Mr Sheldahl

I'm trying to figure out exactly what it was I said that you took so personal. Of course you closed the topic so I couldn't repspond without opening a new topic. First off, I was adamant about two subjects. 1. that the officer involved has been vindicated and can get on with his career; 2 I am not a fan of bite and hold. I denigrated no ones training. I stated my beliefs, and my philosopy as a trainer. I was not attempting to start any arguments, nor was I implying or infering that anyone that didn't agree with me was any less of a trainer or had any less of a program. I typed seven lines in the first post, my opinion. An opinion derived through 36 years of experience of both working and training working canines. I'm not offended when people don't share my opinion, but it does remain my opinion. In my second post, in response to a memeber's question or comment, I stated the most important thing derived from that decision was the importance of a well documented program, good policy, and supervsion that ensures adherance to those policies. If my post offended you, I'm truly sorry that you were offended. If it is just that you disagree with me, well that's dog training. As we all know the only thing two trainers can agree on is that the third is wrong.

DFrost

Administrators who are operating under the false impression that changing to Bark and Hold, will end lawsuits...are dreaming. Bad guys get bit in both styles of training, as this case illustrates.
When the system stops honoring, bogus lawsuits handwritten on legal pads from jail house lawyers, expert police wittnesses from both sides of the B+H/F+B fence stop testifing against each other...maybe things will play out in favor of safety (regardless of training style) not liability.

VERY WELL SAID Mr. Visitor!!!!

Just a point to Kevin's post regarding B/H. Remember Kevin, there are numerous Depts who do not have the benefit of good trainers for either argument B/H vs F/B. Your way of training B/H I'm sure is years ahead, as well as your selection of dogs and handler in the first place than many Depts have access to. To train a proper B/H as you describe is not always so clear when Depts lack the dog, and trainers to do so. I've never seen the problem you described from the right dog, from the right trainer doing a B/H. I have seen far more, that did not have the right trainer, or the right dog that did have engagement problems, birty bites, etc. I'm NOT again NOT anti B/H. If it works for you, great. If not who cares. Like everything else in training it comes down to the dogs and the trainers or handlers to do right by their profession and the public.

And to do right by their profession and the public they ( Administrators, Supervisors, Handlers ) need knowledgeable and experienced police dog trainer’s, dogs that have the proper temperament for police work, and skillful handlers that can train and control a police K9. Anything less can create bad case law that every other dog handler will have to live with. If departments don’t have access to good trainers or proper dogs, then they need to realize the liabilities involved, they need to find the right ones. As a group, we need to work smarter so this isn’t harder.

It is not that I would tell any LEO what type of dog they should field. I do get territorial when I hear people bash the method I utilize as some how unsafe. It is even more irritating when people subvert such a great decision as in the case w/ Peter McClelland and his K-9 Shadow to supporting a training philosophy. When we do this we just play into the hands of the plaintifs' attorneys. Simple but true is that Shadow performed as all decent patrol dogs should, not how a F&B dog shoud or as a B&H dog should. The policy of sending a patrol dog to capture and seize by biting was challenged. Hurray that it was supported by the 1st Circuit.
This win is not a win for F&B or B&H so lets not use it to distribute incomplete or simply incorrect information about one or the other techniques.
The argument is stale. Much like the people that continually resurect the "F&B is safer" mantra.