I have always been against b/h. I refuse to teach it. In my opinion it puts the officer at a disadvantage tactically. Secondly, it's mostly a farce as most dogs trained in b/h are dirty anyway. In actual situations how often do you see the subject remain near motionless. Or, if the dog has engaged, how often do you see the subject cease all movement so the dog will go into guard position. Personally, I've always felt it's nothing more than an intrusion of sport into the L/E world of dog training. My philosophy is; when I send the dog it will pursue, engage and remain engaged until commanded to release. The subjects actions should not predicate the dogs actions.

it comes from schutzhund, and from german dog sports, I dont think it has a place in our k-9. Some protection kennels teach it as well, mainly to defuse liability. If you want to teach it you can incorporate it but have a different command not your attack command.

Just another example of political correctness gone awry. Often times we do more damage to ourselves than the courts. Not training properly, having dogs that can't be controlled etc. High bite ratios etc. All of that leads to oversight. If given the chance, there are plenty of people that hate to see cops do what is right, will set the rules.

Well I'm on the other side of the fence with this topic, I respect all of the opinions placed here and I have heard some of the very same opinions and remarks previously on this topic.  With that said here is my opinion and my opinion only.

My dog is trained in bark and hold, AKA find and bark, AKA circle and bark...

You can't always be able to be in a safe location and still see your dog, and the bad guy.  We attempt not to leave the decision up to the dog.  We work very hard with the decoy in training to assist us in keeping the dog clean.  The Find and bark methodology I beleive give the handler and back up more options.  I as any handler can down my dog at any point, or recall if necessary.  however if the suspect that is being barked at, and they choose to attempt to injure the dog, me, or attempt to flee, I want the dog to do his job.  At the same time if the dog and the suspect leave sight in a foot pursuit, and the suspect chooses to finally give up, and the dog isn't to close, the dog won't bite, but will "hold" by barking the suspect there till I or back up arrive.  I have the utmost respect for both side of the coin in the trained methodology.  I personally beleive that I have more options with my dog.  With the use of tactical extractions, multi-handler special response training, and tactical tracking, and other ability that the other dogs may not have.  Thats not to say a Find and Bite dog can't be trained to do the same thing.

In addition the use of the word reasonable force is no different then the use of force continuum its self.  We have to use only the force necessary to apprehend the suspect, and using a dog with Bark and Hold may give options you don't have with the other.  I also think that if you have a armed suspect with a gun, and you send the dog, you will probably lose the dog.  As Terry Fleck would say, a man with a gun isn't a dog call its a SWAT Call. 

Some other food for thought

about 70 % of canines are trained in find and bite

about 30 % are find and bark

I beleive it is the Department of Justice and International Chiefs of Police, have both in the past stated that the preferred methond of training is bark and hold, AKA find and bark

Charles Mesloh found in his re-search that the Find and Bark are more likely to bite, and some of the reasons stated in the other posts are stating the same issues, (allowing the dog to make a decision) etc.  An stated that more training is needed to keep the dog in check.  The research is very good and anyone looking at either type of training should read his work.  

As far as case law goes, in most case findings, any dog with a high bite ratio greater then 33% of all deployments with the K-9 (non-narcotic/explosive related) are considered a deliquent dog.  And at not time is the type of dog training been a factor in that information.

Now in the area that I work here in Ohio, a large amount of the dogs here are training in the find and bark methodology. Not that there aren't some dogs that are trained in Find and Bite.

Again this is just my opinion, and I respect all sides of the conversation, regardless we all do the same job, you all take care and be safe!

Wayne

wmcfarland says ...

  I personally beleive that I have more options with my dog.  With the use of tactical extractions, multi-handler special response training, and tactical tracking, and other ability that the other dogs may not have.  Thats not to say a Find and Bite dog can't be trained to do the same thing.

 

What options do you have with a B/H dog that someone with a F/B dog don't have. Any dog can be trained in what you pointed out. I"m just curious as to the other abilities these dogs may not have.

 

  We have to use only the force necessary to apprehend the suspect, and using a dog with Bark and Hold may give options you don't have with the other.  I also think that if you have a armed suspect with a gun, and you send the dog, you will probably lose the dog.  As Terry Fleck would say, a man with a gun isn't a dog call its a SWAT Call.

 

All law enforcement officers are held to the same standard of "only the force necessary". If the dog is deployed, that is the force necessary. If it wasn't necessary, the dog shouldn't be deployed. Even though it's not specifically K9 related, Garner is pretty clear on what is required for use of force.

I would think, sending a dog that is find and bite in on an armed man, stands a better chance of not being shot than one that is bark and hold.

 

 

Some other food for thought

about 70 % of canines are trained in find and bite

about 30 % are find and bark

I beleive it is the Department of Justice and International Chiefs of Police, have both in the past stated that the preferred methond of training is bark and hold, AKA find and bark

I'm not impressed that the ICP and the DOJ are in favor of B/H. England doesn't carry guns either. The only time DOJ has really gotten involved is when the bite ratio is way out of wack.

 

Charles Mesloh found in his re-search that the Find and Bark are more likely to bite, and some of the reasons stated in the other posts are stating the same issues, (allowing the dog to make a decision) etc.  An stated that more training is needed to keep the dog in check.  The research is very good and anyone looking at either type of training should read his work.

 

I've read his work. He's very explicit about the F/B are more likely to bite. In fact he specifically mentions in his research where the dog will actually initiate the action to make the subject move so the dog can bite.   

As far as case law goes, in most case findings, any dog with a high bite ratio greater then 33% of all deployments with the K-9 (non-narcotic/explosive related) are considered a deliquent dog.  And at not time is the type of dog training been a factor in that information.

 

While a high bite ratio can indeed indicate training problems, that's also like saying anyone that stops more people of a particular race, yet works in an area predominately of that race is "profiling". Statistics don't always tell the true story.

 

I will always see the B/H as nothing more than an attempt to be politically correct and an intrusion of the sport world. They may fire me, but I refuse to consider training it. To me it's a matter of principle and it places the handler and dog in a greater danger. It is allowing the dog to either initiate the contact, as Dr Mesloh indicated in his research or make the decisions based on the actions of the subject. The subject does not call the shots. If I tell the dog to hit a motionless person, the dog will engage, and stay engaged until commanded to release.

 

DFrost

 

   wmcfarland, your openness to discussion and opinion on the contoversy between the two systems is great if all that was affected was subject matter, but it's not. I will speak for myself, but I think DFrost and others will agree; the theory and methodology of the b/h is such a tactical perversion ( turning of good into bad: the changing of something good, true, or correct into something bad or wrong, or a situation in which the change has occurred ) of our industry, we can not stand idle and let these heinous tactics mushroom. The reason for my strong opinion on this matter is because b/h in police service is flawed so severely and the risk it places LE K9 teams and others is not acceptable. Risks from imminent danger and liability.

  On liability. Dig a little deeper in your DOJ stats and you will find there is a signifigantly higher percentage of "accidental" bites from b/h dogs than find & bite (f/b) dogs. In fact, the most popular breed of PSDs to engage w/o command are labradors. That's a non-related funny. I can assure you, every high bite ratio problem is a handler problem.

  In your words....You can't always be able to be in a safe location and still see your dog, and the bad guy.   .........You could not be more correct on this matter. If you have a suspect (threat) that can't be seen, what have you gained by having a suspect that can't be seen with a barking dog in front of him, other than, maybe a better perceived location. If your suspect is passive and can't be seen, he is still the same level of threat with a b/h dog. There are numerous scenarios we could argue tactics, but the last sentence remains true.

  In your words....We attempt not to leave the decision up to the dog...... An attempt would be acceptable from a politician, not a K9 handler. As K9 handler we have to make decisions on our feet and stay within the laws we enforce, why leave the decision to engage up to the dog. There are no cicumstances that will evolve in your decision making criteria during a deployment that would be advantageous to the dog making the decision in an engagement situation.

  You stated....I have more options with my dog.  With the use of tactical extractions, multi-handler special response training, and tactical tracking, and other ability that the other dogs may not have.  Thats not to say a Find and Bite dog can't be trained to do the same thing.......  Absolutely not true. Any dog in my unit can go into a building with numerous officers and not engage an officer, but engage a suspect. I've done it on the street, not just in training. I've trained with US Spec Ops K9 and observed and participated in building clearings with 6 to 10 man teams with a K9 clearing structures. Every person on the team can give guidance to the dog and the dog only engages non-team members. I assure you, the dogs engages every non-team member (passive or aggressive).

  Like yours, this post is not an attack on you personally, but the ideology of b/h is an intrusion to the safety of PSD handlers and our industry as a whole. I write this response to this topic on my behalf and yours. Stay safe and keep your passion.

I haven't been on the site for a quite a few days, and I see several new posts.  I don't take offense to anything said or posted,  As K-9 Deuce put it, we can all agree to disagree.  I definately appear to be in the minority here on my trained methodology.  And that is OK.  I understand where you all are coming from, and I have had several conversations with local handlers about the same topic.  I respect what everyone has said, and in the end we all do the same job.  And that is regardelss to the methodology we/are deparments employ.  I keep everything in an open mind, and thats why I love to have great conversations like this.

 Be Safe

Sorry for the delay in our conversation!  I have been busy with may things including my K-9 recertification by OPOTA at the end of last month.  I wanted to get back on things at the end of the holiday season, but work piled up. 

In reference to where I believe that find and bark vs find and bite offers more ability. 

I have been training with a find and bite dog team recently.  Though I think that the team is a good team, I just don't see how the find and bite is a better system, again I am biased to my way of training as you and the other 85 percent or so are to yours.  I also have to say that when talking to a few other find and bite teams, recently that they don't have the ability of tactical extraction to the ability that I have.  Tracking, area searches seem to be the same.  Although as one person pointed out that as soon as there dog is off lead, unless they recall the bag guy gets bit.  Now in the grander scheme of things, the bad guy is stupid for not speaking up when the dog warning are given, even if they remain still they are going to get nuked.  I just see the advantage of being a RF handler and team as more benefitial. Again my opinion!

I have to say that I was recently told a story, and I will put a brief but propper version here in this post, regarding a unnecessary bite during a training day.  (I was not at the training day, nor are the individual teams ones I normally train with, but I respect all of them, since we are all part of the same region around this area)  The basics of the situation were two handlers were helping a third who was going to be a decoy for a training problem, into his/her hide.  upon exiting the training scenario location the observed a barking find and bite dog moving at a high rate of speed toward them.  One of the other handlers took a bite in the hand/forearm area.  The second handler choked off the dog till the dogs handler arrived to take control of his dog.  The Dogs handler stated that he did not know they had not exited the scenario location.  He also stated that he gave "X" amounts of warnings.  (Now we all know that warning are not always heard by the hiding suspect due to location and search area)  needless to say an unnecessary bite happen. 

This accident could have happened to any group during a training day.  We also all know that an accidental bite is always possible.  I will not pass judgement on any of the above situation, since I could see the same situation happening to anyone of us, nor was I there to see things first hand, and have every fact involved. 

However, if the dog would have been trainined as find and bark, would the bite have happened?  Now someone will surely post that if my dog or a dog trained in RF or Find and Bark, could have been dirty and taken a bite anyway.  But if the people who train with me, know how our dogs work, and again as I have said in the past, we work very hard to keep our dogs clean.  The bite would have not happened because (hopefully) the other two handlers would have had time to see the dog and stood still, allowing the dog to hold by barking.  Allowing for the handler to arrive and take his dog under control.  Again the injury above was a training accident and unfortunate/ unnecessary, but it could have been avoided even if the dog was given the command to search, just by using a different method of training.  

This is one of a small percentage of training accidents, but an accident still.  Again I believe that things are more controled with RF, and again its my opinion.

Be Safe

Wayne    

 You say:  I also have to say that when talking to a few other find and bite teams, recently that they don't have the ability of tactical extraction to the ability that I have. 

How would a b/h dog fair better in a distraction if the subject doesn't move. Sure you know where he is, because the dog is going to bark, the dog still isn't going to extract the guy. With a f/b dog, the dog is going to engage. If the subject is inaccessable, a f/b will give the same response a b/h dog will give.

As far as training accidents, that happens. A dog that is not under control whether it's a f/b or a b/h can have accidents. As for unintentional bites, have you read Dr Meslohs study? I'll post the link tomorrow if I haven't already done it. ( I don't have that link on this computer) You still have said what options are available to a b/h that a f/b doesn't have.

KelsoK3

First of all..this is a great conversation.  Many (sometimes opposing) ideas being expressed...everyone remaining respectful.  Don't see enough of that. 

That being said, maybe my simple mind is not working enough, but I always thought that the ONLY difference between f/b and b/h dogs was what they did at the moment just prior to engagement, based on the actions of the suspect.  Anything before that...search methods, "tactical extractions," control, SHOULD be pretty close to identical in a solid dog working with a solid handler who have BOTH received a solid foundation in training.

All but 2 dogs in our training group (12-16 or so dog teams) are f/b.  Like Kelso mentioned, every one of them is trained to do a tactical extraction.  I will not train my people to run up to the bad guy on a bite (duh).  The smart handlers remain behind cover, call off the dog and down him, sit him or have him return at their option...but it's THE HANDLER'S OPTION.  Once the dog is off, it's all about OB.  Matter of fact, it's ALWAYS about OB...doing what we tell the dog to do regardless of the situation.  Some dogs are better at it than others.  Strikingly, the dogs that are better at it also happen to have handlers that insist on it...ain't that crazy?

I guess my point is that we, as handlers and trainers should all have the same options for suspect removal regardless of our engagement preference.  The problems presented by wmc in my opinion are more handler and control issues as opposed to method of training issues.  Remove and/or address those issues and I believe that f/b will rise as the preferred method. JMO.

With all respect, I am still not convinced of the superior list of options in the b/h dog.  I still hold (pun intended) that f/b is the safer and more realistic method.  But, if b/h works for you and gets you home safe at night...go with it.

Hi, I am not into Law Enforcement yet, and have no experience in the field, so I have nothing helpful to offer to this topic. What brought me to this page is the research I am doing for a paper for one of my classes, as I am still attending college. I feel kinda silly for even commenting admist this conversation, but this topic is exactly what I am choosing to do my research paper on. I was just wondering if anybody could offer any professional help or even possibly information, personal or that you know of on this topic. It is not all that widely written about except all over the internet, so my sources are ending up to be few and far between. Any helpful information would be greatly appreciated. If you have something to offer, anything, my e-mail address is dondigan@gmail.com.