# NEW Koehler Dunking



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Please disregard my other post on this. I gave too many poll options and it no longer makes sense. 

On another forum I'm on there's a discussion of the KMODT (The Koehler Method of Dog Training) a method that took many techniques that had been in existence for many years and placed them into an organized step-by-step system of training a dog. 

Among the methods he discusses were dunking the dog's head into a hole filled with water to get him to stop digging. He advocated first, running the dog thorugh his 13 week-long-basic-course and said doing so would solve most digging problems. Koehler ONLY advised using this dunking method if the owner was to have the dog PTS if the digging did not stop. 

In answering the poll questions please don't consider the owner's decision to put the dog down . His motivation as to why he's making this decision is irrelevant as far as the poll answers go. If you wish to comment on the owner's decision, feel free to do so after answering the poll. Please answer the poll based on the premise that the ONLY two choices were "stop digging or die."


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood (Mar 27, 2006)

> I would use dunking if the dog was to be put to death if he didn't stop the digging


In my case, I'd like to append "and no alternative training solutions were acceptable to the owner." Or perhaps, "and I were too incompetent to come up with an alternative solution."

If water dunking was the ONLY accepted method, i'd consider saving the dogs life.

Then again, if the owner is so incompetent as to not allow me to use an alternative method, I would question the dogs quality of life in that persons hands anyway. Especially someone that was willing to kill the dog for digging.


----------



## Guest (Jul 27, 2008)

Sure.

For chasing chickens, I'd also "trounce him about the head and face" with a chicken carcass. 

"It works", after all.


----------



## Anne Vaini (Mar 15, 2007)

Seriously? How about a cement floor under a kennel?


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Steven Lepic said:


> Sure.
> 
> For chasing chickens, I'd also "trounce him about the head and face" with a chicken carcass.
> 
> "It works", after all.


Just give the chickens firearms ..


----------



## leslie cassian (Jun 3, 2007)

But would dunking the dog's head underwater stop the dog from digging?

I hate to ask, but has anyone used actually used this method and successfully stopped a dog from digging?

It just seems pointlessly cruel to me - the kind of thing someone would do in a fit of temper, not as part of training.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Oh you guys...........EVERYONE knows that dunking only works when trying to prove or disprove a dog is a witch.:roll:


----------



## Guest (Jul 28, 2008)

susan tuck said:


> Oh you guys...........EVERYONE knows that dunking only works when trying to prove or disprove a dog is a witch.:roll:


If you can think of a better way, I'm all ears.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Steven Lepic said:


> If you can think of a better way, I'm all ears.


http://thesuperfluousnipple.blogspot.com/2005/11/tilda-swinton-is-witch-and-i-can-prove.html

http://literallyeverything.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-to-prove-youre-not-witch.html


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Both questions are a no win situation. 
Would I do it as a last resort? No way! It's not even in the cards. To many ways to avoid the situation.
I don't think it's a legit method of training regardless of the situation. 
I've had hunting terriers for years. A shovel to a working terrier is like a shotgun to a bird dog. Gardening is also a hobby of mine. If I put a plant in while they watched, it would be toast the next day. If I put them up and they didn't see me plant it AND they didn't notice the disturbed ground for a couple of days, it would be safe.
Two terriers once watched me burry a third. YEP! The next day the wife called me at work. The two were digging like groundhogs. 
With the ones that were consistant diggers I would just fill the hole with dog $#!+. They often moved to a different hole but it didn't take them long to break the cycle.


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Bob Scott said:


> Both questions are a no win situation. Would I do it as a last resort? No way! It's not even in the cards. To many ways to avoid the situation. I don't think it's a legit method of training regardless of the situation.


I'm so with you Bob on this. I initially thought that the post was a joke but I guess not. Even if it was a once a recommended method by Koehler it is so far outdated and extremely or utterly foolish that in these times, it is a joke to even think of a technique like this. 

I stopped my dog from digging holes with a combo of my e-collar and uber power cayenne pepper sprinkled into her favourite freshly refilled (by me) holes. Just as an example of some techniques to correct the unwanted behaviour. 

I'd never consider either of those 2 poll choices not in a million years.


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood (Mar 27, 2006)

But that wasn't the question  It was a "one or the other, you have to choose" question, there is no third option. As I understand the question, some guy is coming up to you as a trainer, and he says "I'm gonna kill my dog if he doesn't stop digging and the only acceptable method to me is that you dunk his head" -- do you dunk the dogs head or watch him kill his dog?


----------



## Tammy McDowell (Dec 4, 2006)

susan tuck said:


> Oh you guys...........EVERYONE knows that dunking only works when trying to prove or disprove a dog is a witch.:roll:


Definitely good to know!! :mrgreen:


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Mike Schoonbrood said:


> But that wasn't the question  It was a "one or the other, you have to choose" question, there is no third option. As I understand the question, some guy is coming up to you as a trainer, and he says "I'm gonna kill my dog if he doesn't stop digging and the only acceptable method to me is that you dunk his head" -- do you dunk the dogs head or watch him kill his dog?


I really don't know how to answer that with a "one or the other". I sure as hell wont watch some guy kill his dog and I'm probably to dern old to do much about it without a baseball bat. \\/ 
Take the dog away? 
Call the SPCA/Humane Scociety?
Try and talk some sense into the guy?
Without some sort of physical intervention it's a no win situation for the dog.
If it worked, a dog being a dog would have no idea WTF you were doing by the time you filled the hole with water. A dog looks at reward or punishment in relation to the very last thing it did. 
The dog's sure as hell isn't gonna watch you fill that hole with water again. That didn't go well last time. :-o


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood (Mar 27, 2006)

I agree Bob. In reality, there are always other options available. Training methods evolve and we adapt, as with everything else. Out of those 2 options, regardless of whether or not I agree, if it was just me and this other person and nobody else on the planet, and I had no way of overpowering him and confiscating the dog, and and and and and, then I'd go with "dunk the dog," I wouldn't want the dog to die... but I would rank that up there with a "if you don't shoot your son I'll shoot you and your son" scenario from a movie. Unless Arnold Schwartzenegger busts into the room, you're kinda screwed either way


----------



## Mike Scheiber (Feb 17, 2008)

I want my click back ](*,)


----------



## Jose' Abril (Dec 6, 2007)

Maybe I am lost here but where does the water fit in all this?? What I mean is a correction should be something that is done immediately following the wrong act.By the time you go to get a bucket of water wouldn't the dog be like "what in the heck is going on#-o "?
To me if a correction does not happen within 2-3 seconds after the wrong act it becomes null and void.

Just my opinion.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Mike Schoonbrood said:


> In my case, I'd like to append "and no alternative training solutions were acceptable to the owner." Or perhaps, "and I were too incompetent to come up with an alternative solution."


Well dammit Mike if the forum allowed me to write that many words in the poll questions that's what I'd have written! Lol. 



Mike Schoonbrood said:


> Then again, if the owner is so incompetent as to not allow me to use an alternative method, I would question the dogs quality of life in that persons hands anyway. Especially someone that was willing to kill the dog for digging.


Remember that Koehler developed his method in 1946 and wrote the book in 1962. Back then the "kinder, gentler methods" didn't exist and many people didn't regard dogs as their "companions" they were just property.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

leslie cassian said:


> But would dunking the dog's head underwater stop the dog from digging?
> 
> I hate to ask, but has anyone used actually used this method and successfully stopped a dog from digging?


It's been done quite a few times, but remember this spans more than 60 years. I doubt that Koehler invented it, he didn't invent the rest of what's in his Method, he just took what others were doing and systematized it. 

If you think of this as just a punishment you won't be able to see how it works. It's done too long after the behavior for the dog to make the association. The theory is that the dog associates the panic of the near drowning with the scent of fresh soil and as soon as he starts digging again, it drives him away.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> Would I do it as a last resort? No way! It's not even in the cards. To many ways to avoid the situation.


There are lots of ways around the problem. But in this hypothetical the owner is not willing to do any of them. 



> I don't think it's a legit method of training regardless of the situation.


The question is what you define as "legit method." There was a court case on just this. A trainer did it, was seen and charged with abuse of animals. It took two trials but he was acquitted. 



> With the ones that were consistant diggers I would just fill the hole with dog $#!+. They often moved to a different hole but it didn't take them long to break the cycle.


My experience with this was that the dogs got poop on their feet, licked it off and learned to eat it. Then it was TWO problems to stop.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Geoff Empey said:


> I'd never consider either of those 2 poll choices not in a million years.


Geoff what if your neighbor came to you and asked how to solve this problem? He refused to use an Ecollar or the pepper approaches. In fact he refused to build a digging pit, fence the area off, rehome the dog, or anything else that you suggested. He said that he was going to have the dog put down if the digging continued. Would you dunk him (or give the advice) knowing that it would save the dog's life? Would you walk away leaving the dog to be killed? 

This is not just a hypothetical situation. It happened many times. 

From the memorial website about Koehler's son Dick,


> The Koehler Method (and the two men behind it), have always been embroiled in controversy. Much of the criticism (harsh, cruel, inhumane) was aimed at the techniques described in the problem section of The Koehler Method of Dog Training. What many people don’t understand (and our critics choose to deny); is that these techniques were only employed as a last resort on the hardest dogs. Dogs who were headed on a one way trip to the vet! If you owned and loved a dog with an aggressive biting problem, you would want to solve the problem, not destroy the dog. *Over the years many people approached Dick and Bill with exactly this problem. They had been told by animal control, their vet, and four or five other "dog trainers" ... to put the animal to sleep. Dick and Bill firmly believed that it was much more humane to offer people a training solution ... instead of dead dog. If this is harsh, cruel, or inhumane ... I know a few dogs who might disagree... because they were trained, the problems were solved, and they went on to live happily into old age. … * Bill and Dick felt they owed their loyalty and compassion to the dog ... and they answered to a much higher authority than mankind. [Emphasis added]


http://www.koehlerdogtraining.com/bio.html


----------



## Chase Mika (May 2, 2008)

I don't think I could choose either option. I certainly wouldn't dunk the dog, but that doesn't mean I would prefer that he'd die. It's a no win situation to me. I'm not gonna let an owner bully me into using a method I strongly disagree with; I'm also not going to let an ignorant owner tell me that if I refuse, I'm essentially killing his dog. There are clearly other options that the owner is refusing to go with, if we're looking at today's world.

I'd prefer a third option of refusing the dunking and telling the owner that if the dog dies, the owner better watch his back.


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Lou Castle said:


> Geoff what if your neighbor came to you and asked how to solve this problem? He refused to use an Ecollar or the pepper approaches. In fact he refused to build a digging pit, fence the area off, rehome the dog, or anything else that you suggested. He said that he was going to have the dog put down if the digging continued. Would you dunk him (or give the advice) knowing that it would save the dog's life? Would you walk away leaving the dog to be killed?
> 
> This is not just a hypothetical situation. It happened many times.
> 
> ...


I understand the question Lou ... Though I don't agree with either poll choice. If it was only the 2 choices yes I'd dunk the dog's head in a muddy puddle to save its life. 

 But ...


from Koehler's bio said:


> Over the years many people approached Dick and Bill with exactly this problem. They had been told by animal control, their vet, and four or five other "dog trainers" ... to put the animal to sleep. Dick and Bill firmly believed that it was much more humane to offer people a training solution ... instead of dead dog. If this is harsh, cruel, or inhumane ... I know a few dogs who might disagree... because they were trained, the problems were solved, and they went on to live happily into old age.


* That's in the 40's 50's though when this stuff was thought up, it may have worked ... that was then this is now.* 

No Vet, trainer or animal control officer would tell a owner to kill their dog for digging in this day in age. That would get the animal control officer fired .. the Vet and the trainer ostracized and put out of business. That's where I was going with my post so I still won't vote on the poll. 

If a neighbor did approach me with this question seriously. I'd intervene by getting animal control involved or physically intervening by confiscating the dog myself until animal control arrived.

Dunking a dog's head in a muddy hole until it was drowning is akin to leaving a animal in a hot car with the windows up. Though the leaving of a animal in a hot car could be an innocent mistake the dunking is premeditated and deserving of a few hard swift boots to the neighbor's gonads. IMO ...


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Lou Castle said:


> If you think of this as just a punishment you won't be able to see how it works. It's done too long after the behavior for the dog to make the association. The theory is that the dog associates the panic of the near drowning with the scent of fresh soil and as soon as he starts digging again, it drives him away.


Really? So then you have a dog that is afraid of fresh dirt? Can you take it to the park? What if the owner is a construction worker, can he take his dog to work or if an excavator has been working near by or the dog thinks it may die?

Seems more likely to me that after a few repeated near drownings in the same area of the garden SOME dogs may decide that area is dangerous to dangerous to risk going near.

I would like to know the success rate of this fabled sure fire method. I can tell you that rubbing my childhood dog's face in shit he did in the house a few hrs after he did it did not cure him of shitting in the house, but he sure was afraid of his own shit when you tried to lead him to it! 

I haven't had an issue housetraining dogs since that time after abandoning that old standby for better ones.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

I am interested to hear from people who have tried the dunking for digging techinique specifically. 

Did it work?

First try, dog never dug again? Multiple dunkings needed? Some reminder/maintenance dunking every so often?

Any downfalls noted after using this technique or just got a dog that doesn't dig anymore.

References (numerous) from clients who's dogs have been cured of digging by this meathod alone?

Is this kind of info out there?


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood (Mar 27, 2006)

> Some reminder/maintenance dunking every so often?


:lol: sorry that made me laugh.

As for side effects to training. I see side effects all the time. I've seen dogs forced to out so abusively that they are terrified to bring the ball to their handler during play time the following day. The dog learnt to out, but at what expense?

An interesting question, perhaps for a separate thread if anyone is interested in starting one on this topic, is: What level of training side effects is acceptable to spill over into day to day life? For example, if you shake the snot out of a dog during bitework to the point the dog is screaming and spits out the sleeve, and the dog is scared to bring a ball anywhere near you the following day, but he outs nicely during bitework -- is this an acceptable side effect? I mean, ignoring the fact that the method itself is severely flawed.... 

(if anyone responds to this little side topic, I will split the posts off into a new thread as not to hijack this one)


----------



## ann schnerre (Aug 24, 2006)

my thoght is, IF one agreed to try the near-drowning method, but it simply didn't work to stop the digging--then what?

does the owner agree to give him up to you &/or a rescue group at that point? or will he just have the dog PTS anyway?

it almost seems to me that if the owner will have him PTS if the method doesn't work, may as well do it before putting the dog through near-drowning experiences and the panic/fear/mental problems that ensue.

obviously, i'm trying to get around answering the original question, but it seems that the above is a logical question to ask from the get-go.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Just out of curiousity, how many of your parents would put up with what people are putting up with nowadays ? ? ? ?

In the 40's, I am pretty sure that if a dog bit it's handler, it pretty much just got shot. Nowadays, and I am not joking, I do not train pet dogs, as people are too lazy and ****ing dumb for me to deal with them. When I see pet trainers taking advantage.......I giggle my ass off.

While I do not have a problem with the theory of dunking a dogs head for obsessive digging, I do have a problem with the idiots that allow this behavior to become compulsive, and then are to pussy to deal with the problem, and dump the dog off at a shelter.


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Mike Schoonbrood said:


> :lol: sorry that made me laugh.
> 
> As for side effects to training. I see side effects all the time. I've seen dogs forced to out so abusively that they are terrified to bring the ball to their handler during play time the following day. The dog learnt to out, but at what expense?
> 
> ...


Split off a new thread. I'm interested to see what people say. 

I agree that shaking the snot out of a dog during bitework to the point the dog is screaming is a flawed method (and abuse), regardless of any side effects. We breed, raise and train dogs to be intense on the sleeve, and then we beat the crap out of them for not letting go when told to? Bad form, IMO.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

I think Jeff/Geoff have a good point.



Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Just out of curiousity, how many of your parents would put up with what people are putting up with nowadays ? ? ? ?





Geoff said:


> That's in the 40's 50's though when this stuff was thought up, it may have worked ... that was then this is now.


The Koehler book seems to come up on a regular basis for discussion. People don't seem to realize the guy has been gone for quite awhile now. And a lot of what is in his book was intended to solve "life and death" problems, ie fix the problem or kill the dog. I know people who trained their dogs with him when they were younger, and his normal "day to day" training methods weren't even close to what many people seem to believe in terms of severity. 

In many ways I think reading the Koehler dog training book can be compared to reading parenting books that were written 50+ years ago. Many people now days would be horrified to read what was recommended parenting techniques back then. It was a different time, with a different attitude. IMO in both case (parenting and dog training) some of the recommended methods still have merit, others can just be passed over and left behind. Just like when I read a training/behavioral/etc book written within the last 5 years, some of what I read I agree with and will use, other parts I just skip.

Would I use a harsh technique on a dog to save it's life? Yes. If I thought that technique could fix the problem being addressed, and there wasn't a less adversive technique available, or they had already tried and failed. Although I'm not sure how dunking a dog's head in water is supposed to fix this problem. Skipping over the "how would that even work" question, is dunking a dogs head in water really any harsher then hanging a dog (so it won't bite the handler), using high levels of electric (so it won't go after a rattlesnake) or some of the many other adversives people use to try to stop a certain behavior? Behaviors which if continued could result in the dogs death.


----------



## Lisa Maze (Mar 30, 2007)

The flaw in the poll is that one would have to believe that dunking the dog's head in the water would work. 

Dunking a dog's head in the hole he dug, tying the chicken he killed around his neck for a week and rubbing his nose in his "accidents" are all antiquated methods that are ineffective.

If they worked, I not only would use them but would tie a box of chocolates around my neck for a week or have someone rub my nose in a pint of Ben and Jerry's ice cream. Sure beats dieting using self control. 

If the base question of this poll is would you use an aversive to stop a behavior that may result in the dog's death (at the owner's hands or as a direct consequence of the behavior) my answer is "yes".

In fact, I would use an aversive (mild to moderate) to expedite the training process, to make up for gaps in the owner's skill level or dog's motivation level or to tighten up behavior's for competition.

If the base question is do you think a dog trainer should be held accountable for following a method he/she believes in even if the average person would consider it abuse my answer would be "yes" also.

This is a slippery slope as the world is getting "softer." Parents are told to use time outs instead of spanking, head collars are replacing choke chains and natural horseman are speaking out against bits, whips and spurs. However, if I looked over the fence and saw someone dunking a dog's head over and over into a hole filled with water I too might call animal control. Not long ago a professional trainer was working a small dog in a public park with an e-collar and shocking it until it leapt in the air and vocalized over and over. She too found herself accused of cruelty to animals. Years ago, I read about a trainer who killed a dog when he hung it over a fence when it tried to attack him. He was not found guilty of cruelty to animals because hanging dogs if a "commonly" used technique among dog trainers.

I have done things that could have or have been viewed by observers as "cruel". Most of them have been done in the name of saving pet dogs from being relinquished to shelters but I must admit some have been done in frustration and some have been done to further my sport training goals.

Where should the line be drawn and who should draw it? 

Lisa


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Lisa Maze said:


> The flaw in the poll is that one would have to believe that dunking the dog's head in the water would work.
> 
> Dunking a dog's head in the hole he dug, tying the chicken he killed around his neck for a week and rubbing his nose in his "accidents" are all antiquated methods that are ineffective.
> 
> ...


Lisa I agree.

I still want to know if there are any folks for whom the dunking thing works. I know for a fact some of his other methods work (whether one likes them or not), but I do really question the effectiveness of this one.

Some interesting questions here:



Lisa Maze said:


> This is a slippery slope as the world is getting "softer." Parents are told to use time outs instead of spanking, head collars are replacing choke chains and natural horseman are speaking out against bits, whips and spurs. However, if I looked over the fence and saw someone dunking a dog's head over and over into a hole filled with water I too might call animal control. Not long ago a professional trainer was working a small dog in a public park with an e-collar and shocking it until it leapt in the air and vocalized over and over. She too found herself accused of cruelty to animals. Years ago, I read about a trainer who killed a dog when he hung it over a fence when it tried to attack him. He was not found guilty of cruelty to animals because hanging dogs if a "commonly" used technique among dog trainers.
> 
> I have done things that could have or have been viewed by observers as "cruel". Most of them have been done in the name of saving pet dogs from being relinquished to shelters but I must admit some have been done in frustration and some have been done to further my sport training goals.
> 
> Where should the line be drawn and who should draw it?


----------



## leslie cassian (Jun 3, 2007)

Lou Castle said:


> It's been done quite a few times, but remember this spans more than 60 years. I doubt that Koehler invented it, he didn't invent the rest of what's in his Method, he just took what others were doing and systematized it.
> 
> If you think of this as just a punishment you won't be able to see how it works. It's done too long after the behavior for the dog to make the association. The theory is that the dog associates the panic of the near drowning with the scent of fresh soil and as soon as he starts digging again, it drives him away.


I suppose it's reassuring that at least there is some theory as to how this is supposed to change the behaviour. Not sure I buy it, but it's there. 

No doubt it is a technique that has been used by various people over the years. Like Jennifer, I'd like to know if anyone here has personal experience with dunking as a cure for digging.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Geoff Empey said:


> But ... * That's in the 40's 50's though when this stuff was thought up, it may have worked ... that was then this is now.*
> 
> No Vet, trainer or animal control officer would tell a owner to kill their dog for digging in this day in age. That would get the animal control officer fired .. the Vet and the trainer ostracized and put out of business. That's where I was going with my post so I still won't vote on the poll.
> 
> If a neighbor did approach me with this question seriously. I'd intervene by getting animal control involved or physically intervening by confiscating the dog myself until animal control arrived.


It's a fact of life that dogs are regarded as property. There are movements underway to change that status by orgs like PETA. Those changes would make us their "guardians" and them our equals in terms of their rights under the law. I don't think that I'm alone in thinking that's a mistake. 



Geoff Empey said:


> Dunking a dog's head in a muddy hole until it was drowning is akin to leaving a animal in a hot car with the windows up.


That's not quite what the protocol calls for. It says to hold the dog's head under the water until _he thinks he's drowning, _not quite the same thing. It’s a small detail but an important one. Any dog owner can take his dog out into a field and shoot him, as long as it's done "humanely." Dunking, as this protocol calls for is not the same. The risk of death is not present, while it is in your "hot car" situation. 



Geoff Empey said:


> Though the leaving of a animal in a hot car could be an innocent mistake the dunking is premeditated and deserving of a few hard swift boots to the neighbor's gonads. IMO ...


I don't disagree that anyone who gives a trainer this situation is an AH and deserves worse treatment than you describe. BUT shelters are full of dogs that have been surrendered for the most trivial or reasons, usually behavioral problems that the owners can't solve, or haven't even bothered to try.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> Really? So then you have a dog that is afraid of fresh dirt? Can you take it to the park? What if the owner is a construction worker, can he take his dog to work or if an excavator has been working near by or the dog thinks it may die?


If the dog went this way, it would only be for a short time until he realized that only the smell of fresh soil from his own backyard bought this treatment. 



Jennifer Coulter said:


> Seems more likely to me that after a few repeated near drownings in the same area of the garden SOME dogs may decide that area is dangerous to dangerous to risk going near.


That may happen but sooner or later he'll enter the area and will realize that it's not the back yard that's the problem, it's the fresh soil from the back yard. 

But let's not pretend that this kind of fallout is reserved for this protocol from Koehler. I've seen (and I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one) methods used to get an out that results in the dog fearing either the handler or the decoy, sometimes both. 



Jennifer Coulter said:


> I would like to know the success rate of this fabled sure fire method.


I don't think that anyone has called it a "sure fire method?" Koehler says in the book


> Class surveys have shown that more than 70% of the dogs who experience this correction … swear off hole digging.





Jennifer Coulter said:


> I can tell you that rubbing my childhood dog's face in shit he did in the house a few hrs after he did it did not cure him of shitting in the house, but he sure was afraid of his own shit when you tried to lead him to it!


I'd suggest that the countenance of the person doing this was what scared the dog.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> First try, dog never dug again? Multiple dunkings needed? Some reminder/maintenance dunking every so often?


Per Koehler this should be repeated for several days. He specifically recommends against doing it just once.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

I think that the real problem with the KMODT is that people who have not read the book make assumptions about it that aren't true and then spread them though the dog training community. Koehler didn't devise anything new. All he did was to take techniques that already existed and systematized them into a coherent method of training a dog. His intent was to allow anyone who took his basic class to walk out 13 weeks later, enter an AKC competition and qualify. He had advanced classes for more advanced AKC degrees. 

Many people go right to the extreme methods that he used to cure problems. Most of those problems simply disappeared when one ran the dog through the basic class. 

The book is still probably the best selling dog training book in the world. The OB described in the front of the book is still used by many and still gives very good results. 

I think the "enlightened methods" that we have today are a natural evolution of the times. The KMODT was developed in 1946, "tested" on about 16,000 dogs and then the book was published in 1962. I think it should be judged by the standard of what else was available at that time. The so-called "kinder, gentler methods" would not be applied to pet dogs for another two decades.


----------



## Lee H Sternberg (Jan 27, 2008)

My only experience with this dunking method was that it did work with one dog I know. The dog dug holes almost daily for 4 years. This owner tried every method he could think of to stop the problem. As a last resort, the owner dunked him in one of the holes he dug. He did it a second time after the dog dug another hole. I know the owner and the dog. Apparently, there has been no further hole digging for 3 years now.

This dog now runs free in owners rear yard. The owner reported to me the dog suffered no ill effects. That's just 1 dog so it doesn't amount to a survey as to the effectiveness of this method. This owner was not going to put this dog down for hole digging. It did get to the point were the owner was considering rehoming the dog.


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Lou Castle said:


> It's a fact of life that dogs are regarded as property. There are movements underway to change that status by orgs like PETA. Those changes would make us their "guardians" and them our equals in terms of their rights under the law. I don't think that I'm alone in thinking that's a mistake.


Are we not their guardians? When I buy a dog it is my responsibility to train it feed it, protect it. If PETA is going for "equals" well that is the most asinine dumb thing I've ever heard. But we are their guardians that has to be the mental contract we agree upon when you bring a pup home, well it is for me. Maybe I'm just a big softy mutton chop but I actually take care of my dog's needs. 



Lou Castle said:


> That's not quite what the protocol calls for. It says to hold the dog's head under the water until _he thinks he's drowning, _not quite the same thing. It’s a small detail but an important one. Any dog owner can take his dog out into a field and shoot him, as long as it's done "humanely." Dunking, as this protocol calls for is not the same. The risk of death is not present, while it is in your "hot car" situation.


Well death is imminent in a hot car situation or trip to the field with a .303 death is final. In the case of death by firearm ... not even close the dog won't even know it is coming .. *BANG!!!!* the burn of the bullet maybe if the guy/girl was a good shot it should be pretty fast. But the Fear of death is ongoing once you've been put in that situation .. Look at the veterans who have survived brutal combat or P.O.Ws or people who have survived the WTC Towers on 9/11 lot's of those people can develop Post Trauma Stress Disorder. I'm sure a dog can get affected with that affliction as well. So why would we betray our dog's trust in us. Risk of death/Fear of death still kills the soul of the animal. 

I like Jenn Coulter look forward to hearing some first hand reports. 



Lou Castle said:


> I don't disagree that anyone who gives a trainer this situation is an AH and deserves worse treatment than you describe. BUT shelters are full of dogs that have been surrendered for the most trivial or reasons, usually behavioral problems that the owners can't solve, or haven't even bothered to try.


These are the AH's that never should've gotten a dog in the first place Lou. It's not the dog's fault it is the maroons fault for buying the dog in the first place. I think you'd agree. Everybody hates to see the pig or cow get slaughtered but they will go to McDonalds and buy a double Big Mac with bacon. Shelters are just reverse McDonalds so these AH owners don't have to see the slaughter themselves. 

When people talk to me about my dog I always try to talk them out of getting an animal by stating the realities and the mental contract that should be filled before any one brings an animal home. If I can point someone away from buying one unneeded animal and to practice on a goldfish .. great.


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Geoff Empey said:


> If I can point someone away from buying one unneeded animal and to practice on a goldfish .. great.


Hey - goldfish have feelings too!

Point being, where do you draw the line? I know folks who would never harm their dog, but will beat the crap out of their horse because it is just "livestock." Do we pick and choose which animals deserve to be treated humanely, or do they all deserve it?


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Konnie Hein said:


> Hey - goldfish have feelings too!
> 
> Point being, where do you draw the line? I know folks who would never harm their dog, but will beat the crap out of their horse because it is just "livestock." Do we pick and choose which animals deserve to be treated humanely, or do they all deserve it?


I hear ya Konnie. Though I'd never beat on a horse either and yes Dogs are considered Livestock as well just for continuations sakes. 

Dumb as a horse, smart as dog, cute as a cat? It's all assumptions, last time I checked I don't speak dog or horse so wouldn't know how to measure it. 

Though I'd have no problem to put the boots and fists to a human male if the situation warranted it. As you'd think they'd know better. 

The goldfish, horse or dog don't know any better


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Thanks for the further info Lou. I have read one Koehler book (don't own it though it was leant to me by an ex handler) and as I said I don't doubt the effectiveness of some of his other methods. (Not that I choose to use them, or in the ways he has layed them out)

I did however doubt THIS one. 70% is a better success rate than I would have thought. And Lee knows a guy....


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I will have to agree that our thoughts about dog training have changed since Koehler. I have two of his books that I bought new. Used a lot of the methods.
My methods have changed drastically over the 50 yrs since I trained my first dog but I would fall back on some of the "harsh" methods IF I felt they were necessary. The dunking wouldn't be one of them though.
Most of these extreams in training are the results of NOT training from the beginning and just letting $#!+ happen till it becomes a problem. CM is a perfect example of that. He doesn't train dogs he trains people in leadership. 
Lou, luckily I never had a digger that was a $#!+ eater:lol: . I've also used mouse traps, buried ballons, cayanne pepper, rose bush branches, etc.


----------



## Ian Forbes (Oct 13, 2006)

Kadi Thingvall said:


> The Koehler book seems to come up on a regular basis for discussion. People don't seem to realize the guy has been gone for quite awhile now. And a lot of what is in his book was intended to solve "life and death" problems, ie fix the problem or kill the dog. I know people who trained their dogs with him when they were younger, and his normal "day to day" training methods weren't even close to what many people seem to believe in terms of severity.


I don't train using using the Koehler Method, but I have read the book and see it the same way as you. People (normally who have never read the book or seen a dog trained this way) focus on the extreme measure he recommended when the dog was going to be killed.



> In many ways I think reading the Koehler dog training book can be compared to reading parenting books that were written 50+ years ago. Many people now days would be horrified to read what was recommended parenting techniques back then. It was a different time, with a different attitude. IMO in both case (parenting and dog training) some of the recommended methods still have merit, others can just be passed over and left behind. Just like when I read a training/behavioral/etc book written within the last 5 years, some of what I read I agree with and will use, other parts I just skip.


I think that is quite normal. I read books and ignore the parts that I disagree with or that do not make sense. Sometimes old methods work best, other times better options come along...



> Would I use a harsh technique on a dog to save it's life? Yes. If I thought that technique could fix the problem being addressed, and there wasn't a less adversive technique available, or they had already tried and failed. Although I'm not sure how dunking a dog's head in water is supposed to fix this problem. Skipping over the "how would that even work" question, is dunking a dogs head in water really any harsher then hanging a dog (so it won't bite the handler), using high levels of electric (so it won't go after a rattlesnake) or some of the many other adversives people use to try to stop a certain behavior? Behaviors which if continued could result in the dogs death.


I think most people would accept the use of harsh aversives, if they are needed to fix life or death issues.


----------



## Kris Dow (Jun 15, 2008)

Much as I hate to see any animal killed when it could be easily fit into a suitable home, I have to say that given the options - death or a traumatic experience followed by life with an idiot who thinks said traumatic experience is the only way to deal with the problem, I'd probably have to pick death on the grounds that it'd probably save the dog who-knows-what at some time in the future when it develops another 'problem' that the owner is too much of an idiot to deal with properly, and too much of an AH to admit the dog isn't suitable for the home and find a new place for it.

I.e. I'd be seriously suspicious of anyone who was prepared to make a 'death or dunking' statement as to their ability to be or interest in being a responsible dog owner, because such a statement seems so inherently absurd giving the vast array of training methods and living options which could potentially deal with the problem.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

I don't like the technique, I've never used it. I think it's cruel. If the decision was to try it or euthanize, I'd at least try it.

DFrost


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> Well dammit Mike if the forum allowed me to write that many words in the poll questions that's what I'd have written! Lol. ....


Here ya' go: "If you really really suck as a trainer and have no way to improve your abilities, and the digging situation, which will result in the dog being killed, has not been within your ken to fix and you somehow know that there will be no effect on the dog's ability to live something of a normal life with something of a normal handler bond afterwards and you somehow know that the stupid cure actually works, do you do the digging water-cure?"


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> ... I think it should be judged by the standard of what else was available at that time. The so-called "kinder, gentler methods" would not be applied to pet dogs for another two decades.


Then this is an exercise in judging the book and its methods only against what was known or was available at that time? A strictly intellectual exercise? 

Then the polls are meant to be answered as we might have answered in the 50s or 60s? With no knowledge of better methods, and maybe that being the only book around?

Why? (Just curious.)


----------



## Lynn Cheffins (Jul 11, 2006)

If it was the only thing that would keep the dog alive - I guess I would try it - but I think it is pretty nasty thing to do and of no training effect.
I might be able to understand a strong aversive of a serious offense but digging holes? Like using sledgehammer to kill flies.

I think a big problem is pet homes - I would hope that working dog owners would have a better understanding of dog behaviour and not freak out when the dog does someting like digging and put the "crime" into perspective. If the dog works well and does what you want to do in other respects would you really give a rat's ass if the dog digs holes? - to such and extent you would want "dunk" it.

That being said - this morning I put down a 17.5 yr old dog that I got at 1.5 yrs after the original(pet home) owners had tried to have killed for the horrendous sins of "digging holes" and "running away"(thank God for the vet who refused to do it). She went on to live a long happy life -led my team for several years, had the most upbeat and honest work ethic and boundless enthusiasm you could ask for in a dog and it was an honour to own her. She was an easy dog to take care of and never gave a minutes trouble - and yes, she dug holes as long as her shaky old legs would permit. RIP, Silona old girl I hope you are tearing up the turf to your heart's content wherever you are

I would cheerfully hold the heads of her original owners under water until they thought they were going to drown - and then keep holding them under.
Sorry for the soapbox rant and any off topic rambling...


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

I could hug you. You gave her 16 years (!), a job to do, and a great owner/handler.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

And back to Koehler's dunking ....


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Earlier I wrote,


> ... I think it should be judged by the standard of what else was available at that time. The so-called "kinder, gentler methods" would not be applied to pet dogs for another two decades.





Connie Sutherland said:


> Then this is an exercise in judging the book and its methods only against what was known or was available at that time? A strictly intellectual exercise?


I don't consider judging the book by what was known about dogs and how they were treated at that time to be just an "intellectual exercise." It seems the proper thing to do. Judging a method that was devised 62 years ago by today's standards seems an extreme form of "Monday Morning Quarterbacking." 



Connie Sutherland said:


> Then the polls are meant to be answered as we might have answered in the 50s or 60s? With no knowledge of better methods, and maybe that being the only book around?


Having knowledge of "better methods" really doesn’t enter the pictures. The questions don't allow for it. Koehler only recommended dunking if the dog's life was to be taken. You can assume that the owner knows (or that he doesn’t know) about these "better methods" if you like but in the hypothetical situation proposed he's not interested in doing any of them. The situation is "stop digging or die" no matter how much of an AH we think the owner is for making it so. 



Connie Sutherland said:


> Why? (Just curious.)


The topic was being discussed on another forum. I wanted to know how you folks (you guys tend to be more rational, more logical, and more knowledgeable) felt about it.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Good answers. 

Especially "you guys tend to be more rational, more logical, and more knowledgeable."

:lol:


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Nice save, Lou.\\/

Howard


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote: Are we not their guardians? When I buy a dog it is my responsibility to train it feed it, protect it. If PETA is going for "equals" well that is the most asinine dumb thing I've ever heard.

This is sorta what they seem to be counting on. One, using the word "guardian" will have different meanings to different people, and they will take the higher road, or whatever to make it mean that you are dealing with an equal. Two, they count on the fact that you think it is rediculous, as you are less likely to actually believe that they are going out of their way to do something like this. Trust me, these people are going to **** you, it is just a matter of time.


----------



## Anna Kasho (Jan 16, 2008)

There's a legal terminology difference between being called an "owner", and being called a "guardian" of something. If you are the owner, the dog is your legal property to do with as you will. If you are a "guardian" then who owns the dog? Who directs what can or can't be done to the dog? The government?? Your position of control over what happens to the dog is a lot more shaky.

As far as I understand it, anyways...


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Connie Sutherland said:


> Good answers.
> 
> Especially "you guys tend to be more rational, more logical, and more knowledgeable."





Howard Knauf said:


> Nice save, Lou.
> 
> Howard


Oh you guys have no idea. This list is in the UK and 99% of it is those who use ONLY the so-called "kinder, gentler methods." They have little to no experience with KMODT or other traditional methods but "they know all about it." Two of them have ACTUALLY read the book and think that qualifies them to discuss it in depth. 

One of the more vocal ones will repost the exact same link (and add lengthy quotes to that same post) over and over and over and over, adding nothing new, just to be spiteful. 

They're almost all anonymous, claim to have lots of dog training experience but often get tripped showing that either they have little real experience or that they're sham "Internet only trainers." They make repeated personal attacks and name call. If I make a mistake on something, it's a lie. If I don't quote back EVERY WORD they've written I'm "twisting" their meaning. Right now the discussion thread is called " If you don't think that +P is necessary...." and it's gone on for nearly 600 pages and almost 6,000 posts. 

The moderator has a "hands off" policy and doesn't close threads no matter how redundant or how absurd the responses. 

Unfortunately the pit bull that lives in my head won't let me let go. No one to blame but myself.


----------



## Jeannie Helton (Aug 10, 2008)

Lynn Cheffins said:


> I would cheerfully hold the heads of her original owners under water until they thought they were going to drown - and then keep holding them under.


I'm with Lynn on this one. It would make about as much sense as dunking the dog to begin with. ](*,) 

If the owner was going to kill the dog, I'de take the dog off his hands. 

Jeannie


----------



## Randy Allen (Apr 18, 2008)

I'm a newbie- slash- lurker around here.....Just learning what I can without much to pass to on as yet. 
Yeah yeah, I've read this book and training methods...................about two life times ago. Even then I thought WTF!!!?? And I grew and learned in the some of the most primitive methods of training (dare I say inhumane?) of dogs one could imagine. Even then I thought WTF???!!!
Well the statues of limitions has long past. So I'll tell this story as in some wierd way I think it relates: I had a neighbor some years ago those son had recieved a really nice Burmese Mountain Dog for Christmas. The father didn't care for the dog, and of course the young lad didn't have the foggiest idea of what to do. The dog kept running away and around, and finally it was teathered in the back yard. He broke loose. He was tied out with aviation cable, he broke loose. Finally he was put and kept out on a chain 24/7. I lived with that fact of life for a couple three weeks or so.......I'd had enough. One day, somehow the dog just disappeared. Imagine that!
Now for this theoretical dog that needs more direction and interaction from it's owner, I'd prescribe the same medicine, and would have then, in 'those good old days'.

And the Burmese? Last I'd heard he'd was living happily ever after in Vermont.
Randy


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Hey, Randy,

Good to see you!

So that's Door #3 when the hypothetical owner says "Either this dog stops digging or he'll be put down." :lol:


----------



## Randy Allen (Apr 18, 2008)

Hello Connie,
You probably knew I couldn't keep my mouth shut for too long, no matter my best intentions.lol

Hmmm, door number #3. Well I know that the question didn't include a third choice as an option, and there was an arguement put forth that at one time those kind of stark yes or no decisions were the norm with no other options available. Quess what, there was always a third door! No matter what invisible bounds people felt emcumbered by, there was and is, always a third door....... It's not the right option all the time, but in this case it happens to be the proper course in my view, then and now.

I never did very good on tests.
Randy


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Randy Allen said:


> Hmmm, door number #3. Well I know that the question didn't include a third choice as an option, and there was an arguement put forth that at one time those kind of stark yes or no decisions were the norm with no other options available. Quess what, there was always a third door! No matter what invisible bounds people felt emcumbered by, there was and is, always a third door....... It's not the right option all the time, but in this case it happens to be the proper course in my view, then and now.


You may not like the fact that this owner only gave two options to the trainer, "Either you stop this dog from digging in the yard quickly or I'll have him PTS." But those are the facts. It's not as prevalent now as it was back then because there is more knowledge about how to stop this, but still those are the only options. 

Unless you want to add that you'd trespass and try to steal the dog, risking arrest for theft of someone's personal property. 

Is that what's being suggested as "the third door?"


----------



## Randy Allen (Apr 18, 2008)

Lou,
I'm not making any judgement on what anyone else felt they would have to do. Only that from my point of veiw, there is always a third door. As there always was/is in everyones life.
In the case of the dog, I wouldn't look at it as stealing as much as I'd look at it as saving the owner grieve, saving the life of a dog, and saving myself many a sleepless night. 
Would I open that door lightly? No. However given the choice between a rock and a hard spot..... I'll move.

I don't take tests very good.
Randy


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

In the same thought process of Randy, one of my brothers and I "rescued" a number of Pits that were being fought in my old Neighborhood. 
They were given the choice of fight or die.
I ain't near as quick over a fence, at 2-3 in the morning, with a 30-35 lb dog under my arm or I'd still be doing door #3.


----------

