As usual, discussion of this sort carry the emotion of those supporting their preference. Recognizing that and having read the succeeding thread, I really don't know where to add or disagree. Having said that I will make a couple of comments.

To say: "ANYONE who cannot see that B&H is the best route to highly performing police dogs has missed the root of police dog work and PSD behavior." In my opinion is discrediting a lot of pretty decent police dog trainers. To say they have missed the "root", the basics, the foundation of training is really pretty judgemental. It infers that unless the dog was trained using b/h it is less of a dog, trained by inferior trainers. I hope you understand why I can't agree with that.

The comment relative: "The internsity of the encounter, even with hidden or passive subjects increases with the properly trained B&H. The dog views the suspect as a potential fighting partner." Discount the fact that a f/b dog, when encountering a hidden subject will remain, giving an audible response. You are inferring a f/b dog, when encountering a passive or fleeing subject does not see the suspect as a potential fighting partner? That doesn't make sense.

The statement; " The history of the B&H is NOT that the police took it from sport, but the sport took it from the police."

That may well be true, or it's a chicken/egg argument. I do know from personal experience, in '68 when I was trained by Metro Washington D.C., they did not use b/h. I'll not even include the south, but b/h wasn't in use in such places as Philly, Pittsburgh or through the midwest in the late 60's and 70's. It's emergence has been more significant in the past 20 to 25 years. As you pointed out however, past experiences differ in different parts of the country.

Relative the statement: "For every time someone says I know of this dog that if he had bitten would have not been hurt, or handler would have not been hurt, etc i can counter with a B&H positive arguement."

I agree, those kinds of discussion, while maybe good stories sitting around after training, really prove or disprove anything.

I don't know the breakdown in numbers of folks that train b/h v. f/b. It would also be interesting to see those that profess b/h in trainer, but practice f/b on the street. I elect to train f/b. That doesn't mean I don't have experience with b/h, understand the concept, it just means I prefer one over the other. Beyond that, I'll let the big dogs carry on with this discussion.

DFrost

Hi Kevin,

I know that you have twice the experience I do. Props for that. My argument is based on my experiences. Being in the East obviously has influenced me as you stated that the BH is not as prevalent here so my exposure is limited.

 Quote: kevin sheldahl

.
Liabiliity is higher on the B&H dog??? How?? There is not a single circuit or supreme court decision regarding this issue, not one.

I asked a now retired instructor of one of the largest schools in germany, how many dogs do a B&H and do not bite when they initially find a suspect on the street. He said maybe 50%.

I made the liability statement from my experiences here. The second quote IMO would open an agency up to liability. If the dog is not supposed to bite on a passive subject, and he does...does it not open an agency up to a lawsuit? In a perfect world where handlers can train as much as they need to keep the dog at it's highest level of efficiency instead of just the standard in which to certify, then I can see your point. We both know its not like that.

Am I missing something here? A dog biting when its not supposed to will get the handler and agency sued. We all know that the majority of time the agency is going to settle out of court, its the cheapest way for the agency to go. If the dog is FB there is still a likelyhood of being sued but the basis for the lawsuit wont focus on the dog's training, or failure to train properly as the dog was supposed to bite in the first place no matter what the bad guy is doing.

 Quote: kevin sheldahl

I am continually amazed at the F&B argument as if I can't tell my dog to bite because he is a B&H dog?? and that if a suspect is found he is perfectly safe killing the dog and me?? All he has to do is move slowly??
Wow, come with me and we'll demonstrate that all I have to do is follow common sense officer safety and use my dog in a thoughtful and controlled and directable fashion and I will be safe.

Again, My experiences here in the South where we're a few years behind everyone else.:-) Like you already stated, we probably lack the skill and knowledge to maintain a BH PSD. I"ll recant my statement regarding more training time. It was based on ignorance and without thought when it was written. It may take more time to teach, but little time to maintain if regular training is done. It is, of course, one more exercise to work on so it does take a little extra time.

Of all the BH vs FB discussions I've been on, I believe you've made the most viable, fact based, no nonsense argument which included a lot of information that makes sense. Much of what you say I can relate to. Hopefully I'll be smart enough to stay out of the next one that will inevitably pop up.

Howard

If the suspect is carrying a gun and is willing to use it on the dog, isn´t then both type of dogs just as likely to get killed? If the suspect is "only" having a knife it seems logical to think that the B&H dog is better, because if not attacked when passive the suspect have more of a choice to give upp, if he is attacked even if he´s passive he may use the knife in fear of the dog I guess.

In most cases, is it OK in the USA if a PSD bite a passive person that is unarmed an not wanted for a serious crime, like for example if the dog is seraching for a teen that have stolen a car or similar? Someone said they only use a dog if it´s OK that he bite, so biting less serious criminals is no big deal then, because I guess it´s not only armed and dangerous persons you encounter each time when using the dog, right?

I know here in Sweden the dogs are taught the B&H because it´s not upp to the dog to judge how much force that is appropiate when finding a passive suspect that has surrended, but they are also like most PSDs I guess, trained to attack passive persons on command if the handler feel the need. To use a PSD that bites directly would limit the use of our PSDs, because many are also used for finding people that are not criminals. I´m just a civilian, but I thought that PSDs in US had quite strict use when it comes to use of force, due to lawsuits and similar things?

If i release a dog to non- compliant suspect and given that Graham vs. Connor requirements are met it is to engage the suspect.
Where the B&H steps in and becomes a factor in deployement is in the search for hidden suspects.
It affords the quickest way i have found in 25 years to provide a basis for good alert/indication behavior and to produce a fight when fought attitude so necessary in todays litigious society for police dogs....a small bite for a small action and a strong fight for strong action. One problem we see with many dogs is that they will discover the location of a suspect and then try to figure their way into their hiding place, this can get wildly out of hand with the handler needing to be on top of his/her dog to see the bahavior then deduce the location of the suspect. through enforcement of the B&H this can be prevented/diminished.
i have never said that I train to keep people from getting bit.
If that were the case I would be training urban search and rescue dogs. The criteria I use for deployment is the same as for a F&B dog. The measures i use to control the dog are through good obedience. If I want some one not to be bitten I down or call the dog back to me. I don't let the dog go in and bark. It simply gives me an expanded set of options and with few exceptions in my experience a better practical performance.

I know that sport work has caused some ruffled feathers in Germany in regards to the B&H. In fact, and I wish I could remember the community, sport behavior was implicated in the stabbing death of a handler, not that the dog did a B&H but that the B&H was improperly trained for a police dog. We are seeing a seperation in the police and the sport for a variety of reasons. I just had a conversation with a friend about doing both police and sport with our service dogs. Both have of us have done it and he at a very high level. Both of us have come to the conclusion that there is too much conflicting today between the sport and the service work to do it any more. This from two cops that are hard core sport enthusiasts!! but, of course our service dogs must have the street work put first.
i am a bit heavy handed when it comes to this old discussion, it is for very good reasons. here in the western US we are being pelted with lawsuits and one subject is the B&H. The plaintiff's attorney's always want the B&H defined as the dog is sent to search and bark but not bite at all. This is a incorrect interpretation of the skill and the purpose as applied by all I know and work with is not that. If it was we would all be doing FEMA work as well as our police work. We would also be replacing dogs all the time as they would either get thundered by a suspect and never work again or they would fight through natural behaviors and then we would have to get rid of them because they bite on searches.

I believe alot of people against the B/H are picturing a Schutzhund B/H in their minds. They are imagining a dog doing nothing more than a trained obedience type of excersise, a dog happily in a sit,barking at the bad guy and waiting for his handler to arrive or maybe even a bite on the sleeve if the bad guy suddenly bolts. THAT is not a B/H for a working k-9.

An actual k-9 B/H is more like a dog treeing a bear. The dog through selection and training is doing a B/H because he views the bad guy as seriouse business . The dog actually views the bad guy as dangerous and a real fight, and a fight thru training the dog believes he will win. Thats the attitude of the B/H for a working k-9. The dog is not just preforming a methodical trained excersise.

We all know what a F/B dog does butI dont think everbody really understands the B/H of a working k-9 that has been trained correctly. And of course the right dog selected for the work to begin with. And Im not talking specificaly about anyone here. Im talking about the debate in general any where you go.