# Police K9 H&B only?



## Lisa Radcliffe (Jun 9, 2011)

Could I get some feed back on this, are there K9 police deptments that only want patrol dogs to Hold and bark at the end of the chase? that do not want the dog to bite? and if so could a dog trained like that have the nerve to fight a man that comes at the dog? This was told to me and I find it difficult to understand, why send a dog into a situation it may not be able to handle? and can you know what will happen anyway? is it not best to just have a dog that can get the whole job done? or at least be able to fight the man if they have to? some dept. have dogs that bite and some don't? (patrol) thank's


----------



## Oluwatobi Odunuga (Apr 7, 2010)

You should send a PM to Jim Nash, David Frost or any other police k9 handler here.
I agree with you that H&B is a bit weird for police k9 work but there are places where police really have to be careful with 'human rights' and its better if the dog does not bite. It doesn't make sense but officers have to follow rules. Its not the fault of the officers. I know Ed Frawley advocates its use but his explanations haven't been satisfactory to me. It all boils down to personal preference, different strokes for different folks.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

There has been a movement in certain areas to promote the bark and hold as standard practice. I'm opposed as an officer safety issue. There was a study conducted by Florida International University that indicates there are more "unintentional" bites with bark and hold than with find and bite. Understanding statistics can be construed to mean about anything someone wants, I take it for what it is. What I can't ignore is the personal experiences with working dogs. Bad guys don't know the rules of being a decoy. Needless to say, I'm opposed to the point that I would refuse to train b/h -- period. Sometimes you do have to draw the line in the sand. 

DFrost


----------



## Brian Anderson (Dec 2, 2010)

The PSD's I have experience with don't do B & H


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

years ago I worked with a K9 in IN, that did do a bark and hold, In training at least 

if you were on the ground hiding, or standing very still, or hiding in a room inside a building, he would bark and hold.

Not like in SCH, but would kinds circle ya, or move back and forth, about 7-8 feet away.

It was diffferent for sure, but if I personally was a Police Officer, I would not have wanted to work with that dog....


----------



## David Stucenski (Mar 29, 2008)

Although some depts have to deal with civil liability....I agree with David. Bad guys don't know what "stand still" means with a police K9 barking and jumping up at them. Slight movement and "bang" bite everytime. So now you go to court and say "everyone found, tried to run or kick at the dog?" to explain your bites??? Not likely:roll: We practice find and bite and have a solid out and recall. If my dog is off line its a situation where I want the dog coming in balls to the wall and taking that guy down. Dont want anything in his head "do I stop or go??" Safer for me and HIM!


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

David Stucenski said:


> We practice find and bite and have a solid out and recall. If my dog is off line its a situation where I want the dog coming in balls to the wall and taking that guy down. Dont want anything in his head "do I stop or go??" Safer for me and HIM!


Amen, amen and amen.

DFrost


----------



## sam wilks (May 3, 2009)

Im not in k9 but im on my department swat team and we are trained that if we are searching for someone we cover the k9 till they find the man then we engage the suspect. I dont understand why they dont send the k9. When it boils down to it, a k9 is expendable. That is what they are there for. An officers life is far more valuable than the dogs. Im not saying the k9 is not important but that is there job! JMHO


----------



## Phil Dodson (Apr 4, 2006)

> I'll second, third, and fourth that!!


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

sam wilks said:


> Im not in k9 but im on my department swat team and we are trained that if we are searching for someone we cover the k9 till they find the man then we engage the suspect. I dont understand why they dont send the k9. When it boils down to it, a k9 is expendable. That is what they are there for. An officers life is far more valuable than the dogs. Im not saying the k9 is not important but that is there job! JMHO



Different discussion really. One is philosophy, one is deployment technique. I agree there are times when doing what you suggest is the best course of action. I also agree that the K9 is expendable. that doesn't mean you send them on a no win situation unless there is no other choice. 

DFrost


----------



## David Stucenski (Mar 29, 2008)

Well I am a handler and attached to our SWAT team. Yes a dog is a "tool" and in unknown situation he should be first, but our team knows no "suicide" missions. Even in a SWAT enviorment a K9 primary mission is locating tool not use of force. All the guys coming in on his six have plenty. If a guy is popping off round actively....Guess what you know where he is and it is now SWAT call. You have so many options besides dog.....gas,gas,gas, :grin::grin: Now in a less lethal situation it is different we have used him behing less lethal "rubber bullet" etc...
Each mission evolves differently and the dog fits into many roles...."risk vs. reward" has to be weighed.
Ok getting off topic. Bark & Hold should not be in a police dogs instruction.(my opinon) but some dept and states, due to liability are requiring it. You ask those depts. what they prefer I am guessing otherwise.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

To make sure we're all on the same page ... The H&B is also known as the Guard & Bark, the Find & Bark and by various similar names. The terms and what they mean vary by region and by trainer. 

There have been a very few departments who have been successfully sued so many times that they've gotten rid of their biting dogs and replaced them with dogs that have been trained ONLY to bark. When those dogs find someone hiding or go in pursuit of a visible person, they ONLY bark at him, never biting. The departments that I know that have done this have closed their programs down completely after a couple of failures. After such a dog gets his butt kicked by a suspect, they're usually not eager to find or chase another one. 

Another meaning, probably the one you're talking about is where a dog finds a hiding crook and is supposed to bark at him rather than to immediately bite him. (The latter method is also known by several names including "Find and Bite and Handler Control.") If the H&B dog gets a command to bite or the suspect attacks the dog the handler or tries to flee, most of those dogs are supposed to bite. There is at least one variation of this where the dog is supposed to bite ONLY if commanded by the handler to do so. Some dogs trained for the H&B can also be deployed with a command to bite instead of to bark. In that case they won't bark when they make the find, instead they'll bite, unless they can't get to the suspect. 

Some administrators prefer the H&B thinking that it will lower the number of bites that are inflicted and that will lower their liability but I think that this is a poor reason to use the technique. The IACP (International Association of Chiefs of Police) recommends in their _ "Law Enforcement Canine Model Policy"_ that a "Guard and Hold" method of deploying K−9's be used. But they are the only organization to do so. No other national or state organization endorses the H&B. Most such organizations want to allow the individual department to set their own policies rather than to place a burden on them that might have to be defended in court. The lawyers I know who defend police agencies in these matters say that either method of training/deployment is defensible if the dog adheres to his training. 

Many people who oppose the H&B have either never seen it trained properly or have an improper idea of how it's applied. It requires quite a bit more training time especially after a dog gets some real combat under his belt. Dogs who have been hurt while barking will tend to go right in for the bite on their next encounter, rather than to give the crook the advantage of the first blow. And so it can become troublesome for many trainers to maintain. Departments who don't have a full−time or experienced trainer, sometimes find the control drifting away. 

With many of today's dogs coming out with high levels of prey drive, the H&B is harder to train and maintain than with dogs of old that did not have such high levels. With prey drive dogs, the bark is a flushing behavior. That is, it's done to make the prey move. One reason that I prefer fight drive over prey drive as the primary combat drive is that with those dogs the barking is a detaining behavior. The prey drive dogs are reinforced by having the suspect move so they can bite him. The fight drive dogs are reinforced by the mere detaining activity. 

One of the arguments against the H&B is that if the suspect has a weapon, while the dog is barking at him, he can get it out and put it to use against the dog, the handler or the back−up team. But this defies common sense when the reality is considered. As soon as the dog starts barking the handler and the team know that the suspect has been located and generally his location. If there's a concern (and every handler should always assume that whoever he's searching for is armed) he can recall the dog and order the suspect to come out from his hiding spot. If he does not the handler has the option to resend the dog, this time with a bite command or to keep the dog out of the situation and allow the team to make the apprehension. 

As to the study conducted by Florida University that showed that there were more unintentional bites with H&B than with Find & Bark ... there are many problems with the study that make its findings doubtful including how information was collected and the qualifications of the author. Like many studies, the author worked towards the conclusion that he wanted the study to show. In any case, with the Find & Bark there are NO UNINTENTIONAL bites. EACH time the dog is sent to find someone he's SUPPOSED to bite him. About the only unintentional bites would be if someone else (other than the suspect) was in the area and was bitten. 

I prefer the H&B system. But it's not a liability concern. I think that it's safer for the handler and the back−up team. They know within seconds that the dog has made a find. Dogs that are trained to bite when they've made a find will go looking for a way to get to the suspect so they can bite him. Usually they're supposed to bark if they can't get to the suspect but this will happen only of the dog finally discovers that he can't get to him. This takes time, sometimes a few minutes, and may result in the handler or the team approaching the area where the dog has scent but is still looking for a "back door" to get to the suspect. The H&B may be more dangerous for the dog (that point is debatable) but I'd rather bury a K−9 than his handler.

It's been my experience that many handlers and trainers who have spoken out against the H&B change their minds after they see it properly trained and used.


----------



## Lisa Radcliffe (Jun 9, 2011)

Thank you for all the replys  I will be going on a few more K9 ride alongs from different depts. So it will be interesting to see what their protocal is. I do understand there are a lot of differences with in each 0ne and their needs are not all the same. This gives me an idea though that I am not out in left field to think it not wise for a H&B bark only, and for what it's worth I am not sure one of the dogs even had a clue what "out" means but then he was not getting the best training either, could be a nice dog and I hope the best for him and his handler!


----------



## Brett Bowen (May 2, 2011)

My 2 cents is I'd rather have the dog find and bite. Unless you're miles away you'll find the suspect and the dog real quick from the screams and commotion. hahaha. On a serious note, on a Hold and Bark you're asking the dog to control himself when he finds the suspect. He may or may not need all his drive to overcome whatever he may be facing for the first time, suspect under a car, under a house, suspect trying to fend off the dog with a lawnmower, whatever it may be. 

If the dog's is being used as a locating tool and it doesn't warrant a full out deployment or other people may be in the area put him on a long line. He'll still locate your bad guy and you can keep your liability on a line where you can hold him back if need be and still be able to send him if needed.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Lisa Radcliffe said:


> Thank you for all the replys  I will be going on a few more K9 ride alongs from different depts. So it will be interesting to see what their protocal is. !


I don't know where you're from but I think the further west you go, the weirder they become. (Except Connie of course) It's always been my opinion, those in the industry that have something to sell, really push the b/h. Those of us involved with dogs that still work the street prefer the f/b. As always, it's my not so humble opinion based on a few years experience, combined with conversations of folks that have used both methods. 

DFrost


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

I believe the reverse is also true. The person that see the F and B done properly will change their minds aabout the bark and hold. A F/B dog that locates a unreachable suspect will bark and not look for the back door if it is done properly. Easily done if you seperate the bite from the building search.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

David Frost said:


> I don't know where you're from but I think the further west you go, the weirder they become. (Except Connie of course)
> 
> DFrost


On the 8th day the earth tilted and everything loose fell into California. 8-[ :-#


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Brett Bowen said:


> My 2 cents is I'd rather have the dog find and bite. Unless you're miles away you'll find the suspect and the dog real quick from the screams and commotion. hahaha.


For years this was almost a bad joke. _"Turn a nasty dog loose in the building and listen for the screams."_ was a "good ol' boy method" of using dogs in police work. My belief about anything that we train for in LE is that "we should prepare for the worst but hope for the best." In the worst−case−scenario you WON'T hear the screams and commotion. Many of us have had the experience of having their dog bite someone who DOES NOT respond with _"screams and commotion."_ Those are the responses of "normal human beings" to the pain of being bitten. But it's a serious error to think that those we're dealing with are "normal." Statistics show that often they're under the influence of drugs that mask or sometimes even completely deaden their pain responses, so there won't be any screaming. I've seen people with a dog hanging off their triceps, a portion of the body rich with nerve endings, who are just staring at the dog, not screaming and not causing a "commotion." Just standing there. I saw one such person reach up with his free hand and calmly start choking the dog. And so while method of locating the suspect this may work with most deployments, and you may never encounter such a crook, it might happen tomorrow. It's *THAT * deployment that you should be preparing for, the "worst case one." 

If you count on using the noise of a screaming suspect or the "commotion" the fight may create to locate the suspect you might walk right into him if neither is going on. One of the reasons we use K−9's is for the "stand−off" distance, they give us, the ability to deal with suspects from a safe distance where we are behind cover and concealment. If we're within feet of him, we lose that advantage. Yes, this is a dangerous job, but there's no reason to give up an advantage that one of our tools gives us in the first place. 



Brett Bowen said:


> On a serious note, on a Hold and Bark you're asking the dog to control himself when he finds the suspect. He may or may not need all his drive to overcome whatever he may be facing for the first time, suspect under a car, under a house, suspect trying to fend off the dog with a lawnmower, whatever it may be.


I don't see how this is _"asking the dog to control himself"_ any more than giving him a release command in the middle of a fight is. In fact, if the correct drives are invoked in the training it's natural for the dog to do it. And it's something that we do (well we should be anyway) in our training regularly. I think it's far easier for a dog who locates someone "under a car" to stand back from the car and bark. It's probably safer for him too. If he goes under the car to get a bite, he loses all of his advantages of speed and agility. As to someone trying to fend the dog off with a "lawnmower or whatever," standing off and barking is FAR safer for the dog than trying to approach for a bite. A barking dog brings the cavalry and keep him away from the suspect. 

Please don't mistake what you see on the SchH field for what a properly trained police dog does on the H&B. It's not anywhere near the same thing. Those who make an assessment based on this or having seen it trained improperly have no idea of what it really is. This is a bit like those who say that VST (Variable Surface Tracking) can't be done because they've never seen it done properly. 



Brett Bowen said:


> If the dog's is being used as a locating tool and it doesn't warrant a full out deployment or other people may be in the area put him on a long line. He'll still locate your bad guy and you can keep your liability on a line where you can hold him back if need be and still be able to send him if needed.


I think that if a deployment doesn't warrant the proper use of a K−9 (meaning off leash) he should be left in the car. I'm against using long lines in almost every case. There are rare circumstances dictated by tactics or safety of the K−9; but they're extremely rare. People who search with dogs on a long line have limited the dog's speed and agility, increased dramatically, the chance that he'll foul the long line on furniture or brush and placed themselves and the dog a much greater risk. Far better to simply train to a standard where the long line is not necessary and use commands to control the dog. 

A long line won't ensure the safety of _"other people [who] may be in the area."_ A leash provides restraint, not control. A dog can easily go around a corner or behind a tree and bite someone long before the handler even knows that such a person is present. ANOTHER disadvantage of the Find and Bite. A dog that's trained in the H&B will bark when he finds such a person, giving the handler an opportunity to call him back (or if you are using a line – pull him back) before a bite occurs. If nothing else, using a long line ties up your hands that should be available for your flashlight and your gun.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> I don't know where you're from but I think the further west you go, the weirder they become. (Except Connie of course) It's always been my opinion, those in the industry that have something to sell, really push the b/h. Those of us involved with dogs that still work the street prefer the f/b. As always, it's my not so humble opinion based on a few years experience, combined with conversations of folks that have used both methods.


California, "the land of fruits and nuts!" ROFL. 

Innovations in LE methods and tools have often come from this "weird" side of the US. SWAT teams, that are now in use by many LE agencies, started with LAPD. Many of the tactics they use were developed on this side of the US. LAPD and LASD SWAT teams developed techniques for stealth and dynamic entries that are still copied by LE agencies everywhere. Helicopter patrols were stolen from the military but they too started in LE in Los Angeles and they are still a model used by agencies across the US. Tasers were developed in Arizona. "Less lethal" weapons were first employed in Los Angeles. The list goes on and on. Crime trends often start here and are interdicted "out west" first. 

Am I "really push[ing] the H&B?" I don't think so. I'm just giving my reasons why I think it's better. But I have nothing to sell here beyond increased officer, suspect and public safety. And I'll disagree with your statement that _"those in the industry that have something to sell, really push the b/h."_ Every vendor in the country has "something to sell" but I only know of one or two who advocate the use of the H&B. Time is money to a vendor. To spend the time to train the H&B properly cuts into their profits. Back in the 1980's the H&B it was much more common than today, but that was because many dogs came into the US with a SchH title where they had already been taught the movement. These days it's rare to get such a titled dog and with the advent of the Malinois it's virtually unheard of for one of them to enter the US with such a base of training. The largest salesman of police K−9's west of the Mississippi advocates the H&B and has since he got involved in training them decades ago but I don't know of any others. Can you name some of these people _"with something to sell"_ who are _"push[ing] the H&B?"_ 

As to not working the street anymore, you'll soon be irrelevant too David, just as all the rest of us old, retired has-beens are; so be careful where you cast this net. lol. But the reality is that crooks haven't changed much, if at all, in the years since I was handling and training dogs. I still keep current on what's going on in the field with discussions, meetings and training with those who are still out there. No one is doing anything significantly different than what I did "back in the day." Quite a few more are using Ecollars with high levels of compulsion because they don't understand the part that drives can play, but that's the only real difference. Crime is down quite a bit from when I was a handler/trainer/instructor so I doubt that there's anything new out there. If you disagree please enlighten me. Do crooks smell different these days? Have tactics changed that significantly? Isn't it still an advantage to have some distance between the crook and the police officers at the moment of confrontation? 

It might interest the readers to know that it's (the equivalent of federal) law in every country in Europe that their police dogs MUST H&B. Of course I'm not saying that we should follow Europe down this (or any) road, but when you have a bloc this large, perhaps it should merit some attention. 

But you're wrong in your statement that _"Those of us involved with dogs that still work the street prefer the f/b."_ If that were accurate than NO ONE who _" still works the street"_ would be using the find and bark. It would have been accurate if you'd said _*"MANY *(or even most) of us involved with dogs that still work the street prefer the f/b."_ Last time I checked the ratio across the US (there are no records on this) was about 80:20, find and bite:find and bark.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

will fernandez said:


> I believe the reverse is also true. The person that see the F and B done properly will change their minds aabout the bark and hold.


Call me the exception Will. My dog was trained and worked for his entire career with a find and bite. But when I saw the effectiveness of the find and bark and how much safer it made me and the back−up officers I immediately switched what I was doing with the dogs that I trained. LAPD started with the find and bite too, but when the head trainer saw the find and bark properly trained and learned how to do it, he switched over too. That's where I learned it from. But it can't be done just from compulsion reliably, and that's where most trainers try to come from. Drives must be used to invoke it and to maintain it, if it's to be reliable. (on another note, that's mostly what Donn Yarnall's site is about, using drives to get desired and reliable results). 



will fernandez said:


> A F/B dog that locates a unreachable suspect will bark and not look for the back door if it is done properly.


When either dog first picks up suspect's scent, he's going to spend a few moments looking for the strongest source of it that he can get to. At that point the find and bark dog will bark, alerting his handler to the presence of the suspect. The find and bite dog, if he can't immediately get to the suspect, will take him a moment or two of looking for a way to get to him and circling around before he'll dog will realize that the suspect is _"unreachable."_ THAT'S when he'll bark. He won't bark at the moment he's located the strongest source, instead, he'll be looking for a way to get to the suspect for the bite. 

I've heard this argument from people before and invariably they were working in environments where the dog could determine very quickly that he could not get to the suspect. Perhaps the lights were on in the building. Perhaps it was outdoors in daylight and the suspect was up a tree. This is often not the case in the real world. If it's so dark that the dog can barely see, or even not see the suspect at all he's going to spend time in trying to get his bite that the find and bark dog would already be barking in. Try turning off the lights so the dog can't see the suspect and/or putting him somewhere that he's not visible, even if the dog looks, and you'll see this lag between the time the dog has located the source and the bark. That's time when the handler could be walking towards the scene, giving up the distance and cover that keep him safer. 



will fernandez said:


> Easily done if you seperate the bite from the building search.


Always willing to learn Will. Please tell me how you do this. I've always trained the bite away from searching but perhaps you've got something new?!


----------



## Laney Rein (Feb 9, 2011)

Silly me. I thought this was a discussion forum.....not a book club.....sigh


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Oh Lou. So you see we both teach the building search similarly. I am sure are results are similar as well with the unreachable suspect. 


Thats right in the real world buildings are dark. Thats why we train in the dark with nightvision on (hey did you guys have those back in the day?) and there is no difference. Because its trained the same way as your dog.

So while your dog is barking in the dark at the "reachable suspect" and your team is approaching the sound of the barking, you can get hurt. Maybe in your day the streets weren't as violent as today. I am sure the pea shooter hurt but probably not as lethal as today.

Ok now I will wait for the slice and dice.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> But you're wrong in your statement that _"Those of us involved with dogs that still work the street prefer the f/b."_ If that were accurate than NO ONE who _" still works the street"_ would be using the find and bark. It would have been accurate if you'd said _*"MANY *(or even most) of us involved with dogs that still work the street prefer the f/b."_ Last time I checked the ratio across the US (there are no records on this) was about 80:20, find and bite:find and bark.


Just because we disagree doesn't make me wrong. If one reads the material on why b/h was first recommended it answers a lot of questions. It was because f/b wasn't trained properly. the fact that a department requires b/h doesn't mean the trainers or the officers actually working the street agree or support the adminstrations decisions. They may have to live with it, but they dont' have to agree with it. 

DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

will fernandez said:


> Oh Lou. So you see we both teach the building search similarly. I am sure are results are similar as well with the unreachable suspect.
> 
> 
> Thats right in the real world buildings are dark. Thats why we train in the dark with nightvision on (hey did you guys have those back in the day?) and there is no difference. Because its trained the same way as your dog.
> ...



Night what???? ha ha

I teach building search similar to you. If the dog can engage, he does. If he can't he gives the audible, aggressive response. While I do teach clear and move up, in reality it doesn't always work that way. In training sure, but somehow it's not always as orchestrated in a real search, ha ha. 

DFrost


----------



## Lisa Radcliffe (Jun 9, 2011)

Again, thank you for all the info here. I have read the Shift to the "bark and hold" training method by Charles Mesloh State of Florida 2003 can anyone recomend anything more up to date than this as far as research on this? I have a interest in how the training in my area is being done. I would like to put the foundation work on a few puppies I may import from a friend in Belguim who trains police dogs and does a few breedings I plan to keep one for myself but after I have seen what kind of training is used here and the handlers I am not sure the level of dog handling is up enough for my comfort level. No disrespect on my part. But I want these dogs to stay in my area and hope to keep up with them and their training. This is not about money for me but something I have been thinking the last year. I am up on the tracking but figuring out how depts do things different has been a real eye opening! if they have to B&H that is what I would want to train for. Thanks


----------



## Jim Duncan (Jan 19, 2009)

I agree with the find and bite and do not like the hold and bark. Our Dept moved away from the H&B and went to the Find and Bite several years ago. I started my dog out in SchH and taught him a very solid H&B, however he strikes very fast and the slightest movement will cause him to engage. I don't care how well you train the H&B you can not account for suspects actions. You will have suspects that are drunk, strung out, just plain stupid or petrified of dogs and they will not stand still for an intimidating dog barking in their face. They will move and they will get bit. A strong dog will learn to make them move in order to bite them.

I also work my dog with the our SWAT team and we do our covert clears on a 30' lead. If my dog engages someone the suspect is ordered to bring the dog to us. Or the suspect is pulled out if possible by the dog and me with the long line. IMO, a H&B is not effective tactically. If I do a search and don't want the subject bit I search on lead. 

I have trained many sport dogs to do a nice H&B, but IMO it is counterproductive for a PSD. It can take too much out of a dog and cause inhibition or indeciveness at the wrong time. If my dog shouldn't be biting the person he finds then I don't send him or we go together where I have my eyes on him. If he finds a subject in a building he alerts at the door by aggressive barking. I can often tell by hearing his breathing change in the dark that he has located someone well before he begins to bark. 

JMO FWIW,

Jim


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Jim Duncan said:


> I have trained many sport dogs to do a nice H&B, but IMO it is counterproductive for a PSD. It can take too much out of a dog and cause inhibition or indeciveness at the wrong time.
> 
> JMO FWIW,
> 
> Jim



First off, I couldn't agree more. One of the points I've made in my discussion of this v. that was bad guys aren't trained to hold still when told. Of course the counter-argument to that is; We (police trainers) just don't know how to teach the b/h properly. 

I'm curious though, can you be more specific on the decision to return to f/b after training b/h. I know a public forum is sometimes not the best place for some discussions, so if it's none of my business or you just don't want to I understand. If you prefer to email or private message I would understand that as well. I know sometimes we really do have to be careful when we talk about such things. The latest K9 defense whore of the month (while not a member of this forum) has been known to use posts from forums or private conversations. 

DFrost


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Lisa

If you really want to help, why not help get the handlers the training you think they may need. No matter how good the dog is, it will only be as good as the person working it day in day out.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

I would let the department trainers put the bark and hold in if they wanted it, I would not train the B&H in...


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> I would let the department trainers put the bark and hold in if they wanted it, I would not train the B&H in...



Huh???

DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Lisa Radcliffe said:


> I plan to keep one for myself but after I have seen what kind of training is used here and the handlers I am not sure the level of dog handling is up enough for my comfort level. No disrespect on my part.


If I had a dime for every time a civilian was unhappy with or disapproved with the way police dog trainers train and police handlers handled, well I'd have a lot of dimes. I'm amazed any of us incompetent trainers get anything accomplished at all.

No disrespect intended, of course. 

DFrost


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

David Frost said:


> Huh???
> 
> DFrost


The OP'er is saying she is going to get some puppies, keep one, and put the foundation work on the others, I assume from the sound of it, she is going to do the foundation work for dogs that will possibly be sold as PSD candidates, and this is why she is asking about the H&B, I made the assumption that she was thinking of training the H&B as part of the foundation on the dogs. 

I stated that I would not train any H&B into the dogs, and let the future police K9 trainers put in the H&B if they so chose to.

Thats all...


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Ahhh, that makes sense. Sorry I just didn't connect the dots.

DFrost


----------



## Lisa Radcliffe (Jun 9, 2011)

will fernandez said:


> Lisa
> 
> If you really want to help, why not help get the handlers the training you think they may need. No matter how good the dog is, it will only be as good as the person working it day in day out.


My intent was to go on a K9 ride along see some training and ask a lot of questions about what they use their dogs for most of the time (patrol dogs) and had hope to see some do a live search or work. I am sorry if it is a sensitive subject for any one involved in police K9 work. I am not one to judge the level of anyone out there doing any kind of training, work,sport or what ever. The truth is I was really shocked at the level of handling skills as well as the dogs. I do not mention names or depts and I only saw 3 out of 10 dogs. Maybe the others are of a different caliber. Not really sure how I could help. But I did ask what the protocall was to become on K9 and it's not much, one of them told me "I have always had dogs" and has 3 pet dogs. When I asked another after I saw his dog work on the B&H and thought he could use a tip "do you know about capping his drive?" He told me he did'nt want to put any OB on the dog because he had been working on his confidence for 4 years and they were making progress!! he also really did not seem to understand what I asked. The dog was 5. I am doing a lot of research and wanting to get my training program in order. I would like to see some really good dogs here in my area. Also to the other poster, I do not consider myself just a sport trainer or a civilian trying to judge police K9 handlers rather someone with something to contribute doing something I love. But it does seem like it's quite a sensitive topic for some. The more I think about it and all the feedback it seems like to teach a B&H may not be the way to go. I'll ask a few of euro friends and see what they think, but their training is way over the top of ours!! Thanks again for all your replys


----------



## Brett Bowen (May 2, 2011)

I think that if a deployment doesn't warrant the proper use of a K−9 (meaning off leash) he should be left in the car. I'm against using long lines in almost every case. There are rare circumstances dictated by tactics or safety of the K−9; but they're extremely rare. People who search with dogs on a long line have limited the dog's speed and agility said:


> "other people [who] may be in the area."[/I] A leash provides restraint, not control. A dog can easily go around a corner or behind a tree and bite someone long before the handler even knows that such a person is present. ANOTHER disadvantage of the Find and Bite. A dog that's trained in the H&B will bark when he finds such a person, giving the handler an opportunity to call him back (or if you are using a line – pull him back) before a bite occurs. If nothing else, using a long line ties up your hands that should be available for your flashlight and your gun.


An example from our k9 unit in my department (I'm not the handler but I was involved in this call). Car Burglary, which is a misdemeanor here in TX. Victim parked their car in a movie theatre parking lot, interrupted the suspect and suspect ran off into an apartment complex. Typically not going to automatically send the dog for a bite on a misdemeanor, obviously circumstances change but that's what we had. Anyway, k9 shows up as the primary officer is getting information and starts tracking with officers providing security behind the team. Dog tracks to a door of an apartment. Long story short, that was the guy's apartment and was linked him to numerous other burglaries by the time we were all done. 

I think you are better off having the dog on a line in that situation for a couple reasons: it's early evening in an entertainment district lots of people around and drunks that like to say hi to the "purty doggy", heading to an apartment complex same thing way too many people around that may or may not be your suspect. Yes you are sacrificing the dogs speed an agility, but that dog can outrun anyone that's wearing 20lbs of extra gear. The dog will outrun his cover and the handler will out run his cover, now we're all spread out. I'm fortunate to work for a department that's tactically sound and has the resources to do what we did. 

Now, building search, yeah I agree do that off leash unless theres some reason not to. Then use the dogs speed and agility to be %100 committed to getting a bite otherwise we're giving the suspect time to come up with a plan of what he's going to do. He may wait the dog out with his barking then ambush the officers with a gun. If he shoots the dog after the bite, while tragic, we as officers at least know what we're dealing with. 

That being all said, I would be interested in seeing it in action first hand. Like you say, maybe I'll change my mind about the whole thing.


----------



## Pete Stevens (Dec 16, 2010)

OK, I didn't read the all the post because some were just way too long. When I had my patrol dog, we trained in find and hold aka find and bite aka handler control. I have attended training seminars, including an agitators courses, that trained B&H. I'll take handler control anyday. I make the decision to send my dog on a suspect apprehension not the dog. We have very strict guidelines for deployement. Only one agency in my area trains B&H but they don't deploy in it. San Diego PD had one of the largest units for a long time. As many as 50 K9 teams before budget down sizing made them shrink. They literally have 1000's of bites and very little lawsuits as a result of. And less that $100K paid out and that was a settlement because sometimes is better not to role the dice with a civil jury. They have trained and deployed in handler control for many years.

As far as Charles Mesloh's Florida study on bite ratios with B&H vs. handler control, based on what I've seen, its pretty darn accurate. My building search deployment warnings are pretty simple "Police department with a K9, come out now or I'll send a police dog. You WILL be bit" Not "You might be bit". Basically, if I send the dog, he will bit you. A proper B&H warning might be "Police department with a K9, come out now or I'll send a police dog. If he finds you, hold still and don't move because if you do, the dog might bite you." 

Most of the agencies north of us, especially in the LA area, train B&H and do fine. I have a lot of respect for their trainers and a few of those trainers are personal friends. I prefer handler control just like a prefer real Coca-Cola with my Captain....but if Pepsi makes you happy, knock yourself out.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Lisa Radcliffe said:


> I'll ask a few of euro friends and see what they think, but their training is way over the top of ours!! Thanks again for all your replys


chuckle, chuckle - 

DFrost


----------



## Sandra King (Mar 29, 2011)

David Frost said:


> chuckle, chuckle -
> 
> DFrost


It's kind of funny. The Euros look to the States because they think the Americans are sooo ahead of them, and in the US a lot of people look over to Europe because they think the same thing about them. 

The truth is, both sides have very few, true Specialists and those specialists pretty much travel back and forth to learn from each other and to share the knowledge and then you've got the broad mass that is pretty much on the same level... some more, some less...


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Sandra King said:


> It's kind of funny. The Euros look to the States because they think the Americans are sooo ahead of them, and in the US a lot of people look over to Europe because they think the same thing about them.
> 
> The truth is, both sides have very few, true Specialists and those specialists pretty much travel back and forth to learn from each other and to share the knowledge and then you've got the broad mass that is pretty much on the same level... some more, some less...


I know. Sometimes it just gets annoying to hear how poor we (PSD trainers) are as trainers. I guess it's because we hate to be reminded how pitiful we are. Actually, I'm surprised that every K9 Unit in the U.S. isn't required to shut down until we learn how to do it right. Just on this forum I see those that can teach us to do it properly. Usually for a price, but I'm sure that has nothing to do with it. How we've survived to this point, I just don't know. Now I can understand how Jim Nash has survived. I figure there is a lot of European influence in his part of the country. Us poor folks in the south, well good gawd, we're trying, but I don't know how we'll continue. Me --- I just wanna be a rock star.

DFrost


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

David Frost said:


> I know. Sometimes it just gets annoying to hear how poor we (PSD trainers) are as trainers. I guess it's because we hate to be reminded how pitiful we are. Actually, I'm surprised that every K9 Unit in the U.S. isn't required to shut down until we learn how to do it right. Just on this forum I see those that can teach us to do it properly. Usually for a price, but I'm sure that has nothing to do with it. How we've survived to this point, I just don't know. Now I can understand how Jim Nash has survived. I figure there is a lot of European influence in his part of the country. Us poor folks in the south, well good gawd, we're trying, but I don't know how we'll continue. Me --- I just wanna be a rock star.
> 
> DFrost


Chuckle , chuckle . Nope we are just a poor uneducted PSD trainers up here too struggling to train our dogs . We hear the same thing you do about how bad we are. I too have wondered how our department has made it for 50 years helping to find and put away lots of violent criminals and trained almost every other K9 unit in the state of Minnesota to do the same .Must have been a lot of luck .


----------



## Dwyras Brown (Nov 21, 2008)

David and Jim, I'm sure you have heard the saying, "Those who can do, those who can't teach!"


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

will fernandez said:


> Oh Lou. So you see we both teach the building search similarly. I am sure are results are similar as well with the unreachable suspect.


If, as you say, our results are similar then my previous statement was correct. It takes a find and bite dog a moment longer to bark (because he has to first determine that he can't get to the suspect to bite him) than it takes a find and bark dog (because he'll bark as soon as he determines that he's at the source). In that moment the handler and backup team can give up their advantages of distance, cover and concealment. 



will fernandez said:


> Thats right in the real world buildings are dark. Thats why we train in the dark with nightvision on (hey did you guys have those back in the day?)


Nope and we don't have NV today either. I'd bet that VERY few K−9 teams use or even have NV available and even if they did, they don't allow you to see through walls, around corners or through cardboard. Few crooks are going to hide where they'll be in your line of sight, which is necessary with NV devices. 



will fernandez said:


> and there is no difference. Because its trained the same way as your dog.


All things being equal the two dogs (one trained in the find and bark and the other in the find and bite) will take the same amount of time to find the fringe of the suspect's scent. They'll take the same amount of time to locate the source. At that time the find and bark dog will bark alerting his handler to the suspect's presence and location. Meanwhile the find and bite dog is looking for a way to get to the suspect so he can bite him. Only after this exploration is done and he's determined that he can't get to the suspect, will he bark. If you have some other timeline, please let us know. 



will fernandez said:


> So while your dog is barking in the dark at the "reachable suspect" and your team is approaching the sound of the barking, you can get hurt.


One can get hurt going to lunch. But in all probability you're far more likely to get hurt while walking around in the dark, even with your NV after your dog has made the find but before he's barked, while he's still looking for the back door to the suspect. You can walk right up to his location and be within a couple of feet of an armed suspect. My team will get the word that the dog has made the find much earlier when we're still further back from the suspect. And as we approach we'll have a fairly clear idea of just where he is. We can take advantage of cover and concealment, call the dog back, and then order the crook out. If he declines we can always deploy the dog with a bite command. 

BTW, not everyone realizes that if the circumstances warrant it, the find and bark dog can be initially deployed with a bite command too. In that case he'll do just as your find and bite dog does and bite if he can get to the suspect. If he can't he'll bark. It gives the handler another option. 



will fernandez said:


> Maybe in your day the streets weren't as violent as today. I am sure the pea shooter hurt but probably not as lethal as today.


You might want to take a look at when the rate of violent crime peaked in this country. It was back in the early 1990's and for most of the US the violent crime rate was about double what it is today. I was working the streets, training new dog handlers and dogs and going on their searches with them during that period. You were probably trying to figure out who to take to the prom. Lol As to my "peashooters," I carried a Colt Combat Commander in .45ACP with hollow points my entire time as a K−9 handler/trainer/instructor. We were issuing .45's to our officers when other departments in the area were still carrying .38 revolvers with round−nose 158 grain lead bullets. I couldn't tell if the silvertips "hurt" or not from the dozens of autopsies I attended; but I sure saw a lot of shredded innards.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> Just because we disagree doesn't make me wrong.


You're wrong, not because we disagree, but because of the absolute nature of your comment. You wrote, _"Those of us involved with dogs that still work the street prefer the f/b."_ Call me literal but that means that EVERYONE _"involved with dogs that still work the street"_ prefers the find and bite. I know many people _"involved with dogs that will work the street"_ prefer the find and bark, THAT is what makes you wrong. Our disagreement has nothing to do with this. Perhaps I'm wrong but I don't think that you are _"still work[ing] the street."_ Aren't you in a classroom or on a training field these days? I realize that you probably go out on searches now and then but aren't you in a teaching mode these days? 



David Frost said:


> If one reads the material on why b/h was first recommended it answers a lot of questions. It was because f/b wasn't trained properly.


Can you direct us to that material you're referring to? I'd bet that it does not include anything from Dave Reaver, the owner of the kennels that supplies more police dogs west of Mississippi than anyone else. He's been advocating the find and bark since he's been in business, in the mid 1970's. And his reasons have nothing to do with the find and bite not being _"trained properly."_ I'd bet that it also does not include anything from Donn Yarnall who learned to train it with drives in the early 1980's and then switched LAPD from the find and bite to the find and bark because he thought it was safer for the handlers, not because the find and bite wasn't being _"trained properly."_ I've never heard that the switch came about because the find and bite _"wasn't trained properly."_ If trainers back then weren't capable of training the find and bite they sure as heck weren't capable of the find and bark. It's much more difficult and it's much more difficult to maintain. 

I've always thought that besides safety of the handlers, another impetus was that common sense combined with case law about the use of force by police, started taking hold. In the absence of K−9's we certainly wouldn't punch or baton everyone we found hiding in a building that refused to come out when ordered to do so. And so we probably shouldn't be biting them either. In these cases the courts have held that a refusal to come out when ordered to do so is "Active Resistance" and that does justify the use of force but courts (rightfully so) still don't like it when we bite everyone. I know that properly trained find and bite dogs don't bite everyone but that is because many people don't hide where they are available to be bitten. If they did, and the dogs followed their training they WOULD be bitten. Often the handler sees the natural alert the dogs give as soon as they get scent, calls them back and give the crook another opportunity to surrender. But in those cases, they only gave a vague idea of where the crook actually is, given the vagaries of how scent moves in buildings. A find and bark dog will display this same body language but because the handler doesn't have to worry about an unwanted bite, the dog can be allowed to continue for a moment to pinpoint (if it's possible to do so) the exact location of the suspect. Then he can be recalled. 



David Frost said:


> the fact that a department requires b/h doesn't mean the trainers or the officers actually working the street agree or support the adminstrations decisions. They may have to live with it, but they dont' have to agree with it.


Your statement works both ways. I know of many handlers whose departments mandate the find and bite but they'd prefer to be working the find and bark for its increased safety factors. Your statement is that they want the find and bite, no matter what their admin requires. To think that this feeling is universal, is obviously wrong. Some times (not often) the admin takes its lead from what the trainers are capable of maintaining. Since it's much more difficult for a trainer to maintain the find and bite, many will not bother to even try. Instead they'll try to justify their "choice" by saying that the find and bite is better. If they try to maintain or do the initial training with compulsion, as I've seen most of the time (especially if the handler tries to do it without a trainer) it's sometimes a train wreck. With today's dogs it's VERY difficult to maintain it with force, even with the Ecollar. And if it works it's sure to affect other parts of the dog's work, including the search and the quality of the bite. It's a constant teeter totter of control v. bite quality. That's why selection of the proper dog and using his drives in training is so vital.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Brett Bowen said:


> An example from our k9 unit in my department (I'm not the handler but I was involved in this call). Car Burglary, which is a misdemeanor here in TX. Victim parked their car in a movie theatre parking lot, interrupted the suspect and suspect ran off into an apartment complex. Typically not going to automatically send the dog for a bite on a misdemeanor,


As you mention, one should use care in sending a dog for a bite on a misdemeanant. I suggest that you review case law before thinking about sending a K−9 to bite a misdemeanant. See Marley v. City of Allentown and Kerr v. City of West Palm Beach. Also visit Graham v. Connor where one of the tests as to the level of force that can be used is based on "the severity of the crime." The exception could be if you can establish that the suspect poses a threat to the officers but there's nothing of this in the situation you described. Nothing wrong with using a K−9 to track/trail the suspect but a moment later you're talking about a foot pursuit when it does not sound as if the K−9 is justified. 



Brett Bowen said:


> I think you are better off having the dog on a line in that situation for a couple reasons: it's early evening in an entertainment district lots of people around and drunks that like to say hi to the "purty doggy", heading to an apartment complex same thing way too many people around that may or may not be your suspect.


If you're tracking/trailing then most people must have the dog on line or he'll run off on the trail. Some are using a method that does not require a line and allows the handler and the back−team to stay off the trail and use cover and concealment. 

But as to the _"lots of people around and drunks ..."_ if you have selected the proper dog and then trained him properly, a leash in such a situation is superfluous. The right dog for LE work should not have a problem with this. 



Brett Bowen said:


> Now, building search, yeah I agree do that off leash unless theres some reason not to. Then use the dogs speed and agility to be %100 committed to getting a bite otherwise we're giving the suspect time to come up with a plan of what he's going to do. He may wait the dog out with his barking then ambush the officers with a gun.


And of course he could do the same with a find and bite dog. I'd bet that just about every police officer reading this has hidden for a dog at some point. I'd also bet that none of you were surprised by his arrival or the arrival of the officers. Both the dog and the officers make all sorts of noise, no matter how quiet they're trying to be. Anyone who wants to do an ambush will do so, whether the dog bites him or barks at him. Those who count on a dog bite stopping a shooting from occurring by biting simply are not facing reality. In fact many, if not most, shootings that happen on K−9 deployments that are directed at the officers come AFTER the dog has bitten.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Pete Stevens said:


> OK, I didn't read the all the post because some were just way too long.


Dontcha read books Pete? Later on you talk about the Mesloh study (although it wasn’t a _"study"_ rather it was a survey). Didja read that entire document or only the conclusions? It was 216 pages and much of it was quite technical. If the latter, how did you determine that it was _"pretty darn accurate."_ 



Pete Stevens said:


> When I had my patrol dog, we trained in find and hold aka find and bite aka handler control. I have attended training seminars, including an agitators courses, that trained B&H. I'll take handler control anyday. I make the decision to send my dog on a suspect apprehension not the dog.


Pete no one is talking about anyone else _"making the decision"_ to send your dog on a suspect apprehension. We're talking about the dog either barking or biting AFTER he's made the find. BTW, in the agitator's course you attended how did they train the find and bark? 



Pete Stevens said:


> We have very strict guidelines for deployement. Only one agency in my area trains B&H but they don't deploy in it. San Diego PD had one of the largest units for a long time. As many as 50 K9 teams before budget down sizing made them shrink. They literally have 1000's of bites and very little lawsuits as a result of. And less that $100K paid out and that was a settlement because sometimes is better not to role the dice with a civil jury. They have trained and deployed in handler control for many years.


And so you link the lack of lawsuits to the fact that they used find and bite? Sorry but you have it quite wrong. First, you've established a cause−effect relationship between the method of deployment and the lack of lawsuits. Logic tells us that there's nothing but coincidence that links the two. Coincidence is not causation. 

Second, the reason that in the 1990's there were so many lawsuits in the LA area is that this is the home ground of the pair of lawyers who brought most of those suits. No reason for them to travel, when they've got plenty of work right in their own backyard. Add in the decades of disharmony (heck, outright hatred) between the LAPD and the LA Times, the major newspaper in the area (which makes it easy for the lawyers to pollute the jury pool and prejudice them long before trial) and the fact that the population of LA is very liberal while the population of SD is very conservative and you have one area, ripe for lawsuits and another, a desert for them. 



Pete Stevens said:


> As far as Charles Mesloh's Florida study on bite ratios with B&H vs. handler control, based on what I've seen, its pretty darn accurate.


Mesloh's study is based on a questionnaire that was sent out to hundreds of police K−9 handlers in Florida. This was done cold, without any previous communication with those handlers. Suddenly questions started appearing on the email lists and forums populated by those handlers. Who was this guy? What was the purpose of his questionnaire? Was he one of the bad guys? What was he going to do with the information? Most handlers said that they simply has trashed the questionnaire and would not respond if another one was sent out. 

I guess word got back to Mesloh and I think he (or someone who knew him) came on the boards and gave his background. He's a former K−9 handler who had retired with a back injury (I don't recall if he was retired at the time of the survey) and was writing a paper for his university. 

Still many handlers didn't trust where the information would wind up and refused to respond to it. Many that I knew personally said that they'd already sent their surveys in, but had given completely false information just to mess with the guy who had requested the information! Some were ordered by supervisors to complete the form and send it in. I know many of those folks who, in silent protest, purposefully gave false information. As the saying goes GIGO, garbage in – garbage out. 

But the main failing of the survey is that he bases his conclusions on "Bite Ratios" but he never gives a definition of the terms involved. He tells us that his definition of bite ratio is the number of apprehensions with bite divided by the total number of apprehensions. The problem is that he never defines the terms "apphenensions" or "bites" and there are many ways of defining them. He had no idea how the agencies surveyed defined them either. And so, not only do we have "garbage in" we also have "garbage WITHin." 



Pete Stevens said:


> My building search deployment warnings are pretty simple "Police department with a K9, come out now or I'll send a police dog. You WILL be bit" Not "You might be bit". Basically, if I send the dog, he will bit you.


In one place you tell the suspect _"you WILL be bit."_ but you tell us that _" 'basically'_ if I send the dog, he will bite you." I'd bet that sometimes your dog does NOT bite the suspect. Unless you order the suspect down from a high place or out from behind a door, or to exit a box he's taken refuge in, your dog probably won't bite him. I'd also bet that sometimes you spot the suspect before the dog get his scent, order him to surrender and he complies. There too, your dog does not bite him. Other times the suspect may surrender as soon as you enter the room he's in, and there too, your dog does not bite him. If you're biting everyone you find, there's a problem. 



Pete Stevens said:


> A proper B&H warning might be "Police department with a K9, come out now or I'll send a police dog. If he finds you, hold still and don't move because if you do, the dog might bite you."


Nah, really not necessary. The tail end of such warnings are usually something like, "... surrender now and you won't be harmed. If the dog finds you, you may be bitten." 



Pete Stevens said:


> Most of the agencies north of us, especially in the LA area, train B&H and do fine.


In the LA area there's a higher percentage of find and bark dogs than across the US because of the influence of Dave Reaver, one of the earliest advocates of it. In LA County it's probably about 50:50.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

I think most dept's that have over 50 officers in this day and age have at least one pair of NV goggles and most fire depts in the country have a portabe thermal imager. All you have to do is borrow them from who ever has them and train with them.

I wont fuss anymore, you have outlasted me on this one.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

will fernandez said:


> .... you have outlasted me on this one.


Typed to death? :lol:


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Round and round has my head spinning...forget about my dog looking for the back door I just went through it.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

I thought I spent a lot of effort reading and interpreting and responding to posts...

That must take forever, to separate each point out, and then respond to it. I tried it on a small scale...

I quickly lose interest in reading it though, because of the loss of the overall context, and since nobody else is gonna take that amount of time to respond to it all (usually) the discussion is usually over....If someone does take the time to parse it all out in a response, then I go back and read them...

I think all parties should respond in full to all points with a paragraph or two, imagine how much effort that would take to then parse out the multiple sentences in the paragraphs and address them individually in an exponentially increased volume of responesm, from multiple posters. how wide could that pyramid get? I think the possibilities could go on to infinity


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Lou says: "You're wrong, not because we disagree, but because of the absolute nature of your comment. You wrote, "Those of us involved with dogs that still work the street prefer the f/b."

I agree, a literal translation would indicate I worded my sentence wrong. A vast majority of the active police trainers I've spoken to, working dogs on the street, prefer the f/b v. b/h. 

Lou says: "Can you direct us to that material you're referring to?"

Yes, I could point you to some studies. I'll only point to one; the IACP's study on b/h. It told me all I wanted to know. You'd lose the bet on Mr. Reaver. After that, truthfully Lou, for me, you just take the fun out of a good discussion. I've stated my philosophy, I've been consistent with that philosophy since I first saw b/h demonstrated in 1969. I've seen nothing since that would change my mind. It's not my job to appease DOJ or the IACP.

DFrost


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> I think the possibilities could go on to infinity


Can and do!

I have no fun getting into a typing contest with Lou, either. I just don't go there. 

So I guess it means he always wins. :lol:


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Connie Sutherland said:


> Can and do!
> 
> I have no fun getting into a typing contest with Lou, either. I just don't go there.
> 
> So I guess it means he always wins. :lol:


----------



## Lisa Radcliffe (Jun 9, 2011)

David Frost said:


> chuckle, chuckle -
> 
> DFrost[/QUOTE I can only ask my friends that train PDS in europe as I only know the few here in the states I just met, I am pretty sure they could not answer all my questions or even care to. My comment was not about USA vs euro what is better! but I am starting to understand what goes on here )


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Lisa Radcliffe said:


> .... but I am starting to understand what goes on here )


Good luck with that, after 25 posts. :lol:

I usually don't, after more than 5 years. :-o


----------



## Lisa Radcliffe (Jun 9, 2011)

Ok, I have one more question here in regards to this and this will be my last  Will a dog trained in the find and bite, bark when it first picks up the scent? if in drive I would think some dogs on instinct would. If I understand this as posted. "only after exploration is done and he's determined that he can't get to the suspect, will he bark" for the dog trained in the find and bite."The find and bark dog can be initially deployed with a bite command too" If this is the case why not train for the hold and bark then layer the "bite" command if needed? control issue? The officers in my area keep their dogs on a long line, they also use the find and bark only. This is what I was told. I would think it might be besides the dept policy, a control issue. The 3 dogs I saw had ecollars too but what I saw off leash for any control ( this was in their training only) did not work well. (call backs, outs ) I am sure they will keep working on these things and all will fall into place.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Lisa Radcliffe said:


> David Frost said:
> 
> 
> > chuckle, chuckle -
> ...


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Lisa Radcliffe said:


> Ok, I have one more question here in regards to this and this will be my last  Will a dog trained in the find and bite, bark when it first picks up the scent? if in drive I would think some dogs on instinct would. If I understand this as posted. "only after exploration is done and he's determined that he can't get to the suspect, will he bark" for the dog trained in the find and bite."The find and bark dog can be initially deployed with a bite command too" If this is the case why not train for the hold and bark then layer the "bite" command if needed? control issue? The officers in my area keep their dogs on a long line, they also use the find and bark only. This is what I was told. I would think it might be besides the dept policy, a control issue. The 3 dogs I saw had ecollars too but what I saw off leash for any control ( this was in their training only) did not work well. (call backs, outs ) I am sure they will keep working on these things and all will fall into place.



Geez, no wonder you're so knowledgeable. I didn't realize you've seen three dogs. 

Some dogs will bark when they pick up the scent, some won't. I prefer they don't in certain situations. Since b/h isn't my cup of tea I'll let someone else worship at that alter.

DFrost


----------



## Jim Duncan (Jan 19, 2009)

David Frost said:


> First off, I couldn't agree more. One of the points I've made in my discussion of this v. that was bad guys aren't trained to hold still when told. Of course the counter-argument to that is; We (police trainers) just don't know how to teach the b/h properly.
> 
> I'm curious though, can you be more specific on the decision to return to f/b after training b/h. I know a public forum is sometimes not the best place for some discussions, so if it's none of my business or you just don't want to I understand. If you prefer to email or private message I would understand that as well. I know sometimes we really do have to be careful when we talk about such things. The latest K9 defense whore of the month (while not a member of this forum) has been known to use posts from forums or private conversations.
> 
> DFrost


David,
We have a state certifying agency that works under NAPWDA guidelines and rules for certifying our dogs. Reasonable force or the "Hold and Bark" is an option for certification. We can do that or down our dogs before the decoy or call the dog back. I can do either of the latter two, it doesn't matter to me. I also trained this dog in SchH before I used him as my police dog. I trained the H&B out of him once I converted him to my Police K-9. Here are some of the issues that I have found with the H&B and many of our Certifying Master Trainers agree with. First, we only send our dogs on felony suspects. We do not deploy the dogs on misdemeanors, and if we deploy the dog we have already justified that level of use of force. We have already determined that this suspect is a serious risk to the public and our safety. So why even deploy with the H&B trained dog when you know that is not tactically correct or safe. If the suspect gives up we can down or call the dog back before the bite. 

When tracking we track with an apprehension command. When tracking what about suspects in a concealed postition of ambush as in PA recently? A H&B trained dog will do a H&B on a passive suspect, this is not safe if the passive suspect is armed. I read some comment son tracking and clearing with a 30' line. I deploy my dog on high risk tracks and covert building clears with our SWAT team. Yes, the line is cumbersome at times but tactically the way to go. You just have to train clearing with it and get the team used to it. If you are experienced with positioning the dog and the team it is not an issue. 

I suppose the other reason we switched is that you can never predict suspects actions and expect a drunk, high or nervous suspect to stand still and not get bit when confronted by a strong, intimidating dog. My dog when doing a H&B in SchH sport would bite a decoy in the chest that tried to intimidate him or provoke him. Another reason is what needs to be done to train the H&B and keep that reliable when you are training the other options as well. If you train a termination of pursuit and a down do you really need a H&B. My biggest issue is with passive potentially violent suspects and putting my dog in a vulnerable position. The other issue is with concealed suspects laying in a position of ambush. My dog engaging may save me, other officers and the dog. As Will said too many K-9 guys getting killed lately. 

To address a couple of things Lisa brought up. First, if you have only ridden with or observed 3 handlers don't judge all of us K-9 guys by them. Secondly, I know several world class German K-9 Handlers and Top sport people. In Germany the rules of engagement for K-9's is different. If a German K-9 Handler can put his hands on some one to effect an arrest his dog can bite them. We do not have that luxury, we need more than simply resisting arrest or non compliance to deploy our dogs. Because they can utilize their dogs much more liberally they must have exact training and a H&B. If I sent my dog into a building for a trespasser I might want to use the H&B, however my dog is not deployed off lead for trespassers. we are a litigious nation and liability is a big factor. In Germany if the suspect moves and gets bit the handler says "your stupid I told you not to move!" 

I guess we have seen it too many times where the suspect moves just a small amount or the dog bumps or intimidates the guy into moving and gets bit to realize the H&B is antiquated. If I send my dog the suspect has felony charges and or a violent criminal history and the bite is justified. Naturally, we give warnings and a reasonable time to give up. We beleive it is counterproductive to our deployments and not feasible or tactically safe.

BTW, I have some LEO sensitive info on the events of the death of the K-9 handler in PA if any of the K-9 guys want it I will email it to you if you haven't seen it already. It is not for the general public, nor will I discuss on the open forum. 

Jim


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

Jim Duncan said:


> David,
> We have a state certifying agency that works under NAPWDA guidelines and rules for certifying our dogs. Reasonable force or the "Hold and Bark" is an option for certification. We can do that or down our dogs before the decoy or call the dog back. I can do either of the latter two, it doesn't matter to me. I also trained this dog in SchH before I used him as my police dog. I trained the H&B out of him once I converted him to my Police K-9. Here are some of the issues that I have found with the H&B and many of our Certifying Master Trainers agree with. First, we only send our dogs on felony suspects. We do not deploy the dogs on misdemeanors, and if we deploy the dog we have already justified that level of use of force. We have already determined that this suspect is a serious risk to the public and our safety. So why even deploy with the H&B trained dog when you know that is not tactically correct or safe. If the suspect gives up we can down or call the dog back before the bite.
> 
> When tracking we track with an apprehension command. When tracking what about suspects in a concealed postition of ambush as in PA recently? A H&B trained dog will do a H&B on a passive suspect, this is not safe if the passive suspect is armed. I read some comment son tracking and clearing with a 30' line. I deploy my dog on high risk tracks and covert building clears with our SWAT team. Yes, the line is cumbersome at times but tactically the way to go. You just have to train clearing with it and get the team used to it. If you are experienced with positioning the dog and the team it is not an issue.
> ...


I've seen that info on the PA incident . Good info for other Police Officers and K9 handlers to have . Some people are truely evil .


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Jim, our policy is very similar. We too use the dogs on felony suspects only. Generally we follow the requirements of Garner. I don't know if USPCA has a provision for h/b. I knew Napwda did. We also can down our dogs in front of a subject. It's a handler's perogitive, not something the dog does on his own. We practice engaging motionless subjects. I had to chuckle with your comments about Germany. I lived there several year and was pretty active with the Polizie (probably spelled that wrong) K9. We would frequently train with them and them with us. Their rules of engagement are certainly different. Ask any drunk GI, that tried to resist, ha ha. At any rate, I'd be interested in seeing the info you have on the PA ambush. My department email is listed, I think, but to be sure, I'll PM you my department email. That and the recent shooting in Indana have been topics of discussion lately. 

DFrost


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

David Frost said:


> Jim, our policy is very similar. We too use the dogs on felony suspects only. Generally we follow the requirements of Garner. I don't know if USPCA has a provision for h/b. I knew Napwda did. We also can down our dogs in front of a subject. It's a handler's perogitive, not something the dog does on his own. We practice engaging motionless subjects. I had to chuckle with your comments about Germany. I lived there several year and was pretty active with the Polizie (probably spelled that wrong) K9. We would frequently train with them and them with us. Their rules of engagement are certainly different. Ask any drunk GI, that tried to resist, ha ha. At any rate, I'd be interested in seeing the info you have on the PA ambush. My department email is listed, I think, but to be sure, I'll PM you my department email. That and the recent shooting in Indana have been topics of discussion lately.
> 
> DFrost


Our policy is very similar also . I've also had similar experiances with the German K9 handlers that rode along with us . Good folks but very proud of the large amount of people they bit and how much freedom they had to do so .


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Jim Nash said:


> Our policy is very similar also . I've also had similar experiances with the German K9 handlers that rode along with us . Good folks but very proud of the large amount of people they bit and how much freedom they had to do so .


I hadn't been in Germany 3 months when we were driving on the Autobahn to Frankfurt. The entire Autobahn came to a stop and was funneled to two lanes. they were checking papers, and having everyone open their trunks. They had a bit of an obstacle course set up to prevent people from running the checkpoint. Heavy vehicles with mounted automatic weapons. Personally I didn't feel that was the time to ask them if it were legal to require me to open my truck. I remember they put a small red sticker on the lower left corner of my windshield. That happened a couple of times while we were in Europe. I know that red sticker remained on that windshield until it just wore off. ha ha. It's a different environment completely. 

DFrost


----------



## Jim Duncan (Jan 19, 2009)

Yes, David and Jim there search and seizure and traffic stop laws are different than ours. Not that it is a bad thing. :razz:

I should add that I might send my dog on a misdemeanor suspect if his criminal history shows narcotics distribution, assaults on LEO or gun and violent domestics. Sometimes criminal history plays a bigger factor than current charges.

Jim


----------



## Sandra King (Mar 29, 2011)

Jim Nash said:


> Our policy is very similar also . I've also had similar experiances with the German K9 handlers that rode along with us . *Good folks but very proud of the large amount of people they bit and how much freedom they had to do so *.


The difference between the US and Germany is that it doesn't end up in the news anytime a K9 takes down a criminal. You barely read anything about a K9 in the newspapers at all. They are not worshipped like over here. You don't read when one dies of cancer or when he gets hit by a car, they don't have public funerals nor do you get to read when a K9 took down a criminal and one of the reason they have that kind of freedom is because they don't have the public pressure you have over here. Almost daily you can read something about a K9 in a newspaper and it looks like that especially K9 handlers stand in the public spotlight. In Germany... well it's something normal. SAR dogs or K9's don't get that kind of publicity...


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

After David wrote


> If one reads the material on why b/h was first recommended it answers a lot of questions. It was because f/b wasn't trained properly.


I asked,


> Can you direct us to that material you're referring to?





David Frost said:


> Yes, I could point you to some studies. I'll only point to one; the IACP's study on b/h. It told me all I wanted to know.



I wonder could you be more specific? Perhaps the exact title of the study you're referring to or perhaps a link. One of the problems I have with your statement is that to my knowledge, neither the IACP nor the DOJ have provided information as to how they came to the decision to make this recommendation. 

In January 2001 the IACP wrote


> * 5. Use of Canines to Apprehend Suspects *
> The use of a canine to attempt to apprehend or seize a civilian is a use of force. Special precautions are required to ensure that such force is not used unnecessarily or unreasonably. A canine should be deployed to apprehend or seize an individual only where: (a) the individual is suspected of having committed a serious or violent felony, (b) less potentially injurious techniques are insufficient, and (c) unless it is precluded by officer safety, a verbal warning is given prior to deployment and a supervisor’s approval is obtained. Agencies should train their canines to follow the approach of “find and bark,” rather than “find and bite.”


Nowhere in THAT DOCUMENT Entitled _"Principles for Promoting Police Integrity" _ does it give a reason for this recommendation. 

Per Mesloh's survey,


> One of the most troubling consequences of the IACP and the Department of Justice report is * the lack of information provided on how they came to adopt this change in policy. * [Emphasis Added]


Wondering where you come by the information that has you saying that the reason the IACP went to the find and bark was that the find and bite wasn't being trained properly? Perhaps a citation or a link? 



David Frost said:


> You'd lose the bet on Mr. Reaver.


I just got off the phone with Dave Reaver and asked him some questions relative to this discussion. He still trains and advocates the find and bark and has since he started training dogs for LE in the 1970's. Dave said he trains the find and bark because 1. Without it many dogs that find that if they can't bite when they make a find (inaccessible suspect) they give a weak alert. Training the find and bark strengthens that alert. 2. He uses it to teach confrontational behavior to the dog. He says it's a way to bring out defense aggression. 3. It's useful in court to be able to say that we're not going to bite everyone we find because the dog is trained to bark, rather than to bite when he makes the find. Mr. Reaver also thinks that dogs trained in this method are more successful on their first deployments. He too thinks that it's safer for the handler. Dave has no memory of ever making such a statement as you've attributed to him, that "the find and bark came about because the find and bite was not being trained properly." So I wonder what bet I'd lose on Mr. Reaver? 



David Frost said:


> After that, truthfully Lou, for me, you just take the fun out of a good discussion.


Perhaps if this was not something that I consider of vital importance, the safety of K−9 handlers and their back up teams, I'd not be as interested and might have dropped out. Sorry it's not fun to discuss this. I think it's too important to let go. I have no intention of ever changing your mind. But there are others reading this and I want them to have both sides so that they can make intelligent decisions. 



David Frost said:


> I've stated my philosophy, I've been consistent with that philosophy since I first saw b/h demonstrated in 1969. I've seen nothing since that would change my mind.


I've stated my philosophy too. And I've seen both methods of training and deploying done properly. I've chosen to switch what I do from find and bite to find and bark because of the increased safety factors. Nowadays I'll train which ever the client wants but I try to steer them towards the find and bark. 

I'll have to say that you've never seen the find and bark properly trained. I don't know anyone who's seen it that has said that find and bite is safer or more efficient except from the standpoint of training time. I've already said that the find and bark takes more time to train and once the dog has gotten some street experience, it's much harder to maintain. But I think those are small prices to pay for the increased safety to the handlers. 



David Frost said:


> It's not my job to appease DOJ or the IACP.


Mine neither, and my reasons for preferring the find and bite have nothing to do with either entity. It's about officer, K−9, suspect, and public safety.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Connie Sutherland said:


> I have no fun getting into a typing contest with Lou, either. I just don't go there.
> 
> So I guess it means he always wins. :lol:


Nah, it just means that I have more spare time and less of a life than others. I don't think one wins or loses these discussion. I think that it's important that as much information get out as possible. If people get tired of reading there's always other posts. 

Perhaps if you folks who object to the find and bark were specific, I'd understand. Just what is it about a dog barking at a crook he finds, instead of biting him, that you find objectionable?


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Lisa Radcliffe said:


> Ok, I have one more question here in regards to this and this will be my last  Will a dog trained in the find and bite, bark when it first picks up the scent? if in drive I would think some dogs on instinct would.


He might give a quick bark out of excitement. But he's not going to bark continually as will a find and bark dog. 



Lisa Radcliffe said:


> If I understand this as posted. "only after exploration is done and he's determined that he can't get to the suspect, will he bark" for the dog trained in the find and bite."The find and bark dog can be initially deployed with a bite command too" If this is the case why not train for the hold and bark then layer the "bite" command if needed? control issue?


That can be done. The dog can either be deployed with the command to bark or to bite. If he's barking he can be commanded to bite. Sorry if this wasn't clear at first. 



Lisa Radcliffe said:


> The officers in my area keep their dogs on a long line, they also use the find and bark only. This is what I was told. I would think it might be besides the dept policy, a control issue. The 3 dogs I saw had ecollars too but what I saw off leash for any control ( this was in their training only) did not work well. (call backs, outs ) I am sure they will keep working on these things and all will fall into place.


More than likely they're only using the Ecollars as a novel way to cause discomfort at a distance without any line on the dog. That's not a great way to get the out or the call off, especially with today's dogs.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jim Duncan said:


> Here are some of the issues that I have found with the H&B and many of our Certifying Master Trainers agree with. First, we only send our dogs on felony suspects. We do not deploy the dogs on misdemeanors, and if we deploy the dog we have already justified that level of use of force.


I'd bet that in the absence of the K−9 you WOULD NOT punch or baton this suspect when he was located in the building. Just because you can use force does not mean that you always should. 




Jim Duncan said:


> So why even deploy with the H&B trained dog when you know that is not tactically correct or safe.


I must have missed the part where anyone successfully pointed out that it was _"not tactically correct or safe."_ Please explain how these things. I'll say that it's FAR SAFER for the handler and team to know that the dog has located the suspect and where he is than to be approaching the area while the dog is looking for a back door and NOT to know that he's made the find. 



Jim Duncan said:


> If the suspect gives up we can down or call the dog back before the bite.


A suspect that is confronted with a barking dog is much more likely to give up. 



Jim Duncan said:


> I read some comment son tracking and clearing with a 30' line. I deploy my dog on high risk tracks and covert building clears with our SWAT team. Yes, the line is cumbersome at times but tactically the way to go.


I'm still on the list of people who can teach for Brad Smith at his SKIDDS (Swat and K−9 Interacting During Deployments) and at his CATS (Canine Tactical School). I used to teach at the UTT School (Urban Tactical Training). MOST of the people who come through the classes use a long line. But it's not for tactical reasons. Anyone with a shred of common sense realizes that having a dog on a long line is NOT tactical! It's because they don't have precise control of their dogs at a distance. The schools have handlers downing their dogs on the thresholds of doorways and few handlers have the timing or the precision control to be able to do this reliably. The long line allows them to stop their dog at exactly the right second and then give them the down command, placing them in just the right position. But anyone knows that the line very quickly become tangled in furniture and must be untangled, before the dog can move forward, taking the handlers attention off where the suspect may be hiding and wasting valuable time. 



Jim Duncan said:


> You just have to train clearing with it and get the team used to it. If you are experienced with positioning the dog and the team it is not an issue.


I've yet to see anyone who can work a dog as efficiently with a long line as they can without it (if they have the precision control or can properly use an Ecollar). Thousands of officers have gone through the classes. You must be the exception. 



Jim Duncan said:


> I suppose the other reason we switched is that you can never predict suspects actions and expect a drunk, high or nervous suspect to stand still and not get bit when confronted by a strong, intimidating dog.


I'm starting to get the picture. You have not seen it properly trained using the dog's drives. 



Jim Duncan said:


> My dog when doing a H&B in SchH sport would bite a decoy in the chest that tried to intimidate him or provoke him.


Yep. The find and bark for LE is COMPLETELY different from the movement that only resembles it in SchH. Now the reasons for the objections to the find and bark are becoming clear. I find it quite ironic that after years of discussion where police officers were saying that LE work is different from sport work, that you use this argument, that sport is the same as in LE. It's not. Just as in previous discussion about this; sport is concerned with what a dog looks like he's doing and LE is concerned with what a dog is thinking (what drive he's in). 



Jim Duncan said:


> Another reason is what needs to be done to train the H&B and keep that reliable when you are training the other options as well.


Yep, I've mentioned this several times. It's often quite time consuming to do things the safe way, no matter what we're talking about. From training the find and bark to waiting out barricaded suspects it sometimes takes MUCH longer. 



Jim Duncan said:


> If you train a termination of pursuit and a down do you really need a H&B.


Not sure what a _"termination of pursuit and a down"_ have to do with a find and bark. One is a search the other is a pursuit. They're not the same. But perhaps I misunderstand. Can you explain please? 



Jim Duncan said:


> My biggest issue is with passive potentially violent suspects and putting my dog in a vulnerable position.


Your dog is in a far more vulnerable position if he's biting the suspect than if he's several feet away, barking at him. The facts are that if a suspect has a gun he can shoot your dog whether he's barking or biting. MOST shots that are fired in these situations come AFTER a bite, not during the bark phase. It's far more common for a suspect to be armed with a blunt weapon or a knife than a gun. Neither of those weapons are of use if the dog is at a distance, barking. But if he bites they can easily be brought to bear. I don't understand why people fail to realize these facts, but in these discussions about the find and bark, it's the rule, rather than the exception. 



Jim Duncan said:


> The other issue is with concealed suspects laying in a position of ambush. My dog engaging may save me, other officers and the dog. As Will said too many K-9 guys getting killed lately.


A barking dog that's located the suspect will give you notice that he's made the find so you don't walk into the ambush. A biting dog may or may not dissuade the suspect from his ambush. The barking is a sure thing. The biting is not. 



Jim Duncan said:


> I guess we have seen it too many times where the suspect moves just a small amount or the dog bumps or intimidates the guy into moving and gets bit to realize the H&B is antiquated.


AS I THOUGHT. You've NOT seen the find and bark properly trained. Instead you've seen dogs who have had compulsion (rather than drives) used to keep them back from the bite. They've learned that if they _"bump or intimidate the guy into moving"_ they get to bite him. Dogs who do this are in prey drive where the barking is a flushing behavior, INTENDED to make the prey move so they can engage. If you had seen this taught in fight drive, where the bark is a detaining behavior, intended to keep the suspect rooted, NOT to make move, you'd feel differently. But few people know how to invoke the fight drive in training this. 

NO WONDER you folks oppose the find and bark! 



Jim Duncan said:


> If I send my dog the suspect has felony charges and or a violent criminal history and the bite is justified.


You've received a radio call to go to a building that has had a break in. How do you know if the suspect has a _"violent criminal history?"_ And I'm sorry but having felony charges DOES NOT by itself justify a bite. If they did, then you could punch, baton, or Taser every suspect that you found on a felony search. Yet, in the absence of a K−9 we don't do this. At least we should not be. 



Jim Duncan said:


> Naturally, we give warnings and a reasonable time to give up. We beleive it is counterproductive to our deployments and not feasible or tactically safe.


Based on what you've just told us about how you've seen it trained, I'd probably agree. But if it's trained properly it's BOTH feasible and tactically safer. 



Jim Duncan said:


> BTW, I have some LEO sensitive info on the events of the death of the K-9 handler in PA if any of the K-9 guys want it I will email it to you if you haven't seen it already. It is not for the general public, nor will I discuss on the open forum.


I'd like to see it please. My email address is in my signature. Thanks.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Did any of you folks who spent time in Germany get to do any work with the German Border Guards? Those are the folks who use the find and bark to great advantage. They have electronic detection devices planted in the forests and when they get an activation they release a dog into the area. The dog is supposed to find the suspect and then circle him and bark. Then they'll send an officer to investigate. If the dog were to engage it would be easy to stab him (knives being a common weapon of choice there, rather than guns). Instead he keeps a distance from the suspect and if he tries to attack the dog, the dog bounds away, maintaining the distance all the while barking so that the handler can find him.


----------



## Lisa Radcliffe (Jun 9, 2011)

Thank you Lou Castle  your posts were very informative and thought provoking and shown so many variables on what my Question was on the police K9 H&B only. I have one question for you that if I didn't ask I will be thinking about for sometime- "but few people know how to invoke the fight drive in training this" is this something you can explain here? what do you do to get the dog in fight drive for this kind of training? I understand about decoy work for sport and how to switch prey drive and defence back and forth but I thought "fight" drive was something the dog brings on his own. Notice I said "sport" I do not want anyone to think I know about PDS training for this, and to be clear I am asking about the Hold and Bark. Thank you for your reply.


----------



## Lisa Radcliffe (Jun 9, 2011)

David Frost said:


> Lisa Radcliffe said:
> 
> 
> > So when you said "I plan to keep one for myself but after I have seen what kind of training is used here and the handlers I am not sure the level of dog handling is up enough for my comfort level."
> ...


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Lisa says: "Just in case I want to do it again otherwise I'll try SAR or what was that you said fund raising or I could just stay in the kitchen and bake cookies!,"

No ma'am, I never said any such thing. You'd have to show me where I said that.

I hope it works out for you. I'm sure you'll be the one to straighten out all those handlers so they can handle " a lotta dog". I'm satisfied with the dogs my vendor has been providing, but if I ever need "a lotta dog", perhaps we can do business.

DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Lou, I guess we just have different perspectives when we read materials. At any rate, I have neither the time nor the inclination to carry out a lengthy, prolonged, typewritten discussion with you. Like I said, you just take the enjoyment out it for me. 

DFrost


----------



## Laura Bollschweiler (Apr 25, 2008)

Lisa Radcliffe said:


> I will give this a try and see if I can be clear. I said I wanted to keep a pup and put a nice foundation on one that may be a candidate for some kind of police service, The dogs genetics are such that if everything was right it could be a very nice dog


Hey, Lisa, maybe I can help by sharing my experience. I sold a dog to a police department. I fed him, took him places, taught him to sit, did some tracking, and taught him bark, bite, out. I didn't intend to sell him but that's how it turned out when he was 16 months old. If I had known I was going to sell him, I wouldn't have taught the bark, bite, out stuff. 

I know a few other dogs that went to the same program as mine did with varying levels of training. I can think of three others off the top of my head that were not raised with the goal of selling to a police department so weren't built with a foundation for such.

I'm confused why you're putting too much emphasis on foundation, especially if the dog has good genetics. 

Laura


----------



## Sandra King (Mar 29, 2011)

Lou Castle said:


> Did any of you folks who spent time in Germany get to do any work with the German Border Guards? Those are the folks who use the find and bark to great advantage. They have electronic detection devices planted in the forests and when they get an activation they release a dog into the area. The dog is supposed to find the suspect and then circle him and bark. Then they'll send an officer to investigate. If the dog were to engage it would be easy to stab him (knives being a common weapon of choice there, rather than guns). Instead he keeps a distance from the suspect and if he tries to attack the dog, the dog bounds away, maintaining the distance all the while barking so that the handler can find him.


You mean the Bundesgrensschutz? 

Yeah, it's barely known what they do at all, so you actually know much more than the general public in Germany. We are kept in the dark. :lol:


----------



## Jim Duncan (Jan 19, 2009)

Lou, 
Just to comment on one of your posts:

"*I've yet to see anyone who can work a dog as efficiently with a long line as they can without it (if they have the precision control or can properly use an Ecollar). Thousands of officers have gone through the classes. You must be the exception."*

I've been told I am the exceprtion to many things, none related to this conversation. 

For your information I do directed off lead searches with a laser pointer with out SWAT team. However, a long line does have some advantages for getiing a dog back silently in the doark and having some control on the dog if he engages a subject. I will agree that using the laser with the dog off lead is certainly easier and correct in some situations. I can down my dog at door ways or leave him point while the team details rooms behind him. I can leave him in an a T or cross intersection in a hallway covering down range till we move up behind him. The long line, the laser or both just different tools to use depending ont he op.


----------



## Mircea Hemu-Ha (Nov 24, 2009)

I think i saw this discussed earlier, if the purpose of the dog is not to bite, only bark, why not use a hound ? Less of a problem on the dirty bites and if the dog is supposed to dodge when the guy moves, the fierce factor of a GSD/mal is out the window.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Mircea Hemu-Ha said:


> I think i saw this discussed earlier, if the purpose of the dog is not to bite, only bark, why not use a hound ? Less of a problem on the dirty bites and if the dog is supposed to dodge when the guy moves, the fierce factor of a GSD/mal is out the window.


I don't think it's a matter of the dog never biting. It's more of a matter of when they do. Most PSD folks will agree the primary purpose of the dog is to detect and locate. 

DFrost


----------



## Brett Bowen (May 2, 2011)

I'd like to post an article I read, last night to be exact, where some researchers repeated the study of bite ratios in regards find and bite vs find and bite dogs. Turns out the find and bite dogs have a "statistically significant" higher bite ratio than find and bite dogs just like the first study. I suspect one of the main reasons (among others I can develop a hypothesis on) is it's hard to maintain and the majority of us cops aren't dog trainers. 

But, as thought provoking as the conversation has been, it's exhausting and no fun to have your post picked apart line by line for voicing an opinion. Some people like the good old fashioned Kraft mac and cheese, some like the Velveeta shells and cheese, I'll leave it at that.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Brett, look at what you typed. I think you mean bark/hold v. find/bite but you've compared f/b to f/b.

DFrost


----------



## Brett Bowen (May 2, 2011)

David Frost said:


> Brett, look at what you typed. I think you mean bark/hold v. find/bite but you've compared f/b to f/b.
> 
> DFrost


Well I'm the genius in the thread aren't I? The study was specifically find and bite VS find and bark.

That's what happens when your wife is talking to you while you're trying to type something


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Brett Bowen said:


> Well I'm the genius in the thread aren't I? The study was specifically find and bite VS find and bark.
> 
> That's what happens when your wife is talking to you while you're trying to type something


chuckle, chuckle. 

DFrost


----------



## Lisa Radcliffe (Jun 9, 2011)

Laura Bollschweiler said:


> Hey, Lisa, maybe I can help by sharing my experience. I sold a dog to a police department. I fed him, took him places, taught him to sit, did some tracking, and taught him bark, bite, out. I didn't intend to sell him but that's how it turned out when he was 16 months old. If I had known I was going to sell him, I wouldn't have taught the bark, bite, out stuff.
> 
> I know a few other dogs that went to the same program as mine did with varying levels of training. I can think of three others off the top of my head that were not raised with the goal of selling to a police department so weren't built with a foundation for such.
> 
> ...


Thank you Laura for sharing your experience. I think I mentioned one time about what my plans were about putting a foundation on a puppy here and it took off with replys in hind sight I think it would have been fine to keep that private but then I would not have had the chance to read your post as well. I do not feel I am putting too much emphasis on the foundation, It will be a lot of enviormental, hunting ball/tug play some bite work and fun searches, people in boxes and indications. All fun!! When I was 19 I worked training campus security dogs, there was a GSD, 4 dobermann's and a boxer. 2 of the six month old dobermann's lived with me for a while. I was young and training was different. I did what I was told for the most part. I never did have a confrontation because people would just clear away if they saw a dobermann walking close at night. But I always think of how I would have trained a lot different now, hence why I put a lot of thought into my goals and this endeaver. I am interested in a stellar candidate, genetics included and if things do not go as planned there is always another venue and as we know PDS dogs come from many different places and back grounds.


----------



## Lisa Radcliffe (Jun 9, 2011)

David Frost said:


> Lisa says: "Just in case I want to do it again otherwise I'll try SAR or what was that you said fund raising or I could just stay in the kitchen and bake cookies!,"
> 
> No ma'am, I never said any such thing. You'd have to show me where I said that.
> 
> ...


Sorry, I mixed you up with the other fellow's post. You were the one that "thought you smelled a lawyer" I really am sorry! I thought you would like the term "a lotta dog"  I am confident I will see some great handler teams next and just got off to an interesting start! I am sure your vendor has " a lotta dog " any time you require one  imo it's what I consider a good dog! I do hope my sence of fun is being read here.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Lisa Radcliffe said:


> I do hope my sence of fun is being read here.


I truly did notice a real shift of wit.

DFrost


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Lisa Radcliffe said:


> Thank you Lou Castle your posts were very informative and thought provoking and shown so many variables on what my Question was on the police K9 H&B only.


Thanks for the kind words Lisa. If only everyone took them in the manner they were intended. 



Lisa Radcliffe said:


> I have one question for you that if I didn't ask I will be thinking about for sometime- "but few people know how to invoke the fight drive in training this" is this something you can explain here? what do you do to get the dog in fight drive for this kind of training? I understand about decoy work for sport and how to switch prey drive and defence back and forth but I thought "fight" drive was something the dog brings on his own. Notice I said "sport" I do not want anyone to think I know about PDS training for this, and to be clear I am asking about the Hold and Bark. Thank you for your reply.


Mainly it's about the posture of the decoy during training. He determines what combat drive the dog is in (as long as the dog has the drive inside him, of course). If his posture is one of pulling away from the dog, or running away, or even looking away, for some dogs, the dog will be in prey. Think of being afraid of the dog, avoiding eye contact and using body language to show fear. If he stands up straight, with his head tilted confidently forward, making good solid eye contact with the dog he'll be in fight drive. Think of an MMA champion in a bar being threatened by a 100 lb tipsy wimp. He's calm, he's quiet, he's self assured. If the decoy goes over the top of the dog with hard, threatening eye contact, bending forward at the waist so he blots out the sky, using a stick to threaten the dog with, with an upraised arm, the dog will go into defense. Think of a schoolyard bully using his body to intimidate the smaller kids. 

Now, all of these things depend on the drives being in the dog in the first place and what his normal way of going about in the world is. Fifty year ago it was common to find dogs in SchH in Germany that were full of fight drive but today it's pretty rare. Breeding for SchH has become big business and they want to produce a dog that will win. 

Remember that SchH was not designed as a sport, it was originally a breed survey to determine if a dog had the proper level and balance of drives so that he (or she) could be bred to keep the breed true. But it's evolved into a sport where fortunes can be won or lost. In order to produce the best "looking" dog (and I'm not talking about physical appearance) the breeding shifted to prey drive, where it resides today. That produces a much more _intense looking dog. _ One who will, when doing the guard will approach to within inches of the decoy trying to "scare him" into moving. Such a dog gets maximum points for "focus." This intensity is just not present in a fight drive dog. 

This is great for the sport field but horrible for the find and bark for LE, which is what is under discussion. It places the dog much too close for his safety. Since in prey drive the barking is a flushing behavior, designed to make the decoy flinch so that the dog can bite him again, it's also not suitable for LE. Thinking that this is the same thing as the LE find and bark is, I think, at the bottom of this disagreement. Just about every police officer has seen a SchH guard and bark and thinks that this is the same thing as the LE find and bark. 

The LE find and bark has the dog standing off from the suspect. If possible he's moving constantly. On the training field we try to get the dog to circle. This keeps the suspect turning to face the dog and keeps him off balance. If he's constantly adjusting his position to confront the dog he's not as capable of making a plan of escape or assault. In real life, in an urban environment, this circling is usually not possible but it does teach the dog to keep moving. If the suspect has a knife or a striking weapon and lunges towards the dog to use it, the dog is trained to bound away from him, maintaining the distance between them. Given the greater speed and agility of the dog, this is usually pretty easy. If the suspect tries to flee, the dog is permitted to bite him. If the suspect does manage to close with the dog he can also bite him. 

Lisa take a look at the civilian side of Donn Yarnall's website where he discusses drives and leadership. I'd suggest reading the articles in order, each one builds on the previous one. If you go looking for entertainment and just watch the videos you won't get much out of it because you won't understand what's being discussed.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> Lou, I guess we just have different perspectives when we read materials.


David I think that this is far more than just a different perspective. You were specific when you wrote that the reason that you don't like the find and bark was because 1. Something that was written in _"the IACP's study on b/h [bark and hold]"_ that said that the reason they recommended the find and bark was that the find and bite wasn't being trained properly and 2. Comments made against the find and bark by Dave Reaver. 

As far as I know there is no such thing as a "study" from the IACP. There is only a policy statement. I've asked for you to supply a link to the study but you've yet to do so so it's reasonable to believe that it does not exist. If you were steered this way by some other document, please let us know. But the IACP to my knowledge (and that of others) has never given their reasons for going the way they did on this matter. 

Dave Reaver has been a personal friend of mine for about three decades and says that he's never made such a statement against the find and bark. In fact he's been advocating it since the 1970's for both training and safety reasons. 

I understand that we'll have different perspectives on this but the reasons that you've given for your opposition to it seem to be non−existant. And so I'm still trying to learn your reasoning on this. As I said to Lisa, it's possible that like some others, you think the SchH guard and bark is the same, or similar, to the LE find and bark. To be clear, it's not.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jim Duncan said:


> For your information I do directed off lead searches with a laser pointer with out SWAT team. However, a long line does have some advantages for getiing a dog back silently in the doark and having some control on the dog if he engages a subject. I will agree that using the laser with the dog off lead is certainly easier and correct in some situations. I can down my dog at door ways or leave him point while the team details rooms behind him. I can leave him in an a T or cross intersection in a hallway covering down range till we move up behind him. The long line, the laser or both just different tools to use depending ont he op.


I'm not a fan of using the long line as a silent way of getting a dog back in the dark. I'd much prefer press the vibrate button on my Ecollar. With a long line if he's hooked around something, and there's a very good chance of that happening without you knowing it, not only will the long line prevent him from coming to you but pulling on it in an effort to get him back will have the opposite effect, it will pull him away from you. If he's hooked around a lamp, that falls over and breaks, it certainly won't be _"silent"_ either. Long lines are good in very limited tactical circumstances that I won't go into here. But for the most part in building searches, they're a way for people who don't have good control to at least gain restraint over their dog. But they certainly do not prevent bites. A dog on a line can go around a corner or behind a piece of furniture, encounter the suspect and bite him long before the handler has any idea that the suspect is present. And no smart handler wants to be within 30' of a man with a gun at the moment he's found. 

Lots of people use the laser pointer as a directing device. Back in the day we didn't have laser pointers and so we used flashlights. I'm not a fan of the pointers because they evoke lots of prey drive, much more than does a flashlight, from most dogs and takes them out of hunt drive. It takes much more work to get the dog out of this habit (coming out of hunt and going into prey) than it does if a flashlight is used and few people are going to do that work. 

But this is a bit astray from the topic. 

May I suggest that you take a look at the video on Yarnall's website (sorry to the civilians reading this, it's on the restricted side) where he shows a search that utilizes the find and bark as it's properly trained and utilized. It's on page two of the Hunt Drive section.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Sandra King said:


> You mean the Bundesgrensschutz?
> 
> Yeah, it's barely known what they do at all, so you actually know much more than the general public in Germany. We are kept in the dark.


That's them Sandra.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Brett Bowen said:


> I'd like to post an article I read, last night to be exact, where some researchers repeated the study of bite ratios in regards find and bite vs find and bite dogs. Turns out the find and bite dogs have a "statistically significant" higher bite ratio than find and bite dogs just like the first study. I suspect one of the main reasons (among others I can develop a hypothesis on) is it's hard to maintain and the majority of us cops aren't dog trainers.


I'd like to see the article. Are you going to post it? While we're waiting I'll give you some stats that I'm privy to. Sorry but I can't reveal the department they come from or my source. That will lead some people to doubt them. I understand that and will learn to live with it. 

This particular department utilized the find and bark method of deployment for years. Then for about a year they went to the find and bite and then they reverted to the find and bark. They defined a bite as when a police K−9 applies his teeth to a suspect that results in any break to the skin, no matter how slight. They defined an apprehension as when a dog finds someone during a search. They did not count any other apprehensions such as assists on other officer's traffic stops or any other arrests, only their own searches. 

When they were initially using the find and bark their bite ratio was about 20%. *When they went to the find and bite it went to 60%. *When they went back to the find and bark it went to 11%. 

What's also interesting to note is their find ratio; the number of searches they did v. the number of suspects they found on those searches. With the first find and bark period it was in the high 30%'s. During the find and bite period it dropped to 20%. When they went back to the find and bark it went to 48%. I attribute the drop during the find and bite period to handlers attempting to control their dogs to keep bites to a minimum, giving them more commands and keeping them closer. As a result they continually placed their dogs into rank drive, where the dog's attention is focused on the handler, so much that they weren't hunting as efficiently and, as a result, they missed more suspects. With the find and bark dogs the handlers were able to let their dogs search with less direction, allowing them to hunt more efficiently. 

One of the main problems with the study by Mesloh is that he never defines his terms. He says that his definition of bite ratio is the number of apprehensions with bites divided by the total number of apprehension. But he never defines either _"apprehensions"_ or _"bites."_ One would think that both are commonly defined but a deeper look shows many different ways that agencies define these terms. Some are good and some ... not so good. 



Brett Bowen said:


> But, as thought provoking as the conversation has been, it's exhausting and no fun to have your post picked apart line by line for voicing an opinion.


It's exhausting Brett? How so? I'm the one doing all the work. Sorry that you don't like my method of responding to your posts. I do it because I think that each of the thoughts you express is so valuable that they're each worthy of a response! 

If my style of responding to your posts is too _"exhausting"_ for you then just pass them by. You'll have more energy and fun. My feelings won't be hurt.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Lou Castle said:


> The LE find and bark has the dog standing off from the suspect. If possible he's moving constantly. On the training field we try to get the dog to circle. This keeps the suspect turning to face the dog and keeps him off balance. If he's constantly adjusting his position to confront the dog he's not as capable of making a plan of escape or assault. In real life, in an urban environment, this circling is usually not possible but it does teach the dog to keep moving. If the suspect has a knife or a striking weapon and lunges towards the dog to use it, the dog is trained to bound away from him, maintaining the distance between them. Given the greater speed and agility of the dog, this is usually pretty easy. If the suspect tries to flee, the dog is permitted to bite him. If the suspect does manage to close with the dog he can also bite him.


This is how it was trained when I saw it.
The dog was about 7-8 feet away and would circle or move back and forth...

my question is this though.

How successful is the part about weapons?

The dog is trained to "bound" away if a knife or weapon is used, but also trained to fight/bite if the suspect closes in on the dog, or runs.

So does the dog assume anything held is a weapon? 

Does he still dodge if the suspect runs, and then decides to use the weapon as the dog is approaching, or during a bite?


----------



## Oluwatobi Odunuga (Apr 7, 2010)

Joby Becker said:


> This is how it was trained when I saw it.
> The dog was about 7-8 feet away and would circle or move back and forth...
> 
> my question is this though.
> ...


I was thinking the same thing.:wink:


----------



## Phil Dodson (Apr 4, 2006)

Help Me, Help Me!! I'm losing my mind!!!


----------



## Pete Stevens (Dec 16, 2010)

I'm so done with this thread.........I'm out.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> This is how it was trained when I saw it.
> The dog was about 7-8 feet away and would circle or move back and forth...
> 
> my question is this though.
> ...


When I was working, my department had one dog shot and another stabbed. Both incidents occurred before we went to the find and bark. In both of them the dog had bitten the suspects before the injury occurred. After we went to the find and bark we didn't have any dogs injured. The department that I mentioned earlier that switched from find and bark to find and bite and then back again; had three dogs killed by suspects with weapons and a dog shot but not killed. All of those incidents occurred during their find and bite phase. Two dogs were stabbed while on the bite and died. One was shot and killed after he'd alerted outside a building and then was sent in. He did not have time to find source and was shot before he either bit or barked. One was shot during the search, before he made the find, but the wound was not fatal. Most injuries to dogs in these situations occur after the bite has occurred, not before. 

If, when you imagine the dog "bounding away," you think about chasing a dog that likes to play keep−away, you'll realize that he's all but impossible to catch unless it's your dog and you give him a command or yell at him so he submits to you. You'll wear out long before he does. If you've got the right dog (meaning his levels and balance of drives are right) this "bounding away" is instinctive behavior. Look at the video on Yarnall's website showing the Wild Dogs of Africa "bounding away" from the horns of the mother wildebeest. The dogs move almost instantly from prey to fight drive and back again. 



Joby Becker said:


> The dog is trained to "bound" away if a knife or weapon is used, but also trained to fight/bite if the suspect closes in on the dog, or runs.


The dog is trained to bound away whether the suspect has a weapon or not. If the suspect manages to close the distance and catches the dog, he bites. But that's rarely going to happen. In any case, as soon as the handler and team arrive at the location, the handler can call the dog away and have the team make the apprehension if that's the appropriate thing to do. 


Joby Becker said:


> Does he still dodge if the suspect runs, and then decides to use the weapon as the dog is approaching, or during a bite?


There are too many variables here to give a good answer Joby. It's a bit like asking "If someone throws a punch at your head do you dodge left, right or do you duck under it?"


----------



## Jim Duncan (Jan 19, 2009)

*If the suspect has a knife or a striking weapon and lunges towards the dog to use it, the dog is trained to bound away from him, maintaining the distance between them*

So, all a suspect has to do is threaten the dog with a stick and the dog will bound away? to keep the dog at bay, just walk and carry a stick? But if you run you get bit? Glad we moved away from the hold and bark. Although we never taught it like that. Very interesting concept though.


----------



## Oluwatobi Odunuga (Apr 7, 2010)

Jim Duncan said:


> *If the suspect has a knife or a striking weapon and lunges towards the dog to use it, the dog is trained to bound away from him, maintaining the distance between them*
> 
> So, all a suspect has to do is threaten the dog with a stick and the dog will bound away? to keep the dog at bay, just walk and carry a stick? But if you run you get bit? Glad we moved away from the hold and bark. Although we never taught it like that. Very interesting concept though.


Why do i get the feeling that was supposed to be funny:-k:lol:


----------



## Jim Duncan (Jan 19, 2009)

*When I was working, my department had one dog shot and another stabbed. Both incidents occurred before we went to the find and bark. In both of them the dog had bitten the suspects before the injury occurred. After we went to the find and bark we didn't have any dogs injured. The department that I mentioned earlier that switched from find and bark to find and bite and then back again; had three dogs killed by suspects with weapons and a dog shot but not killed. All of those incidents occurred during their find and bite phase. Two dogs were stabbed while on the bite and died. One was shot and killed after he'd alerted outside a building and then was sent in. He did not have time to find source and was shot before he either bit or barked. One was shot during the search, before he made the find, but the wound was not fatal. Most injuries to dogs in these situations occur after the bite has occurred, not before. *

I don't see how teaching a dog a H&B will save it from being shot during a deployment. Your H&B dogs are also trained to bite a fleeing felon, how does that save them when they are stabbed while on the bite? Being stabbed whike on a bite can happen to any Police K-9, H&B does not prevent this. Any dog can be shot while searching; training the H&B does not prevent that either. That really does not convince me that a H&B trained dog is any safer that a F&B dog. 

Jim


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

So does the dog assume anything held is a weapon?


----------



## Jim Duncan (Jan 19, 2009)

Joby Becker said:


> So does the dog assume anything held is a weapon?


 
Detection training. Knives, guns, bats, sticks and broken bottles.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Jim Duncan said:


> Detection training. Knives, guns, bats, sticks and broken bottles.


No ....lol That was the only question Lou did not answer, what is a weapon that the dog would avoid?

I was thinking more like a stick, a belt, a wallet, a book, a magazine, a newspaper..a shoe...things like that...

How do you train a dog to avoid only effective weapons, I am just asking, cause I have no clue...


----------



## Phil Dodson (Apr 4, 2006)

Why, Why, Why?? In the name of humanity, why??


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Earlier I wrote,


> If the suspect has a knife or a striking weapon and lunges towards the dog to use it, the dog is trained to bound away from him, maintaining the distance between them





Jim Duncan said:


> So, all a suspect has to do is threaten the dog with a stick and the dog will bound away?


I didn't say _"threaten the dog with a stick"_ I said the suspect _*"lunges towards the dog to use it."*_ I can _"threaten ... with a stick"_ by just holding it over my head. Not nearly the same thing at all. 



Jim Duncan said:


> to keep the dog at bay, just walk and carry a stick? But if you run you get bit?


Walk slowly and the dog may walk along with you, barking as you go. Run and you'll get bit. At what point does the slow walk become a run? Again, too many variables to give a specific answer. But as the dog is walking along with the suspect, he's barking, notifying the handler and the team as to his location. 



Jim Duncan said:


> Glad we moved away from the hold and bark.


Does this mean that you were using it at one point? Or is that the "general" we? If the former, was what you were doing closer to the SchH hold and bark? 



Jim Duncan said:


> Although we never taught it like that. Very interesting concept though.


If you have the right dog there's very little "teaching" involved. It's instinctive behavior, as the video I linked shows. The hard part is maintaining it after the dog has a few street fights.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jim Duncan said:


> I don't see how teaching a dog a H&B will save it from being shot during a deployment.


It does not _"save it from being shot ..."_ It just makes it less likely that it will happen. The find and bark is not for the safety of the dog, although with other weapons it does make him safer, it's for the safety of the handler and the back−up team. 



Jim Duncan said:


> Your H&B dogs are also trained to bite a fleeing felon, how does that save them when they are stabbed while on the bite?


Again, it doesn't _"save them when they are stabbed while on the bite."_ I just makes it less likely that they'll be stabbed. The dogs are trained to stand off and bark. That makes it just about impossible to stab them. If the suspect lunges at them, they bound away. If the suspect runs and they bite him they'll be no worse off than if they had bitten in the first place. 



Jim Duncan said:


> Being stabbed while on a bite can happen to any Police K-9, H&B does not prevent this.


If a dog trained like this stands off and barks, it's very difficult for him to be stabbed. 



Jim Duncan said:


> Any dog can be shot while searching; training the H&B does not prevent that either. That really does not convince me that a H&B trained dog is any safer that a F&B dog.


I'm not talking about safety for the dog. They're at the point of the spear no matter how they're trained. I'm talking about safety for the handler and the team. If they know that a suspect is present and his location they're much safer than if they don't. The sooner they know, the better off they'll be. A dog that's trained to bark as soon as he finds the strongest source of scent will alert the officers sooner than will a dog that has to find a way to get to the suspect to bite him or who has to verify that he can't get to the suspect and then will bark. 

Having a dog that will either bark or bite as he's commanded to do gives the handler more tactical options than a dog that will only bite and will do so without giving the handler any indication that he's made the find. If you're "waiting for the screams" as was discussed earlier in the thread, you might bump right into the suspect and not realize it until you do.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> So does the dog assume anything held is a weapon?


Not sure why you're so focused on this weapon thing. If the suspect lunges the dog will bound away. It doesn't make any difference if the suspect has a weapon or not. As I wrote when I first brought this up, _"... if he [the suspect] tried to attack the dog, the dog bounds away, maintaining the distance all the while barking..."_ I think it's too much to expect a dog to recognize and react to all the various objects a man can hold in his hand. Better for him to respond to what the man does. If he stands still, the dog barks from a distance. If he lunges, weapon or not, the dog bounds away, maintaining the distance and barking. If he runs the dog bites.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> No ....lol That was the only question Lou did not answer, what is a weapon that the dog would avoid?


I think I've covered this.


----------



## Erik Berg (Apr 11, 2006)

In the nordic countries many PSDs are also used for searching after innocent people, and I think they also are trained to not just bark but also follow without attacking if the person is moving, but in such cases the dogs are muzzled. Bark and hold is used when searching for criminals but what I´m aware of the dog bites if the person moves or attack the dog, and not dodging away like lou describes.

As a sidenote I read recently in a policedog-magazine an article about some instructors from sweden that were in germany at the policedog school in stuckenbrock to teach them about tracking, because the german policedogs was not trained for that. They mentioned in the article that their training earlier was strongly influenced by schutzhund, which affected the policework the wrong way, a dog was killed in service and it was blamed on to much "sporttraining" according to the article. 

Because of this competition with the policedogs is not allowed since 2006 and some parts of the previous training was forbidden. Don´t know if this was the SCH bark and hold thou that was considered to dangerous.


----------



## Jim Duncan (Jan 19, 2009)

Lou Castle said:


> Earlier I wrote,
> 
> 
> _"*If you have the right dog there's very little "teaching" involved. It's instinctive behavior, as the video I linked shows. The hard part is maintaining it after the dog has a few street fights.*_


I did not see the link to your video, I'll have to check that out. I agree with your statement that the hard part is maintaining the hold and bark after the dog has a few real bites. As I said erlier, my expereince is that the stronger dogs will push to intimidate the suspect and gettting the bite. Once the dog has a street bite it is very difficult to maintain that. If the handler is present that is one thing, but if the handler is out of sight it may be a completely different story for a dog that has bitten a suspect after doing the H&B. For example the suspect moves or runs. The dog gets the reward of biting, the next time the dog will quickly figure out what to do to elicit a response from a suspect. 

*Having a dog that will either bark or bite as he's commanded to do gives the handler more tactical options than a dog that will only bite and will do so without giving the handler any indication that he's made the find. If you're "waiting for the screams" as was discussed earlier in the thread, you might bump right into the suspect and not realize it until you do*.

I think having a dog that will find and bite or H&B on command definitely gives you more options. My friends in Germany train this with great success. However, as discussed their rules of engagement are different than ours and their level of assaults / homicides against Police is far less. The days of waiting for the screams are long gone, or they should be. You need to tactically enter a building with your dog and be able to read your dog. I can tell by my dogs breathing changes long before his bark that he is in "human odor" and working scent. My dog will bark at a door when he hits the source of the odor, but I normally know that he is close before that. When searching or tracking you always run the risk of bumping in to a suspect before the dog alerts. That is what your cover officers are for. Wind speed, direction and terrain can often work against you. I have been close to bad guys before in the woods and they usually know you are coming before you know they are there. 

When you trained the H&B what did you use as a reward for the dog when it was correct, just curious? What did you do to correct he dog when the was wrong or dirty? I'm interested in the training aspect.

Jim


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Lou Castle said:


> I think I've covered this.


I guess you did Lou, I somehow missed it. I was thinking something different..


----------



## Oluwatobi Odunuga (Apr 7, 2010)

Phil Dodson said:


> Why, Why, Why?? In the name of humanity, why??


Phil i feel the same way[-o<


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jim Duncan said:


> I agree with your statement that the hard part is maintaining the hold and bark after the dog has a few real bites. As I said erlier, my expereince is that the stronger dogs will push to intimidate the suspect and gettting the bite. Once the dog has a street bite it is very difficult to maintain that.


This is so difficult that it's the reason that some departments drop the find and bark. If the dog isn't working in the right drive it's a constant battle to keep them clean. I wouldn't judge the "strength" of a dog based on whether or not he'll _"push to intimidate the decoy."_ That depends more on what drive he's operating out of, than anything else. A fight drive dog is satisfied to detain the suspect and doesn’t need to push him. 



Jim Duncan said:


> If the handler is present that is one thing, but if the handler is out of sight it may be a completely different story for a dog that has bitten a suspect after doing the H&B. For example the suspect moves or runs. The dog gets the reward of biting, the next time the dog will quickly figure out what to do to elicit a response from a suspect.


Again, I agree. What a dog does when the handler is present (as in training) may be different than what he does when the handler is not present (as on the street). This difference often, and I think it applies in this case, is the difference between a trained behavior and a genetic one, that the dog does naturally because his drives compel him to. In the case of a trained behavior it may go against what he is bound to do by his drives and therefore it's only as reliable as his training. If that is excellent, and the dog has a good understanding of what the handler wants, chances are that he'll go against his drives, especially in the presence of the handler, and do as he's been trained and will obey the command. But if that training is not so great, or the handler is not present, it becomes a crapshoot. This goes for just about anything, from sitting when commanded to do so, to barking rather than biting, when he makes the find. 

If that behavior is genetically driven and he's working in the correct drive, chances are that he'll do it correctly. For a dog working in prey drive the reward is the bite. And so for that dog it's quite hard not to want to make the suspect move by intimidating him. But for a dog working in fight drive the detaining is the reward and so that's what he'll do whether the handler is present or not if the drive has been allowed to come out. In this case the dog is doing what he inherently wants to do, not what he's doing to get a handler supplied reward such as praise or a toy, or to avoid the discomfort of a correction. 



Jim Duncan said:


> You need to tactically enter a building with your dog and be able to read your dog. I can tell by my dogs breathing changes long before his bark that he is in "human odor" and working scent.


Many dogs will exhibit this change of breathing, some very obviously, some not so obviously. I’m not a big fan of relying on this (and the other changes that the dog makes when he's in scent) for a couple of reasons. One is it relies on the handler noticing the changes and calling them. This becomes a guess. To be clear, it's an educated guess and with some dogs those changes are profound, but it's a guess nonetheless. When the dog is very tired these sorts of signs won't be as overt and since the handler will probably also be tired, he may miss them. I'm sure that you're not relying on this alone but some do. I prefer an alert that is so obvious that one can't mistake it for anything else, like the bark. Many dogs will exhibit this identical, or nearly identical, change in breathing, or the other changes, if they get the scent of a cat, food, another dog or many other scents that are of interest to them. The differences between the changes in breathing can be picked up by a very sharp handler that is very tuned into their dog but not everyone is and not everyone is all the time, particularly in high stress situations, when we need it the most. 



Jim Duncan said:


> My dog will bark at a door when he hits the source of the odor, but I normally know that he is close before that.


Doors are easy once the dog learns that someone is behind them. They rarely try to "back door" the door. What's much harder is a suspect that is hidden in the middle of a warehouse, in and among objects on the floor or someone who is in the shelving, above the floor. Then the find and bite dog can look for the back door for quite some time before he'll bark. 



Jim Duncan said:


> When searching or tracking you always run the risk of bumping in to a suspect before the dog alerts. That is what your cover officers are for. Wind speed, direction and terrain can often work against you. I have been close to bad guys before in the woods and they usually know you are coming before you know they are there.


Of course this can happen anytime. Having the find and bark dog permits the handler to allow the dog to work farther away from him, giving him the advantage of distance more often than if the handler has to keep an eye on the dog to give a command to prevent him from biting. 



Jim Duncan said:


> When you trained the H&B what did you use as a reward for the dog when it was correct, just curious? What did you do to correct he dog when the was wrong or dirty? I'm interested in the training aspect.


I rarely use a reward for dog doing genetically driven behavior. I think that allowing the dog to satisfy his drive is reward enough. I rarely praise for it, rarely give treats for it and rarely pet the dog for it. Often when I do it's more for me than for the dog. It's hard to overcome decades of praising but I've learned that it's more of a distraction than anything else. It focuses the dog's attention on me when I want it focused on the work. In the wild dog videos there isn't any praise or punishment meted out. It's just some dogs working in their natural drives. If the training is set up so that the dog is satisfying his drive there's no need for it. 

Keeping the dog clean was assisted by the Ecollar, the leash, the long line, handler presence, decoy posture and barriers. When the dog was working well on this the handler was moved farther and farther away, the barriers and leashes were removed and the decoys assumed different postures. The Ecollar was used by someone else (other than the handler) and at the end of the work was given to the decoy to keep the dog clean when no one else was present and all other aids had been removed. This takes a decoy who is not only skilled with the bitework but who is knowledgeable with the Ecollar and this work as well. It's not just a matter of training the dog but of keeping the handler and the decoy on the same page as well. 

I'd say that to anyone reading this that if you don't have skilled decoys, don't clearly understand the drives involved, don't understand the Ecollar except as a punishment device, that you not even try to train the find and bark. You'll probably end up in various degrees of failure, some of them extreme.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Satisfying drives is a reward is the highest reward


Too many variables increases the possibility of failure.

Ockham's razor

Sent from my SCH-I510 using Tapatal


----------



## Jim Duncan (Jan 19, 2009)

Lou,
I just got home from testing potential K-9's. I need to digest what you wrote and figure out how you do all of those quotes in one post before I reply. I like the way you do that and I need to figure it out. I don't have an issue with PD's that want the H&B and training it. I am seeing that some PD's just want tracking dogs and not even dogs that bite. I suppose that works for them. In our area we want dogs that track, find and bite.


----------



## Lisa Radcliffe (Jun 9, 2011)

Lou Castle said:


> This is so difficult that it's the reason that some departments drop the find and bark. If the dog isn't working in the right drive it's a constant battle to keep them clean. I wouldn't judge the "strength" of a dog based on whether or not he'll _"push to intimidate the decoy."_ That depends more on what drive he's operating out of, than anything else. A fight drive dog is satisfied to detain the suspect and doesn’t need to push him.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you Lou, my question was "what do you do to get the dog in fight drive for this kind of training ?" what I really wanted to ask was how do you train it? this post gives a pretty clear insight along with your prior reply to me. I look forword to reading the civilian side  of Donn Yarnall's website


----------



## Jehane Michael Le Grange (Feb 24, 2009)

There are so many reasons why not to train a hold and bark in PSD.

The South African environment where I operate in is completely unsuitable for a police dog to be taught a bark and hold. Firstly, as already mentioned in this discussion, show me a suspect that stands dead still while a dog is running up towards him. Therefore it will hardly ever happen in a real situation. The result of this could easily be a dog who then has some conflict in the training and becomes "dirty" on the decoy. (there is no such thing as a dirty police dog in my book though) An inexperienced police dog trainer could try and correct this "dirtiness" by using harsh methods or aggrevate the situation and create more conflict. This conflict in training and harsh corrections perhaps for this, could mean that you end up with a dog that hesitates to bite. Do you really want a PSD that has issues about biting when often its hard enough getting the dogs to bite live in the first place through improper training.

Secondly, most suspects here who might stand still, will think the dog is weak if it only stands and barks. This then gives the suspect an added window of oppertunity to try escape, attack the dog or even worse, attack the officer since you now have a situation where the dog and officer have lost the 'element of surprise'. The reason why a police dog is so effective in detaining dangerous bad guys is not because it is bigger or stronger or can fight better but simply because of the element of crippling fear it puts into a suspect when it attacks him that has a debilitating effect on him actually being able to use the weapon he has... So ask yourself, when would you be more scared? When the dog is ripping you apart or when he is standing in front of you barking. 

Thirdly, there are plenty of instances where the dog needs to engage a suspect that is static, i mean how much movement does it take to pull a trigger?? In these instances, even if the dog has been taught sperately to engage passive suspects through verbal command, you still do not want that hesitation from the dog. 

With the sort of bad guys running around here, you really cant have a dog the "pussy foots" around. If the suspect hasnt come out following warning from the handler prior to deployment, why should he be given a second chance with a hold and bark and in so doing risk possibly getting the handler and dog killed. At the end of the day, you need to get in detain the bad guy and get home safely, a hold and bark definately makes that alot more dangerous!

The only instance where a police dog should bark, is when he has located a suspect but can't get to him i.e. behind a door or high up.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Pretty sure that we've been through most of this. Nonetheless . . . my comments are in blue. 



Jehane Michael Le Grange said:


> There are so many reasons why not to train a hold and bark in PSD.
> 
> The South African environment where I operate in is completely unsuitable for a police dog to be taught a bark and hold.
> 
> ...


I'd guess, based on your comments, that you didn't read all the posts in this thread. I'd suggest that you do. I know that it's pretty long, but most, if not all of your comments, were previously addressed.


----------



## Jehane Michael Le Grange (Feb 24, 2009)

Thanks for your responses! I appreciate all feedback, will consult the previous posts. Basically it is each trainer and departments individual requirements that will determine the training their K-9 unit receives.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Jehane Michael Le Grange said:


> Thanks for your responses! I appreciate all feedback, will consult the previous posts. Basically it is each trainer and departments individual requirements that will determine the training their K-9 unit receives.


Your correct, it is each department and trainers decision. I'm glad I've not been forced into retirement by this political correctness run-amuk. At any rate, I think you'll find far more trainers that agree with you than disagree. This discussion often evolves into the we (trainers of the find/bite) don't understand it; don't know how to train it; select the wrong dogs; yadda, yadda, yadda. I'll stand on the mountain top though and say it's a safety issue, it's a snake oil "fuzzy" for an administration.


DFrost


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

David Frost said:


> Your correct, it is each department and trainers decision. I'm glad I've not been forced into retirement by this political correctness run-amuk. At any rate, I think you'll find far more trainers that agree with you than disagree. This discussion often evolves into the we (trainers of the find/bite) don't understand it; don't know how to train it; select the wrong dogs; yadda, yadda, yadda. I'll stand on the mountain top though and say it's a safety issue, it's a snake oil "fuzzy" for an administration.
> 
> 
> DFrost


For me it just gets to be an arguement that goes round and round until the horse has been beaten into oblivion . Both sides of the arguement often qualify why their technique works better then the others by making comparisons to a properly trained dog in their technique to an improperly trained dog in the others technique . Apples to oranges . Or they describe a scenerio that is more in favor of their tecnique then the others . 

I personally don't care which technique is used . When properly trained both are effective tools. In most of the arguements back and forth most of the negative aspects of each technique are the fault of training not the technique . 

I have my preferance to one particular style because of the situations I see on the street , as well as in training and and the success we have with it . If others choose another style and can train it properly and have success with it more power to them they have made the right descision .


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> Your correct, it is each department and trainers decision. I'm glad I've not been forced into retirement by this political correctness run-amuk. At any rate, I think you'll find far more trainers that agree with you than disagree. This discussion often evolves into the we (trainers of the find/bite) don't understand it; don't know how to train it; select the wrong dogs; yadda, yadda, yadda. I'll stand on the mountain top though and say it's a safety issue, it's a snake oil "fuzzy" for an administration.
> 
> 
> DFrost


You're right, David, most trainers will agree with Jehane. Not many trainers use combat drives to the extent that they're needed for the find and bark and there are far fewer dogs capable of doing it than there are capable of doing the find and bite. But the decision as to which way to train and deploy doesn’t always have to do with political correctness or administration hopes to avoid liability. I've been in both state and federal courts and have seen both methods argued for and against by very good lawyers. Any over lessened liability that an administrator thinks exists in the find and bark is largely in his imagination. I've done it both ways so I'll stand on the next mountaintop over and say that the find and bark is safer for the handler, the back−up team and the crooks, provided, of course, that the right dog has been selected and that he's been trained properly.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jim Nash said:


> I personally don't care which technique is used . When properly trained both are effective tools. In most of the arguements back and forth most of the negative aspects of each technique are the fault of training not the technique .
> 
> I have my preferance to one particular style because of the situations I see on the street , as well as in training and and the success we have with it . If others choose another style and can train it properly and have success with it more power to them they have made the right descision .


That's a very enlightened attitude Jim. One that not many people share. In any case, Lisa got her questions answered.


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> That's a very enlightened attitude Jim. One that not many people share. In any case, Lisa got her questions answered.


Thanks Lou . Somehow this part of my quote got editted out .


" For me it just gets to be an arguement that goes round and round until the horse has been beaten into oblivion . Both sides of the arguement often qualify why their technique works better then the others by making comparisons to a properly trained dog in their technique to an improperly trained dog in the others technique . Apples to oranges . Or they describe a scenerio that is more in favor of their tecnique then the others "


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Just out of curiousity Lou...In the following video is this what you mean by "COMBAT DRIVE" 

I dont write alot to save your carpal tunnel for the slice and dice


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA1Qsi5aYVE&feature=player_detailpage

hope this helps


----------



## Adam Rawlings (Feb 27, 2009)

Guess I won't be adding "Combat Drive" to the list of things I would like to see in a dog.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Will, Adam – What definition of "Combat drive" are you using?


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

you answer first


All joking aside...what I saw on that video was a USAR dog finding its victim.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

will fernandez said:


> All joking aside...what I saw on that video was a USAR dog finding its victim.


Right? I was all pumped to see some kick ass action and I left feeling gutted. Quite dissapointed.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

will fernandez said:


> you answer first


Let me start by referring to the video you posted . . . If work like that is what people have seen and based their opinions about the find and bark on, it's no wonder that they think it's not a good way to deploy a PSD. If this was what the find and bark actually was, I'd agree with them. But this dog is so confused, so conflicted and working so poorly that it's actually painful to watch. This is the result of people training the find and bark with the wrong dog, doing the training poorly or for the wrong reasons. It's also indicative of a heavy hand with the Ecollar, but that's another discussion. 

My definition of a combat drive is pretty much the same as the ones you'll find on Yarnall's site. I'm pretty sure that you're a member there; you might want to take a look. There are several combat drives that pertain to what we're discussing. They all have to do with what specific drive a dog is in when he engages an opponent. It can change from second to second, depending on what the opponent does and what's in the dog. 

Prey drive – Catching and killing prey. Satisfied by killing the prey. 
Fight drive – The detaining or driving off of the opponent. Satisfied by detaining or driving off the opponent (Victory) It does not require a bite. 
Defense drive – The dog defending himself by avoiding combat or defending himself. Satisfied by survival. It does not require a bite. 

When the handler first releases the dog in your video at about 0:38, the dog is in play drive. He's not hunting. Look at the "bouncy" way that he goes out. He looks like Scooby Doo! When he approaches the suspect behind the A/C unit he immediately shows some conflict. More than likely he's been dirty, biting when he should be barking, and for that, he's been hit at a pretty high level with the Ecollar. Notice how he avoids the suspect at 0:59. He steps away from him and goes partially sideways. Notice his body posture and behavior in most of the video and keep this in mind when you later go look at a video I'll suggest. At 1:19 he anticipates a recall and leaves the suspect. At 1:40 when he finds the suspect in the car, he's not in a combat drive at all. He's again, in play. He barks a few times and them immediately leaves the car. I think he's anticipating a recall and wants to avoid a "too high" stim from the Ecollar. 

Now take a look at the video of the dog on Yarnall's site at the top of page two of the Fight Drive section. Notice any difference in that dog's body language? See anything like this on the video that you supplied? I sure don't. If you want to see what the find and bark SHOULD look like, watch the video on Yarnall's site under the heading "Hunt drive." It's in two parts on page two. Notice the complete absence of the Scooby Doo bouncing act. This dog is all about the hunt. Notice the dog's body language when he makes the find. There's none of the nervousness that the dog in your video shows. There's none of the conflict and none of the anticipation. THIS is what it looks like when the proper dog receives the proper training. I'd say that this dog is in hunt and then fight drive. Would you agree? 

Perhaps you haven't read it but there's a lengthy article on the find and bark for the patrol dog on Yarnall's site. He emphasizes that it has to be trained correctly. If you don't select the dog specifically for the find and bark and aren't training it for the right reasons, Donn says, (and so have I) that you shouldn't even try; it will probably be a disaster! 



will fernandez said:


> All joking aside...what I saw on that video was a USAR dog finding its victim.


I don't think so Will. A USAR dog would not be that conflicted or confused! 

Your video was posted in 2006. The video's on Donn's site that I've referred to above were shot around 1996 when he was the Head K−9 Trainer for LAPD. Donn retired in 1998 leaving others to carry on with the training.


----------



## Lisa Radcliffe (Jun 9, 2011)

Jim Nash said:


> Thanks Lou . Somehow this part of my quote got editted out .
> 
> 
> " For me it just gets to be an arguement that goes round and round until the horse has been beaten into oblivion . Both sides of the arguement often qualify why their technique works better then the others by making comparisons to a properly trained dog in their technique to an improperly trained dog in the others technique . Apples to oranges . Or they describe a scenerio that is more in favor of their tecnique then the others "


While these arguments may be tiresome for some who have a history of posting on this forum, for others new to these "arguements" it is very interesting, educational and a valuable resorce. Thank you again for all posts but I found Lou's to be the most thought provoking with straight forward answers to the how and why for both sides of the "apples to oranges"


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Lou

Looks like I will be having lunch with Donn in Sept. I will talk with him some more about it. 

Oh and please do not give me ownership of that video by using "your" I am only the medium that brought it to the WDF.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Will enjoy your time with Donn. He's a wealth of information on all things "police dog" and is happy to share it with anyone who asks. 

To one and all, the link that Will supplied to a video showing some LAPD K−9's working/training was not his work; he merely supplied the link. I referred to it as 'his video' only to differentiate it from the videos on Donn's website that shows what a find and bark should look like.


----------

