Jon,
Nice to see you on the board!!!!!!!!

I also agree with Howard on this one. I too find no need to circle the B/H vs F/B over and over again. That said, I know and train way too many F/B dogs who have done just as Howard has stated. Once on target and having selected the primary they stay locked on such a target regardless of other people they may or may not cross in front of or be near them. Many times we train with numerous people near, around, etc our decoys so the dogs learn to stay on the person they have been targeted to.

The final argument that also contradicts the blanket statement about the F/B dogs is...what about a call-off? Re-directs? If you have control and see your dog go off target and go after the wrong target, call them off and re-direct them to the proper one. Not a big deal.

I think any time you make blanket statements that one is better than the other you find problems with it. Both have valid points and uses. Some overstate some good points of one and bash the other. If you have proper control and training, either one works and does not have more or less liability or tactics than the other....IMO

Find and bite vs. Bark and Guard.
I love this type of thread.
First, if you are comfortable with what you do and are afraid that a change would be detrimental to what you know you of course won't change and will defend your position. That's human.
Legally, all requirements as they currently stand can be accomplished by both methodologies.
But, if you are looking at performance the following attributes are a must.
The PSD must see the suspect as a fighting partner to promote the correct behavior of fighting when fought in contrast to taking down prey (where the weaker the prey is the stronger the behaviors of the predator and the more difficult to control). The PSD must provide a strong indication of hidden and or passive suspects under the broadest variety of conditions. The PSD must remain where the odor of a suspect is located and provide that indication not run around and look for a back door to the suspect. The PSD must engage a suspect on the direction of its handler without stimulation from the suspect.
This is best accomplished through the bark and guard. Could it be that all those countries abroad that are really resposible for the critters and much of the training technology we utilize had this figured out?
I've fielded both types of critters.
This thread started out about a biased pseudo-study, lengthy and wordy but full of holes about the varied deployment streategies. So yes the debate rages on.
22 years of looking at and working with pSD's and the only thing I can say is I will always deploy dogs trained to do bark and guard. This is an evolution from F&B dogs for myself. Not because of the reasons stated but because I will find more suspects, miss fewer, do it with the highest level of expertise possible and this methodlogy, though more training intesive, provides this.
I don't mind the debate at all, nor will I try to take a nice and polite stance about it.
For the most part the B&G dog is a better police dog than the F&B dog!

Kevin, I agree with 99% of your statements, except I feel you can have a F/B dog meet all of the same criteria you state and be just as effective and have the correct level of drive and ability. Our dogs do all you describe and require and desire in your statements and 95% of them are F/B. I see no difference in the ability or drive/work desire or performance in the F/B dogs or the F/G/B dogs. Again, just my observations and opinion.

As for my biggest issue w/ the F/B it is NOT the idea, theory or the fact that the dog is doing s F/G or F/B it is more with the ability of people to CORRECTLY or EFFECTIVLY teach this as a reliable behavior. While I have NO doubt you do this, or others here do this correctly, there are more than most who do not. The dogs may in training keep a strong F/B on a correct helper, yet fail it terribly on the street. I'm not advocating F/B as a means to cover up bad training, but it is easier for many depts to maintain with limited decoys or trainers. I also feel it's easier for these depts to explain why they (the handler) made the decision to deploy the dog, rather than explain why their "less force, less liable" B/H dog bit someone.

This is perhaps where I get most frustrated w/ the B/H argument. It is more people selling admins on the fact that the dog because they B/H are less liable and give the "impression" they do not bite. Again, nothing against B/H...F/G but rather the way many train the exercise and the misrepresentation of it to admins.

Josh , Great reply.

Jon , Just for the record my first K9 partner was trained in Bite and Hold . We had 1 occasion where my partner ran past several officers and caught the badguy . This was told to me by the Officers who had elected to run after the suspect and didn't hear me over the radio state my dog K9 was after the suspect . According to them he ran passed them while they were running and continued after the suspect who then saw the dog coming and jumped on top of a shed to aviod the dog . When I arrived my dog was barking at the suspect and the officers were yelling at the suspect to show his hands . Had I known the Officers had run into my K9's path I would have recalled him .

I have also had several occasions where I had to recall my dog because Officers or Civilians had gotten in the way . I would have done this if I had a Bite and Hold K9 or a Bark and Hold K9 . That's just the way I would do things . I don't like taking chances my dog might bite the wrong person . I've seen enough to know that you can tell an officer or civilian to stand still but that doesn't mean they are going to when a dog comes running up to them .

The best way to avoid accidental bites is through proper deployments and training (with properly selected K9's ). If you are relying on just a method to avoid accidental bites , because your dog only bites moving (fleeing or fighting) suspects then you're in for a lawsuit because innocent people (Officers and Civilians) will not always stand still when they see a Police K9 barking or running at them . They may turn and run or move away from the K9. Officers using either method have to deploy knowing we may come across other officers or civilians and deploy accordingly .

Posters: Not having the vast knowledge of PSD's as you all, I would like to believe that a F/B PSD would be under the control of the handler and not the verso.I would not want a dog to make a conscious decision for me but one based on training and control. Without going scientific, the physical/mental charateristics of the bad guy attempting apprehension is also a tool which the k-9 should lock on. As Josh and Uncle Lou stated; It boils down to control and situational responses dictated by the bad guy. Of course, I also suspect different parts of the country have different ideas on crime and apprehension. Consequently, I agree with Lou, the study is flawed. As we all know what validity based criteria are and the several types needed to conclude a result, the point of an officer having a magic number of complaints per annun or deployment alone and then be labeled is ludicrous. I seem to recall a medium size city handler, being deployed on hundreds of searches for bad guys, working a 6p-0200 shift, going thru several riots for 22 yrs. and a handler like that will always have complaints. Thus the research re: bite ratios would need to be qualified w/i some specic framework and not deployment alone. Regarding bite pressures, that is easy to show in under lab conditions but the values will always vary with each apprehension as I am sure no two apprehensions are identical. Assigned values are just that assigned much like a MSRP sticker. IMHO!
No one said the life of a criminal would be easy. Gentlemen, please stay safe and always be worthy of your dog. Bumper

Kevin , I just read your post on why you feel Bark and Guard is the best method and I'm glad you at least brought it back to being a "locating" method with a dog with the proper training .

But your reasoning gets down to once again PROPER TRAINING . You are comparing a properly trained Bark and Guard K9 to an improperly trained Bite and Hold K9 .

Each method has certain training proplems that occur more often in that method . I will agree that the Bite and Hold K9 looking for the back door and not indicating is a common problem but it's also very easy to correct . I didn't however know that it was uncommon for a Bite and Hold K9 to look at the suspect as a fighting partner. That's news to me because the dogs I work with and the magority of the K9s that work around my area are trained to see the suspect as a fighting partner.That's how we train . It is also news to me that Bite and Hold K9s have more of a problem engaging a suspect when directed to do so by the handler without stimulation from the suspect . I always thought through my dicussions with Bark and Guard Trainers/Handlers that that was more of a problem in Bark and Guard K9's. To be fair though that's also a problem easily corrected if you have a properly selected K9.

The reason I became a Police Officer was to catch badguys and put them in jail. If I for one second thought there was a better method to finding badguys and keeping me safe I'd go to it , but the arguements I hear , like the ones you mentioned in your post don't sway me. I'm not going to change over to Bark and Guard when I already have a method that where I and other Bite and Hold K9's find a large number of suspects and engage them when needed already especially when I hear arguements comparing properly trained Bark and Guard K9's to improperly trained Bite and Hold K9's. I could do the same thing to further my belief that the Bite and Hold Method OVERALL is a better method but I don't feel making unfair comparisons is a good way to win an arguement.

Kevin from what I have seen through some of Leerburg's training tapes and from what I hear from others you are an awesome Trainer and Handler but there are also Trainers in the Bite and Hold Field that are just as good and put out just as good Bite and Hold dogs . Training in either method has improved alot over the years and will continue to improve.

I will put a properly trained Bite and Hold K9 against a properly trained Bark and Guard K9 any day . It would be fun to see what happens . I bet they both find the the badguy.

Unfortunately, one day the court of public opinion, an Appeals Court, maybe even the Supreme Court will make the decision for us. A decision made by those that do not have a complete understanding of K9 psychology, instincts, or drives. Affecting the most important aspect of K9 usage; olfactory senses, not just the use of teeth. Want to guess which way they go.......

Here's an even scarier thought. What kind of decision are they then going to make when they find out they were wrong and the decision still didn't keep the wrong people from being bit on occasion .

The courts will never choose a training/deployment method for us. They will look at the case and decide whether or not the deployment (use of force) was reasonable and justified.

Both F/B and detaining dogs can be deployed reasonably and successfully as we all know. My choice is to have a detaining dog. This has saved me more than one accidental bite, and one is enough for me.

Some of us carry .40's and some of us carry 9's or .45's. As long as we train and are proficient with what we have, all is good. It's all about finding who we're looking for and then going home upright and suckin' air.