ukppda

Ronin, thanks for the post mate. I take it this is a trial similar to a GP dog trial? Can you list the different disciplines?
 
We know dogs will go into defence and bite when threatened, but show your dog will do what is asked of it completely is another level!
 
It's a matter of opinion I don't think it demonstates the standard of training at another level, a GP dog has a standard of 27/28 applications and assaulting a passive subject with a dog in my experience and opinion is not one of them, just my view, but I would not be in a position to defend the exercise in civil or criminal court...
 
I totally agree with your view, ot's just another way to show a dog working in prey?

It's a test, not a statement of intent to the next drunk who wanders into your area. Likewise a full gun attack, pressing home an attack under diiferent conditions.
 
Hi, eurodog your valid point with regard to passive bite has been well debated here an on other forums as iremember when the first trial was held.

I think its a case of showing that you dog will bite when commanded to, not just when it believes the circumstances are right.

As for justification, its a sport as such. As with the gp trials, nasdu etc, when would you justify a pursuit and bite for civi handler... more a test of dog and trainers ability.


The details of the trial will be closer to the time from what i understand, im the webguy as it were..

Portecuk9 from this forum will pop on here i imagine to answer any questions.
 
The passive bite is a test, an exercise a discipline nothing more than that, it is not intended for application on the street any more than weave polls are, although it can be a good indication as to whether your dog understands the command to engage. Having said that the word passive is probably a little confusing, a passive man can still be a threat. The word passive is used in this case to indicate that the person is not giving any physical, verbal or sent stimulation to the dog, or at least the stimulus is kept to a minimum.
John
 
I simply do not know what to say..... In my view there is no legitimate reason to have this as an exercise. Its not reflected in any of the major sport competitions and is not acceptable practice for any GP team, police or security, and if anyone considers setting a dog on a completely passive subject or suspect as a justified exercise in the name of 'skill and training' ought think seriously of the wide and serious implications of what they are training and the likely ramifications, particulary if they work in the security industry with a dog trained in this sort of attack.....
 
Last edited:
Eurodog, Think your missing the point, no one is saying its a legal use of force etc, but as John said, a test of the dog biting with no stimulation, not even the normal shape of a person, hence the poncho....

anyway im not here to justify the trial, for those who do wish to have a dabble and a fun day out with their dog further details and entry forms will be posted shortly.
 
I think that I have explained the exercise adequately enough and this subject has been debated in great depth on other forums, so I am not going to get bogged down with this subject on here, I simply don’t have the time.
With regard to your apparent distain, I find it rather surprising that you can’t see the point and also that you can’t distinguish between what is a training exercise and reality. In the security industry we are not advised to use our dogs unless we are being attacked or we are under serious threat, however on the competition field civilians can send their dogs after a fleeing person, they can teach their dogs to bark and hold and to bite, all of which are potentially dangerous exercises in the real world, but acceptable on the sports field, because they are tests devised to ascertain the dogs capabilities and the trainer/handlers skill and commitment, the passive bite is no more than that. Having made that statement as I said before, just because it appears that a person is passive it does not mean that they are, a dog should react to commands regardless of the stimulus, lets flip this on its head, let’s say we have a mentally disabled person shouting and waving their arms about, but not a danger to anyone, would you want your dog to engage because it thought that there was a threat, of course not. In the security industry we work with our dogs 12 hours a night sometimes 7 nights a week, every time we patrol we use our dog, we can be confronted by all kinds of strange situations surely it’s better to have a dog that is trained to respond to the handlers command, as opposed to some of the so called security dogs in our industry that are quite frankly untrained yard dogs that are much more of a threat to public safety than a highly trained Patrol Dog that has spent many many hours learning commands and working in close synchronisation and with its handler.
john
 
Thank you but I assure you that I have 'grasped' the concept of what is being said here, you are implying and you have no need to labour the point, my view simply put is that working dogs and sport dogs are in most part two horses pulling the same cart, but one has to ask oneself is this particular exercise justified from the training standpoint.
There can be no security dogs working in the public domain in the Netherlands for example unless the team have been KNPV certified.

As I said this is my point of view and I respect other views but to my knowledge this is not reflected in civilian or sport training generally, and I am unaware of any debates on any other forum(s).................
 
eurodog said:
Thank you but I assure you that I have 'grasped' the concept of what is being said here, you are implying and you have no need to labour the point, my view simply put is that working dogs and sport dogs are in most part two horses pulling the same cart, but one has to ask oneself is this particular exercise justified from the training standpoint.
There can be no security dogs working in the public domain in the Netherlands for example unless the team have been KNPV certified.

As I said this is my point of view and I respect other views but to my knowledge this is not reflected in civilian or sport training generally, and I am unaware of any debates on any other forum(s).................[/QUOTE

It's been debated on the protection k9 uk forum as well as others, I apriaciate that you have a point of view and I respect your right to it, with regard to other sports I think we could make a case for removing a number of disciplines from any given arena if we had to justify them entirely on what was required in reality. as I have already said I do not intend to get bogged down in this debate so we will have to beg to differ.
Why don't you come along to the next UKPPDA trial and maybe we could debate this further over a cup of tea and a buttered bun.
John



Posted via Mobile Device
Click to expand...
 
I return from France this week to conduct some continuation training and I may be free, if this is the case I would be delighted to take you up on your offer.......

David.......
 
protecuk9 said:
...............surely it’s better to have a dog that is trained to respond to the handlers command, as opposed to some of the so called security dogs in our industry that are quite frankly untrained yard dogs that are much more of a threat to public safety than a highly trained Patrol Dog that has spent many many hours learning commands and working in close synchronisation and with its handler.
john
Click to expand...

This statement I agree with in its entirety.
 
The dog should deliver a trained response on command in any scenario to protect the handler, there is far too much emphasis put on stimulating the dog to react to situations in front of them without command from a handler, for example stamping of feet, raised voices and waving arms, take the dog to work an event and they think it is armageddon and escort an immigration centre detention officer who has an annoying habit of stamping his feet on patrol each time they walk from wet grass onto a concrete path.

There is every need for stimulus training to condition the dog for all possible eventualities, but non-stimulus traing is equally important and justifiable. On the flip-side of teaching stimulus training only, what if a handler on a task is approached by a potential aggressor who is calm, relaxed and in complete control, they smile, laugh and speak softly to the handler whilst subtly brandishing a weapon (acid/shringe/knife/gun/bomb) and make it very clear that they will attack handler/dog if they don't step aside?
 
specs said:
so if say a Midget came at you would ur dog bite ? would he think its a kid ?
Click to expand...

If it was a wee scotish midget with a Ginger wig and a kilt on I think both me and my dog would probably leg it lol.
But in all seriousness it's a good point, I believe if your dog is taught to bite on command and not at will it should bite whatever it's commanded to.
John

Posted via Mobile Device
 
Back
Top