I am getting dizzy watching this go back and forth! As others have said.......TO EACH THEIR OWN. In some areas perhaps the B&H is on the rise with the F&B losing steam, but I do not believe that is the trend. Realistically there will be situations where either type dog would excel, so the departments have to take everything into consideration. I personally want my dog to raise hell on someone if she had to, but that might not always be necessary. Again, we must be mindful of the totality of the circumstances, and always know our options. When it comes down to it, <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> A DOG WTIH ALL BARK AND NO BITE PRESENTS A SAFETY ISSUE. That issue depends on the departments take on the situation.

>>>>>>Bark and hold has no place in the Police. When a dog is deployed, it is a last resort before the bullet. <<<<<<<<

Maggie,
Dogs are not a last resort before a bullet. This is NOT the way they are applied. Sometimes it does occur that they are the only less than lethal form of force practical in a given circumstance but they are not a last resort tool. In fact their greatest service is as a search tool.
Bark and Hold is a technique used in virtually every country that deploys police patrol dogs. Did it ever occur to you that the reasons have been well understood for a long time? That the anti-B&H rhetoric in the US is old sad and tired?
That most people misunderstand the B&H and its purpose?
The B&H is to provide a positive indication of a hidden suspect, diminish behaviors in the patrol dog that would lead a dog to leaving, ignoring, or searching for other ways to approach a passive or hidden suspect. If you believe that the current methodolgy in B&H is to keep a dog from biting you misunderstand the techniquue as currently taught in the US. It also has the side effect of increasing the control on the dog.
The IACP and the DOJ have completly misunderstood.....or more likely been lead to believe that the B&H is to proevent a suspect in a crime from being bitten. It is not.
Fact is that I have fielded both and will NEVER return to a dog that cannot diplay a B&H in training.

I stand corrected and would like to see a good bark and hold dog in action. My comments are geared to the violent criminal, not a passive or hidden suspect. (We are experiencing an upsurge of armed robberies and this is foremost in my mind. Maybe that explains my mindset at the minute.) Perhaps I am viewing the dog demonstrating a B+H while a suspect casually pulls a weapon and kills the dog and possibly jeopordizing officers. The scenarios could be endless. Our vendors did not train B+H, probably for the reasons stated. Passive suspect apprehensions have been made without the need for a bite. I do agree that the B+H will w/o a doubt instill better control in a dog, but again, my comments are geared to the extreme criminal.

David, I am not pro dog bites. All tasks should be undertaken with the highest level of professionalism and discipline. I do however see the endless need for Police dogs and ones that can exert control over a suspect. There are some days I wish all I had to do was train dogs, but that's not my job.

Kevin and Mike, I value your opinions. Are there any statistics concerning the death of K-9's in the line of duty and the level of training received and if there is any correlation?

Just because a dog is trained for B&H doesn't mean that it won't react (bite) an aggressive subject. It just doesn't bite first and ask questions later.

Originally posted by Maggie Baldino:
I stand corrected and would like to see a good bark and hold dog in action. My comments are geared to the violent criminal, not a passive or hidden suspect. (We are experiencing an upsurge of armed robberies and this is foremost in my mind. Maybe that explains my mindset at the minute.) Perhaps I am viewing the dog demonstrating a B+H while a suspect casually pulls a weapon and kills the dog and possibly jeopordizing officers. The scenarios could be endless. Our vendors did not train B+H, probably for the reasons stated. Passive suspect apprehensions have been made without the need for a bite. I do agree that the B+H will w/o a doubt instill better control in a dog, but again, my comments are geared to the extreme criminal.

David, I am not pro dog bites. All tasks should be undertaken with the highest level of professionalism and discipline. I do however see the endless need for Police dogs and ones that can exert control over a suspect. There are some days I wish all I had to do was train dogs, but that's not my job.

Kevin and Mike, I value your opinions. Are there any statistics concerning the death of K-9's in the line of duty and the level of training received and if there is any correlation? A dog is just that, a dog. It is not a weapon of lethal force. I have been bitten bad a few times, and will tell you, I had no broken bones, or life threatening injuries. Tons of swelling and tissue damage, but nothing that did not heal up in a few weeks. I will also tell you that one was a leg bite, and I was able to stand up and could have shot a firearm with no trouble. Even with a arm bite, I still could have shot a firearm. Granted, I am not scared of dogs like most criminals, but just because a dog has bitten someone that is armed, I would not take any less saftey precautions then say with a dog that is not biting upon location of a suspect. If a dog finds a violent criminal chances he is going to fight and the B@H dog will engage if trained properly. This is not an issue. If the B@H is barking at a suspect and the handler see's the suspect pulls a gun slowley, then the dog should also bite as he should be trained to bite on command on a passive suspect. But if I were chasing an armed suspect as a Patrol Dog handler I doubt I would be standing in plain view for him to shoot me if I knew my dog had located him. Furthermore if the guy pulls a gun after a Police Dog is Barking a few feet away from him, and still has the mindframe to shoot someone and not give himself up, then you must consider what other options you have. A Police Dog does not replace a firearm. If anyone thinks that, it could be a fatal mistake for them.

I didnt intend for this to become a Bark and Hold debate but Id still like to comment on it. For some one to assume that Find and Bite dogs are high drive seriouse working dogs for the violent criminal and the Bark and Hold dog is some how less driven and not a seriouse dog for the passive scared criminal is ridiculouse. To say that your vendor doesnt train a Bark and Hold for the same reasons, like if a Bark and Hold dog encountered a "violent" criminal it could be killed, is a very kind assumption of your vendor.When actually most vendors are in the business of moving dogs and if they tell you there is no place for a Bark and Hold they may very well be telling you they cant do that or they are not going to spend the time it takes to do that.

 Quote:

Originally posted by David Morris:
I didnt intend for this to become a Bark and Hold debate but Id still like to comment on it. For some one to assume that Find and Bite dogs are high drive seriouse working dogs for the violent criminal and the Bark and Hold dog is some how less driven and not a seriouse dog for the passive scared criminal is ridiculouse. To say that your vendor doesnt train a Bark and Hold for the same reasons, like if a Bark and Hold dog encountered a "violent" criminal it could be killed, is a very kind assumption of your vendor.When actually most vendors are in the business of moving dogs and if they tell you there is no place for a Bark and Hold they may very well be telling you they cant do that or they are not going to spend the time it takes to do that.

I agree with you on this David. This is the problem with greedy vendors. Anyone that sells the old Find@Bite argument of being better suited for service work as the dogs are stronger is either just intrested in moving their sub-standard dogs, or they just plain do not know what they are doing. It is of no consequence which displine the dog is trained in if the dog is up to par for Patrol work (and the trainer has the skill to teach a H@B) when dealing with violent criminals. Dipping back into sport for reference, I have had dogs that when presented with the opportunity to bite after a B@H , the dog pushed me back 2 feet.

There are too many vendors that are in the game of supplying dogs to Police Departments that are just in it for the money. There are too many trustfull Departments buying from these people thinking that they have a functioning unit, when in fact they have been ripped off. It is a shame that this happens, but it is fact.

Alot of dog brokers look for the cheapest dogs possiable to buy in order to make the most money. Even when you look at a dog in Europe, and it looks good and you import it for Police work, you sometimes find out that the dog is not as good as you thought after you train it for a while. What is the vendor going to do?; loose the money he invested and dump the dog, more often than not, so some ill-informed department comes along and gets this dog, and is stuck with it for 5 or 6 years, and does not even know that they have been had, as they are always turning to the "expert" for advise, which is the person that sold them this dog in the first place. I have seen barley trained dogs that are from dog pounds and dontations sold to Police Departments for $10,000.00 by ruthless dog vendors. It sometimes becomes a never-ending cycle. And when this type of stuff happens, it reflects bad on
K-9 units in general, and thus some units get scrapped.

My department will be putting a new dog on the street around the end of the year..... I insisted that the dog be trained in BOTH bark and hold and find and bite.... why? Because there are applications for both. A good trainer will not have issues training both methods either. Every trainer we talked to that said he only teaches this or only teaches that got passed over, and it is my belief that they don't want to take the time to teach the bark and hold more than personal belief that one method is better than the other. Is is more time in maintainance training later on.... sure, but you end up with a more well rounded dog.

Oh... and to get back on track.. Dave.. when the topic came up about dropping the patrol dog and going with a narc only dog...our admins had the sense to say, "Why would we want that??" <wink>

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

LC: When trained and done properly the bark and hold is safer for the handler than the find and bite. Across the US you'll find that about half the departments go one way and the other half the other way.

Kevin Sheldahl The IACP and the DOJ have completly misunderstood.....or more likely been lead to believe that the B&H is to proevent a suspect in a crime from being bitten.

LC: what the IACP doesn't know about working and training dogs is quite amazing. They're a political body, not anything else.

Maggie Baldino wrote: Perhaps I am viewing the dog demonstrating a B+H while a suspect casually pulls a weapon and kills the dog and possibly jeopordizing officers.

LC: This is the common misconception that many people have about the bark and hold. Having a dog sit in front of a decoy and bark continually is only done in training to condition the dog to bark. It's NOT done with a suspect during a deployment. So this picture exists only in your mind. On a real deployment I train that the dog barks and is then immediately recalled so that the suspect can be ordered from hiding.

Maggie Baldino wrote: The scenarios could be endless. Our vendors did not train B+H, probably for the reasons stated.

LC: More than likely they have the same misconception that you suffer from. They may also not know how to train it.

Maggie Baldino wrote: Passive suspect apprehensions have been made without the need for a bite. I do agree that the B+H will w/o a doubt instill better control in a dog, but again, my comments are geared to the extreme criminal.

LC: I don't know what an "extreme criminal" is but the bark and hold can be used on any crook that's a K-9 should be deployed on. Another misconception is that a bark and hold dog won't bite. A properly trained dog can also be given a command so that he bites when he makes the find. The handler can give the dog a command to bite at any time and he will.

Well, this argument looks to be going in all directions, I think and maintain, that not all dogs are equal, and not all bites are measured in pounds per square inch, some dogs just tear clothes, so it’s dangerous to want to label the application, of B&h vs. Bite and hold, studies have actually shown that the straight bite is safer Uncle low, for both dog and handler, and like some one pointed out not every bite is a kill, or a chainsaw massacre, but we have had amputation bites, of fingers, genitals, facial futures etc. so once again the matter at hand is to volatile, ductile or what ever word describes “ever changing with a multitude of aspects to consider” to make it “RIGHT or WRONG”. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

And yes I am a open guy – David – but do not presume to much, I do favour the bite and find, and I do train the “out” and “stay” and then the dog will bark until I tell him to attack or if the assailant moves the dog will go at him again. But also train bark and hold at my school, We use different ways here, because a dog is considered to be deadly force. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

Interesting to hear that a dog can be trained B&H and F and Bite at the same time , never seen it, and would love to hear more? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

So yes, it all depends on where you are, what you need and how you train – the bottom line is do you get to tell the story and stay out of harm and prison by doing so, if so you are wise in what ever application you use. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />