Discounting Schutzhund, Ring Sport etc...In the field of Personal Protection Training for home and executive purposes...Is Chase and Hold training a good idea.
For one thing, if a citizen's dog has to chase and hold a bad guy, there is no longer a threat to the owner is there? Chase and hold training, I believe, is sometimes tiping the scales towards stray bites in the park for inattentive owners.
Your thoughts, people, would be most appreciated..
Regards,
Gary....

I had the same question. From the searching around that I have been able to do, and the helpful info I have received from various trainers/police and from Leerberg's "Dog Law" listserv, I gather that the laws will vary quite a bit from state to state, city to city, county to county. But the upshot is that if a state considers the use of a personal protection dog to be unnecessary for protection from possible death or serious injury, it is not legally permitted. Thus, if the bad guy is fleeing with stolen property, you cannot send the dog.

There seem to be remarkable variations in the law in different areas.

Wayne,
Have you heard of the "Reasonable Man" Statute or of the "Citizens Arrest" Provisions in law. A citizen/victim may use reasonable force necessary to prevent a crime or apprehend a subject who has just committed a crime. The citizen, like a police officer, can escalate the amount of force used as dictated by the criminal until that subject is either detained or is allowed to escape. I believe that the citizen may also be immune to civil litigation for any injuries under these provisions as well.

I am not a law scholar and I may be a little rusty on the law in this department but, as a cop, I have never arrested a citizen for exercising their right to assist police in catching criminals. Also, I have never heard of a citizen being sued for causing injury to a suspect involved in a crime.

If I am completely off the mark Im sure someone will set me straight. If so, this thread has fulfilled its intended purpose.....Howard

I don't think the private citizen is exempt from civil suit like the officer of the state is, but I'm not 100%.

Also I have no idea whatsoever of the laws in England. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />


But there are a number of reasons why training a run away bite is a good thing.

First of all with many dogs training a run away bite is a good tool to build them up in protection work.

Second, there are many situations where chasing and holding someone would be legal and necessary, even for the private citizen. No you are no longer in a self defense situation, but you may then be in a citizens arrest situation and you will have to justify that. You can't just send your dog after some kids tagging your fence with spray paint, but there could be reasons you have to catch someone trying to get away.

Third, if you don't want to teach it because you are worried about your dog running off and biting someone accidentally you shouldn't be bite training your dog at all. You don't have the control and forsight necessary to handle a protection dog if there is ANY possibility of a bad bite.

The courts have typically held that self defense, so long as it is not excessive is an affirmative defense. So long as it can be proved that the dog's force was not excessive.......

It also varies greatly depending on the circumstances leading up to the chase down. As Howard said the reasonableness test applies.

I agree with VC that the private citizen is not exempt from liability, so that is why training records are important, even for a PPD. It is also important that the handler have verbal control of the dog at all times. An e-collar is helpful to maintain verbal control. I use one with my K9.

Each situation is unique when a dog is deployed, whether it be a PSD or a PPD. Totality of the circumstances apply, even in a civil setting, so to give a cut and dry answer on if it is a good thing or not would be difficult to do.

If you are going to have a PPD you should be willing to committ 100% to the end product, which is ultimately a biting dog. If you can't handle a dog which will bite, or you are too concerned with the liability involved, including when letting the dog chase and hold, then don't train for that, and get a dog that will just bark. Make sure you get a big spiked collar if you get the dog that will just bark though.....it adds character. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Nice responses Guys.
I think this thread is a very important one for everone concerned with PPDs, Schutzhund, Ringsport etc.
I agree with you Vancamp Robert about not bite training your dog if you've not got control/forsight to sort it out later. However, the point I was making was that I've had two GSDs in the last 5 years. Dog 1 was chase and hold trained and the latter was more defence orientated, eg handler protection.(Schutzhund style without the run). Both dogs were very obedient and controllable, but the second dog was much easier to live with as it didn't see every jogger, cyclist, etc as a target. The second dog was only interested in people invading my personal space or particularly rowdy individuals.

Not counting the legal side of things, there are other problems associated with chase and hold for the private individual, whether in US or UK. That is, if you or family are being attacked and your dog either responds with bark etc, it may resolve the problem. It the criminal continues, and the dog bites...I'm still ok with. However, if a burglar/mugger starts to target you, then sees the properly trained PPD and withdraws, is is really necessary to send the dog after him. In the first incident, the criminal probably wont return and will warn his villainous friends against doing so. But if he has been bitten whilst fleeing, I think you are laying yourself open to revenge attacks either against you and/or your property or attacks on the dog, eg(poison/firearms etc)
Obviously, I'm stretching out the possibilities here, but only to explain my worry.

Thanks Guys, I love sensible debate,
Gary

I would think anyone bit by a properly trained PPD would be far LESS likely to target for revenge attacks.....why would they risk being bit again.....it is an unpleasent feeling to say the least.

You can't let your dog bite someone for looking at you, or even making verbal threats, then backing off and leaving.

That would be the day you go to jail and get a nice letter from the guy's lawyer.


If the person walked up and committed a felony in front of you and then attempted to flee, you are then acting in a citizen's arrest situation. The dog, being non-leathal force, giving the guy a bite so you can catch him and turn him over to the police would be the day you and Fido get a hero's news spot on TV.


The crime should be serious enough to warrant the actions. I wouldn't do it unless I witnessed a felony or I believed that the person was going to injure or kill someone. At that point, for me, let come what may thereafter. . .

Many of you folk are officers, and will be much more up to speed than I on these things. I will defer to you. What I have read in California indicates, to my eye, that a person cannot be held responsible if his dog takes down someone in the performance of police duties while under his/her control, AND that person is a canine officer. (Cal Penal code section 399.5 a, c, and e).

That SEEMS to me to indicate that even a police officer who had a personal protection dog could be held responsible, unless he were a canine officer. Now, I really do not at all know the laws on citizen's arrest, but I have heard that a citizen's arrest cannot be made on a misdemeanor... again, don't send your dog if I am wrong, as I well may be.

There is also a civil law in California (Insurance Code section 533) which indicates that insurance will not be valid if a person intentionally injures a victim; and there is a law site which indicates that there are similar laws in the other states.

So here's my personal conclusion: I'm no lawyer; the law is more an unknown on these things than most of us are aware-- certainly I don't know all the ins and outs; and so it is just too risky for me to send a dog in the case of ANY property crime.

As a side note I'll add that in San Diego, where I live, there's a county law that I think no one knows about, requiring that all personal protection dogs be implanted with a computer chip containing contact information and other data about the owner. I would guess that that is one of the least obeyed laws in this field.

If anyone has any corrections or amendments to make on this, I would be grateful for them.

Sorry, wasn't clear on one point in the above post. The point has two parts:

1. Whatever the laws re. citizens arrest in California, there is some (small?) reason to believe that a person sending a dog in the course of making a citizen's arrest, and causing the dog to bite the person, is not acting lawfully, insofar as even a police officer who is not a canine officer may not be justified in sending his own personal protection dog in the course of making an arrest.

2. I have heard, though not from an authoritative source, that citizens arrest in CA is only actionable in felony cases.

I'd really appreciate some input on both of these points, as I am not sure of either. But point one is based on citation of law as written.