# I sure hope I'm wrong......



## mike suttle (Feb 19, 2008)

I have seen such a huge swing in the way departments test dual purpose dogs over the last 5 years. It has gotten to the point now that they will buy a dual purpose dog and do very little testing on the patrol side at all. Just over the last few weeks I have sold several single purpose detector only prospects to departments who will be using them as dual purpose dogs. Even after I told them many times while they were here that the dogs they liked were great detector prospects, but they were bought by me only for that purpose, and not for dual purpose patrol work.
The answers are usually all the same........They say they do almost no biting anymore, and in many cases they opt not to deploy the dog even if it is justified........ WTF????
Can you guys please explain this logic to me? I realize that the detection side is very important, but that should not change the way you test for the patrol side.
These guys have been telling me that as long as the dogs hunt and retrieve like an idiot, and will bite a sleeve then they are good enough. What a shame really. I have even had departments come here with their supervisors and decide not to buy certian dogs because they bite too hard, or are too driven to bite! ](*,)](*,) They are afraid the department will have too much trouble with law suits, or the dogs will be too much for the handler to deal with, or too likely to bite someone un provoked..........Makes me wonder if its the dogs fault, or the quality of the new trainers and handlers out there.
I really am afraid that in another 10 years their will be no one looking for patrol dogs in the US.
While the demand for crazy metal retrievers is at an all time high and getting higher each month, the demand for the real dual purpose police dog seams to be going the other way quickly.
I sure to hope I am wrong about this.
Anyone else care to share their thoughts?


----------



## Mike Scheiber (Feb 17, 2008)

I cant respond to the dual purpose cop dog requirements but I was thinking to my self that the extreme drive of the pipe dogs and its flavor had we wondering how long breeding before such a specific will effect a breed as a hole for its use as a utility type dog


----------



## mike suttle (Feb 19, 2008)

Mike Scheiber said:


> I cant respond to the dual purpose cop dog requirements but I was thinking to my self that the extreme drive of the pipe dogs and its flavor had we wondering how long breeding before such a specific will effect a breed as a hole for its use as a utility type dog


That is not the issue at all, in fact the quality of the dogs bred for that type of drive and intensity almost always makes for a stonger dog in the other areas as well.
The issue that I am seeing is that the departments dont want the dogs that bite super strong.
I had a guy here recently that told me he does not want a KNPV dog because they are too intense for his jurisdiction?????? WTF?


----------



## Mike Scheiber (Feb 17, 2008)

mike suttle said:


> That is not the issue at all, in fact the quality of the dogs bred for that type of drive and intensity almost always makes for a stonger dog in the other areas as well.
> The issue that I am seeing is that the departments dont want the dogs that bite super strong.


Thats a sad fact if that's the way the police dog is drifting


----------



## Jesus Alvarez (Feb 6, 2009)

I worked for a Sheriff's dept for years and there were many law suits during that time against the Dept due to k9 bites. Most of those involved the dogs biting someone other that the suspect. They ended up paying out quite a bit on several of those cases. So, I can sort of understand why some depts are going in that direction. They can't afford it.

Same thing happened with police vehicle pursuits. Unless the suspect committed a violent felony, they won't give chase due to the potential liability.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

A city in Wisconsin in the top 5 for population, albeit only about 90,000 people, finally approved dogs for patrol work here, they used to rely on the County for their biting dogs. They have had single purpose dogs for years...Within the last year they made the switch..They have only 3 dogs, and 1 of them is a dog that was selected for single purpose and have been "converted" by going to training in Chicago. I have played with the dogs, and 1 out of the 3 is what most would call a decent Dual Purpose dog, the others are pretty weak on the patrol side, the handlers were actually pretty stunned when they suited up and worked my bitch. They work each other's dogs and while they are excited and enthusiastic about the patrol side, they know their dogs are not that strong. The county has some good dogs out this way, the city not so much....

When I lived in IN, the city I was in only used GSD, which is fine, but I heard from more than one handler that they won't use Mal's because they CAN'T be transferred to different handlers...I found that to be a pretty dumb statement...granted these are smaller cities...with small K9 programs...


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

Mike, my take on why this is happening. The departments had/have excellent dual purpose dogs. The dogs are not the problem. It's the training after the department gets the dog. They invest good money to purchase the dogs but then without proper training in the departments the dogs will be dogs. Dogs will take the short cut and not correct way because of the lack of training or follow up training when the departments get them. They want dogs that fit their training. This is BS. Our services are open to the departments around us. We have been used but it's not up to the handlers who do understand it's the people above them. A handler knows where his dog needs help but can't get most of the help within their departments. They are not allowed.


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

The reality is, for the most part, the average police/military/prisons dog handler is unable to handle a strong dog. I had one litter from my Boy to Kim and three dogs have been offered to departments. One was a male and two were females. Every department could not handle them and infact a couple were scared shitless of the dogs. They want a dog that has nerves of steel, all the drive in the world, hits like a hammer and wont back down, yet they expect it to roll over and submit for them if they correct it.
I heard all the excuses. Too dominate for them, too much drive for them, too aggressive, they have all new handlers and they doubt they would be able to handle such a dog. Yet they go and test some soft IPO Mali as a stud dog and complain that he doesnt have the balls to confront and engage a dude covered in plastic who attacks the dog in a building. Its like wanting a super fast powerful sports car but then complaining about the fact that you get thrown back into your seat when you plant your foot on the gas.
End rant......


----------



## Tim Connell (Apr 17, 2010)

Not surprising. On the firearms and defensive tactics side of the house, in some agencies, administrators question certain tactics, techniques, or equipment, Statements like "Do we really need those big loud black rifles?" "But what about all the lawsuits with the new whizbang XYZ tool..should we still get them?" or "Did they really have to use that XYZ technique, was it really necessary?" I've traveled this country and others training police and military, and everywhere you go, it's many of these same battles as society changes.

I have a close friend who is an instructor in a particular defensive tactics system, who travels to various parts of the country to teach. It's not uncommon for him to hear things like "Wow, these techniques are harsh..you could really hurt someone''' and other such banter. That might be the point: Really, no kidding..sometimes it's appropriate to hurt people in the course of stopping their negative behavior. If someone tries to assault an LEO, or disarm them, they are assuming the risk that they might indeed get hurt doing so. They are not trying to sell you cookies here, they are trying to hurt you. 

So long as the utilization of the apprehension K9, or any other use of force for that matter is JUSTIFIED, I think the response should be decisive, appropriate, swift, and certain. Quick, done, and over. I'd take the harder biting dog any day.

The problem many times comes down to training and competence. Any tool is a liability, not an asset, unless properly utilized. Training of LEO's (and in particular K9's) varies greatly from agency to agency and team to team. Perhaps overall, when the skill level is higher, administrators tend to have more confidence in the field personnel to make sound decisions.

It's an overall gravitation in many areas toward the police becoming a "social worker with a gun", and unfortunately officer safety suffers. As long as we have predatory criminals and miscreants floating around, there will be a necessity for police, and citizens in general to be forced to utilize force to defend themselves and others.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

The problem I see is departments with one or two dogs, no support staff, two weeks of training on a vendors idea of what a psd is supposed to be. The dog bites, the department is left swinging in the breeze. Generally, again in my opinion, it's brought on by all the macho sport ( of various types) b.s. of what makes a good psd. I've made the statement before, I wasn't saying it to make a joke or be a smart ass, I was saying it and practice it for the good of Canine and our unit; Talk beyond sinking the teeth to the gums, staying engaged until being commanded to do something else, is nothing more than, mine is bigger than yours. The primary job of a PSD is one of a locating tool. The dog has not been classed as deadly force for a reason. One of the reason you don't see people testing the dog for patrol work is; they dn't know how. If the dog hasn't already been trained to hit the sleeve and have basic ob and maybe elementary track (a green dog to some) they are out of their element. They'll take the dog knowing it can work as a detector and take a chance it will be an adequate, low key patrol dog. While some of the problem is the dogs that are available to them, primarily, it's lack of experience in the canine section themselve. The departments I'm familiar with, larger departments with in house training staff, just don't have those problems. 

dFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Tim Connell said:


> .
> 
> It's an overall gravitation in many areas toward the police becoming a "social worker with a gun", and unfortunately officer safety suffers. As long as we have predatory criminals and miscreants floating around, there will be a necessity for police, and citizens in general to be forced to utilize force to defend themselves and others.


I don't disagree with your assessment. From what I see within the police world, bad case law comes from bad decisions and poor supervision rather than liberal courts. Which, logically, is a result of poor training, inadequate equipment and poor supervision. Bad case law scares me, as it should every responsible law enforcement officer. PSD's and drug detector dogs have enjoyed, mostly, a pretty free environment in which to operate. IF, we as handlers, trainers and supervisor are not consistent in following the, somewhat officer friendly guidelines we have, we have only ourselves to blame when the roof caves in.

DFrost


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

I think your right about support David. There is a guy up here who has been in a suit fir 3 years and caught some Mondio level 3 dogs and is now advertising himself for Police dog training. Catching trained dogs has very little to do with bringing up dogs which takes much longer and experience on reading the dog. The funny thing about it is that he can't even teach his own dog obedience and now he cleverly fooled a state trooper into thinking he's also a trainer. It's pretty said how naive people are. The officer has limited support and a dog who was put on the street way to early!


----------



## shawn murace (Feb 20, 2007)

The NC highway patrol went to detector dogs only because of a leaked video of an officer helicoptering a Mal that wouldn't out. Anyhow, if they (N.C.H.P.)need an apprehension dog they will call the local or county authorities. I know a few K9 handlers and they pretty much echo what Mike stated. The departments don't want the potential liability in dealing with apprehension dogs. Overall the biggest problem from what I hear are veteran K9 handlers being reassigned to other duty within the department. 

The ironic part is I, as I'm sure most of you, know some detector labs that are absolute bastards.


----------



## Maureen A Osborn (Feb 12, 2010)

good thread Mike....kinda helps me answer the question of WTF is LAPD getting Jindos for?? LOL. I have heard from quite a few people about there are no "standards" that PSD dogs must meet,nor are there standards for those that train them, and they both seem to vary greatly from dept tp dept. Plus,lately, it seems to have lead to quite a few unnecessary bites/lawsuits to quite a few PDs from what people are saying on this thread. I know a lot of people don't like "rules" but maybe those of you that are more experienced need to set some standards for both dogs and trainers and show why it is so important to have them? Just a thought.....


----------



## Mike Lauer (Jul 26, 2009)

We see that here also
A breeder I know of GSD's has sold one of her males to 3 departments and gotten him back each time because he is too hard.

A few of our local PSD officers train with us from time to time (and pay out of their own pocket) to get access to our dog "trainer" 
as they all get together from the surrounding areas and train but they are handlers


and as stated above, if you get sued because your dog bit the wrong person that is a handler issue not a dog issue imho
rules for a dog are the same as a gun once you shoot your responsible for where that bullet goes, you wouldn't shoot your gun into an unsafe backdrop why send your dog


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Here in the Low Country this has been happening for a quite some time. Many departments have been buying dogs from a large vendor in Florida that sells very soft GSD's. The departments pay an assload of money for a soft dog. Then when the dog will not engage they come asking for help. It is a dangerous game that they are playing.

I am also curious what is going to happen now that the dollar is in a free fall and no signs of recovering for quite awhile. Maybe Matt was somewhat right about the 10k dog statement.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

This is nothing new. Look at the logistics of what it takes to maintain a dog and the fact that officers have to be paid to train their dogs. That takes a bite out of a budget.

I would think that many many places, a detector dog would get to work many many times more than a patrol dog. 

Look at the dogs that you know of Mike that came back all screwed up, like Sky, Duco, Aldo, those we both know what the dogs are capable of, and what happened when they came back. Duco was picked up and he was taken out of the kennel with something like 4 catch poles they screwed him up so bad.

I do not have an answer, but if you look at how many police depts there are in this country, you are always going to have some problem with the logistics of owning and training a dog.

There was an officer that I got to train with one time down here, and the dog was a good dog, and the officer was a good guy, but due to logistics when I worked with him and another officer with the dog, that was the first time that the dog had gotten to practice bite work since they had went through their schooling. 

We had some guys down here looking for green dogs that do muzzle fighting, and retrieve "to the hand".

That kind of terminology difference is a bit much. You ask for green dogs on the phone, but they can work in a muzzle ? They can retrieve ?

I am sure that there are plenty of vendors selling trained dogs as green dogs to make their dogs look better, but that is another example of the system getting all messed up.

How about guarantees ? That is sorta goofy as well. Look at a dog we both know, Sky. How would you ever make good on a guarantee when their training botched that dog up to that point ? 

There are a lot of questions to be answered, but you started with a basic problem, and I am amazed that you are just finding this out now. You have been real lucky I think. : )

How DO you sell a dog like Duco to a dept with a new program without the whole thing turning into a debacle ?


----------



## Drew Peirce (Nov 16, 2006)

Yep nothing new, been evolving this way for a long time, and here we are, in fact the whole selection process for K9 units is nothing like it used to be, that goes for handlers too.

I always tell folks about this dog named chip, 72 apprehensions and never broke the skin on a single perp, an administrator and city attorney's wet dream he was.

But it's all good mike, just let me know when the next kano/jari shows up I'll be at your doorstep in 24 hours to take delivery.


----------



## mike suttle (Feb 19, 2008)

I have been forced to sell strong PH 1 dogs to US Customs and Border Patrol to be used for detection only because they were too strong for some of the PD clients I have had here lately. Something is wrong with that picture!!


----------



## Tim Bartlett (May 21, 2007)

Selling a single purpose dog at a dual purpose price is a vendors dream. Send the good ones that police department won't buy to Lackland, I promise we will buy them.


----------



## Tim Bartlett (May 21, 2007)

....and if our trainer's screw them up, I promise we will never return them to you......


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

shawn murace said:


> The NC highway patrol went to detector dogs only because of a leaked video of an officer helicoptering a Mal that wouldn't out..


Actually, the video showd a dog hanging off a porch rail and the handler/trainer, kicking and punching the dog. 

DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Maureen A Osborn said:


> good thread I have heard from quite a few people about there are no "standards" that PSD dogs must meet,nor are there standards for those that train them, and they both seem to vary greatly from dept tp dept. .


That's not totally accurate. There are only 2 maybe 3 states that have mandatory standards. There are also at least major certification organizations, ie USPCA, NAPWDA, IPWDA that also establish standards and conduct certification trials to measure dogs to those standards. That said, with few exception they are not mandatory. Some departments have their own standards and their dogs are measured against those standards. Mostly the standards, depending on the organization are basically the same. While there may be a few difference, they are still based on the DOD certification. With the exception of explosive detectors, which arguable TSA has the most exacting standards, certifications are pretty much the same. Departments that have no standards or do not participate in any type of certification, do so at their own peril. They also create a situation where bad case law is inevitable. There are some fine canine programs out there that work, day-to-day, train their dog, deploy their dogs and you never hear of them. They follow the rules. They don't get caught up in the "flavor of the day", whatever it migh be from some certification agency, vendor or specialized training agency, telling them they can't live without their product or training. They just work, train and do their job.

DFrost


----------



## Adam Rawlings (Feb 27, 2009)

Does policing in the US as a whole suffer when there are so many different departments/offices operating with only reginal support and infrastructure? Do the federal and state agencies with control over training standards and more resources to draw from have the same issues? Just curious.


----------



## Maureen A Osborn (Feb 12, 2010)

Thanks David for clarifying some of the stuff. It just seems totally strange for a huge PD like LAPD to be going to Korea to get Jindos for their force.....for such a huge dept with I am sure tons of $$$$....WTF? I can see maybe a little hick town PD like mine doing something strange as that, but LAPD? It just seems to be screaming that there may be something wrong with the system for them to be going to Korea for PSDs.....maybe I am wrong to draw those conclusions, but ????? It seems to tie into the thread about the dogs costing 6 digits now, IMHO. I'm new, so these are things I am just observing from the outside, so I could be dead wrong...


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Will, I saw your post before you deleted it, I don't mind answering. I'm all for a reasonable national certification. In fact, I fully support what SWGDOG is doing. Sure, there are a few things that I don't agree with, but that's my problem. My concern is the certification has to be written by law enforcment professionals, not someone trying to sell something to law enforcement. As always, I am opposed to the NORT and b/h other than that, I say go for it. 

DFrost


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

David

Thanks for answering. I agree with you completely on the BH and dont know enough about explosives to have an opinion. Let us set the standard then the vendors can conform to us. It would be ideal if we were all on the same page.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Maureen A Osborn said:


> Thanks David for clarifying some of the stuff. It just seems totally strange for a huge PD like LAPD to be going to Korea to get Jindos for their force.....for such a huge dept with I am sure tons of $$$$....WTF? I can see maybe a little hick town PD like mine doing something strange as that, but LAPD? It just seems to be screaming that there may be something wrong with the system for them to be going to Korea for PSDs.....maybe I am wrong to draw those conclusions, but ????? It seems to tie into the thread about the dogs costing 6 digits now, IMHO. I'm new, so these are things I am just observing from the outside, so I could be dead wrong...


I don't know what their motivation is. Personally, I feel there is politics or political correctness involved somehow. In the early 70's (b.m.) that's before malanois, ha ha, the MWD program was having a very difficult time finding dogs in the quantities needed. Sort of reminicent of today in a sense. The MWD program established a testing station in Europe, primarily Germany at the time, looking to buy dogs. The cost of the dog, plus transportation did not sit well with many groups. Among those were Airedale, Doberman and Bouvier breeders. They put a lot of pressure on their legislators, who in turn put pressure on the Air Force (they were solely responsible for the MWD program at the time) to try some of the U.S. breeds, other than GSD. At the time, GSD (GSD look-a-likes) were the only breed accepted. The concerned breeders were supplied with the standards and they provided the various types of dogs. With the exception of the Airedale, it was a complete dismal failure. The dogs were shitters pure and simple. The Dobes were basket cases, the Bouvs put on a decent show but could not handle the pressure. The 'dales ---- we really liked them, but they just couldn't supply the numbers. It was the same with the Giant Schnauzer, a decent dog, just not available in numbers. A little early MWD history, but a look at what got us to where we are now.

DFrost


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

David,

I would be interested in a book if you ever choose to write one with the history and your complete lack of bs about this kind of stuff. It is nice to hear someone actually speak the truth about what has happened over the years.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Kind words Jeff, thanks. Should I be afraid?????? ha ha

DFrost


----------



## Barry Connell (Jul 25, 2010)

David Frost said:


> There are only 2 maybe 3 states that have mandatory standards.
> DFrost


Ohio being one of the mandatory states, but since it's inception it has been watered down. Recently I have heard of handler's laying their own tracks. Since the beginning, a basic course must be approved UNLESS a department's CEO would sign off on "equivilent" training, meaning, Officer Doe buys some pre-trained dog and gets no training himself. He then tells the Chief "I'm ready" The Chief signs the papers and they can state certify.

Even mandatory standards have the potential to create the bad case law we all have to live with.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Barry Connell said:


> Even mandatory standards have the potential to create the bad case law we all have to live with.


Unfortunately, you are oh so correct. 

DFrost


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

Will I agree with you. Tell me of a good way that civilian trainers ( vendors ) will know what LE expect from them. We are exempt and not allowed to participate in classes with LE. Like Mike now it's through trial and error.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

I tried to get USPCA to create a division for vendors. IT would provide a vehicle for testing dogs and not certifying them, but getting a solid impression of the dog's capability. I don't know why they won't adopt such a practice. It wouldn't necessarily help programs such as mine, but it would certainly be a help to smaller departments that don't have staff trainers. I don't know if other organizations do such a thing, but they should. 

DFrost


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

If there is one standard for certification it will be common knowledge. Vendors can train the dogs they sell to meet that standard or sell green dogs that will meet it. It really would only hurt the different associations and depth that weak or no standards. In a perfect world.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

I am not really into selling the dogs. What I want is the standard so that I can help the depts. keep their dogs certified. If there was one standard then it would be easier for me and vendors like Mike. Will we ever be on the same page????????


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

I'm not selling any one organization, with that in mind; why not train to USPCA standards. They aren't all that difficult, it's recognized in court. It's recognized by many deparments with established canine programs. You can download the standards from their website, it's nothing double naught secret spy stuff. It does not require the perfect dog. If a dog was trained to those standards, it would, in my mind, be a selling point. I used USPCA but any of the reocognized standards would at least be a start. We are self-certified, but we've used all the organization, including the DOD to set our standards. they are written into General Orders, and all the dogs are measured against those standards. Remember, a "standard" is not a training device. It measures the training that has been conducted. 

I've edited this to give an example of one of the standards:

SEARCH TESTS
1. Evidence Search:
A. Articles will be supplied by the host city or region/district.
B. The Association for the test will select two of the following articles.
1. Expended shotgun shell (dark in color)
2. Key on a ring with tab
3. Book of paper matches (dark in color)
4. Metal gun
5. Plastic credit card or card of equal size and material (dark in color)
6. Screwdriver—four to six inches long
7. Piece of leather—one-eighth to one-fourth inch thick, three inches by three inches (dark in color)
C. Articles will be tossed into the search area after being scented for a minimum of thirty seconds in a clenched fist by only one judge or steward.
D. Two new or unused articles of the same type will be used for each contestant.
E. The dog will be required to search, find and retrieve or indicate the two selected articles within a defined area.
F. Search area will be thirty feet by thirty feet of raised grass approximately twelve inches high.
G. The number of search areas will be as many as possible and practical—to be determined by the host city.
H. There will be a three-minute time limit for the total exercise with a thirty-second warning at the two-and-one-half (2.5) minute mark for each contestant. Time will begin when the handler sends their dog.
I. Handler will start his dog from the finish position.
J. The handler may start from anywhere around the perimeter. The time will start when the handler sends their dog. If the handler chooses to walk the perimeter prior to starting the exercise, time will begin as the team crosses the point at which it started. The handler will not enter the search area
except as defined for Option Two, the passive indication.
K. On Option One—Once the dog has located the article the handler must remain in a stationary upright position. Unnecessary movement on the part of the handler will be penalized.
L. The dog will be judged on the indicating and alerting on the article. This must be obvious to the judges.
M. The Evidence Search must be done in a lighted area with articles made safe for the protection of both handlers and dogs.
Teams will have two options in the indication of
articles. The same option must be used for both
articles. The handler will inform the steward / judge
as to which option they will use.
Option One
Upon finding the article, the dog will retrieve the
article and return it to the handler, holding the article
until commanded to release it in hand. The dog will
be sent to find the second article. Finding the second
article, the dog will return it to the handler, and
again, hold it until commanded to release it in hand.
After releasing the second article, the dog will be
commanded to the finish position. Once the dog has
located the article the handler must remain in a
stationary upright position and the dog must retrieve
the article to the handler. Unnecessary movement on
the part of the handler will be penalized. The handler
may not enter the area. A judge or the handler may
retrieve articles not retrieved by the dog, but
indicated. (This is for points on the Find—when
articles are not retrieved—and for the benefit of the
handler.)
Option Two
Upon finding the article, the dog will give a passive
indication of the article, remaining stationary in a sit,
down or stand close to the article but without
touching or disturbing the article. The handler will
tell the judges that his dog has indicated and walk
directly to the dog, picking up the article and
showing it to the judges. During this time the dog
must remain in the original indication position. The
handler will then return to the perimeter of the area
by the shortest route. The handler may command his
dog to heel, or leave the dog in the area. Once the
handler is out of the area, he will command the dog
to search for the second article. When the dog
indicates the second article, the handler will tell the
judges that his dog has indicated, enter the area,
picking up the article and showing it to the judges.
During this time the dog must remain in his
indication position. The handler will return to the
perimeter and bring his dog to the finish position.
The handler may not enter the search area until his
dog has indicated and the handler notifies the judges
that his dog has indicated.
7

DFrost


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

mike suttle said:


> I have seen such a huge swing in the way departments test dual purpose dogs over the last 5 years. It has gotten to the point now that they will buy a dual purpose dog and do very little testing on the patrol side at all. Just over the last few weeks I have sold several single purpose detector only prospects to departments who will be using them as dual purpose dogs. Even after I told them many times while they were here that the dogs they liked were great detector prospects, but they were bought by me only for that purpose, and not for dual purpose patrol work.
> The answers are usually all the same........They say they do almost no biting anymore, and in many cases they opt not to deploy the dog even if it is justified........ WTF????
> Can you guys please explain this logic to me? I realize that the detection side is very important, but that should not change the way you test for the patrol side.
> These guys have been telling me that as long as the dogs hunt and retrieve like an idiot, and will bite a sleeve then they are good enough. What a shame really. I have even had departments come here with their supervisors and decide not to buy certian dogs because they bite too hard, or are too driven to bite! ](*,)](*,) They are afraid the department will have too much trouble with law suits, or the dogs will be too much for the handler to deal with, or too likely to bite someone un provoked..........Makes me wonder if its the dogs fault, or the quality of the new trainers and handlers out there.
> ...


I will just add I have seen an increasing problem with getting K9 handler applicants that have the physical and mental attributes needed for the job . 

More often now we have new handlers quitting as soon as they find out what it's really like . It's tougher nowadays to find handlers that can become decoys , train and just handler stronger dogs . Even though the dogs I see are starting out at a much younger age and overall not as strong to begin with as in the past .

We have a pretty good yearly physical requirement if you want to go into specialized units in the department . But we were still finding it tougher and tougher finding strong(mentally and physically) handlers for the job . Our qualified handlers were getting older and more beat up physically because they had to pick up the slack because the newer handlers couldn't or were afraid to take on decoy , training or handling strong dogs . 

For years we asked for better standards in choosing but were turned down . We now have a new administration who just yesterday changed the selection process so applicants must now pass the SWAT PT requirements , run and pass an obstical course and learn what it's like to decoy dogs . They must pass all this just to apply for a K9 position . Things are looking up .


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

Jim Nash said:


> I will just add I have seen an increasing problem with getting K9 handler applicants that have the physical and mental attributes needed for the job .
> 
> More often now we have new handlers quitting as soon as they find out what it's really like . It's tougher nowadays to find handlers that can become decoys , train and just handler stronger dogs . Even though the dogs I see are starting out at a much younger age and overall not as strong to begin with as in the past .
> 
> ...


 
Handler and Dog Selection is the key to success in any training program, but QUALITY over quantity is a must. I'd rather have 5 teams that give me their all then 10 teams just marking time....

Never lower a standard to get people in a program!


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

Maureen A Osborn said:


> Thanks David for clarifying some of the stuff. It just seems totally strange for a huge PD like LAPD to be going to Korea to get Jindos for their force.....for such a huge dept with I am sure tons of $$$$....WTF? I can see maybe a little hick town PD like mine doing something strange as that, but LAPD? It just seems to be screaming that there may be something wrong with the system for them to be going to Korea for PSDs.....maybe I am wrong to draw those conclusions, but ????? It seems to tie into the thread about the dogs costing 6 digits now, IMHO. I'm new, so these are things I am just observing from the outside, so I could be dead wrong...


Maureen I wouldn't worry too much about the Jindo thing . It's been awhile since I've spoken to an LAPD K9 guy but I can assure you they aren't going to come back with junkers to put on the unit . My guess is it's a feel good thing between them and Korea either started by their Admin or someone on the K9 unit or they simply were approached by someone from Korea about looking at Jindo's and descided it can't hurt . 

By the way , last time I spoke to an LAPD K9 they were using Alderhorst as there vendor and had been for a long time . According to their website it still looks like they are . That was one of the vendors Matt was mentioning in regards to the $10,000 dogs . It is a vendor witrh a very good reputation .


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

Jody Butler said:


> Handler and Dog Selection is the key to success in any training program, but QUALITY over quantity is a must. I'd rather have 5 teams that give me their all then 10 teams just marking time....
> 
> Never lower a standard to get people in a program!


Agreed but will add quality training is just as important .


----------



## Bart Karmich (Jul 16, 2010)

I'm an idiot but I can still see that the overwhelming demand for working dogs will be for detection and pretty much detection only. I don't have to argue why detection dogs are great. The governments, federal, state, and local are all convinced. Evidence makes better cases than apprehensions, and it makes bigger cases.

Even here in podunk the county mounties have 7 K9's (that's for 40K people!). More than half of them are "dual purpose" (they can't call the lab dual purpose right?) but I know if you looked in their log books you'd see they have a long line of cases where they found dime bags, joints, or a little meth.

A while ago they did a sting on a meth peddler. Dude turned into a runner. Did they catch him? Heck no! Did Roscoe ever catch the Duke boys? They busted him over in Chickasaw on another case. It was extradition not Flash that brought him back to stand trial over here in Hazard.

They key thing was the evidence. No evidence, no case. If they have the evidence, the money is in the bag. The perp won't last long and a dramatic apprehension costs too much, so they just wait.

I'm not even sure they have deputies doing "patrol" work anymore. They do traffic work and collect evidence using a vehicle code PC for a search. If that's patrol, then there should be no reason a detection dog couldn't do the equivalent in the K9 world.

Of course if they get a call and the perp is not in a vehicle, but home, they call that a "domestic." They don't need a patrol dog to run down the drunk at the end of those calls. You could argue that they should get a bite though, but there's no money in it. Remember, think Roscoe not Andy.


----------



## Harry Keely (Aug 26, 2009)

95% of a dog for a tool these days is detection and very little giving to bitework. Although when the dog bites you should always strive for the hardest bite possible. Alot of departments are scared of the mali / ds but thats because of the lack of knowledge I believe and not so much the lawsuits. Although alot of departments are going to passive alerts because of cars get scratched up inside and out from no find because the jackoff probally did the shit two days prior to and now there is just residue left over in anything that holds scent.


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

Jim Nash said:


> Agreed but will add quality training is just as important .


No doubt!


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

In our local PD department they use soft, mostly donation show line GSD's for biting dogs. One handler had a pure peice of shit dog who wouldnt take any pressure what so ever. He went to his department head and said he wanted a new dog as this one was shit. The repy was "nope, thats all we have for you". His reply was that if he was in a situation where his dog was needed to protect him and the dog ran, and he got hurt because of it, he was going to sue the department for supplying him with faulty and inferior equipment. Now I dont know the legalities of all that, but it was one guy trying to make a stand.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

I dont know.... where I am, the patrol dog, is essential. It not all about physical apprehensions but about the perception. A dog barking and spraying spit at the end of leash on a warrant service, a patrol arrest or in any highly volatile situation works better than xanax for calming the ever aggressive perp. Keeps you and your fellow officer safe.


----------



## Amy Swaby (Jul 16, 2008)

will fernandez said:


> A dog barking and spraying spit at the end of leash on a warrant service, a patrol arrest or in any highly volatile situation works better than xanax for calming the ever aggressive perp.


Savannah is great innit? Here I'd have to ask the guys in K9 but most Bahamians are scared shitless of a biting dog. Hell I walked my 9 month old 72 lbs rottweiler puppy to the vet yesterday and I literally have people throw themselves into the road so they wouldn't have to walk next to it.

Luckily here you do stupid shit and a dog bites you that's your bad too sad go cry a river. It's the weird allowance for people to sue over getting bit while breaking the law stateside that will be a biggy to get used to.


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

Jim Nash said:


> Agreed but will add quality training is just as important .


This is the key for most depts. larger depts. have an upper hand with more expience than smaller depts. As we all know, anybody can catch a dog but can he do it safe for him and the dog? Handlers make good handlers but not good decoys. If you want to mess a dog up let a handler catch him. This is general because I know some handlers do a great job at catching a dog. Now we have two different decoys, a person that can catch a dog safely and a person that can WORK a dog and be able to read what this dog is doing and what he is about to do and how to counter to make the dog better. The third decoy can do none of this.

It all boils down to week training in the depts. You MUST keep the training up and not just ride around in your car and look pretty for the girls and let your dog be the center of your attraction. To have what is needed in anything in life, you must work on it.

Mike, they want week dogs so they can handle them simple as that. Until they understand what is most important for the public they'll train both dogs and handlers to a higher standard.


----------



## Jim Engel (Nov 14, 2007)

*My take*

I don't like it any more than anybody else, but 
unless there are fundamental changes the protection
capable police dog is going to become even more
marginalized, for all of the reasons pointed out here.

I have not been in Europe in ten years or so, but
my perception is that in Holland the police dog is
cost effective because within the KNPV structure
the amateur and quasi amateur trainers work hand
in hand with the police trainers, and KNPV officers
and administrators are also high level police 
officials. A lot of KNPV dogs are sold directly into
police service, although the foreign money has
pushed prices up. But there is no big broker
mark up and other middle man costs, and 
by being on the same training fields the local police
really know which dogs are the best.

I am sure this is idealized, that not everything
is perfect in Holland, but their fundamental set
up is better. And I am not hammering on Mr. Lyda
or Mr. Suttle, they are as far as I know guys with
good reputations and provide quality service, but
this mode of operation does add to the over
all ongoing cost in some ways.

It is painful for me to admit it, but Schutzhund / IPO
is less and less relevant to actual police work; as
an example Schutzhund USA is more and more
a candy ass conformation oriented organization
than an organization serious about hard core
working dogs, and they are increasingly becoming
less attractive to people who believe in old style
working dogs. Sport training is totally separated
from practical police work and training in America,
and both worlds are seriously less useful and
effective because of this.

Perhaps America is just destined to be third class
in the working dog world.


----------



## Harry Keely (Aug 26, 2009)

*Re: My take*

Perhaps America is just destined to be third class
in the working dog world.[/QUOTE]

HAHA you hit that on the head. Although we are alot worst off than third class. No rhyme or reason of order but you have Holland, Belgium, Germany, Czech, Slovakia, France etc...... To most of these countries we are the laughing stock of the working dog world and do we deserve to be yup we sure do. I love the USA but we got our heads way way up our ass.

Here there is way to much politics and finances in the way before the dog. Across seas in many of these places they train because its there past time and yes some business. Here most people do it for nothing but to make money and don't give a shit about the dogs. 

I made a phone call just last week to a man cross seas he tried selling me a dog with a basic 1 title for 7000 euro plus shipping. I told the guy he was nutts and he was off by a couple thousand euro. I know this because of buying dogs and friends buying dogs from over there. His comment was well thats the going rate for the USA buying dogs for PPD. I simply told the guy no thankyou and wished him luck on the sale of his dog. So in all reality we have nobody to blame but our stupid american ass because you got morons paying this and have set standards like this in their eyes anyways JMO.:-({|=


----------



## Ron Davidson (Mar 5, 2009)

There is a good solution to the lawsuit problem. Take the strong dogs and TRAIN THEM. Situational training. You'll get lawsuits if you have if you put a dog that loves to bite in a situation he has never seen, as in other people besides the suspect around, people running, etc., but behavior is completely unpredictable if you have never had the dog in certain situations. I'm sure bites that end in lawsuits are not with handler/dog teams that have been together for years. They are new teams with unpredictable dogs and unpredictable training. What happens when it really hits the fan and you need that 2nd line dog? The hard ass. 

Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. :-({|=


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

I hope this make sence: Unpredicable dogs ARE predicable. You don't put them on the streets until they are ready. Does crap happen, yes it does. Do you send a dog into a situation where something wrong can happen, no way. On the flip side there may be a situation where you send the dog when there is no other alternation. This is where the handler must be smarter than the dog. Split second decisions, weight the pros and cons. handler training as well as K9 training. They are supposed to be a team.

All this amounts to is training both dog and handler. This training should and must be directed by a trainer that knows what's up. Handlers don't make good trainers (in most cases) as well as the dept chiefs. Trainers make good trainers.


----------



## Jim Engel (Nov 14, 2007)

Jerry Lyda said:


> I hope this make sence: Unpredicable dogs ARE predicable. You don't put them on the streets until they are ready. Does crap happen, yes it does. Do you send a dog into a situation where something wrong can happen, no way. On the flip side there may be a situation where you send the dog when there is no other alternation. This is where the handler must be smarter than the dog. Split second decisions, weight the pros and cons. handler training as well as K9 training. They are supposed to be a team.
> 
> All this amounts to is training both dog and handler. This training should and must be directed by a trainer that knows what's up. Handlers don't make good trainers (in most cases) as well as the dept chiefs. Trainers make good trainers.


Jerry,

I think I know what you are getting at, but to me the terms are a little bit
confusing. The best trainer for the dog is always the handler, and a dog
with a trainer/handler as opposed to a handler given a trained dog
is in general going to have the best chance to be effective and safe.

The instructor is the person directing, teaching and coaching the trainer/
handler, and I agree that many people who can do a good job of training
their own dog are often for various reasons not effective instructor/coaches.

Can we agree that in the best of possible worlds, an experienced instructor
trains the handler/dog together ?

I am not trying to be a smart ass here, although I know how to do that too,
and I understand you do this for a living and have a very good reputation,
but to me the norm of matching up already trained dogs to new handlers
is a fundamental weakness in American practice.


----------



## Adi Ibrahimbegovic (Nov 21, 2008)

it's just a phenomenon that I have also noticed, in all spheres of our society... the pussification of America...


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

adi ibrahimbegovic said:


> it's just a phenomenon that i have also noticed, in all spheres of our society... The pussification of america...


fte!


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

Jim, I'll agree to disagree with you. No harm. I will stick to my guns that a handler is good at that as long as the trainer teaches him correctly. A trainer knows the hows and the whys. A good handler should know his dog and what he's doing with that dog. All handlers learn from some trainer somewhere on how to handle a dog. In most cases he's not taught how to catch a dog or how to get the dog to alert on an odor and etc... He's taught to handle. In time yes a handler can become a trainer. Experience is what keeps depts with good dogs with good handles and good practices (SOP) which comes from trainers. The been there done that and bought the t-shirt guy. Respectfully my opinion.


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

mike suttle said:


> I have seen such a huge swing in the way departments test dual purpose dogs over the last 5 years. It has gotten to the point now that they will buy a dual purpose dog and do very little testing on the patrol side at all. Just over the last few weeks I have sold several single purpose detector only prospects to departments who will be using them as dual purpose dogs. Even after I told them many times while they were here that the dogs they liked were great detector prospects, but they were bought by me only for that purpose, and not for dual purpose patrol work.
> The answers are usually all the same........They say they do almost no biting anymore, and in many cases they opt not to deploy the dog even if it is justified........ WTF????
> Can you guys please explain this logic to me? I realize that the detection side is very important, but that should not change the way you test for the patrol side.
> These guys have been telling me that as long as the dogs hunt and retrieve like an idiot, and will bite a sleeve then they are good enough. What a shame really. I have even had departments come here with their supervisors and decide not to buy certian dogs because they bite too hard, or are too driven to bite! ](*,)](*,) They are afraid the department will have too much trouble with law suits, or the dogs will be too much for the handler to deal with, or too likely to bite someone un provoked..........Makes me wonder if its the dogs fault, or the quality of the new trainers and handlers out there.
> ...


Looks like you may be right! For the most part anyway...


----------



## Matt Grosch (Jul 4, 2009)

(sheesh....bringing me up on this thread?? Just let me lurk in peace!....but seriously)


On a somewhat(?) related note....I wonder how much is the modern police dept in general


Whenever I hear people talk about 'the blue line' and covering up for eachother, I tell them that (at least in the west anywhere near me), its the opposite, now they will hammer a cop MUCH harder than a dirtbag off the street, ie- saw a cop get arrested for getting in a drunk fight, talked to the prosecutors, they said it would be misdemeanor disord conduct and probation, the dept and county ended up charging him with multiple felonies........cops arrested for dui and the blood test comes back under the limit, etc, etc.....I tell them its like when axel folley went out and saw how the bev hills pd was ran in beverly hills cop

the avg new cop nowadays looks like he would be an engineer or banker because its often about doing well on the written test and passing the polygraph/background, many cops have never been in a fight in their life when they get hired

Phx, one of the most dangerous cities in the country for police, has some stupid ass policy where every patrol cop that wants an AR15 can not buy their own and qualify, like they can in every neighboring city, even Gilbert that is considered one of the best cities in the country to live in (very safe), the dept's reasoning is that they cant afford the ammo to qualify quarterly, even though every other city around here qualifies annually, I know some cops carry their own rifle in the trunk unauthorized, ....good for them, and the admin making those decisions need to be put on the street into a firefight

the medium sized city im with is actually doing pretty well with bucking the trend, they are teaching in defensive tactics to just destroy the guy once they start fighting, and to forget about all the stupid ass wrist control akido crap (and they have a very dialed in k9 program that is allowed to buy, and do, what they want)


pussification is happening to many things, men, kids.....and Id say to some degree, sadly, the police


----------



## Matt Grosch (Jul 4, 2009)

^ didnt even read this page till just now after my post, wasnt using ur material on purpose....I hate a hack


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Matt Grosch said:


> (sheesh....bringing me up on this thread?? Just let me lurk in peace!....but seriously)
> 
> 
> On a somewhat(?) related note....I wonder how much is the modern police dept in general
> ...


I say we just fold up shop and go home. We can't train dogs, we know nothing about self-defense, we can't shoot, can't drive and I need to be working in a bank. I doubt you would be available to all the departments that so badly need you. None-the-less, I'm gonna try and teach those pussified Troopers something Monday, I mean hell, I'm getting a check, may as well do something with those useless dogs. 

DFrost


----------



## Matt Grosch (Jul 4, 2009)

living in denial doesnt help


and those were all points about policy, feel free to dispute any of them


----------



## Matt Grosch (Jul 4, 2009)

in fact, I wonder where you came up with all that since its nothing at all similar to anything I said


"We can't train dogs, we know nothing about self-defense, we can't shoot, can't drive and I need to be working in a bank"


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

Jerry Lyda said:


> Jim, I'll agree to disagree with you. No harm. I will stick to my guns that a handler is good at that as long as the trainer teaches him correctly. A trainer knows the hows and the whys. A good handler should know his dog and what he's doing with that dog. All handlers learn from some trainer somewhere on how to handle a dog. In most cases he's not taught how to catch a dog or how to get the dog to alert on an odor and etc... He's taught to handle. In time yes a handler can become a trainer. Experience is what keeps depts with good dogs with good handles and good practices (SOP) which comes from trainers. The been there done that and bought the t-shirt guy. Respectfully my opinion.


I'll just add Jerry that that is not always the case . We run our new handlers thru a 12 week patrol course and if they cross train for narc or bomb detection it's another 4 week course . 

We try and train the handler to train the dog . Some get it and become very good at training their dog others are like anyone trying to train a dog and it just doesn't come easy . I know that's not the case with many PSD's around the country but that's how we work . 

During this time we teach them how to catch dogs . It's a must . These guys are going to be going out to other rural or suburban areas where there are usually already other K9 handlers in their area that need them for help in maintaining there dogs . In Minnesota we have alot of PSD's . When I was treasurer of USPCA Region 18 we had 300 members of which about 80-90 were active patrol dog handlers . We also have a sister Region #12 that is about the same size . Region 18's annual Patrol dog certification gets about 80-90 K9s . Region 12 only slightly smaller 75-80 K9's . 

It's been a team effort in Minnesota . Problem I've seen is the new guys coming in are less likely to step up and truely learn how to train or work dogs . Handlers are relying on a smaller pool of people to step up to their responsibilies . 

Our new physical requirements for our department's new applicants came about because our only good decoys were the older handlers and trainers and which are about 8 guys out of 21 handlers . We have 2 really good new guys over about the past 3 years and it wasn't enough . Our older decoys are all beat up . I have surgery due on my right knee and shoulder and a new problem just popped up with my left knee . We were at a critical point and we needed to do something in an attempt to find stronger applicants . Our old standard which had worked for us for many years just wasn't working anymore . 

We just sent a team to compete at the USPCA Nationals . 5 K9 handlers were sent . All through most of there carreer had been some of our best decoys . None could decoy this year 1 was recovering from shoulder surgery , 2 knee surgery and the others all have suffered knee surgeries in the past . 1 multiple times . Our K9 foundation had to pay to have 2 of our healthy decoys flown down to help . 

Like Matt has said we are getting a new type of Officer these days . Most of our best cops through the years were people heavey into sports or out of the military . We get fewer and fewer people with that background nowadays . I think sports not only teach others to work as a team but teach the individual self descipline , courage and the knowledge that when you think you are totally exhausted there is always something left in the tank to get you there . 

Education is great but in an often physical and painful field(law enforcement and certainly PSD handling/training) the ability to deal with those things is just as important and we are lacking that because toughness and descipline can't be taught in a book . I guess that's were I see 1 of the biggest problem in PSD work today . Other here have already isted many others .


----------



## Matt Grosch (Jul 4, 2009)

^ yep, the military is still turning out guys that make good cops, but along the lines of them looking for different things nowadays...I saw two super dialed in force recon guys not get hired by the cities they first applied with, for background or psych or something


first was retired force recon, didnt get hired at the first city, then did with mine, Im pretty sure he was the first recruit ever to win every single award for the class

his buddy was a captain and didnt get hired by our city but then did by the one that passed on the first guy

a lot of cities pay more for having degrees, guys with those types of backgrounds should get more money too


----------



## Matt Grosch (Jul 4, 2009)

also, there have been lots of news stories (im sure they are on youtube) about how the military is having to scale a lot of stuff back to cater to the general softer kids nowadays (I blame dr spock or whoever that told parents to stop spanking, and the schools that take out dodgeball/etc because its too mean)


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Jim Nash said:


> I'll just add Jerry that that is not always the case . We run our new handlers thru a 12 week patrol course and if they cross train for narc or bomb detection it's another 4 week course .
> 
> We try and train the handler to train the dog . Some get it and become very good at training their dog others are like anyone trying to train a dog and it just doesn't come easy . .


Our program is similar. Patrol dog is 14 weeks, drug training is 10, if with a green dog, 4 if with a previously trained dog. I really try to train more than just a handler. while some may be content with being a handler, others and they usually stand out, want to learn and become competent trainers.

DFrost


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

David Frost said:


> I really try to train more than just a handler. while some may be content with being a handler, others and they usually stand out, want to learn and become competent trainers.
> 
> DFrost


Same here .


----------



## Ashley Campbell (Jun 21, 2009)

Matt Grosch said:


> also, there have been lots of news stories (im sure they are on youtube) about how the military is having to scale a lot of stuff back to cater to the general softer kids nowadays (I blame dr spock or whoever that told parents to stop spanking, and the schools that take out dodgeball/etc because its too mean)


I'd suggest that has more to do with the relaxed recruiting standards being the problem - i.e. if hte military wasn't letting in every dumbass that can stand upright, they wouldn't have to scale the standards back to accommodate these idiots.


----------



## Matt Grosch (Jul 4, 2009)

yes, but they go hand in hand


----------



## Ashley Campbell (Jun 21, 2009)

Not really, if they didn't relax the standard to include every little whiny pussy in, they wouldn't have to have changed things. It's a kinder, gentler Army. *throws up*
To include that my husband is Humint. He can't even do his job while he's deployed because it's no longer in the ROE. "Too harsh" - he's a f*ing interrogator.

Keep the standard high and you don't get whiny little bitches, they fail before BCT is over.


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

Jim and David, you are both right but these are larger depts. I'm talking about the smaller depts that don't have the knowledge the larger ones have. Their handles don't know enough to be trainers. Even more so if their dept has just gotten their first dog or two. yes they can go to school but with them being new that's just enough schooling to get them in big trouble.

This is a big reason dogs go back to the vendors. The smaller depts don't know what to do with a hard dog or a dog with tons of drive.


----------



## Jim Engel (Nov 14, 2007)

Jerry,
Yes, of course you are right in this. In the ideal the canine unit of a city
or county or units working together would develop the resources, that is
the trainers/mentors/teachers/helpers to drive their own program.

But in real world America this is often not the case, and of course it
makes good sense and good economics to use outside professional
trainers. Bringing in people from outside the department because
you recognize that you just don't have it all together is much better
than just making due with inadequate resources.


----------



## Matt Grosch (Jul 4, 2009)

found the video of the new kinder gentler boot camp


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5jRawaB1tY


----------



## Matt Grosch (Jul 4, 2009)

Gunnery Sgt Hartman for comparison



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLDaZvTfU9k


----------



## Ashley Campbell (Jun 21, 2009)

You're comparing the Army to the Marines? 

Apples and Oranges, and always has been, long before the pussification began. Not only that, but you're comparing a MOVIE (FMJ) to something on the news...

I'm not sure whether to laugh about this or cry that you believe either is completely truthful.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Jerry Lyda said:


> I'm talking about the smaller depts that don't have the knowledge the larger ones have. Their handles don't know enough to be trainers. Even more so if their dept has just gotten their first dog or two. yes they can go to school but with them being new that's just enough schooling to get them in big trouble.
> 
> This is a big reason dogs go back to the vendors. The smaller depts don't know what to do with a hard dog or a dog with tons of drive.


Jerry, I agree with this. It's why I made the comment earlier about bad case law. Two weeks training, without a support staff, is trouble in the making. Four weeks, without a support staff is trouble waiting to happen. The difference is, of course, when you have a support staff of trainers AND experienced handlers, the handler has more opportunity to learn. 

DFrost


----------



## Matt Grosch (Jul 4, 2009)

Ashley Campbell said:


> You're comparing the Army to the Marines?
> 
> Apples and Oranges, and always has been, long before the pussification began. Not only that, but you're comparing a MOVIE (FMJ) to something on the news...
> 
> I'm not sure whether to laugh about this or cry that you believe either is completely truthful.




I believe both are 100% accurate across the board (one is a news story and the other is a documentary), and I am very serious about this


----------



## Jim Engel (Nov 14, 2007)

Matt Grosch said:


> I believe both are 100% accurate across the board (one is a news story and the other is a documentary), and I am very serious about this


Just for the record, you believe that the movie "Full Metal Jacket" is a documentary ?

Really /


----------



## Adam Rawlings (Feb 27, 2009)

Stanley Kubrik also did another documentary called "A Clock Work Orange". :razz:


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

I went through basic training in 1965, and that was Air Force. Then we had a charismatic basic, they truly believed in laying of the hands. I saw it get easier through my career (23 years) I don't doubt it's gotten easier even today. Of course, during Viet Nam, I know it was tough. I watch Full Metal Jacket too, ha ha ha ha.

DFrost


----------



## Ashley Campbell (Jun 21, 2009)

Jim Engel said:


> Just for the record, you believe that the movie "Full Metal Jacket" is a documentary ?
> 
> Really /


After that comment, I think I'll cry. I'm with you Jim. 

Believing the movies and the news is like, well, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. There may have been some factual events, but to believe it all as gospel is incredibly naive. 

Stanley Kubrick also did "The Shining" which was based on a real place (*ahem* and a novel by a famous horror writer Stephen King), but do you believe that entire movie was factual too?


----------



## Jim Engel (Nov 14, 2007)

Ashley Campbell said:


> After that comment, I think I'll cry. I'm with you Jim.
> ?


Yes, I was pretty much stunned.

Do you think the internet is leaking testosterone again ?


----------



## Mike Scheiber (Feb 17, 2008)

Ashley Campbell said:


> You're comparing the Army to the Marines?
> 
> Apples and Oranges, and always has been, long before the pussification began. Not only that, but you're comparing a MOVIE (FMJ) to something on the news...
> 
> I'm not sure whether to laugh about this or cry that you believe either is completely truthful.





Matt Grosch said:


> I believe both are 100% accurate across the board (one is a news story and the other is a documentary), and I am very serious about this


Do you spend allot of time in the desert if so apparently you have stumbled across the peyote cactus??


----------



## Maureen A Osborn (Feb 12, 2010)

Matt Grosch;231086
pussification is happening to many things said:


> don't get me going on the boo-boo's that come into my ER everyday, stuff that you or I would never think about going to the ER for, mom or dad would wash it off, put some neosporin on it, and send ya back outside to play!=;


----------



## Matt Grosch (Jul 4, 2009)

hold on..........


----------



## Matt Grosch (Jul 4, 2009)

Maureen A Osborn said:


> don't get me going on the boo-boo's that come into my ER everyday, stuff that you or I would never think about going to the ER for, mom or dad would wash it off, put some neosporin on it, and send ya back outside to play!=;





yep, you would expect it with the pampered white suburban kids, but I see it in the ghetto and barrio kids too


----------



## Matt Grosch (Jul 4, 2009)

now mike, to get things back on point



how often do people return dogs for being too much, and get one back where they said they needed more?


----------



## Al Curbow (Mar 27, 2006)

Don't you think it's a matter of economics? From a business perspective it's clear that the single purpose dog benefits outweigh the duel purpose dog by a mile.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Al Curbow said:


> Don't you think it's a matter of economics? From a business perspective it's clear that the single purpose dog benefits outweigh the duel purpose dog by a mile.


Actually no. If it's just a matter of economics, the dual purpose is more bang for the buck. Cost a bit more on the front end, but less to operate in the long run. Strictly speaking from an economics standpoint. 

DFrost


----------



## mike suttle (Feb 19, 2008)

For sure having a good dual purpose dog is more effective than having two different dogs (one for patrol and one for detection). But from the feedback I am getting from departments all over the US they are just not using the dogs for patrol work like they used to. Most of our single purpose dogs are no cheaper than our dual purpose dogs because the only single purpose dogs we buy are very strong metal retrievers and they cost me more than a strong ball only dual purpose dog usually. The customers that we have for the strong metal dogs actually pay us more than most PDs can pay for dual purpose dogs anyway. 
This post was not about the price of the dogs, nor the most bang for the buck. I was just trying to get an idea of why so many PDs are asking for dogs with crazy hunt and retrieve drive, but softer in the bitework than they wanted in the past.


----------



## mike suttle (Feb 19, 2008)

Matt Grosch said:


> now mike, to get things back on point
> 
> 
> 
> how often do people return dogs for being too much, and get one back where they said they needed more?


Compared to the number of dogs we sell, the % of dogs that come back is pretty low. Usually a dog is returned for being too hard to train the "out", or for being too possesive over the toy. 
I did get one dog back about 10 months ago that failed to engage a perp hiding in a warehouse. When the handler got their the perp ran and then the dog bit him, but he would not commit to the bite on the guy just lying there. I think this was just a training issue because in testing that same dog bit great on the hidden equipment and fought strong in the muzzle. But in any case, I sold him to US Customs as a detector dog because I did not want to chance him failing again on the street.


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

mike suttle said:


> Compared to the number of dogs we sell, the % of dogs that come back is pretty low. Usually a dog is returned for being too hard to train the "out", or for being too possesive over the toy.
> I did get one dog back about 10 months ago that failed to engage a perp hiding in a warehouse. When the handler got their the perp ran and then the dog bit him, but he would not commit to the bite on the guy just lying there. I think this was just a training issue because in testing that same dog bit great on the hidden equipment and fought strong in the muzzle. But in any case, I sold him to US Customs as a detector dog because I did not want to chance him failing again on the street.


 
Just looking at it like you said, the dog didn't fail, his training did! How many organizations truly test and train to bite passive decoys? The alert and maybe a bite on a decoy out in the open, but many many scenarios where the decoy is passive and hiding.....I have been to many PD's training and as much as I hate to admit, it was embarrasing, but as soon as its addressed and you try something new (for them) they love it and are excited........SO, that being said, I think its a little more of training outside the box and for ALL situations...make it realistic and FUN!


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

mike suttle said:


> I did get one dog back about 10 months ago that failed to engage a perp hiding in a warehouse. When the handler got their the perp ran and then the dog bit him, but he would not commit to the bite on the guy just lying there. I think this was just a training issue because in testing that same dog bit great on the hidden equipment and fought strong in the muzzle. But in any case, I sold him to US Customs as a detector dog because I did not want to chance him failing again on the street.


 That's the mark of a good vendor with a conscious. You put the officer's safety over money and don't take the chance even if they screwed the dog up. That's for real.


Recently a handler down here miserably failed cert the other day. His first dog came from a vendor who should have never sold the shitter to the police. Now the handler has a good dog and is unable to deal with it. Even after 400 hours the dog ran off the field in cert attempt. This handler is OK with a soft dog....he's scared of the harder(good) dog so I can see where you're coming from first hand, Mike.


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

Christopher Jones said:


> In our local PD department they use soft, mostly donation show line GSD's for biting dogs. One handler had a pure peice of shit dog who wouldnt take any pressure what so ever. He went to his department head and said he wanted a new dog as this one was shit. The repy was "nope, thats all we have for you". His reply was that if he was in a situation where his dog was needed to protect him and the dog ran, and he got hurt because of it, he was going to sue the department for supplying him with faulty and inferior equipment. Now I dont know the legalities of all that, but it was one guy trying to make a stand.


 
Chris think about what you typed. Threatening a law suit is not the proper way to “make a stand” in my book. There are typically better ways to go about things than threats. This is entering cry baby negotiation tactics. If they gave this guy a hard dog that tagged him is he gona sue for being supplied with faulty and inferior equipment then as well? If someone actually did make that statement they deserve the creampuff they got


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

There's a lot of wiggle room between a shitter and a hard dog. A dog doesn't have to be hard to be good, even in apprehension work. A shitter is going to get you killed. The guy had every right to show concern...and yes, maybe threaten a lawsuit to show he's serious. You wouldn't give a cop a gun that likely won't, or MIGHT go bang, would you? That would be grounds for complaint or lawsuit for sure. You can cry creampuff all you want but until your ass is flapping in the wind you don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## Chuck Zang (May 12, 2010)

Jody Butler said:


> Just looking at it like you said, the dog didn't fail, his training did! How many organizations truly test and train to bite passive decoys? The alert and maybe a bite on a decoy out in the open, but many many scenarios where the decoy is passive and hiding.....I have been to many PD's training and as much as I hate to admit, it was embarrasing, but as soon as its addressed and you try something new (for them) they love it and are excited........SO, that being said, I think its a little more of training outside the box and for ALL situations...make it realistic and FUN!


I agree. I remember hearing/reading that the dogs rely on training and instinct. So if you haven't trained for it then the dog is going to resort to instinct and you may not like what the instinctual response is. In this case, why bite an already dead piece of "prey." Once they find out that they can bite it and make it come alive, then it makes sense to them.

I did this with the dogs that I just trained. We worked them progressively up to a still decoy under covers. I tried to cover"unconventional" scenarios like that before the dogs hit the street. We didn't do that in my initial school and I was green and didn't know better until reality hit me in the faceat the end of a track one night. Fortunately all ended well but it opened my eyes and I try to cover those things now that I do the training.


----------



## jamie lind (Feb 19, 2009)

i would think it comes down to 2 things i here on this boards alot. "a good detecting dog can pay for itself on its first find". detecting has the potential to make money, a dog bite can possiblly cost more than the dog will ever make. also "99% of the time all you need is a big black dog that barks". 

As far as the pussification of the US. i think its the lawyering up of the US. people are looking for someone to sue so they dont haved to work. if only we could make a deal with mexico we keep the illegals they take lawyers in return.


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

Howard Knauf said:


> There's a lot of wiggle room between a shitter and a hard dog. A dog doesn't have to be hard to be good, even in apprehension work. A shitter is going to get you killed. The guy had every right to show concern...and yes, maybe threaten a lawsuit to show he's serious. You wouldn't give a cop a gun that likely won't, or MIGHT go bang, would you? That would be grounds for complaint or lawsuit for sure. You can cry creampuff all you want but until your ass is flapping in the wind you don't know what you're talking about.


Howard your right I’ll never need my dog in a real situation. But in my experience there are typically better ways of going about things. Maybe things are different when working for the Gov. and threatening a suit is a more accepted method of negotiations. There might be a lot more to this story than we read. (don’t want to know the rest) There also may be other reasons why this guy was issued the dog he was? Maybe he is not the kind of guy they want/ trust to issue a hard dog to and his ego is hurt. I’ll admit there was not enough info offered for me to jump to the conclusion I did.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Tact is an endearing quality. Unfortunately, some administrations will steam roll you and only extreme measures get the point across. I don't know the handler, or the full story either. What I do know is how things work in the LE world.

There is absolutely no excuse for giving an officer substandard equipment no matter the circumstances. If the handler sucks and can't work with the proper tools then he needs to be replaced with someone who can. I know for a fact that admin will force a handler to work a shitter because it costs too much money and time to get it right. What admin doesn't realize is that the handler is not the only person affected by a crap dog. There are your backup officers, victims, citizens, and yes, the perps. 

If it comes down to money and fear of lawsuit, wash the program. There's more to lose than money with a crap dog. insufficient training can cost money as well in the form of bad bites. Bad dogs can cost lives. How much is that worth when the family sues? 

If you're going to go to straight detection then do it. Don't half ass an apprehension dog if the dog isn't up to snuff. That gives people false security in the dog's ability. There's a video out there of a handler with a narc dog in his car. The handler gets into a fight with a bad guy who pulls a gun on him. The dog comes out of the car and distracts the bad guy enough so that the cop can get his backup gun and shoot him. In this case it worked out and the cop was lucky but do we really want to depend on luck? No, we want an ass chewing when the dog comes out, bottom line.


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

Jody Butler said:


> Just looking at it like you said, the dog didn't fail, his training did! How many organizations truly test and train to bite passive decoys? The alert and maybe a bite on a decoy out in the open, but many many scenarios where the decoy is passive and hiding.....I have been to many PD's training and as much as I hate to admit, it was embarrasing, but as soon as its addressed and you try something new (for them) they love it and are excited........SO, that being said, I think its a little more of training outside the box and for ALL situations...make it realistic and FUN!


If a K9 unit isn't training for passive bites that's a good indicator how much knowledge they lack about their job . Between both of my K9 partners passive bites where the suspect is hiding were the majority of there bites . 

When I was a trainer I made up a passive bite routine for the new dogs . I do it in muzzle but it can be done with a bitesuit or hidden sleeve too . The bitesuit is tough because it wears you out . The hidden sleeve is ok but there is usually some sort of presentation to the dog at the last minute to protect the decoy so it really isn't a passive bite . 

What I do is use one of our schools . Lots of rooms and hallways with corners . 

I start buy confronting the dog as it enters . Some agitation then the handler sends him . Short muzzle fight , handler comes in removes dog . Very short agitation then I run a short distance out of sight , around a corner or in a room . Handler sends the dog , short muzzle fight , handler removes and decoy runs away again to new location and handler quickly sends the dog again . 

Each time the decoy runs away he should find a spot that the dog can easily see him when he enters and with each different location the decoy should be in a different position . Laying down , crouched , standing , you name it . The trick is to do it quickly and have the dog hitting you before he has a chance to think about it . You may have to change it up with some dogs with some straight attacks mixed in . 

I guess what I'm working on is keeping the dog in prey even though the suspect isn't moving . The dog hits the passive decoy because he is still in chase mode . If you allow too much time between the dog being sent and confronting the decoy the new dog may go back into search mode and have a problem engaging once he finds the passive decoy . So have a decoy that's in very good shape because you need to do it about 6 times in a row , the more the better and you need to keep everything fast and fluid . 

Later on down the road in training you can gradually adjust it to more typical search locate stuff . It works great but sucks being the decoy .

Sorry for taking it off subject but it's a fun and effective routine forthe dog and I couldn't help myself .


----------



## Matt Grosch (Jul 4, 2009)

Ive watched the k9 unit training new knpv dogs on the passive bite, sounds like one of the few adjustments they have to make


----------



## Matt Grosch (Jul 4, 2009)

Correct me if im wrong, but sounds like just a variation of teaching the search (which Ive just started doing) in which you just skip the presentation?




Jim Nash said:


> If a K9 unit isn't training for passive bites that's a good indicator how much knowledge they lack about their job . Between both of my K9 partners passive bites where the suspect is hiding were the majority of there bites .
> 
> When I was a trainer I made up a passive bite routine for the new dogs . I do it in muzzle but it can be done with a bitesuit or hidden sleeve too . The bitesuit is tough because it wears you out . The hidden sleeve is ok but there is usually some sort of presentation to the dog at the last minute to protect the decoy so it really isn't a passive bite .
> 
> ...


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

Matt Grosch said:


> Correct me if im wrong, but sounds like just a variation of teaching the search (which Ive just started doing) in which you just skip the presentation?


Yep . That's where I got the idea . 

Along with detection work where we set up hides fairly close together , direct the dog , hits on odor , alerts , quick reward , quickly redirect to search again , hit , alert , reward , start over . All done real fast and fluid . 

I just mixed the 2 together .


----------



## Matt Grosch (Jul 4, 2009)

On the passive bite, im trying to figure out exactly how much is handler driven, although im sure it varies with each dog, but since they arent reacting to the presentation/movement/etc like normal, it seems like its all on the front end getting them ready with your demeanor and commands (to the suspect and/or dog)


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

Matt Grosch said:


> On the passive bite, im trying to figure out exactly how much is handler driven, although im sure it varies with each dog, but since they arent reacting to the presentation/movement/etc like normal, it seems like its all on the front end getting them ready with your demeanor and commands (to the suspect and/or dog)


I think it's more just getting the dog to realize the fight will start once the dog engages . JMO . If the handler needs to pump the dog up initially so be it , just as long as they wean or can wean the dog off that . 

Many people think it's a dog is weak if it intially has problems biting a passive suspect when in fact it is not . It could be that it had some training in bark and hold(even some "green" dogs) or just confused . It's usually an easy fix if you have a good dog . 

I judge the confidence more on the search . If the dog is actively and eargerly searching for the suspect with no problem doing so away from the handler , the passive bite is usually no problem to teach . 

If the dog is having problems searching away from the handler or once in the odor of the suspect , it's behavior changes (usually slowing down and making numerous passes by the suspects location ) that is a dog I'm concerned about . I've seen many trainers make excuses for the dog saying the dog is just having trouble working out the scent currents . This may be true from time to time but if it's a very common occurance with that dog , to me it means it's a confidence problem and the dog is trying to determine if it actually wants to confront the suspect . Some will work it out with encouragement from the handler but that becomes a crutch for some weak dogs . With out it they many times will eventually descide to pass on the suspect , if left to their own devices . 

So they may have "successes" on training searches where they know where the hide is , see the behavior and offer encouragement to engage . 

But in a real situation or training hide where they don't know the location of the suspect or decoy and the trainer isn't queing them , the dog may just walk the hide and the handler may never know it .


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

Another thing our handlers often do (we had to remind them this year which was a first) for new dogs hitting the street is to put on a hidden sleeve and take a passive position along a building or in a neighborhood , mirroring something they may see on the street . The handler gets out with the dog and walks with the dog on a six foot lead until he encounters the suspect who remains still . 

The handlers then issues orders to the suspect who doesn't repond . The handler then sends the dog running him in on lead . Once they get some reps in like that they progress to more difficult locations where the decoy may be in a dark doorway , under a tree , porch , whatever and change it up from giving commands to the suspect(whichs pumps the dog up) to just sending the dog . They also progress from just running the dog in on lead to sending it from a distance and/or cover . 

It's easy to do and set up for the decoy and very quick . The handlers usually do that 1 or 2 times a shift for the new dogs just to help get them ready for there first encounter . 

It usually starts with the experianced handler getting ahold of the new handler saying something like : " I'm going to be somewhere around the perimeter of this building , come confront me . " .


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

Chris McDonald said:


> Chris think about what you typed. Threatening a law suit is not the proper way to “make a stand” in my book. There are typically better ways to go about things than threats. This is entering cry baby negotiation tactics. If they gave this guy a hard dog that tagged him is he gona sue for being supplied with faulty and inferior equipment then as well? If someone actually did make that statement they deserve the creampuff they got


There is a legal requiremnt over here that someone (government in this case) needs to have been made aware of a potential issue and not have done something about it before they can be held responsible. Its like if the sidewalk has a hole in it and someone rolled his ankle. If the government did not know that there was a hole there they can pretty safely claim they can not be held responsible for the mans injury. However, if someone had written a letter and informed the government that there was a hole in the side walk that someone could injure themself on, and they choose not to fix it, well then legally they are in some real trouble.
This is kinda why he went about it the way he did.


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

Jim Nash said:


> I think it's more just getting the dog to realize *the fight will start once the dog engages* . JMO . If the handler needs to pump the dog up initially so be it , just as long as they wean or can wean the dog off that .
> 
> Many people think it's a dog is weak if it intially has problems biting a passive suspect when in fact it is not . It could be that it had some training in bark and hold(even some "green" dogs) or just confused . It's usually an easy fix if you have a good dog .
> 
> ...


What happens if the decoy shows no fight and lies there and takes it?


----------



## Matt Grosch (Jul 4, 2009)

^ Ive heard of them sending a dog on a suspect that has been shot (or suicide) and still has the gun with/near them.

Is it analogous to the tug coming alive like the passive suspect will, and that after the dog has done it enough they will still enjoy biting even if it doesnt come alive?


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Jody Butler said:


> What happens if the decoy shows no fight and lies there and takes it?


I can't speak for Jim. In our program I want the dog to drag the subject out of his position. the subject becomes the tug, so to speak. Even with out fight, the dog engages, remains actively engaged until commanded to do something else. In fact, this is one of the situations why I refuse to do the bark and hold. 

DFrost


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

David Frost said:


> I can't speak for Jim. In our program I want the dog to drag the subject out of his position. the subject becomes the tug, so to speak. Even with out fight, the dog engages, remains actively engaged until commanded to do something else. In fact, this is one of the situations why I refuse to do the bark and hold.
> 
> DFrost


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

I would imagine that most KNPV dogs would have the VAS command which just means to bite. I am pretty sure that most dogs know this command to just bite be it passive or active.


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

Jody Butler said:


> What happens if the decoy shows no fight and lies there and takes it?


David did a good job answering it already . I will just add that I haven't had an issue with a dog not staying on long enough if the suspect doesn't react to the bite . First off it just doesn't happen much . Out of the close to 100 bites I've had with my 2 K9's I can only remember 2 where the suspects didn't vocalize . On the first one I saw the apprehension and the suspect didn't make a sound BUT tried to pull the dog off the bite causing alot of damage to himself . On the second I sent him on a building search up some stairs in a very small house . The guy stayed quiet didn't fight the dog BUT I could hear the dog dragging the guy all over the place from my position of cover . Other then that 99% of the time in my experiance they scream . The other thing is it just seems that once you flick that switch for the dog to bite a passive suspect a good dog will bite/fight the suspect for an adequate amount of time for the handler to get there and help take the suspect into custody .

I do recommend though doing a training scenerio where you hide a suspect in perferably a bitesuit , set it upwind and allow the dog to search well away from the handler . I don't recommend this in a real search . This is just to test the dog's reaction to a non responsive suspect with the dog on a bite and away from it's handler for an extended period of time . 

I've learned more about dogs just being the decoy in this situation . For me it was in a well contained storage yard . I was in a bitesuit upwind hiding in between two traincars that allowed the dogs to only be able to apprehend my legs and not be able to pull me out or around . 

What I learned was even strong dogs that bite and fought hard needing no reaction from me got even stronger when the handler got closer . I knew they got some added confidence from their handlers but not that much . The dog and handler truely are a team . Also I learned many dogs will eventually let up somewhat on the fight if there isn't some sort of reaction from the decoy over and extended period of time . Another among many reasons not to let K9s search too far away from the handler .


----------



## Al Curbow (Mar 27, 2006)

David Frost said:


> Actually no. If it's just a matter of economics, the dual purpose is more bang for the buck. Cost a bit more on the front end, but less to operate in the long run. Strictly speaking from an economics standpoint.
> 
> DFrost


David,
There was a bite by a local PSD, the town paid out 160,000 dollors in medical (torn bicep). The town is self insured, the township pays. The back end being cheaper argument doesn't make sense in this case. It would seem that the detection dog would pay dividends through seizures etc. and the duel purpose dog would go in the debit colume fairly quick from an economic point of view.

Is it worth it? Beats me but I know as a taxpayer I'd hate to be paying that bill when the officers have a radio, tazers, batons and guns at their disposal. That 160,000 could have put another cop on the street for a year. I'm discussing this purely from an economic perspective. I see the point of towns that don't want a duel purpose dog after looking into it deeper I guess.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Al, you can look at township you mention and the 160K they paid out, that doesn't mean everyone that has dual purpose are going to pay the same. Sometimes, it's a cost of doing business. There is absolutely no way to ensure a city won't prevail in a law suit, even if all the rules are followed. That doesn't change the facts. A dual purpose initial training time is a wash. You'd still have to train each task even if it were different dogs. The handler of the dual purpose is compensated for FSLA for one dog, rather than two handlers. Vet bills, food bills, equipment etc are also, although a neglible amount, reduced. Referencing a law suit only leasds to other questions. I don't have the statistics, but I'd bet a dollar to a donut there are more civil suits towards law enforcement for; vehicle crashes, use of taser, use of handcuffs, excessive force (non-k9 related) and use of a firearm. I'm not aware of the case you mention, re: the damaged bicep. I don't know any of the particulars, whether or not the bite was within policy etc. While such things do happen, it's my experience, that is not the norm. The sound you hear is me knocking on wood; we've not paid a claim on a dog bite. The only claim I've ever paid was scratched paint on a vehicle when a dog (aggressive response) 
responded on the vehicle and no drugs were found during the subsequent search. I've paid less than 10 of those in the past 20 years, on "sniffs" of over 100,000 vehicles. In that same period there have been tons of drugs and several million dollars cash seized. It's just a cost of doing business.

DFrost


----------



## Tim Connell (Apr 17, 2010)

David is spot-on and well thought out, as per usual. 

Add to the utility of a dual purpose dog the intangibles: the things that you can't measure from an economical perspective: The violent criminal located before they can do more harm to the public or officers, (there's your insurance payout and additional overtime to cover a slot when you have officers out of work injured) the lost child, person with special needs, or elderly person. Hard to put an economic value price tag on that.

In my opinion: One lost individual found, and that dog team just justified their whole career. Anything else is just a bonus.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Tim you make a good point. I didn't even touch on the intangibles. There are some things you just can't measure with a "bottom line". Prisons will never make a profit. Neither should the police. While I agree we should be good stewards of taxpayer dollars, which by the way I am a taxpayer, it is difficult to measure the benefits of some costs.

DFrost


----------



## Maureen A Osborn (Feb 12, 2010)

David Frost said:


> Al, you can look at township you mention and the 160K they paid out, that doesn't mean everyone that has dual purpose are going to pay the same. Sometimes, it's a cost of doing business. There is absolutely no way to ensure a city won't prevail in a law suit, even if all the rules are followed. That doesn't change the facts. A dual purpose initial training time is a wash. You'd still have to train each task even if it were different dogs. The handler of the dual purpose is compensated for FSLA for one dog, rather than two handlers. Vet bills, food bills, equipment etc are also, although a neglible amount, reduced. Referencing a law suit only leasds to other questions. I don't have the statistics, but I'd bet a dollar to a donut there are more civil suits towards law enforcement for; vehicle crashes, use of taser, use of handcuffs, excessive force (non-k9 related) and use of a firearm. I'm not aware of the case you mention, re: the damaged bicep. I don't know any of the particulars, whether or not the bite was within policy etc. While such things do happen, it's my experience, that is not the norm. The sound you hear is me knocking on wood; we've not paid a claim on a dog bite. The only claim I've ever paid was scratched paint on a vehicle when a dog (aggressive response)
> responded on the vehicle and no drugs were found during the subsequent search. I've paid less than 10 of those in the past 20 years, on "sniffs" of over 100,000 vehicles. In that same period there have been tons of drugs and several million dollars cash seized. It's just a cost of doing business.
> 
> DFrost


Not trying to veer off topic, but this is a good place to ask.....I have people that say that Dogo Argentinos shouldn't be used as PSD because of the amount of damage they could possibly cause and the lawsuits that would ensue....what is your take on that David, if I may ask?


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Maureen, most Dogos will never cause too much damage. That is why they are not used.


----------



## Maureen A Osborn (Feb 12, 2010)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Maureen, most Dogos will never cause too much damage. That is why they are not used.


LOL....ya, I know a lot of dogos that wont engage in a boar let alone a perp, hahaha.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Maureen A Osborn said:


> LOL....ya, I know a lot of dogos that wont engage in a boar let alone a perp, hahaha.


Granted my experience is limited, but those limited experiences I was just not impressed. In addition, police deal as much with perception as they do with most anything else. The perception is; GSDs, Mals and Dutchies are expected. While you may find a few different breeds, generally you see PD's staying close to the norm. 

DFrost


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Tim and David....all very good points to justify the DP dog! You can't put a price on the suffering that victims endure. Should you be one of those victims I'm sure 160K is money well spent.

I've been sued 3 times. 2 were K9 related, one was not. The two K9 lawsuits were settled out of court for approx 10k each. One of the scumbags had already beat the piss out of his ol lady, pulled a gun on a witness, and put 2 female officers on light duty for 4-6 months. My boy Roscoe put the nastiest whoop ass on a perp via K9 that I ever saw. It was so bad that he was under trauma alert for an opened up thorasic cavity. That 10k was well spent given this guy's history. Best part was, his laywer got most of it and he got prison.:lol::lol:

On the flip side....my friends in the UK say that a pay out for dog bites is almost a given every time even if the bite is justified.


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

Maureen A Osborn said:


> Not trying to veer off topic, but this is a good place to ask.....I have people that say that Dogo Argentinos shouldn't be used as PSD because of the amount of damage they could possibly cause and the lawsuits that would ensue....what is your take on that David, if I may ask?


We have looked at many different breeds for PSDs most of them do however have a history of PSD work . Dogos have never even been discussed . My guess is for several reasons probably the first being what Jeff brought up .

I think the vast majority of people talking about why a Dogo should or shouldn't be a PSD are Dogo people .


----------



## Matt Grosch (Jul 4, 2009)

1) dont most trainers/decoys agree that GSD's and Mal's bite harder than pits/etc?


2) if there is no evidence of them doing any damage, isnt that like a RexQuanDo saying he is too deadly for the octagon?


----------



## Matt Grosch (Jul 4, 2009)

and, back to the 'pussification' discussion earlier, some of the other threads make it sound like a lot of dog sport rules are doing the same thing


----------

