Should there be a law to protect Police Dog's from having to working without a protection Vest?

Question

How can a police officer allow his police dog to work without a bullet/stab vest,just because his cheap department is unable to pay/afford a vest for his Partner (K9') Is a poor excuse.
If I was a police K9 handler I would Pay for the dog vest myself Or I would not wear my vest until my most trusting partner had one too.
PLEASE NOTE: I know their are several police Departments that are not like this,but Where I live It is the sad truth,Unfortunately.
QUESTION....
Should there be a law that protects innocent Dogs that do Protection Work / Police work by not Subjecting them to be put in danger without a safety vest?

Answer 1

Generally, it is up to the handler's discretion. Some handlers prefer to not have the dog wear one cause it is can interfere with the dogs job. Unless the dog is trained with it on, then it is hard for the dog to get used to it.

There are several reasons why the handler may not have a dog wear a device like that. Sure, it should be done and if I had a dog, then I would want one on him.

Answer 2

I have little to no experience on this subject, but after a lively discussion with a good friend of mine, I am going to offer my rather uneducated opinion. Nancy M- I both agree and disagree with what I believe you are trying to say. I do think this situation is circumstantial. Good breeding obviously trumps whether or not a dog is intact. You stated that, "An animal, any animals, instinct to remain alive is a very basic instinct - being able to protect oneself and ones family is the most basic instinct there is -- while herding instincts are actually not - they are using instincts that are intrinsic to obtaining food, hunting, stalking, pouncing, etc., to obtain food that are molded by man to suit their purpose - " The most basic instinct there is would be the instinct of self-preservation. Self-preservation has absolutely nothing to do with protecting others, but rather focuses on protecting one's own body. The second most basic instinct would go hand-in-hand with self-preservation. That instinct is the instinct to hunt. Because life requires food, prey drive is a form of self-preservation. Since the herding drive is a modified prey drive, it is safe to assume that the herding drive comes fairly close to a dog's second most basic instinct. Looking at it from a human perspective, the dog has absolutely nothing to gain by protecting his family. Quite the opposite, actually. A dog would be sacrificing himself to do protection work, a drive that is very far away from the self-preservation instinct. However, when it comes to testing the two different drives, it is nearly impossible to tell who has a stronger drive because they are hardly comparable. With the herding drive, you may offer a dog a situation where they have a constant stimulus- sheep running amuck. You could sit there for twenty minutes or twenty hours, and with a decently-bred dog, a herding drive will probably eventually kick in. With a protection dog, you cannot offer hours and hours of stimulus, because you have a smaller window of opportunity to offer a stimulus. If a dog sees that it's owner is about to be attacked, it has seconds to make a decision. If the dog opts to not protect it's owner, and nothing bad happens to the owner, the dog has now learned that the owner is not in danger. Therefore, the two drives cannot and should not be compared. Now, to answer the original question. I believe this is also very circumstantial. A well-bred stockdog should be able to do his job whether or not he is intact. I would, however, assume that neutering a dog at an earlier age (or at all) would have a great effect on the protection dog than it would on the stockdog. A protection dog without training (which isn't actually a protection dog, strictly speaking, but rather an empty bag of instincts) would probably be affected by a neutering. Un-neutered males obviously assume a more dominant position in their pack, and anyone with an unneutered male knows that they require a skilled and knowledgeable owner in order to be fully controlled. With this being said, it is probably safe to assume that an unneutered male would see his job as a dominant dog to protect his pack (the owner). whereas a neutered male could possibly turn over full responsibility for defense to his owner. Clearly, this is not always (nor is it commonly) the case. This is a magnificent grey area, and a fantastic question to consider. I will definitly stand by the belief that a working dog should remain unneutered until two years of age for health reasons, but beyond those two years, whether the dog stays intact is at the discretion of the owner.

Answer 3

My husband is a cop and he was on a job with the dog and he got punched, the dog got kicked.....basically they were both assaulted, when the guy went to court he got $150 for assaulting my husband and $800 for the dog.........so at least the judges are protecting them. I agree that all working dogs should be protected they are not expendable, they are partners, good ones too, my hubbies dog was retired he has a new working dog now and the old one lives with us and is THE best dog ever. There should be some doggy union and OH&S laws in place.

Answer 4

As a K-9 Officer myself I understand your argument. I can only reply from personal experience. My dog has 2 vests issued to him. He only wears them during situations which require it's use. There are things communities can do to for local agencies to aid in purchasing vests for dogs. Often times for no money at all.

As for your direct question I think laws should be revised to allow an Officer to use deadly force to protect his dog in the event great bodily harm is used against him. Surprisingly there are none in my state. My dog is my partner, friend, and loyal companion. I would do anything to ensure his safety. From an agencies stand point a K-9 is an expensive piece of equipment. In our state they are about 12k. The position of K-9 is one of the most trained positions on the department. You would think an agency would want to protect their investment.