I am writing this as both a Director of the NTIPDU (National Training Inspectorate for Professional Dog Users) and Proprietor of a successful manned guarding company with a large canine division. Approximately 12 years ago, I, and many others were promised by various people (not working in the security industry) that there were major changes ahead.

Back then these people took it upon themselves to convince us that they were the experts and knew exactly what was going to happen to the dog industry.

Myself and others invested a great deal of time and money, we had some of the best trained dog and handler teams in the country, (and still do) while preparing ourselves for the monumental changes ahead. Meanwhile the not so professional companies were moving in undercutting others, supplying both untrained security officers and dog handler teams.

A lot of independent dog handlers and security companies went under because they couldn’t wait for legislation to be implemented. 

During this time we were eagerly awaiting the start of licensing, hoping it would remove the ’cowboys’ from our specialist division of the industry, and regulate the use of dangerously trained dog and handler teams. However, since the inception of the SIA we have been kicked in the teeth by the government and all the empty promises from those people who were supposedly  ’in the know’.

Again, history is repeating it self we are still being told what to do by people who are not in the industry and never have been. A lot of them are probably successful businessmen and women but have no idea what our clients expect of us.

When the competencies were defined after consultation with the Home Office and the Private Security Industry in response to the Private Security Industry Act 2001, they obviously did not consult widely enough and unfortunately didn’t speak to the people on the frontline carrying out the specific roles.

If the Government had asked the interested parties at the time we wouldn’t be fighting this battle. Indeed an example of errors in communications is the so called dog handler which appeared on the front page of an SIA publication, one of the SIA Comms team said “ I was actually there at the photo shoot  - in this particular case, the security guard in question was a real guard. We had on hand professional dog handlers to advise on stance, position etc. This is standard practice with any photo shoot– we always have the relevant professional to advise on such things”

They obviously asked the wrong professionals, as the handlers appearance and stance lacked the professionalism we are trying to promote. This picture, by the way was subsequently withdrawn by the SIA after the NTIPDU put forward it’s objections and illustrated what a professional dog handler should look like.

Which of course leads us to the important questions: -

Who did they consult with regarding dog handlers?

Were they told that an untrained handler and dog could be a danger to the public?

Were they told that there were some trainers in the system who teach a dog to bite, teaching them to chase and attack people (how can this be in line with the 1975 Guard Dogs Act, if the dog is chasing someone he is not protecting property, premises or the person protecting the property)

Did they know what experience the people they consulted with had within the security industry, or dog handler training?

Were they aware that the Government did not intend to ever finish the Guard Dogs Act 1975?

Did they know that there are people in the system who use their dogs as weapons and rate the dog on how many times it bites somebody? 

Did they know that trainers with low standards are teaching bite work at every session?

Did they know that there are trainers putting sleeve crazy dogs into the industry (dogs that will not come off a sleeve when biting)?

Do they know that the Police have re defined the level of severity of the Police dog as one below a lethal weapon?  

I am forever seeing so called training organisations who do not even bother to have their literature proof read, there were training manuals 10 years ago teaching handlers illegal practices, but what is so unbelievable is that they are still being used today.  

I am tired of attending meetings to sit around tables with individuals who do not own a working dog, either patrol or specialist, they have never worked as a security officer let alone a dog handler. In fact there are many trainers in the dog sector who claim to be experts in their chosen field who do not even own a patrol, drug, or even explosive detection dog, needed in order to demonstrate to students what they are aiming to achieve.  The Internet is full of so called trainers claiming they train for drugs, mines and explosives. Where do they get the drugs, mines and explosives from?? 

Police handlers are licensed, Prison handlers are licensed, and Forces handlers are licensed SO why shouldn’t the Security Dog Handler have the same rights.

And I don’t mean licensed through any of the above. 

To become a qualified dog handler it is important that you understand the guarding skills first, therefore only qualified security officers or door supervisors are able to take the NTIPDU dog handler’s accreditation and then progress.

The SIA are promoting conflict management and health and safety within the core competencies, surely using an untrained dog or one trained to chase and attack someone does not fall under these guidelines.

When will someone wake up and realise that there are dangerous dogs already in the system, including mastiffs and neopolitan cross breeds (not the usual recognised guarding breeds). There are also fear biters, over aggressive dogs etc, which will continue to be used as security dogs, unless the SIA step in and regulate, isn’t that what they were formed for?    

If the unacceptable happened and someone is attacked, maiming them for life or even worse, the public would call for the Government to act and regulate the sector, not knowing that this is what we have been fighting for. Why wait for this to happen !

If the SIA would like to speak to the professionals who work in the industry they can contact us at any time, 7/365 days. The NTIPDU will continue to fight for professional dog handlers.