Photo Call

I was contacted by a reporter on the local paper several weeks ago. They wanted to do an article about me and Amichien Bonding. They seem to have a dog theme at the moment, there have been several articles on Guide Dogs and related matters.

I was interviewed over the phone which was fine but then they wanted a photo of me with a client and dog so that they could get a quote from the client about the benefits of Amichien. I put a number of clients forward that I knew would be happy to be interviewed but they were all just out of the circulation area of the paper. When I contacted local clients they all turned down the offer. I'm not sure if it was shyness about being in the paper or sensitivity over saying that they had sought help over their dogs behaviour.

I then had a brainwave and contacted Erica a local lady who does great work with Great Dane Adoption. She has two lovely very imposing animals Beth and Barney who I had worked with some time ago. I contacted her and she was really up for it because not only would it help me, but it would also raise the profile of her Great Dane work.

From then on it all went wrong no matter how we tried we couldn't get the photographer, Erica, Beth, Barney and me all together at the same time. When the appointment was made for the pictures Erica was away. I didn't want to use my dog Jack because with my Police background readers might think that I only dealt with German Shepherds whereas Amichien works for all breeds, any age and either gender of dog. In the end I decided to use Treacle my daughters Chocolate Labrador because she's very cute and has been raised using the Amichien method so it's not cheating.

The photographer arrived and it was over in a flash. "Walk towards me" "Kneel down there" Bish, Bosh, Sorted. I didn't even have time to use my line about not taking my clothes off unless esential to the storyline. He certainly knew what he was doing. Perhaps we can get him to train the checkout staff at the local supermarket.

All that remains is for the story to be published. I have no idea what it will say but live in hope.

Bogus Dog Listeners

It has become apparant that unscrupulous people are calling themselves 'Dog Listeners' and are carrying on business as such. Charging people to do a job they have neither the training, knowledge or skills to do competently. Misleading people already under stress because of problems with their dogs and 'conning' them out of their money. I recently dealt with a very confused dog who responded very well to the method. They clients told me afterwards that they had previously used a man who said he used the Dog Listener Methods but they didn't work and were nothing like the things I had done. Suspect? I should say so.

Why do these people do it? Because 'Amichien Bonding' the technique used by qualified Dog Listeners works. It is becoming well known to the dog owners of this world who want to solve their problems in a stress free way. More and more people are coming to see Amichien as the way forward and are at least questioning the 'Make him do it' traditional methods of training.

What to do then if people don't want their dogs pulled about by a trainer or covered in gadgets by a behaviourist? Easy, call yourself a Dog Listener or say you teach the 'Dog listener method'. I say, be honest, say what you are. If you are a trainer and are good it say so. Likewise if you are a behaviourist. Don't steal our clothes, we are Amichien Dog Listeners and hey, we're good at what we do, very good.

To become a Dog Listener you must first attend the 'Foundation Course' while on this course you will be assessed by Jan Fennell herself. On successful completion of the Foundation Course a limited number of people are invited to attend the 'Amichien Advanced Course in Canine Communication'. If you are successful on that course then you are able to start doing consultations but even the you will, quite rightly be subject to constant assessment. Your first twenty consultations will be the subject of an in depth report and analysis, dogs problem, advice given, progress made, follow up calls etc. All of which will be checked by Jan and contact made by her with the clients to ensure satisfaction. Every client will receive a feedback form that goes direct to Jan so that if a client is unhappy with the service provided then they have an easy way of making their concerns known. The title 'Dog Listener' is hard earned and jealously guarded. I say to those Wannabees if you think it's easy come and work for the qualification. If you can't hack it then go back to doing what you do but be honest about it.

How will you know whether a Dog Listener is genuine? If they are listed on Jan Fennell's website you will know that those people are 'Recommended Associate Dog Listeners'. There are others also qualified just working their way through the certification process or awaiting inclusion when the website is updated. If they've passed the course they are comptent to do consultations. If you want to ensure that you're getting the genuine article then when you book a consultation ask the Dog Listener to bring their Certificate with them when they visit. A proper Dog Listener will be happy to do so. If you've got it, flaunt it. Every client at every consultation gets a feedback form for quality monitoring purposes.

Why Only In Scotland?

At long last steps are being taken to outlaw the horrendous and cruel 'Dog Training Aid' The electric collar.

This piece of equipment is used by bullies who get some sort of kick out of hurting an animal, by ignorant people looking for a 'quick fix' and sadly by caring but frustrated owners who get told that it doesn't hurt the dog. If the dog doesn't feel it why would you use it? Why don't you just understand why a dog is exhibiting a particular behaviour?

I was at first heartened when I read that a law is being formulated to outlaw the use of such collars. And then, I read that this will only apply in Scotland! So it's alright to torture animals in England and Wales but not North of the border. Stupid, stupd, stupid, all that will happen is that Scottish 'Trainers' will just ship dogs over the border for 'remedial' work.

Most of the Cabinet are Scottish as well as a disproportionate number of Government M.P.s, so how do they square their consciences with such a horrific anomaly? The last time I looked (but probably not for much longer) we were still the United Kingdom. Lets act like it, this is not a matter that divides political parties or home Countries, it is just a matter of common decency. Doing nothing is not an option. Doing nothing is SHAMEFUL!!

One Sunday in Dorchester

I had an early start on Sunday as I was off to Dorchester to attend a talk by Jan Fennell 'The Dog Listener' and founder of the 'Amichien Bonding' method of canine communication.

I drove to a remote location in Wiltshire and met a friend Caroline Spencer who is like me a Dog Listener, and a very good one. Although she doesn't have, of course my natural boyish charm. What she does have is a wealth of knowledge and experience with all aspects of gun dog training. I've had to give her a plug because she drove the rest of the journey there and back.

The talk was, as always inspirational and was very well received by the audience who came from a variety of backgrounds. There were members of dog training clubs, pet owners, owners of working and sporting dogs and even three members of the Dorset Police Dog Section. At the end of quite a long day I think even the most hardened cynic went away thinking that there might be something in it for them.

For the Dog Listeners present it was a good opportunity to meet potential clients and 'spread the word' but also to meet up with Jan and each other. I'm looking forward to the next one.

Headbutting Dogs

Well it's finally happened, the lunatics have taken over the asylum. I read with horror in the newspapers that North Wales Police are going to muzzle their dogs to protect suspects from bite injuries. Instead the dogs are going to be trained to butt the suspect!

Why? You might ask yourself, I certainly did. Well of course it's to safeguard the suspects human rights and to reduce compensation claims.

Lets deal with his human rights first. To have put himself in a situation in which he comes into conflict with the Police the suspect must have already have violated someone elses human rights but hey, the victims don't count in this golden age of 'Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime'. The victims are not going to be awarded legal aid to complain about the system that has left them injured or afraid to walk the streets of their own country. There's no money for that, there's lots of 'outreach' projects that need funding and they must take priority. The rest of us will just have to work a lot harder so that we can pay more taxes to fund the benefits and Legal Aid system. It would be just awful if the yobs of this world had to take any responsibility for anything, (sorry, sorry, very insensitive of me. I forgot, we're not allowed to use the word yob in case it lowers their self esteem). Sod it. I don't do sensitivity.

If our suspect commits a crime and comes into contact with a Police dog and handler in any situation there's one thing that is constant and that we need to remember. If he gets bitten it is due to his behaviour during the interaction between handler and suspect. In essence the suspect has CHOSEN to be bitten. If an aggressive person approaches a handler and his dog he will be told to back off. If he continues to advance he will be bitten and that is how it should be. If the dog is muzzled how is he to protect himself, his handler and the public? In a major public order situation once the crowd realise that the dog is muzzled he ceases to be a major asset and becomes a liability. I have personal experience of such a situation. A very large group of drunken and violent serving and ex-soldiers were out of control, the army wanted to deal with the situation themselves and turned out the guard which included a dog and handler however the dog was muzzled and the handler was refused permission to remove it. Both dog and handler were jostled and taunted and the dog was kicked. I got my dog from the van and as soon as the mob saw his teeth they found urgent need to be elsewhere, end of problem. In situations where the dog works away from his handler such as chasing a fleeing offender or engaging an armed criminal he does so without a collar so that when he makes contact there is nothing for the offender to get hold of. With a muzzled dog we give the offender the perfect handle to hold the dog at bay or even injure or kill him. It would be so easy to hold the muzzle with one hand and stab with the other. A hell of a price to pay for being stylish. A Police dog handler will in every event 'challenge' a suspect before deploying his dog. He is given every chance to comply and only if he keeps on running, refuses to put the weapon down or in some other way poses a threat to public safety will the dog be sent. Even then if he stops before the dog reaches him, the dog will not bite but circle and bark to contain the suspect until the arrival of the handler. To say that his human rights have been infringed is a nonsense. Before deploying his dog now under 'HumanRights Policy' the handler is supposed to ask himself six questions including "Are there human rights issues involved in what I am about to do?"; "Would the restrictions to an individuals rights be proportionate to the legitimate aim I hope to achieve?": and, (my favourite) "Have I documented my decision-making process?" I would suggest that they add another question "How do I remove this knife that someone has planted in my ribs while I was documenting my decision-making process?"

Compensation. There's a word that will bring a smile to a criminal's face. They know that if they complain about almost anything and ask for less than £5000 they will be paid off even if as in almost all cases the allegation is wholly false or, even worse, they admit the offence but still complain. The policy seems to be, probably following Home Office guidelines, that in cases of £5000 or less it is cheaper to pay out than to defend the case in court even if the good guys win. The reason of course is that the criminal will get legal aid (that's you and me paying) and the Police side will be paid for out of taxes, (that's you and me again). The sheer effrontery of these people is amazing "I was trying to stop the Police arrest a friend (at an affray where machetes had been waved) I kicked a Police dog and he bit me" What happens to the complainant? Is he charged with Assault on Police, Cruelty to animals, Obstructing Police or Threatening Behaviour all of which he admitted? Of course not, the Crown Prosecution Service deem it not in the 'Public Interest'. The Officer is on the other hand, taken to a custody suite in a Police Station and interviewed under caution by a Superintendent and Detective Sergeant over allegations of assault (because we must be seen to be accountable). There then follows a wait of some months with the threat of prosecution hanging over the Officer before eventually it is decided that there is no case to answer. If only someone had some guts and decided that the next ten spurious claims would be defended whatever the cost then we would see an end to this milking of the system.

My hope is that one day operational Police Officers will be given a say in deciding operational policies. So often decisions are made by people who flit from department to department, moving up a rank with each move. They talk of business plans but forget that the business they are in is called Policing and their shareholders are the British Public not politically motivated minority pressure groups. They need to be reminded that nobody has to be arrested and that nobody has to be bitten. But, if you break the Law and take on a Police dog you are very stupid and the outcome will not be in doubt.

What's in a name?

I've been thinking over the last couple of weeks with reference to the recent spate of bad publicity about dog attacks on people. These have been a godsend to the anti-dog lobby. When I looked back over the many years that I've been involved in both dogs and law enforcement I realised that there was, in many cases, a common thread running through dogs involved in violent incidents.

That common factor was not as you might think breed but name. So many of these dogs have aggressive names given to them by their owners. Tyson, Killer, Fang, Rooney, Ripper, Storm. I even knew a particularly unpleasant character who had two large dogs called Ronnie and Reggie after the Kray twins.

You have to ask, do the owners give their dogs macho names because they want a dog that is looking for trouble because they are themselves are rather inadequate? I recently had a client who was concerned following the Leicester Rottweiler attack. She had a Rottweiler/Japanese Akita X. She just wanted as a responsible dog owner to ensure that she was doing the right thing. Both by her dog and any humans she interacted with. It is easy to make presumptions before meeting a dog and if I'd just said that with that mix of breeds there would be aggression issues it would have been a wholly wrong assessment. When I asked the dogs name and was told 'Wilma' I just knew that these owners were not the type to have a land shark. I did the consultation, there were as always, issues to be addressed but the family were delightful and Wilma was a real sweetie. When have you ever heard of someone being savaged by a dog called Cecil?

All of my Police Dogs would go into any situation and take the world on if that was what was required but would far rather chill out at home or on a nice country walk. They didn't have to prove anything to themselves or anyone else. They had really butch names such as Ben, Acco, Gaspode (named after a scruffy talking dog in 'Moving Pictures' by Terry Pratchett), Cocoa, Jack and Bramble.

It just goes to support my long held view that it's not dogs who need a licence but the prospective owners. They should be assessed for suitability before being allowed to take on a dog but the I suppose that would infringe their 'Human Rights'. Never mind the rights of the poor old dog who is often discarded when he is no longer 'Hard Enough' or a new breed becomes fashionable within certain groups in society.

It is not only dog owners who stereotype by name. There was the time in the course of my Police service when I had cause to speak to woman living one of the rougher areas of my patch. She had eight sons and when I asked their names replied "Duane" When I asked what the others were called she replied "Duane, they're all called Duane. It makes it easier you see." I then asked the obvious question "What do you do if you want to speak to a particular Duane?" "Oh that's easy" She replied. "I just call his surname!"