German Shepherds Forum banner

1 - 20 of 173 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,026 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This is my question: is there really a need in today's society for police K-9s that bite? In my limited knowledge, only looking at this from a civilians point of view: my answer is NO.

Here are my reasons:(taking this information from Local Police Dept)

1. Our k-9s are never off leash. Too risky for the dog. Too risky for society.
So, if dog is never off leash, and handler has a gun, then why does dog need to have bite capability? Bark and Hold, yes, bite?? I say not necessary. A few years back a K-9 was released in a hospital parking lot and took down a nurse..big problem for the department.

2. When our K-9's bite someone, they usually "maniac" the guy. He needs surgery and the department gets sued. We rarely let them get in a bite, unless we are right there, know where the guy is and can quickly stop the bite. "The dogs need to get a bite in occasionally anyway!) Quote
So, again, if liablity is an issue, then I see the search aspect very important, but why bite?

3. The training is inhumane and unnecessary. Again, my opinion. I feel it is unneccssary to breed and train dogs that "can take this type of training". Its painfull to watch and inhumane.

I believe K-9's are very valuable for SAR, Narc detection, scent work, guarding, crowd control..not biting.

So, food for thought. I am sure folks have many varied opinions. I would like to hear them.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
15,195 Posts
police having a dog that won't bite is the same as having a gun
with no bullets.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,073 Posts
K-9s are so valuable to both law enforcement & the military.

There's a time & place for everything and we must rely on the training & judgment of the handler before the dog is deployed. This asset cannot be taken away. They must be able to do their jobs and sometimes that means physical contact, countless lives have been saved, situations stopped before they happed.

I could see how for some the training could be hard to watch. But as civilians we don't need to. Let them do their jobs. Thank God for those who can for those that can't. It's a occupation that requires the right mind frame. Just my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,417 Posts
I hope Cliff tackles this question.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,616 Posts
what does cretinism have to do with a police dog biting and science
suggests iodine as a treatment?
Seems to me to be one of the most blatant insults I've seen on this forum. Pretty tasteless.

From wikipedia: "Cretinism is a condition of severely stunted physical and mental growth due to untreated congenital deficiency of thyroid hormones"

It would appear that Chip Blasiole is indicating that ponyfarm has a mental deficiency due to her beliefs. Rather asinine thing to say in my opinion. And if Chip didn't mean that, he probably should have elaborated.

EDIT-
ha ha I have done this before. Pretty sure they posted in the wrong thread;)
...or that happened.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,616 Posts
To the original post- I think it's a really interesting question. Would suspects be easily apprehended if the dog does a bark & hold rather than bite & hold? I don't know. Would the suspect realize that the dog won't bite and just run passed the dog? I might guess that the short time it takes for the dog the catch a running suspect is sufficient enough time for the suspect to be distracted and the police to get there and make the apprehension. ...But I really don't know. Perhaps a suspect chase might be different from a suspect search.

I just did a quick google search on this as I was curious if there are other countries who use dogs without the use of bite. I didn't find anything in a 15 second google search on other countries, but I did find this 216 page dissertation on exactly this topic. http://www.policek9.com/FTPResearch/florida_study.pdf

The D.O.J. recommendation of interest to thisstudy is the paradigmatic shift from “bite and hold” to
“bark and hold” in canine apprehension methods. As there
is no prior literature to base this decision upon, the
question remains, will this reduce the number of suspect
bitten by police dogs?


The results from Chapter 4 denote a number of
findings. First, measurement differences were obvious
between traditional reporting and the Bite Ratio Data
Collector. Simply asking handlers to provide bite ratios
tends to underestimate the actual amount of canine force.
Second, handlers with “bark and hold” trained canines
reported higher bite ratios than handlers with “bite and
hold” trained dogs. Finally, additional factors such as
dog breed, Shutzhund training, the number of canine calls,
and whether or not the dog was sexually intact were all
significant correlates of canine force in the final model.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
261 Posts
I, too, hope Cliff answers this, but from my part. My boyfriend is a sergeant in the NYPD, and while not k-9 himself, it makes me feel better knowing the dogs are there. A gun is lethal force, a dog is not. At the end of the day I want him to come home, I want his fellow officers to make it home. Dogs serve an important role on many levels and yes biting is one of them.



Sent from Petguide.com Free App
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,616 Posts
Check out page 171:
Research Question 2
To what extent are bite ratios affected by the apprehension
method that the canine is trained?

Measurement issues between the data collection methods
continue to be a problem across each analysis. As has been
previously shown, bite ratio data collected through self-
report (self-computed) may produce spurious findings.
Accordingly, this data will not be used in the formulation
of these conclusions.

Using the only the BRDC data, bite and hold dogs had
lower mean bite ratios (15.7) than bark and hold trained
canines (22.4) and there was a statistically significant
difference (using an independent samples t-Test) between
the two apprehension methods. Consequently, any mandated
changes in apprehension training are not a feasible
solution to combat canine use of force issues. This may
seem odd; dogs trained in what was perceived as a reduced
level of force actually generating higher levels of force.
However, several concepts may better explain how this is
so.
Very interesting!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,662 Posts
*Really need* k9s that bite, probably not. It is, however, a less lethal and more controllable use of force then bullets or even night sticks. You can recall a k9 not a bullet, if a k9 bites it's probably going to be superficial and not life threatening where a bullet usually inflicts more severe damage.

So from that perspective it's actually safer for the suspect AND the general public if the dog can subdue the suspect without bullets flying.

Having said that (and as mentioned in another thread) I think over time the use of dogs for this purpose will decrease do to many factors but probably cost and efficiency comparisons to tech options will weigh in more and more...

btw-


As luck would have it I was chatting with an on duty police officer who stopped to compliment my Ilda :) in our local little town just yesterday**. Based on our convo where I asked him about K9 use, three separate PDs (two small towns, 1 co. sheriff) and only 1 K-9 unit for the entire county (sheriff) which is part rural, part suburban.

Most calls for K-9 back up are for tracking.

The supervisors in our town don't think having K9 units is cost effective enough.

(**they generally like German Shepherds, that's not the first time that's happened)
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,687 Posts
If there was no fear of the dog biting would they be suitable or respected in crowd control or in guarding? A dog is respected because it may be used and because people don't want to be bitten.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,960 Posts
I guess I look at it differently. The dogs are biting criminals(in most cases, I know accidents happen). So I don't feel bad. Fallow directions from the LEO and most likely you won't get bit. Be an idiot and run and.... Well you made your own decision. Also these K-9"s are partners the their human handlers. Just as I would want a human partner to shoot if needed, I would want the dog to bite if needed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,662 Posts
Good find. :thumbup:

Stepping back from that there definitely is a psychological aspect, deterence factor that comes into play.

I'd be interested to know how many times a dog (no matter bite trained or not) de-escalated a situation by it's mere presence reducing the need for any kind of physical force to begin with?




Check out page 171:
Very interesting!!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,941 Posts
I know of RCMP police dogs and handlers, and have occasionally trained with them (our club helper works with the RCMP dogs all the time).

Training is no more inhumane than the training I do with my dogs. Focus is on developing confidence and building relationship with the handler.

Dogs are off leash when sent to apprehend a suspect. Dogs do save lives by disarming suspects. Dogs have been sent into tight areas where suspect is hiding and pulled them out (yes, doing some damage along the way, but in this case, the suspect was seen in bright daylight brandishing a weapon, hitting a security guard in a store, and taking off with stolen goods.

The presence alone of a police dog helps to control crowds and prevent escalation of violence. Often a suspect ready to shoot and attack police, will give themselves up when told the police K9 will be sent after them.

The dogs and handlers I have seen had all amazing control on their dogs, being able to recall them once sent off for a bite.

The standards of training and the quality of the dogs vary greatly. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,124 Posts
I don't believe the dogs bite as much as we're led to believe by watching all the cop shows out there. They mostly do tracking, drug sniffing, and crowd performances.

In the story about the nurse...that's got to be police error. I don't understand how you would just let a dog out without giving him a target to go after. You can't just let a dog roam a parking lot until it finds something to latch onto. And if you do...maybe you should make sure all civilians are out of the area.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,117 Posts
I can't believe this question is even being asked. Of course we need to deploy K9s to apprehend criminals, and of course they need to be able to bite. Otherwise, criminals would not fear the dogs. Criminals who do not fear a cop with a gun, are terrified of a hairy beast with teeth coming at them, and will often surrender just with the threat of having the dog sent. Take the teeth out of the dog, and you take the teeth out of the law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,323 Posts
This is my question: is there really a need in today's society for police K-9s that bite? In my limited knowledge, only looking at this from a civilians point of view: my answer is NO.

Here are my reasons:(taking this information from Local Police Dept)

1. Our k-9s are never off leash. Too risky for the dog. Too risky for society.
So, if dog is never off leash, and handler has a gun, then why does dog need to have bite capability? Bark and Hold, yes, bite?? I say not necessary. A few years back a K-9 was released in a hospital parking lot and took down a nurse..big problem for the department.
Accidents do happen, but they are rare, and this is a case of gross negligence on the part of the handler.

2. When our K-9's bite someone, they usually "maniac" the guy. He needs surgery and the department gets sued. We rarely let them get in a bite, unless we are right there, know where the guy is and can quickly stop the bite. "The dogs need to get a bite in occasionally anyway!) Quote
So, again, if liablity is an issue, then I see the search aspect very important, but why bite?
Where are you getting your facts from that suspects bitten need surgery? I have never heard of this happening (not to say it hasn't, just saying that it's not at all a common thing). Stitches, sure. But, don't run if you don't want to get bit :shrug: You keep saying "your" K9's...it sounds like this is a less than stellar operation, between dogs at large and uncontrollable biting...not a reflection of k9 units as a whole. I'm still not sure where you're getting your facts from.

3. The training is inhumane and unnecessary. Again, my opinion. I feel it is unneccssary to breed and train dogs that "can take this type of training". Its painfull to watch and inhumane.
Again....have you ever actually watched REAL k9 training? There have been multiple discussions from K9 handlers here (Cliff, DFrost, etc) as well as people who train with clubs that often have K9 units train with them... it's not inhumane. There are the exceptions to the rule, of course-- but again, often from shadier operations. It sounds like whatever experience you may have is with a less than reputable operation.

It sounds like an awful lot of judgement with very little experience to back it up. I'd be very interested to hear from Cliff, DFrost, and the several other LEO handlers on this forum...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,124 Posts
I want to add...the city's police department where I live (very large department) trains their own K9s. They have a trainer on staff. I've seen demonstrations from these dogs and the trainer in a bite suit...their bites were not full. It was quite interesting to watch because I saw one dog do it and thought maybe just that dog...but then the other 3 did it and they only had about half their teeth sunk into the suit. So no...I don't believe the bites even come close to "maniac"ing the guy...I've seen much stronger, fuller bites on a Schutzhund field than I did when those dogs did their thing.
 
1 - 20 of 173 Posts
Top