I often read this paper, but this if my first time posting on here. I usually avoid it because I'm annoyed by people like this that come on here and try to act like they have some credible opinion or knowledge about something they are completely unfamiliar with. I'm only choosing now to chime in because this is a topic that I know a great deal about. I have been a K-9 handler for 8 years at a nearby agency outside this county. That being said, I have a few objections to your statements, and even more for the person below who made some off-base remarks about dog abuse in K-9 programs. As to your objections:
--"Legal and public relations consequences of bites"-- My dog has made dozens of apprehensions involving bites. There has never been a lawsuit over it - because my dog and I are well trained and it was necessary each time. Yes, this is normal. Public relations? I don't care about relations with the people getting bitten by my dog - they're criminals. The rest of the public is usually thankful there is no longer a bad guy running through their neighborhood.
--"Expensive start up program"-- $40,000? I hope you're kidding - that's nothing. Another poster already provided stats from an article about another local dog that seized over a million dollars in its career - and that's not including the money from the fines associated with 540 drug arrests. Simple mathematics must confuse you.
--"Demands for K-9 administration" -- This doesn't even make sense. All duties to running a K-9 unit are peripheral an officer’s usual duties in most jurisdictions. The additional work is really just some paperwork to document training and certification - very minimal.
--"Long term investment"-- So I guess a K-9 program is just as bad of an idea as that 401(k) program you're dumping money into at work? This is a one time payment of $40,000 (according to the article) plus about $3,500 - $5,000 per year upkeep per dog (including the pay stipend I’ll explain below). See the numbers cited above, which are pretty average, and tell me if you still think this is a bad investment.
--"Difficulty in selecting the right handler, NOT an incentive for an officer to make more money, keep a vehicle, time away for training and maintenance"-- This doesn't really make sense. Handlers are chosen through an interview process, it's not really that hard. There are no incentives most places - There is a federally mandated pay stipend (equivalent to about .5 hours pay or comp time per day) that is intended to compensate the handler for all the extra work they do on their own time. Yes, most of the training is done off duty - and the extra pay per day is not worth it if you don't love doing it.
--“Difficulty in finding the right dog and training program and instructor”-- Also not hard - one of the best K-9 trainer/importers in the country holds classes in Coweta County.
--“A dog can increase a dangerous situation if a crook has a gun or weapon - provoking a shoot out”-- This is just completely wrong. Well over 90% of the time that the dog comes out of the car, suspects surrender within a few seconds. Fear of being attacked by a dog gains a lot of compliance.
--“A police officer carries a baton, gun, and if a dog is included in the protection factor, the police officer is more likely to allow the dog to chew off a person's limb rather than shoot or use the baton, keeping the officer protected legally. OK, I'll let the dog eat his arse up attitude”-- Either you fabricated the statement about having a family member in law enforcement, or you haven't ever taken the time to talk to them about this type of thing. K-9s have a place in the "Use of Force Continuum", a trained officer will only deploy the dog in that circumstance. This comment is ridiculous and offensive to all law enforcement. Not to mention is would just be stupid to use a dog in a lethal force situation, if somebody points a gun at me I'm going to shoot them - not risk my dog's life and mine.
--"Crime rate..."-- I don't care how low their crime rate is, there is always a need for at least one dog. Even if they are never used for tracking or apprehension, K-9s are absolutely essential in modern drug enforcement efforts with a political system that makes it nearly impossible to search vehicles without them.
I, or I’m sure somebody from PCPD would too, would be happy to answer people’s questions about K-9 programs on here. This type of rant from you is completely uncalled for though – if you have concerns either research them better or ask somebody who knows – don’t just spit out a bunch of nonsense.

Two questions:

Who takes care of the dog while that cop does his "regular duties," a cage, take him home and cage him, etc.; who keeps the dog on off duty time? Where? How many cars do they rip apart or scratch up? Does the dog ride around with the cop at all times? If so is the A/C left on?

Come on give us all of the details! I have a hundred other questions if you care to get into it! Dogs take a year or two from puppies to train, and then they can work, maybe 5-6 years if they aren't killed or die. Is it worth it?

I love outdoor dogs--no cages, no chains, etc., but this I do not like. Is it safe for the cop to have small children around such vicious dogs?

Well, I was anticipating intelligent questions if anybody took me up on that offer, but here goes:

"Who takes care of the dog while that cop does his "regular duties,""
The dog goes with the police officer and sits in the car until needed or until it's time to come out for a break.

"who keeps the dog on off duty time? Where?"
This has already been answered if you read the other posts. The dog is kept at the handler's house.

"How many cars do they rip apart or scratch up? Does the dog ride around with the cop at all times? If so is the A/C left on?"

They don't rip up any cars - they ride in a back seat that has been converted to a kennel - they can't tear it up. Yes, they ride around with the officer, as I explained above. The temperature is controlled at all times for the dogs safety, and K-9 Cars are equipped with a heat monitor that is capable of alerting the handler if they are away from the car that the heat is getting too high (this of course only happens if the car somehow dies usually). They also automatically roll down windows and can activate window fans that are installed on the exterior of the window bars if equipped.

"Dogs take a year or two from puppies to train, and then they can work, maybe 5-6 years if they aren't killed or die. Is it worth it?"
You have no idea what you're talking about - this is flagrantly wrong in many different ways. They only take about 8-12 weeks to train with the officer, and they are usually good for about 10 years. Some pre-training is conducted before they are imported, that's why they are pricey at startup.

"Is it safe for the cop to have small children around such vicious dogs?" Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about. These dogs are not "vicious". They are typically much better behaved and more mild mannered than a normal pet - until the handler orders them to not be. They are great for use at public events because kids love to see them and pet them. The citizen recently posted an article with picture of this happening: http://www.thecitizen.com/~citizen0/node/30856

"Come on give us all of the details! I have a hundred other questions if you care to get into it!"
I don't mind answering intelligent questions, but you are just trying to start arguments and antagonize people. If you have any legitimate questions I will answer them, but I see no purpose in continuing an empty dialogue based on nothing more than your bizzare need to stir the preverbial pot.

One thing nobody has touched on is that the dog is actually a police officer and has a badge. Is that not correct? The dog is your partner.

OK, so in other words you're so scared of a lawsuit that you don't think it's a good idea. That's ridiculous. The benefits outweigh all of your cons. Also the police already have take home cars-I have a neighbor that has one in my neighborhood, so that's nothing new. As far as a dog biting someone instead of an officer shooting them that's just stupid. I don't think that would change their decision making process that much as lethal force is reserved for certain situations. Peachtree City has one of the lowest crime rates, true...do you think this will increase the crime rate in some way? I just don't understand your arguments or your logic. Why do you want to protect the bad guys?

All of my cons are valid. A member of my immediate family is in law enforcement and has worked in a major city in the United States that has a well planned, strongly enforced k-9 program.

Don't use the word "stupid" referring to any of my cons/opinions when you are posting based on your emotional feelings rather than facts and documented stats. Personally, I couldn't care less about lawsuits and dog bites in Peachtree City because more than likely, the only person that may be bitten, will be the handler!

I don't understand your emotional posting and ignorance.

My comments aren't based on emotion-I don't have a "dog" in this fight. And I can use pretty much any word I want to describe your cons-this is freedom of speech. DWKK07 posted some stats already in comments on this page-or did you miss those? For someone whose family is in law enforcement you sure do seem to be anti-law enforcement and wanting to deprive them of the tools for the job. The first few words of your rant were, "Legal and public relations consequences of bites". Those are your exact words. What did you mean by this if you weren't talking about lawsuits? Here are some stats from Waterloo, IA police:
• The canine team conducted 405 tracks with 73 arrests made by the canine team. In addition, 48 arrests were made as a result of suspects being flushed by the canine team to perimeter officers. On 68 of the tracks, property was seized as part of the investigation.
• The canine team conducted 82 open area searches for suspects or missing persons and assisted other units as perimeter containment on 44 calls.

Here are some stats from Garland, TX:
Building Searches: 52
Tracks: 88
Criminals Captured by Canines on Building Searches or Tracks: 34
Narcotics Searches: 46
Arrests by Canine Officers: 195
Calls Canine Units Responded to: 1,213
Manhours Saved: 150.55

I could go on and on, but I'm sure none of this would change your mind and would just waste my time.

By police departments!

1213 calls the dogs went to, huh?

How much would have happened without the dogs?

How are you going to train human officers to smell for concealed drugs or to follow the scent of a fleeing perp?

What exactly is your reasoning here for not getting a police dog or two? A dog is just another tool in the arsenal to use against criminals. By your rationale they shouldn't carry batons, guns, etc...and should just bulk up at the gym. The thing is, they need every advantage available in combating crime. How would you feel going up against some violent felon that is better equipped? I'm not a police officer or involved in law enforcement, but if it was me I would want every piece of equipment available that would make the job easier and help protect citizens. The police must have the tactical advantage in order to win the fight. Explain your position please.

If you saw my post above, you know that I'm a K-9 handler. As such, I am extremely offended by your comment. I have spent thousands of training hours with my dog, and worked with literally hundreds of other dogs and handlers from all over the country. If at any point I saw a handler torture their dog or "hang" it in such a manner I would immediately contact their superior officer and see that they are removed from that duty and the dog taken away. Most corrective action in K-9 training is done by a shock collar, which I have personally used on myself, and they really are not that bad. It's more of a reminder that they need to be doing something differently. There are higher settings that can be used if the dog were for some reason to fail to disengage from an apprehension, but that is extremely rare. There are some "choke" type methods taught in K-9 handling, but that is strictly for use in a dire situation where the dog has engaged a suspect and will not stop attacking when ordered to do so. This is taught as a precautionary measure to ensure the safety of suspects, and no decent K-9 handler would ever do anything like that in normal situations. I like the comment below about relating the bad behavior of a few to a whole group - that is exactly true. There are always a couple of bad seeds in all segements of society, and it's shame that those few seem to have had such a serious impact on you. Trust me though, real K-9 handlers do a very demanding job that is poorly rewarded through normal means of compensation - this is because they are truly compensated and motivated through working with a dog because that's what they love doing. This type of person does not abuse dogs.

You just admitted that you spent "thousands" of hours with dogs and more with others training dogs! Most people only work 2000 hours per year as a whole!
It is a pie job, not required--admit it!
You simply aren't available for emergency immediate duty while you are washing and combing and training and storing your dog!

You can't be serious. I've been doing this for 8 years, so just by training averages of 5 hours per week I've spent over 2,000 hours training. The VAST majority of that time has been out of my own personal time at home - not on duty. I have been to training classes with other agencies where I got to work with other dogs, and I also will frequently train with other K-9 handlers even on routine training done at home and on off time. Like I said before, people do this because they love dogs and love working with dogs. I enjoy my time training with my dog, and so do other handlers - that's why we are willing to do it at home.

"You simply aren't available for emergency immediate duty while you are washing and combing and training and storing your dog!"

Like I said before, you are just trying to be the community antagonist here, I really don't think you could be this stupid. At the absolute worst, if I did all weekly training on-duty, I'd spend 5 hours training the dog. Even if I was doing that, I can put the dog back in the car at any point and go to a call. Grooming is done at home.

Why do you post here? Why don't you learn some respect and also broaden your horizons a bit? I'm sure they "wash and comb" their dog on their off time. I'm sick of reading your nonsense. Everytime I see something you write I throw up a little.

All I ask is that you honestly follow a cop dog handler for a week and write down what goes on in detail!
From getting the dog ready each shift to taking care of him all day, in detail. All trips with the dog to schools, vets, going with other officers just for the trip, where does the dog stay when not in use during the day, etc. You know others do know something about this?

You won't do that honestly, will you?

They are only worthwhile in very large organizations!

No, I'm sorry...I don't have time to follow around a police officer and their dog all day (I have a job). Why don't you do this and maybe you would learn something since you're so interested and uninformed.

I happen to know from previous experience that having enough dogs, well trained, and maintained, is a difficult proposition. The officers who take care of them are practically useless for other things--80% of the time.
Like you, they are off somewhere helping others with dogs, at schools, etc.
That can be tolerated in big cities where they do chase people hunting drugs every day, etc., but can't be justified here!

You never have understood that we are talking about PTC and our current shortage anyway. We can't even cover what we have 24/7 well.

Barney Fife on Andy Griffith used to want a crime lab, a Gun inventory, two assistants (Goober and the Barber), and a finger print lab in Maybury! A tank and a re-enforced squad car for him, also.

Been waiting on your response on what your experience is (being a flamebaiter doesn't count for much)

I really don't have time to fool with you since it is obvious that you have a dog in this fight and don't care whether PTC can afford dogs and cops messing around instead of getting these bank robbers. You just want to brag about dogs and dog handlers!

I have written three treatises for private clients on the use of dogs.
I have consulted with large cities on their actual need for such.
I commanded a K-9 unit for 18 months.
I could go on but you would say it is a lie and want the references and copies, which of course are not available to the public---wouldn't you?

Enough is enough with you on this! Barney!

Like I said before, I'm not involved in law enforcement in any way, shape, or form...but, I believe that it would bolster this community's defense against crime, so I'm all for it. I personally think you just like to get everyone riled up about anything possible. I think everything you've written above is total BS or else you would be for the K-9 unit and law enforcement, which you obviously are not. Don't you ever get tired of being a flamer?

Just like always when you're asked to put up or shut up, you do neither, you lie. The problem you have with dogs is they obviously don't like you (which shows good taste in the dog). You say you don't have time but you offer a comment on everything that is posted on this site, just another lie. You say you could go on, well Lord knows you do go on and on and on, that's about the only truthful thing you did say.

I yam what I yam....Popeye

And just what would your previous experience be? Please tell me...I'd love to know.

This is an extremely irresponsible post. I think it's great that they are trying to do this, and your comments are horribly biased for some reason and relate only to some isolated groups with archaic techniques. Not only do I have a considerable background in dog training myself, but I lived next door to a police canine handler for 9 years. In the many years of watching him train his dog, and even helping on many occasions, the fiercest punishment I ever saw that dog receive was a brief shock from a collar (and that was only once or twice). If you cared to learn about something before presenting a slanted opinion such as this, you would find that harsh treament like you refer to is completely incompatible with, and counterproductive to, gaining successful behavior from a working dog. Go to any dog training class and you will learn that dogs perform tracking or detection type behaviors based on a prey or hunt drive that is a part of their innate pyschology. Just like in humans, harsh or abusive response to the use of a particular drive or behavior will only surpress desire to perform tasks related to it in the future and generally causes much lower levels of general motivation. In short, this type of treatment makes the dogs not work well. This is well documented in training literature. It is a terrible shame that some people engage in the type of abusive treatment you mention, and they should be handled accordingly.
Generalizing the acts of a few to the rest of a very large group who is doing things very differently is unfair and irresponsible. This is no different than when people characterize all Muslims as terrorists based on the acts of a small subgroup of Muslim extemists. In general, Muslims are very peaceful people - and K-9 trainers are animal lovers (not abusers).

I don't know about how the dogs fair, but I do know we shouldn't tie up several PTC cops leading dogs around as a deterrent!
Dogs would be pretty useless here! Let's don't make the cops holding them also.

Dogs are more than a deterrent, and the minor investment of getting them is well worth the payoff. Apparently you don't understand the investment or the payoff, so just stop making stupid comments. No police department "tie(s) up several cops leading dogs around". The dogs are just along for the ride and the officers use them when they are needed. I would agree with you if it was taking officers away from doing anything else, but the officers just go about their normal duties with an extra tool at their disposal. As far as payoff, you must have missed the article in the other local paper a while back talking about the impressive career of the K-9 recently retired by Fayetteville. I would post a link, but I'm not sure how Cal would take that. I'll give you the highlight here, the K-9 was responsible for 550 drug arrests and $1.2 million in confiscated money. That's one dog, and that's right here in Fayette County. That sounds worthy of a $40,000 investment to me, and anything but "USELESS" as you say. Go search for the article and read the rest if you want. But seriously, shut up with the moronic comments when you are so grotesquely inequipped with even basic factual information.

what does this even mean?

I think he means that giving an officer a dog would make the officer useless as well. DWKK already clarified how remarkably dumb this statement is, and I would like to second his response. I agree precisely actually - if they were going to take two police officers away from patrolling or answering calls so that they could play with dogs all day - then obviously that would be a bad idea. But here in the real world, I think everybody with half a brain can figure out that's not what happens. Like I stated previously, I lived next to a K-9 handler for years and he did most or all of the training at home. He just took the dog to work with him and used it when they needed to track somebody or search for drugs. Seems like a pretty good investment if Fayetteville's was responsible for getting 540 drug users/dealers of the street and seizing a million dollars.

Useless!

Yes, I know you're useless. Thanks for manning up.