# Uncle Sam wants your dog



## Jeff Threadgill (Jun 9, 2010)

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-dhs-dogs-20100717,0,6436381.story


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

"Their pension is sitting nicely by the fireplace with the handler," he said.

Yeah sure.....


----------



## Chris Michalek (Feb 13, 2008)

here's a document on the program

http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_08-46_Apr08.pdf


----------



## sam wilks (May 3, 2009)

did anyone read those couple of arcticles at the bottom. those people are so stupid.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> "Their pension is sitting nicely by the fireplace with the handler," he said.
> 
> Yeah sure.....


It's better today (their pension) than when I was in SEA.

DFrost


----------



## mike suttle (Feb 19, 2008)

sam wilks said:


> did anyone read those couple of arcticles at the bottom. those people are so stupid.


LOL, yeah I read the comments from the bleeding heart idiots at the bottom. They were so convinced that the animal shelters are full of the dogs that will work for this contract. It would have been better if the DHS SOW was posted so that they could see the type of dog they were looking for. But really to read the SOW does not paint a picture of just how hard it is to find the right dog that will pass it.
CBP used to have a team of people who traveled across America looking in shelters for dogs (this was before the metal retriever requirement). They had less than 2% success rate and that was when the test was much easier than it is today.
Hell, the truth is that even traveling through Europe looking at working dog kennels and large brokers there yeild a very small % of dogs that will pass this test, much less the animal shelters in America.
I wish I knew of a shelter dog with the type of drive for the metal pipe, bombproof environmental nerves, excellent hunt drive (by working dog standards), perfect health, stable temperament, and correct size that would pass this test. Oh yeah, it also has to be a Shepherd dog of some type, or a Retriever of some type.
My local animal shelters (bless their hearts) have called me several times to tell me that they have a SUPER working dog candidate for me to test. I always go look because you just never know until you see it. But everytime it is the same thing.......hyper dog with no training that appears to be drivey, but is just hyper with no control. he will chase a ball, pick it up and drop it in 10 seconds. He will drop it when we go through a door way, he will drop it when he hears a loud noise, he will drop it when a stranger approaches him. I always feel bad for these dogs because they are too big and hyper for most pet people, and not drivey enough for a working dog so they almost always get the needle.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Maybe instead of constantly scouting for dogs that meet the requirements, you could produce them?


----------



## Sam Bishop (May 8, 2008)

Daryl Ehret said:


> Maybe instead of constantly scouting for dogs that meet the requirements, you could produce them?


Ain't that the trick?


----------



## JOHN WINTERS (Mar 5, 2010)

Frankly I'll just take a percentage of any bulk cash seizures if they want one of my dogs. 

A little off topic but interesting article.
http://journalstar.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_00b97f70-5a20-11df-86f4-001cc4c002e0.html


----------



## mike suttle (Feb 19, 2008)

Daryl Ehret said:


> Maybe instead of constantly scouting for dogs that meet the requirements, you could produce them?


Great idea, I only need to produce 600 metal retrievers per year that will pass these tests......sounds easy enough.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

You're the one saying the "pond's drying up" right? You won't be helping it any. Besides, I don't understand why 600 dogs a year from one of the "smallest" of vendors is required. They killin 'em off faster'n they can get 'em?


----------



## Joshua Wilson (Feb 8, 2009)

The Border Patrol does have breeding program in place.


----------



## Joshua Wilson (Feb 8, 2009)

The vast majority of Border Patrol handlers do adopt their partners.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

I think that's great, really. But I've only seen maybe a dozen canine handler job postings for border patrol in the last year, and about the same number of ECD handler's for TSA. The number of government handler jobs don't seem to come anywhere close to the number of annually procured canines.

On a side note, not just dogs now, the Army just started an adoption program for its horses.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Daryl Ehret said:


> I think that's great, really. But I've only seen maybe a dozen canine handler job postings for border patrol in the last year, and about the same number of ECD handler's for TSA. The number of government handler jobs don't seem to come anywhere close to the number of annually procured canines.
> 
> On a side note, not just dogs now, the Army just started an adoption program for its horses.


Them horses always got a better retirement package than the dogs.

Daryl, I don't get your points in this thread...I never noticed a rift between you and Mike on here...maybe I missed it...do you think it is possible for one breeder with 12-15 breeding females to produce enough dogs to fill these contracts? 600??? I do think Mike is breeding good pups, but they need dogs not pups, and even if he kept all his pups, not all would pass. I think it was stated that they need 600 dogs, not that Mike has to provide all 600, I am pretty sure he would not take a contract that big, as it is hard enough to fill the smaller contracts...
Mike does not make the standards for the contracts, the government does. He tries to fill the ones he takes...we all know there are larger vendors...so what is your point?

That aside...

Are you saying that our government should not implement dogs for CBP or TSA? or any other vital positions where dogs are used around the country? Dogs have been proven to be a VERY effective tool to use for these purposes...Should we stop using police k9's as well?

Just not sure what you are saying here...

I imagine the reason you don't see the positions for all these handlers posted, is because the handlers are also contacted out, just like the procurement of the dogs is....


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Do I seem critisizing? Just saying that I don't see such a great need for so many dogs, and selling them without replentishing the source doesn't seem the answer to me. So while vendor's are adding to the problem shortage, the end-user is searching for a solution themselves (assuming that so many dogs really are required, but where do they all go?)

The breeding program at Lackland seems to think it's doing so well on it's own, that it's giving out dogs to foreign governments to begin their own "puppy programs". http://www.mildenhall.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123214008

Maybe they're expanding the program, to cut out the middleman. A job just closed in the last week for "Supervisory Military Working Dog Breeding Specialist" at Lackland AFB. If I had the resources at my disposal that Mike does, I'd be thinking more along the lines of producing for those requirements, or one day we'll all be reminiscing about _what we used to have available_.


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

Daryl Ehret said:


> Do I seem critisizing? Just saying that I don't see such a great need for so many dogs, and selling them without replentishing the source doesn't seem the answer to me. So while vendor's are adding to the problem shortage, the end-user is searching for a solution themselves (assuming that so many dogs really are required, but where do they all go?)
> 
> The breeding program at Lackland seems to think it's doing so well on it's own, that it's giving out dogs to foreign governments to begin their own "puppy programs". http://www.mildenhall.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123214008
> 
> Maybe they're expanding the program, to cut out the middleman. A job just closed in the last week for "Supervisory Military Working Dog Breeding Specialist" at Lackland AFB. If I had the resources at my disposal that Mike does, I'd be thinking more along the lines of producing for those requirements, or one day we'll all be reminiscing about _what we used to have available_.


I don't know of too many agencies that would take the financial chance or have the knowledge to start a breeding program . As for vendors breeding in that many numbers and getting an exceptable percentage of good dogs out of it to be cost effective I think that would be a tough thing to do . 

There is great demand for dogs . We only need 12-16 K9s a year and the quality is going down along with the age we are getting them at now . At one point our administration wanted a second K9 class added meaning training 24-30 new dual purpose K9s a year . We just couldn't get the dogs for it . 

As for the shelters being an alternative . We used to do that looking at over a 100 dogs (through shelters and mainly donated dogs from the public) just to get around a dozen candidates . It just wasn't cost effective for us when counting all the man ours lost off the streets because those trainers/handlers were out looking at dogs . Fuel , vet bills , and dog food were other costs just for looking at dogs , not even for the actual choosen dogs we ended up with . 

I don't envy vendors . They can have a very good year one year and barely make it the next .

The only way I think a breeding program could be possible here was if the many vendors got together and started some kind of program . Good luck with that when they don't even know what tomorrow will bring .


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Well, if they're adding 3,000 dogs to an already 2,000 dog force, they ought to come up with a clear plan built on a new approach if it's expected to succeed. Mike's previously mentioned how difficult it is already to find suitable dogs. They're also going to need a lot more foster home volunteers for their puppy program, I'd imagine.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Sorry Daryl...I think I sorta get it, but feel your anger is directed at the wrong people.

I am pretty sure they do need the numbers of dogs, otherwise they wouldn't be buying them...and vendors wouldn't be selling them...

I don't think the number of dogs are the problem, I think the problem is going to end up being acquiring dogs that will pass these rigid tests....600 dogs is not a high number of dogs for Customs and Border Patrol...600 dogs that can pass these almost impossible selection test may be a very high number...and that 600 number in general is a drop in the bucket if you take all the various people using dogs these days.

Truth is dogs are very useful and very successful...all over the world for many applications...If they did not need these types of dogs, who else would be buying them on a large enough scale to support the industry? Who would breeders sell to? It is a big circle jerk, catch-22

lets use CBP as an example. I am sure it applies to other departments as well. I think the problem is that the selection testing has been made harder and harder to pass. And therefore harder and harder to get dogs that will pass the tests... This is an issue with the people that make the testing requirements, not the people who supply the dogs... 
I am quite sure that all involved except, the end user, would love to see a slight lowering of the requirements, as it would make their jobs that much easier. I am quite sure if the standards were lowered by an acceptable level, the number of dogs that passed would increase by a good percentage...Would the quality of the dogs work performed be that much lower, probably not...vendors would sell more dogs, breeders would breed more dogs.
I have seen Gerben's posts on here, expressing concerns and when I was at Mike's we talked some about it as well. Both of them, as well as every other vendor I'm sure realize that these contracts are getting harder and harder to fill.the situation is as you describe it, about the depletion factor,well maybe not even that,How many dogs that could pass these new tests were around to even be depleted.Truth is no matter how good the breeding programs, the number of dogs produced, dogs that pass these tests are still rare.
And I'm sure they (the vendors) would be quite happy if they could present dogs of slightly lesser quality, like I said it would make their jobs much easier, and there would not be such a strain on the stock. But THAT IS NOT THEIR CALL.There is no vendors union. What would you have them do? Go on strike? Quit?
Professional breeders are breeding dogs to make money.Vendors vend to make money.contracts pay money.without money.breeders can't breed, vendor's can't vend.
Maybe it will be that the end user finds a solution themselves, by lowering the standard. I don't think they will find a solution by making their own breeding programs.There are US vendors/breeders the have operations in south africa that have 1000's of dogs.but they cannot even fill these contracts reliably, and they are doing their best to produce top quality dogs.
The government can screw up a wet dream. we all know this.
I think I see why you are frustrated, but what is the solution? I don't see vendors as the problem.if there were no vendors, breeders would suffer, and their would be less breeders.if there was no demand for high quality dogs, the quality would decrease.the problem is a breeder shortage of those types of dogs, and a dogs of that caliber shortage.

I am no expert.just using logic here.

Take Mike for example.I am not speaking for him, and I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong.he is frustrated I am sure, as are most other US vendors, and foreign vendors as well.He would love to be able to buy dogs here, instead of having to import and spend the extra money, and split the profit margin overall with his contacts overseas, makes sense logically. I am also sure he wouldn't mind a slight adjustment to the testing process for the contracts he fills, as long as HE knows the dogs he sells will perform the job well.

As you were quick to point out, he is not a huge vendor.But he does seem to have the ability to get his hands on some good dogs.I have been to his place a couple of times. He seems to run his on-site operation by himself pretty much, employing one Kennel hand, who also works dogs. (as far as I know), his big mean ole wife doesn't seem to be all that involved in the operation as far as the dog part goes,so you are basically talking 2 or 3 people. How big of an operation would he have to have to supply these dogs in house? It is not feasable. He takes contracts he knows he has good chance he can fill. Not the huge ones, not the ones he knows he can't fill.failing to fill or almost fill contracts you bid on, is the fastest way to get cut out of future contracts.
Mike I "think" did try to make his breeding program the best he could,I am guessing here, but I think he used to hold back a lot more pups than he does now to raise up and sell but it just cannot be done on a large enough scale,what is his working capacity? 40-50 dogs? maybe 75-80 if he wants his life to be totally miserable. And that is including his breeding stock which is what? 15-20 dogs at any given time. So that leaves 20-30 slots open for raising dogs? That is enough extra room to keep only 3-4 litters a year, That is a 20-30 dog production capacity yearly. I think you got Mike pegged wrong.I actually think Mike is being very proactive about the solution.He imports and sells a good number of very high quality dogs to breeders here,which he also gets slammed for by other people. One guy can only do so much, so he sells great dogs for breeding and sells most of his pups to people, not agencies. People that he hopes will breed them to other quality dogs, all in the hopes that breeders here will breed higher numbers of quality dogs, which would take the strain off of him, and maybe a couple of other vendors by making quality dogs available domestically.I don't get what you mean by Mike filling the requirements of a breeding specialist at lackland, either. Are you saying he should quit doing what he is doing and work there? Or are you saying he should try to fill contracts for their breeding program? I am sure if they want Mike to get dogs for them, he would be happy to do so, if he is able to, and if they want to buy his pups, I'm sure he would willing to sell them some. It's not like he can demand them to buy dogs from him.LOL I still think that a better answer to the problem would be to support and encourage private breeders that will produce quality dogs. A government breeding program also has it's limits. They will use the dogs, that should be being bred, just like they are now anyway. 

The demand for good working dogs is high worldwide, like it or not...
I can see you are real angry about that, so why don't YOU do something about it, instead of bagging on the vendors. Get the standards lowered..or here's a novel idea...
Increase YOUR capacity, and start breeding more GSD, and help fill some of the contracts, why don't YOU present some dogs to Lackland? I am not sure if you are selling dogs to the police/military/government or not, but from your website, pics of dogs sold and testimonials, mostly look like you sell to pet homes, and a few sport people, which is fine with me by the way, but if that is the case, this whole shortage of top tier green dogs is not gonna affect you personally anyhow, all the pups worldwide are not being sold to the government, breeders are still selling pups to individuals..so why get so angry?
(Mike, let me know if I made errors in judegment on this issue, if you read this please, PM if you want)


----------



## mike suttle (Feb 19, 2008)

WOW, I did not look at this thread for a few days and I come on here and see that I missed a lot! LOL
First, let me point out that if Daryl and I have a "rift" it was unknown to me. Although he may still be a little upset with me because he did not get a puppy from the Max X Shaquira breeding that did not take, or maybe because I sold Shaquira,O but in any case I dont think he has an issue with me personally and I for sure have no issue with him. 
Now, let me assure you guys that the numbers are real for the DHS contract for sure. They do need 600 dogs per year and that does not include the DOD dogs at Lackland which is more than that each year in addition to the DHS dogs needed.
No, one single vendor will not / can not fill that number of dogs that will pass the test. This RFP closes today. I would say each of the vendors who get awarded this contract will be expected to provide about 100 dogs per year. Most of the dogs will be single purpose detector dogs (although nearly all of them are dual purpose quality dogs) and some of them will be used for dual purpose jobs.
Ultimately the vendors who are wawarded the contract will have short falls in what they promised to deliver and so the DHS will put out "open market" bids throughout the year to try to fill the short falls.
Now, on to the breeding discussion about this topic. It is simply impossible for me to keep back the number of dogs that would be required for over a year to fill the needs of my current contract obligations. I have a 40 dog kennel and sell about 300 dogs per year. With that same 40 dog kennel if I were to keep puppies back to sell I could only sell about 30 per year if everything went perfect (in other words if I had a 100% sucess rate. If I take one kennel and put a puppy in it to raise for 12 months and sell it for maybe $7000 if everything goes right and he is crazy for the metal pipe, he has super hunt drive, he has excellent nerves, he has perfect health, and he has the correct temperament for the job.
That puppy costs me about $1500 to raise for that year in food, vet bills, and kennel costs. So if everything goes right I can make $5500 on that puppy (before I take out the time that I have in him).
So I can make $5500 in that one kennel run in 12 months, and that is IF everything goes perfectly according to plan. However there is no way that anyone can have a 100% sucess rate and anyone who tells you that you can has never tried this, or does not know enough to even talk to about it. So if that puppy turns out to lack something needed for the contract then that run will be a total loss of $1500 (plus your time for the year).
Now in the kennel run beside of him I put a 12 month old dog that I selection tested and bought. He stays in that kennel run for about 2 weeks and he is sold for a profit of lets say $500 after I deduct all of the cost associated with getting him here.
And then I buy another one who stays about 2 weeks or so and sell it as well, maybe for a bigger profit, maybe for the same, but in any case at the end of the year the run with the puppy has made me $5500 if everything goes perfectly according to the plan, and the run with the young imported dogs has made me 3 times that amount with a lot less risk and less work.
I breed several litters per year and we get many dogs that are suitable for the work that we need them for, but the amount of time that is required to prepare a puppy for these tests is a lot, and to do it with 100 puppies per year would require me to quadrouple my current kennel size and the cost to do that would be near one million dollars. Plus the added staff and operations costs would just not be realistic.
That is why I sell very high quality breeding dogs to other breeders here in the states. With the hopes of maybe buying one or two great green dogs back from them later.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Dude, I don't have "anger", just trying to make sense of the unsensible here. I just woke up, and need a little time to read the rest of your post.....


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

I'm not making any judgement at all on Mike. My reference to the Breeding Specialist job, was to point out that it appears there might be an effort to stage for expansion of their current program. I'm just asking some questions that will help me better understand what these changes are heading towards. Of the couple thousand dogs currently belonging to the government, it seems there must be a large percentage of them undeployed. Maybe that's not true, but that's how it appears to myself. What are their plans when they acquire another 3000? Currently, there seems to be canines only in the International Airports throughout the country, so perhaps a lot more could go to the expansion there. Did Jim say that private contractors are issued these gov't dogs?


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

I don't know if Jim said it or not...

But I know that many many handlers doing work for the government are contracted private citizens...


----------



## Joshua Wilson (Feb 8, 2009)

Canine handlers in The Border Patrol are selected from in service agents. It is a collateral duty and not a separate job description. You will not find postings on USA jobs.


----------



## mike suttle (Feb 19, 2008)

Joshua Wilson said:


> Canine handlers in The Border Patrol are selected from in service agents. It is a collateral duty and not a separate job description. You will not find postings on USA jobs.


US Customs works the smae way. Plus a lot of these dogs are used for international classes that are done for other countries. Almost every time I am at Customs they have classes going with several other countries and the US provides those dogs with the handler courses.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> I imagine the reason you don't see the positions for all these handlers posted, is because the handlers are also contacted out, just like the procurement of the dogs is....


Wasn't Jim. This was the comment I was referring to. Where do we contract out handlers and issue them government dogs?

I was aware of Border Patrol k9 hiring in-service, but they actually _do post those jobs._ I think 2 years in service is required.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Daryl Ehret said:


> Wasn't Jim. This was the comment I was referring to. Where do we contract out handlers and issue them government dogs?
> 
> I was aware of Border Patrol k9 hiring in-service, but they actually _do post those jobs._ I think 2 years in service is required.


Daryl, my apologies...off on a tangent...lost focus of the specifics...up real late...misread you. I was on the topic of dogs used for our government contracts as a whole, not specifically ones for this agency, off topic.. Again I was trying to address the conundrum and the number of dogs out there being used for government purposes.


----------



## Brian McConnell (Feb 6, 2010)

mike suttle said:


> Great idea, I only need to produce 600 metal retrievers per year that will pass these tests......sounds easy enough.


 Glad to hear you do go to pounds even if the percentage is low for good animals , at least you are giving them a running start at no getting the needle, keep up the good work.
Brian


----------



## Joshua Wilson (Feb 8, 2009)

They post jobs working at CCEP that are also for in service canine instructors. Border Patrol Canine Handler positions are NEVER posted on USA jobs. They are always solicited at the station level.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

I only have a copy of this particular job (instructor), but I swear to you I'd seen a couple or three basic handler jobs over the year as well. Maybe I'm wrong, but my reason saying so is, while I was intent on relocating back to MT last year, there was was a posting stationed in northern MT, though it was only open to in-service employees.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

So why doesn't CBP allow new employees of the agency to work in canine, like other agencies such as TSA and Park Police? What about inter-agency transfers?


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

Daryl Ehret said:


> So why doesn't CBP allow new employees of the agency to work in canine, like other agencies such as TSA and Park Police? What about inter-agency transfers?


Park Police..what the hell is that ??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acjMseF9Ick


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Gerry Grimwood said:


> Park Police..what the hell is that ??
> 
> national parks i assume...LOL yellowstone..etc...


----------



## Joshua Wilson (Feb 8, 2009)

Canine handler is a collateral duty. You are a Border Patrol Agent first, a canine handler second. Allowing a nugget to come in off the street as a dog handler might be just a little insulting to senior agents who are interested in the same position. Or look at it this way, if you have no idea how to be a patrol agent, how can you be a patrol agent with additional responsibilities as a canine handler. Walk before you run. We do not accept inter-agency transfers, as no other agency (including CBP officers) is trained to do our job. Everybody comes in as a new hire and starts from the bottom.


----------

