http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2001/12/09/loc_feds_push_for.html

I was curious what some of the K9 handlers on the board thought about this. It sounds like a load of BS to me, some burecrat trying to make a name. There is no angle I can think of that would make this safer for the officer and the dog. Just my thoughts.

Same old crap, just a different media venue. You'll find there is some difference of opinion among police trainers as well.

DFrost

Maybe they should teach the dogs to carry a sign in their mouth, find the bad guy, tap him on the leg and give him the sign that says "Please don't resist, we know you have violated others rights and made them uncomfortable in their own home, but we don't want to offend you."

The issue should have been the sad number of finds to searches. That is a greater issue to me.

Interesting. I just read the articles on Kevin Sheldahl's website about this yesterday. I'm inclined to believe the way he does about the bark and hold in police work.
http://www.k9services.com/ThoughtBH.htm

I thought that it was interesting that the article stated that of the 29 peopple bitten all had committed some crime. In other words the dogs had not made any mistakes and they had gotten the person they were supposed to go get. I for one am happy that police K-9 units are out there "taking a bite out of crime" My apologies to McGruff the crime dog.
Terry

First, the article is back from Dec of '01.
It reflects part of the Justice Departments Civil Rights Divisions function when monitoring police departments that have been placed under their scrutiny either by the courts or by request (yep, some cities have actually requested it).
The policy that they expect reflects that of the International Associations of Chiefs of Police. In the IACP's model policy for law enforcement include the use of B&H for police dogs.
Problem comes from trying to define the dog's performance in the B&H????
One attorney (an attorney who monitors such things in one major US department under DOJ's scrutiny) told me when I explained the function of the B&H as currently trained in the US would have anyone attempting to resist or flee bitten that he didn't think that just someone trying to flee getting bitten would be acceptable. Yep.
I have publicly stated that as we currently use the B&H it is for other reasons than not biting suspects. Simple it is to improve indications, create a behavior that diminishes a dog leaving a perfectly passive person, and to make sure that the dog sees that suspect as a possible threat and fights when fought or when the suspect flees.
It is not taught as just an indication. It is a Guard as well. It is not obedience. It is not a 100% reliable technique. Only handler intervention is highly reliable.
Could we train it in other fashions that are just an indication??? Yes, but that is not the usual means of doing this work for a patrol dog.
Are we gonna have to change??? I think that depends on who you ask.

I have trained with a department who moved to a bark and hold from a find and bite because they had two incidents where they sent their dogs in a supposedly vacant building after a suspect and the dog found a homeless man sleeping and apprehended him. One man was sound asleep and was only awaken when the dog started mauling him.

 Quote:

The issue should have been the sad number of finds to searches. That is a greater issue to me.

There is no issue as far as the number of finds vs. the number of searches. Most of the time, the bad guy is long gone before the police or business owner discover the burglary. Even an alarm system doesn't help that much.

Bottom line... you gotta do what your department wants you to do regardless of your opinion. That's why I like training both F&B and B&H.... two options for different situations.

Is there any policy regarding those in the US Dept of Justice making these recommendations to actually spend time in the field with these officers so their recommendations are based on actual events versus emotional, knee jerk responses. If not, maybe there should be.......let them walk a mile in the shoes they are judging, my 2 cents.

NAPWDA and USPCA both Police K9 assosciations offerred their assistance to the IACP when they were creating this and the IACP declined the offer .

The IACP by the way has come up with other Police K9 recommendations that showed a lack of knowledge about Police K9's . The IACP also recommended K9 units rotate out K9 handlers every 5 years . If I remember right this was the brainchild of a police administrator not an actual Police K9 trainer or handler .