Thread: hold and bark Vs bite and hold

All depends on the situation, and what you want to achieve. All dogs should be trained to "bark and hold", in my opnion. Remembering this is used mainly for off-lead work, so within the security industry not really necessary. However no reason a dog shouldn't be trained for this. Helps with control, and also may indeed help in a situation where a dog gets lose from a handler.

When searching, cuffing or just talking with a possible felon, I prefer my dog to be quiet and placed in a "watch". If I was sending my dog into a building to search, or released on someone at a distance, I would prefer a bark and hold, or my dog trained to cease the attack. However if your dog is doing a building search, then there is a possibility you will not be there to call your dog off if the felon surrenders or if there is another innocent person in the area. Sure this is a dangerous situation for the dog, as who is to say the felon isn't standing still just to shoot your dog? But then due to the law, in regards to security personal releasing dogs, they certainly need this back-up. It is very unlikely that a security guard would ever release their dog for a search... This is where a security guard should call for police back-up.

No amount of training, or to what level your dog is trained too, is going to ensure your dog is not placed in a dangerous situation. It will also not ensure that an innocent person will not get bitten. We however need to train our dogs for these situations, to help protect the security canine handler, and the innocent.

There’s two ways of looking at this question; bark and hold is the way UK GP dogs are trained (non-compliant suspect tactics dogs – in support of special units i.e. Swat/Firearms Teams are attack dogs, they are trained in various passive attack roles, as well as searching etc). In the one case if the person is inside premises because he/she has every right to be there, or if it’s a stupid kid who’s just been led astray by his mates, it’s obviously not a good thing if your dog bites. It’s basically a safety and liability issue. On the other hand when you have your dog search a building which has been broken-into and the dog finds the offender, standing off and barking places the dog at risk, and in turn the officer. In theory the dog should stand off and bark until the handler gets there providing that the offender/person stands still, it should only engage if the person moves to aggress or escape, in practice it’s not always that straightforward. In the States, with its gun culture I can understand why they have opted for 'bite and hold'; it’s definitely a safer approach in that country, but even there the liability question has in some States meant that ‘bark & hold’ is now being adopted for GP dogs. It’s a difficult choice to make but on the whole I would prefer ‘bite & hold’ as (was) an operational police dog handler, as in most cases the chance of an innocent person being bitten is very small, police dog attendances to these kinds of incidents are usually in the early hours of the morning therefore the probability of authorised persons being on the premises or younger kids breaking in are considerably less, but again to a certain extent the handler is taking a calculated risk.......I guess it’s a judgement call, and the risks have to be assessed before a decision is made to send in your dog.

As Mark says, a security handler definitely should not allow his unleashed dog to do building searches or to apprehend suspects, this is a job for police back-up, and the security officer’s dog is there to protect its handler and as a deterrent only.

Peter

Hi

Professionally, I'm against the "bark & hold". Reason being is and this has been proven in court already here in Australia is that if you let your K-9 off-lead and the K-9 bails up a POI, and that POI tries to assault the K-9, a good K-9 used for PPD will always defend itself and of course bite. That's when you find yourself in hot water if you're not around as you don't have '"effective control" of your K-9. It's one of those things that looks great on paper but can land you in serious hot water.

Personally I've never trained either of my two PPD K-9's for the "bark & hold", I have always however trained them extensively in "call offs". That way I know in a serious situation if I need to let my K-9 go and the POI surrenders I can call him off at the last second.

Building searches:- I've always found the best method to be "two-up". Give plenty of warnings to come out as you are coming in with a PPD K-9. If you're on your own, call and wait for Police and if they give you permission to go ahead and search the building and let go of your K-9 and the POI hasn't come out after numerous verbal commands have been given, you're covered as you are "assisting Police in the execution of their duties" I'm lucky as I work in rural areas where there are no Police dog squad members and they know how much work I put into my K-9's so I'm fortunate to have that working relationship.

One valuable thing most Security Personell forget is the most important rule of all, and that is THE FORCE CONTINIUM!

Originally Posted by cramet

rick

can you get a copy of the case you mentioned i wouldnt mind reading it

I'll see what I can do. I know my instructor Craig Murray is a professional wittness used in a lot of dog bite cases nation wide and it's the reason I've never trained my K-9's for it. I've got a feeling it was in either the late 90's (98-99) or early 2000 sometime.

Something else worthy to remember before taking the lead off your K-9 on duty too.

I've been getting things organised to open up my own security business in NSW over the last two weeks, and of course obtaining quotes from various public liability insurance brokers. As some of you maybe aware in NSW if you are using guns and/or dogs for security, the Master Licence holder must have a minimum of $10mill public liability.

I was going through the "Security Policy Wording" of my first quote yesterday and discovered it says the following:-

Provided that, always subject to subsection 4.10 (fraudulent & Intentional conduct), subsection 4.28 (Ownership &/or Use Of Dogs) exclusions shall not apply in situations where the use of a dog off a lead was necessary due to imminent or actual threat to persons and/or property provided that the use of the dog off a lead was reasonable in the circumstances.

Basically if your K-9 is "off-lead" and/or not secured in a fully closed premises at any other time and bites someone you will not be covered by your public liability insurance. Also, considering the "excess" for claim is $10,000 I think most employers wouldn't be impressed if there was that "unjustified bite".