In response to my comment that I've never seen any studies that show that a find and bark dog is more dangerous to the handler than a find and bite method of utilization of the K-9, a couple of list members sent me an article from the USPCA website, "An Examination of Police Canine Use of Force in the State of Florida" by Charles Mesloh. You can find the article at

http://www.uspcak9.com/training/florida_study.pdf

It goes on for 215 pages. There's so much wrong with it that I totally discount it and so should you. Anyone who wants to see my comments on it can request it via private email. I'll not post it here, it's REALLY long, unless there's a demand for it.

Uncle Lou

How are you, well I would be very interested in a copy of your in put, your PM is full

Reinier Geel

The study, a dissertation for an educational degree was done by mailing questionnaires out to some 300 K-9 handlers in Florida. About half responded. It asked 33 questions some of which were intended to catch handlers . . . let's not say in lies, but lets call it "untruths." He uses bites ratios to make his point that the find and bark method of deployment results in MORE bites to citizens than a find and bite method. But one of the major problems is that he never clearly defines what is meant by "bite ratio." He does give his definition of it but it's vague and ephemeral. He says that a bite ratio is "a formula used as a crude measure of use of force with police dogs where the number of suspects bitten is divided by the total number of apprehensions." There are many problems with this definition.

Bite ratio is really a term used by lawyers to confuse jurors. It's hard to find two departments that measure the figure the same way. He thinks he's found a clever way to determine it even though he proposes that some will handlers try to conceal it, but he fails.

We have no way of knowing the quality of the training of the find and bark dogs in the study. Were they "clean?" Did they do their work reliably? Or were they dirty and cheap shotting, even though the suspect held still? Without this information, the entire study is worthless. It's much harder to maintain a find and bark, particularly after the dog has a few street encounters. It takes a knowledgeable trainer and requires more time than to keep a find and bite dog proficient.

The study relies on the honesty of K-9 handlers for it's entire base of information. Some of them answered the study because they wanted to and some of them were ordered to by their supervisors. There was no check as to the reliability of their responses. I've spoken to some of those who responded and their comments appear when appropriate.

His definitions of the three drives he states are used in training of PSD’s (pg.50) is not universally accepted but he writes as if they were. He completely ignores fight drive, a drive used by many trainers as the basis for their training of the find and bark.

Some of what he states may occur is just poor or incomplete training. An example, (pg. 53) " Loud verbal commands or gestures on the part of the handler toward the suspect (a frequent occurrence during physical arrests) may actually trigger the dog bite, when actually the suspect was in the process of surrendering." No training program is complete that permits this to occur.

He discusses some criticisms of the find and bark (pg. 58) but doesn't present the arguments that support that method of training. His criticisms are incomplete and overlook the facts that exist.

He says, (pg. 58) " A great deal of training is required to maintain “bark and hold” dogs. If this training is not adequate, the dog will begin to bite when it is not warranted." Of course he overlooks the fact that a find and bite dog will also bite "when it is not warranted." since that dog will bite all the time, unless stopped by the handler.

He quotes Eden (pg. 59) ". . . a “circle and bark” dog however, is trained to attack on the slightest movement…there is very little tolerance level in a “circle and bark” dog." This overlooks the fact that a dog can be taught tolerance for as much movement as the trainer desires.

He says (pg. 60) that, ". . . as it currently stands, there is no valid empirical evidence to suggest that the recommendations made by the Department of Justice in the “Principles of Promoting Police Integrity” document to replace “bite & hold” training techniques with “bark & hold” modules." There is much anecdotal evidence and common sense to support the find and bark as a safer method of deployment for the handler. Only this flawed dissertation and the opinions of some who have various misconceptions of the find and bark support the opposite view.

On (pg. 68) he states, " “Bite and hold” techniques, however, mandate that when an officer takes the dog off the leash, they are instructing the canine to take down the suspect. In this case, the officer makes the decision for the dog to bite, instead of letting that decision rest in the hands of a German Shepard . . . Under "bark and hold” techniques, the canine makes the decision when they should bite and when they should not." This just isn't the case and displays an ignorance of dogs and dog training. The dog doesn't make the decision to bite. He's trained to respond to cues from the decoy that are the equivalent of a command from the handler. The handler and the trainer, long before the suspect is encountered, have made the decision as to when the dog is permitted to bite. The ability to make a decision carries with it the ability to make value judgments and this doesn't occur in dogs in this situation. It's quite simply a matter of conditioning. The dog recognizes the rapid movement of the suspect as being the same as a command from the handler to bite and he responds as he's been trained. This error, that the dog "makes a decision" is at the root of many of the misconceptions of the find and bark.

At one point he quotes a study done by Huston, et al, whom he quotes, " Given that a German shepherd can exert a bite force of 1500 p.s.i. . . ." That's a study done by some ER medical doctors so I doubt that they did any measurements of bite pressure themselves. More than likely they relied on someone's else's writings for that figure. I've never seen any reliable study that measures bite pressures although I've been asking online for over 5 years; no one has ever been able to point me to one. Interestingly that study, by Huston, was done to compare injuries sustained to suspects after a change from the find and bite to the find and bark. That study determined that there were LESS injuries after the change of training and deployment. The official conclusion of that study was, ". . . changes in law enforcement K-9 policy contributed to a significant decrease in the overall number of individuals bitten, the number of injuries and complications, and the proportion of patients hospitalized."

On (pg. 69) he states (regarding what an officer does when he sends a dog to find and bark), ". . . they introduce an immature being into the scenario, and often one that does not have the mental capacity to choose right from wrong and to decipher what is appropriate from inappropriate action." I don't know any dogs that have "the mental capacity to choose right from wrong." They can only respond to their training. The assumption that the dog makes a decision is a faulty one that colors the entire study.

His discussion of "bite ratios" which begins on pg. 70, is so heavily flawed as to make the entire piece worthless. It may have made a great dissertation but from the standpoint of influencing the policy of a police department it's lacking. On pg. 71 he states that the bite ratios of both LAPD and LASD are "unacceptably high" but fails to mention how they were determined. There are many ways of measuring bite ratios and each will give a radically different end product.

He mentions the "bite rate" (not ratio) of a Md. police agency but fails to discuss how that was determined. He says (pg. 72), " this study used a bite rate, which was defined as the number of suspects bitten per one hundred apprehensions." Was this "per one hundred apprehensions" by the K-9 handlers? Was it when a K-9 handler was present and someone else made the arrest? Was the K-9 even taken out of the police unit? Did the suspect resist arrest? There are more questions to be answered by we don't know those answers and therefore the statistic has no meaning.

He mentions that (pg. 74), " Clearly, a strong majority of the cases have originated in the 9th District Court of Appeals, primarily in the urban centers of California." It should be noted that the 9th is the most liberal of all of the District Courts in the US. It is also the one that is reversed by the Supreme Court more often than all of the others combined. The liberalness of the 9th court is probably one of the main reasons that they hear most of the K-9 lawsuits in the country; that's where the liberal lawyers who oppose K-9’s will file their cases. The 9th is the court that decided that "under God" should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.

He writes, (pg. 77) " The central issue here is how often and under what circumstances any injury results to a witness or suspect as a result of the canine introduction. It is from these reports that police departments now compute bite ratios." I know of no departments that use injuries to WITNESSES in determining their bite ratios. Since we don't "apprehend" witnesses I can't see how they'd fit into the measurement of a bite ratio.

(pg. 77+) "Bite ratios are now a fairly common measure used by all departments." Not "all departments" use bite ratios. Many believe that keeping those statistics just provide ammunition for plaintiff's attorneys to use when they sue police departments. Rather than use some vague number to measure how often a K-9 bites, they closely examine every incident to determine if it was proper or not.

(pg. 78) " These bite ratios include the number suspect injuries in the numerator, and the total number of possible deployments in the denominator." This doesn't tell us how the injury is sustained or what kind of injury it is. Is a scratch, caused by the toenail of a K-9, counted? Is an injury caused by a K-9 jumping on a suspect and knocking him down counted? It also doesn't tell us how the "number of possible deployments" is determined. Is it counted if the K-9 barks at the suspect from the back of a police unit? Does it count if the K-9 doesn't come out of his unit? What if the suspect found by the dog isn't available to be bitten such as if he's up high or behind a door? One major problem is that the term "deployments" isn't defined. It's subject to interpretation of the handler and the department. It's therefore subject to being skewed radically. It may be useful within the department but there's no way of comparing it to another department's ratio that is figured with a different criteria.

On Pg 79 he starts what appears to be an in depth discussion of bite ratios. But in the first paragraph he introduces unknowns. "This ratio is determined by comparing the number of bites to the number of apprehensions. . . " He doesn't give the definition of an apprehension. Therefore many departments will report an "apprehension" even if the K-9 wasn't directly involved. Often the K-9 will merely bark at a suspect who is thinking of resisting arrest and the suspect, because of a fear of being bitten will decide to go peacefully. Is that a K-9 apprehension? Or is it necessary that the K-9 find the person and bite or not bite them for it to be an apprehension? Everyone reading this will have their own opinion. The problem is that until and unless we agree what makes a "K-9 apprehension" we can't agree on the ratio. And the ratio is at the bottom of his conclusion made by the dissertation.

Because a plaintiff's attorney will try to make it look as if we're trying to deceive no matter how the measurement is made, I advocate that departments not even try to keep these numbers. But that's a separate discussion.

(pg. 79) " Although varying from agency to agency, acceptable ratios can range from 5% to 20%." Without knowing the specifics of how these numbers are derived they have no meaning.

He does state that there are some problems in developing bite ratios but attributes them to the K-9 and handler working specialized assignments rather than to how the information is gathered (actually how it's defined.)

He cites the IACP final finding about bite ratios, (pg. 80) " Reliance on formulas or ratios alone can often inappropriately and unfairly simplify an otherwise complex problem. In reality, each canine bite or canine-produced injury should be individually evaluated to determine whether it was justified in the total context of the situation and the manner in which the canine was handled." But then he completely ignores this advice.

(pg. 88+) "If suspects become aware, or are told of a policy where dogs are taught not to bite suspects but simply will bark at them, (here is a fallacy, these dogs DO bite when it's appropriate.) there is little chance that fleeing suspects will stop and voluntarily give themselves up." Since this relies on something that's not true, that the dogs will only bark, it doesn't happen. And suspects rarely "stop and voluntarily give themselves up" anyway.

(pg. 89) "Additionally, suspects, when given this opportunity may arm themselves and injure or kill both the police dog and officer." This occurs whether or not suspects are told that the dogs will bark. The fear is that the dog will bite. That fear is present no matter what people are told.

(pg. 89) "However, what has alarmed most handlers and the national organizations that represent them, is not the switch in techniques that is being advocated, but rather how those in DOJ came to the conclusion that “bark and hold” techniques are desired or at least more preferable over traditional “bite and hold” techniques. This decision was made without consultation from practitioners in the field or experts in training." The real problem is the policy was made with only a regard towards the politics of the situation, not the reality of it. The recommendation was based on the belief that it will result in fewer occurrences of use of the K-9 to bite suspects. It was made with an eye towards litigation and publicity, not with the safety of the handlers in mind. That is what the find and bark is really about.

(pg. 95) When he discusses how the study was conducted he describes the cover letter that as sent out with it, ". . . the cover letter was simple, yet established trust through an explanation of my affiliation with the University and experience as a former certified patrol dog handler." I've spoken to a number of handlers who took this survey. Some felt that the author had "gone over to the dark side" and there was absolutely no trust. We all know of former handlers who now testify against us regularly. Being a "former certified patrol dog handler" carries no guarantee of trust. And, in fact, his very methodology clearly demonstrates that he doesn't trust K-9 handlers; why should they trust him?

(pg. 96+) "There was a great deal of controversy regarding the survey after the first mailing, which was illustrated by web board postings, emails, and questions regarding my background and what would be done with the data. After replying to these inquires and posting responses on web boards, it appeared that any questions regarding the integrity of the study had been answered." I sincerely doubt that all "questions regarding the integrity . . . had been answered." K-9 handlers are a questioning bunch, and with good reason.

(pg. 99) " For researchers not familiar with the use of bite ratios as an industry standard, it might appear that canine handler’s (sic) might not readily recall the amount of deployments, apprehensions and bites within a year timeframe. However, for the canine handler, this is their lifeline. For instance, a baseball pitcher will be able to instantly recount his won/loss record because if nothing else, this is a measure of his value to the team. The same can be said of bite ratios for canine handlers." The analogy of a baseball pitcher just doesn't work. Others keep his stats and they're not subject to various interpretations. Often stats are cited during their contract negotiations. This figure might be remembered by some handlers but certainly not by all. Since my department never computed it, I have not idea of what mine was. To make such an assumption, that every handler will remember his own bite ratio, is absurd. But even if it were true, since we don't know how they were computed, it's meaningless information.

(pg. 99+) At one point he admits that "padding" bite ratios may occur, acknowledging some of the problems that I've mentioned. But then he writes, " If however, we code the bite ratio as the total number of apprehensions and bites from each of the utilizations (tracking, area search, building search and fleeing suspect apprehension) and combine it to form a uniform bite ratio that is comparable across agencies within the state, then it is possible to compare agencies from across the state to examine the individual, situational and organizational correlates of canine forceful interventions" This completely overlooks the question of whether the suspect was available to be bitten or not. If he wasn't, was it counted as an apprehension? We don't know and so we wind up with another meaningless number. And we still don't know if the reporting was honest or not. I know of several handlers who rebelled at being ordered to fill out the questionnaire by their supervisors and they deliberately skewed their numbers. We can't say how many fell into this group. It easily could have been a large enough group to completely change the results of the study.

(pg. 103+) "It was anticipated that once officers realized that high bite ratios were occurring within a specific deployment, there was the possibility that they would modify their data to conform to a more socially desirable response. . . if some specific utilization (such as tracking) have high bite ratios, it can be more indicative of handler misconduct. For example, during a track, the officer is in close proximity to both offender and canine. Thus, the handler and has the ability to intervene and increase or decrease the level of force that is used at that time." Since the officer is "in close proximity to both offender and canine" it also means that the officer is much more susceptible to an attack from the suspect, yet he doesn't consider this. All he considers is that a handler with a lot of bites on tracks might try to lie to cover up misconduct.

(pg. 103) "When elevated bite ratios are present in these deployments, it is usually due to handler carelessness rather than suspect resistance." This is someone that handlers should trust? Where is the evidence of this carelessness? This statement is sure to be used against a handler sometime. Handlers should be aware of this person's politics next time they receive a questionnaire from him.

(pg. 104) " Although the bite ratio should not be considered the final word in measuring force with police dogs, it does act as a barometer for misconduct and measured police violence." This is QUITE WRONG." It *may* be indication of misconduct but it may not. Each deployment has to be judged by itself, not as part of a group of numbers.

(pg. 104) "The current system of apprehension is bite and hold. The canine is sent and the apprehension is made by the dog. Under this model, the canine engages (bites) the suspect and does not release until the handler arrives (Eden, 1993). Dogs trained in this system engage the suspect without provocation. . . officers are trained that they should not deploy their dogs unless the situation warrants a dog bite. Hence, a handler would not send a canine after a suspect that the officer did not perceive to be a threat." Lots of suspect are "perceive(d) to be a threat" by a handler. Not all of them should be punched, OC'd or hit with a baton and not all of them should be bitten if they can be taken into custody without it.

In the discussion of training tools that we find yet more weaknesses. (pg. 106+) "These items the electric collar and bungee cord both rely heavily on negative reinforcement to pattern behavior." "Negative reinforcement" is a term of operant conditioning and is only one part of the use of an Ecollar. The tool also relies on "positive punishment" (in the operant conditioning use of the term) but that isn't mentioned. I'd disagree that the bungee "relies heavily on negative reinforcement."

". . .some research has linked electric fields (such as those used in pet containment systems) to extreme aggression in normal docile animals." That research is just as flawed as this study. It's interesting to note that most other statements such as this are referenced with a footnote or a scientific reference. No such reference is done with this statement.

He falls into a trap of demographics that at first appears benign. But once the problem is accurately perceived, measuring demographics becomes impossible and any data tied to it becomes useless. (pg. 112) ". . . the personal characteristics of each officer responding to this survey are also included in this analysis. The basic items include . . . race as white . . . black . . . Hispanic . . .and other." This question and possible answers depend on how an individual perceives himself and if he decides to be honest. Many people are offended by this question and either refuse to answer it or lie. Some may consider themselves to be a minority member if it benefits them, such as for purposes of obtaining a loan or entering a school, but may not give that information if they perceive that it may be misused. Some just refuse to give that information on basic principles.

(pg. 113) Kappeler, Kappeler, and Del Carmen (1993) found that in law suits against police departments where a canine was involved, the agency was successful in defending itself in less than 50% of the time." Please note that this study was done in 1993 and of course it dealt with incidents that occurred before then. At that time the find and bite method of using police dogs was more prevalent than it is now.

(pg. 113+) "The variable complaint measures with threshold of three or more or less than 3 complaints against an officer in 12 months (as determined by Lersch as a problem-prone officer) and was measured as a dichotomous variable with positive and negative responses." Anyone with any experience in law enforcement knows that having personnel complaints against an officer is not necessarily an indication of any wrongdoing. It could be that an officer has been aggressive in enforcing the law against a family or a gang and they've retaliated with complaints. It could mean that he's not "friendly" when making arrests and "rubs people the wrong way." It's also common for dog bite victims to routinely file a personnel complaint against the handler in anticipation of the lawsuit that will follow. This give them more ammunition at trial and may also give them a hint of defense tactics that may be used at that trial. Anyone who uses personnel complaints as any kind of measure based on JUST the numbers is going to be wrong.

Perhaps my favorite part of the study is (pg. 137) "Slightly less than half of the respondents stated that they used either the electric collar . . . or the bungee . . . Although there is no way to know for sure, this could indicate that are fewer dogs requiring extreme training aids being marketed to U.S. law enforcement agencies." The fact that he calls the Ecollar and the bungee "extreme training aids" clearly demonstrates how much he knows of the modern training of PSD's. Neither tool is extreme when used properly.

Some of the questions asked of handlers might have been answered differently by supervisors or administrators. For example, nine handlers said that their agencies would deploy a K-9 on fleeing traffic offenders and 15 would deploy on a non–violent misdemeanant. Unless there were some extenuating circumstances, these might not be appropriate deployments.

He does provide himself an out big enough to drive a semi truck through. (pg. 170) "Although the bite ratio is not the final word in measuring canine use of force, it does act as a barometer for measuring EXTREME cases of misconduct . . . However, it should be noted that a number of factors influence these canine force outcomes and each bite should be viewed on a case-by case basis, using the Reasonableness Standard set out in Graham v. Connor." (emphasis added) This last part is exactly what I'm saying. You can't judge uses of force based on numbers. Each case must be judged by itself depending on what happened during the contact.

Here's something that's interesting. (Pg. 175) "Third, the presence of Shutzhund (sic) training in the dog’s background was found to reduce bite ratios . . . These dogs are under handler control and are not required to make complex decisions." SchH dogs are required to bark at a decoy that they find in a blind. They are to continue barking until the decoy moves, and then they are to bite and hold on. The author says that police dogs who do this are making decisions. But a SchH dog doing the identical thing, ISN'T making decisions. How can both be true? The answer is that it isn't. Neither dog is making a decision. Both dogs are recognizing a situation and responding to that training. They're seeing a cue from the suspect or decoy, that they've been trained to recognize. There's no difference between that and the training of a dog to down when he hears the command "platz."

(pg. 177) ". . . the ‘piggy-backing’ of several studies in one survey instrument may have created concern for some officers that were unwilling to participate in the gathering of police misconduct data." Ya think? Why does he think that gathering information regarding bite ratios is "gathering police misconduct data?"

Let's take a look at a few of the questions asked of the participants. Responses were supposed to be confidential but I doubt that even one handler thought that his answers would not be seen by his own bosses at some point. How do you think they'd answer such questions as (pg. 187) "1. Do you think your commitment to the department has increased, decreased, or remained the same since you came to your department?" and "2. Do you feel your decision to work for this organization was a mistake on your part?" and 3. Does your department inspire the very best in the way of job performance?" Once you start telling what you think they want to hear, it's likely to continue.

I wonder how many people answered the last question completely truthfully? (pg. 191) "33. Have you answered all of these questions as honestly as possible?"

He quotes himself in the bibliography no less than a dozen times. He's one of the "experts" that he cites.

The argument that the find and bite is safer for the handler requires that the dog immediately incapacitate the suspect when biting him, or at least act as a strong distraction. This is simply not the case in many situations. And where the dog does not remove the suspect's ability to assault the handler it places that handler in much more danger than if the dog wasn't even present. If a suspect is drunk, drugged, determined or angry he may not respond to the pain of a bite at all. A suspect in one or more of these states can completely ignore a dog who's biting him. If that happens the handler may not even know that the suspect is present. He'll go looking for his dog, who's not recalling, and may walk right into the suspect. Even if he's not armed, such a suspect can easily surprise the handler with a fatal attack. If he is armed, the officer is easy pickings.

I doubt that either policy, find and bark or find and bite, is responsible for any change in injuries or degrees of injury to suspects apprehended by those dogs. Each deployment must be judged on its face. It depends only on what the suspect did in the case at hand, not what suspects generally do, and not what happened yesterday. The politics of the find and bark is that less injury will result to the public. The reality is that it's safer for the handler. He'll be warned by the bark that the dog has made a find. Even if the suspect is armed and takes out the dog, at least the handler will know that a suspect is present. If the dog bites and is taken out quietly he won't know that the dog is gone. He'll only know that he's not recalling. There are many reasons that this may occur besides being killed or injured by the suspect. This happens dozens of times in training and dogs aren't being killed in training by the decoys.

This is an academic dissertation, hardly a scientific study. It's an opinion piece, influenced by the writer's opinion and his feelings. More than likely he went into the study with an opinion already in mind. Nowhere does one get the feeling that he's unbiased. 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.” Herbert Spencer said, "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is contempt prior to investigation."

The fact that the dissertation appears on the USPCA website shouldn't lend it any credence; it may just reflect their opinion as well. With so many variables not measured, the findings can't help but be inconclusive. As such this "study" is meaningless regarding the relative safety of handlers depending on whether they employ the find and bark or the find and bite. I'm still waiting for a "study" that shows that the find and bite is safer for handlers.

And finally let me comment that the author cites my good friend, Donn Yarnall, several times throughout the piece. Not once does he spell Donn's name correctly. It's YARNALL not Yarnell.

OUTSTANDING rebuttal Lou..........

I read that report and felt it was just another weak attempt to discredit FIND AND BARK . I'm from the FIND AND BITE FIELD myself but when I saw that report I thought , here we go again , and I didn't even bother to read it at first.

I'm a member of the USPCA also and have along with many others been trying to change things there. It's a slow process because many of the members have been there along time and are very resistant to change. That report doesn't reflect the opinion of it's entire membership. I'm sure the reason you will get for it's posting is that many of the Florida USPCA members took part in answering that questionnaire. Russ Hess is the guy responsible for putting stuff on that website. He's the guy to ask about why it's on there. I don't think it should be there myself because ,in my opinion ,it shows it's bias clearly and is so easy for Big Dogs in the FIND AND BITE FIELD to tear apart . Like Lou Castle just did . It also stirs up this same old debate on which is the better method and causes people on both sides to keep bringing scenerios proving their method is safer or their method is better. Like the ones Lou brought up ;


"The politics of the find and bark is that less injury will result to the public. The reality is that it's safer for the handler. He'll be warned by the bark that the dog has made a find. Even if the suspect is armed and takes out the dog, at least the handler will know that a suspect is present. If the dog bites and is taken out quietly he won't know that the dog is gone. He'll only know that he's not recalling."

or this one:

"If a suspect is drunk, drugged, determined or angry he may not respond to the pain of a bite at all. A suspect in one or more of these states can completely ignore a dog who's biting him. If that happens the handler may not even know that the suspect is present. He'll go looking for his dog, who's not recalling, and may walk right into the suspect. Even if he's not armed, such a suspect can easily surprise the handler with a fatal attack. If he is armed, the officer is easy pickings. "

I can easily pick apart these statements as easily as Lou did with that report. Because the truth is a FIND AND BARK K9 handler could easily find themself in the same situation because the suspect has engaged the FIND AND BARK K9 and the K9 is now in on the bite. This is a weakness handlers on both sides should be aware of. We can't predict how a suspect's going to react when confronted by a K9 . In some situations a FIND AND BARK K9 would have been the best in others a FIND AND BITE K9 would have been the best. The suspect's actions along with other factors determine that . Using sound tactics and not blindly following your dog is the best way to stay safe. We (on both sides ) always use scenerios where it's just the handler and the K9 and they walk into something they are not prepared for. Beleive me many of the arguements against FIND AND BITE go that way too. We all by now should be using cover and concealment as well as back up officers shouldn't we ? When we deploy our K9's.

This report in the USPCA website only helped in causing both sides of the "FIND AND BARK" AND "FIND AND BITE" METHODS to argue the same old BS over again. The only ones benefiting from this are the defence and civil litagation attorneys who use all of are arguements against us.

Sorry Lou I meant to say you where a Big Dog in the FIND AND BARK FIELD in my first posting.

Who said it’s not a dogs world -Jim good call –“The only ones benefiting from this are the defence and civil litigation attorneys who use all of are arguments against us”: but notice this: it took a Cop to point out how wrong Cops are at what they do, or don’t, makes you think who’s biting who here?. Or was that a bark? – it’s a non issue boy’s

And no Jim, we will never have what we train for, -back up, two man teams at every complaint, well rehearsed tactical sequences and supernaturally perfected and trained dogs, that work like robots, when it come's to the bark/find/bite - who cares?

If any agency or officer is considering the merits of detaining vs. find and bark, consider this apart from any other argument.

If a patrol officer finds himself between a deployed K9 and a target (fleeing suspect) and the handler directs that officer to become motionless, the K9 will have a choice.

The K9 trained to detain, will choose the distant fleeing criminal and will pass the motionless officer.

The find and bite dog will choose the nearest target regardless, in this case, the patrolman.

All of us with any experience at all know that, due to the dynamic nature of most apprehension deployments, innocent people often find themselves in the way. There is a much better likelyhood that we can get fellow officers and other innocent people to freeze up than fleeing criminals.

Let's stack the deck in our favor

Jon Richey
Salt Lake City PD

--SLCPD K9. Helping criminals make better decisions since 1958.

Jon Richey wrote If any agency or officer is considering the merits of detaining vs. find and bark, consider this apart from any other argument.

If a patrol officer finds himself between a deployed K9 and a target (fleeing suspect) and the handler directs that officer to become motionless, the K9 will have a choice.

The K9 trained to detain, will choose the distant fleeing criminal and will pass the motionless officer.

The find and bite dog will choose the nearest target regardless, in this case, the patrolman.

All of us with any experience at all know that, due to the dynamic nature of most apprehension deployments, innocent people often find themselves in the way. There is a much better likelyhood that we can get fellow officers and other innocent people to freeze up than fleeing criminals.
This is probably the first time that I have openly disagreed with a quote from someone on this forum. It is the blanket statement that a find and bite dog will choose the nearest target regardless that I disgree with. It is not my intention to make a stand for or against bark and hold.

We've had pursuits through crowds and on more than one occasion have had a dog pass several officers to make an apprehension. This wasn't by design but happened just the same. Who hasn't had their dog make an apprehension through a crowd in training. I realize training is training and real life situations are different. However, I'm not advocating that we deploy our dogs into areas where innocent people can get hurt. With training and confidence in the control you have over your dog many options for possible usages come available. I can give numerous examples of deployments that I would have not thought possible ten years ago.