny, it has been determined that certain LE dogs must have this capability. Some police officer go twenty years and never discharge their gun at anybody....is that a reason to remove guns from our officers? It's not about frequency of use in determining the need for something, it's about being prepared for potential situation that can arise.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Here ya go Cliff...


----------



## cliffson1

Yep, there are bad bites, bad shootings, bad car accidents, etc; fortunately reasonable people make informed decisions on these things based on the norm and not the exception. These dogs like military dogs, have saved many many lives, they love what they do, and most of society is supportive and appreciative of their sacrifice just like cops and soldiers. But the world the police work in, is not a pet world and requires working tools.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

well geez you took that the wrong way Mr reasonable, and yes I'm sure there's some critiques to be made....but...

My favorite clip is the one with the red car in the highway where the mali gets the guy. I don't remember all the details but there was a child in the car and the dog help save the child's life and even though the man fought back the dog didn't let go. 

Plus I like the music 

OH and for the record I've donated for bullet proof vest for police K9s and have purchased a magnet for my car because proceeds went to help military k9s.... :shrug:



cliffson1 said:


> Yep, there are bad bites, bad shootings, bad car accidents, etc; fortunately reasonable people make informed decisions on these things based on the norm and not the exception.


----------



## wildo

cliffson1 said:


> the use of dogs today are governed by Attorney General guidelines and experts in law Enforcement. People really don't have a clue how much oversight and guidelines regulate 95% of the depts today. With all of that scrutiny...


That's good to hear there's lots of oversight, regulations, and scrutiny.




cliffson1 said:


> You cannot make an informed decision about proper use of a K9, by watching your local dept ... or taking the example of one local dept in a town.....


Wait.... what happened to all that oversight, regulations, and scrutiny?? Reasonable people make informed decisions based often on first hand observation.


----------



## Chip Blasiole

Martemchik,
No trainers train dogs to take half-mouthed bites. There is no practical way to do that. A hard half mouth bite will do as much damage as a full mouthed bite. Half mouthed bites tend to be related to genetics/nerves, or poor training. What they train is for the dog to bite and hold on until they are outed, as opposed to bite and retarget with repeated bites.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

wow major edit to that post after I quoted it! 



cliffson1 said:


> Yep, there are bad bites, bad shootings, bad car accidents, etc; fortunately reasonable people make informed decisions on these things based on the norm and not the exception. These dogs like military dogs, have saved many many lives, they love what they do, and most of society is supportive and appreciative of their sacrifice just like cops and soldiers. But the world the police work in, is not a pet world and requires working tools.


----------



## cliffson1

@ Wildo....do you think the guidelines and oversight were written by people watching their police depts train, or by experts in the field of Law Enforcement ? Smh!
@Gwynfair....my comment about bad bites was made in reference to a prevailing opinion of many that the dogs shouldn't bite because of misuse. It was not about your video....it's a nice video. 
I'm outta here on this subject, whatever people think is right is okay with me.


----------



## cliffson1

Whatever!


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

whatever?


----------



## Abby142

Personally I would rather have K9s that are bite trained to those that are not. 

Its great to say "oh they should just do bark and holds, but not actually bite." They are dogs and you can never guarantee that a dog will not bite, especially in some of the high intensity situations these dogs are put into. And I'd rather have one that has been trained and will release on command than one that hasn't had that training and will probably not listen to its handler.


----------



## DaniFani

This reminds me of people who say, "well, why couldn't the police aim for an arm or a leg?! That way the person didn't have to die!" Smh, unless you have been on the streets, watching the dogs in action, you really can't understand why things are done the way they are done. If someone were running at you with a knife, assuming they can cover ground as fast as the average person (20ft/second) and let's say you're 30 feet away...are you hoping the police use their 1.5 seconds before your attacker gets to you, to aim for the large center of mass (chest)......or the small radiu leg or even smaller arm? Same with someone holding you at knife point/gun point etc...you want them to send the dog in to do a bark and hold, send police in to a potential attack/fight, or send the dog in to neutralize the person on the ground...with some injuries, but not to those doing the protecting(police) or the potential innocent victim/hostage?...like all the videos of the dogs going over the tops of vehicles and taking out the attacker etc....

These are life and death scenarios, not a helper out on the SchH field....but a bad guy barracaded in with his minor children as hostages, a person hiding out in a hidey hole waiting for someone to come through the narrow hallway to find him so he can take at least one person down with him. Bite and hold's are wonderful, my good friend who is a LE K9 handler(who, back in the day was my husband's partner), has only had three bites out of his K9...in 4.5 years. He utilizes the bark and hold as often as possible....however, most of the tracks he has to do are in swampy, foresty, outdoor, areas. The K9's I know that work more urban areas have more bites, which I guess makes more sense, because people are more apt to hide in narrow areas halls/buildings, barracaded rooms, etc...

I don't really think the, "people said the same thing about smoking in public areas" argument really holds here or is applicable. Nothing stops working because someone can't smoke in a certain area. There are many many scenarios where a bark and hold simply isn't enough....and there are many many scenarios where it is enough. I believe that the dog needs to be able to neutralize the person in any situation.

But people will think what they want, and what work's will work....just like everything in life....proven methods, that work time and time again, will be used, not what someone on the outside who has watched a few training sessions and read some synopsis on the internet thinks (not directed at you OP, just opinions made with lack of experience, in general.) ;-)


----------



## wildo

cliffson1 said:


> @ Wildo....do you think the guidelines and oversight were written by people watching their police depts train, or by experts in the field of Law Enforcement ? Smh!


I posit that it matters not where the guidelines, regulations, oversight, etc came from. If there are guidelines, regulations, oversight, etc- then one should be able to look at a local police department and see such regulations and oversight implemented. Otherwise it's not oversight. So I'm not sure I'm getting your point...

[EDIT]- my point was that you can't be dismissive of a person's perspective because they've only looked at their local PD K9 unit. If the regulations and oversight- I think you said something like 95% coverage- are there, then experience from a local PD K9 unit should be just as relevant as anything else.


----------



## NancyJ

Not being pluckist but exactly where ARE the laws and regulations that govern police powers?

I know there is caselaw. I know there are Industry Standards. I don't see anything in the CFR. My state law still has not been updated to require patrol dog certification. I thought it had. There is no requirement to certify narcotics dogs here to any standard.


----------



## DaniFani

wildo said:


> I posit that it matters not where the guidelines, regulations, oversight, etc came from. If there are guidelines, regulations, oversight, etc- then one should be able to look at a local police department and see such regulations and oversight implemented. Otherwise it's not oversight. So I'm not sure I'm getting your point...


I think it's more about the big picture....you have to look across the board at multiple departments, state agencies, and military K9's, and look at everything as a whole and how it is working. If there is a serious problem, it would be across the board. Lawsuits and news stories can not be a measurement of whether or not something is working...anyone can sue, and in today's world...I mean we aren't talking about the most upstanding citizens here....they probably will, and the news picks the most grizzly, jaw dropping, gasp-worthy stories, not the success stories(or very few). I guess I am not sure what you mean, Cliff was referencing the video that was posted. 

Saying that you should be able to look at ONE police department's K9 and see perfection, is just like me saying I should be able to grab ANY GSD off the street and see perfection...because there is a standard...right?! Or I could grab any citizen up off the street and they should have ZERO record...because laws are there for a reason, right? Or, if I see a GSD attack a child, ALL Gsds are like that....or pitbulls, or rotties, or whatever. If I looked at the big picture in all those scenarios I would see, most people obey the law, most GSD's/pitties/rotties are good dogs, etc...

LE has their "bad eggs" just like every other career available. And LE K9's also have their "bad eggs" just like everything out there. But just like you don't wipe out all business because of a corrupt CEO, you shouldn't wipe out an entire resource because of a a few bad bites/officers/dogs/trainers/etc....Hopefully the bad eggs will be weeded out, but laws, regulations, and boards shouldn't be based on the bad eggs.


----------



## TrickyShepherd

ponyfarm said:


> This is my question: is there really a need in today's society for police K-9s that bite?
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> 1. Our k-9s are never off leash. Too risky for the dog. Too risky for society.
> So, if dog is never off leash, and handler has a gun, then why does dog need to have bite capability? Bark and Hold, yes, bite?? I say not necessary. A few years back a K-9 was released in a hospital parking lot and took down a nurse..big problem for the department.
> 
> Why have a dog then? Would a criminal fear the police if they had guns, but were not allowed to have bullets?
> 
> In the time I've spent watching police dogs work, be trained, certified, and have talked to many of our K9 handlers here in Central FL (both military and LEO).... I can tell you right now that they are an extremely important part of our departments. They bring in a much less lethal option, and they are more often to be taken seriously. Most of the time the dogs are called into the most dangerous cases. If it wasn't for the dogs, more of our officers would be killed on duty or severely injured. I'd rather have the dogs bite someone, then have an officer killed.
> 
> The dogs are kept on long lines and/or regular 6ft leashes. This is for the dogs safety. However, when the dog is being sent they are released and off leash. The level of obedience these dogs must have to certify is very high. I don't see a problem with them being on a leash when doing tasks like patrolling, tracking, and when they are used to "watch" a suspect that's being apprehended by officers. When it's needed, they are released.
> 
> 2. When our K-9's bite someone, they usually "maniac" the guy. He needs surgery and the department gets sued. We rarely let them get in a bite, unless we are right there, know where the guy is and can quickly stop the bite. "The dogs need to get a bite in occasionally anyway!) Quote
> So, again, if liablity is an issue, then I see the search aspect very important, but why bite?
> 
> Where is this information coming from? And I am not understanding your logic on finding but not biting. For the first part of this, I've heard of stitches and I am SURE there have been bites that have lead to serious injury (wrong bites, sensitive area, criminal fought too hard against the dog, etc).... but the norm is certainly not anything lethal or life threatening. Cleaning out, and sometimes stitches. I do not feel bad for them. If you resist you get bit. You are given many many opportunities to stop and go nicely. The wonderful thing about the dogs is their recall. The criminals can drop to the floor and the dog is called off. Sounds fair to me, the bullet sure couldn't be stopped. I know the dogs in our departments are often sent out. Most criminals drop right way, but these dogs do get a fair amount of bites (The joys of living by a very large city, and some bad neighboring towns.... lots of crimes and criminals!). They follow very strict protocol, but that doesn't mean they are not used. Also, they are sent away. Some dogs are sent pretty far distances to apprehend a suspect. They track on a long line.. find the guy and bite. Once the criminal is cuffed, the dog is called off. They decided to run, they chose to get bit. I know our dogs are used often, and they really keep our guys safe as well as our town.
> 
> Second part..... Why would I want my dog to find a dangerous criminal and just alert me? That will not only get the dog shot or stabbed to death immediately, but also the officer. What point would that serve? I'm not seeing the logic here. You have to remember who these dogs are finding and restraining. This is not your average joe/jane out on a morning stroll.... these are criminals, and most of the time, the most dangerous ones out there! They are armed, and ready to kill. I don't think they should take this lightly, and I know they are super thankful when the dog takes the criminal down and allows the officers to go home after their shift is done.
> 
> 3. The training is inhumane and unnecessary. Again, my opinion. I feel it is unneccssary to breed and train dogs that "can take this type of training". Its painfull to watch and inhumane.
> 
> I think it's time you take a trip to watch another department then. It sounds like your town has some problems with theirs. My trainer works with the central FL K9s and handlers. He tries them out when they get shipped here and says yay or nay on the department purchasing them, he trains them and gets them certified with their handlers... etc. I've seen many of these dogs go from beginning to being on the road for years. Their training is no different than what I do with my dogs. I've never seen anything inhumane or unnecessary. Like anywhere though, places can be corrupt... so I'm not saying it happens nowhere. I'm not blind... I'm sure it does. However, does that mean that NO department should have a K9 team? I don't think the idea of the minority killing it for the majority. Especially when it comes to bringing home our LEOs and military men and woman every night. These dogs save lives... and not just the people handling them. They save a lot of criminals lives; instead of being shot... they get to keep their life. They save innocent victims; instead of the cops allowing them to keep going, or shooting and leaving the possibility of catching an innocent bystander or the victim.... they send the dog, leaving the innocent untouched, the cops save, and the criminal behind bars. Not only that... but if you talk to anyone in military or police force that has been around or worked around K9s.... they'll all tell you: The K9's help deter crime or a fight from criminals. Most will immediately give up, where they would have originally put up a fight or flee. And places that the K9s are a regular sight (i.e. Jails), crime and outbreaks are MUCH less common because of their presence. They are a priceless part of our departments, and they are needed to do all of the above... track, detect drugs, and yes... apprehend. I'll always support them here. I'm happy I've got those K9s watching over me and my town.
> 
> I believe K-9's are very valuable for SAR, Narc detection, scent work, guarding, crowd control..not biting.
> 
> So, food for thought. I am sure folks have many varied opinions. I would like to hear them.


... Just my .02...


----------



## ladylaw203

I agree. Whatever this department was needs some training. I have been handling and training police service dogs for about 25 years. I am also a certifying official for the largest police service dog org in the US. 
If police k9 training is inhumane,it is being done WRONG. 
Yes, they need to be trained in officer protection if it is a patrol dog. Bark and Hold does not work well unless a LOT of tweaking is done to it. Sport dogs have to have a lot of additional training. We trail crooks and search for burglars in buildings. Yes,a patrol dog needs bitework. They run faster too........
With all due respect if you have not been in a knock down drag out fight in your life at 0300 and had a dog save your butt,might want to rethink your opinion


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

in blue - He said he was not referencing the video.

in red - and that weeding out usually occurs after citizens have reported abuse 



DaniFani said:


> I think it's more about the big picture....you have to look across the board at multiple departments, state agencies, and military K9's, and look at everything as a whole and how it is working. If there is a serious problem, it would be across the board. Lawsuits and news stories can not be a measurement of whether or not something is working...anyone can sue, and in today's world...I mean we aren't talking about the most upstanding citizens here....they probably will, and the news picks the most grizzly, jaw dropping, gasp-worthy stories, not the success stories(or very few). I guess I am not sure what you mean, Cliff was referencing the video that was posted.
> 
> Saying that you should be able to look at ONE police department's K9 and see perfection, is just like me saying I should be able to grab ANY GSD off the street and see perfection...because there is a standard...right?! Or I could grab any citizen up off the street and they should have ZERO record...because laws are there for a reason, right? Or, if I see a GSD attack a child, ALL Gsds are like that....or pitbulls, or rotties, or whatever. If I looked at the big picture in all those scenarios I would see, most people obey the law, most GSD's/pitties/rotties are good dogs, etc...
> 
> LE has their "bad eggs" just like every other career available. And LE K9's also have their "bad eggs" just like everything out there. But just like you don't wipe out all business because of a corrupt CEO, you shouldn't wipe out an entire resource because of a a few bad bites/officers/dogs/trainers/etc....Hopefully the bad eggs will be weeded out, but laws, regulations, and boards shouldn't be based on the bad eggs.


----------



## ladylaw203

jocoyn said:


> Not being pluckist but exactly where ARE the laws and regulations that govern police powers?
> 
> I know there is caselaw. I know there are Industry Standards. I don't see anything in the CFR. My state law still has not been updated to require patrol dog certification. I thought it had. There is no requirement to certify narcotics dogs here to any standard.


 
Industry standard dicatates yearly certifications. Anyone not certifying a scent detector dog yearly will have a real fun time in court.....
Many states have no "requirement" but plenty case law


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Ultimately this boils down to "with authority comes responsibility". When some (not all) depts. are not taking the responsibility seriously it becomes an issue. It happens, always has and always will. This is part and parcel of the maintenance of a free society and is being played out in many ways on larger stages as well.


----------



## wildo

ladylaw203 said:


> Bark and Hold does not work well unless a LOT of tweaking is done to it.


Might be a topic for a different thread, but I'm still curious. I linked to a research paper indicating that both Bark & Hold and Bite & Hold are legitimate techniques for apprehension. And you even mention that it _does_ work, albeit with a LOT of tweaking. So there is something to it...

Can you explain briefly how* Bark* & Hold works? How does the dog contain/catch/stop/whatever the bad guy without biting? Couldn't the bad guy just run off with the dog chasing? I'm sincerely curious on how this technique actually works.


----------



## ladylaw203

Bark and Hold is great for sport but I do not care for its use on the street. When one trains for sport the dog is asked to exhibit an enthusiastic bark and hold while the helper stands like a statue. He gets a bite only when the helper moves. That is his reward. I have been a cop 35 years. My first retirement was with a large agency. Working on number two. Folks dont just stand there with a dog barking his butt off at them. They scream,curse,wave their arms etc. The typical sport dog that departments purchase with prior training will not work on the street without being backed up away from the guy and being taught to allow all of that movement. silly. Bite/hold dog with a solid recall is better in my opinion and safer for the dog. And dogs dont read research papers......... The real world is NOT routine. You name it,it happens.


----------



## selzer

I think this is a legitimate question, and I agree that we can have an opinion about such things. 

If police dogs were trained minus the biting, they would be called in to situations were they are looking for lost people, dead bodies, narcotic in school lockers, cars, homes, etc. They could sniff out bombs and alert the officers to possible dangers. 

But the actual work of bringing the suspect down if he chose to not follow directions, would be up to the officer. 

I am not saying that is how it ought to be, but the dogs would be effective as police dogs without biting, just not in every situation. 

Frankly, as we might see if we are not willfully blind to anything negative about anything to do with the police, we might notice that police can be rather quick to use things that are not considered lethal force, such as tasors. They may be quicker to use a dog as well, because there are a lot of suspects who will point blank give up rather than tangle with the dog, because they bite. 

I would think that a police officer's job in dangerous situations would be to neutralize the threat to life as quickly as possible, minimizing damage to the suspect is secondary to protecting the life of uninvolved individuals, and police. A dog that will bite, who is trained to bite, might be the best method to meet these objectives. 

When my dad was a kid, he tells me, that if a police officer yells STOP or HALT! Everyone did, because if you did not, they could and would aim and shoot you -- even if you were running away. Police dogs weren't seen much sixty or so years ago. But things have changed. People are less likely to comply because they know the police will not shoot them if they are running away. But they will release the dog. 

If people would comply to police orders we would not need dogs that bite. But the fact is, bad guys are bad guys. Some of them will take on the dogs punching and kicking them, some will run from the dogs. Some will shoot the dogs, and anyone else. 

I am interested in knowing how many police dogs there are in service in the country in any given year, and then a statistic that shows how many civilians not committing any crime at the time are injured or attacked by this number of dogs. We hear about one here or there, but my guess is that the vast majority of police dogs out there, have never had a questionable incident involving a bystander. 

My guess is that has to do with the fact that there is a lot of people training dogs a lot of different ways, and smaller or poorer communities probably end up with dogs that do not have the level of training/handling that places that can afford to purchase fully trained dogs, and send their handlers to be trained as well. 

I know that there are police dog trials, and there are levels that the dogs much attain to be certified, but there are no tests that can guaranty that a dog is so well trained and handled that it will never make a mistake.


----------



## Tim Connell

ladylaw203 said:


> I agree. Whatever this department was needs some training. I have been handling and training police service dogs for about 25 years. I am also a certifying official for the largest police service dog org in the US.
> If police k9 training is inhumane,it is being done WRONG.
> Yes, they need to be trained in officer protection if it is a patrol dog. Bark and Hold does not work well unless a LOT of tweaking is done to it. Sport dogs have to have a lot of additional training. We trail crooks and search for burglars in buildings. Yes,a patrol dog needs bitework. They run faster too........
> With all due respect if you have not been in a knock down drag out fight in your life at 0300 and had a dog save your butt,might want to rethink your opinion


I usually ignore the posts that question law enforcement, since it's usually derailed into a post filled with negativity...seriously, enough is enough sometimes...so before I begin...

Good points, LadyLaw.

I'm going to also be few in words, and take the high road like Cliff, since there is rarely any winner in these types of posts in online forums...

So to make it easy: 
Yes, police dogs sometimes need to bite. 

Yes, police dogs use their noses way more than their teeth.

Yes, police dogs are a "less lethal" level of force, and do not take the place of firearms. Nor do they take the place of Taser, OC, Batons, or any other tool. They serve a very specific function. They should be deployed properly, and used with great restraint within the law of the jurisdiction, within their tactical capabilities, as would any other use of force option.

The OP posted in their signature line that they have a dog of a certain pedigree...better watch out, there are some old evil Pohranicni Straze lines in there...are those even safe to have in *civilian* hands? :wild:

Just kidding, before anyone has a meltdown! 

I am sure LadyLaw, and the other cops and other knowledgeable individuals on here will further explain:

There are all types of LEO's out there, all kinds of K9's, at all levels of competency. SOP's and governance with regard to deployment vary greatly from community to community, and state to state.

There are good and bad Attorneys, Accountants, sandwich makers, circus performers, and every other profession under the sun, so all need to be judged individually. The tone I got from the OP was one of a negative, prejudged opinion, based at least in part on third party information. Perhaps when someone throws out a flammable post, they should back it up with facts from credible sources. It has been my experience in law enforcement (I start my 28th year next month, so I'm not a new puppy cop, but have a reasonable grasp on the dynamics) that most people that cast aspersions, have usually not taken the appropriate amount of time to either form an educated opinion (and no, it does not necessarily have to be aligned with mine, so long as it is based on logic and fact) , had a "bad experience" with the police, or perhaps feel they can do a better job.

I recommend anyone that interested in "improving" policing can head on down to their local agency, fill out an application, and show us how it's done. Once you put in a few years, you can then be in charge, and effect change by improving this profession.

...and people post under other topics wondering why they can't go train with their local police, and why there is such a division between civilian sport people and the police. Here's a prime example.

Rant over, I'll sit back with Cliff and eat some popcorn, and watch the show.


----------



## wildo

ladylaw203 said:


> Bark and Hold is great for sport but I do not care for its use on the street. When one trains for sport the dog is asked to exhibit an enthusiastic bark and hold while the helper stands like a statue. He gets a bite only when the helper moves. That is his reward. I have been a cop 35 years. My first retirement was with a large agency. Working on number two. Folks dont just stand there with a dog barking his butt off at them. They scream,curse,wave their arms etc. The typical sport dog that departments purchase with prior training will not work on the street without being backed up away from the guy and being taught to allow all of that movement. silly. Bite/hold dog with a solid recall is better in my opinion and safer for the dog. And dogs dont read research papers......... The real world is NOT routine. You name it,it happens.


But I still don't get the difference between a bark & hold for sport, and a bark & hold for police work. If the bad guy is cornered, then sure- bark and hold seems like it could work. But how does a bark & hold work with 360 degrees of space to run in? Or perhaps you're saying that a "bark & hold" style police dog _can_ bite if the the hold isn't working?


----------



## selzer

Tim Connell said:


> I usually ignore the posts that question law enforcement, since it's usually derailed into a post filled with negativity...seriously, enough is enough sometimes...so before I begin...
> 
> Good points, LadyLaw.
> 
> I'm going to also be few in words, and take the high road like Cliff, since there is rarely any winner in these types of posts in online forums...
> 
> So to make it easy:
> Yes, police dogs sometimes need to bite.
> 
> Yes, police dogs use their noses way more than their teeth.
> 
> Yes, police dogs are a "less lethal" level of force, and do not take the place of firearms. Nor do they take the place of Taser, OC, Batons, or any other tool. They serve a very specific function. They should be deployed properly, and used with great restraint within the law of the jurisdiction, within their tactical capabilities, as would any other use of force option.
> 
> The OP posted in their signature line that they have a dog of a certain pedigree...better watch out, there are some old evil Pohranicni Straze lines in there...are those even safe to have in *civilian* hands? :wild:
> 
> Just kidding, before anyone has a meltdown!
> 
> I am sure LadyLaw, and the other cops and other knowledgeable individuals on here will further explain:
> 
> There are all types of LEO's out there, all kinds of K9's, at all levels of competency. SOP's and governance with regard to deployment vary greatly from community to community, and state to state.
> 
> There are good and bad Attorneys, Accountants, sandwich makers, circus performers, and every other profession under the sun, so all need to be judged individually. The tone I got from the OP was one of a negative, prejudged opinion, based at least in part on third party information. Perhaps when someone throws out a flammable post, they should back it up with facts from credible sources. It has been my experience in law enforcement (I start my 28th year next month, so I'm not a new puppy cop, but have a reasonable grasp on the dynamics) that most people that cast aspersions, have usually not taken the appropriate amount of time to either form an educated opinion (and no, it does not necessarily have to be aligned with mine, so long as it is based on logic and fact) , had a "bad experience" with the police, or perhaps feel they can do a better job.
> 
> *I recommend anyone that interested in "improving" policing can head on down to their local agency, fill out an application, and show us how it's done. Once you put in a few years, you can then be in charge, and effect change by improving this profession*.
> 
> ...and people post under other topics wondering why they can't go train with their local police, and why there is such a division between civilian sport people and the police. Here's a prime example.
> 
> Rant over, I'll sit back with Cliff and eat some popcorn, and watch the show.


This (the bolded) is the arrogance that will be tolerated when it comes to police-posts, but won't be tolerated when someone's child is being picked on by a teacher, and another teacher says, "for those of you who cannot accept the way things are done, go get your teaching certificate and some experience and then we will listen to you." Or, when a vet says "don't feed your dog raw meat." No one will tolerate a vet coming on here and saying, "all you people that don't like the way we do our jobs, why don't you go and get yourself accepted at vet school, and complete that and then get some experience, and then MAYBE you can show us a thing or two." I do not understand why it is so different when it comes to the police.


----------



## TommyB681

If a criminal knows the dog wont bite then all 'show of force' with the dog is wasted and the presence of the dog is useless. I work in corrections and the dogs show of force is as powerful as 5 300lb men. Because the inmate is afraid to be bit...not barked at.

HOWEVER, the dog must be utilized correctly and not maliciously.


----------



## ladylaw203

go to youtube and watch some videos on Bark and Hold. will probably make more sense.


----------



## Tim Connell

wildo said:


> But I still don't get the difference between a bark & hold for sport, and a bark & hold for police work. If the bad guy is cornered, then sure- bark and hold seems like it could work. But how does a bark & hold work with 360 degrees of space to run in? Or perhaps you're saying that a "bark & hold" style police dog _can_ bite if the the hold isn't working?


Because most police officers want to make the decision when to bite, and when not to, not the dog.

If a suspect is immobile, the dog gets sent for a "guard", do you really think that most suspects would freeze and not move at all? I'm guessing most may move, or flee...which results in a bite.

How many "sport dogs" that are "clean" sometimes give a little tag to the helper in the blind, on a controlled, level, well lit competition field? If the police dog went in, gave a little tag, suspect may decide now to fight or flee. Now you have 2 bites, instead of 1. (also, it is in an environment new to the dog, under stress, and many times in diminished light.) The sport dog is looking for the sleeve...police dog is looking for the man. Apples and oranges.
This is one of the reasons a police dog differs from a sport dog...but that's a different thread.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Yup that's what I've heard as well but when it gets brought up as in this thread we're told first yes there are plenty of regs, then O.K. not consistently and there are always bad apples and then well, 'you just can't handle the truth'........




Tim Connell said:


> <snipped>
> *There are all types of LEO's out there, all kinds of K9's, at all levels of competency. SOP's and governance with regard to deployment vary greatly from community to community, and state to state.*
> 
> <snipped>
> 
> 
> Rant over, I'll sit back with Cliff and eat some _popcorn,_ and watch the show.


----------



## ladylaw203

selzer said:


> This (the bolded) is the arrogance that will be tolerated when it comes to police-posts, but won't be tolerated when someone's child is being picked on by a teacher, and another teacher says, "for those of you who cannot accept the way things are done, go get your teaching certificate and some experience and then we will listen to you." Or, when a vet says "don't feed your dog raw meat." No one will tolerate a vet coming on here and saying, "all you people that don't like the way we do our jobs, why don't you go and get yourself accepted at vet school, and complete that and then get some experience, and then MAYBE you can show us a thing or two." I do not understand why it is so different when it comes to the police.


I did not interpret it as arrogance. Just a way of saying that it is easy to have opinions when one is not doing it and has no real idea of what goes on out there and what we encounter as police officers. Or fireman or any first responder. Our decisions are made in micro seconds. Most of us do the best we can under pretty darn stressful conditions that most do not care to experience.

well said Tim


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Yup.

They have very hard jobs, no question about it and they don't like to be questioned.. 

There are tactical issues that one has to be faced with to understand.

However that doesn't negate the fact that they are ultimately men and women who work to serve the public and as such can be and are held accountable to the public.

No group/person in a position of authority should get a pass because 'they say so'.


----------



## wildo

Eh, nevermind. 

I know what a "bark and hold" is on a SchH field. Apparently a similar but "a LOT of tweaking is done to it" technique is used in police work. I was asking for clarification on the very point that most of the commenters in this thread are saying: if the bad guy knows the dog won't bite, what's stopping the bad guy from just waltzing away? 

Clearly the police version of the "Bark and Hold" exists and is used. So it's not true to say that it simply wouldn't work. Clearly it does work with "a lot of tweaking." I was asking how, specifically, it works if the dog can't physically restrain (with teeth) the guy. Does the dog just jump on him and hump him to death while the police mozzy up with handcuffs? I mean- come on- how does it actually work when the bad guy isn't cornered? Is the dog allowed to bite on command or something?


----------



## Tim Connell

selzer said:


> This (the bolded) is the arrogance that will be tolerated when it comes to police-posts, but won't be tolerated when someone's child is being picked on by a teacher, and another teacher says, "for those of you who cannot accept the way things are done, go get your teaching certificate and some experience and then we will listen to you." Or, when a vet says "don't feed your dog raw meat." No one will tolerate a vet coming on here and saying, "all you people that don't like the way we do our jobs, why don't you go and get yourself accepted at vet school, and complete that and then get some experience, and then MAYBE you can show us a thing or two." I do not understand why it is so different when it comes to the police.


Sarcastic, perhaps- arrogant, I would have to disagree. It is in fact a factual suggestion. 

I defer to someone's expertise in their profession, whenever necessary, and for example, would not pretend to know what my friend the Neurosurgeon knows. If If I had a question about brain surgery: I would inquire, gain factual information, and then formulate an opinion based on his knowledge, expertise, and recommendations.

If I were trying to gain knowledgeable input, I wouldn't throw out information from a questionable source, and try to label the whole police K9 world as incompetent to make appropriate decisions.


----------



## selzer

ladylaw203 said:


> I did not interpret it as arrogance. Just a way of saying that it is easy to have opinions when one is not doing it and has no real idea of what goes on out there and what we encounter as police officers. Or fireman or any first responder. Our decisions are made in micro seconds. Most of us do the best we can under pretty darn stressful conditions that most do not care to experience.


While that is true, you are trained in policies and procedures and in the law. And the suggestion was made that if you don't like the way we do it, go get the job, and make changes. 

But the fact is, changes, like changes in education, are rarely made by individual teachers on the front lines. They are made further up the pike anyway. 

I took it as arrogance because it is basically saying that you cannot have any opinion about anything unless you have held the position. We would all have to be doctors and lawyers and teachers and police officers, and engineers and everything else to hold an opinion about anything if that holds true. 

I suppose if my sister, who is not a doctor or a nurse simply trusted them with her baby when she was in the NICU, then she would have been right according to Tim, but her baby would have been dead twice over. You do not have to be a doctor to question a doctor's orders, and you don't have to be a police officer to have an opinion about the way police officers do their jobs, or about how teachers or vets or engineers do there jobs.

And just like I think a lady who is under severe stress might act less than perfectly to reporters, I also understand that police officers have to make the best decision they can with little time to choose, and sometimes looking backwards, we might come to the conclusion that it was the right thing or the wrong thing, but it could have gone either way in the moment. It just does not seem that a question about how dogs are used for police work in general is a question about split-second decisions.


----------



## selzer

Tim Connell said:


> Sarcastic, perhaps- arrogant, I would have to disagree. It is in fact a factual suggestion.
> 
> I defer to someone's expertise in their profession, whenever necessary, and for example, would not pretend to know what my friend the Neurosurgeon knows. If If I had a question about brain surgery: I would inquire, gain factual information, and then formulate an opinion based on his knowledge, expertise, and recommendations.
> 
> If I were trying to gain knowledgeable input, I wouldn't throw out information from a questionable source, and try to label the whole police K9 world as incompetent to make appropriate decisions.



I am glad my sister did not just defer to the people in the neo-natal NICU. She recognized that they had multiplied a dosage by 10 and would have murdered her very fragile infant in that way. She practically lived there, and still found the baby not breathing with her oxygen level way down. 

That baby is two now, and she just not defer to the neurosurgeons when they suggest this or that. In fact because of a number 4 and a number 3 brain bleed, that encouraged her twice to sign a DNR on her baby. 

Gwennie is sharp as a tack, she sings, she dances, she has a great personality. She has a little problem with her leg right now, but casting is fixing that. She will have some issues during her growth spurts, but for the most part she is a normal little girl who the experts told her to sign a Do-Not-Rescussitate order on. 

When you are around in the world for a while, you realize that even the best doctors from the best clinics, and the best hospitals make mistakes now and again. Why should the same not be true of police officers?


----------



## Tim Connell

No, I am just saying people should obtain accurate information before leaping to conclusions. 

If you read the original post, it appears to me that the OP formed an opinion of all K9 use by talking to their local PD who apparently had some issues with their abilities.


----------



## selzer

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Yup.
> 
> They have very hard jobs, no question about it and they don't like to be questioned..
> 
> There are tactical issues that one has to be faced with to understand.
> 
> However that doesn't negate the fact that they are ultimately men and women who work to serve the public and as such can be and are held accountable to the public.
> 
> No group/person in a position of authority should get a pass because 'they say so'.


This is what I meant, just better put.


----------



## ladylaw203

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Yup.
> 
> They have very hard jobs, no question about it and they don't like to be questioned..
> 
> There are tactical issues that one has to be faced with to understand.
> 
> However that doesn't negate the fact that they are ultimately men and women who work to serve the public and as such can be and are held accountable to the public.
> 
> No group/person in a position of authority should get a pass because 'they say so'.


 
I have no problem with being questioned. I have answered them. I spent most of my career as the midnight shift patrol lieutenant at a large department and director of the k9 division. NOBODY got a pass and I am well aware of being accountable to the public and believe strongly in that . My badge is given to me by the public as far as I am concerned. I dont think we need to be told....


----------



## ladylaw203

selzer said:


> It just does not seem that a question about how dogs are used for police work in general is a question about split-second decisions.


It is if the decision is being made to use force


----------



## Tim Connell

jocoyn said:


> Not being pluckist but exactly where ARE the laws and regulations that govern police powers?
> 
> I know there is caselaw. I know there are Industry Standards. I don't see anything in the CFR. My state law still has not been updated to require patrol dog certification. I thought it had. There is no requirement to certify narcotics dogs here to any standard.


Typically, they will be in your state statutes, and other guidelines as recommended by your state Office of the Attorney General, or County Attorney/district Attorney. They are further delineated by departmental SOP's, and even local ordinances in some cases.

Certification requirements vary greatly state to state. Some states have no state standard, but it is recommended the local agency certify, and usually this is to the established national standards: NAPWDA, IPWDA, USPCA, NNDDA, etc.


----------



## selzer

ladylaw203 said:


> It is if the decision is being made to use force



I thought the OP was suggesting not training dogs to bite for police work. I think it could be done, but the way the dogs would be used would be different. That wouldn't be a split second decision as the dog you would have with you would simply not have that training, and wouldn't have that to offer.

But I certainly do not think we should remove biting from police dogs, I just think it is possible.



Tim Connell said:


> No, I am just saying people should obtain accurate information before leaping to conclusions.
> 
> If you read the original post, it appears to me that the OP formed an opinion of all K9 use by talking to their local PD who apparently had some issues with their abilities.


I think that we see things either by what we see in the news which is usually the most extreme cases, or what we experience in our communities, and that is often just how it is done in the locality. It does not make it wrong, because it is typical in our area. But it does not make it right in general, though many of us might think that what is typical where we are is typical all over. 

I come from the largest, and I think one of the poorest counties in Ohio, and the way our dogs are trained here, is probably very different from departments that have better resources. But other areas that have better resources may not be using them for their k9 program, so someone might think it rather typical across the board.


----------



## Tim Connell

ladylaw203 said:


> I have no problem with being questioned. I have answered them. I spent most of my career as the midnight shift patrol lieutenant at a large department and director of the k9 division. NOBODY got a pass and I am well aware of being accountable to the public and believe strongly in that . My badge is given to me by the public as far as I am concerned. I dont think we need to be told....


As Renee says above, we have no problem being questioned. 

In fact, many of the police on here are plenty used to being held accountable, and questioned. Probably why we actually use our real names on here, and many others do not. Most of us try to help others with factual information, and are willing to put it out there for scrutiny.


----------



## selzer

I used my real name because I was too stupid to think up something clever, and never thought that I might want to be anonymous.

Unfortunately, when people do question anything to do with police, it often comes down to, "well, if you don't like how it's done, go and get an application, and start doing the job." Or, it comes down to, "we don't have enough information, let's wait to see if he is convicted, before we make any judgements." Funny how no one really wanted to wait to see if the lady who sicked her dogs on the reporter fared in the legal system before saying she ought to be "put down."

The question, I think is legitimate. I can see how some people who own this breed might not like that a lot of people fear them because of how they are used in police work, and when a police dog goes bad, it can be really bad. I don't think there is anything wrong with the question, but maybe some of the assumptions, like the way they are trained is inhumane. The way some of them are trained, I would agree, but I can't say that all are trained that way. And it also makes sense that if you are training a dog to bite people, then you probably have to demand totally reliable obedience, and perhaps what you see in basic household obedience and star-puppy is not what you are going to see when training k9s.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

It's human nature, especially when working a job that is very difficult, to not like being questioned. This is apparent in the responses as highlighted by Sue and the responses to Wildo's question about bark and hold.

While I've never been in law enforcement I have worked in highly regulated business (fed and state) and I do understand at that level and sometimes it seems disrespectful. I have to say though, those regs I dealt with protected people (like yourself) from abuses.


I was careful to not comment on specifics regarding the training/use of dogs but in general there are depts. (two near me) that don't have K9s. As told to me just yesterday by an active duty policeman, those in charge decided there was not enough benefit to justify the cost of maintaining a K9 unit. So there are depts. out there functioning without dogs, at all and IMO that's what the bigger question is about, but that's just me because I am not going to get in the weeds about specific training/tactics. 





ladylaw203 said:


> I have no problem with being questioned. I have answered them. I spent most of my career as the midnight shift patrol lieutenant at a large department and director of the k9 division. NOBODY got a pass and I am well aware of being accountable to the public and believe strongly in that . My badge is given to me by the public as far as I am concerned. I dont think we need to be told....


----------



## onyx'girl

Chip Blasiole said:


> Someone commented on seeing half bites with K-9's. Not all departments are that sophisticated in training and selection of dogs. Some don't care if the dog bites fully as long as they have the drive and courage to do the job.
> Ask a K-9 officer if they need their dogs to bite.


LOL, one of my clubs helpers worked a resort town's K9...ran him off the field with just a courage test voice(the dog) and another dept that is known for 'crotch bites' As long as the criminals don't know which town has the dog that bails, they may still be deterred.
Edited to add...the dog that was run off the field came from a well known broker in MI. He must have thought that dog would be a good match for a sleepy resort town.


----------



## Tim Connell

selzer said:


> I used my real name because I was too stupid to think up something clever, and never thought that I might want to be anonymous.
> 
> Unfortunately, when people do question anything to do with police, it often comes down to, "well, if you don't like how it's done, go and get an application, and start doing the job." Or, it comes down to, "we don't have enough information, let's wait to see if he is convicted."


Maybe I should be anonymous, I could be so much more controversial.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

btw---* FWIW* I really don't agree with everything the OP wrote either, I do agree that it's o.k. to pose questions though.

I lean towards if dogs are going to be used they should be able to bite and they should be obedient and I've heard IRL and on here some comments from LE that OB isn't important. That's concerning.


----------



## onyx'girl

I think there is a change going on in the OB area(slowly) K9Cop magazine has a nice article written by Jerry Bradshaw about obedience.


----------



## selzer

I am all for police dogs biting. But I think that they have to be under super-control too. And I have had a police dog come after Dubya while I was walking him. Doesn't change my mind that police dogs should be trained to bite. It may change my perception about how under control they are as a whole. 

Dogs are not robots. And if a community is going to have dogs sniffing out drugs and catching thugs, than there is the risk that one of the dogs will make a mistake at some point. I think you have to weigh the risks against the benefits. 

At this point, I think having dogs makes more sense than not having them. And I think that if we try to produce a kinder, gentler k9, then we are probably not using them to their fullest potential.


----------



## carmspack

I have many dogs in police service and I am as proud as can be in the service that they have provided . 
When you know the handlers, young men (my experience of course there are women) with families that want them home after shift , safe and sound , you want that dog to be able to do its job - whatever it takes . I have had dogs that have assisted in arrests without need to bite . Located a suspect hiding underneath a display table in a mall , during Christmas , after hours of search , and when located the man was crouching , dog and man face to face , arrest made without a bite , without the mans very vulnerable face being bitten. On the other hand I have had dogs put violent , resisting bad guys into the hospital, and had one dog lose its life in the act of saving his handler from injury. The dog was knifed . 

There is a balance . The dogs are a tool . They are respected as partners , valued. But they are a tool , not fluffy pets that need to be protected .


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Well Said! 

Maybe someday we'll have a kinder gentler society (beam me up Scotty!) we won't *need* dogs to do this job any longer....but me thinks that is a long long way down the road....(check your PMs and have a good evening  )




selzer said:


> I am all for police dogs biting. But I think that they have to be under super-control too. And I have had a police dog come after Dubya while I was walking him. Doesn't change my mind that police dogs should be trained to bite. It may change my perception about how under control they are as a whole.
> 
> Dogs are not robots. And if a community is going to have dogs sniffing out drugs and catching thugs, than there is the risk that one of the dogs will make a mistake at some point. I think you have to weigh the risks against the benefits.
> 
> At this point, I think having dogs makes more sense than not having them. And I think that if we try to produce a kinder, gentler k9, then we are probably not using them to their fullest potential.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

I remember you linking to that in another thread but I haven't read it.

Can you relink or point to the thread?




onyx'girl said:


> I think there is a change going on in the OB area(slowly) K9Cop magazine has a nice article written by Jerry Bradshaw about obedience.


----------



## Tim Connell

Gwenhwyfair said:


> btw---* FWIW* I really don't agree with everything the OP wrote either, I do agree that it's o.k. to pose questions though.
> 
> I lean towards if dogs are going to be used they should be able to bite and they should be obedient and I've heard IRL and on here some comments from LE that OB isn't important. That's concerning.



Agreed. OB and control is very important, and should be present. With most police dogs, it is not at the precision of a sport dog, nor is that level necessary. 

Many police dogs are dual purpose, such as:
Patrol/Narcotics
Patrol/Explosives
Patrol/Firearms/Ammo detection

Most DP dogs as part of their patrol training perform:
OB 
Detection
Apprehension
Agility
Area search
Building search
Article search
Tracking/Trailing

So some people don't take that amount of training/training time into consideration...especially the high liability aspects (apprehension/detection) so sometimes the OB may lack precision. Plus, don't forget, acceptable "street OB" is a bit looser than competition OB.

So, next time the IPO people complain about cleaning up their 3 phases...try staying on top of 8!

Disclaimer: No disrespect to sport people...I appreciate the effort it takes to have a decent sport dog.


----------



## selzer

Our specialty club recognizes hero-dogs at their Spring Show. They have sometimes done demonstrations. At these they (the police, not the dogs) will answer questions. 

One of the questions asked had something to do with where on the suspect the dog bites. They said they are trained to go for limbs, not the face or throat or chest. 

Now I know it is no fun to be bitten in the arm or leg, but it is rarely life-threatening. This will slow a perp down until the handler can _mosey_ up with his handcuffs. 

Do they even have handcuffs anymore or do they just use those plastic tie-wraps? Oh, I know, off topic, just something I wonder about.

Any how, a leg or arm wound will generally heal without complications that bites to the face, throat or torso might do. 

So, if this is common all over, and not just typical to the handler/department that had the police dog there that day, I would say they are already training these dogs specifically to do the job with the least amount of serious damage to the perp. 

We lost a dog here in town, to a guy that was out killing people one morning. When we hear about stories like the nurse getting bitten, we should probably remember that the dogs do pay an ultimate price probably a lot more often than dogs harming someone uninvolved.


----------



## David Taggart

'... crowd control..not biting.'Riot control, mounted police on horses, armoured fighting vehicles, police dogs and? No biting?! come on...1. Our k-9s are never off leash. Too risky for the dog. Too risky for society.It would be stupid to think that the handler of a trained dog who was muzzled (and leashed on a LONG leash) will give him a command to take a bite and hold. Being in the crowd is a good exercise for your champion. If you mind yourself a good trainer - you should be able to remain in control of your dog at any stage of his attack. Recall him, don't ask him to grab any part of the body. Lots of sounds around to distract your dog. Very good exercise. 2. When our K-9's bite someone, they usually maniac the guy. He needs surgery and the department gets sued. We rarely let them get in a bite, unless we are right there, know where the guy is and can quickly stop the bite.;The dogs need to get a bite in occasionally anyway!) Interesting. Do they "maniac" the guy before or after? How would I know that their department has got sued? What surgery? What if the maniac; doesn't have anything on him, no cards? And how possibly they know where the guy is? By growl and cries? Why your dog has to bite? For your satisfaction!3. The training is inhumane and unnecessary. Again, my opinion. I feel it is unneccssary to breed and train dogs that can take this type of training". Its painfull to watch and inhumane.GSD is a breed created for military use, and the world fell in love with the breed exactly during II World war simply by seeing these intelligent dogs at work. GSD's loyalty and protectiveness is admired by their owners. Though agressive, GSD could be a working dog for visiting elderly homes and kinder gardens, it depends on training - which talents your dog has. But, if you train your dog to protect you - your dog must know that he might die, so, the decoy might suffocate him a little bit just to indicate such possibility before your dear puppy's teeth win in this combat. But, what if it's real? Your dog is your weapon against the robber. And robbers don't like to be stopped on their way to the exit, they might kill your dog first, then kill you.Do we need agressive biting dogs? Of course, we do. As long as human agressiveness remains one of characteristic features of a human being we do need somebody to protect policeman and relieve him from unnecessary risk.


----------



## selzer

David Taggart said:


> '... crowd control..not biting.'Riot control, mounted police on horses, armoured fighting vehicles, police dogs and? No biting?! come on...1. Our k-9s are never off leash. Too risky for the dog. Too risky for society.It would be stupid to think that the handler of a trained dog who was muzzled (and leashed on a LONG leash) will give him a command to take a bite and hold. Being in the crowd is a good exercise for your champion. If you mind yourself a good trainer - you should be able to remain in control of your dog at any stage of his attack. Recall him, don't ask him to grab any part of the body. Lots of sounds around to distract your dog. Very good exercise. 2. When our K-9's bite someone, they usually "maniac" the guy. He needs surgery and the department gets sued. We rarely let them get in a bite, unless we are right there, know where the guy is and can quickly stop the bite. "The dogs need to get a bite in occasionally anyway!) Interesting. Do they "maniac" the guy before or after? How would I know that their department has got sued? What surgery? What if the "maniac" doesn't have anything on him, no cards? And how possibly they know where the guy is? By growl and cries? Why your dog has to bite? For your satisfaction!3. The training is inhumane and unnecessary. Again, my opinion. I feel it is unneccssary to breed and train dogs that "can take this type of training". Its painfull to watch and inhumane.GSD is a breed created for military use, and the world fell in love with the breed exactly during II World war simply by seeing these intelligent dogs at work. GSD's loyalty and protectiveness is admired by their owners. Though agressive, GSD could be a working dog for visiting elderly homes and kinder gardens, it depends on training - which talents your dog has. But, if you train your dog to protect you - your dog must know that he might die, so, the decoy might suffocate him a little bit just to indicate such possibility before your dear puppy's teeth win in this combat. But, what if it's real? Your dog is your weapon against the robber. And robbers don't like to be stopped on their way to the exit, they might kill your dog first, then kill you.*Do we need agressive biting dogs? Of course, we do. As long as human agressiveness remains one of characteristic features of a human being we do need somebody to protect policeman and relieve him from unnecessary risk*.


No, we don't. We could just go back to how it was, HALT! Bang! Bang! Eh well, he should've stopped, what an idiot. 

There are police forces out there that do not have a dog. They do manage. Lots of cops are not dog-handlers, they manage too without dogs. 

It seems the only thing that is truly consistent about anything is that it evolves. 

They did police work before dogs came on the scene, and there may come a time when they no longer use dogs, or they use dogs in different ways, like how they use a variety of breeds sniffing for bombs and drugs at airports.


----------



## BritneyP

onyx'girl said:


> I think there is a change going on in the OB area(slowly) K9Cop magazine has a nice article written by Jerry Bradshaw about obedience.


1. I SURE am glad I came in way too late to even bother wagering an opinion on this thread, as it is bound to get ugly! lol

2. I know that guy!


----------



## GSDElsa

It was hard to take this thread seriously from the beginning, considering that it started out saying that the concern was lawsuits from dogs mauling suspects so badly they needed surgery...and the cops have guns, so the dogs aren't needed. Hm. Let's see. Dog bite to the leg that requires fixin'. Or emptying a magazine into the dude. Well, I guess the good thing is that the dude who got shot wouldn't be around to sue......

Guns are a last resort for cops and are considered lethal. All other "tools" in a cops toolbox are "less than lethal." A dog being one of them. Each one of those tools gets used in different circumstances.


----------



## NancyJ

lhczth said:


> If there was no fear of the dog biting would they be suitable or respected in crowd control or in guarding? A dog is respected because it may be used and because people don't want to be bitten.


As aquaintance of mine is a long term officer and he said that he has seen this play out several times: They have a dog and a bunch of folks with guns pulled and aimed at the suspect and the suspect would ignore the guns and be crying "don't let the dog go don't let the dog go" and comply.

I *do* think there is abuse of police power some places. The bad ones get the press while the vast majority of them are kind decent human beings just trying to keep the peace and serve their communities (and trying to live on ridiculously low pay). 

Anything you can say about misuse of dogs you could say about misuse of boots, sticks, tasers, etc...so maybe the question is less one about dogs and more about the conditions that lead to abuse of power. 

I really would like to know "what regulations" other than local ones and voluntary compliance with peer organizations / industry standards and, of course, they *should* be looking at caselaw.

I just checked and the bill requiring patrol K9s in our state to have national certifications for bitework is still not in the state code...and another one has just been proposed for certrification of detection dogs. A national cert is no guarantee but it may expand some folks' view of things by putting them in contact with peers....


----------



## ladylaw203

I just checked and the bill requiring patrol K9s in our state to have national certifications for bitework is still not in the state code...and another one has just been proposed for certrification of detection dogs. A national cert is no guarantee but it may expand some folks' view of things by putting them in contact with peers.... 


Any department a k9 division that has not done proper research will pay for it later. Many states do not mandate a certification. It is done based on industry standard and the liability involved. with regard to scent detection dogs case law clearly states the necessity for a certification. Which is a large problem in civilian handled HRD dogs. whole other thread...


----------



## onyx'girl

> I think there is a change going on in the OB area(slowly) K9Cop magazine has a nice article written by Jerry Bradshaw about obedience.





BritneyP said:


> 1. I SURE am glad I came in way too late to even bother wagering an opinion on this thread, as it is bound to get ugly! lol
> 
> 2. I know that guy!


Congrats to both of you Mrs. Bradshaw, wishing you many happy years :wub:


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

I understand you've probably had convos like that with sport people and in that broader context you make fair points and I can appreciate that, but that's not where *I'm* coming from. 

This is about bite work and when engaged with a suspect what kind of control does the officer have?

Now I know of one trainer who *used* to volunteer to help K9 officers train. The final straw for him was the dog was chewing and chomping up his arm and getting very close to his face. Mind you this guy isn't a sport trainer (well any longer) he does a lot of protection training (personal and property) and helping with police K9 training so he's pretty well grounded in the reality of the differences required of a police K9, protection and sport dog. He actually chewed the handler out about it (he had warned the handler before) and said he this was going to get his dept in a big time law suit one day. 

In the end he got fed up with it and quit helping because the attitude was getting so sloppy and that the dogs don't_ really_ need an out. _Now when I first heard this I was, O.K., isolated incident take it with a grain of salt._ 

However as time went on I kept hearing more of this sort of attitude and I'm just not the kind of person to ignore multiple red flags. Again referring here specifically to bite work not snappy downs in motion or anything like that. 

Then you add to that uneven or lack of consistent guidelines/regs/testing(??) that's just going fuel more questions as posed by the OP......






Tim Connell said:


> Agreed. OB and control is very important, and should be present. With most police dogs, it is not at the precision of a sport dog, nor is that level necessary.
> 
> Many police dogs are dual purpose, such as:
> Patrol/Narcotics
> Patrol/Explosives
> Patrol/Firearms/Ammo detection
> 
> Most DP dogs as part of their patrol training perform:
> OB
> Detection
> Apprehension
> Agility
> Area search
> Building search
> Article search
> Tracking/Trailing
> 
> So some people don't take that amount of training/training time into consideration...especially the high liability aspects (apprehension/detection) so sometimes the OB may lack precision. Plus, don't forget, acceptable "street OB" is a bit looser than competition OB.
> 
> So, next time the IPO people complain about cleaning up their 3 phases...try staying on top of 8!
> 
> Disclaimer: No disrespect to sport people...I appreciate the effort it takes to have a decent sport dog.


----------



## ladylaw203

Now I know of one trainer who *used* to volunteer to help K9 officers train




Your exposure is extrememly limited and what you are seeing is not the norm. We have been discussing certifications. Look up standards for NNDDA,USPCA and NAPWDA with regard to patrol dogs and your question will be answered. Patrol dogs must have control. I certify them for NNDDA


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

You took that out of context, my complete statement to fill out my reasoning. Also some of the comments made by folks like Tim and Cliff have been contradictory (in the larger context of this thread) as to guidelines/certs and such and these are the folks in the know (??)




> Now I know of one trainer who *used* to volunteer to help K9 officers train. The final straw for him was the dog was chewing and chomping up his arm and getting very close to his face. Mind you this guy isn't a sport trainer (well any longer) he does a lot of protection training (personal and property) and helping with police K9 training so he's pretty well grounded in the reality of the differences required of a police K9, protection and sport dog. He actually chewed the handler out about it (he had warned the handler before) and said he this was going to get his dept in a big time law suit one day.
> 
> In the end he got fed up with it and quit helping because the attitude was getting so sloppy and that the dogs don't_ really_ need an out. _*Now when I first heard this I was, O.K., isolated incident take it with a grain of salt*_


 


ladylaw203 said:


> Now I know of one trainer who *used* to volunteer to help K9 officers train
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your exposure is extrememly limited and what you are seeing is not the norm. We have been discussing certifications. Look up standards for NNDDA,USPCA and NAPWDA with regard to patrol dogs and your question will be answered. Patrol dogs must have control. I certify them for NNDDA


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

btw- degrees of variance from state to state or locality to locality doesn't excuse 'poor culture' within depts. 

No one wants to be painted with a broad brush and often those generalizations are inaccurate BUT when were talking about use of force against civilians the bar is (and should be) higher.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

In blue therein lies the problem.

On the one hand you defend practices, on the other hand there are practices that you simply cannot defend because the highlighted below.

The way they pay for it is after abusive use of a dogs has happened, usually more then once.

I think it's fair to say that this is not a good thing for LE and K9 use. I also think it's very fair for civilians to be concerned about these discrepancies.

I would think folks like yourself would be_ really_ concerned about this as well?



ladylaw203 said:


> I just checked and the bill requiring patrol K9s in our state to have national certifications for bitework is still not in the state code...and another one has just been proposed for certrification of detection dogs. A national cert is no guarantee but it may expand some folks' view of things by putting them in contact with peers....
> 
> 
> Any department a k9 division that has not done proper research will pay for it later. Many states do not mandate a certification. It is done based on industry standard and the liability involved. with regard to scent detection dogs case law clearly states the necessity for a certification. Which is a large problem in civilian handled HRD dogs. whole other thread...


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

...well I hope no one has taken this personally, I know I'm probably 'a bad' guy even though I am more concerned from a meta POV then specific training or tactics used. I came into this thread pretty much being O.K. with police K9s having bite training. I did not realize, however, that the playing field wrt how that training is applied or certified is so unlevel, that's a problem that could be aleviated with an ounce of prevention type perspective.... :shrug: and the beat goes on....


----------



## ladylaw203

I have absolutely no idea what you mean

POV is privately owned vehicle......


----------



## ayoitzrimz

ladylaw203 said:


> I have absolutely no idea what you mean
> 
> POV is privately owned vehicle......


I think she might mean Point Of View (meta Point of View - very general top level point of view).


----------



## Shade

ladylaw203 said:


> I have absolutely no idea what you mean
> 
> POV is privately owned vehicle......


POV = Point of view I'm assuming


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

hehehe...in online debate world it's Point Of View. 

and...you have good day and thanks for all you do, sincerely. :thumbup:

(in edit, oh boy you guys were fast on the POV explanation!)



ladylaw203 said:


> I have absolutely no idea what you mean
> 
> POV is privately owned vehicle......


----------



## ladylaw203

Well, the point is that I truly do not know what you expect. As a whole from what I see as a certifying official for many years and instructor at seminars is a professional application of police k9s. However, there are idiots in all lines of work and they will eventually be weeded out,sued whatever.


----------



## NancyJ

I think pushing for state laws that do require a national certification make sense..and hopefully they stick with the ones that have been out there for awhile and respected (I know some folks start up new orgs when they can't play in the sandbox with others  ). 

If nothing else, it puts isolated departments in contact with Master Trainers and people from other agencies....and the influence of their peers will probably have a big effect. 

But that is my input as a consituent...that I would contact my representative and ask for them to support the bills on the floor, expressing my tremendous respect for the quality of the Master Trainers I have met.


----------



## JackandMattie

Wow! This thread went all over the place.

I don't have a clue about the regulations, and honestly, I don't care. Litigation will sort it out if need be. No system is perfect. Ours here in the US is pretty darn good, because we can use the courts to effect regulatory change.

In the meantime, I absolutely want LEOs to be partnered with dogs that bite. Absolutely. The men and women who serve and protect us deserve every possible advantage in deterring and apprehending the criminals, and returning home safely to their families at the end of their shifts.

In the absence of proof of some pretty pervasive abuse/neglect by LE in using biting dogs, I can only shake my head in disbelief at the suggestion that we take away this vital tool. Disbelief.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Lots of problems with this. 

Incidents don't happen in an isolated vacuum. Why do some depts. not have dogs? Liability is definitely one of the concerns and a cost* that gets shared*. 

The higher ups in my local city police dept (per the officer I spoke with the other day) decided it was not worth it. Well now I have to say I can better understand that reasoning. Tighter budgets, some states/areas don't have consistent testing/certs which increases liability and as such why should my small local dept carry the cost of that?

It becomes self defeating for someone who thinks dogs are valuable LE asset when the liability becomes too much for depts. to have dogs?

Not to mention public perception, which as annoying as it can be at times, does matter. A lack of oversight gives the police a black eye and it makes the dogs look bad too.

Then there's the aspect of someone being seriously injured who may have been a suspect but turns out to be innocent, there is human suffering involved.

As to expectations, firstly that the use of force is a serious matter, not something to be left to deal with via a law suit? What is wrong with an ounce of prevention, to my pragmatic sensibilities it seems much more logical? It seems we in this country (in general) don't want to invest a penny now to save $100 down the road. Makes absolutely no sense.

You mentioned Nat'l certs earlier. Why not? BTW I am *not* going to say what those certs would involve in detail because I would expect people like yourself and also knowledgeable people from LE and others with input from the civilian side to get together and hammer out some minimum requirements. < this is what I expected from a profession invested with so much authority.

BTW- In these threads as noted by Sue, we are always asked to put ourselves in LEs shoes. The other side of this coin is to put yourself in our shoes. LE has the authority to use force we civilians do not and therefore credibility, trust and professionalism are very important. 

Just saying 'let them sue or whatever' is not a good way to establish credibility, consistency and trust.



ladylaw203 said:


> Well, the point is that I truly do not know what you expect. As a whole from what I see as a certifying official for many years and instructor at seminars is a professional application of police k9s. However, there are idiots in all lines of work and they will eventually be weeded out,sued whatever.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

..another very good point, it's on us citizens as well!




jocoyn said:


> I think pushing for state laws that do require a national certification make sense..and hopefully they stick with the ones that have been out there for awhile and respected (I know some folks start up new orgs when they can't play in the sandbox with others  ).
> 
> If nothing else, it puts isolated departments in contact with Master Trainers and people from other agencies....and the influence of their peers will probably have a big effect.
> 
> But that is my input as a consituent...that I would contact my representative and ask for them to support the bills on the floor, expressing my tremendous respect for the quality of the Master Trainers I have met.


----------



## ladylaw203

The higher ups in my local city police dept (per the officer I spoke with the other day) decided it was not worth it. Well now I have to say I can better understand that reasoning. Tighter budgets, some states/areas don't have consistent testing/certs which increases liability and as such why should my small local dept carry the cost of that?
___________________________________________________
_They have obviously done little research. There ARE consistent certifications with the three major orgs. In existence for about 30 years that have held up in court. NO excuse for not certifying dogs. And FYI many agencies have narcotic detector dogs which can generate revenue. And their are grants available_


It becomes self defeating for someone who thinks dogs are valuable LE asset when the liability becomes too much for depts. to have dogs?
__________________________________________________________
_Everything has liability_



Not to mention public perception, which as annoying as it can be at times, does matter. A lack of oversight gives the police a black eye and it makes the dogs look bad too.

Then there's the aspect of someone being seriously injured who may have been a suspect but turns out to be innocent, there is human suffering involved.
_____________________________________________________________-
_You are concentrating on dogs. there are many other aspects of law enforcement that can generate that outcome_

_____________________________________________________

As to expectations, firstly that the use of force is a serious matter, not something to be left to deal with via a law suit? What is wrong with an ounce of prevention, to my pragmatic sensibilities it seems much more logical? It seems we in this country (in general) don't want to invest a penny now to save $100 down the road. Makes absolutely no sense.

You mentioned Nat'l certs earlier. Why not? BTW I am *not* going to say what those certs would involve in detail because I would expect people like yourself and also knowledgeable people from LE and others with input from the civilian side to get together and hammer out some minimum requirements. < this is what I expected from a profession invested with so much authority.

\___________________________________________________________

_Again, your expertise is extremely limited obviously. All departments have use of force policies. The industry standard IS a yearly certification for police k9s in all fields of endeavor. Civlilians have no business in designing standards. They are designed based on previous case law and other considerations. I have written standards that have held up to scrutiny in the courts. AND departments have their own k9 police and procedures. As I say,there are orgs that have been in existence for about 30yrs. Agencies who do not choose to use them are just silly_


----------



## ladylaw203

I think pushing for state laws that do require a national certification make sense..and hopefully they stick with the ones that have been out there for awhile and respected (I know some folks start up new orgs when they can't play in the sandbox with others  ). 

If nothing else, it puts isolated departments in contact with Master Trainers and people from other agencies....and the influence of their peers will probably have a big effect. 

But that is my input as a consituent...that I would contact my representative and ask for them to support the bills on the floor, expressing my tremendous respect for the quality of the Master Trainers I have met. 
__________________
AGAIN you all are not in law enforcement and are not understanding that departments have information available in this day and age and are not isolated. I get calls all of the time from department heads. And agency that wants advice and information has only to look. such as www.k9fleck.org Dogs are no different than firearms,in service training, use of various assets etc.


----------



## NancyJ

Renee, I think we understand they have this information available to them but imagine sometimes a beancounter says "You want to join an organization and certify? "We can't spend money on that because we don't have to" 

Of course, "any agency that wants........" I am not sure that is always the case, until someone's hand is forced, and payout is made to avoid court, or the K9 units are shut down for that department because it is just too expensive working dogs. 

If we tell them they have to, at least, certify it is cheap insurance for me (taxpayer) if they have to go to court but it puts an obligation on me to pay for their training/certification. I am fine with that.

I *DO* have limited exposure but have seen individual LE K9 handlers buy their own dogs and do their own training, even pay their own dog's expenses, and go get certified out of their own pockets because they have a passion for it. Parts of my state are very much a third world country. 

I have also seen two people have to choke a dog off of a person during a public demo (boy was that a stink, the mayor was the one wearing the sleeve), several dogs die because people didn't know basic care (like making a malnois FAT by feeding it donuts every day, then running a criminal trail on a hot day), and being told from an officer in a city-sized department be told "yes, if anyone else is in the park the dog will bite the first person they find" -- 

That does not mean the vast majority of them are that way. I have a lot of respect for folks in K9 units and am blown away and humbled by the quality of training many of them do.

As a taxpayer, I am one of the employers of our public servants and if I feel that K9 teams need to be held to some sort of standard, I have every much right to ask for that as I do that our teachers are certified and firefighters are trained to formal standards as well. Certainly, the K9 handlers are the experts and the standards should be in their hands.


----------



## ladylaw203

As a taxpayer, I am one of the employers of our public servants and if I feel that K9 teams need to be held to some sort of standard, I have every much right to ask for that as I do that our teachers are certified and firefighters are trained to formal standards as well. Certainly, the K9 handlers are the experts and the standards should be in their hands. 

***************************************************

So am I and every other first responder. I have a lot of wants as well.
I think NO civlilian should be able to handle an HRD dog without a national certification,and background check because they may wind up in court and totally screw up a case . Lots of things to look at

As far as what you have seen.AGAIN there are idiots everywhere and in any line of work one cares to scrutinize


----------



## NancyJ

Absolutely - there is no argument there. All our HRD dogs require national certs and we require FBI background checks of all members (because state background checks can miss out of state crimes) and the certifying organizations require annual criminal background rechecks ......

Yes, there are idiots everywhere......that is why I said "this does not mean the vast majority of them are that way"


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

..,.in blue, in my post regarding civilian input I did not say, nor mean, they would be telling k9 trainers how to train dogs, usually it's more of an oversight role to help ensure standards. Just to be clear on my intent.

Other then that agree with everything below.


(btw totally a side note, I trained with a lady who was in the process of certifying her dog for HRD and after speaking with her and learning a little about it, well I'm just really impressed how much effort and dedication you folks have. She even mentioned that often the expenses are out of pocket...so thank you to folks like you as well....)






jocoyn said:


> Renee, I think we understand they have this information available to them but imagine sometimes a beancounter says "You want to join an organization and certify? "We can't spend money on that because we don't have to"
> 
> Of course, "any agency that wants........" I am not sure that is always the case, until someone's hand is forced, and payout is made to avoid court, or the K9 units are shut down for that department because it is just too expensive working dogs.
> 
> If we tell them they have to, at least, certify it is cheap insurance for me (taxpayer) if they have to go to court but it puts an obligation on me to pay for their training/certification. I am fine with that.
> 
> I *DO* have limited exposure but have seen individual LE K9 handlers buy their own dogs and do their own training, even pay their own dog's expenses, and go get certified out of their own pockets because they have a passion for it. Parts of my state are very much a third world country.
> 
> I have also seen two people have to choke a dog off of a person during a public demo (boy was that a stink, the mayor was the one wearing the sleeve), several dogs die because people didn't know basic care (like making a malnois FAT by feeding it donuts every day, then running a criminal trail on a hot day), and being told from an officer in a city-sized department be told "yes, if anyone else is in the park the dog will bite the first person they find" --
> 
> That does not mean the vast majority of them are that way. I have a lot of respect for folks in K9 units and am blown away and humbled by the quality of training many of them do.
> 
> As a taxpayer, I am one of the employers of our public servants and if I feel that K9 teams need to be held to some sort of standard, I have every much right to ask for that as I do that our teachers are certified and firefighters are trained to formal standards as well. Certainly, the K9 handlers are the experts and the standards should be in their hands.


----------



## selzer

If there are state certifications required, then requiring national certifications _could_ be the straw that broke the camel's back for some k9 programs. 

Where I live, the sherriff is always trying to up the sales tax, by sneaking it through after an election as an emergency measure, and several times the people have stopped him, getting petitions out there requiring it be voted on. His answer is to dump programs and lay off officers. One of the programs dumped is the k9 program. 

And the village here where my parents' live (closest village to me, I live in a township), their k9 program is run totally on donations. 

I guess the point is that some level of certification should be required. I think in Ohio, our dogs are need to be certified by the state and they have trials for this. I think that requiring national certification could put too much of a burden on the departments that are already struggling. What would be better is to require the state certification requirements are in line with national standards. Then the dogs need only travel within the state, and can be certified at one trial each year or every three years, whatever is the current protocol.


----------



## ladylaw203

Yearly cert is industry standard and the ONLY way to certify. That is why our firearms,qual and various other things are yearly. Also, there are few places especially up east where one of the major orgs is not available. Personally I feel if an agency has a k9 unit they need to provide for certs or not do it.  There are also tons of grants out there available.


----------



## selzer

ladylaw203 said:


> Yearly cert is industry standard and the ONLY way to certify. That is why our firearms,qual and various other things are yearly. Also, there are few places especially up east where one of the major orgs is not available. Personally I feel if an agency has a k9 unit they need to provide for certs or not do it.  There are also tons of grants out there available.


We do at the state level. But I am just commenting on requiring national certifications. Not having the dogs is definitely a consideration here. If they make the dogs more expensive, then they will dump the dogs. That is a reality here. 

People donate cash as well as dog food and veterinary care for the dogs. So the budget for the village dogs, I suppose covers the costs of the yearly trip to the police dog trials.


----------



## Rodimus80

It's funny. When a cop does something wrong it's an accident and the whole should not be judged. Yet if a citizen does it a Law will surely soon follow...


----------



## ladylaw203

No that is an untrue statement. We are bound by case law which is generated by guess what? the actions of police officers good or bad.


----------



## carmspack

". But I am just commenting on requiring national certifications. Not having the dogs is definitely a consideration here. If they make the dogs more expensive, then they will dump the dogs. That is a reality here. "

there is no more expensive dog than the dog that lands you in court with wrongful bites, or throws out cases due to faulty indications whether missed or false .
We have yearly recertifications under national standards adopted in US and Canada.


----------



## selzer

carmspack said:


> ". But I am just commenting on requiring national certifications. Not having the dogs is definitely a consideration here. If they make the dogs more expensive, then they will dump the dogs. That is a reality here. "
> 
> there is no more expensive dog than the dog that lands you in court with wrongful bites, or throws out cases due to faulty indications whether missed or false .
> We have yearly recertifications under national standards adopted in US and Canada.


Good for you. 

I believe our dogs are certified yearly at the state, but not nationals. I could of course be wrong about that.


----------



## Walperstyle

I fully respect the use of K9's in the police and military forces. They should be able to hunt down and attack. Why?

I've seen first hand escaped convicts or people that are dangerous to society go into hiding in neighborhood's. *The dog, if trained right, will attack the weapon hand only, but more important, find someone where police and sometimes Thermal Sensors can't see.* 

Generally police dogs are on leash around general public until needed. They are suppose to be a little rough around the edges. That is how they are trained. They do a great job at seeking out bad people. 


*....now, for where I get a little angry at the subject. * Any criminal that is able to sue the police for wounds by a dog that attacked him while he is doing criminal activity SHOULD NEVER BE REPRESENTED BY LAWYERS.

ITS LAWYERS LIKE THAT WHOM RUIN THE ENTIRE JUSTICE SYSTEM.


----------



## hunterisgreat

Japanese police don't carry firearms... just a stick. We don't need firearms either

As several K9 handlers have told me... there are many bad bad men who do not fear being sprayed, being shot, or being baton'ed into submission... and yet when a K9 is brought in they often surrender. I've been pepper sprayed, and through many gas chambers... haven't been baton'ed or shot, but I've been hit with things, and I've been bitten by bite trained dogs. Unless flesh is being removed its really not all that bad to be bitten so I don't understand their fear.


----------



## onyx'girl

Sadly a K9 was killed today in Indiana. RIP K9 Kilo :halogsd: http://www.14news.com/story/22672104/police-dog-shot-and-killed-during-sellersburg-standoff


----------



## Courtney

onyx'girl said:


> Sadly a K9 was killed today in Indiana. RIP K9 Kilo :halogsd: Deputy wounded, police dog killed during Sellersburg standoff - 14 News, WFIE, Evansville, Henderson, Owensboro


----------



## selzer

That's sad. There really isn't a lot of things you can do to prevent tragedy when you are working with someone who is not in their right mind. I hope they don't kill him. And I hope he doesn't kill anyone. Too bad about the dog though. That's tough on everyone involved.


----------



## Pirates Lair

*"The dog, if trained right, will attack the weapon hand only...." *


*A professionally trained dog will bite whatever part of the body is *
*accessible*. Bite the weapon hand? What if I only kick the dog, what if I hold a gun inside my jacket?

What if I wrap a jacket around my arm and pretend to point (a weapon) while holding a gun with my other hand behind my back?

A Professionally trained dog - is trained on *"Presentation"* arms, legs, chest. And the dog should be able to hit the subject with enough force to take him/her down and cause pain and distraction until it's Handler & Partner can safely assist the dog is securing the subject.


Kim


----------



## MadLab

> Unless flesh is being removed its really not all that bad to be bitten so I don't understand their fear.


Dude a dogs bite is like a very fast closing vice with inch long teeth. The force is huge and if that is traveling through the air at 20 mph 
with 80 pounds of weight behind it, you are going to feel it. Even if the dog doesn't bite down you can seriously injure bones muscle and ligaments. 

You can be lucky and not get injured or you can be unlucky and get badly injured even with an accidental bite, or coming in contact with a dogs open mouth when moving.


----------



## South2north

L?b 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## cliffson1

I have seen a German Shepherd fracture a mans arm through the hidden sleeve.


----------



## LouCastle

Sorry to be so late to the party. 

We need to define some terms here. There are two separate ways to train and deploy a PSD that are under discussion. First is the "find and bite" where the dog finds a hiding suspect and immediately bites him. Some departments call this "handler control." The other is the "find and bark," aka "guard and bark," aka "hold and bark." In this method the dog finds the suspect and barks at him. If the suspect tries to flee or attack the K−9 or the handler, he can bite. 

When properly trained a "find and bark" K−9 can be given an "over-ride command" that will have him biting when he makes the find, as at times this may be desirable.


----------



## LouCastle

ponyfarm said:


> This is my question: is there really a need in today's society for police K-9s that bite? In my limited knowledge, only looking at this from a civilians point of view: my answer is NO.


Having about 30 years in LE under my belt, I'll disagree. PSD's (Police Service Dogs) are one of the most effective tools extant against criminals. They are efficient at finding them and at dissuading them from fleeing from and fighting with patrol officers. If they did not bite, they'd not be nearly as useful. 



ponyfarm said:


> Here are my reasonstaking this information from Local Police Dept)
> 
> 1. Our k-9s are never off leash. Too risky for the dog. Too risky for society.


If this is the case then there is something amiss in your local PD's training program. It's easy to get the control necessary for this to be safe for the dog. Proper selection of the dog will make it safe _"for society."_ I believe that patrol police K−9's should be on leash at two times, during crowd control and during training. The rest of the time, they should be utilized off leash. On a nearly daily basis, I did off leash walk−throughs of (what was at that time) the 3rd busiest mall in California. 



ponyfarm said:


> So, if dog is never off leash, and handler has a gun, then why does dog need to have bite capability? Bark and Hold, yes, bite?? I say not necessary.


A gun is lethal force. A dog is not. Dogs can detain people by barking or by biting. But the first only is effective if there's a threat of the second. Crooks who want to assault a police officer will not be dissuaded by a dog that only barks. Only the threat of a bite, keeps them in line. 



ponyfarm said:


> A few years back a K-9 was released in a hospital parking lot and took down a nurse..big problem for the department.


It's the "Cost of Doing Business." Police officers drive cars ... they're going to have traffic accidents. They carry guns ... there will be accidental/negligent discharges. If they have dogs ... 

That being said, picking the right dog, training him properly and then handling him properly, will go a long way to minimizing this issue. Some departments/trainers don't know how to do those things. 



ponyfarm said:


> 2. When our K-9's bite someone, they usually "maniac"


Proper selection and proper training will prevent this from happening. 



ponyfarm said:


> the guy. He needs surgery and the department gets sued.


A properly trained PSD, usually will inflict only a few puncture wounds. If the suspect fights the dog and resists arrest, he may receive more injuries. If surgery is the usual result, again, it's a problem of training, handling, and/or selection. As far as _"department gets sued"_ it's just more of the "Cost of Doing Business." Rarely are such lawsuits successful if the dog was properly selected, trained, and handled. 



ponyfarm said:


> We rarely let them get in a bite, unless we are right there, know where the guy is and can quickly stop the bite.


I'm wondering why, if you know where the suspect is, you are having the dog bite him? Dogs are excellent at finding suspects who are hiding from us, but have only one way to take them into custody, a bite. If you _"are right there"_ and you _"know where the guy is,"_ why allow a bite? 



ponyfarm said:


> "The dogs need to get a bite in occasionally anyway!) Quote


I don't know who you are quoting here but I'd say that this is a fallacy. PSD's get plenty of bites during training, they don't _"need"_ bites on the street. 



ponyfarm said:


> So, again, if liablity is an issue, then I see the search aspect very important, but why bite?


Dogs are commonly trained to do one of two things when they find a hidden suspect. Either they bark at him (if he flees or attacks, the dog can bite) or they're trained to immediately bite him. I prefer the first, it's safer for the officers. But either is defensible in court. Someone who is hiding from the police is deemed to be "actively resisting arrest" and if he's dangerous (the only kind of suspect that a PSD should be used against, force is justified under the law. This is laid out in a well known case that dictates the force that police officers can use, Graham v. Connor. 



ponyfarm said:


> 3. The training is inhumane and unnecessary. Again, my opinion. I feel it is unneccssary to breed and train dogs that "can take this type of training". Its painfull to watch and inhumane.


If this is the case then there are problems in the training. Proper PSD training is NOT inhumane. Of course there are some "good ol' boys" who are locked in the past and abuse the dogs. But it's neither necessary nor expedient. Far better to select dogs who have the temperament to do this sort of work and then train them to do so. If you've seen what you describe, I suggest that you call the local authorities and report it. It should not be happening. Of course everyone's definition of "inhumane" will vary. Some people are overly sensitive. I know people who think that saying "no" to a dog is abusive. 



ponyfarm said:


> I believe K-9's are very valuable for SAR, Narc detection, scent work, guarding, crowd control..not biting.


There is no _"guarding"_ or _"crowd control"_ without the threat of biting. If the dogs don't bite, the word will soon get out, and they'll be completely ineffective at both of these functions. There is no biting in _"SAR, narc detection"_ or _"scent work."_ (The latter as it involves searching for such things as evidence, NOT man work).


----------



## LouCastle

wildo said:


> To the original post- I think it's a really interesting question. Would suspects be easily apprehended if the dog does a bark & hold rather than bite & hold? I don't know.


I do. A number of departments have tried this method of training and deployment. They've all failed. But I think there's a misconception at work here, due to difference in how the terms you just used are defined. Some department have deployed dogs that ONLY bark. They NEVER bite, under any circumstances. These have failed wherever they've been attempted and I think this is what the OP is talking about. 

It seems (based on what comes later) that you are talking about a method of deployment that is based on what the dogs are trained to do when they find a hiding suspect. Some dogs are taught to bark at him. If the suspect tried to flee or attack the dog or the handler, they are trained to bite. Other dogs are trained to immediately bite the suspect when they find him. Both have stood the test of lawsuits. 



wildo said:


> Would the suspect realize that the dog won't bite and just run passed the dog? I might guess that the short time it takes for the dog the catch a running suspect is sufficient enough time for the suspect to be distracted and the police to get there and make the apprehension. ...But I really don't know. Perhaps a suspect chase might be different from a suspect search.


When the word gets around that a police agency is deploying bark−only dogs, the crooks don't stop running. A barking dog does not detain a suspect once he knows that he's not going to be bitten. They're not distracted, they just keep running. 



wildo said:


> I just did a quick google search on this as I was curious if there are other countries who use dogs without the use of bite. I didn't find anything in a 15 second google search on other countries, but I did find this 216 page dissertation on exactly this topic. http://www.policek9.com/FTPResearch/florida_study.pdf


This is the Mesloh study and it's a great example of a problem in scientific study, making a determination of where you want the study to go BEFORE embarking on the study. As Sherlock Holmes said, "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." 

There are many, MANY flaws with the study and the results, not only do not make sense, they're wrong. I'll go into those details if you like but it's a bit off topic for this discussion.


----------



## LouCastle

Gwenhwyfair said:


> As luck would have it I was chatting with an on duty police officer who stopped to compliment my Ilda  in our local little town just yesterday**. Based on our convo where I asked him about K9 use, three separate PDs (two small towns, 1 co. sheriff) and only 1 K-9 unit for the entire county (sheriff) which is part rural, part suburban.
> 
> Most calls for K-9 back up are for tracking.


This is usually the case in rural areas. In more urban areas, "building searches" are a K−9's "bread and butter." So far, nothing else has proven as effective. Some of the problem is that at one point in "modern" police K−9 use (the late 1970's) many police K−9 trainers believed that dogs could not track in "concrete cities" and so they didn't even try training for it. 



Gwenhwyfair said:


> The supervisors in our town don't think having K9 units is cost effective enough.


They might not be. K−9's are expensive to purchase, train and maintain. That's not even considering the handler's salary, the police car, etc. If there's not enough crime in the jurisdiction, the amount of time spent in training and maintaining the K−9 may make it cost prohibitive. In busier jurisdictions, they're money well spent.


----------



## LouCastle

Gwenhwyfair said:


> I'd be interested to know how many times a dog (no matter bite trained or not) de-escalated a situation by it's mere presence reducing the need for any kind of physical force to begin with?


There's no way to determine this figure, but I know based on personal experience, that it's a lot. The problem is that when we have a combative suspect it's impossible to predict whether to not he'd have actually fought with the police, if the K−9 had not been there. But back in the early 1980's when I was dealing with violent gang members on a regular basis, we had LOTS of physical fights with them when trying to arrest them on T−stops, for on−sight violations or for warrants. On those occasions when a K−9 was present, only a very few decided to fight.


----------



## LouCastle

jocoyn said:


> I was even told by a fellow at one city-sized department that if the dog was on the chase, they would bite the first person they encountered and even another police officer if he got between the handler and the dog. That kind of thing is what needs to be weeded out or a dog with this behavior need not be deployed offlead unless there is high assurance passerby are not near.


Probably most PSD's on a chase will do this. That's why it's essential that a handler have enough control to be able to stop a dog who redirects onto an "innocent person."


----------



## LouCastle

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Then you hear nonchalant comments about the dogs not needing a good 'out' followed by a wink wink...it's that sort of thing that makes one wonder.


PSD's need to be controllable and under control at all times. They need to have a verbal out that is "bombproof." That means that the dog will release his bite on a person that is still fighting, on one command, no matter how far away the handler is. I've insisted on this from every dog and handler that I've trained. I've seen many agencies where the handler's don't agree. Usually their trainer is not able to get this reliably and so the handlers have been dumbed down into believing that it's not necessary. In the past several years police officers have shot and killed NINE police dogs who either bit them and would not release the bite, or were about to bite them. I've got a couple of links to news stories on this if anyone is interested, but again, it's a bit off topic.


----------



## LouCastle

wildo said:


> Might be a topic for a different thread, but I'm still curious. I linked to a research paper indicating that both Bark & Hold and Bite & Hold are legitimate techniques for apprehension. And you even mention that it _does_ work, albeit with a _"LOT of tweaking."_ So there is something to it...
> 
> Can you explain briefly how* Bark* & Hold works? How does the dog contain/catch/stop/whatever the bad guy without biting? Couldn't the bad guy just run off with the dog chasing? I'm sincerely curious on how this technique actually works.


You've described a common misconception that exists in the use of such dogs, that when they find the crook, they ONLY "bark and hold" him. When it's trained properly, the dog is permitted to bite if the suspect tries to flee or if he attacks the dog or the handler.


----------



## LouCastle

ladylaw203 said:


> Bark and Hold is great for sport but I do not care for its use on the street.


This is often the topic of hot debate, even among LEO's. I'm on the other side. I PREFER the hold and bark on the street. 



ladylaw203 said:


> When one trains for sport the dog is asked to exhibit an enthusiastic bark and hold while the helper stands like a statue. He gets a bite only when the helper moves. That is his reward. I have been a cop 35 years. My first retirement was with a large agency. Working on number two. Folks dont just stand there with a dog barking his butt off at them. They scream,curse,wave their arms etc. The typical sport dog that departments purchase with prior training will not work on the street without being backed up away from the guy and being taught to allow all of that movement. silly.


The problem that most LEO's have when they hold this opinion is that they've never seen the bark and hold trained properly. It's not the same as it is for sport, but that is where most people come from. When done that way it, as Renee says takes a lot of tweaking. But when trained specifically for LE, not by adapting a sport technique, it's FAR safer for the K−9, the handler and the rest of the search team. 

Dog trained properly have no trouble allowing the suspect to _"scream, curse, wave their arms, etc."_ 



ladylaw203 said:


> Bite/hold dog with a solid recall is better in my opinion and safer for the dog.


My opinion is the opposite. I've trained dogs both ways. My own K−9 was "find and bite," but after I saw how to properly train the find and bark, I saw how much safer I'd have been if my dog had been trained to "find and bark." 

There's one LE trainer out there who likens having a find and bark K−9 to "going to the range with blanks in his gun." One of the more absurd comparisons that exist. Blanks just make noise. A find and bark dog is fully capable of, and will bite if the situation is right (wrong for the suspect).


----------



## LouCastle

Tim Connell said:


> Because most police officers want to make the decision when to bite, and when not to, not the dog.


This is one of the criticisms of the "find and bark" method. But it's a common misconception. Such a dog does not _"make the decision when to bite."_ Rather he's conditioned to recognize a cue that give him a command (only this time it comes from the suspect, not his handler) to bite. 



Tim Connell said:


> If a suspect is immobile, the dog gets sent for a "guard", do you really think that most suspects would freeze and not move at all? I'm guessing most may move, or flee...which results in a bite.


These dogs are trained to allow quite a bit of movement, but the fleeing _"results in a bite."_ 



Tim Connell said:


> How many "sport dogs" that are "clean" sometimes give a little tag to the helper in the blind, on a controlled, level, well lit competition field? If the police dog went in, gave a little tag, suspect may decide now to fight or flee. Now you have 2 bites, instead of 1. (also, it is in an environment new to the dog, under stress, and many times in diminished light.) The sport dog is looking for the sleeve...police dog is looking for the man. Apples and oranges. This is one of the reasons a police dog differs from a sport dog...but that's a different thread.


Comparing the two types of deployment is indeed _"apples and oranges."_ While they look very much alike, the hold and bark for sport dogs is not the same thing as the "find and bark" for police dogs. Renee mentions that for LEO's it _ "takes a lot or tweaking."_ I disagree, it's a completely different way to train the behavior. They should not be trained the same way and the motivation for each is vastly different. Unfortunately, not all trainers realize this. As you say, that's a completely different thread.


----------



## LouCastle

onyx'girl said:


> LOL, one of my clubs helpers worked a resort town's K9...ran him off the field with just a courage test


Wondering how long it would be before this (off topic) statement would come up. LOL. 



onyx'girl said:


> Edited to add...the dog that was run off the field came from a well known broker in MI. He must have thought that dog would be a good match for a sleepy resort town.


The problem here is the vendors. Few cops know enough about dogs to realize that the dog they've been handed is not suitable. They trust the vendor to give them a dog that will do the job. Sometimes they find out the hard way that they've been had by someone who either didn't know any better, or didn't care, as long as the money came in. 

BTW no one ever chased a dog that I selected or trained anywhere.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Late to the party? Better late then never, I just now noticed your comments. 

As I've heard it described the instinctive fear of a predator is still ingrained deeply in our brains, psyche and mythology. So it makes sense that would cause a person who could no longer flee, to freeze.

I think it could be studied if someone cared to spend the time and money with real time brain scanning technology......

But I will take your word on it.  





LouCastle said:


> There's no way to determine this figure, but I know based on personal experience, that it's a lot. The problem is that when we have a combative suspect it's impossible to predict whether to not he'd have actually fought with the police, if the K−9 had not been there. But back in the early 1980's when I was dealing with violent gang members on a regular basis, we had LOTS of physical fights with them when trying to arrest them on T−stops, for on−sight violations or for warrants. On those occasions when a K−9 was present, only a very few decided to fight.


----------



## Redrider469

" In my limited knowledge. "

Exactly. The pros far outweigh the cons. Having been involved In police K9 training, I can tell you it's not inhumane. These dogs are working animals and are trained for a specific purpose. I'd much rather a dog be sent in to apprehend a suspect in a building than me go in. The dogs love their job and are happy to do it. These dogs are lived by their handlers and are treated like part of the family when not in the job. 





Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## fredh

If you don't want to get bit by a Police Dog, don't run and do what the Police Officer tells you to do!


----------



## Sarah~

fredh said:


> If you don't want to get bit by a Police Dog, don't run and do what the Police Officer tells you to do!


:thumbup:


----------



## Redrider469

fredh said:


> If you don't want to get bit by a Police Dog, don't run and do what the Police Officer tells you to do!


Amen!!


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Tim Connell

LouCastle said:


> This is one of the criticisms of the "find and bark" method. But it's a common misconception. Such a dog does not _"make the decision when to bite."_ Rather he's conditioned to recognize a cue that give him a command (only this time it comes from the suspect, not his handler) to bite.
> 
> 
> 
> These dogs are trained to allow quite a bit of movement, but the fleeing _"results in a bite."_
> 
> 
> 
> Comparing the two types of deployment is indeed _"apples and oranges."_ While they look very much alike, the hold and bark for sport dogs is not the same thing as the "find and bark" for police dogs. Renee mentions that for LEO's it _ "takes a lot or tweaking."_ I disagree, it's a completely different way to train the behavior. They should not be trained the same way and the motivation for each is vastly different. Unfortunately, not all trainers realize this. As you say, that's a completely different thread.


No one uses bark and hold that I'm aware of, anywhere in my part of the country.
If I were a criminal, and had a dog sent to "bark and hold" I would certainly have a greater opportunity to defeat the dog. Alas, I'm not a criminal, but have actually seen a few in my career, at least enough to have seen some of their behavior when confronted. I've only been at it for a little while, starting my 28th year, but I know criminals can be a bit unpredictable when confronted.


----------



## LouCastle

Tim Connell said:


> No one uses bark and hold that I'm aware of, anywhere in my part of the country.


There is no way to determine what method of deployment a department uses unless one is familiar with them, usually via direct, or at least, phone contact. There is no central repository for this information. Where I'm located, the Los Angeles area, LAPD uses it but LASD does not. Most medium size agencies in the South Bay (Santa Monica Bay, that is) use it. More local agencies here use the find and bark, than do not. Based on your statement, I'd guess that you've never seen this trained properly for LE!? 



Tim Connell said:


> If I were a criminal, and had a dog sent to "bark and hold" I would certainly have a greater opportunity to defeat the dog.


Perhaps and perhaps not. More than likely you've seen the SchH movement that this is often derived from, "the bark and hold in the blind." There, points are awarded (well not really, they're retained, it's a subtractive system, but I'm sure that you understand the concept) if the dog stays very close to the decoy. In fact, the BEST scores are obtained if the dog stands with his front legs on the sleeve and barks in the decoy's face. The closer he is to the face the better! This is an excellent _sport _guard and bark. 

Of course, no crook is going to stand perfectly still while a strange, aggressive dog barks in his face, but that's what most people think a police hold and bark looks like. In fact, that would be wrong. 

In reality the dog should be several feet back and many are trained to stay at least 6' back. Many are trained to circle the crook, keeping him off balance (as he's going to turn to face the dog, as he circles. This last tactic, of course, depends on terrain and other conditions). Unless you have a gun, please tell us how you'd "defeat the dog." 

If you do have a gun, you can shoot a dog that's barking at you or one who is biting you. In fact during the first 20 years of LAPD's modern history with dogs, while they were using the find and bark, they did not have a dog shot. They DID have a dog shot when they briefly went to a find and bite type of deployment. (In fairness, that dog might have been shot no matter how he was trained. The suspect was hiding in the open joists of a garage, was not available to be bitten, and the suspect shot the dog from hiding). But the overwhelming majority of shootings involving that K−9 unit had, occurred AFTER the dog was biting the suspect, NOT during the barking phase of the find and bark. That's a database of about 1,400 finds a year, for about 20 years. That's 28,000 finds and about 60% of those suspects were armed with firearms. I think that's a pretty good size database of these incidents. These folks were training the find and bark properly, using appropriate dogs, and properly utilizing the dog's drives. 

In any case, if the suspect is armed with a firearm, I'd much rather have him shoot the dog than have him shoot a police officer. 

Many people fail to consider that a dog may not immediately incapacitate the crook that he finds and bites. In fact, if the guy is drugged or drunk, as many of them are, the dog may not have any effect on him at all. If he doesn't make any noise, crying out in pain, or directly, from the scuffle, the handler and back−up team may not even know that the dog has made a find and is biting the crook. That means that they may walk right into the room, or right up on the suspect, who may be armed with a gun. If so, it makes it very easy for him to shoot the officers. 

Had the dog barked, even if that had resulted in the dog being shot, the officer then KNOWS WHERE THE SUSPECT IS HIDING! And that's the real reason that we have dogs, to locate the suspect. They are excellent in this capacity. In the apprehension phase of the capture, they're not so good. 

I'd also guess that most people think that the dog is utilized in real life as he is in training. That is, he's allowed to bark at the decoy for quite some time. Wrong again. I teach that the dog is allowed to bark a few times and that then, he's recalled. The handler now knows with pretty good accuracy, where the suspect is hiding. He and the team take positions of cover/concealment, and order the suspect out. If he does not comply then alternate methods are used to get him out. They may include sending the dog in with a bite command, (if the suspect is available to be bitten) the use of gas/sprays, or other means. At this point, it may no longer be a K−9 problem. 



Tim Connell said:


> Alas, I'm not a criminal, but have actually seen a few in my career, at least enough to have seen some of their behavior when confronted. I've only been at it for a little while, starting my 28th year


I've only worked in this field for about 34 years myself. I saw a few crooks in my 30 years in LE, working in a medium sized city surrounded on three sides by the City of LA, and on the other side by Inglewood. Nowadays I regularly meet with dozens of police K−9 handlers who talk about their finds. Most of these dogs are trained for the find and bark. So far, no dogs have been defeated. 



Tim Connell said:


> but I know criminals can be a bit unpredictable when confronted.


The _"unpredictab[ility]"_ of criminals that you mention is precisely what makes the find and bark so superior to the find and bite. But since so few people really know how to train it properly, the myths, bad information and misconceptions, abound. Often you see people struggle and use various amounts of force to get it. When trained properly, with the right dogs, it's fairly easy. There are some issues in maintaining it after a good dog gets a few street bites, but that's not hard to do when you know how.


----------



## AXO

I have been in Law Enforcement for over 24 years. I am a firm believer in Apprhension K9. I work for a Large Agency and this is the only type of patrol K9 we use. We also have Narcotic, Bomb and Money Detection dogs that are not trained to apprehend suspects.

I am not aware of any Agency in the State of Florida that uses Bark and Hold. What use could it have? Police K9s are used when we dont get compliance from suspects. Tracking and Apprehension.


----------



## Slamdunc

*Perhaps and perhaps not. More than likely you've seen the SchH movement that this is often derived from, "the bark and hold in the blind." There, points are awarded (well not really, they're retained, it's a subtractive system, but I'm sure that you understand the concept) if the dog stays very close to the decoy. In fact, the BEST scores are obtained if the dog stands with his front legs on the sleeve and barks in the decoy's face. The closer he is to the face the better! This is an excellent sport guard and bark. 

*Actually, in SchH the dog is not allowed to touch the decoy during the "bark and Hold." The BEST scores are not attained if the dog puts his feet on the sleeve. That would be a lot of points lost. The "closer to the face" is not advantageous in SchH either. Too much bouncing drains energy, it may look impressive but is not ideal. 

I do not know of any units in my state that still train the "bark and hold." I suppose some may, but I haven't seen it trained or used in years. Two weeks ago I attended our states fall K-9 workshop with about 30 other PD's. I was working with teams in building clearing and aggression control. One scenario was a passive decoy sitting in a chair, not one dog at the seminar did a "Hold and Bark." All the dogs I saw were trained to "find and bite." We haven't taught the hold and bark in at least 10 years in my Agency.


----------



## J and J M

I didn't know that training a dog to bite is inhumane.


----------



## carmspack

guns, guns , guns, criminals often have knives , and those are dangerous when in close proximity. Look at the Toronto scene this past weekend , two youths dead , separate incidents , knife weapon of choice , which seems to be more and more common lately.

Then the news - Edmonton police dog killed in apprehension - knifed .

Edmonton police dog killed during pursuit - Edmonton | Globalnews.ca


----------



## LouCastle

AXO said:


> I have been in Law Enforcement for over 24 years. I am a firm believer in Apprhension K9. I work for a Large Agency and this is the only type of patrol K9 we use.


I'm not sure what _"Apprehension K9"_ means, but based on what follows, I'd suppose that it means a dog that immediately bites upon finding a hiding suspect. If I'm wrong, please let me know. 



AXO said:


> I am not aware of any Agency in the State of Florida that uses Bark and Hold.


My contacts in that area tell me that there's at least one agency in Brevard County that uses it. But I'm not sure why the numbers are important. 



AXO said:


> What use could it have?


It increases the safety of searching for hiding suspects by having the dog give an alarm in the form of a bark, as soon as he locates the source of the scent of the hiding suspect. 



AXO said:


> Police K9s are used when we dont get compliance from suspects. Tracking and Apprehension.


While the meaning of _"tracking"_ is fairly obvious, it's hard to tell from the rest of what you've written here what you use K−9's for. Do you have dogs that search for hiding suspects in buildings? How about doing areas searches for hiding suspects? Does _"apprehension"_ mean running suspects? Not _"get[ting] compliance"_ could mean someone who refuses to surrender after a K−9 announcement at the scene of a break−in, or someone who refuses to allow himself to be arrested without a fight. Can you clarify please?


----------



## LouCastle

Slamdunc said:


> Actually, in SchH the dog is not allowed to touch the decoy during the "bark and Hold."


I've seen it quite a bit around here. I'd guess that there are various rules for the various organizations that do SchH. Several organizations have broken off from the original one and formed their own set of rules. The judges have ruled that standing on the sleeve is not _"touch[ing] the decoy."_ Rather, it's touching the sleeve. 



Slamdunc said:


> The BEST scores are not attained if the dog puts his feet on the sleeve. That would be a lot of points lost. The "closer to the face" is not advantageous in SchH either.


As I said, I see it quite a bit around here. The judges think it shows "intensity" which is highly rewarded in SchH. 



Slamdunc said:


> Too much bouncing drains energy, it may look impressive but is not ideal.


I don't think that I said anything about _"bouncing."_ Can you show me what you think I said? 



Slamdunc said:


> I do not know of any units in my state that still train the "bark and hold." I suppose some may, but I haven't seen it trained or used in years.


There seems to be a divergence between the east coast and the west coast. One of the biggest suppliers of K−9's to LE west of the Mississippi, sells dogs that are trained to find and bark. 

Since not many trainers know how to properly select a dog for this or how to train it using the correct drives, it's fallen from favor. Another factor contributing to this fall is the fact that it takes more time to train initially and then more time to maintain it, especially after a dog gets a couple of street bites. But since it's faaaaar safer for the handler and his back−up team, I think it's worth the time. It also results in fewer bites to suspects, and is more easily defended in court during a lawsuit. I've trained dogs both ways and worked dogs both ways, so I think I have a pretty good handle on it. 

I'll do whatever the agency that I'm working with wants, but I think the find and bark is better for safety reasons. Being a police officer is a dangerous job. Being a K−9 handler is really the point of the spear. It's far more dangerous than any other assignment on a police department. Most handlers work alone, with the K−9, they don't have a human backup. And they're called to every scene where a suspect wants to fight, or is actively evading the police. But there's a big difference between necessary risks and *UN*necessary risks. I'll take all of the first ones that the job requires, but try to eliminate or at least minimize, the second. 



Slamdunc said:


> Two weeks ago I attended our states fall K-9 workshop with about 30 other PD's. I was working with teams in building clearing and aggression control. One scenario was a passive decoy sitting in a chair, not one dog at the seminar did a "Hold and Bark."


I'd not expect any dog who has not trained for it, to perform a find and bark spontaneously. Would it be appropriate to use any force on a suspect who was _"passive[ly] sitting in a chair?"_ Could you, for example, find him and then strike him with a baton or punch him without any further ado? Of course not. But you have the dogs bite him?! I don't understand why this is OK! Can you explain please? 



Slamdunc said:


> All the dogs I saw were trained to "find and bite." We haven't taught the hold and bark in at least 10 years in my Agency.


I agree that lots of training is not what it was just a few decades ago. I know many K−9 units that don't teach or maintain a verbal out for use on the street any more. Most certifications require it but few emphasize it. Some don't even require that it be consistent. On one very large national certifying association, there are three opportunities for a dog to release a bite on a verbal command. To pass and be certified, he only has to do it once out of the three opportunities. But that's really another discussion. 

Rest assured that the find and bark is alive and well, on the West Coast. You might also be aware that the IACP (International Association of Chiefs of Police) model department policy, the find and bark is the preferred method of training/deployment. If you don't use that method, for sure it will come up in a court process and be used against you. 

Some departments have been mandated by court orders or by orders from their executives to utilize a find and bark method of training/deployment. Often when LE executive do this, it's in an effort to reduce the number of bites and thereby liability. While this is certainly a concern, it's not the main reason that I favor the find and bark. I lean that way for safety reasons. 

Please don't misunderstand. I'm not trying to talk you, or anyone for that matter, into changing how you train or deploy your dog. Just presenting another opinion. I think that the more options you have the better off you are. (This is the general "you.")


----------



## selzer

If you have an alzheimer's patient wonder away from the nursing home in the night into a wooded area, how would you use police dogs to find the person if the police dogs are trained to find and bite? 

Would the dogs have to be totally on-lead, or would they have to send for SAR dogs for this type of thing?


----------



## AXO

selzer said:


> If you have an alzheimer's patient wonder away from the nursing home in the night into a wooded area, how would you use police dogs to find the person if the police dogs are trained to find and bite?
> 
> Would the dogs have to be totally on-lead, or would they have to send for SAR dogs for this type of thing?


A regular Patrol K9 would be on lead and would only bite on command. In this instince there would be no reason for a bite command.


----------



## deacon

When we have a call for lost persons or Alzheimer patients we call the Department of Corrections (Beagles) or the neighboring Sheriffs agency (Bloodhounds).
My teams have been in far too many fights to risk an accidental bite locating an innocent person in the dark to take that chance. My own partner on more than one occasion has been so into the track he actually bumped into the bad guy prior to engaging him.
I also track my teams exclusively (off) the lead.


----------



## Slamdunc

Lou,
I have been involved in Schutzhund for almost 20 years. There is NO, I repeat No SchH organization or judge that will not penalize a dog for bumping the sleeve or "standing" on the sleeve. There are three main SchH, now IPO organizations in the US, the WDA, DVG and USCA. The rules are entirely consistent when it comes to the hold and bark, bumping or touching the sleeve or decoy is faulty. This is universal. I will be at the WUSV next week, the World IPO championship and I can assure that no dogs will be "standing" on the sleeve. 

We have a differing opinion on the "find and bark" vs "Find and bite" for Police K-9's. If it worked for you back when you were a handler that is awesome. I do not see the use for it. From a tactical standpoint, a deployment standpoint or from a liability standpoint.

A verbal out is absolutely necessary, IMHO, for a patrol dog. Not having the ability to call off or verbally out your dog leaves the handler and PD open to tremendous liability and excessive force complaints. Outing for certification is a requirement here, outing a real bite is extremely important and mandatory.


----------



## Slamdunc

*If you have an alzheimer's patient wonder away from the nursing home in the night into a wooded area, how would you use police dogs to find the person if the police dogs are trained to find and bite? 

Would the dogs have to be totally on-lead, or would they have to send for SAR dogs for this type of thing? *

We often track missing children and Alzheimer's patients. All of our dogs are trained to "find and bite." We do scent discrimination tracking and when tracking a missing child or elderly subject it is done on lead. When the dog gets close and indicates that we are close to the subject we shortened up on the lead and let the other officers know we are close. Our unit has never had an accidental bite on a missing person. We are extremely careful and vigilant.


----------



## selzer

As long as the dogs can be used for searches like this, then I don't really see the need for "find and bark." I know some areas really don't have the funding for multiple dogs for multiple reasons, and there is no shortage of Alzheimer's patients, as well as lost kids. 

These dogs are spectacular but there are limits to any critter's ability to be trained in multiple ways. If they were robots, we could program them to find and bite the nasty drug-dealing thug, or find and bark for the lost elderly dementia patient, and not worry about accidents. But they aren't robots, and teaching them different commands for the two types of search/engage etc, might not be practical or maybe not reasonable.


----------



## LouCastle

selzer said:


> If you have an alzheimer's patient wonder away from the nursing home in the night into a wooded area, how would you use police dogs to find the person if the police dogs are trained to find and bite?
> 
> Would the dogs have to be totally on-lead, or would they have to send for SAR dogs for this type of thing?


We never had call for an Alzheimer's patient but we had a lost child who was last seen at a full size shopping mall (three major department stores and dozens of smaller ones). We used our dogs (trained to find and bark) in an off leash deployment. The child was not at the mall. 

I'm not a fan of searching on leash for any reason other than to use a "drag−line" technique to pull a suspect from hiding. Our dogs were on leash during training or crowd control, not for anything else. 

Many agencies in the LA area will call the LASD (Los Angeles Sheriff Dept) SAR search dogs. The name of that team is also LASD (Los Angeles Search Dogs). They're a group of civilian K−9 handlers with SAR dogs that are contacted through the Los Angeles Sheriff Dept. Many of those teams are certified with CARDA (California Rescue Dog Assn) as well. They do area searches, tracking/trailing, both scent specific and non scent specific. Most agencies feel that the liability of using their patrol K−9's to search for these persons is too great.


----------



## LouCastle

AXO said:


> A regular Patrol K9 would be on lead and would only bite on command. In this instince there would be no reason for a bite command.


I have several questions. 


Am I correct in that when your dogs make a find that they do not bite unless they're given a command? 
If not, what are they trained to do when they make a find? 
Can you send them with a bite command and have them search and bite the person that they find, or do you send them with a search command and they won't bite unless they get a command. 
If the latter, what do they do if they make a find but have not received a bite command? 
What agency do you work for and who do you certify with?


----------



## LouCastle

Slamdunc said:


> Lou,
> I have been involved in Schutzhund for almost 20 years. There is NO, I repeat No SchH organization or judge that will not penalize a dog for bumping the sleeve or "standing" on the sleeve. There are three main SchH, now IPO organizations in the US, the WDA, DVG and USCA. The rules are entirely consistent when it comes to the hold and bark, bumping or touching the sleeve or decoy is faulty. This is universal. I will be at the WUSV next week, the World IPO championship and I can assure that no dogs will be "standing" on the sleeve.


I'll defer to your experience and knowledge on this. I stand corrected. Perhaps it was another sport where I saw this, or maybe it was just a demo. It was a long time ago and my memory is not what it was. 



Slamdunc said:


> We have a differing opinion on the "find and bark" vs "Find and bite" for Police K-9's. If it worked for you back when you were a handler that is awesome. I do not see the use for it. From a tactical standpoint, a deployment standpoint or from a liability standpoint.


If you can't see the advantage from a _"tactical standpoint, a deployment standpoint or from a liability standpoint."_ then I've not explained it properly. I'll give it another try. Please, if you disagree, let me know where specifically, those disagreements are. 

It's OBVIOUSLY an advantage for a handler to know where a suspect is located in a building sooner, rather than later. A handler and b/u team should always assume that a suspect is armed with a gun until he's in custody and has been searched. The further from the crook (within reason of course) the handler is when the dog makes the find, the safer everyone, including the crook, is. If he's within feet of the suspect at the moment of the find, or moments after it, both are in grave danger. It's far better if the dog is "down the hall," and barks to alert the handler and the b/u team that he's made the find. When the dog enters a room where the suspect is hiding and finds him, he barks. You and the team are still down the hall a reasonable distance and the suspect has no idea of where you are. The handler can then decide to leave the dog where he is, barking at the suspect, while the team moves closer. He can recall the dog and order the suspect from hiding. He can give the dog a command to bite and he'll do so. This handler has options. 

If the dog is trained to bite when he makes the find, the handler and b/u team must listen either for the screams of pain of the suspect or the sounds of a scuffle to alert them that the dog has made the find. If a bite occurs but the suspect does not scream in pain because he's drunk, drugged, determined or angry, and there are no sounds of a scuffle to alert the handler/b/u team, the only indication that they'll have that the dog has made a find is that he's not appearing and reappearing as he conducts his search (for example, going in and out of doors in a hallway). (Assuming here, that you are not searching on leash). One problem is that this can also happen if the dog goes through a door that he's nosed open and it closes behind him. In both cases, the dog does not come back to the handler. And so they have lost the advantage of being a K−9 team. Now they're just a buncha cops walking around in the dark with guns. If they peek into a room and a fight is going on between the suspect and the K−9 they are RIGHT THERE on top of it. They may be outside the room, but the wallboard that most buildings are constructed of, does not stop bullets. Since the suspect has seen you, he knows where you are and can bring fire on you. 

The handler of a find and bite dog has far fewer options. When the dog make the find he's going to bite the suspect, if he can get to him. NOT everyone that's found in a building should be bitten. There's the janitor who's wearing his headphones and didn't hear your announcement, the building owner who is working late with his radio on, and the 12 year old kid who starting out on his life of crime. If your dog is trained to bite when he makes a find, he's likely to bite all three of those folks. Any of those bites might result in a lawsuit and more importantly, they just shouldn't have happened. 

If he can't get to him, virtually every find and bite dog I've ever seen, and I've been coast to coast and in three foreign countries looking at this, looks for a "back door," a way to get to the suspect so that they can bite him. This takes some time, meanwhile the handler and b/u team, are getting closer, increasing the danger to them. AFTER the dog decides that he can't find a back door, he'll bark. I've been told dozens of times in these discussions, that the dogs of the person I'm talking with does not do this "back door" thing, that he barks immediately upon making the find if he can't get to the suspect. Yet somehow, every time I've travelled to see this, it's NOT the way it happens. If your dogs bark immediately when they can't bite, they'd be the first ones I've ever come across in decades of looking. 

Please, if you disagree with anything I've said here or something isn't clear, let me know. 



Slamdunc said:


> A verbal out is absolutely necessary, IMHO, for a patrol dog. Not having the ability to call off or verbally out your dog leaves the handler and PD open to tremendous liability and excessive force complaints. Outing for certification is a requirement here, outing a real bite is extremely important and mandatory.


Glad that we agree on this. Who do you certify with? Will your dogs out even though the suspect continues fighting? Can you tell me what agency you work for please?


----------



## LouCastle

selzer said:


> As long as the dogs can be used for searches like this, then I don't really see the need for "find and bark."


The police find and bark is not just for the safety of the suspect, or in this case, the Alzheimer's patient. It's for the safety of the handler and the b/u team. Having such a dog gives them notice that the suspect is present and where he is, earlier than a dog that is trained to bite when he makes the find. Obviously, there is no danger to the K−9 team from an Alzheimer's patient or a lost child.


----------



## Slamdunc

Lou,
We certify under the Virginia Police Work dog Assoc, VPWDA and NAPWDA certifications. 

I will be brief in my response to you. The days of sending the dog in and "waiting for screaming" are long gone. When my dog enters a building for a search we enter with the dog. The dog clears the door from the outside to ensure no one is waiting behind the door. The dog does a limited penetration and clears the first room or two and then is downed while we enter. This can be done on a long line or off lead depending on the situation. I prefer to direct my dog as to what rooms / danger areas I want to clear first. Our dogs are very methodical and rarely pass doors or rooms with out checking them. 

I "read" my dog even when he is searching off lead and am acutely aware of his change of behaviors. I can hear his breathing change before he barks at a door. I keep track of my dog's movements and location. We clear together with other Officers. If he locates a suspect he will engage and I will take the appropriate action at that time. More often then not the suspect is ordered to bring the dog out to us. If the suspect can not physically comply then we will go in and secure him. Our dogs are only released on violent Felony suspects and not misdemeanors. We are very careful and deliberate in the deployment of our dogs. I can not think of any bad accidental bites that we have had in my time on the PD. Except for a few cops that inadvertently stepped between the suspect and the dog. Usually, after being warned. 

Our dogs do bark when they can not get to a suspect. They are trained to alert to closed doors where there are people in the room. On high finds or concealed suspects they remain with the suspect and bark. After an "out" they will "hold and bark" or "hold and stare." Some of our dogs do a silent, focused guarding after an out. Next time your in Virginia I'd be more than happy to show you our dogs. 

I do agree that not everyone that is found in a building should be bitten. That is what "warnings" are for, that is why we use different search tactics depending on the nature of the call and building. Alarm calls with no forced entry are done on a long line. We really don't do residential searches with out forced entry. Commercial alarms at 0200 with a broken window or a kicked in door may very well be searched off lead, that is a handler decision based on the totality of the circumstances.


----------



## LouCastle

Slamdunc said:


> Lou,
> We certify under the Virginia Police Work dog Assoc, VPWDA and NAPWDA certifications.


Thanks for addressing my questions. Some people don't. I've never understood the idea of a discussion list where people won't answer questions. But, Oh well ... 



Slamdunc said:


> I will be brief in my response to you. The days of sending the dog in and "waiting for screaming" are long gone.


I think that means something different nowadays than it meant in the 80's. Back then it was common for handlers to send a dog into a building by himself, while they stayed outside and literally "waited for the screams." I was trained to do a methodical, systematic search, keeping in mind an idea of the layout of the building, to ensure that every foot of it was covered. I now teach a class on it that's been well received by both LE and SAR folks. 

I remember the first time that I saw that "wait for the screams" method of utilizing a dog. It was around 1980 and I'd been a handler for about a year. I'd gone to visit a trainer/handler for a large department to see what I could learn. He got a search at a large tire store/garage that was probably about 50,000 square feet. He put his dog through the door and waited. I expected him to let the dog do a quick scan of the immediate area and then to enter. Instead he stood outside while the dog "completed" the search. A short time later the dog came back to the door and stood there. The handler told me that this was a sign that he'd "completed the search." I asked how he knew the dog had covered the entire building and he said, "We take care of that in training." I could tell that the subject was closed. 

I've never understood how the dog was able to search behind locked doors that lead to other doors and rooms. Even a door that was closed, but not locked, would prevent searching further. What if that closed door lead to a huge warehouse? I've always thought that one should go see every trainer that they can. If nothing else, they can always serve as a bad example. 



Slamdunc said:


> When my dog enters a building for a search we enter with the dog. The dog clears the door from the outside to ensure no one is waiting behind the door.


We don't enter with the dog. I'd prefer to let the dog search the area that's immediately inside the door and the immediate area, while we wait outside. After a moment, when the dog has cleared this area, we'll enter. We call this initial part of the search, a "scan."



Slamdunc said:


> The dog does a limited penetration and clears the first room or two and then is downed while we enter.


Here's my point. If your dog enters the second room and that's where the suspect is hiding, the first indication that you'll have will be the screams or sounds of a scuffle, UNLESS he doesn't scream or there aren't any sounds of a scuffle. OTOH, if you have a find and bark dog, you'll hear him bark. Then you can make some decisions that I'll go into detail a bit later in this post. 



Slamdunc said:


> This can be done on a long line or off lead depending on the situation.


I can't recall ever using a long line on a real search. I had it in the "toolbox" in case a dragline technique was appropriate, but I don't think I ever used it. 



Slamdunc said:


> I prefer to direct my dog as to what rooms / danger areas I want to clear first. Our dogs are very methodical and rarely pass doors or rooms with out checking them.


Sounds very much the same as what's done here. I taught my dogs to sniff the crack of every door they came to. Due to a dog's weak eyesight for such things, sometimes they'd hit changes of color of pain on the wall and things like exterior electrical conduit that ran down the wall. I told my handlers, "just praise him, he's doing the right thing. Better that he sniff things that don't need sniffing, than he passes by something that does need sniffing." 

For those who are not familiar with this ... Doing this gives the dog an idea of what's in the room. If the suspect had been hiding there for a while, the dog may get his scent by sniffing the crack. Either a find and bark or find and bite dog should immediately bark if this occurs. 



Slamdunc said:


> I "read" my dog even when he is searching off lead and am acutely aware of his change of behaviors. I can hear his breathing change before he barks at a door.


Everyone should do this. But we need to realize that if the room that the suspect is in is "inhaling" and he's far from the door as they usually are, there's not going to be any change in the dog's behavior, breathing, or his body language for you to "read." Hence, you're still in the position of waiting for the screams or sounds of a scuffle. In such a situation, a find and bark dog will announce with his bark, that he's made the find and everyone on the team (the handler and the b/u team) will know that he's done so. 



Slamdunc said:


> I keep track of my dog's movements and location. We clear together with other Officers. If he locates a suspect he will engage and I will take the appropriate action at that time.


You can only do this if you know that he's engaged. I can't think of how you'd know this EXCEPT for listening for the screams/scuffle noises. Can you tell me another way that you'd know this from a distance, even if that distance is only a few doors? 



Slamdunc said:


> More often then not the suspect is ordered to bring the dog out to us.


In the hundreds of real searches that I've been on, I've never seen this work. In the thousands of searches that I know of, it only worked a couple of times. If it does, you're gold. But since it usually does not, you have to have another system. Sounds like you do. Some don't. 



Slamdunc said:


> If the suspect can not physically comply then we will go in and secure him.


There are a couple of schools of thought on this. I prefer to move up to an area where I can see what's going on but I'm still using cover/concealment. I'll give commands to the suspect to "stop fighting, get on the ground, etc." If he complies, he's ordered into a position where we have an advantage (same sort of spread eagle as on a T stop). I'll out the dog and either call him back to me or part way to me, depending on the distances involved. Then the team will enter and take him into custody. 

If he won't comply then the team will enter, I'll take physical control of the dog as the team takes physical control of the suspect. 

But having a find and bark dog gives us several more options, all of which keep us safer. When he barks, I have some options. I can leave him there barking as the team moves up, securing areas as we go. Since he's not being bitten, if there is unsecured ground between us, there's no hurry to get to him. If the dog stop barking, I'll know that the suspect has either tried to flee or tried to attack the dog and that he's now biting. During training we regularly have the dog bark 100 times so he knows that it might take a while before anything else happens. 

Another option is to recall the dog after just a few barks. Whether this is done depends to some degree on what the suspect is being sought for. If he's known to be armed, I'll probably call the dog after the first bark, and then order the suspect from his place of hiding. I'll know with a high degree of accuracy just where he is. The team can take up positions of advantage so that if he wants to fight we're ready. If he surrenders, we're done. If not, there are more options but we KNOW WHERE HE IS, giving us a huge advantage. 

If the dog has bitten because the suspect had tried to flee or has attacked the dog, then we're in the same position that you are, but since the dog has barked before biting we KNOW WHERE HE IS. We're not counting on the screams or the sound of a scuffle, neither of which may occur, to locate him. 



Slamdunc said:


> Our dogs are only released on violent Felony suspects and not misdemeanors.


Of course, that's pretty much standard. We may vary from that, perhaps due to differences in state law if the misdemeanor involves a gun. In CA "brandishing a firearm" is only a misdemeanor but we'd use a dog to find that suspect. Do you use dogs on burglaries? Do you consider those to be _"*violent *felony suspects?"_ 



Slamdunc said:


> Our dogs do bark when they can not get to a suspect.


How quickly do they do this? Do they look for a back door as I described previously? How long do they look for the back door? I realize that you can't put a precise number on this but the point is that if there's any delay at all, longer than a 5-10 seconds, you could be moving into danger and not know it. The find and bark dog will bark as soon as he's located the strongest source of scent that he can get to, usually much more quickly than a dog that's spending time looking for that back door. The find and bite dog has found the strongest source of scent that he can get to, but now, since he's trained to bite, he has to find the suspect and bite, him to complete the movement. That takes some time. Meanwhile the find and bark dog is satisfied that he's found the strongest source he can get to and is barking, alerting the handler and the b/u team that he's made the find. 




Slamdunc said:


> After an "out" they will "hold and bark" or "hold and stare." Some of our dogs do a silent, focused guarding after an out.


I prefer that after an out that the dog return to the handler. But the training is such that if the handler decides that he wants a hold and bark, he can give that command and the dog will do it. More options are always good. Calling the dog back to the handler prevents a suspect from re-engaging the dog. 



Slamdunc said:


> Next time your in Virginia I'd be more than happy to show you our dogs.


I've cut down on my seminars since I've retired, but if I do get back there, I'll be sure to let you know. I'd love to see your work. 



Slamdunc said:


> I do agree that not everyone that is found in a building should be bitten. That is what "warnings" are for


Glad you agree. But the janitor with his headphones on, or the owner working late with his radio cranked up, probably will not hear "the warnings." You'll hear the radio in the second situation and will realize that something is "not quite right" and will take steps to prevent an ugly situation. UNLESS the stars don't line up properly (with a nod to the vagaries of the universe) and he picks a moment AFTER your announcement, to turn the radio off, and go to the bathroom. He won't hear your announcement and the radio won't be on, to give you the "something's wrong" indication. 

The scared 12 year old on his first big job, is not going to come out. He's going to hope your dog passes him by. That is, until he's on the bite. You won't lose that one in court, since you had no idea that he was so young. But the public and the City Council, etc. won't like it much. If the dog merely barked at him, you'd not have any problems at all. 



Slamdunc said:


> Alarm calls with no forced entry are done on a long line.


A lot of people use a long line to prevent bites. But counting on a long line to prevent a bite is fraught with problems. If the dog enters a room and the suspect is hiding there, if the dog has enough slack in the long line, to properly search the room, he has enough slack to reach someone and bite him, negating the use of the long line. If the dog goes around a corner and that's where the suspect is hiding, the dog will be on the bite, long before you get to that corner. It reduces, but does not eliminate the problem. If the room is inhaling you won't get any clues from the dog's body language that he has scent, because he won't until, after he penetrates into the room. 

Thanks for a thoughtful and reasonable discussion. It's so much more pleasant that this conversation sometimes goes.


----------



## Slamdunc

*I can't recall ever using a long line on a real search. I had it in the "toolbox" in case a dragline technique was appropriate, but I don't think I ever used it. *

For what we do as Police K-9 handlers and on the SWAT team, a long line presents many tactical advantages over an off lead dog. It requires training and knowing how to handle the line with other operators and furniture in rooms. Still, there are several advantages to using a long line when building clearing. IMO, for what we do the long line has more "pros than cons." 

In an earlier post you mentioned the SKIDDS/Catts class by Brad Smith. Surely, you would be familiar with long line clearing and stealth clearing if you attended either one of those classes.


----------

