I'm not really sure where this should be, but this looked good. The problem is not really mine, but I was asked for help from a friend in a neighboring agency. His Department aquired a GS as a pup from a civilian vendor which does not raise PSD's but wanted one of their dogs to become a "Police Dog". It was sent to a "trainer" whom claimed to have trained PSD's. After the trainer had the dog for a period of time, the handler was asked to come to the facility for four days to learn everything he needed to know about K9 handling!!! The dog was sent home with my friend and he hit the street. He started coming to the trainings we have at my Dept. and it was soon clear that this dog simply does not have the drives required to be a police dog. The poor handler has worked very hard trying everything suggested, but like I said the drives are not there. For two years he has tried unsuccessfully to certify the dog with our state cert or any national cert. I have told him the dog should never have been placed on the street to begin with and should certainly be removed as a liability. The problem is with the chief who has become fond of the dog and does not want to admit that the money was wasted. When my friend mentioned removing the dog from duty, the chief mentioned if he could not handle the dog, they would find someone who could. Obviously he wants to continue the K9 program, but wants a dog that is capable. Without droning on for several pages, can anyone steer me to some case law or information on Administrative liability to place uncertified or inferior dogs on the street? I've checked a couple of web sights but can't find anything that directly addresses that issue.
Thanks for the help. K.Klostermeier

K. Klostermeir

There is no national standard, and very few states have mandatory POST standards. The situation you describe is very unfortunate. It could well leave a sour taste in the administrations mouth, and prevent them from ever realizing the benefits of trained police service dogs. What surprises me, and I've seen this more times than I care to remember, many times a small department will want a dog, go out and buy a dog, and yet have no expertise or knowledgable guidance. Totally relying on the word of vendor. Too often the results are just as you describe. Before buying guns, bullets, cars and copiers departments list specifications detailing the exact performance they require from whatever equipment they are purchasing. Then, as we would with any piece of equipment, test it. Why departments don't do the same with trained dogs I'll never understand. My suggestion would be to tactfully, so as not to dampen the departments administrations desire for dogs, do several things.

1. Provide the department with proven and acceptable General Orders, policy and procedures etc. on the training and utilization, and minimum standards for certifications. Minimum standards can be obtained from USPCA, NAPWDA etc.

2. If a department with an established canine program would be willing to assist, which I'm sure they would, have them demonstrate what a "certified" working dog is capable of and how they look when they are working. It may be surprising but some administrator's only conception of what a police dog can do is what they have heard or seen on cops.

It would be best, in my opinion, that the administration in question, see exactly what a Police dog should be capable of doing, and be convinced that it is in thier best interests, to cut thier losses with this particular dog. Then, approach obtaining a new dog from business-like decision making process, with all the information available to them.

They have learned a lesson in the dog business,that like anything else, it is buyer beware. The more information they have available to them, the better the chance the dog they get will be what they expect.

DFrost

DFrost,

I appriciate your response. Your recommendations are valid and have been tried. One problem is that my state, while having PSD Standards, does not mandate Agencies meet them with their K9 teams.(this is something we are trying to get changed through POST) My agency has two PSD's that are certified through both NAPWDA and our State Standards. There is another agency nearby with nine certified PSD's and a very good program. The chief has seen my dog and several of the others to help understand the differance when you have a dog with proper drives. Because this chief is unfamiliar with any of this, he believes it is a training issue and the handler needs to work harder to bring their dog to that level. It is difficult to explain to someone unfamiliar with dogs, how drives work and how while you can enhance them, you cannot create them. My agency trains weekly with the neighboring agency with nine K9 teams. Between the 11 of us, usually someone can come up with a solution to most problems encountered with a dog. We have tried everything over a two year period we could imagine with this dog.

The only angle I think that may convince the chief to look at getting a quality dog and continuing the program,is one of liability and credibility. Administrators seem to sit up and pay attention when those words creeps in. I really believe they want to keep the K9 program because they have so much money invested in equiptment and supplies. Also they have touted this program before the public for two years and no official likes to admit they spent a ton of money on a crap program. I know the chief see's how effective our agency and neighboring agency have been with the K9 units. I just would like to provide this handler with some information, other than my opinion, to take to his chief. I feel for the guy because he really wants to be an effective K9 team, but he does not have any confidence in his dog. (the county which his city is in calls for the assistance of one of our teams when they need something even though he is right there). There may not be any information or case law that deals with this problem directly, but I thought I would check.
Thanks again. K. Klostermeier

If the administrator is stuck on the idea that it is a training issue, maybe as well as approaching it with the liability argument, you could have the dog evaluated by a well known "flashy" trainer that can back your position?

"Having had this dog evaluated by Mr. SuperTopWellKnow dog trainer it is his opinion that the dog is of insufficient character for the work that is demanded of it."

A written document from who ever might also go a long way to add a level of "we're not -F-ing kidding about this dog". If something happens on the street with him we have all of this documentation that says the dog shouldn't have been out there.

Leverage

Just a thought. My impression from the limited info (and life experience) is that the chief just assumes one dog is like any other. One way you may be able to convince the chief is by way of an analogy he understands. Ask him to take an average player from the local high school basketball team, give him the best training facility, best coaches money can buy, and see if he ends up in the NBA. Not going to happen. no matter how much training and support and coaching you give the kid, he lacks the innate talent and ability to make the pros. the dog is the same way. he's a good dog, but not a pro. next time, draft a pro prospect, give him the proper coaching/training, and hopefully you get a Michael Jordanesque PSD.

Of course, if your town has a great basketball team, your SOL. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Hey, do you guys sleep. What's up with the timing of the posts?

Thanks for the feedback. I like the basketball analogy. I've heard other types but that is good because this particular city are high school sports fanatics.

We'll see what happens. They have asked me to attend a meeting regarding this issue and hopefully things will work out. A NAPWDA Master trainer who did our recent certification has seen the dog and has offered them a scorching good deal on a quality dog and a full handler course to help get them on the right track.

Also, I'm on the vampire shift so I sleep during daylight. K. Klostermeier

I went through a similar ordeal with my first dog. He was a medium-low drive dog and was a bit of a coward. I tried for about a year and a half to get the dog retired. the idea of getting another trainer to evaluate the dog is a very good one but be careful of only having a trainer do the evaluting. I had two or three high profile trainers that had seen the dog work write letters and some other knowledgable handlers do the same and then wrote a memo myself. I attached everything and then gave it to my admin. the handlers also put into the letter that they had never trained a dog for profit, therefor they had nothing to hopefully gain by the dogs retirement. It worked for me.