Cannon Canine Consulting, LLC

K-9 Operational Performance & Risk Mitigation

Call/text: 502.309.4364

Email: cannoncanine@gmail.com

TRUSTED FRIENDS

The Risk Most K-9 Programs Face

Across municipal and county agencies, K-9 programs often operate with strong initial training and annual certification but limited access to:

Structured, ongoing maintenance training
Professional mentoring for handlers and teams
Objective, third-party assessments of unit readiness

These gaps are not the result of poor intent or effort. They are structural limitations that, over time, increase operational drift, weaken supervision, and reduce an agency’s ability to demonstrate due diligence.

When these conditions exist, agencies are more likely to experience:

Inconsistent deployment decisions under stress
Gradual deviation from written policy
Reduced visibility for supervisors and administrators
Documentation gaps that complicate administrative or legal review

Our Approach: Risk Reduction Through Structure and Oversight

Cannon Canine Consulting addresses these challenges by treating the K-9 program as an operational system rather than an isolated specialty unit.

We reduce risk by providing:

Structured maintenance training aligned with policy and real-world deployment conditions
Professional mentoring that identifies and corrects issues before they escalate
Objective unit assessments that give leadership accurate, defensible insight into readiness

This approach allows agencies to move from reactive correction to proactive risk management.

Traditional K-9 Training vs. Cannon Canine Consulting

Traditional K-9 Training Model Cannon Canine Consulting Risk-Reduction Model

Focuses primarily on dog performance and handler skill Focuses on agency risk, decision-making, and program defensibility

Training is often centered around certification or testing events Training is structured to reinforce standards year-round, not just test days

Limited access to ongoing maintenance training Policy-aligned maintenance training preventing skill and judgment drift

Little or no formal mentoring once a handler is assigned Professional mentoring to identify and correct issues early

Internal evaluations only Objective, third-party assessments leadership can trust

Success measured by pass/fail certification Success measured by consistency, oversight, and reduced exposure

Reactive response to problems after incidents Proactive risk identification before incidents occur

Handlers are the primary audience Leadership and governance are the primary audience

Documentation varies by handler or supervisor Standardized documentation practices that support review and audits

Certification is treated as readiness Certification is treated as one data point, not proof of readiness

Program drift over time is common Structural controls prevent drift

Risk is often recognized after an incident Risk is identified and managed in advance