Budgets are tight everywhere. Now, more than ever, it is important to make good use of your training budget. One of the primary considerations when you select a seminar should be the instructor(s). I look for several things that I consider very important in an instructor.

First, obviously, what is his or her background? Has the instructor ever performed what he or she will be teaching in actual deployments? In other words, is the person a great dog trainer but is now teaching police tactics without ever actually having been in those situations? I believe there is no substitute for real-world experience when it comes to subjects that involve decision-making under stress. As you look into the trainer’s background, is it credible? Does the résumé seem too good to be true? Then it most likely is.

Next, I avoid the trainer who does not have a dog with him in the class, but tells stories about his dog being perfect. No dog is perfect, and no team has avoided making some big mistakes. If the trainer won’t share those experiences, he is leaving out valuable information. Often such trainers are quick to criticize the quality of dogs in the class instead of trying to improve the overall team.

If the trainer claims to have developed all of the techniques that are being presented, either he is not truthful or he has a limited knowledge base. Such trainers usually are the ones who spend a lot of time criticizing other trainers, even if they do not know their methods. All good trainers learn from other trainers and teams. I always start the classes I teach by giving credit to those who have taught me.

Finally, I believe a good trainer is one that keeps looking for new ways to learn. If you have found a trainer who knows everything and feels everyone else is stupid, I guarantee that trainer has a limited knowledge base and most likely is outdated in some areas. If you have been handling a dog for any period of time, you have met that type of trainer. The best trainers I have known are the ones who attend other seminars and classes — such as our Handler Instruction & Training Seminars (HITS) — and are constantly looking to improve their own skills. I am always impressed by the hunger for knowledge these people have. They often ask me for the schedule, not so they can see when they’ll be teaching, but so they can plan out which classes they will attend.


—Jeff Meyer, Publisher

All of us in law enforcement have seen many changes in our industry in the past 10 years or so. Computers are commonplace in most cars, and officers have their own phone numbers and e-mail addresses for citizens to contact them directly. Many departments have developed a service-oriented approach to policing. In many cases, those changes have helped build stronger ties between police agencies and the communities they serve. Truly, the culture of law enforcement has changed in this country. Whether you agree with all the changes or not, they are here to stay, and as officers, we must adapt to them and continue to do our jobs.

While the culture has changed with regard to our relationship to our communities, I believe another more important cultural change is needed. If an officer on a routine call started to berate and swear at a citizen in the presence of a supervisor, the supervisor most certainly would take swift action. I cannot imagine any supervisor taking the approach that, “Well, the citizen did not complain, so I guess it all worked out.” Indeed, some action would be taken against the officer — citizen complaint or not. It is not our culture to ignore abuse to a citizen.

However, on a similar call, would the supervisor take action if the officer made a terrible tactical decision? As dog handlers, we regularly see bad tactical decisions that receive no supervisory reprimand. I have traveled all over the country and the story is the same: I see officers failing to set perimeters, searching inside perimeters before the K-9 unit arrives, or failing to call for a dog at all. Luckily, most of the time that works out for the officers and they are not hurt. If the handler complains to the supervisor, however, the attitude usually is, “No harm, no foul.” Rarely do you hear of officers being held accountable for putting their own safety in peril.

I believe it is time to change the culture even more. If we hold ourselves to a high standard with citizens, we need to have equally high standards with each other. Why would we take a tougher stand toward rudeness than we do toward officer safety? It’s time to change the culture to expect officers to be as professional regarding our own safety as we are with that of the general public.

— Jeff Meyer, Publisher