# APPDA, Keith and Tango



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

This is a clip where a burglary was taking place. Another bad guy attacks the officer. See what happens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SunyyQrxxf8


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

you work like you practice. The officer should have been controlling both decoys.

DFrost


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Jerry Lyda said:


> This is a clip where a burglary was taking place. Another bad guy attacks the officer. See what happens.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SunyyQrxxf8



Nothing stilted or wooden about that decoy!


----------



## Al Curbow (Mar 27, 2006)

Jerry, 
let me ask a dumb question that i always think about when i see a protection video. If a dog bites you with no equipment on there's not gonna be a whole lot of fighting the dog because it'll hurt so much. 

Like Keith's dog in the video (nice dog btw Keith) if that dogs biting you, you're not going to be over the dog screaming and hitting it, you're gonna be on the ground screaming seeing nothing but pain (unless it's a meth head or angel dust addict) so i always wonder how "real" the training is. This is by no means a knock on anyones training, it looks like you guy's have a lot of fun, but in the broad sense of bitework, how real is it if the dogs biting and the decoy keeps coming on like the dogs not biting? Look forward to everyones replies and i hope i got my question across properly,
AL


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

You'd be surprised about how much yelling there is, ha ha. There is also, frequently, a lot of movement. what you don't generally see is the person being bitten freeze as solid as most decoys do.

DFrost


----------



## Al Curbow (Mar 27, 2006)

David, no doubt there's plenty of yelling, lol. But doesn't the movement always go to the ground? Like the recent link on this forum to the protester that got bit on the leg. I've just noticed with all the live bite videos that it goes to ground really quick. There's no shortage of video, you tube, break.com, etc. My pup got my calf and it wasn't even that bad and that sucker hurt for a week, a serious bite with no equipment on must hurt like hell,


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

That's the way we see it too David. If the bad guy is being bit he will be doing all sorts of things. The Meth guy will just pick the dog up and walk away.

Al, we like to train for the worse case. As if the guy was on Angle Dust, or just big and mean.

The first question about controlling both decoys. The first decoy(bad guy) was caught taking objects from the house. You have to get control of him first. At this time you don't know if there is another bad guy. After he is searched and cuffed then, with no back up, you check for others. The officer was in the process of doing the search when he was attacked by the other decoy. The dog must react to the other bad guy, the officer has the first. After the first has been cuffed then he can get his dog off the bite. The second bad guy hopes the officer is quick about cuffing the first and come get that crazy dog off him.

Thanks Connie, that's my boy Jay. He is an excellent decoy and an excellent training decoy.


----------



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

Al Curbow said:


> David, no doubt there's plenty of yelling, lol. But doesn't the movement always go to the ground? Like the recent link on this forum to the protester that got bit on the leg. I've just noticed with all the live bite videos that it goes to ground really quick. There's no shortage of video, you tube, break.com, etc. My pup got my calf and it wasn't even that bad and that sucker hurt for a week, a serious bite with no equipment on must hurt like hell,


my feeling on the verbal out is that for the most part, it's done to show control in training. MOST of the time, a verbal out isn't really done on the street where the handler is back some distance. i'm not saying it never happens, just not very often. MOST of the time, the dog is taken off the bite by the handler. sure a verbal out command is given at the same time the dog is taken off the bite, but nothing as stale and static as is done in training. taking the dog off the bite is the safest thing for the suspect and other officers. this is sometimes called the "hard out" (which is NOT choking the dog off the bite). that being the case, the whole "freeze up" or "stop fighting my dog", "stop resisting" or whatever your routine is, it's really just a preparatory command for the dog, that the "out" is coming. is that "good" training? probably not. i'm not saying that's what i do, but i've seen this with many PSD's. out should mean out without the preparatory command. if you need your dog to out very quickly, as would be the case if the handler was being attacked by a second suspect, spitting out a preparatory command could cost you seconds in which time you are taking a beating.


----------



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

Jerry Lyda said:


> That's the way we see it too David. If the bad guy is being bit he will be doing all sorts of things. The Meth guy will just pick the dog up and walk away.
> 
> Al, we like to train for the worse case. As if the guy was on Angle Dust, or just big and mean.
> 
> ...


i think what's throwing david off is that it was certainly apparent that the dog knew there was another suspect. he is completely focused on the other decoy when he's not in camera view. i don't know if that is a symptom of the dog doing that routine a few times before this clip or if the dog saw the other decoy before he was "supposed to"...


----------



## Al Curbow (Mar 27, 2006)

Tim, my point was the way that decoys fight dogs is not anywhere close how you'd "fight" the dog without equipment so how real is it to the dog?


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

David Frost said:


> you work like you practice. The officer should have been controlling both decoys.
> 
> DFrost


I'll clarify what I meant. If the video was to demonstrate a dog biting, guarding, then taking on a second person, it was pretty good video. However, since the video was prefaced with the fact that the dog handler was an officer, the tactics displayed were very poor. The dog handler was at a disadvantage and placed the dog in a disadvantageous position. His back should never have been to the building, the dog's back should not have been to the building, the handler had many options to provide better cover for him and a more advantageous spot for the dog to observe.

DFrost


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Which is why I keep telling these ****ers to switch to Mondio. Like they are cops or something.=; Besides, we all know how Georgia cops work.............


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood (Mar 27, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Besides, we all know how Georgia cops work.............


They work?


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

According to the video ......no. LOL


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

Ok, this is picking.

You have to have a way to test a dog. We are not in any way testing an officer. Hind site is always 20/20. Officers are trained on how to do what they do. The dog is trained to do what he has to do IF this happens to him and the officer. The officer in this case has made a mistake now it's the dogs training that will see to it that this officer and the dog goes home.

If everything is followed straight by the SOP's then this would not have happened. It CAN happen, if it can never happen then we'll change the program. If it can happen then I want the dog to know how to react.


----------



## Matthew Grubb (Nov 16, 2007)

Jerry Lyda said:


> Ok, this is picking.
> 
> You have to have a way to test a dog. We are not in any way testing an officer. .


When we want to test “the dog team” (because that’s what you are testing if you are running a good training program) we will do realistic “hot start” training scenarios with back-up officers, no exposed equipment, and real locations. 
We need to train as we wish to fight. K9 handlers get injured and killed because we don’t do enough of this.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Matthew Grubb said:


> When we want to test “the dog team” (because that’s what you are testing if you are running a good training program) we will do realistic “hot start” training scenarios with back-up officers, no exposed equipment, and real locations.
> We need to train as we wish to fight. K9 handlers get injured and killed because we don’t do enough of this.


Exactly! Just like in dog training, it's easier to teach them correctly than to correct mistakes. When running scenarios, train for success. Does that mean you shouldn't train scenarios that go to hell in a handbasket, of course not. But, in my opinion, you don't set yourself up for failure.

I apologize if you think I'm being picky, that was not my intent. I did state if what you were doing was showing the bite, guard and engaging a second suspect, the video was alright. Tactically, it was very poor performance on the part of the officer. If your stated goals are to increase the proficiency and performance of working dog teams, they, the dog or handler, should not be performing mistakes. I, for one, do not want any my officers taking it for granted the dog has his back. Should the dog, you betcha, do we train for that, you betcha, do I want an officer betting his life on it, NO. It's why tactics are not only developed, but practiced. You work like you practice.

DFrost


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

We were not testing a "dog team" we are testing the dog. Keith is a fireman for God's sake. Again we are testing the dog in a situation that can be real.

Matthew,
This is a small town and the back up officers were at Krispy Kream, on the other side of town. This town can't even afford a K9 unit, he was walking his dog. It was the coldest night of the year and the bad guys had really big coats on. Location is real, small building with Christmas gifts. I know, what I just said will never happen but a simular situation could happen.

The video is realistic, maybe the K9 units should be training for this kind of scenarios. With back up officers why would you even send your dog in this scenario? It's about dog training so that the dog can be put into a situation and in hopes he will react correctly when this might happens.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Jerry Lyda said:


> The video is realistic, maybe the K9 units should be training for this kind of scenarios. With back up officers why would you even send your dog in this scenario? It's about dog training so that the dog can be put into a situation and in hopes he will react correctly when this might happens.



More realistic would have been to bring the "subject" away from the building. Spread eagle the subject on the ground, head away from the building, the dog facing the subject and the building. The officer could have used available cover. Both the dog and the officer would have seen the person either in the building or exiting the building. The subject on the ground is controlled, at least there is an existing time barrier. The officer or the dog could have engaged the second subject, if necessary. A dog should be trained with more than one "bad guy", the officer should never be trained using bad tactics.

DFrost


----------



## Matthew Grubb (Nov 16, 2007)

Jerry Lyda said:


> Keith is a fireman for God's sake.


I didn't know that! lol It's all good!


----------



## jay lyda (Apr 10, 2006)

You all would have valid points IF this was a training vid. If you are a cop and run your dog through this program then you handle the decoys the way you are trained and we will run the exercise. We will not have your SOP in front of us taking points from you for what you do wrong. You are a cop you "should" know what to do. You do everything how you are trained and we will test your dog. This isn't that difficult folks. We never said that we were cops BUT we did say that we can test and work your dogs, not train them, test them. So train how you want and hopefully your dog will pass this silly little test, hopefully. Again this vid was about a dog working through a situation, not a fireman acting like a cop.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

jay lyda said:


> You all would have valid points IF this was a training vid. If you are a cop and run your dog through this program then you handle the decoys the way you are trained and we will run the exercise. We will not have your SOP in front of us taking points from you for what you do wrong. You are a cop you "should" know what to do. You do everything how you are trained and we will test your dog. This isn't that difficult folks. We never said that we were cops BUT we did say that we can test and work your dogs, not train them, test them. So train how you want and hopefully your dog will pass this silly little test, hopefully. Again this vid was about a dog working through a situation, not a fireman acting like a cop.


I think a lot of the response was triggered by saying "the officer" in the o.p.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

GOD sensitive panties. What are the titles called again? ? ? ? I thought so. 


Take what people say as a way to improve, or create another scenario, with how the handler should go through it having more importance. Not everything is bashing, except the gay ass tricep bites, and halfway down the arm bites. That will always be bashing from me. So There. LOL

In Mondio, unless the judge specifically tells you that you HAVE to go a certain way, then you can go about your business. This is something I need to work on, but since you are starting your own sport, then take these things into consideration.


----------



## jay lyda (Apr 10, 2006)

So Jeff, why would you think that I am mad about this. I just stated an opinion dude. But I do need to correct myself, we do have police officers involved with us on this, I was mainly saying that the ones on the vid are not cops. All I was saying is let the cops be the cops and lets work some dogs.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

I think that it is cool that you have them involved. That could be a huge part of the test for you guys to go through different scenarios, and test the handler and the dog. 

By the way, I didn't think you were mad, just not very good at accepting opinions from cops. If you are going to have titles like patrol dog one ect, I would think that you would be asking MORE questions. We all know it is new, and pretty hard thing to get off the ground.

I train for a sport, and that is enough for my brain. I think "y'all" have gone off the deep end on this, but wish you the best. You already know my thinking on this, we do not have enough people doing the "accredited" sports, and you knuckleheads are off in the woods with this shit. I would rather see a decent MR team go to the worlds then fart around with this..........but that is just me. : P


----------



## jay lyda (Apr 10, 2006)

Still haven't figured out how to quote people, but anyway, thats why the ones who know me call me hardheaded and stubborn, oh and lets not forget short fused. So............. the hell with 'em!!!!


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

This whole thing is blown way out there now. I was just showing a video on how we are doing things. 

We have asked the questions and we have gotten answers. Maybe not the answers some of you may have given. We got them from others that are police officers and dog handlers. If you do have training thoughts that would help, please share. Go to www.appdak9.com. By the way dog handlers don't make good trainers. There's a world of difference. The SOP's for departments are sometimes very different and we have to go by what each department has to do. We have tried to put these scenarios together so that the departments would have their needs met. That is so very hard to do. I know that the officers have SOP's they must follow and the safty issues are the reasons for SOP's but sooner or later, and you all know that you have done this, will take a short cut that is not by your SOP. Does that mean it's wrong to take the short cut, yes it is wrong but circumstances will make you do this, sometimes. Sometimes it's just being hardheaded. Depending on the outcome would mean your job. This kind of training could help save your life and keep your job. This officer in the video ( which again he is not ) will go home safe. Turning his back on the building is not smart, have any of you not did the smartest things. This was set up this way so that the dog did have the opportunity to bite. If he didn't get this opportunity then he should have been left in the truck. We are here to train the best dog one dog at a time depending on each departments SOP. We have choosen to do it this way. If you come to trial and your department says for instance, you do not out your dog, then in trial you would take the dog off the bite or let us know what your department says you are to do then we will do that. We are not here to change your SOP's, we are here to certify your dogs. We are here to give you the best scenarios possible. We are here to make sure you go home to your family. As Jeff said "and you knuckleheads are off in the woods with this shit", sorry Jeff but we are committed to good dog training and keeping officers safe. Most K9's come from all sorts of sports. We don't care if they come from MR or flyball. If the dog is capable of working beside an officer and the officer is going to depend on that dog then the dog must be trained for anything that may be thrown at him. If any dog passes these scenarios and gets a title then he deserves it. I'll work behind him and will be proud to. These titles WILL NOT be handed to any handler or dog, it must be earned period. Jeff said "y'all" have gone off the deep end on this, isn't it about time someone did. By the way Jeff, thanks for wishing us the best.

Remember these are tests for the dog. Giving him something that, with God's blessing, that if he sees it later you two will go home each and every night.

I'm not sorry that I posted this video but I am sorry that some of you didn't see it as it was intended. My bad, forgive me.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Jerry Lyda said:


> This whole thing is blown way out there now. I was just showing a video on how we are doing things.
> 
> By the way dog handlers don't make good trainers. There's a world of difference.
> 
> ...


In the same respect, just because a persons a dog trainer doesn't mean they can train cops to use the dog properly. We all train with the number one rule first thing in our mind: We go home when the shift is over.

It's exactly for that reason I commented on the video. I made comments strictly related to tactics, I didn't say anything about the way the dog worked or reacted. Understand the written word does not alway portray emotion, I do detect my comments irritated you. That wasn't my intent. My intent, pure and simple were comments about tactics. I'll say it again, you work like you practice. 

DFrost


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

I really liked the second bad guy's acting. I hope you post more. ;>)


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

David I was not irritated by your comments at all. Your knowledge I respect as well as others.


----------



## Hil Harrison (Mar 29, 2006)

jay lyda said:


> Still haven't figured out how to quote people,


If you mean while posting Jay, instead of going down the bottom of the topic and hitting the POST REPLY button you look for the buttons contained within the post from the person you want to quote. You hit the first button QUOTE( bit to the right within the box where the person has typed the tekst as a reply to the topic.

Once you hit quote you can hit the enter key, start a new line and type back and post it.

God did that make sense? :!:


----------



## Kristen Cabe (Mar 27, 2006)

Mike Schoonbrood said:


> They work?


Actually they all sit on the interstate and catch speeders left and right - at least that's what they were all doing on Thursday and Sunday, when we were driving through the state! Good LORD I've never seen so many cops on an interstate before! Never saw not ONE in Alabama. :lol:

I haven't watched the video yet, nor am I qualified to comment on it, but I will say that Jerry and Jay, and the rest of the guys down there do take their training seriously and really are trying their best with this new venture of theirs. I wish them lots of luck, and hope that some of the comments made on this thread are helpful to them.


----------



## jay lyda (Apr 10, 2006)

Hil Harrison said:


> God did that make sense? :!:


Yes, and thanks.


----------



## Ken Thompson (Jun 9, 2006)

Jerry great video. I need to get Bear in some of this, it's looks fun!!!

I guess some people like me read all these comments and wonder, is there a perfect way to test a dog and a handler that everyone would agree with. I would say no! 

My cousin is an officer with a k9 and he said he received eight weeks of training with his dog. He did not consider himself an expert with his dog and said, there are to many unknowns out there. 

So IMO if we are going to test the dogs and the handlers, every test should be different. That way neither the dog or the handler knows what to expect. Now if we are going to test just the dogs than the situation still should be different but the handler should know what to expect. Grade on the how each handled their situation.

I guess what I'm trying to say nothing should be scripted.

For training videos it has to be scripted or you will miss it on tape. Cameras would be in the wrong positions and so on.

Of course being the expert that I am this ought to fly well on this forum.


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

Ken this sounded as though you have put thought into it. You have made some good points. Let's see what others have to say about your points.

Thanks Ken


----------



## Hil Harrison (Mar 29, 2006)

jay lyda said:


> Yes, and thanks.


 
cool Jay you got it  your welcome


----------

