# choke the dog to release the suit



## milder batmusen

hello everyone I have noticed that many KNPV dogs and the police chokes their dogs to let go of the suit and this is the way many police dogs in USA will let go of the bad guy or if its in the KNPV 

why do many choke their dogs to let go and not just teach the dog to let go when told:-k:-k

Many in my old club choked their dogs to when it should release even if it where a ball they didn't rarely tell the dog to let go:???: I didn't ask at the time but as I remember they told me it made the dog even more want to get a hold of the toy or suit


----------



## joshua thor

I guess they want that desire you mentioned. For me I wouldn't want my dog to think about the out and just go full force. But I seen some that would pull/move away as the handler approaches. Why do some do and don't?


----------



## Jim Nash

I don't choke my dog off the bite . I either call it off at a distance or grab the collar and out the dog . No choking neccessary . All of our PSDs must certify through the USPCA with an out at a distance off the bite . 

With some dogs choking it off the bite will actually make it want to fight harder to stay on .


----------



## milder batmusen

Jim Nash said:


> I don't choke my dog off the bite . I either call it off at a distance or grab the collar and out the dog . No choking neccessary . All of our PSDs must certify through the USPCA with an out at a distance off the bite .
> 
> *With some dogs choking it off the bite will actually make it want to fight harder to stay on .[/*QUOTE]
> 
> this is what I thought to


----------



## Adi Ibrahimbegovic

Armchair quorterbacking here and thinking aloud, since I am no K9 officer, both approaches have merit.

But, hypothetically, what if the dog is told to out after engaging the suspect and the suspect recovers and having both hands free and lesser pain, grabs a knife out of the pocket and stabs the dog, or steel pipe or sharp stick or whatever he can grab as a weapon?


----------



## Jim Nash

Adi Ibrahimbegovic said:


> Armchair quorterbacking here and thinking aloud, since I am no K9 officer, both approaches have merit.
> 
> But, hypothetically, what if the dog is told to out after engaging the suspect and the suspect recovers and having both hands free and lesser pain, grabs a knife out of the pocket and stabs the dog, or steel pipe or sharp stick or whatever he can grab as a weapon?


Either way the K9 is being outed and should be taken out of the situation . If the guy goes for a weapon that's to be dealt with by a bullet in most cases if the officer/s are in danger .


----------



## Adi Ibrahimbegovic

Thanks for clarifying.

Now that I thought about it a bit more, your approach seems the most logical to me: approach dog, grab collar and out then while holding the collar. If the guy has more fight left in him, doubt it but it has happened, open the hand, collar and dog free, go for the second helping.


----------



## Jim Nash

Adi Ibrahimbegovic said:


> Thanks for clarifying.
> 
> Now that I thought about it a bit more, your approach seems the most logical to me: approach dog, grab collar and out then while holding the collar. If the guy has more fight left in him, doubt it but it has happened, open the hand, collar and dog free, go for the second helping.


IMO , being able to do it both ways is important .


----------



## will fernandez

milder batmusen said:


> hello everyone I have noticed that many KNPV dogs and the police chokes their dogs to let go of the suit and this is the way many police dogs in USA will let go of the bad guy or if its in the KNPV
> 
> why do many choke their dogs to let go and not just teach the dog to let go when told:-k:-k
> 
> Many in my old club choked their dogs to when it should release even if it where a ball they didn't rarely tell the dog to let go:???: I didn't ask at the time but as I remember they told me it made the dog even more want to get a hold of the toy or suit


I think that in both cases it is generally with young dogs that have not been taught to out at that time. They are increasing the desire for the bite and will introduce the out later when the bite is at the level they want it at.


----------



## David Frost

Jim Nash said:


> IMO , being able to do it both ways is important .


I agree, and we practice both. 

DFrost


----------



## Lou Castle

Jim Nash said:


> All of our PSDs must certify through the USPCA with an out at a distance off the bite .


Jim I'm told that in the USPCA certification there are three opportunities for the dog to release a bite on a verbal command and that he only has to comply with a command on one of them to pass and get certified. Is this true?


----------



## Howard Knauf

Sometimes the dog is left on the bite until the guy is secured in restraints. A good reason to train with multiple people going hands on with the dog involved. If you don't train that way there might be a surprise for the other officers.


----------



## David Frost

Lou Castle said:


> Jim I'm told that in the USPCA certification there are three opportunities for the dog to release a bite on a verbal command and that he only has to comply with a command on one of them to pass and get certified. Is this true?



http://www.uspcak9.com/certification/pd1_certification_2011.pdf

Certification is a basic requirement, as it should be. Most of the certification agencies are similar. 

DFrost


----------



## Jerry Lyda

For the other question: A dog that spins away from the handler while on the bite when he approaches, is in conflict with the handler. This is taught behavior that the handler didn't know that he was teaching to the dog. The dog knows he is about to be outed and tries to stay away from the handler so that he won't have to turn loose.


----------



## Jim Nash

Lou Castle said:


> Jim I'm told that in the USPCA certification there are three opportunities for the dog to release a bite on a verbal command and that he only has to comply with a command on one of them to pass and get certified. Is this true?



Thanks for answering Lou's question David . Lou you were a past Vice President of a USPCA region in California right ? I heard there was talk of reopening that region .

While I have your attention in another thread I asked this question ;


" Do you know the history of the " Stake Out Test " ? I know we had been doing it long before I even started on the job . Did Don invent it or does he just have his own version of it ? I always assumed it originated in Europe . "


You must have missed it . I was wondering if you could answer it . 

Here's the link to that discussion . 

http://www.workingdogforum.com/vBul...-trainers-vendors-end-users-19789/index3.html


----------



## Pete Stevens

It depends on what I'm doing depends on how I take a dog of the bite. Like Will said, if I'm developing a bite, I take the dog of strong. Just like a yound dog on the Schutzhund field with the sleeve. You let them win it, carry off, and hold it. Same thing with a suit, let them stay on and build up that confidence. Outing comes at a later time. Typically if I take a dog off strong aka choke them off if it is not a dog already on the street but not always. I may need to work on a grip but the dog must do a verbal out/recall if its deployed in the field. California POST guidelines say the dog must verbal out, no rebites. Rebites equals a failure for that day. But there is no minimum wait period to retest other than retest can't be on the same day as the failure. So the K9 team field can retest the next day. Will they be ready? Maybe, but then again maybe not.

IMO- All law enforcement apprehension dogs should be required to verbal out and call off with no rebites at certification. We import lots of dogs and sometimes they are dirty on the outs and call offs. We must take the time to train them to do that. One of the point that are made in favor of the using the dog as a force option is that they can be recalled prior to engaging the suspect if they comply. Some courts also have leaned towards calling off the dog once a suspect gives up, even if its by verbal submission. Now if they are fighting but yelling I give up- I think you can articulate not calling the dog back until the suspect is in custody or no longer fighting. 

One thing I often hear are handler's get all nervous when certification time comes around. But why? You should always be training at that level, not just at certifcation time. We should be at certifcation level all the time. That's a minimum guideline, not the highest level we should try to achieve. Train above certification level and meeting them won't be an issue.


----------



## Jim Nash

Pete Stevens said:


> It depends on what I'm doing depends on how I take a dog of the bite. Like Will said, if I'm developing a bite, I take the dog of strong. Just like a yound dog on the Schutzhund field with the sleeve. You let them win it, carry off, and hold it. Same thing with a suit, let them stay on and build up that confidence. Outing comes at a later time. Typically if I take a dog off strong aka choke them off if it is not a dog already on the street but not always. I may need to work on a grip but the dog must do a verbal out/recall if its deployed in the field. California POST guidelines say the dog must verbal out, no rebites. Rebites equals a failure for that day. But there is no minimum wait period to retest other than retest can't be on the same day as the failure. So the K9 team field can retest the next day. Will they be ready? Maybe, but then again maybe not.
> 
> IMO- All law enforcement apprehension dogs should be required to verbal out and call off with no rebites at certification. We import lots of dogs and sometimes they are dirty on the outs and call offs. We must take the time to train them to do that. One of the point that are made in favor of the using the dog as a force option is that they can be recalled prior to engaging the suspect if they comply. Some courts also have leaned towards calling off the dog once a suspect gives up, even if its by verbal submission. Now if they are fighting but yelling I give up- I think you can articulate not calling the dog back until the suspect is in custody or no longer fighting.
> 
> One thing I often hear are handler's get all nervous when certification time comes around. But why? You should always be training at that level, not just at certifcation time. We should be at certifcation level all the time. That's a minimum guideline, not the highest level we should try to achieve. Train above certification level and meeting them won't be an issue.


We certify once a year through the USPCA but we must pass a monthly in house test showing a verbal out and recall .


----------



## Pete Stevens

You are doing exactly what I'm talking about Jim and I glad to hear it. Most agencies do not and get pretty sloppy through out the year. We USE TO be like that, but our trainer has set the bar high. I don't worry about certifications anymore, just another training session as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Oluwatobi Odunuga

I think many dogs that out on equipment may not do the same when they are fighting with a suspect, most officers still train hard and make the dogs out but IMO the dogs aren't happy[-X. Apart from officer safety i think it gives the general public the feeling that the dog is not just an aggressive, out of control animal. If there were k9 units in my country i know that wouldn't be an issue cos criminals have less 'rights', if you are a true danger to the public then should be happy all you have is a dog bite,next time it might be a bullet.
Like others said i think in some dogs it increases their desire to bite hard. Many KNPV dogs are lifted off and the decoy still agitates them to build frustration, IPO dogs on the other hand win the sleeve. I personally think outing should be taught when the dog is old and far in training. Too many outs at an early age may reduce drive or cause conflict.


----------



## Howard Gaines III

Jim Nash said:


> With some dogs choking it off the bite will actually make it want to fight harder to stay on .


 The very reason I have never been keen on that idea; the dog has a fight at one end and a battle at the other!


----------



## Jerry Lyda

This is the conflict the dog has with the handler. This can be trained correctly and not have conflict and the dog will out.


----------



## David Frost

And --- when you fight a dog that likes to fight, well, you've got a fight on your hands. That does apply to PSD's as well. In my experience, not all deployments, even when the dog engages a suspect, put the dog in true fight. The dog releases a lot easier. When the dog has literally, at least in their pea brains, determined he is fighting for his life, control may well become a little less absolute. 

DFrost


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen

David Frost said:


> And --- when you fight a dog that likes to fight, well, you've got a fight on your hands. That does apply to PSD's as well. In my experience, not all deployments, even when the dog engages a suspect, put the dog in true fight. The dog releases a lot easier. When the dog has literally, at least in their pea brains, determined he is fighting for his life, control may well become a little less absolute.
> 
> DFrost


Thats right, David.
How many "dogpeople" know what its realy like, when your dog "in real life" has a grip on your suspect who maybe is fighting your dog and has kicked and been beaten your dog, is screaming and panicing because of the pain the dog couses. 
THEN i will see if most dogs go out on (one) command in the middle of his serious fight....:-k

And OFCOURSE the out is trained with a civil decoy, moving shouting and hitting and kicking the dog, but still "real life" is diffrent. If only you see the diffrence of the "state of mind" of the handler.....

Its easy to have an opinion if you've never been there......:roll:


----------



## Jim Nash

Selena van Leeuwen said:


> Thats right, David.
> How many "dogpeople" know what its realy like, when your dog "in real life" has a grip on your suspect who maybe is fighting your dog and has kicked and been beaten your dog, is screaming and panicing because of the pain the dog couses.
> THEN i will see if most dogs go out on (one) command in the middle of his serious fight....:-k
> 
> And OFCOURSE the out is trained with a civil decoy, moving shouting and hitting and kicking the dog, but still "real life" is diffrent. If only you see the diffrence of the "state of mind" of the handler.....
> 
> Its easy to have an opinion if you've never been there......:roll:


I've heard from some that the PSDs they handled and trained for others could do that . But then again it's always over the internet and their dogs are all long retired so they have no way of proving it .


----------



## will fernandez

You know Jim..those where the days when them there dogs, trainers and handlers were the best around. They just dont make'm like that anymore.


----------



## Lou Castle

David sent in a link to the USPCA certification. 

http://www.uspcak9.com/certification/pd1_certification_2011.pdf

It looks as if what I've been told is correct. In the USPCA certification a K−9 can fail to comply with a command to release a bite 67% of the time and can still pass! 



David Frost said:


> Certification is a basic requirement, as it should be.


Completely agree. But if the certification allows for a 67% fail rate and the K−9 can still be certified, I'd say that there is something wrong with that certification. I don't know anywhere that 33% is a passing grade, especially for something that is so critical. 



David Frost said:


> Most of the certification agencies are similar.


By similar do you mean that if the dog fails to out on a verbal command 67% of the time he can still pass the certification? 

The present California POST certification requires 100% compliance with "out command" or the dog fails the certification.


----------



## Lou Castle

Jim Nash said:


> Thanks for answering Lou's question David .


It looks as if I was correct; a dog need can refuse to comply with a verbal release command *67% of the time and can still pass. *Does anyone know if NAPWDA is the same? 

Jim would you put into service a detector dog who failed to find source 67% of the time? How about a patrol dog who only found the suspect 33% of the time? 



Jim Nash said:


> Lou you were a past Vice President of a USPCA region in California right ?


Yep.


----------



## Lou Castle

Pete Stevens said:


> California POST guidelines say the dog must verbal out, no rebites. Rebites equals a failure for that day. But there is no minimum wait period to retest other than retest can't be on the same day as the failure. So the K9 team field can retest the next day.


The guidelines at one time suggested that a reasonable period elapse before the dog is retested, but it did not specify what that meant. 



Pete Stevens said:


> IMO- All law enforcement apprehension dogs should be required to verbal out and call off with no rebites at certification.


Agree. A dog who refuses this command should fail the certification. 



Pete Stevens said:


> One thing I often hear are handler's get all nervous when certification time comes around. But why? You should always be training at that level, not just at certifcation time. We should be at certifcation level all the time. That's a minimum guideline, not the highest level we should try to achieve. Train above certification level and meeting them won't be an issue.


I wonder, how good would K−9's be if the handler didn't know when the certification was going to be? He had to train to that minimum standard and be ready every day?


----------



## Lou Castle

Jim Nash said:


> I've heard from some that the PSDs they handled and trained for others could do that . But then again it's always over the internet and their dogs are all long retired so they have no way of proving it .


You could always ask for a video! Of course that could be completely faked. You could always contact the people they trained and talk to them. Of course it's easier to just sit back and shoot off one's mouth than to actually verify.


----------



## Lou Castle

will fernandez said:


> You know Jim..those where the days when them there dogs, trainers and handlers were the best around. They just dont make'm like that anymore.


Based on what I've seen on one TV show that followed a department's K−9 unit around, I must agree. Some of the weakest work K−9 I've ever seen, not to mention the horrible tactics and handling displayed.


----------



## David Frost

Lou Castle said:


> By similar do you mean that if the dog fails to out on a verbal command 67% of the time he can still pass the certification?
> 
> The present California POST certification requires 100% compliance with "out command" or the dog fails the certification.


I mean, that most of the certification agencies have similar requirements. 

Lou, CA POST requirement only reinforces my opinion of CA. It's is fantasy world. I don't believe every PSD working in California has passed the POST certification of 100%. No way, no how. I've watched a few dogs, I've even seen a few from CA. 

DFrost


----------



## Jim Nash

Lou Castle said:


> You could always ask for a video! Of course that could be completely faked. You could always contact the people they trained and talk to them. Of course it's easier to just sit back and shoot off one's mouth than to actually verify.


Verify what ?! LOL . Lou , you think I haven't talked to some K9 handlers from the LA area about you ? LMAO .


----------



## David Frost

Jim Nash said:


> I've heard from some that the PSDs they handled and trained for others could do that . But then again it's always over the internet and their dogs are all long retired so they have no way of proving it .



Ok, ok, I had a dog that would tell me when it should be released. I didn't have to make the call. If the bad guy said, I give up, the dog would come back to me. I never had to give it any commands. Of course that dog is retired now and there weren't any videos back then. 

DFrost


----------



## Jim Nash

Lou Castle said:


> Based on what I've seen on one TV show that followed a department's K−9 unit around, I must agree. Some of the weakest work K−9 I've ever seen, not to mention the horrible tactics and handling displayed.


Coming from a 5 year K9 handler in a low crime city with a bite average total between its 1-4 K9s of a whopping 1 bite a year and a guy who has made his living blowing up his BS accomplishments over the internet for years that don't mean much . 

You're a wanna be Lou with no proof of what your K9s actually could do , just your drivel over the internet . Anyone who has actually worked a dog and seen some action knows you are full of it .


----------



## David Frost

Lou Castle said:


> Based on what I've seen on one TV show that followed a department's K−9 unit around, I must agree. Some of the weakest work K−9 I've ever seen, not to mention the horrible tactics and handling displayed.


Lou, I have to tell ya. That statement disappoints me. I would think, someone that has been in the "heat of battle" would do better than Monday quarterback actual deployments. Constructive criticism, while not always accepted, is one thing, but a general slam of a program, based on a couple of minutes of film, is disrespectful at best. 

DFrost


----------



## Lou Castle

David Frost said:


> I mean, that most of the certification agencies have similar requirements.


In most of the certifying agencies the K−9 can fail to out 67% of the time and can still pass? 



David Frost said:


> I don't believe every PSD working in California has passed the POST certification of 100%. No way, no how. I've watched a few dogs, I've even seen a few from CA.


How many CA POST certifications have you seen being run David? In any case, there is no requirement to take or pass a certification in CA, so you're right, not every dog in CA has passed the POST cert. How a dog performs during a certification and how a dog works on the street are two very different things. I'm told that there's at least one agency that purposefully "dirties up" their dogs after passing their annual certification. There are probably more. Of course there are political favors done and "good ol' boy networks" in EVERY certification process. Some dogs that should not pass, but somehow, they do.


----------



## Lou Castle

Jim Nash said:


> Verify what ?! LOL .


Have you already forgotten your statement? 



Jim Nash said:


> Lou , you think I haven't talked to some K9 handlers from the LA area about you ? LMAO .


Obviously none that knew of my work first hand. And we don't need to talk to anyone about your work Jim. It's been displayed on TV. Some of the worst work I've EVER seen. Need we discuss the dog that failed, again? ROFL.


----------



## Lou Castle

Jim Nash said:


> Coming from a 5 year K9 handler in a low crime city


How accurate. Our crime rate was so low because of the way that the police officers there worked. We were surrounded on three sides by LA and the fourth by Inglewood, both high crime areas. Yet there was no wall around Culver City that kept out the crooks. What other reason could there be that our crime rate was, at one time 47% less than that of LA? 

Oh yeah, conveniently you forgot the nearly 20 years spent as a trainer, on top of the 5+ years spent as a handler. 



Jim Nash said:


> with a bite average total between its 1-4 K9s of a whopping 1 bite a year


I have no idea where you got this mis−information from, but it's a lie. NOW they may have that kind of bite rate, but it wasn't the case when I was working or doing the training. 



Jim Nash said:


> and a guy who has made his living blowing up his BS accomplishments over the internet for years that don't mean much .


No Jim. I made my living as a police officer for about 30 years. Nowadays I have a few private clients and have done 50 seminars. How many seminars have you done Jim? 



Jim Nash said:


> You're a wanna be Lou with no proof of what your K9s actually could do


Just dozens of references from people who were there and saw it for themselves. 



Jim Nash said:


> Anyone who has actually worked a dog and seen some action knows you are full of it .


Still too lazy to make a phone call I see. ROFLMFAO


----------



## Lou Castle

David Frost said:


> Lou, I have to tell ya. That statement disappoints me.


It disappointed me to have to make it David. 



David Frost said:


> I would think, someone that has been in the "heat of battle" would do better than Monday quarterback actual deployments.


If we don't do this, errors just get repeated. EVEN JIM has told us that after the show aired that they remediated the handlers. 



David Frost said:


> Constructive criticism, while not always accepted, is one thing, but a general slam of a program, based on a couple of minutes of film, is disrespectful at best.


It was FAR MORE than a _"couple of minutes of film"_ David. It went on for hours and hours. I don't recall EVER seeing good tactics or good handling. Perhaps there was some but there was so much bad work shown that it over-rides it. I use that show as examples of WHAT NOT TO DO, in some of my classes. EVEN JIM admits this in posts here. He tells us that the handlers were not taught that way but I'll have to say that since virtually everyone of them DOES virtually the same thing over and over, that's what they were taught initially. 

As far as respect, I always start out respectfully. Sometimes as now, when disrespect is aimed my way, it gets returned.


----------



## Jim Nash

Here we go with the multiple post war and now you're responsible for your city's low crimerate (I know you didn't actually say that but surely implied it,LOL) . 

You have always aligned yourself with LA in order to lead people to believe you were the experianced K9 handler you always wished to be . That's why your tag line says LA instead of Culver City and stating you border LA is another lame attempt . There are plenty of small cities with low crimerates that border larger cities with high crimerates . Many times the reason is there is nothing in that city that would benefit or attrack criminals . 

I don't need to varify anything . My problem is with your BS , not the poor shmuck you want me to call about you . Unless they have a dog you trained I'm not interested . 

Cut the internet BS and show me the work Lou . I've personally spoken to people that are willing to video your work and you refuse to do it . 

It's no suprise you are so critical of my department's work , I've been calling you out on your exaggerated BS for years . Your ego and need to be the internet expert drives you to try and discredit me in order to continue with the Wizard of Oz thing you got going . 

I've done several seminars . Not nearly as many as you but then again I only do them when asked and have turned down more then I have done because training for my department , my dog and other obligations left me little time for it . I also don't advertise my services like you and have only done it for law enforcement and not the pet and SAR market which seems to be your biggest market by far . 

5 years of not much and 30 years of training for not much equals not much . LMAO .


----------



## Lou Castle

Jim Nash said:


> Here we go with the multiple post war


Don't like it, don't start it. I’m perfectly happy to let people think that you have a clue until you start your usual BS with me. 



Jim Nash said:


> and now you're responsible for your city's low crimerate (I know you didn't actually say that but surely implied it,LOL) .


Jim, you're WRONG AGAIN! I was crystal clear when I wrote _"Our crime rate was so low because of the way that *the police officers there worked. * "_ You may have inferred it, but I did not imply it. To think that I'd take credit for what over 125 officers did is just stupid. BTW I noticed, as I'm sure have others, that you didn't answer my very simple question! LOL



Jim Nash said:


> You have always aligned yourself with LA in order to lead people to believe you were the experianced K9 handler you always wished to be That's why your tag line says LA instead of Culver City.


Grasping at straws again. LOL. My signature line says Los Angeles because I live in LA. If I lived in Phoenix, that's what it would say. 

If what you say had the slightest bit of truth in it, my website would NOT say this, _"I'm a retired Sergeant who worked for two police agencies in the Los Angeles *area *of California for nearly 30 years. I spent one year as a Reserve Police Officer and three years as a full-time Police Officer at *Azusa PD, *and the remainder of my time at *the Culver City PD *in the City of Culver City."_ 



Jim Nash said:


> and stating you border LA is another lame attempt . There are plenty of small cities with low crimerates that border larger cities with high crimerates . Many times the reason is there is nothing in that city that would benefit or attrack criminals .


I love how you pretend to know ANYTHING about Culver City. But it just AGAIN shows your ignorance. Physically small, about 5 square miles, with over 10,000 business licenses and 44,000 nighttime population. The daytime policing population was 250,000. The world headquarters for Sony Pictures is in CC as are many other major movie and recording studios. Hardly a bedroom community with nothing _"that would benefit or attract criminals."_ But keep trying. You look worse with every post and every assumption. 

Culver City is about 15 minutes north of LAX. Unlike some parts of the US, where there's lots of open space between smaller cities, here, cities butt up against one another so that you can't tell what city you're in unless you happen to see the "city limit" signs. One side of the street looks the same as the other. Drive for an hour from LAX in any direction, (except west – you'll be in the Pacific) and it's one continuous "city." 



Jim Nash said:


> I don't need to varify anything .


Of course not. It's much better for your argument if you don't. You can keep saying the same stupid and untrue things over and over. ROFL.



Jim Nash said:


> My problem is with your BS , not the poor shmuck you want me to call about you .


Interesting how any handler who I trained or whose dog I worked with is a _"poor schmuck."_ We've seen at least one of your victims whose dog should never have been put into service and as a result of you doing so, he sustained an injury. He's lucky the crook was more interested in fleeing than fighting or it might have gone far worse. Talk about "poor schmucks." 



Jim Nash said:


> Unless they have a dog you trained I'm not interested .


I've offered to give you the contact information of people who have dogs that I've trained. You've never taken me up on it. Probably because even you, with your lack of respect and honor, would not be able to continue this bullsh!t after you'd heard the truth. 



Jim Nash said:


> Cut the internet BS and show me the work Lou . I've personally spoken to people that are willing to video your work and you refuse to do it .


That's correct. I don't think it's smart to show video of police dogs. We've seen how much it's done for you! 



Jim Nash said:


> It's no suprise you are so critical of my department's work


Your work is a good example of something that I say repeatedly. _ No one is ever completely worthless, * they can always serve as a bad example! * _ 



Jim Nash said:


> I've been calling you out on your exaggerated BS for years .


For years? That's how long you've been wrong and ignorant of my work. 



Jim Nash said:


> Your ego and need to be the internet expert drives you to try and discredit me in order to continue with the Wizard of Oz thing you got going .


Jim your work speaks for itself. I just point out the flaws. And I’m kept busy doing so. As far as me being an expert, I've never called myself one. When I'm introduced at seminars that way, I always say that I'm no expert, that I just know a few things. 



Jim Nash said:


> I've done several seminars . Not nearly as many as you but then again *I only do them when asked *


Me too. ALL of my seminars been for someone who "asked." 



Jim Nash said:


> and have turned down more then I have done because training for my department , my dog and other obligations left me little time for it .


_"Several"_ (your word) is defined as "more than two or three but not many." I'll give you five (probably two more than you've really done) and you've "turned down more" than that due to your "other obligations." That brings us to the huge number of TEN that you've been asked to do. That's FANTASTIC! It's *20% *of what I've been asked to do. And you're the BIG TIME dog trainer for the BIG CITY, who's been on TV! I'm a small time guy who knows a little bit. Of course it's very possible that your TV time, where people can actually see what you've done, has hurt you there. Of the people who have asked me back for annual seminars, people who have actually seen my work (unlike you who has not) there have been FIFTEEN repeats. That's STILL MORE seminars than you've done. The term "Wannabe" comes to mind. 



Jim Nash said:


> I also don't advertise my services like you


Ya mean the one or two sentences on my website that say that I do seminars and private lessons? Yeah that's some heavy advertising there. ROFL. 



Jim Nash said:


> and have only done it for law enforcement and not the pet and SAR market which seems to be your biggest market by far .


The FACT is, for those who care, obviously you're not one of them, are that of my 50 seminars, LE was involved in 32 of them. STILL MORE seminars than you've done and *3X *what you've been asked to do. 



Jim Nash said:


> 5 years of not much and 30 years of training for not much equals not much . LMAO .


It may not be much, but it's FAR better than the horrible work of yours that's been shown on TV. The saying is that "No training is better than BAD training." And THAT work was probably with your handlers showing us their best because they knew that they were on camera! I can't even imagine how bad the work was when the cameras were off or not around. Everyone knows that after a short time the TV crews get to be friends with the people they're working with (in this case the handlers) and want to show them in the best light. Add to that, the editing that removes the bad work to make for good TV and you're left with .............. WHAT? More bad work!


----------



## David Frost

Lou Castle said:


> It disappointed me to have to make it David.
> 
> 
> 
> If we don't do this, errors just get repeated. EVEN JIM has told us that after the show aired that they remediated the handlers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as respect, I always start out respectfully. Sometimes as now, when disrespect is aimed my way, it gets returned.


I wish I could believe it disappointed you to say it, like you did. 

Jim did acknowledge some training, even some tactical errors. Unlike you however, I failed to see that everything displayed was a complete disaster. I guess I'm just not experienced enough to see the all the nuances and bad handling. 

Constructive criticism doesn't begin by trashing an entire program. At least not the way I teach. 

DFrost


----------



## Jim Nash

Lou Castle said:


> Don't like it, don't start it. I’m perfectly happy to let people think that you have a clue until you start your usual BS with me.
> 
> 
> 
> Jim, you're WRONG AGAIN! I was crystal clear when I wrote _"Our crime rate was so low because of the way that *the police officers there worked. * "_ You may have inferred it, but I did not imply it. To think that I'd take credit for what over 125 officers did is just stupid. BTW I noticed, as I'm sure have others, that you didn't answer my very simple question! LOL
> 
> 
> 
> Grasping at straws again. LOL. My signature line says Los Angeles because I live in LA. If I lived in Phoenix, that's what it would say.
> 
> If what you say had the slightest bit of truth in it, my website would NOT say this, _"I'm a retired Sergeant who worked for two police agencies in the Los Angeles *area *of California for nearly 30 years. I spent one year as a Reserve Police Officer and three years as a full-time Police Officer at *Azusa PD, *and the remainder of my time at *the Culver City PD *in the City of Culver City."_
> 
> 
> 
> I love how you pretend to know ANYTHING about Culver City. But it just AGAIN shows your ignorance. Physically small, about 5 square miles, with over 10,000 business licenses and 44,000 nighttime population. The daytime policing population was 250,000. The world headquarters for Sony Pictures is in CC as are many other major movie and recording studios. Hardly a bedroom community with nothing _"that would benefit or attract criminals."_ But keep trying. You look worse with every post and every assumption.
> 
> Culver City is about 15 minutes north of LAX. Unlike some parts of the US, where there's lots of open space between smaller cities, here, cities butt up against one another so that you can't tell what city you're in unless you happen to see the "city limit" signs. One side of the street looks the same as the other. Drive for an hour from LAX in any direction, (except west – you'll be in the Pacific) and it's one continuous "city."
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not. It's much better for your argument if you don't. You can keep saying the same stupid and untrue things over and over. ROFL.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting how any handler who I trained or whose dog I worked with is a _"poor schmuck."_ We've seen at least one of your victims whose dog should never have been put into service and as a result of you doing so, he sustained an injury. He's lucky the crook was more interested in fleeing than fighting or it might have gone far worse. Talk about "poor schmucks."
> 
> 
> 
> I've offered to give you the contact information of people who have dogs that I've trained. You've never taken me up on it. Probably because even you, with your lack of respect and honor, would not be able to continue this bullsh!t after you'd heard the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> That's correct. I don't think it's smart to show video of police dogs. We've seen how much it's done for you!
> 
> 
> 
> Your work is a good example of something that I say repeatedly. _ No one is ever completely worthless, * they can always serve as a bad example! * _
> 
> 
> 
> For years? That's how long you've been wrong and ignorant of my work.
> 
> 
> 
> Jim your work speaks for itself. I just point out the flaws. And I’m kept busy doing so. As far as me being an expert, I've never called myself one. When I'm introduced at seminars that way, I always say that I'm no expert, that I just know a few things.
> 
> 
> 
> Me too. ALL of my seminars been for someone who "asked."
> 
> 
> 
> _"Several"_ (your word) is defined as "more than two or three but not many." I'll give you five (probably two more than you've really done) and you've "turned down more" than that due to your "other obligations." That brings us to the huge number of TEN that you've been asked to do. That's FANTASTIC! It's *20% *of what I've been asked to do. And you're the BIG TIME dog trainer for the BIG CITY, who's been on TV! I'm a small time guy who knows a little bit. Of course it's very possible that your TV time, where people can actually see what you've done, has hurt you there. Of the people who have asked me back for annual seminars, people who have actually seen my work (unlike you who has not) there have been FIFTEEN repeats. That's STILL MORE seminars than you've done. The term "Wannabe" comes to mind.
> 
> 
> 
> Ya mean the one or two sentences on my website that say that I do seminars and private lessons? Yeah that's some heavy advertising there. ROFL.
> 
> 
> 
> The FACT is, for those who care, obviously you're not one of them, are that of my 50 seminars, LE was involved in 32 of them. STILL MORE seminars than you've done and *3X *what you've been asked to do.
> 
> 
> 
> It may not be much, but it's FAR better than the horrible work of yours that's been shown on TV. The saying is that "No training is better than BAD training." And THAT work was probably with your handlers showing us their best because they knew that they were on camera! I can't even imagine how bad the work was when the cameras were off or not around. Everyone knows that after a short time the TV crews get to be friends with the people they're working with (in this case the handlers) and want to show them in the best light. Add to that, the editing that removes the bad work to make for good TV and you're left with .............. WHAT? More bad work!


Lou , I'll answer your question when you answer the one I've asked twice already . 

Yeah , everybody puts where they live for there tag line . I know that's your excuse though .

Type all you want about Culver City , all anyone has to do is look at Culver City's crime stats to know it has a low crimerate . You get alot of people coming into it for work or business big deal . If so many of those people that are coming in there were committing crime your crimerate would reflect that . 

He's a poor schmuck because you keep unvolving them in your BS and exaggerations . 

Yep my stuff is on TV for many to see . Far more like the work they saw then didn't . You at least can see my work and I don't hide behind BS I type on the internet . People can watch it and judge for themselves . 

Once again I admit to your superiority in the number of seminars you put on . Obviously you have to be asked to put one on and a website advertising yourself sure helps . Seems you think 14 years of actually working a street dog/s on the street and training 12 week patrol dog schools with 12-16 dogs yearly doesn't add up to all your seminars , consisting mainly of pet and SAR folks . 

Face it Lou you have very little hands on experiance actually working a dog . 5 years in a low crime city doesn't give you all that much experiance that you try to lead people to believe you have . Oh yeah I won't forget you have 20 years of training experiance too . LOL .


----------



## kevin holford

What just happened? LOL


----------



## Thomas Barriano

kevin holford said:


> What just happened? LOL



An Internet Expert with an Inflated Ego and an exaggerated resume got called out by someone that actually walks the walk not just talks the talk. A little more of it and I might actually
participate in the WDF again 
Otherwise, the weather's nice and I've got actual dogs to train.


----------



## Lou Castle

Jim Nash said:


> Lou , I'll answer your question when you answer the one I've asked twice already .


ROFL Jim I've asked you DOZENS of questions that you've not answered in our exchanges. When you start answering my questions rather than running and hiding from them as you've done repeatedly, I'll think about answering this one of yours. 



Jim Nash said:


> Yeah , everybody puts where they live for there tag line . I know that's your excuse though .


Not everyone. Some put it in their profile. Not an excuse as I don't need an excuse. I've done it on many forums since I've been on the Net. Sorry if you don't like it. TFB. 



Jim Nash said:


> Type all you want about Culver City , all anyone has to do is look at Culver City's crime stats to know it has a low crimerate .


Yes, I know. That's what I've said a couple of times now. It has to do with crooks avoiding the place because they didn't want to go to jail. What you won't admit, perhaps because you fail to realize, perhaps because it's against your interest in this discussion, is that just across the street where it looks exactly the same as it does in CC, the crime rate is much higher. Nothing keeps those crooks from crossing the street except the fear of going to jail. 



Jim Nash said:


> You get alot of people coming into it for work or business big deal . If so many of those people that are coming in there were committing crime your crimerate would reflect that .


I'm getting the feeling that you think that cities with lower crime rates don't have police K−9's that are as good as those of cities with higher crime rates. Is this where you're going? Please tell me that you're not that stupid. 



Jim Nash said:


> He's a poor schmuck because you keep unvolving them in your BS and exaggerations .


Unlike the "poor schmuck" that you got hurt due to your poor selection and then poor training on top of it. we know that this handler (is his name Ernie or Mike – in our previous discussion you couldn't seem to get that straight) "volunteered" to work this dog that he knew was weak, but I have little doubt that he really didn't have a choice. More than likely it was either "work this dog or get out of the unit." Even if he wasn't told this, that was probably the situation. 

The people that I'd refer you to have volunteered to tell the truth about me. They are handlers that I've trained, handlers whose problems that I've solved, or people who have seen my work. 



Jim Nash said:


> Yep my stuff is on TV for many to see .


_"... serving as the bad example."_ It's a dirty job, but you're so good at it! ROFL. 



Jim Nash said:


> People can watch it and judge for themselves .


Lots of people have seen my work and have "judged it for themselves." FIFTY seminars translates to quite a few people. I can post testimonials, one after the other. I can give references, one after the other. As I've said, of those who have previously put on my seminars, 14 of them have invited me back to do another one. And I've got two more like that coming up. 



Jim Nash said:


> Once again I admit to your superiority in the number of seminars you put on .


Admitting to the obvious is really not much of an "admission." 



Jim Nash said:


> Obviously you have to be asked to put one on


Not really. I could put them on myself. 



Jim Nash said:


> and a website advertising yourself sure helps .


There's one page that talks about past and upcoming seminars. Other than that there are well over 50,000 words about dog training and about 60 words mentioning that I do seminars. As I said, "Yeah that's some heavy advertising there." Mostly the seminars come from word of mouth, from people who have seen the work and recommend me to people who put on seminars. 



Jim Nash said:


> Seems you think 14 years of actually working a street dog/s on the street and training 12 week patrol dog schools with 12-16 dogs yearly doesn't add up to all your seminars


I've never spoken to your work experience Jim. I've only brought up my seminars when you try to discredit me. While I only worked one K−9 for about 5 years (that was because my department's policy had all assignments rotating) I was the in−house trainer for the next 15 years or so, until I was injured. But you conveniently always seem to forget that last little detail. My seminars are ON TOP of that experience, which it looks like is LONGER than yours. Of course there's that old saying about having one year of experience repeated 14 (or 20) times. *Time spent is really not that important. It's the quality of the work. *We've seen yours. I'm happy to direct you to people who have seen mine, but you'd rather play this stupid game. 



Jim Nash said:


> consisting mainly of pet and SAR folks .


I'd like to call this another error. Rather than call it a lie, (although you were corrected just a post or two back) let's just say that your math skills are sorely lacking. As I wrote, _"The FACT is, for those who care, obviously you're not one of them, are that of my 50 seminars, LE was involved in 32 of them." _ I'll give you a hand here since fractions (or percentages) do not seem to be your strength. Thirty-two is *64% * of 50. That means that LE was 64% of my seminars. Not, as you've said, _"consisting *mainly *of pet and SAR folks."_ 



Jim Nash said:


> Face it Lou you have very little hands on experiance actually working a dog .


You're right. But we're talking about *training *a dog, not *working *a dog. We've seen the results of your training. It's HORRIBLE. 



Jim Nash said:


> Oh yeah I won't forget you have 20 years of training experiance too . LOL .


I think this is the first time that you've included it.


----------



## Lou Castle

kevin holford said:


> What just happened? LOL


I asked Jim a simple question (not even about his work) and because he's so insecure he responded with the usual personal attacks. Rather than keep the high ground as I usually do, I decided to give it back to him.


----------



## Lou Castle

Thomas Barriano said:


> An Internet Expert with an Inflated Ego and an exaggerated resume


Nothing inflated or exaggerated. All easily checked out by any doubters. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> got called out by someone that actually walks the walk not just talks the talk.


Yeah, we've seen the quality of the work of the guy who "walks the walk." 



Thomas Barriano said:


> A little more of it and I might actually participate in the WDF again


So much for your word.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Lou Castle;
SNIP
So much for your word.[/QUOTE said:


> ??????????????????????????????????????


----------



## Gerry Grimwood

Lou Castle said:


> Yeah, we've seen the quality of the work of the guy who "walks the walk."


I haven't looked at your website but, have you shown something here that would represent to people what you're about and how you are able to criticize this person ?


----------



## David Frost

The topic is; Choke the dog to release the suit. Now we are back on track.

DFrost


----------



## Pete Stevens

Damn...........my eyes hurt. There are shitty dogs eveywhere, California included. But there are some great dogs here too, just like everywhere else...and I'm pretty they have all been choked off the suit at one time or another. That's what the thread was about right?


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen

David Frost said:


> The topic is; Choke the dog to release the suit. Now we are back on track.
> 
> DFrost


Thanks David.;-)

Like I stated earlier, ofcourse I trainded my handlers "the out" in every situation, but I also gave them the tool of an "emergency break". Amung a lot of other choises, to choke the dog of can also be one.
And then its good to practice/train it the right way....;-)

Dick


----------



## Oluwatobi Odunuga

Selena van Leeuwen said:


> Thanks David.;-)
> 
> Like I stated earlier, ofcourse I trainded my handlers "the out" in every situation, but I also gave them the tool of an "emergency break". Amung a lot of other choises, to choke the dog of can also be one.
> And then its good to practice/train it the right way....;-)
> 
> Dick


 
I think that's fair, Apart fromofficer safety i think for practicality the choke should be taught to k9 officers,outing on the USPCA lush green field may not equal outing on the street.


----------



## Jim Nash

David Frost said:


> The topic is; Choke the dog to release the suit. Now we are back on track.
> 
> DFrost


Oh you had to go and put this back on topic . 

As for Lou's question about the USPCA cert . . I don't agree with them allowing for those physical removals . But with that said I haven't seen K9s in our USPCA Regions 12 and 18 pass a cert where they had to physically remove(choke) the dog off 2 times . I have seen a few pass having to do it once but I can only think of 2 or 3 times I've ever seen that in my 14 years of certifying through them and most of those failed also . It's not a cert. where you are going to see dogs being choked off the bite left and right . 

There are quite a few people from Minnesota here , I invite them to go see our upcoming certifications this summer . I will be suprised if you see more then 1 dog being choked off out of the 70-90 dogs that participate in both Regions . 

Region 18's cert. will be held in Woodbury , June 12-14th . Bitework will be on the 14th usually between 8am and 2pm . It's free and open to the public . You can call the Woodbury PD for the field locations . They have used Woodbury High School as one in the past . 

Region 12's cert. will be held July 17-19th in Minneapolis . The 19th will be bitework day and the times are usually between 8am and 2pm . I would call the Minneapolis K9 unit for the field locations . Once again these are all free and open to the public . You will be seeing dogs outing all day long at both certs . If I'm wrong feel free to call me on it in this forum . 

I will respond to one of his comments that is off topic however , since he is trying to twist things and make it seem like I'm criticizing *others* and that is this statement/question by Lou :

" I'm getting the feeling that you think that cities with lower crime rates don't have police K−9's that are as good as those of cities with higher crime rates. Is this where you're going? Please tell me that you're not that stupid. " 


No I do not think K9s from cities with low crimerates aren't as good as K9's from higher crimerates . 

My criticism is directed at you Lou . Because for years I have listened to how well the K9's you trained performed , your absolutes and black and white thinking about how K9's and K9 handlers should perform in every situation , the 3000 dogs you have trained and how you've never had a failure while training with an e-collar . Amongst many other things that were leading me to believe you were a guy talking from very little real experiance on the street as a K9 Handler/trainer and someone skilled by his education in journalism on how to make clever implications and downright huge exaggerations .

I then did some checking and low and behold your city's crimerate and your 5 1/2 years as a K9 handler doesn't hold up to providing you with the experiance on the street as a K9 handler that you try and lead people to believe . 

Once again I think Police K9s from lower crimerates can have just as good a dog or handler as anyone else . That includes the K9 handlers and trainers(not you Lou) from Culver City . They may indeed be good handlers with good dogs . They are not the ones coming on internet forum after internet forum with exaggerated claims and clever implications about how much experiance they have , how good their dogs were or how successful a trainer they are . You Lou are the one doing that not anyone else YOU . My comments were directed at you and you alone .


----------



## Jim Nash

Oluwatobi Odunuga said:


> I think that's fair, Apart fromofficer safety i think for practicality the choke should be taught to k9 officers,outing on the USPCA lush green field may not equal outing on the street.


I agree .


----------



## Lou Castle

Jim Nash said:


> As for Lou's question about the USPCA cert . . I don't agree with them allowing for those physical removals . But with that said I haven't seen K9s in our USPCA Regions 12 and 18 pass a cert where they had to physically remove(choke) the dog off 2 times . I have seen a few pass having to do it once but I can only think of 2 or 3 times I've ever seen that in my 14 years of certifying through them and most of those failed also . It's not a cert. where you are going to see dogs being choked off the bite left and right .


If the rules allow for it then there are people who are going to do it. The fact that you haven't seen it yourself speaks only to your lack of experience, not the fact that it does not happen. I don't think that a certification that allows for even a single failure of this, it's a vital skill, and still allows for a dog to be certified, is worth a darn. 

Text that follows in the quotation box has nothing to do with the topic, it's in response to more BS and personal attacks from Jim that I can't allow to stand. Back at the bottom I get back on topic. If you're not interested in the drama, skip down. My comments are in blue and red. 



Jim Nash said:


> No I do not think K9s from cities with low crimerates aren't as good as K9's from higher crimerates . My criticism is directed at you Lou .
> And mine is directed only at you.
> 
> 
> Because for years I have listened to how well the K9's you trained performed , your absolutes and black and white thinking about how K9's and K9 handlers should perform in every situation , the 3000 dogs you have trained and how you've never had a failure while training with an e-collar . Amongst many other things that were leading me to believe you were a guy talking from very little real experiance on the street as a K9 Handler/trainer and someone skilled by his education in journalism on how to make clever implications and downright huge exaggerations .
> It's good to know that you think that my comments come only from my experience. If everyone worked that way, the planet would be in a world of hurt. It does not. Unlike some, I can learn from the experience of others, I did. Not taking any credit for having the experience myself, but then, I don't need to.
> 
> 
> I then did some checking and low and behold your city's crimerate and your 5 1/2 years as a K9 handler doesn't hold up to providing you with the experiance on the street as a K9 handler that you try and lead people to believe .
> You didn't have to do any checking as to our crime rates. You could have asked. I'm PROUD of the fact that our crime rate was far lower than that of surrounding areas. And AGAIN you conveniently omit the fact of my 20 years as the department's trainer. LOL
> 
> 
> Once again I think Police K9s from lower crimerates can have just as good a dog or handler as anyone else . That includes the K9 handlers and trainers(not you Lou) from Culver City .
> There were no other trainers in CC for the first twenty or so years that we had K−9's, until I was knocked out of it by an injury. LOL. If you think that our dogs were _"just as good ... as anyone else's"_ it was because of my training and the dedication of the other handlers.
> 
> 
> They may indeed be good handlers with good dogs .
> They were excellent handler with excellent dogs! Easily the equal of the dogs produced by LAPD at that time and much more controlled and more focused than the K−9's of other, smaller agencies in the area. We trained with other agencies much of the time. I wanted the handlers to see how their dogs compared to those of other agencies around us. There was little comparison, either in control or in searching abilities.  Just to swerve for a moment back to the topic, we were the ONLY agency (with the exception of the other three agencies in our training cell) to consistently call off our dogs with verbal commands during these group trainings. EVERY other agency "took their dogs off strong."
> 
> 
> They are not the ones coming on internet forum after internet forum with exaggerated claims
> No claims have been exaggerated, no matter how many times you say it.
> 
> 
> about how much experiance they have , how good their dogs were or how successful a trainer they are . You Lou are the one doing that not anyone else YOU . My comments were directed at you and you alone .
> I find it fascinating that you make these comments NEVER having seen one of my dogs or any that I've worked with. This is just talking you, out your azzhole, based on your personal dislike for me because I've shown your true colors repeatedly. OTOH YOUR WORK is available for anyone to see and it's horrible. I'd be embarrassed to have work like that shown to anyone, much less on national TV.



And now back to the topic. 

I've seen people do the choke off several ways, some more effective than others. Perhaps it would be helpful if people who used this described in detail how they do it. 

Some simply lift the dog's front legs off the ground by grabbing his collar and holding him there until he releases. Some grab the collar and pull upwards AND backwards away from the bite. I think that for some dogs this is akin to using back pressure to set the bite and may actually hinder the release. Some grab the collar and apply pressure towards the bite. Some add in some upward pressure too. I've done all of these and have gotten various reactions from various dogs. 

Anyone else use these methods? Anyone doing something else?


----------



## Joby Becker

Pete Stevens said:


> Damn...........my eyes hurt.


I had a small seizure I think...


----------



## Pete Stevens

As a handler who has verbally called off and verbally outed the dog on actual street deployments, it can be done. Another little trick is to drive the dogs mouth into the bite instead of pulling on the dog like I see most handlers do. Pushing their head into the bite makes their mouth open wider and come off cleaner. Pretty much a quick push forward and a quick pull back before the dog resets.


----------



## Jim Nash

Sorry that you once again feel victimized . I hate having that effect on you .


----------



## Jim Nash

Pete Stevens said:


> As a handler who has verbally called off and verbally outed the dog on actual street deployments, it can be done. Another little trick is to drive the dogs mouth into the bite instead of pulling on the dog like I see most handlers do. Pushing their head into the bite makes their mouth open wider and come off cleaner. Pretty much a quick push forward and a quick pull back before the dog resets.


That's how we teach it too . Pull up while pushing in .


----------



## Lou Castle

Jim Nash said:


> As always I'm happy to let the forum members decide for themselves.


----------



## Jim Nash

Lou Castle said:


> I'm willing to let others judge for themselves too and at least they have something to see and judge .


----------



## Joby Becker

The guys I train with are under strict orders not to out the dog off of the suit for now...from their trainer...for the time being...

I was actually glad to here it, the dogs are fairly new to suit work, and not the strongest dogs. 

And these guys out way to often in training with no reward, no choke offs until recently, just outed and recalled mostly after real short fighting... and and they do too many calloffs, I think...

it was really starting to show in training at least...

That is just my take, I am not a police dog trainer....


----------



## Howard Knauf

I would suggest that they may be doing too much bite work. Once a dog has gained some experience, scenario training should strictly be done unless there's a specific problem that needs to be fixed that requires an inordinate amount of bite work.

For almost all the dogs the bite is a reward. No need to constantly foo foo over them for releasing. The out is an obedience command. Most handlers only reward the dog at the end of an OB session, not every move they make in OB. When first training OB it's OK to reward alot. It makes things easier.


----------



## will fernandez

Joby Becker said:


> The guys I train with are under strict orders not to out the dog off of the suit for now...from their trainer...for the time being...
> 
> I was actually glad to here it, the dogs are fairly new to suit work, and not the strongest dogs.
> 
> And these guys out way to often in training with no reward, no choke offs until recently, just outed and recalled mostly after real short fighting... and and they do too many calloffs, I think...
> 
> it was really starting to show in training at least...
> 
> That is just my take, I am not a police dog trainer....


One of the problems I often see with new dogs and handlers is the rush to out the dog. I try to reinforce the idea of letting the dog fight and then tell the decoy to stop fighting. Then the handler should come up to the dog, calm and reassure the dog. When the dog is now still biting but calm then out the dog. If you want to remove the dog without the out then use the breakstick, it will remove the dog much more efficiently and increase the desire for the bite.


----------



## Lou Castle

Joby Becker said:


> The guys I train with are under strict orders not to out the dog off of the suit for now...from their trainer...for the time being...
> I was actually glad to here it, the dogs are fairly new to suit work, and not the strongest dogs.
> And these guys out way to often in training with no reward, no choke offs until recently, just outed and recalled mostly after real short fighting... and and they do too many calloffs, I think...
> it was really starting to show in training at least...
> That is just my take, I am not a police dog trainer....


If compulsive methods are used to get the out, they can cause problems of weakening the bite, especially for dogs that already have problems there. The response of some to this is to simply increase the level of compulsion. With some dogs you can run off the pain scale and still not get the release. Using too much compulsion with weak dogs is just about guaranteed to weaken the bite. But the bites of even strong dogs can be hurt by too much compulsion. 

As someone mentioned earlier, this can lead to conflict between the dog and handler. Conflict leads to confusion and confusion leads to unreliability. Many handlers find themselves walking a teeter totter where one end is control and the other end is quality of the bite. When the bite is good, the out, is weak and conversely when the out is good, the bite weakens. If you stay away from those compulsive methods you don't have these issues.


----------



## Lou Castle

Let myself get caught up earlier and now have had some time to really think about this topic rather than respond to stupidity. 

There are several things going on here that are all being called by the same or similar names. 

1. There's a training technique that consists of taking the dog's collar in-hand, giving a bite command but at the same time lifting and pressing him into the bite. This has the effect of getting the dog off the bite but keeping his interest in the bite very high. It's good for a dog that may be handler sensitive. It's also good for dogs that may be in conflict with the handler. I don't think it's a good application for the street. It was meant for the training field to help build up a dog. 
2.	There's a technique used in the field where the dog's collar is grasped by the handler and a verbal out is given and as soon as he complies, he is restrained by the handler. This prevents the dog from biting an officer who is trying to help take the suspect into custody and it keeps the dog from rebiting a suspect who may be flailing around. 

Some people have complete systems of giving orders they use to let the officers know that they're about to remove the dog and when he's actually released. 

3.	Some agencies have an "emergency take off" where a bad bite occurs or where a suspect has been bitten and there's blood spurting from a wound, indicating an arterial wound and a potential life threatening emergency that requires that the dog be removed ASAP. There the verbal command is given and the dog is quickly dragged away as soon as he releases. 

As above, some agencies have developed communication systems to let the backup officers know what's going on. 

4.	There's a bastardization of some of these that is used by some people who don't have a verbal release where they "choke" the dog off the bite (as in #1 above) with or without a command. Sometimes people doing this pretend that it's for some "tactical reason." Usually it's because their training is wanting. Their trainers are unable to get or maintain a verbal out. It can be seen on many TV shows that feature police K−9's. 

5.	Some people are doing other things such as using a dog's collar to choke him into unconsciousness. Some are using what used to be called a "bar arm control" hold (when used on a human) where the handler's forearm is placed across the K−9's neck and pressure is applied to collapse the trachea so he passes out from lack of air. Some people are using cattle prods (sometimes applied to very tender parts of the dog) to hurt him to get him to release the bite. These methods are inhumane and completely unnecessary. 

6.	There are a very few "special operations" K−9's that are purposefully not taught to release at all. But they are beyond the purview of this discussion.​
There may be some other things going on that I haven't thought of. 

It sometimes happens that officers either forget their training (or have not been trained) and they'll run up on a suspect, rather than stay back behind cover and concealment after a dog has bitten the suspect. When this happens the handler has to use methods that keep them from being bitten. But it's tactically unsound from the start. Sometimes there are reasons to run up on the suspect but doing so places everyone, including the suspect, into more danger that is necessary. Just because a dog is biting someone does not mean that they can't hit, kick, stab or shoot an officer who is standing right next to them. Usually, there's no reason for it and if you question the officers afterwards they won't have a good reason that they did it. 

Will attributes it to new handlers but it's not just them. There are those who will say that this is a "dangerous business" and while that's certainly true, there's no need to make it any more dangerous than it needs to be.


----------



## Jim Nash

:roll: .......


----------



## Lou Castle

Jim Nash said:


> That's how we teach it too . Pull up while pushing in .


It certainly didn't show up on the K9 Cops TV show! I don't recall ever seeing this method. In fact, I think in the entire series we see only one verbal out and that's with _"a rookie dog"_ (their words) on the training field. In one of the shows after a real bite you can see the handler place his arm around his dog's neck with his forearm directly on the front of the dog's neck, in the "bar arm control" position. Then he squeezes this arm tightly around the dog's neck, putting pressure on the dog's throat and lifts the dog's front legs off the ground. Then suddenly he releases this hold on the dog and drops him. The camera fades out and miraculously the dog has released the bite! Hmm. I'd sure like to see that raw footage!


----------



## will fernandez

I have never seen the cattle prod most be something they use out west. I am pretty sure the dogs in LA also are on the e-collar 24-7. No need to choke off on a real bite if you just out with the ecollar. 

I guess there is only one way to settle this lets all meet in MN and have a PSD gathering. I am pretty sure that the 2011 USPCA nationals will be held out there this year. Lets have a little training session and put this bullshit to rest. I will even donate to 200 bucks for Lou's ticket.


----------



## Jim Nash

Lou Castle said:


> It certainly didn't show up on the K9 Cops TV show! I don't recall ever seeing this method. In fact, I think in the entire series we see only one verbal out and that's with _"a rookie dog"_ (their words) on the training field. In one of the shows after a real bite you can see the handler place his arm around his dog's neck with his forearm directly on the front of the dog's neck, in the "bar arm control" position. Then he squeezes this arm tightly around the dog's neck, putting pressure on the dog's throat and lifts the dog's front legs off the ground. Then suddenly he releases this hold on the dog and drops him. The camera fades out and miraculously the dog has released the bite! Hmm. I'd sure like to see that raw footage!


Where did I say we did say it was on the show ? Read it again . I said we teach that . I certainly didn't choke my dog off . Shows me saying out and he outs . LOL .

Lou were's your work again ? Oh yeah it's the thing of fantacies . I know of friends of yours willing to video your work and you refuse to do it . That's because it will expose you as a human like the rest of us , with strengths and faults . 


Even a video of a simple SAR seminar . Once again you are all talk from a 5 1/2 year K9 handler in a low crime city with a total 1 bite per year average for the entire K9 unit .


----------



## Lou Castle

will fernandez said:


> I have never seen the cattle prod most be something they use out west.


There's no part of the country that's free of it. 



will fernandez said:


> I am pretty sure the dogs in LA also are on the e-collar 24-7. No need to choke off on a real bite if you just out with the ecollar.


LAPD, LASD and most other departments in this area field the dogs wearing the Ecollar but it's not 24/7, just when the dogs are working. There's nothing that gives a 100% guarantee that a dog will out on just a command in some circumstances; not even an Ecollar.


----------



## will fernandez

Lou Castle said:


> . There's nothing that gives a 100% guarantee that a dog will out on just a command in some circumstances; not even an Ecollar.


----------



## Jim Nash

Originally Posted by Lou Castle 


. There's nothing that gives a 100% guarantee that a dog will out on just a command in some circumstances; not even an Ecollar. 



Very interesting . LMAO


----------



## Lou Castle

Jim Nash said:


> Where did I say we did say it was on the show ?


Where did *I *say that it was on the show? 



Jim Nash said:


> Read it again . I said we teach that .


Read it again. You said you taught it. I just said that it was never shown on the show. And I added that it sure looked like a manual choke out WAS used. How come that handler didn't use what you claim you taught him? Hmm. 



Jim Nash said:


> Lou were's your work again ? Oh yeah it's the thing of fantacies .


Fact is, I simply refuse to accede to your childish demand that I show you some videos. My work is shown with my clients and at my seminars. I feel no need to show you anything. If there wasn't any work, as you keep saying, there wouldn’t be any clients or seminars. Yet somehow I've managed to do 50 of them with several more planned for this year. You're not making sense. But I'm not surprised. It’s a sign of how desperate you are to be right when it's so obvious that AGAIN YOU'RE WRONG! ROFL 



Jim Nash said:


> I know of friends of yours willing to video your work and you refuse to do it .


What "friends of [mine] are willing to video my work Jim? I'll need to know this if I decide to have them video my work won't I? 



Jim Nash said:


> That's because it will expose you as a human like the rest of us , with strengths and faults .


When have I ever said that I'm not human? When have I ever said that I don't have strengths and faults? Fact is this is just you trying to put words into my mouth. Just more of your BS. 



Jim Nash said:


> Even a video of a simple SAR seminar .


What makes you think that SAR seminars are "simple?" Are you insinuating that police dog seminars are the only _"real seminars?"_ 



Jim Nash said:


> Once again you are all talk from a 5 1/2 year K9 handler in a low crime city with a total 1 bite per year average for the entire K9 unit .


You've got my time as a handler on the street right but of course you AGAIN conveniently omit my 15 years as the department trainer. And you're right that we had a much lower crime rate than surrounding areas and AGAIN you conveniently omit that it's because of the way that we did police work. But your citation of how many bites we had when I was working either assignment, is a lie. Nowadays that may be the stat, but it certainly wasn't the case when I was a handler or the department trainer. You’ve been corrected on this before so now I'll just call you what you've shown yourself to be, a liar. A new low, even for you.


----------



## Lou Castle

Earlier I wrote,


> There's nothing that gives a 100% guarantee that a dog will out on just a command in some circumstances; not even an Ecollar.





Jim Nash said:


> Very interesting . LMAO


Not sure why your find something that is so obvious _"very interesting?"_ David has made a statement like this and I've agreed with him.


----------



## Jim Nash

It's childish to want to see the work of someone who talks big about his capabilities , dogs etc . repeatedly over the internet ?

Lou , because you put on seminars may only prove that there are people who fall for your bs . You have repeatly bashed others others who have put on a lot of seminars . Proof is in the product . You have no product to show us in the PSD field and refuse to show your product in the training field . This makes it easy for you to type your hype , some will believe others won't . I certainly don't .

I'm going to hold on to the info on your friend who wants to post video of you , for now . But it's good .  

It is funny that not 1 person from all those seminars you put out can't video your work and post it . I'm sure they would want to .


Liar huh . Who has reached a new low ?

" Next Officer Benjamin spoke – with his dog Rico at his feet. Rico is his partner; K-9 team. CCPD has 4 K-9 teams. They respond to regular police calls in addition to K-9 calls. Rico is an apprehension and narcotics dog. 



CCPD has on average of one apprehension a year. An apprehension involves a dog bite. "

it comes from this link

http://sites.google.com/site/citacademy/Home/culver-city-pd-citizen-s-academy--2007

New low huh. LOL !

Yes I've got your service time as an inexperianced K9 handler right and I do purposely omit your training time because it has nothing to do with the point I am making and I know your ego can't take it and you will provide that info on you own . Saves me typing . LMFAO !!!!


----------



## Jim Nash

Lou Castle said:


> Earlier I wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure why your find something that is so obvious _"very interesting?"_ David has made a statement like this and I've agreed with him.


I find it interesting because you contradict yourself all the time . It doesn't seem to matter to you , you will do anything to win a discussion .


----------



## Bob Scott

There have been a couple of "Stay on topic" edits that have been ignored.
Post closed!


----------

