There has been an increase in the number of service dogs of all types in the last 20 years, including dogs that bite.
The liability of use of force in making an apprehension doesn't change regardless of the tool used in that application. yes, we have seen law suits involving the use of dogs to seize individuals suspected in crimes, but for the most part, they have actually been positive. Of course as we see cases presented we refine the application of the dogs and the training to suit those applications. It has evolved immensely from 20 years ago.
We have seen a HUGE increase in the use of dogs to supplement the less lethal arsenal that all agencies are being forced to implement to include tactical (SWAT) environments. For one, I doubt you will see a SWAT deployment that doesn't have a dog available again since the question often being asked right now is WHY YOU DIDN'T YOU USE A POLICE DOG? This indicates that the Police Dog is pretty well here to stay. Of course there is a possibility that a Supreme Court test case could change that but they don't seem to want to hear a dog case involving a bite.

Here's liability for ya. A local county sheriff decides to disband his K9 program for political reasons and to show his unit who is boss when they have the audacity to insist on getting their K9 home care pay. A local school is burglarized and one deputy is sent to conduct the search while another is enroute from who knows where. The deputy is ambushed by the burglar who gets the upper hand and the deputies gun. When the deputy is shot and killed his backup had just arrived in time to see his fellow officer fall. The backup finally terminates the bad guy but not before taking a bullet himself.
There is an uproar in the community about the deputy's murder and the K9 unit is reinstated. As a result the citizens of this county are paying a potload of money to the family of the slain deputy. I believe that any use of force short of discharging your firearm is pretty much accepted by the people in this country, be it mace, taser, asp, flashlight whatever. Theres a reason the K9 is low on the use of force matrix, its just not that big a deal as opposed of what the dog can offer in return. By the way...The above is a true story which occurred in Brevard County Florida.

I don't see a decline for some time, especially now with all that's going on in the US.

David and Michael

This is not a direct attack, but yes the public always know better, better this and better that, maybe that’s why - We train our own, we select and have our specific line’s, our own instructors, so to want to start new trends wont always work –work on the street that is, do you know what is a shame, that fact that people generalise when it comes to POLICE dogs, “they are bad, green, cant out and yadda yadda, but I have only met one guy on this board who actually went to the department that he criticised and offered his services for free of charge, and got the dogs to perform to the respected standard, but no I want to make a buck here so I will first hammer the “badly trained dogs” with effect the handler and department, so I will sell them what” I” think they need, the bark and hold doggy, sorry if I am hard, but it’s not always on the money, you have to check what their requirements and use of force etc. specs are - so maybe where you live, don’t try that here – the selling bit

The rumours about the dogs disappearing, well the same goes for stricter gun control and guns disappearing it’s all political play cards, to win vote etc.

Nevertheless, yes the pro-‘s and con’s of the Bark and Hold vs. the Straight bite saga will never end. As long as you have day and night, left and right it will stay.

I for one would like to have both, not with one dog but lets say some dogs trained bark and hold and some trained straight bite, because both have a place in every day police k9 work, one can never say that the one is “Better” than the other. I hear what they guy’s are saying about it being harder to train bark and hold, yes- and no, I think it is just as frustrating to teach a dog to take down and on every tackle, and make it count, very few dogs do in the beginning and not to first do the quick step or tango and then go for the bite, so yes balance needs to be maintained, one can not fix ever argument with a 10 pound hammer or a cup of tea so to speak.

The other point , getting a dog to let go, or to stop attacking, from where I am standing it does not matter if the dog is trained in bark and hold or straight in attack, they all like it, or get to like it, the live bite that is, if you now start working the “out” all the time the bite becomes loose or “snap on snap off “and visa versa, only the older dogs get the hang after a couple of live bites, so yes we can come in and say I have “The Dog” that does this text book like, every time all the time, come on, we all know in our hart or at least the guy’s that have a couple of street tackles under the belt, that we never train any dog ever the same, year in and out we train a little different to try, and I say try and find that happy medium out on the road, in the ring it is a diffident story and with non combatant dog’s it’s easy, and maybe this is where we go wrong trying to apply that sport mind set on to street and working dogs, or am I in la-la land here.

Originally posted by David Morris:
Ive heard from from more than one source that biting police dogs are being phased out and in 5 years there wont be that many left. Ofcourse narcotic dogs and tracking dogs will always be in demand. I dont know if I believe that in 5 years biting police dogs will be like dinosaurs in the K-9 world but I could believe there could be a signifigant trend away from them. I dont know, I hope not, but I thought Id ask if others have heard this or have seen a trend away from them. If so, what would be the reason for it? Would it be for liability reasons? Would it be a result of departments doing a poor job training their own dogs because they dont have the money to buy trained dogs or cant afford help with maintanence training from private contractors?

Police dogs have given the departments that use them an extra level of defense and use of force. Not to mention the abilities of seeking and locating offenders and the psychological effect they can have in effecting an arrest.

I have been witness to the transition of introducing police dogs on a force. It has all been good. Many suspect apprehensions have been made, many drug seizures and their presence during large public events has made a difference.
No, we have not had a bite yet, close, but no bite. (upon locating a suspect, "Come out or we will release the dog" usually is enough.) And I'm sure all hell will break loose when we do. But I can guarantee you, when that bite does happen, it will be for very good reasons.

Bark and hold has no place in the Police. When a dog is deployed, it is a last resort before the bullet. If a suspect has assaulted and injured a person, be it civilian or officer, they will do it again. If a suspect does not come out when requested, they are not to be trusted. Dogs save lives, both the officers and the slimebags they bit. This is what needs to be realized.

Geel,
What are you talking about? My post was a question if anybody could for see a trend away from dual purpose dogs and a trend towards detection dogs only, happening inthe next few years.Your assumptions about me are wrong and you reveal way to much about you.It seems that your ability to train a bark and hold effectively is a touchy spot. Im sure you could if you wanted too,yada,yada,yada......

The Germans for one have been using the Bark and Hold with great results for years. Not to say other European countries. I also know of some of the best K9 teams in the US that are trained for the B@H that most Find@Bite dogs could not even come close to thier record.

Geel, I am not directing my comments at any department directly, or anyone person. The fact remains that in the US there are by far too many vendors selling thier services and sub-standard dogs to new(and old)K-9 units.

I am not a dog broker so I am not in that business. If a K-9 unit thought that I could help them, then by all means I would for no charge. A friend of mine is though.

I see first hand many training sessions from different departments that it is beyond my how some of these dogs got selected or certified to work the street. We are not talking about a dog that does not out clean, as you pointed out , this more then likley will not happen on the street, but dogs that do not engage on a real criminal, or dogs that have big nerve issues, such as spooking at garbage bags, light poles that are on the ground etc.. This has nothing to do with a "sport minded" attitude, but I will tell you that some of these people could learn a thing or two from sport folks. If you look in Europe you will find some of the top people competing in dog sports, are also service dog handlers and trainers, and they will tell you that alot of the training is more then applicable for both. The old battle of Police Vs sport is just that... old.

Maggie wrote: "Bark and hold has no place in the Police."


This comment always gets under my skin. There certainly is a place for the Bark and Hold in police K9 work, as clearly demonstrated by the many very effective police K9 departments around the world that use it successfully.

I'm sure everybody has a preference, but it isn't correct to say there isn't a place for one or the other.