• For any inquires: call (06) 329 9634 |
• Email

/Articles

01/02/07

Police dog challenge to N.Z police

Following the publication of an interview I gave to the Manawatu Evening Standard 22/1/07, I felt it fair to both the Police Dog Unit and myself to outline the full content of my interview, to hopefully avoid any misunderstanding or misrepresentation arising from the publication of what was only a tiny portion of the interview.

The following is a summary of all of my comments during that interview

• I am responding at this point in time with my assertions and comments as a result of a recent letter to the Editor of the Dominion (enclosed), the comments of many members of the public and my own experiences over a number of years.
• My assertions are that there is an issue of Police Dogs not being under full control when they are in a ‘wound up’ state and that this issue has been around for many years and largely ignored by all except those unfortunately on the receiving end.
• If in fact I am wrong and the N.Z. Police Dog Unit does not believe there is an issue and that there is no problem, then they will have no qualms about responding to my challenge that they publicly demonstrate with all their operational dogs, their ability to:
  • (a) Call their dogs off when in full chase (just in case it’s the wrong person.)
  • (b) Have their dogs release on the bite instantly when instructed. (To avoid the illegal use of excessive force.)
• As someone who has handled and trained all types of prey chasing dogs for more than 30 years it is my opinion that these are the two most important aspects of controlling prey chasing dogs and such control over potentially dangerous dogs should be mandatory, especially for dogs working in the public arena.
• Few would argue that such control is unquestionably the most important part of the training of an attack dog. After all, an unskilled fool can teach a dog to attack.
• It is my contention that most if not all operational Police Dogs in New Zealand cannot be demonstrated to be under this basic and obligatory level of control and (if I’m correct) as a consequence the logical assumption must be made that there are in fact many cases where claims of the illegal use of excessive force would easily be upheld. It would also mean that culpability could be linked to the Police Dept without difficulty in cases of an innocent person being inadvertently attacked by a Police Dog.
• If the Police Dog Training Unit either cannot demonstrate that such control is in fact in place with all operational dogs throughout New Zealand, or is of the opinion that it is not feasible I am happy to demonstrate exactly how these basic control levels can be achieved. They can’t have it both ways. Either they can, or they have to admit that they are operating potentially dangerous animals in a public arena that are not under control when in fact they both should and could be.
• Importantly, if such a situation does in fact exist, serious questions need to be asked about the protocols, practices, training systems/methods and control techniques currently employed by the N.Z. Police Dog Training School.
• I have surveyed more than 100 members of the public at random and asked them two simple questions. Do you believe that an operational Police Dog should obey instantly the command to release the hold and do you believe that a Police Dog should be able to be called off a chase when instructed? I had a 100% response in the affirmative. Interestingly almost all of the respondents thought that Police Dogs were in fact under that level of control.
• They may well be, but to date I have not seen any evidence to support this.
• The protocols and training systems put in place over recent years by the Dept of Conservation in relation to the training and control of hunting dogs used by their employees are a great example of using prey chasing dogs to perform a working role using the minimum of force to achieve a successful apprehension. They are also a great example of the Dept’s awareness of the public’s perception of both their Professionalism and the humane attitude they demonstrate in the pursuit and destruction of target species.
• I acknowledge that there are some differences in the role of a prey chasing dog to apprehend other animals to that of a prey chasing dog to apprehend humans, but the basic principles of protocol, training systems, control and issues of excessive force apply equally to both and that is why I draw the comparison.
• I am totally in agreement that there are situations where it is appropriate and practical for a Police Dog to physically attack a person but in doing so the law of ‘excessive force’ applies to the Police equally as it does to ‘Joe citizen’. Hence the absolute requirement for a dog to release the hold instantly when instructed. If such a feature of control in fact cannot be demonstrated with all operational Police Dogs it is an untenable situation which by default becomes an issue of excessive force with all biting incidents.
• The not uncommon situation where a Police Dog attacks an innocent member of the public is totally unacceptable…period, when it is mostly avoidable if a dog is fully under control and in relevant situations, can be called off the chase. To not be able to demonstrate such a safety feature with a dangerous weapon is untenable when it is patently achievable and therefore by default becomes an issue of negligence should any innocent person be inadvertently attacked.
• As a member of the public I am not permitted by law to use excessive force in the defense of myself, my home or my family. If the Police are prepared to enforce this law on the public, then they must also be totally accountable for the illegal use of excessive force by themselves.
• I also believe that any prey chasing animal should be required to ‘bail’ and ‘stand off’ in certain situations for both practical/humane reasons and as an indication that the dog is in fact under control. I am unaware whether or not this is a function of Police Dog training, but if it is not I would be very interested to know why not. If it is, then demonstrate it publicly.
• I believe that in cases where complaints are made to The Police Complaints Authority relating to biting incidents, proof must be given by the Police that the dog involved in the biting incident is a dog that has been independently validated as being under total control, in the same way as a speed camera or laser gun has to have certification of accuracy. Such certification is easily checked by demonstration and should be undertaken if requested by the complainant. Failure to do so would cast considerable doubt over any claim that the dog was under full and proper control and that there was no use of excessive force.
• Current Police Dog public demonstrations primarily revolve around simplistic Dog Obedience type exercises and chasing and biting displays that could be done by a 10yr old with the family Labrador. While entertaining to the uninitiated, such displays are meaningless for a potentially dangerous ‘weapon’ and until these displays include the obligatory control measures I mentioned previously they will continue to be a farce and do little to reassure the general public of their safety to be operational in the public domain.

I would be delighted to be proven wrong and be convinced that all operational Police Dogs throughout New Zealand are in fact under total control. All I’m asking for is a public demonstration to validate this.

Paul Hutton
Canine Behaviour Centre

← Back

Innovation and Expertise in Dog Psychology
Unleashed, Under Control, Unbelievable is the trademark of The Paul Hutton Canine Behaviour Centre ©2000
Paul Hutton - Canine Behaviour Centre, © Copyright 2004, All rights reserved.