 Bark & Hold vs. Bite & Hold
#162383 - 11/11/2007 08:59 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 05-23-2007
Posts: 551
Loc: Washington, USA
 Offline |
|
As my other topic was slowly getting off track i thought this was a relevant topic still so Lets discuss.
http://leerburg.com/qapolice.htm#bh
Michael.West
"Everything flows down leash"
|
 Top
|
|
Re: Bark & Hold vs. Bite & Hold
[Re: Michael West ]
#162399 - 11/11/2007 09:09 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 08-29-2007
Posts: 24
Loc:
| Offline |
|
My way of thinking "and not always the best way" is that a B&H dog takes a greater chance of being stabbed,slashed, shot, beaten, than a dog that locates the suspect and bites without hesitation.
The B&H dog, if trained to apprehend the suspect IF the suspect becomes aggresive, would be a better way than a B&H that will not engage until commanded by the handler.
My way of thinking again, is that I am not going to send my dog to apprehend anyone unless he is getting the bite. I know there are times when a neighbor,etc. will step into the picture and possibly get the wrong end of the dog, but when the situation calls for the send, I want to know that the dog did engage and not just bark.
those that hide will be found, those that run will be bitten |
|
Top
|
|
Re: Bark & Hold vs. Bite & Hold
[Re: Jery Ledford ]
#162401 - 11/11/2007 09:16 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 05-23-2007
Posts: 551
Loc: Washington, USA
| Offline |
|
Sorry Michael,
I posted to the last thread before this was posted.
Just go ahead in copy and past over here. Its somthing worth talking about 
Michael.West
"Everything flows down leash"
|
|
Top
|
|
Re: Bark & Hold vs. Bite & Hold
[Re: Michael West ]
#162561 - 11/13/2007 12:28 AM |
Moderator
Reg: 07-11-2001
Posts: 1052
Loc: New Mexico
| Offline |
|
ere are some things to talk about.
Most dogs killed were killed while engaged with the suspect.
Virtually all countries in the world utilize he B&H....do you really think it is all about not biting people????
Is it really the purpose of the B&H to prevent the dog from biting???
Many many people misunderstand the purpose of the B&H. It is to produce a positive indication and to decrease the dog's leaving a passive subject as well as produce a fight when fought behavior in the dog.
This is the most common way to produce these actions in the dog used in service work.
This argument about safety for the dog, safety for the handler, etc. is trumped by the use of B&H. To add to it, the need to produce a fight when fought approach to law enforcement is the important part of the work.
|
|
Top
|
|
Re: Bark & Hold vs. Bite & Hold
[Re: Kevin Sheldahl ]
#162562 - 11/13/2007 12:49 AM |
Webboard User
Reg: 09-27-2002
Posts: 637
Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.
| Offline |
|
I think the best route is to have BOTH options in your toolbox…. Takes more training time but I think worth the effort!
|
|
Top
|
|
Re: Bark & Hold vs. Bite & Hold
[Re: Kevin Sheldahl ]
#162570 - 11/13/2007 05:08 AM |
Webboard User
Reg: 05-23-2007
Posts: 551
Loc: Washington, USA
| Offline |
|
ere are some things to talk about.
Most dogs killed were killed while engaged with the suspect.
I dont know the stats but that makes sense, if most the dogs are killed while engaged with the suspect why would we want the dog to sit there and bark and put himself in danger that much longer?
Virtually all countries in the world utilize he B&H....do you really think it is all about not biting people????
At the base level i think B&H is about barking at the suspect rather then biting. As far as all the country's that do it, i think it is because most the countries have a strong background in sports and it carried over (just a simple observation, i could be completly off on this)
Is it really the purpose of the B&H to prevent the dog from biting???
Prevent? I dont think so. But from what i know of it (which is not a lot) is to hold off on biting.
Many many people misunderstand the purpose of the B&H. It is to produce a positive indication and to decrease the dog's leaving a passive subject as well as produce a fight when fought behavior in the dog.This is the most common way to produce these actions in the dog used in service work.
You might have to go into a little detail about B&H and how it is done considering this part here went right over my head...
This argument about safety for the dog, safety for the handler, etc. is trumped by the use of B&H. To add to it, the need to produce a fight when fought approach to law enforcement is the important part of the work.
I dont see how B&H would increase the safety of the dog. I agree that the dogs should know how to fight when fought but i don't see what B&H has to do with this?
Michael.West
"Everything flows down leash"
|
|
Top
|
|
Re: Bark & Hold vs. Bite & Hold
[Re: Matthew Grubb ]
#162571 - 11/13/2007 05:09 AM |
Webboard User
Reg: 05-23-2007
Posts: 551
Loc: Washington, USA
| Offline |
|
I think the best route is to have BOTH options in your toolbox…. Takes more training time but I think worth the effort!
Well of course, thats the easy answer.
I dont see it as something i would use but it is better to know something and not know it then to not know it and need to know it.
Michael.West
"Everything flows down leash"
|
|
Top
|
|
Re: Bark & Hold vs. Bite & Hold
[Re: Michael West ]
#162579 - 11/13/2007 06:48 AM |
Webboard User
Reg: 01-23-2002
Posts: 1204
Loc: Nashville, TN
| Offline |
|
Some countries in Europe also deploy dogs muzzled. Should we copy them as well. Of course it can also be said, the Brits don't carry guns. I don't think I'll follow that practice either. I'd like to see the stats on how dogs die when deployed. My sense is, most are killed on the way in, by gun fire. An audible response is certainly warranted when a suspect is in a place the dog can't get to him. Beyond that, I see merely as an infiltration of sport and politically correctness. I know many people discount Dr Mesloh's study on B/H v. F/B, none-the-less the study is there. Until I see something different in both case studies and experience, I don't see me changing my philosophy.
DFrost
Any behavior that is reinforced is more likely to occur again. |
|
Top
|
|
Re: Bark & Hold vs. Bite & Hold
[Re: David C.Frost ]
#162614 - 11/13/2007 10:22 AM |
Webboard User
Reg: 08-29-2007
Posts: 24
Loc:
| Offline |
|
Took the words right out of my mouth David! We had a local "Joplin, Missouri" dog killed in action during an apprehension a few months back. Talking to some of the guys, the dog was killed while approaching the suspect with a bullet to the head. If, and only if this situation had changed, and the suspect had not fired the gun when he did, and the dog was able to get a bite, especially on the arm with the weapon, then the outcome would have been different with the bite versus bark. It is my opinion, and only an opinion, that the bark will give the bad guy more time to do harm to the dog. No where that I have trained do they use the Bark & Hold..Just my observations.
those that hide will be found, those that run will be bitten |
|
Top
|
|
Re: Bark & Hold vs. Bite & Hold
[Re: Jery Ledford ]
#162662 - 11/13/2007 01:01 PM |
Webboard User
Reg: 09-24-2003
Posts: 1555
Loc: Melbourne, Florida
| Offline |
|
BH....takes extra time to train and maintain. Time that alot of handlers aren't alotted even though they can do it on their own if they are deicated enough.
Injury to the dog minimized? The few BH dogs I've seen will bark while a decoy slowly moves in pretty much any direction they wish. If they wanted to slowly remove a weapon and fire it they could have.
Liability. EVERY bad guy says that they didn't move and the dog bit them. Without a human witness, who do you believe? The bad guy or the dog. :-) With a FB dog there is no question a bite is coming. The courts have upheld the use of a biting dog as justifiable force. Now the dog has done something he's supposed to instead of something he wasn't supposed to do.
This is a never ending debate. If it goes on long enough there could be hundreds of "For Instance" situations posted. Don't know why I even posted this. I will say I like the FB better. There, I said it.
Howard
|
|
Top
|
When purchasing any product from Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. it is understood
that any and all products sold by Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. are sold in Dunn
County Wisconsin, USA. Any and all legal action taken against Leerburg Enterprises,
Inc. concerning the purchase or use of these products must take place in Dunn
County, Wisconsin. If customers do not agree with this policy they should not
purchase Leerburg Ent. Inc. products.
Dog Training is never without risk of injury. Do not use any of the products
sold by Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. without consulting a local professional.
The training methods shown in the Leerburg Ent. Inc. DVD’s are meant
to be used with a local instructor or trainer. Leerburg Enterprises, Inc. cannot
be held responsible for accidents or injuries to humans and/or animals.
Copyright 2010 Leerburg® Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved. All photos and content on leerburg.com are part of a registered copyright owned by Leerburg Enterprise, Inc.
By accessing any information within Leerburg.com, you agree to abide by the
Leerburg.com Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Previous Topic
Index
Next Topic
.jpg)
