Prison System to get Friendly, Passive Security Dogs: Who is keeping an eye on this?
By Richard Krupp, PhD.
PACOVILLA Corrections blog
March 17, 2015
Every once in a while the Secretary of Corrections does something that seems so strange that it makes me laugh. Though I have never met Jeff Beard, I did watch a clip of his recent Oversight Committee testimony regarding prison dogs. I have testified before this committee under prior legislators.
Beard was explaining why the dogs trained by his friends in Pennsylvania are better than the California dogs the Department has been working with for a number of years. These dogs are utilized to find inmate drugs and cell phones smuggled into our prisons. One of the dogs found 1,000 cell Beard was explaining why the dogs trained by his friends in Pennsylvania are better than the California phones.
A story on the Sacramento ABC news station KXTV tells the story:
Veteran prison dog handler resigns over new drug search program
An expert dog handler and trainer who spent decades with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation says he was threatened by a superior when he tried to point out what he believes are flaws in a new program aimed at reducing prison drug smuggling.
Wayne Conrad, 61, resigned in September as the CDCR began ramping up a plan to begin using dogs to search prison staff and visitors. The team eventually grew to 32 dogs.
“And the beauty is that it was done with no funding,” Conrad said. “All the dogs we received, they were either Belgian malinois, German shepherds or Dutch shepherds. They were all donated or found in rescues. These dogs didn’t cost the department anything.”
CDCR Secretary Jeffrey Beard, who took over in December 2012, chose to emulate the canine program in the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections where he served as secretary for 10 years. Beard explained at a State Capitol hearing last week why the department under his leadership was getting away from traditional police dog breeds for staff and visitor searches.
“We have moved to what we call the passive alert dogs,” Beard told a Senate subcommittee. “I remember when we rolled them out in the mid-2000s in Pennsylvania. I expected we’d get a lot of complaints and we got no complaints … they’re friendly dogs, and that’s what we’re trying to do here as well.”
Conrad said the three handlers questioned the value of the training when they returned to California and that he and the handlers were threatened by an associate warden at CDCR headquarters when they expressed their concerns.
“He repeated it twice,” Conrad said. “He looked at each one of us, pointing his finger at each one of us, and said that if he finds out that we spoke negatively of the Pennsylvania trip, I will f-ing end you.” (for the full story please read http://tinyurl.com/mqomot3.)
Come on Beard…friendlier dogs? How friendly and passive should a dog be? I thought they are supposed to help persuade people to stop bringing drugs and phones into the prisons.
Maybe Chihuahuas would be less intimidating. They probably eat less and you can put several of them in a small box. You could dress them up in tiny little dog clothes too.
Beard did say he wanted dogs that children would like…ones that aren’t “scary.” Are the dogs there to play with children?
This Beardy decision is questionable on four levels:
Beard is replacing a reliable cost-effective tool—canines that perform well and do a good job helping the Department control the influx of contraband, drugs, and cell phones smuggled into prisons—with politically correct dogs that are “kid-friendly;”
Beard is increasing the price tag of contraband detection—replacing a low/no cost program with a more costly one;
Beard is funneling California tax payers dollars to his “friends” who train the dogs in Pennsylvania;
Beard, through the command staff, issue threats and promise retaliation to anyone questioning the new program.
Since the department has stated that 23% of the inmates randomly drug tested have positive findings and about 30% refused to be tested, there is a big drug problem within the institutions. Beard says drugs in smuggled into prison, “drive violence and stand in the way of rehabilitation.”
As I recall the number of cell phones found with inmates is substantial also. Why on earth would someone make the controls more friendly and passive? Has Beard been waiting for the right moment to bring the Pennsylvania dogs to California? Maybe he missed them.
My hat goes off to Mr. Conrad who sees this scam for what it is. Thanks for speaking up. Will the Oversight Committee do anything? I wonder.
Is someone at the Oversight Committee keeping both eyes on the Department of Corrections? Or maybe only one eye?
In any event, keep an eye on the Beardy.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Looks like Beard wants to replace police dogs with sissy dogs. I think the EPA would object to the Chihuahuas on grounds that their constant yapping would exceed the maximum noise level allowed.
And Bob Walsh says, "I have also found Chihuahuas (rat dogs) to be very aggressive as a breed. Not very dangerous perhaps, but very aggressive. Perhaps we should just switch over to plush toy dogs. They would not be very effective, but if the bottom line is to be non-threatening, they would certainly meet that qualification. Plus you don’t have to feed them."
No comments:
Post a Comment