Matthew Grub asked.... "Just a curiosity.... what is everyone using as their recall? A down or a call back? I use a down with my dog."

I use a variety of releases. For my personal dog it may be the down or the recall in combination or by themselves.
The release includes from doing the B&H to being in pursuit and needing to be stopped or redirected. By being versed in all these approaches I can feel pretty assured I can address all the tactical concerns.
I also feel that the down in the context of apprehension work is important because it dovetails into other work I do in safely searching structures and areas.
For the new folks I teach I see a too frequent over use of the recall. I very often see dogs that when they are placed under control in the context of searching return to the handler when tactically placing them in a down ahead of you is far better. Grab 20 teams and see how many during an unknown search can consistantly do that and then restart the dog from a distance without the dog coming back first, you will be suprised at the number that either come back when told to down or come back when told to proceed with the search. A proper down in the context of apprehension work should only be a pause in the action and the dog should still be searching with its eyes ears and nose when on a down in front of the search team.
The foundations for this are usually done in the basicd release position of down and guard against action. Not a frequent thing in an actual physical confrontation between a suspect who has chosen to get bit.
For most of the teams I work with the dog would be recalled to remove it from any possible action given a physical apprehension.

I use the down as a majior training focus and have used it as the recall since day one. Last training session I was playing with the "recall" during the bite work session. I noticed a distinct change in my dog. He will have no issue comming to a screaching halt and downing as the decoy gives up or runs away.... he will just watch intently. I noticed that when I recalled him away from the bite he displayed an uneasyness when he lost visual contact with the decoy. I realy stess the down in our training. Down means down, period. No biting, no moving, no breaking untill I free you. It's my safety command.

My dog is trained in both the B&H and F&B as far as searches go. The goal was to bark upon location, recall, give warnings and release for the bite. I have not been able to realy proof the "recall" from the B&H because I always end up in the room proofing the B&H with a long line. My thought is that I will try putting the dog on an e-collar and having the decoy correct the dog's recall from the B&H so I can be out of the room during the excercise.

I was curious as to how everyone deals with this issue of the recall and if they have run into any training conflicts using both options.

It would be interesting to know how your dog can differentiate between the bark & hold and find & bite???? Maybe that's why you are always ending up in the room proofing the B&H with a long line, he really doesn't know. Maybe some K9 psychology and foundation training would help your dog. I hope the dog knows what a recall w/ e-collar is before you try it with a decoy, and I hope the decoy knows something about e-collar use too. Kevin has an excellent approach, use it........

I'll make the assumption that Matthew has a B&H dog that he can tell to bite a passive subject.
Though many people misunderstand the B&H altogether as it is usually trained in the U.S. and feel that B&H means that non-moving people are never bitten and that the dog won't bite them. This is usually far from the truth among well trained dog/handler teams in this particular discipline. Most will engage upon command from the handler based either directly on the encouragement of the handler to do so or based on a ritual that conveys this behavior to the dog. Such as; if I call you back to me and resend you to the subject it will always be to bite the suspect.
Now to throw more wood on the fire. I have spoke with several LEO's who have been doing disaster training with their dogs and claim that the dogs have had no problem in understanding that they are to go search and indicate on subjects under S&R conditions but are trained to locate and bite in a suspect search. These dogs did have physical apprehensions in law neforcement settings.
The general reason I teach B&H is for altogether different reasoning and that is to keep dogs from looking for another way into the bad guy and to produce the best indication and odor change I possibly can to help me in determining whether I will allow the dog to continue or whether I won't depending upon the tactics. It also prevents a perfectly passive person from being walked most of the time since the dog is quite used to seeing that situation.
The B&H is really, the way it is most often trained here in the U.S. not a highly reliable means of keeping the experienced patrol dog from engaging the suspect. But it does provide a sound basis for other desireable behaviors. Experience has also shown that the dog that is trained in B&H methodology well is under excellent control. Most feel this is because the dog is functioning in what some people feel is the optimum balance between prey and defense or what is selected for when people look for fight drive both in selection of dogs slated for B&H and train towards in the work.
OK, I'm off my soap box now.

90% or more of our training bites are on the passive subject. My decoys have a strict understanding that when I give them the bite signal they arn't to move untill the dog is comitted to the bite and then they will catch the dog with a good bit of skill. The dog HAS to be able to take the passive subject without hesitation.

Alan, the dog deffinatly knows the difference between the two tasks. My proofing comes from making the B&H functional in police needs. I proof the distance the dog is allowed to be from the decoy. I have to proof the maintanance of the distance. If the decoy moves in , he's gotta move back, if the decoy moves back, he's gotta move toward him. It's not a matter of proofing the dog to keep him from biting, we are esily past that in our training. We saw the need to have the dog trained in both diciplines for the true operational nature of what we were going to ask the dog to do.... sometimes locate, sometimes search and bite...depending on the situation. It takes a ton of work to acomplish, usually my maintanance training is mostly agression control and I have to work all the other goodies into duty time. But if I'm going to demand that much from the dog it takes alot of time.

As far as the decoy making the e-correction... I'm VERY picky about who decoy's my dog. Most officers don't have a clue how to decoy properly and one bad session with a poor decoy could set us back months.

I know some say my training is archaic, but I'll stick with it. The rules are simple, the dog bites when and until I tell him to stop. Standing targets are part of our training as well as calling the dog out on a still fighting decoy. The handler makes the decision on when to bite, not the dog. I'm not getting involved in another bark and hold or find and bite discussion. I just believe that if there are good policies and the officers follow that policy your liability is minimal. We all know that regardless of whether or not the dog can walk on water, law suits are an everyday part of law enforcement life.

DFrost

I just believe that if there are good policies and the officers follow that policy your liability is minimal.

David,
A long time ago (OK only about 22 years ago) the idea that detaining...which best approaches the translation from the German about what their police dogs do... was brought into America. Its greatest (or at least most heard) proponents called it reasonable force...aauuggghh!!!. This was the beginning of two decades of misunderstanding and arguemts about the entire methodolgy and how it would be applied and understood.
You ask any one who doesn't have an agenda, a position to protect, or a product to sell and are truly qualified and they will tell you that in the current style being trained and applied the B&H is not consistent in application.
This hasn't changed. It is not about walking on water that more behaviors are trained to the police dog than just bite 'em or return to the handler.
It is about getting the most efficient and safe working dog for the LEO's on the street.
I've said for years that the best dogs for the find and bite philosophy are those that had foundations in the B&H.
A handler/trainer for a large US police dept. contacted me a while back. They had started to experience problems when they went from purchasing B&H dogs from a vender to training green dogs from scratch themselves. The problem was that they had problems keeping dogs from walking passive suspects. They were and are a F&B methodology dept. but when they purchased dogs from their vender they got titled dogs and a month of conversion to police B&H. Then they went with their dept. trainers who continued their work without concern for the B&H, even training directed away from it. My commnet was to go back to training the B&H for the first month or better.
Since virtually everyone with qualifications will not bet the bank on the efficacy of the b&H on the street why would it perpetuate??? I certainly hope it isn't that people are trying to pull the wool over the public's eyes!!! I also don't think that's what is happening...eventhough the dept. of justice has pushed this idea incorrectly.
I recently did a instructional stint at the USPCA Nationals. It was an absolutly great time, wonderful people, and dedicated handler/trainers. I had planned to avoid the B&H discussion but of course it comes up. My comment was that it is traditional in my area to train this technique along with other associated techniques (down in front of the suspect and down in route) and that it wasn't done to protect suspects it was done to create a dog that stayed with a find religiously and provided a strong indication and assocaited odor change and to facilitate the type of tactics we utilize in hunting serious bad guys.
in 22 plus years of doing this I have observed that B&H dogs on the average do this better than those who have never been exposed to the style.
I also think this is why the popularity of imports, especially from the KNPV stock is so prevelent. They are versed in several techniques from an early age...to include B&H.... that encourage such behaviors. Schutzhund the same at a lesser extent. This popularity extends right through all philosophies of police service dog work in North America.
Of course in Europe I have not seen a single patrol dog that isn't versed in this technique, regardless of their legal system. Makes one wonder why? Historically this is the way it has been for a long time. Could it be we have missed the forest for the trees? I think it is. After deploying a simple dog that bit or was called back and more complex dogs that have a broader set of behaviors that are directed at focus on suspects both moving and not w/ control I will stick to the latter.
Whether the bad guy is bitten by a police dog is a matter of policy, use of force law, and ultimatly the suspects actions based on a Graham vs. Connor analysis. Not dog training philosophy. Whether the handler has the best tool to apply tactically in their environment is a matter of training and philosophy.