Name (required):

  Expression ^{(Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)}

  E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:
>Point well taken. It is impossible to anticipate >everything that the judge may spring on you. I think >you need to train for different scenarios that fall >within generalized categories. > >After the recent California trial I can see that one >of those categories is training the dog to ignore >"false routines." Jos Helsen had decoys doing escape >bites during the defense of handler and standing in >blinds as if the dog was supposed to do a search. > >Another obvious category is all the physical >interaction with accessories, obstacles impeding the >dog as he goes into a bite, and different retrieve >objects. I think everybody training in Mondio has a >pretty good grasp of the physical stuff. At our club >we have an entire shed devoted to Mondio junk, as some >people call it. > >I, for one, was surprised by the "false routine" >stuff. Of course, I'm a total rookie. But it seemed to >throw some of the old pros a little bit as well. > >In the Brevet, he made us heel around an obstacle, and >then stand immobile after the handshake while the >decoy did all the moving. I was under the impression >that the dog/handler team would be moving when the >decoy strikes the handler. So I would call this a >"broken routine." > >It seems easy enough to think of other "false >routines" and "broken routines" and incorporate them >in your training regimen. > >What are some other broad categories that you should >train for? > >Or do you think my premise is wrong with the broad >category idea?

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.