Josh,
Correctamundo. It all comes down to the training. If you dont train you end up with a f/b dog that is too lazy to chase the fleeing subject and wont recall when he targets the stationary one. Ive seen it, its not pretty.

Jon,
I work for a city about the same size as yours having about the same number of police officers . Our K9 unit is currently down to 17 Patrol K9's. We should be up to 19 by early 2004. We our Find and Bite (Bite and Hold).

With my first K9(Patrol/Narcotic & 1 of 4 SWAT K9's)in a little more than 6 years he had over 60 bites , way more finds with no bites and no unintentional bites . It is possible to have a Find And Bite K9, deploy him alot and not get unintentional bites. I'm currently on my second dog and still no unintentional bites(cross fingers).


Jon stated;
"Now, having said that, I'm sure there are those who believe that the dog can remember his first target in spite of dynamic circumstances. Sometimes they do. My experience (30 street bites/Zero unintentional bites) has been that the detaining dog will normally target the person in active flight. He will pass the motionless person for the fleeing person and, worst case scenario, he will detain the motionless person if the original target is not in sight."


Here's another scenerio I have been in many times . K9 is sent on fleeing suspect , suspect stops or gets into something (car,porch,etc,)but perimeter Police Officer comes running in as K9 is closing in and I'm a ways away. According to your description of how your dog works the Police Officer is now the most likely to be bit because a "detaining dog will normally target the person in active flight." This scenerio has happened to me just as many times as I have had yours happen.


We can play these scenerio games back and forth because in either scenerios proper training and deployment will be the leading factor in the proper outcome of the incident (badguy gets arrested & cops go home safe) . The method be it Find & Bite OR Bark & Hold is secondary.

Now I think from seeing your track record that having a Bark & Hold dog wasn't the biggest reason for your success. Training and deployment were. Just my opinion.

If you're stating your relyiny on "what a detaining dog would normally do " and because of this you don't work on targeting , recalls , redirects etc.. I say you've been lucky. But with the numbers you state I don't think thats the case.

Once again this back and forth is stupid . For every flaw you see in my method be it in real life scenerios or training , I can point out just as many in yours. Let K9 units choose the methods that are best for them as long as they train and deploy properly. The real issue with any of this in where you see flaws in performance or flaws in the way the dog was used is TRAINING.

Josh and Jim:

I don't think this type of discussion is antagonistic. Nor do I think that anyone is trying to convince anyone else to change direction.

My comments are based on my own observations. I know without a doubt that I can set up an "around the corner" scenario and watch a higher percentage of (average trained) F/B dogs hit the first subject he comes to.

Another case in point. Two nights ago, one of our dogs was moving through a yard and cut back quickly (due to wind direction) after passing two subjects hunkered down. Beautiful detain on both subjects. The handler was going to gun at the time because he just picked up on the dogs body language so he didn't have the control on the leash that he normally does. I think that this (hmm) could possibly have been an unjustified bite for the average F/B K9 team (learning to watch my language!!).

But again, just because I carry a 9mm and you carry a .45 doesn't mean that we can't both be effective. My style of police K9, however, requires that the dog frequently work out of my immediate presence. When he encounters persons during a search, he can only bite when the person flees or attacks. On the whole, that is a more reasonable and restrained approach; one that works and one that makes sense to Admin, Force review boards etc. All things considered I feel strongly that the scales tip easily in the favor of restraint over a bite default.

More important is the understanding that disagreement is a good thing. If we all agreed, this would be a boring forum and we wouldn't learn from each other. Most important is that we're all K9 handlers and would sit down over a beer or a coke and discuss whatever issues regardless of the disagreement.

Now I'm going over to the Narc thread to argue about passive vs. agressive indicating dogs!!!!!!

Ciao. Jon

Hi Jon,
I agree the best thing to do is do what works for you and your dept needs. If B/H work, train it right and do it. If F/B work, train that right and do it.

Again, while I think both have a equal usage and the arguments for or against can be played by both sides. The most important thing is to train the method of choice the correct way.

While I support the idea of B/H I only state that it is more difficult for SOME depts to maintain correctly. Then again SOME depts can not maintain correct outs(B/H or F/B) or re-directs so the issue again comes down to training. Like I posted earlier...train, train and when you think your done, train some more.

That being said, I dislike people who push B/H as a means to "less-liability" to imply the dogs do not bite. Or trains weak dogs in B/H with nerve problems and sell them to depts that the B/H is enough detain and thus the bite training is not needed. I'm sure these are also people who want blanks put in duty guns so if you point it and fire it there will be a bang but no one would get hurt.

That being said, I dislike people who push B/H as a means to less-liability to imply the dogs do not bite. Or trains weak dogs in B/H with nerve problems and sell them to depts that the B/H is enough detain and thus the bite training is not needed.

B/H is NOT a track to lower liability as it is currently trained and applied accross the US. We could create it to be really but our application of the dog to seize a violent suspect safely would diminish. We'd really have search dogs not patrol dogs. May as well use labradors at that point. Hell, if we go that way I'll still find bad guys with a dog. But, somethings will have to change.
I will NEVER argue that a F/B dog cannot do the work, that would be contrary to what we all know. I will argue that the determining factor in use of force is and always must be the handler. But, I will argue that the attributes that are enhanced during the B/H training and maintenence are positive ones for the dog and handler and that this is the easiest and best path to enhancing those attributes.
The misunderstanding that a B/H dog will not or shouldn't be trained to engage a suspect upon direction of the handler has caused a lot of controversy particularly among those who have been tasked with conversion from F/B to B/H. There is also the common misunderstanding that B/H is some guarantee that less bad guys get injured by police dogs therefore less liability??? Administrators often are guided down a path of confusion by model policies and plaintiff's attorneys. They often receive prejudiced information from those handlers and instructors who resist change as well.
It would help all that are involved regardless of the their deployment philosophy to at least understand what varieties of work are out there in the law enforcment community and be able te weigh their attributes.
I certainly have found that the B/H training philosophy provides what virtually all of the agencies I have worked with need (which is NOT some liability diminishing technique but with proficient teams). Are there exceptions...sure but I have also found many of the people who came to train with me that were first versed in the F/B style that is a remnant of many generations of input from military, and organizations that pre date the import of much of the European collective experience in police dogs were suprised. They found answers to control problems, indication problems, and cleared up the idea that B/H dogs were non-biting dogs.

Jon stated;

" Additionally, I have watched the faces of my
Department's Use of Force Review Board as they observed reliable detaining dogs work, and I have sat through a US 1983 federal jury trial regarding K9 use of force issues, and I can tell you without reservation that detaining service dogs will never be replaced with dogs with a bite default in my agency. There are many people who still think of the Kent State riots and nothing else when police K9 is at issue. Any training/deployment that is based on the premise of restrained force will always prevail!!!!!! "


" When he encounters persons during a search, he can only bite when the person flees or attacks. On the whole, that is a more reasonable and restrained approach; one that works and one that makes sense to Admin, Force review boards etc. All things considered I feel strongly that the scales tip easily in the favor of restraint over a bite default. "


Kevin stated:

" B/H is NOT a track to lower liability as it is currently trained and applied accross the US. We could create it to be really but our application of the dog to seize a violent suspect safely would diminish. We'd really have search dogs not patrol dogs. May as well use labradors at that point. Hell, if we go that way I'll still find bad guys with a dog. But, somethings will have to change. "


" There is also the common misunderstanding that B/H is some guarantee that less bad guys get injured by police dogs therefore less liability??? "


Two very different statements from Bark and Hold Trainers .


Kevin wrote:

" Are there exceptions...sure but I have also found many of the people who came to train with me that were first versed in the F/B style that is a remnant of many generations of input from military, and organizations that pre date the import of much of the European collective experience in police dogs were suprised. They found answers to control problems, indication problems, and cleared up the idea that B/H dogs were "non-biting" dogs. "


Now you are making a comparison to a proper Bark and Hold Training style to an outdated Bite and Hold Training style . Do some people still use this? Yes.
Do some trainers still use the Scht.(sport) method of training in Bark and Hold? Yes.
Do some Bark and Hold Trainers put out alot of dogs that consistantly won't go in and bite a passive suspect when told to (some even showing avoidance to going in and locating any suspect)? Yes and I have seen it and talked to many Bark and Hold handlers who have had these proplems . Does this mean that Bark and Hold is the least effective or safe method ? No, it makes them bad examples and there use of it dangerous.

I would just like to point out training and deployment in Bite and Hold has advanced alot over the years just like in Bark and Hold . Many of the training methods are the same (searching , bite work , obediance , etc.) Bite and Hold (if you are training it correctly)is not stuck in a time warp. Good Bite and Hold training produces dogs with a high desire to search , good searching behavior , great control ,very good indication to human scent (barking) , great confidence to commit to the suspect if needed and last but not least an ability to find a hidden suspect in the safest way possible as often as possible.


When I hear these stories using poor examples of a Bite and Hold K9 or handler used by the Bark and Hold side , examples like they can't get their dog to "out" or recall or target or respond (bark) to human odor (all examples that occur in Bark and Hold also). I wonder. How would these handlers do if they were given a method (Bark and Hold)that took longer to train and was harder to maintain .


Jon stated:
" My comments are based on my own observations. I know without a doubt that I can set up an "around the corner" scenario and watch a higher percentage of (average trained) F/B dogs hit the first subject he comes to."

I don't think this is an uncommon problem in either method . I wish you would set up this scenerio because I think you would find out they would both have these problems in near equal percentages. That is as long as you are using the "average trained" F/B dog against the "average trained" B/H(Detaining)dog.


Jon stated:

" Another case in point. Two nights ago, one of our dogs was moving through a yard and cut back quickly (due to wind direction) after passing two subjects hunkered down. Beautiful detain on both subjects. The handler was going to gun at the time because he just picked up on the dogs body language so he didn't have the control on the leash that he normally does. I think that this (hmm) could possibly have been an unjustified bite for the average F/B K9 team (learning to watch my language!!). "


WTF?! I haven't had a reaction to a statement like this since the first time I had a civilian come up to me and say : "Is it true ; the way you get your dogs to find drugs is you get them addicted to it?" Only thing I can add to your incomplete statement is , they are lucky they didn't move enough to make your Bark and Hold(Detaining)K9 bite one of them. I'm sure your Administration and Use of Force people would have questions on way your K9 Handler got an "unjustified" bite.

Jim:

My dogs don't bite on "movement". My dogs bite when when the subject either attacks or flees (check earlier posts). Our training is reality based, not sport dog based. In either case, the handler here provided the subjects an opportunity to surrender and they both so did without hesitation. Would a bite have been justified immediately on the find? In this case yes. Is it our responsiblity to use minimal force to effect the arrest? Yes. Did the detaining dog put officers in danger? Absolutely not.

Is that really comparable getting a drug dog addicted??? Come on.

As far as the liability issue goes, I believe that my dogs end up using less force than F/B dogs. F/B dogs bite who they find unless they are influenced by the handler (leash, call off, re-direct etc). Detaining dogs also have these abilities but in addition, they will not bite persons who are not fleeing or attacking (unless the handler overrides the detain). That is additional to the restraint mechanisms of the F/B dog team. Call me kookie but it seems to me that the less force used, the less liability incurred.

In the situation described, what if the two subjects were not who we were looking for? No liability issues?

I think back to a late night forced entry alarm call. The door had pry marks and was ajar. The owner told the dispatcher that no one had legitimate access at that time of night. No response to K9 warnings. An employee was inside working with headphones on. He didn't flee or attack and the dog detained. Turns out that the owner was wrong and that the pry marks were from a previous burglary. Enough threshold info to deploy a F/B dog off leash? Yes. Someone who deserved to be bitten? Absolutely not. Liability higher or lower the way it went down? Hmmm.

Jon,

Sorry, never seen someone flee or attack without movement . I will be more specific next time.

Jon wrote:

" In the situation described, what if the two subjects were not who we were looking for? No liability issues? "

More scenerios I see (hmmmm). My answer "YES there are liability issues." for both Bite and Hold and Bark and Hold . Why ? Both dogs BITE. Not all people will sit still when a dog comes running up to them . Some innocent people may flee(fight or flight). What if these 2 subjects who were not the ones you were looking for , fled and your Bark & Hold K9 bit them? No liability issues?


Innocent people being bitten is never a good thing. But neither is violent criminals getting away to victimize other innocent people or Law Enforcement Officers getting hurt or killed because they were so concerned about Liability that they choose to go to a method (Bark & Hold) they didn't have the resourses to train properly for or they were so concerned that they choose not to have a K9 unit at all.

There are requirements for having a properly trained Bark & Hold K9 that some agencies don't have and can't meet.

Some of these requirements are:

-Access to proper Bark & Hold trainers(some agencies may be isolated ,others may only be near trainers in different methods or just near bad trainers)

-Access to proper decoys(you must be a better decoy in the Bark & Hold , this takes extra time ,practice and training).

-Access to getting proper dog for Bark & Hold (the numbers to choose from are narrower in this method , IMO.)

-Ability to allow Handler and K9 to be off the streets for training and maintainance (Bark & Hold means more time off the streets because it takes more training and maintainance,IMO). Some agencies are very small and some larger departments are very busy and need as many officers on the street as they can get.

I'm not saying that Bite & Hold requires no time off the street for training (just less) or an unskilled decoy (just one that needs less training and practice to get there). Some agencies may feel they have the resources to meet the needs of having a properly trained Bite & Hold K9 but don't have the resources for a Bark & Hold(Detaining)K9 and believe that they can deal(through training and proper deployment with the slightly higher liability issues.


Jon,

Some communities , law enforcement agencies and local governments feel even the Bark & Hold(Detaining)method is too much of a liability because innocent people still get bit and in there minds once is too much. Even at the risk of an innocent person being victimized(robbed, killed,hurt , burglarized , etc,)later because the criminal got away and a K9 could have caught him. What would you say to those people?


Jon asked:

"Is it our responsiblity to use minimal force to effect the arrest?"


Yes, both Bark and Hold(Detaining) and Bite and Hold do that, even concerning still suspects. I don't like the term "passive suspect" because it infers this suspect is not a threat and this is not the case. They are often times concealed and/or wanted for a crime that involves the use of a K9 to locate them and take them into custody because they pose a significant risk to officers and the public and could successfully assault you before you have a chance to react. Reguardless of what method you are using. I think it's up to the communities , agencies and local goverments to descide which of these issues are more important to them and descide if they want a certain method or no K9 at all. I will refer you to your own statement related to this.

Jon stated;

" 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. "


And they(the courts) have looked at both Bark & Hold(Detaining) and Bite & Hold cases and found them reasonable and justified. Will they continue to do this? I'm not so sure. But if they do choose a method I'm sure it's going to be a knee jerk uninformed descision .


Bite and Hold is the best method for my department because it just as effective as Bark and Hold ,is easier to train and maintain for both trainers and handlers , requires less time off the streets for training, leaving us out there more often to catch the badguys. I feel the handlers have a better chance of maintaining and having a properly trained K9 in a method that is just as effective as Bark & Hold. I also feel the K9 going in for the bite when he's able is safer for the officer. Just my opinion and one to be argued forever. We deploy on violent felons and deploy in a manner taking the safety of the public ,officer and rights of the suspect into account. In doing so we have very few innocent people being bit and catch lots of badguys taking them into custody in away that's safest for us and them. But this doesn't make Bite & Hold the best answer to everyone elses problems just our own.

John,
I really dont want to fall into this pit of what-if scenarios concerning f/b versus b/h but, if your dog wont bite unless the suspect is fleeing what will happen if the hidden suspect casually draw a gun. Will the dog bite or will he alert you to the presence of a bad guy who will shoot you and the dog as soon as you come to his aid. Food for thought.
I know your reply will be that he can shoot a f/b dog as well but at leaast there is a chance the shock of the bite may thwart the attempt, or the dog grabs the gun arm etc., at least the suspect is going to pay the price in pain and the handler may get an early warning that the bad guy is waiting in ambush. More food for thought and no more what-ifs.
I refer to my prior post. "cant we all just get along"........Howard

Jon, Apologies for the misspelled name...H <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />