just wanted to throw this comment out there . it absolutely blows my mind that an agency involved in protecting the public safety would consider using dogs from such a source . a good working dog ( any profile ) should be a highly regarded , highly respected partner . you don't just " find " those any where . the search for a good workmate should be well researched and well thought out. it should be an enjoyable task : you are going to be spending a lot of time together ! find a good breeder in your area who understands your needs and work with you to provide you with the best " tool " for the job . you , and the department will not regret it ! after all , you don't see craftsmen looking in the dump for their tools , why would you do the same

I cannot make judgement on the dog in question over the net like most. Anyone ever heard of US Customs? Yeah, that federal agency that trains and deploys more detection dogs than anyone else in this country. They routinely pull dogs from shelters that meet their standards regardless of papers or proven bloodlines. Vendors nationwide pull dogs from shelters for detection training. Again, this dog in question may have been a bad selection desicion but coming from a shelter or that it is mixed with Pit does not disqualify a candidate in most kennels. One of the best detection dogs I ever trained was a $25.00 lab/rott mix that i picked up from a backyard breeders accidental breeding. It's not the "brand name" that makes a good detection dog. It is all about making the proper working evaluation and health check.

 Quote:

Originally posted by Mark Connolly:
It's not the "brand name" that makes a good detection dog. It is all about making the proper working evaluation and health check.

DITTO!

I could care less about the "pedigree" other then you can find many good dogs from good lines so it is good place to start. I want a dog that is able to do the job and I basicly tell breeders they may as well be talking to a post when they hail the blood line as proof of individual quality.

Terry Whilliams the owner a of gray Trakehner
stallion named Abdullah http://www.williamsburgfarm.com/abdullah.htm

Said to me last year while taling about genetics and OCD in horses, "Dennis most breeders sell the sizzle and not the steak."

Quality in does not always mean quality out.

I appreciate eveyones reply and have learned a lot from all. My family and I used to breed Rotts Pits and Mastiffs so I know all about the paper and pedigree issue I know a dog is the same whether he has papers or not but I am also concerned with the dogs background as in I dont want a dog whos ancestry has a fighting background if I want a companion dog and vice versa etc.. My major concern was that there was apparently no thought into checking and testing this dog even though it was purchased by the head of the K9 unit who is also a handler.I just found out the real issue here, POLITICS It seems the head of the unit found the k9 for another handler in the unit that he was trying to discredit. This handler refused the K9 because of his actions and aggressiveness. In comes a new officer eager to have a K9. The head of the unit must give him the K9 in order to not discredit himself in the selection process or expose his original plan.The Col of our department lacks enough knowledge on K9s to make any decision and relies solely on the head of the unit. Any suggestions on how I can intervene before the unit becomes a washed out program. I am also fearful of the remaining 3 handlers leaving.We have new officers interested in being handlers however if the Col. closes it down before hand we may be unable to re establish a new K9 program.

James,

PM me and I will help you with a plan and some advice at no cost.

Since you have dog's and you are in in my state my help will be limited but maybe together we can draft something to give you Dept. Heads that does not look subversive as it informs them of better days and dogs ahead. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I should say ... you are NOT in my state so my help will be limited. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

It pays to read once what you write I guess. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Hello All:

James you are right, politics always play a role on what is done. I would say that, while I don't know what your K-9's unit commanders agenda is, you can be sure that you have to be very careful since you are treading on thin ice.

I would "tactfully" advise this K9 handler with the problem dog to do some work on his/her own with regards to "proper selection and testing of a working K9 prospect." I would also make sure that you are well versed on your departments policy & procedures on procurement and necessary testing of potential dogs and make sure all of your I's are dotted and your T's are crossed. Afterall, it could be a poor dog with good training or a great dog with weak training or a poor handler, etc. The variables could go on and on.

I would also want to review this dogs training records to make sure he is properly certified and able to accomplish his job. The same goes for the handler, was he/she properly screened and qualified and attended the proper handlers course?

Not to play devils advocate, but could this be a very inexperienced handler with a very dominate dog? Maybe the dog is more than the handler can handle (especially a first time handler). I would think that your unit commander, while personalities aside, would not "deliberately" employ and certify a dog who doesn't have the "genetics" to do the job just to set the handler up to fail. That is a serious officer safety issue. Or is the dog doing his job correctly and safely and is within your dept's guidelines and standards?

Point the handler in the right direction, then get all the info you can on testing and standards and selection criteria before you go to your unit commander. I'm sure we all know that there are dogs, just like people who shouldn't be out there doing this type of job, but they are. Do a preliminary investigation and get the facts and information and then bring it to the unit commanders attention and also have a plan on how you might think of solving the problem and prevent instances like this from happening again (poor dog sliding through the cracks).

With regards to the other post concerning the breeds and rescue dogs. Yes, customs does rescue and employ quite a few service dogs, but these dogs are single purpose dogs. Like I said before, I am sure there are a few dogs who come via rescue who are fully capable of doing any and all types of law enforcement work. I personally have never seen one and if I was procuring for a deparment, I wouldn't consider it.

Customs also has a "beagle brigade" for narcotics primarily at airports and border entries. Would you want to clear a building with a beagle while looking for a burglary suspect? It's apples and oranges and not fair to place the two in the same category, different agenda's and operations requirements and conditions. That requires a different kind of dog.

But the fact of the matter is that it is cost prohibitive (in most cases) to use single purpose dogs in law enforcement unless there is some "new-found" money by way of grants to fund a new K9 program. Personally, I don't care if a dog has papers or not if he is able to do the job that's paramount. But having a pedigree is a great place to start, I mean look at how many dogs you will have to evaluate to find those very few dogs who are genetically capable of doing the work.

Taking into consideration all of the health issues like hips, elbows, backs, teeth, then looking at soundness, nerves, fight drive, stability, slick floors, ability to recover from corrections, the list goes on and on.

Statistically, I just don't see that kind of dog sitting in a pound or in a foster/rescue home. I mean look at all of the breeders who are trying to breed that kind of dog and most fail. Look at dogs like "CJ" and "Itor" are those dogs flukes or are they a product of many years of sound breeding and genetics (not to mention great training and handling).

If I were an administrator, I would want the dogs to be "the best dogs that our department could obtain." I would want to see dogs who can prove themselves. I personally would not consider looking at rescue dogs to do dual purpose work, just to many unknown variables.

Afterall, they are a tool to assist LEO's in doing their jobs and I wouldn't want to pay a visit to someones home at zero dark thirty to tell their family that their dad, mom, son or daughter is laying in the hospital or near death because of an "equipment failure."

While we have all heard the term "caveat emptor" (buyer beware) I would think you would have higher expectations and standards if you are selling or training dogs for law enforcement. That is not the area to be bargin shopping.

Regards,
Brandon