Michael Rivers: " I too believe that the reason for some Officers not liking the Bark and Hold is that it is hard to teach. Most of the arguments that you hear do not hold water, and the guys that are against it, cannot even get thier dog to out, or to comeback after being sent.They barley get by, and this is just another brick wall for them to have to deal with. This is not directed to all of the Officers that I have spoken with, but the majority. "

Mike , I agree bad selection and bad training are just that , but this is occurring in the use of both "Bark and Hold" and "Bite and Hold" K9's. I have a problem when you make statements like the one I quoted above . It sends a bad message to the to someone not fimiliar with Police K9 work about Bite and Hold because they may believe you have more knowledge than you actually have in this area. You do know more than the average person about this area but among Police K9 Handlers and Trainers you have VERY LIMITED knowledge in this area .

I do believe that the Police K9's you have seen behaved that way but I think you should clarify how much knowledge you actually have when you make such strong statements. I know you have trained around and with Police K9's but realize you still have a limited knowledge of them .

In my opinion "Bark and Hold" takes alot more training then "Bite and Hold" to do it properly . I also feel you have to look at more dogs to select the dog that can do it . I also know that it is very difficult to get administrators of some Police agencies to allow thier Officers enough training time to maitain their dogs in either method. Some departments also don't have the manpower to lose another officer from the street for training. Others are in isolated areas and don't have access to trainers or experienced helpers to maintain a properly trained "Bark and Hold " K9. Those are just some of the factors agencies must look into before selecting what method they want to use .

They both require lots of training though.

The arguement that "Bite and Hold" is easier to train and maintain is a valid one in my opinion . As long as it is trained and deployed properly then there shouldn't be a proplem .

The real problem with the "BITE and Hold" vs " "Bark and Hold" methods are the crappy trainers , handlers and dogs that are in both methods . They are an embarassment to us all and serve as "examples" as to why that particular method is worse than the other for the uneducated.

THE PROPERLY SELECTED , TRAINED AND UTILIZED K9, TRAINED IN EITHER METHOD , THAT FITS IN BEST WITH THE NEEDS OF THAT DEPARTMENT IS THE BEST K9. NOT THE "BARK AND HOLD" ONLY K9 OR "BITE AND HOLD" ONLY K9 IS THE BEST.

The reasons you stated Jim a valid. Both have thier place. But all to often vendors lean towards the Find and Bite, and not for the right reasons. As you stated it is easier to maintain, and teach, and also I think that to a new handler and to some more seasoned you can mask problems easier then with the B@H trained dog.
I also agree with you that selection is the key no matter what displine you are training in.

Some really good arguments; exactly why we have the Court of Appeals & Supreme Court.

Mike , I stated before that you have more knowledge than the average person when it comes to Police K9's. I also stated that among Police K9 Handlers and Trainers you have VERY LIMITED knowledge . I made no statements about Police training Police ,Police K9 Handlers being Trainers or whose a better K9 handler. From what you have told me you may very well be a good K9 Handler in the Sports or Personal Protection area . But for you to make the statements you have about Bite and Hold K9's you have seen I wanted to make it clear to you and others not fimiliar with Police K9's that you (Mike Taylor-Rivers) has VERY LIMITED KNOWLEDGE OF THEM .

You have not had to go into dangerous situations and have to descide how or if you are going to deploy your dog. You don't live with the presure of having the citizens and your fellow officers relying on you and your dog to save their lives or find the dangerous felon who doesn't want to be found . You haven't had to justify to you superiors , city council , citizens and media that what you and your K9 did was right. You haven't had to say what you think might be your final words to your K9 . The one you put hundreds of hours of training into and that you and your family love ,as you're preparing to go into a house with your SWAT team to look for a possible armed suspect. You haven't had to explain to your wife and kids that ,yeah I know I promised to take you all to a movie tonight but dad got called into find a bad guy. Until you have done some of these things on a fairly consistant basis (and don't give me this "Well I've done this or that with my K9 as a Security guard)you don't know much about Police K9's. I've seen over and over again the great things well trained "Bite and Hold" K9's do so when I see statements like yours I feel compelled to clarify from who they came .

Mike , it sounds like you are and can continue to be an asset to us Police K9 Officers in TRAINING our dogs . Keep up the good work. But when you make strong comments about Police K9 deployment methods (Bark and Hold , Bite and Hold)you have crossed the line.

This is a clear as I get . I don't care if you have trained with thousands of Police K9's , been on hundreds of Ride a Longs , have dozens of Police K9 Officer friends or even given birth to a Police K9 . YOUR KNOWLEDGE IN THAT AREA IS VERY LIMITED.

Mike Tayler-Rivers wrote ; I do agree with you that I do not live with all of the stress that you write about day in and day out. But how that is of importance of having the the correct dog for the right job is beyond me.


I think there is a question in there so here is my answer.

That's my piont it is beyond you because you , because you have never deployed a Police K9 in either the "Bark and Hold" or "Bite and Hold" method in a real life situation. So you don't have a sense of how IMPORTANT it really is ( you can understand it but you can't have a real sense of it unless you have actually done it) to use a method that works effectively. I mentioned the stresses because they show another side of this work that most people aren't aware of and to put emphasis on the reasons why I feel it is IMPORTANT to have an effective method (Bite and Hold in my case) to locate suspects .

So to clarify again I addressed your comments about the BITE AND HOLD K9's you saw and how bad they were because I wanted to make sure that the average person who reads this forum also knows that your views are coming from someone not actually in the Police K9 Field but from someone who has a limited access to seeing actual well trained and capable BITE AND HOLD Police K9's. I also wanted you to know that you should think twice when you make strong comments about something you have limited knowledge of . I got information about you from YOU in your PM to me. I also stated earlier Mike , I don't care if you do Ride Alongs .

I apologize to all for taking this discussion off the original topic and I suggest Mike if you feel the need to prove to me how much you know about the Police K9 Field we do it by PM . It's up to you.

REINIER Geel wrote: studies have actually shown that the straight bite is safer Uncle low, for both dog and handler

LC: I've been told this before but no one has ever been able to come up with the source of these "studies." Perhaps if you can, I'll change my mind. Until then I'll continue to believe and train that the find and bark is FAR safer for the handler.

Hmmm. . .yeah. . .


I think this one is done, we can start a versus thread somewhere else.


Bottom line, I don't think bite dogs are on the outs in this country. I would be interested, David, if you found some examples of departments giving their bite dog programs the axe. . .in another thread. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />