# How weak is the dog word?



## Chris McDonald

Every few once in a while when I am on the computer I google “Dutch Shepherds” to see what pops up. I did it today and took a look at this site http://www.vonfalconer.com/dutchshepherd.html . I scrolled down the page and saw a section that was labeled
*Dutch Shepherd Video Clips
*See what the Dutch Shepherd can do

And there was my dog? “Dutch Shepherd dog agility”. Don’t get me wrong I think it is cool that my dog is on their site. But when I think about it, what a bunch of losers, if you owned a dog breeding facility wouldn’t you want the dogs you breed on your site? The more I learn about working dogs the more I think it is a broken system. From my understanding dogs such as the GS health continue to decline. And hyper spas dogs have become the dogs of choice to make up for bad training and handling? Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, I would like to hear other view points. 

I bought a dog from a training facility no one seems to really know much about, but many in the dog world seems to love to complain about them for some reason? So I get one of their dogs and take a weekend course. I filmed this video of him goofing around in a few hours and it has almost 19,000 hits and I get emails from all around the world telling me how amazing it is. When experienced trainers and LE K9 guys see my dog do this stuff they say very few dogs could ever do it. But when I go to where he was trained every dog there can do this or more? 
I am not experienced but the few dog training clubs I have been too I have been underwhelmed. I have also been underwhelmed by 90% of the LE dogs and handlers I have met. How pathtic is the dog world that I can buy a 14 month old dog and take a weekend course and there actually be people who are even slightly impressed? I think sometimes the people who are impressed must just not know much and it’s a fun video to look at if you dig dogs. I have found that to not be the case. Look at this guy, he claims to have been importing, breeding and training LE dogs for 32 years and he has no videos of his own dogs to post? Ha, what a looser. http://www.vonfalconer.com/ 
I understand that he is not claiming my dog to be one of his but still its week. 

Can you guys who have been in the dog world for 30 or more years tell me if people expect less from their dogs now than years ago? When did bribery with treats and balls become the norm? Dogs have been used for needed tasks for many years before treats and tugs were used how where they trained? 
Why does it seem like hunting dogs aren’t trained with treats or tugs like “working dogs”. I have watched labs retrieve ducks all day for nothing more than a pat on the head. Other bird dogs will work pointing birds all day for no treat or tug? But a drug dog now needs to have a party thrown for it when after a search. 

I think what has got me going is I would really like a good German Shepherd one of these days. As much as I like the DS I have heard form experienced people that there is nothing better than a real good GS. And the fact of the matter is I am really skeptical to get one due to their health issues. Think about how weak that is! Dog breeders from around the world actually wreaking a breed. 
Can someone please straiten me out over here? Am I seeing things correctly or am I just nuts?


----------



## David Frost

I just did a presentation at a brown bag lunch to our civilian admin staff about dogs, first aid and basic training. IT was only 50 minutes long. They were amazed that heartworm was caused by mosquitos, tapeworm by fleas and that you don't rub the dogs nose into it's urine to house break it. Soooooo yes, people that aren't really involved with dogs are often very ignorant about what just a little knowledge can do. 

You said: "Dogs have been used for needed tasks for many years before treats and tugs were used how where they trained? 
Why does it seem like hunting dogs aren’t trained with treats or tugs like “working dogs”. I have watched labs retrieve ducks all day for nothing more than a pat on the head."

What you describe there is the basis for most detection training done by police service dog trainers. Actually, the retrieve is the reward. Its' why the dog does everything else it's supposed to do, just to get the retrieve. That is the primary reinforcement. The secondary would be the pat on the head. IN PSD training we replace the "duck" with the ball. It's really that simple.

DFrost


----------



## Jackie Lockard

David Frost said:


> I just did a presentation at a brown bag lunch to our civilian admin staff about dogs, first aid and basic training. IT was only 50 minutes long. They were amazed that heartworm was caused by mosquitos, tapeworm by fleas and that you don't rub the dogs nose into it's urine to house break it. Soooooo yes, people that aren't really involved with dogs are often very ignorant about what just a little knowledge can do.


Being a trainer that deals with mostly pet clients of course I agree with this statement 110%. It absolutely astounds me what people think is cruel sometimes (feeding their dog twice a day instead of leaving food out all the time or crate training, for instance) but have no problem frying their dog with electric all the time (when it clearly isn't effective as a correction) for stupid s**t like barking out a window. 


Also, I use balls and tugs in my training because the general idea of compulsion training doesn't sit well with me. I like happy, motivated dogs that love work and love working WITH me because they just love it. Work should be enjoyable, not something preformed out of fear of pain, IMHO. In foundation...of course I also am not afraid to correct my dogs when they're being jackasses.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Probably the best training method I have seen is still Koehler. Gerry's has a dog that it would work beautifly on. I think todays trainers hate it becauise they don't fully understand it or dogs and it requires to much on their part. 

What really amuses me is that when someone has a problem with a dog, read the fixes people suggest for a hard dog. They are mosty variations of Koehler. Geoff's reply to Gerry about knee the dog and keep and absolutley game(poker) face. Y'all hate the method but most of you use it when you can't get the job done with the new methods.


----------



## Mo Earle

_
"Every few once in a while when  I am on the computer I google “Dutch Shepherds” to see what pops up. I did it today and took a look at this site http://www.vonfalconer.com/dutchshepherd.html . I scrolled down the page and saw a section that was labeled
*Dutch Shepherd Video Clips
*See what the Dutch Shepherd can do

And there was my dog? “Dutch Shepherd dog agility”. Don’t get me wrong I think it is cool that my dog is on their site. But when I think about it, what a bunch of losers, if you owned a dog breeding facility wouldn’t you want the dogs you breed on your site?"

_ We had experienced that a LOT..with our Belgian Malinois Chico-he was a beautiful boy...and lots of people used him to advertise their business-in a way it was good to see him, because he was an Awesome dog....but it is False advertisement IMO...but the funniest one, a person had him posted on their site that taught dogs obedience etc, with no compulsion, or tools such as leashes,prongs,choke collars, e-collars etc....that one I demanded he be removed from...they were wrong...because Chico was taught using ALL of those methods one time or another.:mrgreen:


----------



## David Frost

Jackie said: "Being a trainer that deals with mostly pet clients of course I agree with this statement 110%."

I was asked by several of the participants of this function if I did private training. I told them no. I was asked if I would be interested in doing so. I told them no because I have very poor people skills when it comes to dog training. Troopers don't have a choice but to do as I tell them. I have more volunteers for handlers than I have dogs available. I told the group, I've been called an SOB by everyone I've ever put through training at one time or another. If I had to train dogs and be nice to my customers, I'd starve to death. I'm really a nice guy, but I can be such a prick when I'm training. There is only one way, which of course is mine.

DFrost


----------



## Jackie Lockard

David Frost said:


> Jackie said: "Being a trainer that deals with mostly pet clients of course I agree with this statement 110%."
> 
> I was asked by several of the participants of this function if I did private training. I told them no. I was asked if I would be interested in doing so. I told them no because I have very poor people skills when it comes to dog training. Troopers don't have a choice but to do as I tell them. I have more volunteers for handlers than I have dogs available. I told the group, I've been called an SOB by everyone I've ever put through training at one time or another. If I had to train dogs and be nice to my customers, I'd starve to death. I'm really a nice guy, but I can be such a prick when I'm training. There is only one way, which of course is mine.
> 
> DFrost



When clients sign the contracts and hand me their money I tell them 'you hire me as a professional and by signing this you agree that you trust my opinion, meaning that you agree I can do the best job training your dog.' If they don't like it, or become argumentative with me at any point I tell them to walk.

I only have good people skills to a point. I tell them up front that every dog trainer has their own methods, these are mine and my philosophy, if you like it stay if not there are plenty of public trainers out there, lol. Money is certainly not worth it for me to deal with the idiot pet owners looking for help but having the mentality thinking they know enough to also do it themselves. If they sign the contract, give me money, and still haven't followed instructions between lessons or argue with me during lessons about how things should be done I will not sign them up for another package or give them extras. To me it's all about how willing their are to learn and follow instruction.

But...I can't wait until the day where I can do all sport training.


----------



## Ted Efthymiadis

Chris McDonald said:


> Why does it seem like hunting dogs aren’t trained with treats or tugs like “working dogs”. I have watched labs retrieve ducks all day for nothing more than a pat on the head. Other bird dogs will work pointing birds all day for no treat or tug? But a drug dog now needs to have a party thrown for it when after a search.



Are you serious?

How can you even use the two at the same time?

When my buddies lab grabs a duck from the cold lake water, that's his reward.....
When my narc dog alerts on crack, is the crack his reward? No, He's working for a tug....

Most dogs these days are lame.... true. But not all of them are. You just need to up your standards... and keep away from GSD's little while longer. hehehe


----------



## Mike Scheiber

Least it wasn't the stupid video of yours of them dumb ass kids
I has someone claiming they had a pup out of my Jett he has never sired a litter.
Dog people ain't the sharpest bunch at least around here any way have you noticed some of the threads and replies lately.


----------



## Chris McDonald

Also, I use balls and tugs in my training because the general idea of compulsion training doesn't sit well with me. I like happy, motivated dogs that love work and love working WITH me because they just love it. Work should be enjoyable, not something preformed out of fear of pain, IMHO. In foundation...of course I also am not afraid to correct my dogs when they're being jackasses.[/quote]

Can you have a dog that loves what he is doing without the need for a ball? I think everyone has a bit of a different opinion on what compulsion training is. I think some would say that your correcting your dogs when you think they are being jack asses classifies you as compulsion training? Saying you correct your dog when he is being a jack ass is pretty broad. I would think everyone has a different opinion of when a dog is being a jack ass enough to need a correction. I have said before on here that I was an over correcting ass when I got my dog. I am embarrassed to admit it. Looking back on it several things lead to it. I think the biggest contributor was the little work I did with my father’s GS. My father’s GS could care less about a correction. Then I got my dog who was much more handler sensitive. It didn’t take much for me to fall into the over correction category for my dog, but no excesses I was an ass. I never really used electric on my dog. He did have an e-collar on before a few times working with other trainers, but we never stuck with it. Last thing he needs is another correction method. 
That being said I have seen several dogs that loved to work like crazy that never seen a ball, tug, rag or treat. I think a good dog and a skilled trainer can get really far with very, very few corrections? If I was to do it over again or got another dog the corrections would be far and few. 
With that being said if a dog really has a job to do (mine does not) I really don’t care if it looks happy doing it. Some dogs don’t exactly look wag your tail happy ass to me, I would use the word “serious” if I was to describe how they look. 
The past three years I have been learning what I can about dogs and as a guy new to working dog stuff I thought I would be more impressed by what I seen. And the little I learned about breeders and breeding is really pathetic. Good breeders are far and few in between. The funny thing is they all think they are the one good one. Most are wrong.


----------



## Chris McDonald

What you describe there is the basis for most detection training done by police service dog trainers. Actually, the retrieve is the reward. Its' why the dog does everything else it's supposed to do, just to get the retrieve. That is the primary reinforcement. The secondary would be the pat on the head. IN PSD training we replace the "duck" with the ball. It's really that simple.

DFrost[/quote]


I was thinking that after I typed it, I just type to slow to go back and change things. What about herding dogs what was there reward? Im all for dogs being happy asses but I think some dogs I have seen are ball drunk. Look at some of those SCH dogs heeling. All they are doing is staring at the pocket with the ball in it. That’s just making a dog a retarted robot to me. Does everyone out there think this is a good thing? Is that really a thinking dog? Is that really good dog training? Could it be that the reward is over emphasized by some? Kind of like many have a different opinion on what compulsion training is. To me if you correct a dog a few times with an e-collar of a prong the dog has some compulsion training. But some will not say that.


----------



## Chris McDonald

Ted Efthymiadis said:


> Are you serious?
> 
> How can you even use the two at the same time?
> 
> When my buddies lab grabs a duck from the cold lake water, that's his reward.....
> When my narc dog alerts on crack, is the crack his reward? No, He's working for a tug....
> 
> 
> Your right bad example


----------



## Jackie Lockard

Chris McDonald said:


> Can you have a dog that loves what he is doing without the need for a ball? I think everyone has a bit of a different opinion on what compulsion training is. I think some would say that your correcting your dogs when you think they are being jack asses classifies you as compulsion training? Saying you correct your dog when he is being a jack ass is pretty broad. I would think everyone has a different opinion of when a dog is being a jack ass enough to need a correction.


Few and far between are the dogs that I see as truely working to be with their handler without the NEED of a reward. Most dogs (I say) LEARN that the work is a happy thing. I agree with you that a truely great trainer can train with very few corrections. Timing of reward has to be impecable, as well as clarity in the learning. To me compulsion training is the 'old school' 'yank and jerlk' with a choke chain and praise only as a reward, no food or toys or anything. I use motivational training WITH corrections. If someone classifies compulsion training as anything with corrections well then yea, I'm a compulsive trainer. Not my personal definition. I'm not afraid to use corrections as I seem fit nor am I afraid to admit that I'll use a pinch/choke/ecollar as I see fit. Everything has a time and place. 

Every dog I get I use fewer corrections because I can see more of MY errors and that they ARE my errors in communicating to my dog what I wished him to do. Each dog I'm more patient and have more clarity of when I can be patient (ie, the final result will come forward should I wait and continue working it through - often) OR when I really do need to push the dog to do his job (very rare). It's almost ALWAYS handler error but only with experience does expertise come. At least I hope all that makes sense and I'm communicating what I wanted.

I was more saying that I have nothing against corrections given the time or place, rather than making a point about when exactly a dog is being an ass. Of course everyone has their own opinion of dog manners and what is exactly good manners and what is not.




Chris McDonald said:


> Good breeders are far and few in between. The funny thing is they all think they are the one good one. Most are wrong.



True for everything in life. Everyone thinks they're always on the right side.


----------



## Chris McDonald

Mike Scheiber said:


> Least it wasn't the stupid video of yours of them dumb ass kids
> I has someone claiming they had a pup out of my Jett he has never sired a litter.
> Dog people ain't the sharpest bunch at least around here any way have you noticed some of the threads and replies lately.


If you’re talking about the video of the kids killing the dog or whatever they did, I didn’t bother watching it. I got the point without needing to watch. 
Your right, I have found groups of dog people to have good deal of dull knifes in the crowd, they all thing they are geniuses though. I’ll admit some of my threads and replies might put me in that crowed.


----------



## Anna Kasho

Ted Efthymiadis said:


> When my narc dog alerts on crack, is the crack his reward? No, He's working for a tug....


Totally OT-

I don't know if you realise how many people are totally convinced that these detection dogs are "made to be" drug addicts to be able to find the stuff? It's crazy... Has this EVER been done, way back in the dark ages?

I wish you could have seen my own mother freaking out when I mentioned I was training my mutt scent detection. :lol:


----------



## Chris McDonald

Anna Kasho said:


> Totally OT-
> 
> I don't know if you realise how many people are totally convinced that these detection dogs are "made to be" drug addicts to be able to find the stuff? It's crazy... Has this EVER been done, way back in the dark ages?
> 
> I wish you could have seen my own mother freaking out when I mentioned I was training my mutt scent detection. :lol:


Never heard this one, that’s funny. Might work?


----------



## Chris McDonald

Every dog I get I use fewer corrections because I can see more of MY errors and that they ARE my errors in communicating to my dog what I wished him to do. Each dog I'm more patient and have more clarity of when I can be patient (ie, the final result will come forward should I wait and continue working it through - often) OR when I really do need to push the dog to do his job (very rare). It's almost ALWAYS handler error but only with experience does expertise come. At least I hope all that makes sense and I'm communicating what I wanted.



I have learned a lot with my one dog and understand what you are saying. I need to get a few hundred more dogs under my belt before I think ill really get it though


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Jackie Lockard said:


> Every dog I get I use fewer corrections because I can see more of MY errors and that they ARE my errors in communicating to my dog what I wished him to do. Each dog I'm more patient and have more clarity of when I can be patient (ie, the final result will come forward should I wait and continue working it through - often) OR when I really do need to push the dog to do his job (very rare). It's almost ALWAYS handler error but only with experience does expertise come. At least I hope all that makes sense and I'm communicating what I wanted.


+1000. Seriously. I just did this today. I corrected my dog HARD during herding today because I lost my temper and my instructor was like "actually, that was your fault..." God, I felt like an ass.  I'm trying to be judicious with corrections, but restraint is really the better part of valor. I need to get this tattooed on my arm or something to remember... [-X 



> Let the trainer examine himself when the dog makes a mistake, or does not understand the exercise, or fails in obedience, and let him ask "Where am I at fault?" -- Capt. Max von Stephanitz


BTW, what are you training in, Chris?


----------



## David Frost

Anna Kasho said:


> Totally OT-
> 
> I don't know if you realise how many people are totally convinced that these detection dogs are "made to be" drug addicts to be able to find the stuff? It's crazy... Has this EVER been done, way back in the dark ages?
> 
> I wish you could have seen my own mother freaking out when I mentioned I was training my mutt scent detection. :lol:


I've been training drug dogs since 1969. That was when the Air Force first tried it. I was part of the group that conducted the feasibility study. I know we never did it, and I've never heard of it being done. I've been asked that many times, it's just not true.


----------



## David Frost

Reinforcement is a basic principle. How many of us would work without some sort of reinforcement. I don't do this for free. The dog isn't going to work without some sort of reinforcment. He may well be reinforcing himself, but if he's doing something we want, he's being reinforced.

DFrost


----------



## Chris McDonald

Maren Bell Jones said:


> +1000. Seriously. I just did this today. I corrected my dog HARD during herding today because I lost my temper and my instructor was like "actually, that was your fault..." God, I felt like an ass.  I'm trying to be judicious with corrections, but restraint is really the better part of valor. I need to get this tattooed on my arm or something to remember... [-X
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, what are you training in, Chris?


No sport if that is what you mean, I have a few SCH groups around but after watching them for a while I decided I would rather watch paint dry. I goof around with a little bit of everything but am a master at nothing. I do everything just enough to keep my dog confused as to what we are supposed to be doing. He usually tries like hell. And if I am actually consistent in what I ask he usually is pretty good at it. Him an I will climb stuff to just see if we can, he has done a good deal of narcotics in the past, we will do some tracking and article searches as well as some bite work here and there. As far as article’s we were doing some discrimination work. For example I can put one of each of my two daughter’s socks in a zip lock then dump each sock in the yard someplace. Then take my dog out and let him “check” the zip lock and he would bring back the sock that was in that bag. Every time he does it I am amazed at a dogs nose. I get to watch/work with a few LE teams and many of them say they are asked to do too much as a k9 team. But I think if I actually worked with my dog the 4 or five hours a week they are supposed to train whit there dog we would really be able to do a lot. Due to the inconsistent amount of time I actually work with my dog we are often taking 2 steps forward and 3 backward.


----------



## mike suttle

Just out of curiosity Chris, do you reward your dog with anything when he alerts to the odor of narcotics? What is his final response to odor?


----------



## Christopher Jones

Its like a question I heard at a detection seminar. A guy was using a tennis ball as a reward for his drug dog. A guy asked how would his dog go searching a tennis ball factory for drugs?


----------



## David Frost

Christopher Jones said:


> Its like a question I heard at a detection seminar. A guy was using a tennis ball as a reward for his drug dog. A guy asked how would his dog go searching a tennis ball factory for drugs?


He'd keep right on searching until he found drugs, then he'd get his tennis ball. the dog isn't trained to find tennis balls.

DFrost


----------



## Christopher Jones

David Frost said:


> He'd keep right on searching until he found drugs, then he'd get his tennis ball. the dog isn't trained to find tennis balls.
> 
> DFrost


Wouldnt that be determined by the reward itself? If the drugs were inside the ball, similar to drugs in a pipe, I could see how the the dog would search for the drugs. But if the ball reward is used after the scent is found, making the ball the end result and the goal, wouldnt the tennis balls become the attraction and not the drug smell to get to them? I dont have any real knowedge about detection training, but this question did get a bit of discussion, with some trainers leading one way, and others the other. I havn't put it into practise myself, so I dont know. :-k


----------



## David Frost

If you are talking about a dog that is currently in intial training, you might have a problem. If you are talking about a dog that is trained, certified and working, it shouldn't be a problem. I don't put training aids inside a ball, towel, toy etc. I don't scent the toys/tug etc either. Basically, the dog is trained to give a response to the drug, then he gets his toy/tug/ball. Most people don't get paid until they've worked. Nothing different with rewarding behavior. The reward doesn't come until the work is completed. 

DFrost


----------



## Geoff Empey

To me it is the loosey goosey thinking that throws people off of the 'training plan'. People always always seem make things way more complicated than it needs to be. It is in the attitude that you bring to the dog while keeping it black and white for the dog. 

We had a experienced high level decoy from France come and train with us last year and he was baffled by all the multiple ropes, bungees, e-collars on bellies, prongs etc. He was saying most of the dogs that he trains are brought to high level exercises by a short leash on a fursavor and a ball. 

Chris to answer your question about how weak the Dog World is. IMO it is not how weak it is, it is sifting through the crap to find the diamond in the crap. A lot of people in the dog world IMO rely on 'hype' to build business instead of just doing the work and just take the easy way out. Buying imported titled dogs or basing things on what they did 1/2 assed 10 years ago. But that being said there is lots of good people out there doing great work breeding training whatever there is just as many dog people out there who are 'NOT' weak, but they don't pimp themselves out anymore than they have to. Mostly it is all done by word of mouth.


----------



## Chris McDonald

mike suttle said:


> Just out of curiosity Chris, do you reward your dog with anything when he alerts to the odor of narcotics? What is his final response to odor?


He gets praise. He has done some of the rag stuff in the past, depending on who we were working with. As far as final response, he will scratch or “dig it up”. I think that’s what you’re asking. That was taught to him when working with NJ LE. It is the way they do things for legal reasons, they need some sort of an active alert


----------



## Chris McDonald

Geoff Empey said:


> To me it is the loosey goosey thinking that throws people off of the 'training plan'. People always always seem make things way more complicated than it needs to be. It is in the attitude that you bring to the dog while keeping it black and white for the dog.
> 
> We had a experienced high level decoy from France come and train with us last year and he was baffled by all the multiple ropes, bungees, e-collars on bellies, prongs etc. He was saying most of the dogs that he trains are brought to high level exercises by a short leash on a fursavor and a ball.
> 
> Chris to answer your question about how weak the Dog World is. IMO it is not how weak it is, it is sifting through the crap to find the diamond in the crap. A lot of people in the dog world IMO rely on 'hype' to build business instead of just doing the work and just take the easy way out. Buying imported titled dogs or basing things on what they did 1/2 assed 10 years ago. But that being said there is lots of good people out there doing great work breeding training whatever there is just as many dog people out there who are 'NOT' weak, but they don't pimp themselves out anymore than they have to. Mostly it is all done by word of mouth.


Man I sifting through crap. Im sure there is some great stuff out there. I still have to laugh at the guy who says they have been in business for 32 years and has to put dogs that are not theirs on their site.


----------



## Guest

Christopher Jones said:


> Wouldnt that be determined by the reward itself? If the drugs were inside the ball, similar to drugs in a pipe, I could see how the the dog would search for the drugs. But if the ball reward is used after the scent is found, making the ball the end result and the goal, wouldnt the tennis balls become the attraction and not the drug smell to get to them? I dont have any real knowedge about detection training, but this question did get a bit of discussion, with some trainers leading one way, and others the other. I havn't put it into practise myself, so I dont know. :-k


"...Ignore the reward to get the reward"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJHKWEa8DhE

http://www.alphak9.com/gallery/Vidoe-Clips/TAPE_PROMO


----------



## Ted Efthymiadis

I like your point, in a day and age when most people rely on tools and food and toys...
How did the hunters 1000's of years ago train those dogs????

I think the main difference is the look of the work.

I can make a dog do pretty much anything..... but I pasted that stage years ago. 
I hate seeing dogs doing the work with little willingness to do the work. I find I can get a dog motivated to work for something, much better than motivating a dog to work just for a pat on the head. 

It's simple. 

If you ask me to sit in a chair, I will.
If you ask me to sit in a chair for $50, I will sit in the sit, and I will sit with faster speed, looking to you for the $50.

I like a flashy dog.... so that's why I use anything that will take me to that level, not because the dog will not do the work without a toy, but because I want him to look really darn good doing the work.


----------



## David Frost

Chris McDonald said:


> That was taught to him when working with NJ LE. It is the way they do things for legal reasons, they need some sort of an active alert


The term you are looking for is "recognizable". It's a terminology thing. A response is what they do. That response might be: Aggressive/Active or Passive. Active/aggressive means basically to bite, scratch/attempt to retrieve. Passive means to sit/down/point etc. It order for it to be a response it must be observable, recognizable and consistent. Legally, the type of response is not specifically identified. At least not in court decisions I'm aware of. 

DFrost


----------



## Christopher Jones

Steven Lepic said:


> "...Ignore the reward to get the reward"
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJHKWEa8DhE
> 
> http://www.alphak9.com/gallery/Vidoe-Clips/TAPE_PROMO


Thanks, that was interesting. Thats the thing about detection training. Anyone can make a dog scent for his reward, Ive done it heaps of times with "drugs" in PVC pipes. But unless you are constantly doing it in real world seeing all the possible things that can put your dog off or false alert its impossible to really say you have any idea about how to actually train a HIGH QUALITY detection dog. I was talking to a well known Dutch Police explosives trainer and he was saying they use metal pipes for the dogs rewards, but then they have to eliminate false hits on the cutting fluids used to put the threads on the ends of the pipes and so it went on. It really is alot of work, interesting tho.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall

Ted Efthymiadis said:


> I like your point, in a day and age when most people rely on tools and food and toys...
> How did the hunters 1000's of years ago train those dogs????
> 
> I think the main difference is the look of the work.


I think it's more then that. "way back when", dogs were tools used to perform a job. The dogs that did it, survived, the ones that didn't were "cut loose" or killed. People couldn't afford to keep a dog around that wasn't serving the needed purpose. 

Now days people mainly have their dogs as pets or hobbies. They do what needs to be done to gain success in their choosen hobby with the dog, or just to make the dog a good liveable pet. Some people use the dogs as tools, but due to the expense of purchasing and training up that tool, more is put into doing what can be done to make sure it works. But there are also a lot more dogs being used as tools today then there used to be, 150 years ago dogs were just starting to be used in police work in many places, now they are regular assets to departments, with a wide range of jobs (not to many drug sniffing dogs 150 years ago).

I was talking a couple years ago with someone at herding. The trainer had suggested multiple times the owner consider using an e-collar to fix a problem with his dog. His response was "my ancestors 100 years ago in Scotland didn't use e-collars and their dogs did the work, if they didn't need them, I don't either". I looked at him and said "your ancestors also took any dog who didn't work behind the barn and shot it or cracked it in the head with a shovel, do you plan to do that to?" A few weeks later I saw his dog with an e-collar on LOL

How many hunters back in the day broke their dogs off "trash" using buckshot? Is that really preferable to an e-collar?

There are some very solid training techniques that come from "way back when", but sometimes I think people look at "way back when" through rose colored glasses.


----------



## Patrick Murray

David Frost said:


> I've been called an SOB by everyone I've ever put through training


Not just by them, David. :wink::mrgreen:


----------



## David Frost

Patrick Murray said:


> Not just by them, David. :wink::mrgreen:


yeah, but it only hurts when you care who says it. ha ha.

DFrost


----------



## kristin tresidder

Kadi Thingvall said:


> I was talking a couple years ago with someone at herding. The trainer had suggested multiple times the owner consider using an e-collar to fix a problem with his dog. His response was "my ancestors 100 years ago in Scotland didn't use e-collars and their dogs did the work, if they didn't need them, I don't either". I looked at him and said "your ancestors also took any dog who didn't work behind the barn and shot it or cracked it in the head with a shovel, do you plan to do that to?" A few weeks later I saw his dog with an e-collar on




of course, that does little for the 'who had the better dog' argument from the modern day perspective... culling the weak & non-proficient from any program has never been a detrimental thing in the pursuit of breeding better dogs. and i also fully believe that it is possible to train w/out an e-collar - slower & more frustrating maybe, but entirely possible. i guess that goes back to the 'in a hurry' mentality i mentioned earlier...


----------



## Kadi Thingvall

kristin tresidder said:


> of course, that does little for the 'who had the better dog' argument from the modern day perspective... culling the weak & non-proficient from any program has never been a detrimental thing in the pursuit of breeding better dogs.


I was talking about the dogs performing their jobs, not about breeding them. There are many dogs out there now, and 'way back when' who could perform their jobs, but weren't necessarily good candidates for breeding.



> and i also fully believe that it is possible to train w/out an e-collar - slower & more frustrating maybe, but entirely possible.


True, but if there are tools available that will make a job easier, why not use them? How many dogs took a one way trip out into the back pasture that might have been productive workers if people then had some of the technology we have now?



> i guess that goes back to the 'in a hurry' mentality i mentioned earlier...


Is a farmer "in a hurry" because he uses a tractor to plow his fields instead of a horse, or a combine to harvest the crops instead of a scythe? Or is he taking advantage of technology to get a job done in a more time efficient manner?

I'm not saying the e-collar is the only way to go, I only use it sparingly myself, but I don't think people who refuse to use an e-collar are somehow 'better' then people who do use it, just because nobody used them 150 years ago. I also don't believe people who use e-collars only do so because they are 'in a hurry'.


----------



## David Ruby

Kadi Thingvall said:


> I think it's more then that. "way back when", dogs were tools used to perform a job. The dogs that did it, survived, the ones that didn't were "cut loose" or killed. People couldn't afford to keep a dog around that wasn't serving the needed purpose.
> 
> Now days people mainly have their dogs as pets or hobbies. They do what needs to be done to gain success in their choosen hobby with the dog, or just to make the dog a good liveable pet. Some people use the dogs as tools, but due to the expense of purchasing and training up that tool, more is put into doing what can be done to make sure it works. But there are also a lot more dogs being used as tools today then there used to be, 150 years ago dogs were just starting to be used in police work in many places, now they are regular assets to departments, with a wide range of jobs (not to many drug sniffing dogs 150 years ago).
> 
> I was talking a couple years ago with someone at herding. The trainer had suggested multiple times the owner consider using an e-collar to fix a problem with his dog. His response was "my ancestors 100 years ago in Scotland didn't use e-collars and their dogs did the work, if they didn't need them, I don't either". I looked at him and said "your ancestors also took any dog who didn't work behind the barn and shot it or cracked it in the head with a shovel, do you plan to do that to?" A few weeks later I saw his dog with an e-collar on LOL
> 
> How many hunters back in the day broke their dogs off "trash" using buckshot? Is that really preferable to an e-collar?
> 
> There are some very solid training techniques that come from "way back when", but sometimes I think people look at "way back when" through rose colored glasses.


Not that my novice opinion counts for squat, but that makes sense to me. I fall squarely in the middle on this one. I don't mind Koehler methods (or the compulsion-and-praise sort of training) from what I know of them IF done fairly and consistently. It's black and white, and it can be very positive from what I've seen. I prefer my dog's rewards be less about a pay off than be about pleasing me a/o our bond a/o working together. That said, I think it's easy to abuse that (intentionally or not), it's easy to reminisce about the good ole days when there is something to be said for progress in some instances, and when you're new it's probably easier to over- or unfairly-correct your dog when you're the one screwing up (which in my case has probably been me, particularly in learning to work with dogs. My current venue requires I use a milder system than what I originally learned based on the trainer if nothing else, and it's working fine for my current dog. She seems much more excited by it, so you could argue it's working much better, and I can't argue with the results. Still, as long as I was being being clear to my dog and fair, and it worked, if I was using my dog for an actual job I'd be fine with either, and to some extent ultimately just want the subject to sit in the chair; I could care less if they do it with flash because they know they get a perk for doing so, however I don't want them to be all emo/depressed about it either. I also do like the dog to work for whatever reward given, whether that's me throwing a bit of hotdog at her or me just giving some genuine praise for doing what was asked. I treat them both as being of equal value. Maybe just because I'm stupid like that.

I'm guessing my training approach will kind of depend on what the dog needs. As long as it's pretty black-and-white in my mind so I can be consistent I'm guessing most dogs can adjust to that. I think in pretty straight-forward terms, and try to somehow reward good behavior and correct negative behavior consistently, plus be aware of how I might have screwed up so I can make that as much a non-factor as possible. In a few decades and a few dogs from now, I guess we'll see how I do and if my theory works out for me.

-Cheers


----------



## Denise Gatlin

Kadi Thingvall said:


> I was talking about the dogs performing their jobs, not about breeding them. There are many dogs out there now, and 'way back when' who could perform their jobs, but weren't necessarily good candidates for breeding.
> 
> Exactly. But there are many sporting dogs with average ability that are forced to perform through whatever extenuous methods and title, then ultimately bred and/or studded out based on those titles. Yeh, he may have high degree titles but genetically he is still average so, therefore, he likely produces average offspring. I have seen this many many times.


----------



## Geoff Empey

Denise Gatlin said:


> But there are many sporting dogs with average ability that are forced to perform through whatever extenuous methods and title, then ultimately bred and/or studded out based on those titles. Yeh, he may have high degree titles but genetically he is still average so, therefore, he likely produces average offspring. I have seen this many many times.



Which begs the question 'how' does one measure genetics? 

Originally the Schutzhund and Ringsport (and in some of these sports still) were used as measuring tapes of a dog's breed worthiness. 

In Alberta Canada there is a whitefish fishery that is under attack genetically by the harvesting of the biggest and best fish. Now that they are being continuously glutted of the biggest fish the smaller fish are reproducing with in the end smaller adult sizes. This is the same phenomena that is happening with hunters harvesting wild sheep with the biggest horns. The sheep with the smaller horns get to reproduce as they are not as desirable on someones trophy wall and the cycle of smaller and smaller horns prevails. I found the article very interesting. 

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100501/national/whitefish_evolution


----------



## Mike Lauer

A couple people have touched on this indirectly but I see one of the major weaknesses in dog training to be "teaching to the test."
Most clubs I see teach only what the trial entails. Someone mentioned teaching a dog to crawl the other day and someone was against that as they may crawl during a down at a trial. 

I trained my first dog to do all sorts of useless things because i enjoyed teaching her things and she seemed to enjoy learning them.
I will probably trial my new dog but i wouldn't be unhappy if he lost some points here or there because he knew something else or read a situation differently


----------



## Jim Nash

I started off training using the Koehler method mainly with hunting dogs and pets . I got good results and it's still a tool in my tool box . 

I've also started out my K9 career with PSD K9 that had a very low drive for toys . He was a great PSD for searching badguys . Tracked and airscented and fought badguys awesome . The hunt for man was a huge motivator and he was one of our best K9s at the time . BUT the other requirements of his job (narc. searches , article searches , sharp OB ) were very hard to train to a high level because of this . I got him there through alot of hard work and made alot of great finds , (guns , dope , evidence , etc. .) . 

I was able to improve it even further in his later years when he developed Pancreatic Endocrine Insuficciency and he was suddenly hungry all the time . I could then train using food for certain things . He then through watching my kids throw things around the yard developed a retrieve drive out of the blue in the last couple of years of his career . I was also able to use that to improve upon things . 

I have trained hundreds of PSDs in many areas of work ( biteworkwork , evidence recovery , formal and tactical obediance , tracking , area search , narc and bomb detection , agility work , etc. ) and what I've learned through the years and many dogs , is that using as much motivational in my training (and I find most are more motivated by toys [retreiving or tugging]) in their INITIAL (foundational) training , gets me the best performances . 

Chris , honestly when I hear you and others talk about how a dog should just be doing it for the work , owner and praise (I WAS ONE OF THOSE BY THE WAY AT ONE TIME), I put those people in the same catagory as the ones who think dogs should ONLY be trained through purely positive methods .

I have no doubt you saw great dogs in that facility using just those methods and that's a credit to them . I think very few trainers can get such good results training the way they do and I think their preaching is harmful to your average K9 handler listening to them . Because most can pull off what they do . But it's also my opinion that those same folks could bring their training to even higher levels if they opened up their minds to other ways of training . 

My training improved leaps and bounds when I open my mind to other things . I can still be a hardcore prick with dogs that require it but I can also be a fun loving clown with others that respond better to that . I still use complusive methods but in short find that using as motivational as possible methods as long as possible in my initial training , before I have to start using corrections or compulsion get me a better product . 

I preached strongly almost word for word what you said in the original post and have come to try and continue to use training methods and I swore I never would . The only training method I still haven't used that I swore never to do was spit food at a dog . That may change if I find a dog or training situation that it would help . I hope not . I don't like being a 100% hypocrite , plus I think it just looks silly too .


----------



## Denise Gatlin

Geoff Empey said:


> Which begs the question 'how' does one measure genetics?
> 
> Good question. What I am referring to is what the 'natural' genetic ability/drive....the dog has, not what he is 'forced' to achieve. I have witnessed sport dogs hooked up to just about every sort of contraption or gadget there is to force train it to do what it 'naturally' would not do. Granted, once a dog is trained and is capable and knows what he is supposed to achieve, then compulsion, IMHO, is a correction tool, not a training tool. This is what I perceive anyway. Needless to say, I no longer participate with my dogs in such venues because it ultimately involved achieving titles inguinely. Not to say that there arent clubs elsewhere that support well-bred dogs achieve high goals.


----------



## David Ruby

David Frost said:


> Reinforcement is a basic principle. How many of us would work without some sort of reinforcement. I don't do this for free. The dog isn't going to work without some sort of reinforcment. He may well be reinforcing himself, but if he's doing something we want, he's being reinforced.
> 
> DFrost


That's true (or at least I believe it to be), however what is your experience with praise being the reinforcement/reward?

I tend to side with Don's take in this. I like the idea of the dog working for my praise, rather than for my leftovers. I don't think I have a God complex or anything, I just like the focus of the reward/punishment system to be me, not so much the Milk Bone and the prong collar. Sure, those are tools, but I do like the idea of stripping all of that stuff away and it being about me and the dog.

If I'm wrong, feel free to lay into me. However, I've seen dogs that work just fine, and happily (maybe not as flashy, but let's pretend I don't inherently care about that, although I do care about the dog's well being and mental state), with a respectful/team mentality with their only reward being the genuine praise of the handler.

-Cheers


----------



## Chris McDonald

Mike Lauer said:


> A couple people have touched on this indirectly but I see one of the major weaknesses in dog training to be "teaching to the test."
> Most clubs I see teach only what the trial entails. Someone mentioned teaching a dog to crawl the other day and someone was against that as they may crawl during a down at a trial.
> 
> I trained my first dog to do all sorts of useless things because i enjoyed teaching her things and she seemed to enjoy learning them.
> I will probably trial my new dog but i wouldn't be unhappy if he lost some points here or there because he knew something else or read a situation differently


 
ya what he said


----------



## Chris McDonald

David Ruby said:


> That's true (or at least I believe it to be), however what is your experience with praise being the reinforcement/reward?
> 
> I tend to side with Don's take in this. I like the idea of the dog working for my praise, rather than for my leftovers. I don't think I have a God complex or anything, I just like the focus of the reward/punishment system to be me, not so much the Milk Bone and the prong collar. Sure, those are tools, but I do like the idea of stripping all of that stuff away and it being about me and the dog.
> 
> If I'm wrong, feel free to lay into me. However, I've seen dogs that work just fine, and happily (maybe not as flashy, but let's pretend I don't inherently care about that, although I do care about the dog's well being and mental state), with a respectful/team mentality with their only reward being the genuine praise of the handler.
> 
> -Cheers


and what he said too


----------



## Chris McDonald

David Frost said:


> The term you are looking for is "recognizable". It's a terminology thing. A response is what they do. That response might be: Aggressive/Active or Passive. Active/aggressive means basically to bite, scratch/attempt to retrieve. Passive means to sit/down/point etc. It order for it to be a response it must be observable, recognizable and consistent. Legally, the type of response is not specifically identified. At least not in court decisions I'm aware of.
> 
> DFrost


that is the term ya your right


----------



## Ben Colbert

Many people would argue that if a dog is physically corrected but only receives verbal praise as a reward then the verbal reward isn't really a reward. The verbal praise becaomes a sign to the dog that punishment is unlikely. This is why it appears that a compulsively trained dog will work for praise. The dog isn't working for praise, he's working for a absence of punishment.


----------



## Chris McDonald

Ben Colbert said:


> Many people would argue that if a dog is physically corrected but only receives verbal praise as a reward then the verbal reward isn't really a reward. The verbal praise becaomes a sign to the dog that punishment is unlikely. This is why it appears that a compulsively trained dog will work for praise. The dog isn't working for praise, he's working for a absence of punishment.


I think this is bull shit, some dogs don’t mind getting corrected all too much and they still work hard for their owner. It just better be a skilled owner. My *** greyhound never received a correction other than verbal and for the amount of time I but in with him he is an alright dog. Loves to track and never received a reward other that a pet and “good work”. I don’t even know if he knows why he is tracking but he just can’t help himself. He is OK at real basic obedience for the amount of time I have into him, He does have a bit of FU hound in him, and he has the nerves of the guys in “one flew over the cockoos nest”. If I use any thing but a happy ass voice he gives a big FU, Granted he aint winning a title in some dog sport but for what he is, he is all right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJTLFEQ-XQ8 that’s him at 3:20 in. No lead and staying close to me because I am asking him to. Finds the kid in the woods and all I say is good seek. The only reason this dog will do anything is because he wants to. He is not food driven and he was never bribed with treats and he would drop dead if you ever tried to correct him or use electric on him. Has zero ball drive and aint in to tugging. Shit, what a piece of crap now that I think of it. 
I know it is nothing special and I guess the argument is that he might be better at obedience if I did raise him with treat bribes? I forgot what the hell I was getting at………. Oh ya it is fair to say this dog has no compulsion training but still tries to do things because I asked him to. Until he gives me a big FU of course


----------



## Chris McDonald

David Frost said:


> Reinforcement is a basic principle. How many of us would work without some sort of reinforcement. I don't do this for free. The dog isn't going to work without some sort of reinforcment. He may well be reinforcing himself, but if he's doing something we want, he's being reinforced.
> 
> DFrost


I really don’t know what you mean by Reinforcement or reinforcing himself. Or your question of “how many of us would work without some sort of reinforcement”? I don’t know exactly what you mean here but I have worked hard on lots of things for my own satisfaction. Kind of sounds like a question a government employee would ask to me. :grin: :-\"


----------



## Chris McDonald

I preached strongly almost word for word what you said in the original post and have come to try and continue to use training methods and I swore I never would . The only training method I still haven't used that I swore never to do was spit food at a dog . That may change if I find a dog or training situation that it would help . I hope not . I don't like being a 100% hypocrite , plus I think it just looks silly too . [/quote]

Good points Jim, like I said I need to get a bunch more dogs under my belt (poor dogs). I have just started getting my feet wet.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Ben Colbert said:


> Many people would argue that if a dog is physically corrected but only receives verbal praise as a reward then the verbal reward isn't really a reward. The verbal praise becaomes a sign to the dog that punishment is unlikely. This is why it appears that a compulsively trained dog will work for praise. The dog isn't working for praise, he's working for a absence of punishment.


I think I got you figured out Ben. You make all these BS statements just to see what people say. Pretty clever. If you were by chance serious, you need to work dogs like the one David made reference to. My dogs know the drill, they just blow me off when they want to.....Something Jennifer is experiencing with Jager. The more you compulse, the less like that they will do it for you. I have spent years watching folks try to train these dogs with clickers and posi and other methods. The easiest one I have ever seen trained, and he wa easy, was using Koehler. What most people don't understand is that it isn't about compulsion. It is setting the dog up in repeated scenarios that the dog makes his own mind up that he would rather follow the program than stand you off every time.


----------



## David Ruby

Ben Colbert said:


> Many people would argue that if a dog is physically corrected but only receives verbal praise as a reward then the verbal reward isn't really a reward. The verbal praise becaomes a sign to the dog that punishment is unlikely. This is why it appears that a compulsively trained dog will work for praise. The dog isn't working for praise, he's working for a absence of punishment.


Name one. Or rather, name one that has actually trained that way and still sees it as you are describing.

If the dog is working for the absence of punishment, then why do they wag their tails and get excited? It's not all that different from little kids, or even adult humans, that give a crap about what people they respect think of them. Interesting theory, but I call bunk on this one. It is just too easy to disprove. All you need is one dog that has a decent or better bond with its handler and gives a crap what its handler thinks. An absence-of-punishment response will be more neutral, not showing the excitement I've seen.

-Cheers


----------



## Pamella Renaldi

Chris McDonald said:


> Every dog I get I use fewer corrections because I can see more of MY errors and that they ARE my errors in communicating to my dog what I wished him to do. Each dog I'm more patient and have more clarity of when I can be patient (ie, the final result will come forward should I wait and continue working it through - often) OR when I really do need to push the dog to do his job (very rare). It's almost ALWAYS handler error but only with experience does expertise come. At least I hope all that makes sense and I'm communicating what I wanted.
> 
> 
> 
> I have learned a lot with my one dog and understand what you are saying. I need to get a few hundred more dogs under my belt before I think ill really get it though


I agree. As long as someone is open minded and willing to learn from their own mistakes they can become better handler.


----------



## David Ruby

Don Turnipseed said:


> My dogs know the drill, they just blow me off when they want to.....Something Jennifer is experiencing with Jager. The more you compulse, the less like that they will do it for you. I have spent years watching folks try to train these dogs with clickers and posi and other methods. The easiest one I have ever seen trained, and he wa easy, was using Koehler. What most people don't understand is that it isn't about compulsion. It is setting the dog up in repeated scenarios that the dog makes his own mind up that he would rather follow the program than stand you off every time.


Exactly! The correction is just a consequence. Eventually, the dog gets the idea that he's going to have to do it. They can putz around and get dozens of pops on the leash until they do whatever, or they can just do it, get the reward, and move on. At some point it's not worth telling you to F-off if mom or dad are just going to make you do it anyway. The praise & compulsion are just you telling the dog when it's not doing what you are telling it to do, and the praise is the "yes, you did it" sort of thing. Either way, you just out-persist the dog, then build them up and praise the hell out of them so they feel good about it and know they pleased you.

Maybe it doesn't work for every dog, I don't actually know from experience. I have yet to see the trainers I've gotten to watch use said techniques have a dog that it DIDN'T work with unless the dog was wired wrong, or the handlers didn't get it. They're honest enough, and flexible enough, to tell me if there are dogs that fit into that category and what they did differently, I just haven't specifically asked or anything and they treat each dog as an individual so it's totally possible. But I agree with Don; in my limited experience, it's about making the situation clear to the dog so they decide it's not worth it to NOT blow you off (a/o that it's beneficial to do what you ask of them, depending on how you approach it) and then react how you want/train them to.

-Cheers


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Quick example of how Koehler works David. Heel and long line work with a 20' line. You don't try to make the dog stay in a heel. You use a long line and start walking. There is no praise or correction. The dog is at the end of the line, you make a quick 90 and never slow down. The dog may take a tumble. After doing this in short seesions for a few days, the dog is has decided he better pay attention to what you are doing. After that, you keep the sessions going and gradually shorten the line. Eventually, he is walking right where you want him to simply because he really had no choice and was never in a position he could challenge you in. The system is made for the hard, mind of his own dog. No corrections really, no yelling...poker face..... but the dog decides what he need to do to keep with the program.


----------



## Jackie Lockard

Don Turnipseed said:


> Quick example of how Koehler works David. Heel and long line work with a 20' line. You don't try to make the dog stay in a heel. You use a long line and start walking. There is no praise or correction. The dog is at the end of the line, you make a quick 90 and never slow down. The dog may take a tumble. After doing this in short seesions for a few days, the dog is has decided he better pay attention to what you are doing. After that, you keep the sessions going and gradually shorten the line. Eventually, he is walking right where you want him to simply because he really had no choice and was never in a position he could challenge you in. The system is made for the hard, mind of his own dog. No corrections really, no yelling...poker face..... but the dog decides what he need to do to keep with the program.



You may not 'try' to make the dog stay in a heel but that's what you're doing. How can you possibly rip a dog off its feet and NOT call it a correction? Just because you have a straight face and aren't yelling NO???

If it works for you it works for you, but it still IS what it is.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

It does work well this this type of dog. I don't consider it a correction, because there is no command for himto blow you off.....but I am amused by your "Rip the dog off his feet". It doesn't take but a few times and the dog actually starts paying attention to what you are doing. At this point, that is what the foundation is about. This type of dog will blow you off even when he knows the command...besides, you said "I can use compulsion when needed" So what's the big deal.


----------



## Adi Ibrahimbegovic

i believe you may be overthining this too much and getting a bit philosophical. Dogs see things in black and white, not with phychological analysis and pondering. You don't get a paycheck at work before you do your thing (although it would be nice!), but after.

If it's a green dog going through the paces, well, yeah, he's not 100% sure of his task he would be confused. The dog that is already trained will find the dope, then we talk about a party thrown for ya.



Christopher Jones said:


> Wouldnt that be determined by the reward itself? If the drugs were inside the ball, similar to drugs in a pipe, I could see how the the dog would search for the drugs. But if the ball reward is used after the scent is found, making the ball the end result and the goal, wouldnt the tennis balls become the attraction and not the drug smell to get to them? I dont have any real knowedge about detection training, but this question did get a bit of discussion, with some trainers leading one way, and others the other. I havn't put it into practise myself, so I dont know. :-k


----------



## Jackie Lockard

Don Turnipseed said:


> ...but I am amused by your "Rip the dog off his feet".


That was my point. Doesn't matter how it's worded you're still knocking his feet from under him. You can word it 'ripping a dog off his feet' OR 'well, he may take a tumble' but you can't bother to sugarcoat the principal of the theory. That is, catching the dog off-guard with a swift leash correction which lets them know they missed the boat (hitting the end of the leash instead of following you).

I use a mild version of this method to leash train all my dogs. I understand how it's used and the type of dog that you're talking about. My "deal" was not calling that a correction just because you aren't saying no?? I don't understand that - there is still a high level of pressure on the collar in a snap/jerk motion and how is that NOT a correction just because there is no specific command associated with it (yet)??

If I was walking a dog that started barking at a squirrel and wordlessly yanked the leash with a straight face is that not a correction?


----------



## David Ruby

Don Turnipseed said:


> Quick example of how Koehler works David. Heel and long line work with a 20' line. You don't try to make the dog stay in a heel. You use a long line and start walking. There is no praise or correction. The dog is at the end of the line, you make a quick 90 and never slow down. The dog may take a tumble. After doing this in short seesions for a few days, the dog is has decided he better pay attention to what you are doing. After that, you keep the sessions going and gradually shorten the line. Eventually, he is walking right where you want him to simply because he really had no choice and was never in a position he could challenge you in. The system is made for the hard, mind of his own dog. No corrections really, no yelling...poker face..... but the dog decides what he need to do to keep with the program.


Yep. That's more or less how I learned it. It wasn't called Koehler, but more or less exactly. Just natural consequences. Once they know what they're doing, you correct/reward it. But yeah, that's how my trainer taught me to teach my parents' Dachshunds to heel (which worked alright except my parents never kept up with it, and, well, they're Dachschunds  most bone headed dogs ever, yet strangely endearing for that property, I kind of respect that level of stubbornness for some idiot reason on my part).



Jackie Lockard said:


> You may not 'try' to make the dog stay in a heel but that's what you're doing. How can you possibly rip a dog off its feet and NOT call it a correction? Just because you have a straight face and aren't yelling NO???
> 
> If it works for you it works for you, but it still IS what it is.


If you walk to the fridge and the dog walks under your feet, is that a correction? Is it a correction if a dog/wolf/lion/whatever is hunting and gets stepped on by a boar/bear/moose/whatever because it doesn't react to its quarry (maybe not the best examples, but bear with me)? Or if your kid sticks their finger in a light socket and gets zapped without you yelling at them? No, it's a natural consequence; call it a correction, that's not terribly inaccurate, but at that point it's just telling (or creating situations that make it abundantly clear to) the dog (or kid) that X happens so be aware of it because you have control over whether it results in Y or Z. Similar to if you get up, walk to the bathroom, close the door, and the dog gets its nose smacked for sticking it in the way of the door. It's just a natural, predictable manner in which things happen. The dog can either heel/move/not-stick-its-nose-in-the-doorway, or suffer the same, natural consequences EVERY SINGLE TIME. It makes more sense to go with the former, and almost no sense to go with the latter (unless the dog can outlast you and has some motivation to try and do so).

And you don't rip the dog off its feet. Presuming Don and I are talking about the same thing (and I think we are) you just walk and change direction, just like you'd do if you went for a walk around the block. The natural consequence is, hey, you aren't watching and get a moderate nudge. You aren't sprinting then doing a Barry Sanders cut to the sidelines. In my experience, it's just a natural movement relative to how/what you are training, not trying to F the dog up or win some artificial game by doing stupid stuff to see how much you can abuse the situation or trick the dog. If the dog's paying attention and does what it's supposed to, great. If not, it gets a slight jolt and figures out pretty quick. Either way, there's a difference between a dog obeying the laws of physics vs. obeying your verbal command and then expecting & receiving a reward/praise or a correction.

So that's why what Don is describing isn't a correction, but in my mind a precursor to a correction and just laying the groundwork. If I'm describing it wrong, Don can chime in, I'd definitely listen.

-Cheers


----------



## Guest

Mutual clarity occurs when you lay a foundation of a simple and mutually understood language.

A= Reinforced for correctness
B = Reinforcement witheld for confusion
C= Punishment for unwanted behavior

A and B can take you really, really far.

Taking a _naive_ dog off his feet is just as retarded as stimming outta nowhere ala Fred and Lou.

Key word naive. 

And retarded.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

I am easy, call it a correction if that suits you. The dog isn't being given a command he can sit and refuse to do. It is kind of like letting the dog run loose on an acre of cactus. He has a choice. He can run into them all day or he can go around them. So, if he runs into them is that a correction? The only difference is you don't have hold of the leash....but he learns that isn't confortable.....and he learns it quicker than any other method I have seen because he isn't trying to understand anything you are saying at this point. He avoids the end of the leash just like he will avoid the cactus. 
I admit I have seen that the majority of dogs...puppies...get stressed to the point they hug your leg and sit on your foot so you can't get away from them. They get over that pdq if you just keep walking. The dogs I am talking about take the full course and yopu reel them in a bit at a time. Now here is a question. Is it better to get the dogs attention and relieve the stress quick....or is it better to be gentle and prolong the stress to the end. That question pertains to the dogs that stress more. Personally, I thing the person shouting at the end of the leash is more stressfull than this methios


----------



## David Ruby

Steven Lepic said:


> Mutual clarity occurs when you lay a foundation of a simple and mutually understood language.
> 
> A= Reinforced for correctness
> B = Reinforcement witheld for confusion
> C= Punishment for unwanted behavior
> 
> A and B can take you really, really far.
> 
> Taking a _naive_ dog off his feet is just as retarded as stimming outta nowhere ala Fred and Lou.
> 
> Key word naive.
> 
> And retarded.


I respectfully disagree. Sort of. What I've seen I would neither describe as taking a dog off their feet (naive or otherwise), for one, nor retarded (in a non-taking-the-dog-off-his-feet) for another. It was just basically doing things you'd naturally do (walking and turning) and natural consequences for not paying attention and sticking reasonably close. It's one method of doing so, obviously it works. As long as you are consistent, clear, and fair about it, I fail to see what the big deal is. But again I am an admitted novice, and do not think it is the only right way to do things either for that matter.

But to call it retarded seems just wrong in my limited experience. Just one opinion though, so take it for what it's worth.

-Cheers


----------



## Guest

How in the world would I know what you've seen?

I'm going by what's been said.


----------



## Guest

Steven Lepic said:


> Mutual clarity occurs when you lay a foundation of a simple and mutually understood language.
> 
> A= Reinforced for correctness
> B = Reinforcement witheld for confusion
> C= Punishment for unwanted behavior
> 
> A and B can take you really, really far.
> 
> Taking a _naive_ dog off his feet is just as retarded as stimming outta nowhere ala Fred and Lou.
> 
> Key word naive.
> 
> And retarded.


Good point, but you forgot sadistic. 

So, let's see just how weak the working dog world is and set up a challenge since your talk is so big. 
Challenge for all you tough guys:
Video tape yourself training your dog, using only the training method you support in this thread, to do a pretty complex maneuver, a reverse weave through 12 poles. That means walking backwards. Don't edit the footage except to shave off time and redundancy and post it. Let's have some fun. Climbing ladders is easy.

let's make it 8 poles.


----------



## Ben Colbert

I'm not sure how what I said is so controversial? You take a dog that knows nothing. You teach him purely with compulsions. When the dog does what you asked him to he gets no treats, he doesn't get to play ball, he gets praise. Perhaps the praise means inherently good things for some dogs but thats not always the case. Praise always (in this style of training) means that no punishment is coming. I'm not saying that people meant it to be this way, it just how the dog has interpreted it.


----------



## David Ruby

Steven Lepic said:


> How in the world would I know what you've seen?
> 
> I'm going by what's been said.


My apologies. I merely intended to clarify that what is being described was not taking the dog off its feet or being malicious. Well, that and that I do not see it as being harsh if you do it right.

Vin:



Vin Chiu said:


> Good point, but you forgot sadistic.


Not if done right. Of course, when I've seen it and it worked the dog wasn't yanked around or taken off its feet (not on purpose, can't say it never happens but that is not the point of the exercise). If you're describing that, then we are talking about some different.



> So, let's see just how weak the working dog world is and set up a challenge since your talk is so big.
> Challenge for all you tough guys:


Really? Give me a break. Who said anything about compulsion & praise being about being tough?



> Video tape yourself training your dog, using only the training method you support in this thread, to do a pretty complex maneuver, a reverse weave through 12 poles. That means walking backwards. Don't edit the footage except to shave off time and redundancy and post it. Let's have some fun. Climbing ladders is easy.
> 
> let's make it 8 poles.


What training method, exactly? The walking with no verbal commands and turning to get the dog to pay attention to you is, to my understanding, just done to introduce dogs to the concept. By the time you got to a reverse weave, you'd just tell them to heel and do it, praising them for keeping position and a light pop if they got out of position. So do you want this done with a starter dog that you're just trying to use light compulsion and the natural consequence of running out of leash (which would probably be an exercise in frustration) or a more finished dog using compulsion & praise and no treats/toys/tugs/etc. (which seems pretty doable to be honest)? And do you want this to be the teaching start-to-finish, or the finished product? I'm just curious what, exactly, you are looking for.

-Cheers


----------



## Jackie Lockard

The difference between a dog running around a field of cactus and me holding him on a leash is that I have a choice of action with the leash. A cactus is just there and if he wants to run into them all day, well, I'm not paying to take his stupid ass to a vet when his face his full of prickers.

Being responsible for that leash I have a lot options. One is just continue on my way as if nothing is attached to the leash. One is to reward when the dog is close to you. One is to punish when the dog is far. You could reward AND punish. There are a lot of options that I have as a human being holding a leash. Cactus does not have the thought process. By CHOOSING to yank on that leash (via change of direction or active arm movement or letting the dog run towards the end of it without trying to stop him - whatever) I have given my dog a correction. The term correction comes with the decision of what to do with the power of holding a leash.


----------



## David Ruby

Ben Colbert said:


> I'm not sure how what I said is so controversial?


I'll take a shot at it.



> You take a dog that knows nothing. You teach him purely with compulsions.


You teach them with physical corrections of various degrees, depending on what they're doing. That can just be gently placing them in the proper place, it can be a light pop for losing focus, it can be a strong correction for blowing up at another dog or totally telling you to stick it because they're not doing whatever it is you are asking. When they do something right, they get praise. They do happy dog stuff, like wag their tail, get excited, and seem to have pride. There are rewards though.



> When the dog does what you asked him to he gets no treats, he doesn't get to play ball, he gets praise.


The dog still gets the reward though. You getting excited and genuinely praising the dog, slapping them on the side (affectionately, not beating the dog), making a big show, is a powerful reward. They seem to like it.



> Perhaps the praise means inherently good things for some dogs but thats not always the case.


I'm not going to pretend to have years of experience with hundreds of dogs trained in Koehler and trained in purely positive and trained with more formal reward (toy/food/ball/etc.) and compulsion/corrections (verbal or otherwise). That said, I have seen my main trainer for the past, probably seven or eight years, and others here and there, train dogs using this basic method. Every single dog they worked with got it. Most dogs tend to want to work with and please whomever they respect and are working with. Every single dog I have seen trained in this method responded positively to it. The praise meant something, not just an absence of punishment.

If you are doggin' it and half-heartedly praising the dog, they don't usually care. But if you do it with excitement, they enjoy it. It means something to them.



> Praise always (in this style of training) means that no punishment is coming.


So what? So does spitting a piece of hotdog at them, or pulling out their favorite toy, or even doing nothing. Yet, praise, food, and toys all seem to work because they all inherently reinforce behavior. I'm not a dog trainer, but that seems to be the underlying goal; reinforcing behavior, positively or negatively.



> I'm not saying that people meant it to be this way, it just how the dog has interpreted it.


I would argue that is how _you_ have interpreted it, not the dog. I've seen dogs get all dopey over genuine verbal praise. Even if it's not the method for you, or maybe just not the method you want to use for certain dogs/jobs/sports/etc., I do not think you should discount it. Dogs will do things because they like/respect you and care what you think.

The controversy is you seem to be writing it off because you are more-or-less saying that praise cannot be a true reward. I do not think that is true. There might be exceptions, and if you want to make a case for treats/toys being a better reward, that is a viable argument. I just think what Don is describing as Koehler type of training gets an unfair bad rap (read "tough guy" comments above). I can understand if people have different methods and opinions on what's better. However, some of the misconceptions and broad labeling (not necessarily by you, but the general sentiment) seem a bit out there in left field.

Again, if food/toy/ball/etc. work better for you, I have no problem with that. However, I have seen the kind of training Don is describing work just peachy.

-Cheers


----------



## Don Turnipseed

I am curious if Vin is going to do this using hios bull dog?

Steve, if simply changing direction and letting the naive dog/pup run out of leash is so ghastly to you, what is your opinion on turning a naive dog/pup in on a 200lb hog that will kill them at 9 mo old to learn the ropes? Explain a gentle way of doing this> Yet changing direction is to tough for a dog. Dogs will learn quicker through experience. People learn quicker through experience. You can read all the books in the world but you won't ever be a mechanic until you get your hands dirty and bust a few knuckles. 
Let's look at the dog in the cactus again. I have cactus set up in two solid rows and there is a 4' corridor between them. This time I put the pup on a 20' line and walk it down the corridor. This cactus has nasty 2" thorns. I let the dog run back and forth into the cactus and don't jerk the line once....is that correction. No! it is not. He is learning from his own experience and the leash has nothing to do with it. He would learn the same thing without the leash also but, he won't learn the parameters of a leash without having it on. The pup learns in either case because it was uncomfortable. He now pays attention to those cactus' and he will pay attention to where you are at.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

To answer the first question, the answer is "PISS weak".


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Praise is a powerful thing if done correctly. I would bet on a first date, Ben associated getting lucky to an expensive dinner first when praise would have got him farther quicker and he could have saved his money on the treats.

Think back to when you got an ass chewing from someone in authority. You felt bad but it didn't kill you. Now remember when you got genuine praise from that person you respected. That ass chewing doesn't even cross your mind so you can't be trying to avoid it....it is forgotten because you are in hog heaven at the moment because you have learned what is expected of you. You are simply getting off on the praise. Behavior is behavior whether it is a dog or a person.


----------



## Jackie Lockard

Don Turnipseed said:


> Think back to when you got an ass chewing from someone in authority. You felt bad but it didn't kill you. Now remember when you got genuine praise from that person you respected. That ass chewing doesn't even cross your mind so you can't be trying to avoid it....it is forgotten because you are in hog heaven at the moment because you have learned what is expected of you. You are simply getting off on the praise.


Possibly the best explaination I've heard of praise only training. BUT...I still have to ask - would you want praise OR a good word AND a bonus on your paycheck?


----------



## David Ruby

Jackie Lockard said:


> Possibly the best explaination I've heard of praise only training. BUT...I still have to ask - would you want praise OR a good word AND a bonus on your paycheck?


Ever have your dad or coach or maybe drill sergeant push you to do something you thought you couldn't do? You gutted it out and got your best time running the 20, or doing the 50 Burpee Challenge, or shot the bullseye, pushed up that last rep, ran the obstacle course, or caught your first fish. They were proud of you, you got a high-five, a bear hug, or just a fond look and you were beaming with pride.

Do you feel better if he then whips out his wallet and gives you a $5 bill? Does it somehow mean more to you?

-Cheers


----------



## David Frost

Ya know, sometimes, some of you folks make this (dog training) a lot harder than it has to be. ha ha

DFrost


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Jackie Lockard said:


> Possibly the best explaination I've heard of praise only training. BUT...I still have to ask - would you want praise OR a good word AND a bonus on your paycheck?


Reward is not a problem....insted af rewarding for each thing, wait until the session is done.....sit down and let the dog kniw he did a fine job, kiss him on the nose if you like and give him a 1/2 of hot dog instead of twenty little pieces for each thing. You don't want them working for the reward. Now, I am not sayiing that for some advanced or specialized training it won't be necessary.
I was under the gun once and challenged to go to the field nationals in Oh and run my dogs against "the best " as it was put. My dogs wouldn't even look at a bottled scent, which is what they used. I would lay a 50 yd track and put a piece of cheese every ten feet. The first day these two dogs would run all over smelling squirrel and occassionally find a piece of cheese. The second day I put the cheese every 20 ft and no where near the beginning. The 10 mo old dog crossed that bottled scent track and started down it picking up each piece of cheese. The second dog caught on PDQ also. I spent the rest of the day just putting the cheese at the end of the track. The thied day, I layed a track that was over a 1/2 mile with 2 creek crossings whith just a piece at the end. They ran the track so fast even I was impressed. After that they just ran the track for a piece of fur in a cage......and upon completion, a lot of praise and a chunk of meat. It was a walk in the park but the cheese was short lived because there would be no cheese at the trial. They had to run it because they enjoyed it and the praise.


----------



## Jackie Lockard

It would depend who was giving me that bonus money, as I would find it socially awkward to have a coach give me money from his wallet. If my boss gave me a pay bonus for working hard then yea, it'd make me happier. Dogs aren't restricted by those social norms. A ball is a ball to him and I'll bet that he'll be even happier to have a ball and some nice words/pets than just the praise.

To each his own but I don't understand why you wouldn't reward your dog for a good job to the best of your ability.


----------



## Jackie Lockard

Don Turnipseed said:


> Reward is not a problem....insted af rewarding for each thing, wait until the session is done.....sit down and let the dog kniw he did a fine job, kiss him on the nose if you like and give him a 1/2 of hot dog instead of twenty little pieces for each thing. You don't want them working for the reward. Now, I am not sayiing that for some advanced or specialized training it won't be necessary.


Well if I'm using food it'll depend on the skills of the dog and what I'm training. I can take my older dog and do a hundred sit/down/stand commands and give him a hot dog at the end instead of a tiny piece for each followed command. But my ten month puppy would require many more rewards, which I would want to be smaller, because he doesn't have the attention span or knowledge to go longer yet.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

David Frost said:


> Ya know, sometimes, some of you folks make this (dog training) a lot harder than it has to be. ha ha
> 
> DFrost


You got that right David. I think the problem is that some of us go back far enough in time that most of the kids with dogs trained them to bite with a simple "sic em". We had dogs that would play dead, and do all sorts of tricks ....and we didn't know anything about training. I have to wonder how that was possible as difficult as it seems today. Peoples views of what is acceptable is part of it, and then, getting back to the OP, yes, dogs are not what they used to be. No person can correct and teach a pup like his parents will. The parents of that pup teach the pup to listen and that there are limits they can't cross.


----------



## tracey schneider

I dont see anything wrong in training that way. Not sure what the big deal is really:-k. Most pet homes train that way or version there of, dog whisperer has made millions training w/o balls/ food reward and using physical. :-\"

I WOULD like to see some video of someone using the method for sport work in particular OB. Can you share? I am picturing it, but I would like to see it and either prove myself right or wrong 8)

t


----------



## Ben Colbert

Don Turnipseed said:


> Think back to when you got an ass chewing from someone in authority. You felt bad but it didn't kill you. Now remember when you got genuine praise from that person you respected. That ass chewing doesn't even cross your mind so you can't be trying to avoid it....it is forgotten because you are in hog heaven at the moment because you have learned what is expected of you. You are simply getting off on the praise. Behavior is behavior whether it is a dog or a person.


Dogs do not think like people. 

Dogs do not think like people.

Dogs do not think like people.

Dogs do not think like people.

Dogs do not think like people.

If you want to argue that dogs find praise inherently good then I'll listen. For some dogs this is true. for some it isn't. If on the other hand you want to say that dogs are just like people and thats why it works I'm going to roll my eyes and tune you out.


----------



## Jack Roberts

How I teach a dog to stop on command. It is a type of Kohler Method. I am not using praise for the "Stop" command. I am not equating non praise with the Kohler method but giving an example of using compulsion without praise to teach a command.

I put the dog on a flexi lead and a prong and let him get going. I give him the stop command and push the button on the flex leash to stop it. I do this with a younger dog. The correction is hard because you have the dog's momentum going forward.

It takes about two times and they learn to stop fast and quick. Now some people may think this is mean but it will save a dogs life later. When I say "stop" to my dogs they stop immediately. The two hard corrections that a a pup received stay with them. So now, if they are heading out or going to be in danger all I have to say is "Stop". 

I will test the "Stop" command every now and then while having an ecollar on the dog. I have never had to give a corrections later.

Most of the other commands I will teach with pure motivation. 

I think the Kohler method is good for some dogs, especially those that are given to testing the handler. I have used a lot more positve motivation with my current dog than my other dogs. I've also had to correct more problems than with my other dogs. I think perhaps a little more compulsion would have been better. Although, the dog loves to work, which I think is a benefit of motivational training. Even now when working on some fine tuning with compulsion, I still have the motivation from the dog. The motivation stems from learning by using positive methods.

I can say that although the dog learned from motivation that he will still take a hard correction and keep on going. I do not think that motivational training makes a dog soft.


----------



## David Ruby

tracey delin said:


> I dont see anything wrong in training that way. Not sure what the big deal is really:-k.  Most pet homes train that way or version there of, dog whisperer has made millions training w/o balls/ food reward and using physical. :-\"
> 
> I WOULD like to see some video of someone using the method for sport work in particular OB. Can you share? I am picturing it, but I would like to see it and either prove myself right or wrong 8)
> 
> t


Hey Tracey,

I thought the main thing with sport that leads people to using food/toy/play rewards was the desire for flashy OB. In the old days, at least from what I've been told, they pretty much used JUST praise & compulsion methods. As for now, I would imagine you'd lose a lot of points in the OB since you would not have that flash. I think that would kill you in sports.

I don't have a problem with either. I was taught the old school praise & compulsion way when I got a dog and didn't know what to do with him ~8 years ago, and I think it is perfectly fine. I'm interested in Mondio and found a nice, small group of people who know what they are doing and they train using Michael Ellis' style. That has been working great as well. I can't honestly say I've found one to be great and the other crap. Maybe when I'm more experienced I'll turn my nose up at the old school way, but I doubt it. They both seem to work just fine. I am sure there are other ways I'd find equally useful. Honestly, as long as the behavior is reinforced, the dog understands what I'm doing, and I'm smart/quick enough to effectively correct/reward the dog properly, they seem to get it.

Between the two ways, in my limited experience the timing of the praise/reward to let the dog know they've done right, and the punishment (leash/physical correction or verbal correction) seems almost more important than what the punishment or reward are (unless either are meaningless to the dog, in which case they can blow them off). That and being able to read the dog and decipher what they need at that time to illicit the positive response.

Please note, I'm not trying to present myself as some dog guru. I'm not even close. But I have seen dogs look good working having been brought up in both systems. I have to trust what I've seen and had explained to me that they can both work if done right, at least until I see differently. Feel free to tell me where I'm wrong. But I think some of you are selling the old school methods quite a bit short.

-Cheers


----------



## David Ruby

Ben Colbert said:


> Dogs do not think like people.
> 
> Dogs do not think like people.
> 
> Dogs do not think like people.
> 
> Dogs do not think like people.
> 
> Dogs do not think like people.
> 
> If you want to argue that dogs find praise inherently good then I'll listen. For some dogs this is true. for some it isn't. If on the other hand you want to say that dogs are just like people and thats why it works I'm going to roll my eyes and tune you out.


I would point out two things.

First, dogs inherently find praise good. Particularly, and maybe only in some cases, if they give a crap about you (particularly if you're their handler). I'd argue that is pretty much universal, but that is just going based on my observations. I'm more than willing to admit there might be exceptions.

Second, Don seems pretty reputable (just read around) and has apparently been around dogs a long time. Even if you disagree with him, he's not some *******. Eye roll and tune out all you want. But ask yourself. Why does he think the way he does, and how did he come to said conclusions? I've never met Don, but he just sounds like an old school dog breeder using an analogy to make a point on how/why praise works, not anthropomorphize the dogs like some Disney movie.

-Cheers


----------



## Kristen Cabe

> dog whisperer has made millions training w/o balls/ food reward and using physical.


Actually, he does use food and toy rewards some.



When I was training my first dog, I was taught to use mostly compulsion-based methods. The end result is a dog that obeys my every command, even if I have not practiced anything with her in more than a year, but she does it because she was taught that if she did not do it, she got corrected. Teaching her to heel was absolute hell. I'm surprised the trainer and I did not get turned in for animal abuse, because she would scream the entire time, and fight the leash, and dig her heels in - but she figured it out after a week or so. She's not flashy by any means, but she is bombproof, when it comes to things she knows, anyway. Training her the way I did pretty effectively squashed her ability to think through a stressful situation or figure out what I want her to do (if it's something she's not already learned), though. 

I did not realize that the 'how to teach your dog to heel' method posted above was Kohler, but I can attest to the fact that it does work to teach a dog to stay with you. I've used it many, many times with great results. I've never worried about whether the dog was in any sort of specific position, since the dogs I've done it with have either been rescues or a family member's pet, but it does work, does not seem to have any long-lasting ill effects on the dog, and takes very little effort on your part.


----------



## tracey schneider

Yes sport uses toys/ food/ play rewards for flashy OB / intensity. I don’t know that you would lose point for no flash per say, but you would lose points if the dog was slow and the judge may comment on the demeanor of the dog. But flash in and of itself is not pointable or at least its not supposed to be. 
I was trying to gather if everyone was talking apples to oranges and it sounds like you are. I personally see no issue training a dog on correction and praise but I wouldn’t do that with my sport dogs….for reasons mentioned above. I have some dogs that go into overdrive from praise and I have ONE dog that could care less about praise or much interaction….I think the value of praise depends on the dog. I guess what I am saying is, if you want the “sporty” look the toys/ food rewards will probably get you there the best. If you just want your dog to do what you say…. Nothing wrong with the old method……its about the result not style…. use the method to suit the purpose. 

and yes I know the Dog Whisperer uses food and toys sometimes, I also know he uses an ecollar and some fairly harsh methods of training that are left off screen….. I was being general.:-D

t


----------



## David Ruby

Hey Tracey,



tracey delin said:


> Yes sport uses toys/ food/ play rewards for flashy OB / intensity. I don’t know that you would lose point for no flash per say, but you would lose points if the dog was slow and the judge may comment on the demeanor of the dog. But flash in and of itself is not pointable or at least its not supposed to be.
> I was trying to gather if everyone was talking apples to oranges and it sounds like you are. I personally see no issue training a dog on correction and praise but I wouldn’t do that with my sport dogs….for reasons mentioned above. I have some dogs that go into overdrive from praise and I have ONE dog that could care less about praise or much interaction….I think the value of praise depends on the dog. I guess what I am saying is, if you want the “sporty” look the toys/ food rewards will probably get you there the best. If you just want your dog to do what you say…. Nothing wrong with the old method……its about the result not style…. use the method to suit the purpose.


I'll buy that.

-Cheers


----------



## Chris McDonald

Jackie Lockard said:


> Possibly the best explaination I've heard of praise only training. BUT...I still have to ask - would you want praise OR a good word AND a bonus on your paycheck?


 
I work hard for personal satisfaction; the bonus just comes with doing a good job. I think a good dog just works I don’t think he really even knows exactly why, he just cant help himself.


----------



## Chris McDonald

tracey delin said:


> Yes sport uses toys/ food/ play rewards for flashy OB / intensity. I don’t know that you would lose point for no flash per say, but you would lose points if the dog was slow and the judge may comment on the demeanor of the dog. But flash in and of itself is not pointable or at least its not supposed to be.
> I was trying to gather if everyone was talking apples to oranges and it sounds like you are. I personally see no issue training a dog on correction and praise but I wouldn’t do that with my sport dogs….for reasons mentioned above. I have some dogs that go into overdrive from praise and I have ONE dog that could care less about praise or much interaction….I think the value of praise depends on the dog. I guess what I am saying is, if you want the “sporty” look the toys/ food rewards will probably get you there the best. If you just want your dog to do what you say…. Nothing wrong with the old method……its about the result not style…. use the method to suit the purpose.
> 
> and yes I know the Dog Whisperer uses food and toys sometimes, I also know he uses an ecollar and some fairly harsh methods of training that are left off screen….. I was being general.:-D
> 
> t


I could see balls and treats adding getting that sporty look, I personally don’t agree with the dog that is tricked into haveing that sporty look. Personally I think it is degrading for the dog. There is no need for a dog to be staring up at the handler like spas when heeling other than the handler maybe getting some goofy power trip out of it. I think some trainers are confusing a dog being “happy” with being retarted. Just my opinion.


----------



## will fernandez

Chris

I know absolutely nothing about how Baden trains a dog. I was wondering though how would they train something like a building search. 

What are some of their methods for training?


----------



## maggie fraser

Jack,

I've trained my current and last two gsds a dead stop although I call it a 'wait', only ever recall getting blown off the once, and my dogs spend/spent a lot of time off leash. Didn't use a long line, nor a prong or an e collar, or a leash, no equipment in fact... to say you NEED to use physical compulsion or physical control is not entirely correct.

I've also trained my ob and long downs out of sight, all off leash with no equipment just a flat collar with nothing attached. In fact, had a bit crack with the dog earlier this evening, he was really pumped up and was screeching and pulling me on the lead even on correcting him, (we were on our way out to the van)....so I unhitched him, he's easier for me to control like this.

Just an alternative view....I never learned how to train a dog formally.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall

Chris McDonald said:


> I could see balls and treats adding getting that sporty look, I personally don’t agree with the dog that is tricked into haveing that sporty look. Personally I think it is degrading for the dog.


How is teaching a dog a behavior that gets it a reward it wants "tricking" it? The dog isn't being tricked, they know what they need to do to get the reward they want. "tricking" a dog is pretending to throw the ball when you didn't really do it. And how is it "degrading"? I don't think the dog is walking along doing focused heeling thinking "how degrading, I'm so embarrassed, the other dogs are looking at me". 



> There is no need for a dog to be staring up at the handler like spas when heeling other than the handler maybe getting some goofy power trip out of it.


Or maybe the venue the owner competes in desires and rewards that type of performance. No power trip, just someone teaching the dog a skill that is neccessary for the venue they choose to compete in.



> I think some trainers are confusing a dog being “happy” with being retarted. Just my opinion.


Some of the smartest dogs I know have done focused animated heeling. And some of the dumbest to. Being able to do that type of heeling has nothing to do with a dog being retarded. One thing I have noticed though, the ones that do focused/animated heeling with only compulsion style training seem to be the dumber ones, or at best more average. The same style of training on a smart dog gets the focus, but not the animation.

Focused heeling is simply a taught behavior/skill. No different then teaching a dog to sit up and beg, or retrieve an item a certain way (bring it to front, bring it to heel, sit, stand, don't chew, etc), or to down on command, or to climb ladders, or find dope, or lead a blind person, or play dead, or any of the hundreds of other things we teach dogs to do. Each is something we teach the dog to do, for our own use, amusement, or whatever motivates us.


----------



## Chris McDonald

will fernandez said:


> Chris
> 
> I know absolutely nothing about how Baden trains a dog. I was wondering though how would they train something like a building search.
> 
> What are some of their methods for training?


Will, I cant speak on the behalf of anyone. The things I threw up here are just some questions I had.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Ben Colbert said:


> Dogs do not think like people.
> 
> Dogs do not think like people.
> 
> Dogs do not think like people.
> 
> Dogs do not think like people.
> 
> Dogs do not think like people.
> 
> If you want to argue that dogs find praise inherently good then I'll listen. For some dogs this is true. for some it isn't. If on the other hand you want to say that dogs are just like people and thats why it works I'm going to roll my eyes and tune you out.


Ben, Ben...we are talking about how a person or a dog reacts when receiving praise. It has nothing to do with a thought process. This is what is screwing you up. You over analyze. If you want to understand why dogs do something, think of them as a person. Behavior is behavior. Lets say your in a red neck bar shooting pool. In comes a hot little number. The guys start buying her drinks and she is flirting with them all. Pretty soon the testosterone gets the best of them and there is a fight between the two top guys. The guys are behaving just like dogs would and better yet, the hottie is making over the winner. Everybody is doing just what a pack of dogs would do. Behavior is behavior.


----------



## Chris McDonald

Kadi, your right, tricked is not really the right word. Maybe bribed or suckered would have worked better? Again this is personal preference. I think it is cruel to make an animal work for food or to play with a ball. Maybe you should just feed it and play with it and it will work for you? What do I know though? 
As far as the venue. How do you think it wound up as part of the venue? And why are people attracted to it? Was focused animated heeling always the venue? 
I have no experience but I would guess the dogs that are more likely to perform the focused/ animated heeling would be the ones less likely to work without the treat or ball? I certainly could be wrong


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Chris, if the dog is animated to start with no training is going to change it unless you make it unduly oppressive. If the dog was never animated, the trainers use props like balls to induce excitement so they will look animated. Have fun so your dog has fun.


----------



## Chris McDonald

I really don’t know anything about it. So your saying that there are dogs that get that happy ass without balls and treats? Is that considered a good dog?


----------



## Don Turnipseed

I am going to say something about how dogs react that many of you have probably not ever seen due to the way you are with dogs....treating them like they are to stupid to know what is good for them.
I put a poist up a while back about a young dog grabbing me by the hand when I was checking out a scab. Everyone was heartbroke for the dog because I pasted him in the side of the head a couple of times. Grabbed him by the collar and watched him while I picked againe. He turned and show me his teeth but didn't attemt to grab my hand. He got pasted for showing me his teeth. That dog knew exactly what he was doing and why he got pasted. About a half hour to an hour later, that dog came upstaires where I was and came over to me and licked my face gently and curled up next to me. He was making up and he knew he had it coming. Two days ago I had a come to Jesus meeting with a two year old bitch that just hammers a couple of the younger bitches. I hoisted her up to eye level with one hand and bitch slapped her about 10 times hard and screamed at her. When I was finished I st her on top of a dog house and sat down and had a talk with her....just like I would a person. The incedent was over when we got up. This morning, I was sitting on a boulder plkaying with the pups and that same bitch got up on the boulder with me, licked my cheek, and just settled in pressed up against my side. This dog has never once in two years come to me while outside. Most of you would have thought she would have avoided contact after our coming to terms but it doesn't work that way. They know when they are wrong and they know what they got punished for. This was the 3rd come to jesus meeting with this dog and there was a marked improvement each time. I may even get to like the dog which I gave to my girl friend as a puppy. Dogs are not as stupid as many would like to think.


----------



## maggie fraser

Don, I think that is a little different to what is mainly being banded about on this thread, I would say that was more of an example on leading/guiding on how to behave, in kind almost, not quite the same as training the more advanced robotics. 

I get the little chat afterwards.... do that myself.


----------



## tracey schneider

Im not sure Im following either.... instead of showing all out fear of you the dogs submitted....which you are equating to being smart? I guess but then that would make a very hard dog stupid lol.... I dont know if I agree with that.:-#

Again I dont think Im following this....

t


----------



## David Frost

Some people call it tricking, some call it operant conditioning. We're back to semantics. Like I said, some people just make this a lot harder than it really is.

DFrost


----------



## Don Turnipseed

tracey delin said:


> Im not sure Im following either.... instead of showing all out fear of you the dogs submitted....which you are equating to being smart? I guess but then that would make a very hard dog stupid lol.... I dont know if I agree with that.:-#
> 
> Again I dont think Im following this....
> 
> t


Tracey, in a way, she is giving in to doing it my way. You have to realize, this is a big yard in which she has never come to me in 2+ years. I didn't call her. I was playing with some other dogs. She seemed to call the truce on her own accord. There has always been a strain between this dog and myself so she has been in avoidance. Now it is like she can relax with me because we have come to terms. I am guessing at some of this but I have had no problems with he since.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

David Frost said:


> Some people call it tricking, some call it operant conditioning. We're back to semantics. Like I said, some people just make this a lot harder than it really is.
> 
> DFrost


David, I had to google "Opperant conditioning". Had no idea what you were getting at. Wish you would explain this a bit more from you viewpoint. I know what the negative punishment would be. I am guessing the sitting with her afterwards is the positive reinnforcement?


----------



## Chris McDonald

Don Turnipseed said:


> David, I had to google "Opperant conditioning". Had no idea what you were getting at. quote]
> 
> 
> He keeps using big words, and his jokes are killing me too


----------



## David Frost

Don Turnipseed said:


> David, I had to google "Opperant conditioning". Had no idea what you were getting at. Wish you would explain this a bit more from you viewpoint. I know what the negative punishment would be. I am guessing the sitting with her afterwards is the positive reinnforcement?


It just becomes a terminology argument. most everyone at one time or another, during this thread has used the functions of operant conditioning, just calling them different words. A dog is told "sit", physically assited into the "sit" positon and told what a good boy he is. Any behavior reinforced is likely to occur again. It really is that simple. A duck dog retrieves a duck, using that drive he learns he has to wait until told to go get the duck. 

DFrost


----------



## Chris McDonald

Are you trying to say we are making this more difficult than it is?


----------



## David Frost

Chris McDonald said:


> Are you trying to say we are making this more difficult than it is?


Why on earth would I want to get involved and say such a thing. 

DFrost


----------



## Jackie Lockard

David Frost said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Chris McDonald*
> _ Are you trying to say we are making this more difficult than it is? _
> 
> Why on earth would I want to get involved and say such a thing.
> 
> DFrost


Don't bring a bulldog to a greyhound race...=;


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Things seem to be slowing down. If anyone lives around Easton, Md and wants an accurate explanation, rather than hearsay, about what Koehler training is and how it "actually" is supposed to be done, contact Dan at Dan's Elite Dog Training. He is a straight up, by the book Koehler trainer. 

Vin, he said that exercise you brought up as a challenge is a Rally exercise which is a watered down exercise for dogs that can't cut real obedience. He suggested if you want a real challenge, put a UD on your pup by two year old. I haven't got a clue what any of this means, maybe you do.


----------



## David Ruby

Don Turnipseed said:


> Things seem to be slowing down. If anyone lives around Easton, Md and wants an accurate explanation, rather than hearsay, about what Koehler training is and how it "actually" is supposed to be done, contact Dan at Dan's Elite Dog Training. He is a straight up, by the book Koehler trainer.
> 
> Vin, he said that exercise you brought up as a challenge is a Rally exercise which is a watered down exercise for dogs that can't cut real obedience. He suggested if you want a real challenge, put a UD on your pup by two year old. I haven't got a clue what any of this means, maybe you do.


Hey Dan (and Vin for that matter), there's a woman that trains with the group I learned from and still go to from time to time that has several Rally titles on her dog. They just do it for fun as an OB thing. She has trained entirely with praise and compulsion, the Rally dog is a Golden Retriever (can't remember the dog's name), the handler is Sarah and she's from Wisconsin. Not sure if there are videos, but if there's a rally website I could try to look it up. I'm positive that dog could do your reverse-weave exercise.

I also think it's important to know that the Koehlers probably loved their dogs (and, for what it's worth, Internet accounts back my theory up). I _do_ just get annoyed when people make some unfair and false assumptions about that style of training being cruel (which it's not), or unfair (which it's not), or inferior (which it's not), or not using rewards (which it does). I suppose I should pipe down though.

-Cheers


----------



## James Downey

I think Koehlers biggest contribution to dog training is he was one of the first trainers to realize that relationship had an impact on training and one of the first to encourage it. He was one of the first to not look at a dog as a input output box. But try to think of how the dog was responding to us. 

Now I do think the Koehler revealed a lot to us. But it is outdated. And we have come a long away since Koehler. To negate his contribution would be foolish. But also I believe to keep practising it without looking at the decades between now and Koehler would befoolish.


----------



## Ben Colbert

David,

What would you definition of cruel be? I might consider training with just compulsion (up on a choke to get sit, down on the choke to teach down) without attempting any other techniques cruel. I don't understand some people's fetish with force. Is it a testosterone thing? 

Lets be clear. I use force when training. But I use it as an last resort and I use it along with the three phases of learning mentioned somewhere above. I do find the crank and yank method of teaching a behavior borderline cruel. So what if it takes you an additional few weeks to get the picture you want. Slamming a dog into a heal without showing him how to do it first, especially a dog that has the will to learn, to me is an example of an unimaginative trainer.


----------



## Ben Colbert

Don Turnipseed said:


> Vin, he said that exercise you brought up as a challenge is a Rally exercise which is a watered down exercise for dogs that can't cut real obedience. He suggested if you want a real challenge, put a UD on your pup by two year old. I haven't got a clue what any of this means, maybe you do.


HA! A backwards weave is watered down? That is by far a more technical thing to teach than Sit. Or even scent discrimination for many dogs.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Ben Colbert said:


> David,
> 
> What would you definition of cruel be? I might consider training with just compulsion (up on a choke to get sit, down on the choke to teach down) without attempting any other techniques cruel. I don't understand some people's fetish with force. Is it a testosterone thing?
> 
> Lets be clear. I use force when training. But I use it as an last resort and I use it along with the three phases of learning mentioned somewhere above. I do find the crank and yank method of teaching a behavior borderline cruel. So what if it takes you an additional few weeks to get the picture you want. Slamming a dog into a heal without showing him how to do it first, especially a dog that has the will to learn, to me is an example of an unimaginative trainer.



Ignorance must be bliss Ben. No dogs are "slammed into a heel" when you are using a 20' line. Takes at least 2 weeks to even get them up close to a heel. On the other hand, when you start with a 6' leash and immediately put them in a heel position from the start, yes I can understand why they don't understand it. You create nothing but stress and believe this to be better and more humane????

Since you fancy you are a trainer Ben, I have a training question for you. A simple one really. You have a hound, one of my dogs are any other breed to hunt bears. The dogs are working well independent of the handler which is you. There are free ranging cattle and sheep in the area on gov't graze permits. Tell me how you would train the dog to make it bullet proof so, even though you are a mile away, you know he isn't chasing cows or sheep. How do you do it? I can give you a hint because you are not capable of teaching a dog this. Like it or not, it is going to take negative reinforcement past what most trainers today can handle....which is also why so many dogs have to be crated in the house when not directly supervised.


----------



## Mike Lauer

self reward is the downfall of 100% positive training
I believe in positive training (people and dogs) but there needs to be consequences for your actions, people or dogs

the dog world has found their Dr. Spock


----------



## Ben Colbert

Don,

Please point out where I said that I use 100% positive methods. Please point out where I said that I never correct a dog.

And teaching a dog to heel for sport competition is slightly different than making sure a dog isn't shot for chasing cattle. False equivalency. I have no problem with using positive punishment as a means of proofing a dog but I do this after I have taught the dog what I expect of it. There are people who feel the need to teach a dog to heel, to sit, to stand with purely compulsion. Why?

And Don, the fact that you keep repeating "behavior is behavior". The fact that you truly believe that dogs act like people . That 10,000 years of selective breeding wouldn't change any of a dog's motivations from that of a wolf's and a wolf apparently thinks just like people. These things tell me all I need to know about your training style.


----------



## David Ruby

Ben Colbert said:


> David,
> 
> What would you definition of cruel be?


Depends on whether you mean cruelty in training or cruelty to animals in general. In training, cruelty is unnecessary harshness in whatever training style you are doing, or being inconsistent so you are correcting the dog for something they do not understand. And Don's example does not count.

Put it this way, nothing in the praise and compulsion form of training is inherently cruel. If you intentionally overcorrect or use harsh corrections when a simple light pop will work, THAT is to me unnecessary. You only be as hard as you need to, but you do it consistently so the dog knows the rules and consequences and gets to choose what to do or not to do. You don't play mind games to get the dog to screw up on a technicality so you can relish in ripping one off like you're starting a 20 year old lawnmower.



> I might consider training with just compulsion (up on a choke to get sit, down on the choke to teach down) without attempting any other techniques cruel.


Me too. That's why I would couple that with praise. You are still ignoring the effect genuine praise can have on a dog in a positive sense.



> I don't understand some people's fetish with force. Is it a testosterone thing?


Not sure what you're talking about here. I'm talking about correcting negative behavior and praising/rewarding positive behavior. I don't get off on using force, so you'll have to ask somebody else.



> Lets be clear. I use force when training. But I use it as an last resort and I use it along with the three phases of learning mentioned somewhere above.


I just aim for consistency and adjust the level of whatever I'm doing to suit the dog's needs as closely as I can determine them. I don't use it as a last resort. I view it as there are certain things that will get you a correction, and they always get the same predictable result. I am sentient so I adjust. If the dog were to totally tell me off, they might get a pretty hard correction. If the dog just makes a simple mistake, they would get a very light correction. If they gave me that puzzled look and I knew they didn't know what to do, I'd probably end up going to the flat leash and starting over and maneuvering them without any corrections because I'm not trying to be a wanker.



> I do find the crank and yank method of teaching a behavior borderline cruel.


You have seen how animals correct behavior in the wild, no? It's a simple leash correction. If it's not your thing, that's fine. It is not cruel (although it can be if you are misusing it, I will grant you that).**



> So what if it takes you an additional few weeks to get the picture you want. Slamming a dog into a heal without showing him how to do it first, especially a dog that has the will to learn, to me is an example of an unimaginative trainer.


The most imaginative trainer I've ever met, and I would say the best, uses these methods. You know what is more important than his methods though? His ability to read the dog and react accordingly. He's also working a dog in Mondio, I believe using more modern techniques with that dog and learning how they did things in the group of people he worked with and consulted. That dog is apparently pretty awesome too. So I think it's more about him and his ability to read and react to the dogs than the training method, at least to some degree. Thus, you'll have to forgive me if I disregard that presumption on your part.

Let's look at some of your terms. They emphasize a certain bias. "Crank and yank method of _teaching_" as you put it is a bit misleading. First, your emphasis on "teaching" obviously implies you do not view it as such, even though it clearly is. Whether you like it or not, it is and has been used to shape behavior. Second, the crank and yank conveniently misses the other part. If you are talking about people that don't praise their dogs, THAT would be "crank & yank." For one, the point is to get them to do what you want so you can praise the crap out of them, get them to want that and work for your praise, and only use corrections when they decide to test you. You WANT the dog to succeed and the slang term applied to that training ignores that, even though praise is vital to the success in that form of training. Second, there is a difference between an abusive "crank and yank" on a dog that does not warrant such or simply excessive corrections, a light-to-moderate pop on a prong collar correcting a negative behavior but paired with praise (or whatever), and a hard correction on a hard dog or one that warrants it.

Ideally, to me at least, a trainer that used praise & compulsion/Koehler training, will prioritize making it a positive experience. It is easy to abuse that sort of system, but when I've seen dogs do well it has been when the correction was just a predictable and fair reminder for something they knowingly did wrong. Very black-and-white. Get too hard or unfair on a dog, and you can tell if you're paying attention.

I find nothing wrong with either of the two training methodologies being discussed here. For me, it depends on whether or not you are doing it right and if you are being fair and consistent to the dog. If you turn Koehler into an excessive, harsh training style, or turn a food/toy-reward and verbal-and-some-compulsion type of training more common to sports training into a system of bribes, they both deteriorate. If you do them right, I do not have a problem with either. I do think the old school method is fine though if done properly and seems to create a possibly more workmanlike demeanor, while the more modern sports-type training seems to create a peppier/flashier demeanor. I think they can both be effective and both can be used compassionately to create a happy, well-mannered dog.

-Cheers

** A note on Koehler being cruel. Two points. Some of the harsher methods in the Koehler Method are supposed to be reserved for harder cases that would otherwise end up being put down. I've seen some dogs, real life and on video in one instance, that have been rehabilitated from awful, abusive situations and been successfully placed. If you want proof of this, email Jon Naroditsky at Falawoods and ask if you can get him to post the video of the Rottweiler he rehabbed named Boa. That video kind of speaks for itself, and that was a dog that went from having to wear a muzzle because it would have messed him up for just touching her on the head or trying to walk her. That is about the best case of these methods working in a very clear context with compassion and corrections but not yanking the dog around or being cruel. They eventually got the dog working for them and placed her (successfully I might add) in some sort of security job.

Second, for people who actually use these dogs for jobs that put the dogs a/o the people's lives at stake, I think Don makes a pretty good argument. If it takes a stronger correction to create a bombproof dog than most would like, but it's just a strong and fair correction and not just abusing the dog, but that harsh method keeps the dog from getting killed or killing somebody (maybe it's a dog with serious issues or maybe it's a possible seeing eye dog that would otherwise go after squirrels and get its handler killed). In that instance, I don't consider it cruel either. If you want to argue a more positive-reinforcement based method is better, be my guest. That is not the same though.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Ben, you just can't help making it hard on yourself. Behavior is behavior. Some may be more specied related but whyen you take a close look at it, it isn't all that different. Here is another example of behavior. People play people for what? A reward. It may be a job, it may be security, it may be for simple recognition. We play on dogs feelings, to get them to do something, either through reward or compulsion. This makes you feel like you are a trainer so you feel good if the dog does it. If he doesn't you get stressed, you get pissed....why? Because you don't understand why he doesn't do what you want. The dog is going through the exact same thing. He is stressed because he hasn't figured out what you, are ever so politely, trying to get him to do. Now, when the dog has figured out what you want, he feels as relief and proud as you do that he did it. Behavior and reaction from to totally separate species with not a bit of difference. Now as I said, people play people to gain reward, dogs play on peoples emotions the exact same way. They come prancing into the kitchen and sit in front of you and give you a token bark. You say how cute and give him a treat thinking how supperior you are for having taught the dog to sit yet you have just been played by a dog that now does it without a command because you taught the dog with rewards. It is behavior Ben. Monkeys do it, people do it, dogs do it. Look at gangs in the hood. They protect their territory from the other packs because there are only so many resources with in that territory.

How long does it take a dog to learn not to bump into a cactus with 2" thorns. No time at all. Once maybe twice and he has it for the rest of his life but he never got hurt, it was just because bumping into the thorns was less comfortable that not bumping into them. My dog takes a swipe at me at 6 mo and I paste him along side the head. He is cured for life with this method. It is stress free compared to dragging it out for months of training and ending up with an iffy result at best....yet most feel the latter is an improvement. You being one of them. The little bitch that was continually starting fights that I snatched up the other day. I looked up her birth date. She is actually 2 1/2 and has never once come to me in that yard. She has never trusted me fully until the other day. While you think it is terrible, it is quick and the dog doesn't want a repeat. Now she comes to me and will lay down next to me simoly because it is crystal clear. She still wants to start on the other dogs but all I have to do now is say her name and she stops. You may not have figured it out yet but I don't go around using these methods for the fun of it. They are employed only for things like thinking they can scare me by biting, or in the case of this female where she will stop or get put down. I would rather see her stop and the method gives her the best chance of survival. I use them for making the dogs bullet proof around livestock, and for being bullet proof in the house where I have a garbage sack by the door with meat scraps and such in it. They don't even think of getting in that sack nor do they counter surf even if I go to work with them in the house. The last two things require the dogs be reliable without me being around. This is where I find a lot of holes in todays training methods. On the other hand, I can have a litter of pups that will all sit, lay down and shake by 7 weeks and never have to touch them. The hardest part is getting them to shake with the correct paw....I do have to touch the correct paw for that and at this age I do use treats to maintain their attention.


----------



## Ben Colbert

Don, 

Earlier in this thread you said that hours after slapping a dog that bared its teath to you it came up to you and licked you. You said it did this because it knows what it did and that it was wrong and that the dog was making up to you. If you believe this then there is no way I can take you serously when you talk about dog behavior.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Ben Colbert said:


> Don,
> 
> Earlier in this thread you said that hours after slapping a dog that bared its teath to you it came up to you and licked you. You said it did this because it knows what it did and that it was wrong and that the dog was making up to you. If you believe this then there is no way I can take you serously when you talk about dog behavior.


That is fine Ben. You have needed a picture drawn for you with evey post because you got a lot to learn. You will find that many dogs that challenge people do so because, in there mind they can because they are dominate. This creates a conflict between the owner and the dog and puts an invisible barrier up between a relationship with that dog. I removed the barrier. and in doing so, it is a more relaxed relationship. He doesn't have the conflict of having to challenge me at every turn. What you need is some dogs that will push you up against a wall and get your attention. Question....you say you are a trainer...I am guessing at Pet Smart.


----------



## Ashley Hiebing

Ben, check your PMs.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall

I'm curious, for those who are in the anti-toy/food/etc crowd and feel compulsion and praise are all that's needed, have you ever trained a dog to do the type of heeling required for a V rating in Schutzhund? Not just a dog walking next to you, but heeling with the focus, animation, etc. Or trained a dog for reliable, used in the real world, detection work? Or trained a dog from start to finish for any of the other things that people routinely do use toys and/or food for? And if you have done it, how many dogs have you done it with?

I'm not asking if you know someone else that did it, because unless you were there 100% of the time, for every training session, you aren't going to know exactly the methods used, issues run into, etc. But have you done it yourself? If you haven't, why are you so sure you can? 

I have a friend who says he only trains with praise/correction, never toys/food, but when I asked him one day why he was putting his FR retrieve article (a rolled up sock) at the end of a jump, wasn't that training with a toy, his response was "it's not a toy, it's a retrieve article". Um, OK LOL Sorry, you just wandered into the world of "toy trainers". 

I get what Don is saying about pack dynamics, I've smacked more then one young punky pup myself, and see the same apologetic behavior, but that is not the same as training the type of heeling or other obedience behaviors required in some venues. There are some dogs out there who have such a high pack drive that I do believe you can get the picture in obedience desired with just praise/correction, I have a female right now who thinks praise from me is as good as any food/toy reward (she still likes biting the best though LOL). But I don't think these dogs are the norm. And I don't believe they were the norm 50 or 100 years ago either.


----------



## David Frost

I'm pretty much in agreement with you Kadi. I've trained a couple of thousand detector dogs. In those dogs, maybe one in a hundred could be trained purely on physical/verbal praise. I don't claim to be the best, I do consider myself a decent country dog trainer. I also admit to being a bit cynical at times. It's always interesting to know how many people have actually done what they say can be done. Not what they've been told, or not what they saw - - once. How many have actually done it multiple times. 

DFrost


----------



## Guest

David Ruby said:


> What training method, exactly? The walking with no verbal commands and turning to get the dog to pay attention to you is, to my understanding, just done to introduce dogs to the concept. By the time you got to a reverse weave, you'd just tell them to heel and do it, praising them for keeping position and a light pop if they got out of position. So do you want this done with a starter dog that you're just trying to use light compulsion and the natural consequence of running out of leash (which would probably be an exercise in frustration) or a more finished dog using compulsion & praise and no treats/toys/tugs/etc. (which seems pretty doable to be honest)? And do you want this to be the teaching start-to-finish, or the finished product? I'm just curious what, exactly, you are looking for.
> 
> -Cheers



It doesn't matter if it's a green dog, or a started dog. It just needs to be a dog that has never seen a set of weave poles before. You are not allowed to walk the dog on leash through the poles when the behavior is trained. This needs to be a behavior *performed on cue*, no leash permitted for a final finished behavior. I, and probably a couple other members want to see everything from beginning to end. No motivational items are permitted as the contention of the OP is that all the toys used today are just gimmicks and bribery and some seem to agree with this. If you support the OP then you may use praise and a leash and collar of your choosing. I fully expect the OP to be the first to post video. Again: the final behavior is off leash. 

Its all well and good to take a crap on training behaviors through positive, non-punitive motivation when you are just channeling a dog's natural propensities as we find in a "working environment". We see dogs doing variations on a theme: jumping over things, biting, climbing, searching etc. and it is not rocket science to manipulate a dog to do these things through force or through +R, although +R has been already been proven to have much faster, more reliable long term results. 

When we get into much more complicated less natural behaviors then we begin to see why and how using these _sucker gimmicks_ is not only useful, but in some instances, absolutely necessary. And before someone comes back with "why is it necessary to have a dog walk backwards through some poles" that's not the point. The point is to illustrate to those who do not quite get it what is actually involved in training a dog to do something truly unnatural, ie. difficult and what it means to shape complicated behaviors because this is directly applicable to training dogs to do elementary more natural behaviors. 

I find it interesting that you are the only person who really responded to this, although perhaps you aren't being serious?


----------



## David Ruby

Hey Kadi,

Before I answer, I would like to point out I'm here for education, and a bit of good-natured banter, not to prove I'm right. That said, here goes:



Kadi Thingvall said:


> I'm curious, for those who are in the anti-toy/food/etc crowd and feel compulsion and praise are all that's needed, have you ever trained a dog to do the type of heeling required for a V rating in Schutzhund? Not just a dog walking next to you, but heeling with the focus, animation, etc. Or trained a dog for reliable, used in the real world, detection work? Or trained a dog from start to finish for any of the other things that people routinely do use toys and/or food for? And if you have done it, how many dogs have you done it with?


Honest answer: No. Even more honest answer: It really didn't matter to me. All I cared about prior to any sport stuff was that the dog did what I wanted reliably. Crisp, animated OB was not really a priority so much as that the dog would reliably do what I wanted, when I wanted. I had a positive slant on the training, and it was fun, but I didn't care whether it would pass a V-rating in SchH or any other sport, so I never bothered trying. As long as the dog heeled close to me, what else did I care? I was going for walks like normal people do, why would I want a walking Pez dispenser next to me?



> I'm not asking if you know someone else that did it, because unless you were there 100% of the time, for every training session, you aren't going to know exactly the methods used, issues run into, etc. But have you done it yourself? If you haven't, why are you so sure you can?


Fair enough, since I defer to trainers I've seen use said methods. First, I got into the mindset of believing because that is what I saw. I never saw toys or food used in training except for two times; first as a distraction, and second as just fun/play items outside of the actual exercise. We might do basic or moderate OB stuff in training then the dog got the praise, and then separate they might play (like after the whole class was done) or might get fed (I was never really into treats but if somebody wanted to give him a treat it wasn't a huge deal).

Second, I am not sure if I could train to a high level of sport competition with just praise & compulsion. Do I think I could train a reliable dog with it? Sure. Have I seen any task that I can do with my current training regiment that I couldn't do with praise & compulsion. No, except . . . I will grant there is a level of excitement that I didn't get from praise & compulsion with my current dog that I DO get from more tangible rewards. Do I think that makes her training BETTER? Nope. Do I think I would get killed if she lacked that animation and focus if I were to try to get that in a praise-&-compulsion dog? Yep. If I weren't planning on trying to learn to compete knowing what I know now, I'm not sure which method I'd go with for my current dog. It'd depend on what I decided to do with her.

I also do not fall into the toys/food=bad group, per se. I do empathize with them and see their points though.



> I have a friend who says he only trains with praise/correction, never toys/food, but when I asked him one day why he was putting his FR retrieve article (a rolled up sock) at the end of a jump, wasn't that training with a toy, his response was "it's not a toy, it's a retrieve article". Um, OK LOL Sorry, you just wandered into the world of "toy trainers".


Never is a funny word. I would not say I've "never" used toys or food, just that how I learned was that those tangible rewards were not to be how you rewarded your dogs, and that you had a basic, apparently very-Koehler style of training to shape the behavior (same for pets as for PPDs as for the SAR dogs). It worked, we weren't getting docked points for lacking focus, I saw no reason to change until I wanted to work with a different trainer for Mondio. So now, I'm cool with either method. I also can't say there weren't times the trainers I revere didn't use toys or treats for some purpose with some specific dogs. I can say in my seven years (a blink for some of you, but still) I have never seen it. But who knows.

Hence never say never.

-Cheers


----------



## Candy Eggert

David Frost said:


> Some people call it tricking, some call it operant conditioning. We're back to semantics. Like I said, some people just make this a lot harder than it really is.
> 
> DFrost


WHAT?!?!?! Say it ain't so....:lol:


----------



## David Ruby

Hey Vin,



Vin Chiu said:


> It doesn't matter if it's a green dog, or a started dog. It just needs to be a dog that has never seen a set of weave poles before. You are not allowed to walk the dog on leash through the poles when the behavior is trained. This needs to be a behavior *performed on cue*, no leash permitted for a final finished behavior. I, and probably a couple other members want to see everything from beginning to end. No motivational items are permitted as the contention of the OP is that all the toys used today are just gimmicks and bribery and some seem to agree with this. If you support the OP then you may use praise and a leash and collar of your choosing. I fully expect the OP to be the first to post video. Again: the final behavior is off leash.


Interesting . . .



> Its all well and good to take a crap on training behaviors through positive, non-punitive motivation when you are just channeling a dog's natural propensities as we find in a "working environment". We see dogs doing variations on a theme: jumping over things, biting, climbing, searching etc. and it is not rocket science to manipulate a dog to do these things through force or through +R, although +R has been already been proven to have much faster, more reliable long term results.


Quick aside; I would contend I wasn't taking a crap on positive/non-punitive motivational techniques.



> When we get into much more complicated less natural behaviors then we begin to see why and how using these _sucker gimmicks_ is not only useful, but in some instances, absolutely necessary. And before someone comes back with "why is it necessary to have a dog walk backwards through some poles" that's not the point. The point is to illustrate to those who do not quite get it what is actually involved in training a dog to do something truly unnatural, ie. difficult and what it means to shape complicated behaviors because this is directly applicable to training dogs to do elementary more natural behaviors.


Two things; first, the exercise seems legit considering the thread. Second, I still think it can be done w/ Koehler-type methodology.



> I find it interesting that you are the only person who really responded to this, although perhaps you aren't being serious?


No, I was being genuine. I might have paused longer if I didn't have a specific Rally champion in mind that I have trained with in the past with basic OB and stuff. I mean, she's already kinda done essentially what you are describing; if not specifically, she's at least taken that methodology and trained a dog to earn titles in a reasonably high organized & judged obedience competition.

Ironically, I'm not sure my current dog would qualify or not. Her foundation training is ~1.5 years of compulsion & praise training, however since last winter she's been doing Mondio,so she's training with food for the sport-related training. If that doesn't preclude her I'd be cool learning it if it would help the dog or just be a fun exercise (that really means more to me than demoing for the Internet), but I'm also not cool doing in a way that runs counter to her training, as I have more pressing goals than this specific exercise. If we still qualify, let me know, it could be fun regardless. If I can find video of Sara doing Rally with her Golden Retriever it'd just be easier to post that to be honest since we both learned the same methods from the same person. I can't say I'd be too worried about trying your reverse weave; at worst case I don't for one reason or another and get pwned on a message board. That's not too much to lose.

-Cheers


----------



## Ashley Hiebing

Okay, since we're on the topic of Koehler... I would like you to watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGo6r7QR9Fc

I've read Koehler's guide to dog training and it looks like this guy is following it to a T. 

Watch the dog's body language. This dog is absolutely MISERABLE. He isn't even looking at the handler, he's waaaaaay far behind where he should be. Watch what happens when the dog is given a command to sit or down; he performs it SUPER slowly and is throwing tons of stress signals (lip licking, ears pushed back, head turning away). The dog shows NO reaction to the praise/petting.

This dog is apparently at week five of obedience training, and he STILL has to be dragged around and pushed into a sit. Compulsion training is always said to give fast results. I'm not seeing that.

Now watch the same kind of behaviors taught with positive reinforcement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSUwinUtV6s

This dog looks a lot different, doesn't it? He's also much faster at performing commands. For those of you taking the "the end justifies the means" approach, even you should be able to appreciate the better, faster results. Sure, the Koehler trainer above has a dog that will sit, lay down, stay, heel, etc. But there is NO bond, the dog is only obeying out of fear. Personally, my dog is my partner and my team mate, not my slave. If he doesn't do what I ask, it's because of a mistake on MY part, not his.


----------



## David Ruby

Can I merely play Devil's Advocate for a few seconds?



Ashley Hiebing said:


> Okay, since we're on the topic of Koehler... I would like you to watch this video:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGo6r7QR9Fc
> 
> I've read Koehler's guide to dog training and it looks like this guy is following it to a T.
> 
> Watch the dog's body language. This dog is absolutely MISERABLE. He isn't even looking at the handler, he's waaaaaay far behind where he should be. Watch what happens when the dog is given a command to sit or down; he performs it SUPER slowly and is throwing tons of stress signals (lip licking, ears pushed back, head turning away). The dog shows NO reaction to the praise/petting.


I'd argue the dog doesn't look _miserable_ so much as disinterested. Channeling my trainer, I'd say the guy should make himself more interesting and praise the dog, not a boring "good job." It's a puppy, have fun with it. Interject more excitement into the praise. If the dog looks that bored and couldn't-give-a-crap, whatever the reward is it is not doing its job. Besides that, that is how the dog is trained to heel. There is no correction for lagging behind, no reward for catching up, no excitement for the dog to care much one way or the other. Maybe it gets cleaned up later, maybe it's just a boring handler.



> This dog is apparently at week five of obedience training, and he STILL has to be dragged around and pushed into a sit. Compulsion training is always said to give fast results. I'm not seeing that.


It's one video with one handler & dog.



> Now watch the same kind of behaviors taught with positive reinforcement:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSUwinUtV6s
> 
> This dog looks a lot different, doesn't it? He's also much faster at performing commands.


That looked fine. Again, one video of one handler & dog, but no complaints.



> For those of you taking the "the end justifies the means" approach, even you should be able to appreciate the better, faster results. Sure, the Koehler trainer above has a dog that will sit, lay down, stay, heel, etc. But there is NO bond, the dog is only obeying out of fear.


I don't see a dog that is scared, just bored. The praise is hardly praise so much as going through the motions. Watch a GOOD handler do Koehler and, even if you disagree with it, they can still get more of a rise out of the dog.

That said, as far as the bond . . . I can't disagree with you more if you are implying that the dog and handler have no bond due to him using Koehler training methods. I've know dogs that adore their handlers and have much tighter OB than the first video that get excited to work and think it's fun using nothing but praise and compulsion training.



> Personally, my dog is my partner and my team mate, not my slave. If he doesn't do what I ask, it's because of a mistake on MY part, not his.


Funny, but my Koehler-style trainers have said pretty much the same thing.

Again, not bagging on reward-training here, I am saying I find fault with your analysis of using praise & compulsion as a means of dog training, specifically based on one boring and less-than-stellar example. I would not say it was horrible (although I didn't bother to watch the whole thing, maybe it got better or worse), just boring and anti-motivational to the dog.

-Cheers


----------



## Kristen Cabe

Ashley Hiebing said:


> Okay, since we're on the topic of Koehler... I would like you to watch this video:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGo6r7QR9Fc
> 
> I've read Koehler's guide to dog training and it looks like this guy is following it to a T.
> 
> Watch the dog's body language. This dog is absolutely MISERABLE. He isn't even looking at the handler, he's waaaaaay far behind where he should be. Watch what happens when the dog is given a command to sit or down; he performs it SUPER slowly and is throwing tons of stress signals (lip licking, ears pushed back, head turning away). The dog shows NO reaction to the praise/petting.
> 
> This dog is apparently at week five of obedience training, and he STILL has to be dragged around and pushed into a sit. Compulsion training is always said to give fast results. I'm not seeing that.



The handler is extremely boring, too. I mean, good grief, no wonder the dog is not interested. On top of that, that was a really long time to work a 5.5 month old puppy.

WTH was he trying to do at around the 4min mark? Was that supposed to be a recall?


----------



## Don Turnipseed

I didn't watch the vids Ashley....don't have to. It may mean more if the vids were of the same dog and reacting totally different. Doesn't mean much with two different dogs. I can take a first time dog on a leash and hold a steak in one hand and say this is after two weeks of reward training also.....as I dragged the dog down the road kicking and screaming. Most dedicated Koehler trainers number about 30 nation wide and what most do is take problem dogs and start from scratch and retrain them. They work with a lot of dogs they have no bond with at 5 weeks but since the basic obiendience takes 10 weeks....who knows. I can find you dogs on vids using all possey that look just as pathetic as what the video you put up shows. I recently got a call from an apprentice trainer from Washington. He wanted to train one of my dogs as his demo dog I aked him what kind of training, he said non compulsive. I told him my dogs will make him look bad and left it at that.


----------



## David Ruby

David Frost said:


> Ya know, sometimes, some of you folks make this (dog training) a lot harder than it has to be. ha ha
> 
> DFrost


I think the Internet factors into this as well. With my dog I'll just train to the best of my ability. If somebody shows me something better, a/o they want to chat it up over a drink or something, things are pretty cool (well, usually, but most people can be cool to each other in real life). On the Web, SHTF way too quick. I like discussing this stuff, but I think it gets taken way too seriously on the web versus face-to-face.

It's an interesting argument, even worth stating/clarifying your position, but not worth getting all that riled up over. So I suppose we deserved that.

-Cheers


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Kadi Thingvall said:


> I'm curious, for those who are in the anti-toy/food/etc crowd and feel compulsion and praise are all that's needed, have you ever trained a dog to do the type of heeling required for a V rating in Schutzhund? Not just a dog walking next to you, but heeling with the focus, animation, etc. Or trained a dog for reliable, used in the real world, detection work? Or trained a dog from start to finish for any of the other things that people routinely do use toys and/or food for? And if you have done it, how many dogs have you done it with?
> 
> I'm not asking if you know someone else that did it, because unless you were there 100% of the time, for every training session, you aren't going to know exactly the methods used, issues run into, etc. But have you done it yourself? If you haven't, why are you so sure you can?
> 
> I have a friend who says he only trains with praise/correction, never toys/food, but when I asked him one day why he was putting his FR retrieve article (a rolled up sock) at the end of a jump, wasn't that training with a toy, his response was "it's not a toy, it's a retrieve article". Um, OK LOL Sorry, you just wandered into the world of "toy trainers".
> 
> I get what Don is saying about pack dynamics, I've smacked more then one young punky pup myself, and see the same apologetic behavior, but that is not the same as training the type of heeling or other obedience behaviors required in some venues. There are some dogs out there who have such a high pack drive that I do believe you can get the picture in obedience desired with just praise/correction, I have a female right now who thinks praise from me is as good as any food/toy reward (she still likes biting the best though LOL). But I don't think these dogs are the norm. And I don't believe they were the norm 50 or 100 years ago either.


Kadi, here is my first post on this thread,
"Probably the best training method I have seen is still Koehler. Gerry's has a dog that it would work beautifly on. I think todays trainers hate it becauise they don't fully understand it or dogs and it requires to much on their part. 

What really amuses me is that when someone has a problem with a dog, read the fixes people suggest for a hard dog. They are mosty variations of Koehler. Geoff's reply to Gerry about knee the dog and keep and absolutley game(poker) face. Y'all hate the method but most of you use it when you can't get the job done with the new methods."

Nowhere did I say anything about any other type of training. I was merely pointing out that this method works but most look at it like it is brutal and they don't even understand that what they end up using when they have a dog that won't play ball comes from this method. I don't even deny I have used treats and rewards in specific instances nor that I am not a dog trainer. Somewhere in this mess I did say that I have watched people struggle with all methods of soft peddlling with my dogs and they want to kill them, yet the easiest and happiest I haved seen one dog at less than a year old is by a by the book Koehler trainer....by the book to the letter. I found that darn impressive because it took me years to understand them well enough to get exactly what I wanted out of them. And then no telling what I said toying with Ben that may have been off topic. At least you are familiar with how a dog can and will act once you grab them and make it crystal clear what is expected. It is like they had an epiphany if your timing and severity are right. I did say that many trainers today will not know what I was talking about and think I am BSing them.


----------



## Ashley Hiebing

David: I think the dog's body language proves that it was more than uninterested. If you're interested, I'd suggest doing some research on "calming signals."

Would you be able to find me a video with a better handler?

Personally, when motivating a dog, I would rather use something that is a primary reinforcer, i.e., food or possibly a toy. While there does seem to be an intrinsic response to the high, staccato sounds of praise, ESPECIALLY if the dog has formed an association between the praise and a primary reinforcer, I would rather hedge my bets on something other than praise, unless nothing else seemed to be working.

Something I'm curious about... what happens when Koehler trained dogs have the leash and choke chain taken away? What motivates them to keep working with you?

Don: What does "positive" training mean to you? Can you describe to me what it looks like in your mind? Because I'm not really understanding what you mean.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Ashley said'
"Personally, my dog is my partner and my team mate, not my slave. If he doesn't do what I ask, it's because of a mistake on MY part, not his. "

I get so tired of hearing this lame line. Maybe you did everything perfect and your dog is to stupid to understand. Maybe he just doesn't give a rip what you want at that moment and wants to see if you can make him do it. Right then is where you are going to make your mistake. I got dogs that know exactly what they are supposed to do as they look me in the eye and blow me off.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Ashley asked
"Don: What does "positive" training mean to you? Can you describe to me what it looks like in your mind? Because I'm not really understanding what you mean."

I see it as something that makes the trainer feel good about his/her self with little regard for spending a month stressing the dog out when the same thing could have been accomplished in two days and the dog could have spent 28 day stress free." and learning something new.


----------



## David Ruby

Ashley Hiebing said:


> David: I think the dog's body language proves that it was more than uninterested. If you're interested, I'd suggest doing some research on "calming signals."


Maybe. I would say that sending a more positive vibe toward the dog would do wonders, regardless of methods. Also, I am not totally convinced a dog being stressed is bad IF you work them through the stress and give a big payoff for them at the end. Half-hearted slaps and a bored "good boy" doesn't cut it.



> Would you be able to find me a video with a better handler?


I know there were some of Jon around, if I can find some of his, they are pretty good. He had some around, but they seem to have vanished. The one I'm thinking of had him just doing basic heels forward and back and the dog (I believe Mongo) was just wagging his tail and seemed to be enjoying himself. With my former dog he was trained Koehler style and he looked forward to training because I made it fun for him. He'd also have been a good candidate for ball-reward training because he loves the ball, but we just did that as a big reward after a training session, or just separate. He'd also have to work for it, so by making him sit then throwing the ball the play did end up being a reward for not being a putz, but it was generally separate from formal training.

Anyway, for now I suppose you'll have to take my word on it. If I can find some I'll post links. But that guy was boring, and I assure you there are better ones.



> Something I'm curious about... what happens when Koehler trained dogs have the leash and choke chain taken away? What motivates them to keep working with you?


The same thing that happens when sport dogs have their toys/food and leash-&-collar taken away. It depends. The more advanced ones I've seen might rarely need corrections, and often (just from what I've seen and done) very light ones. They know the drill, it's either a reminder to keep their head in the game, or a reminder you'll still make them do what they're supposed to. If they are not quite there, take off their leash and ask them to do something and they might blow you off. Then you have to do something fun to get them to do what you want (if a dog got loose, for instance, my trainer would run away from them to get the dog to chase her, not that it was the only thing in her arsenal but it generally worked as it was fun for the dog to chase her and great for teaching "comes"). It's not much different than training kids. At least from what I've gathered, the dog has to respect you at some point since you won't always have a $50 bill for them, nor will you always be in a position to correct them (physically or chewing them a new one for doing whatever). You still reinforce the behavior, but over time they (dogs or kids) hopefully make the right decisions on their own and you have to give them the freedom to make those decisions at some point. Don't you?

Again, that's just what I've seen. It seems pretty consistent with the trainer I spent the most time with regardless of the dogs, but she is to be fair not a sports trainer nor concerned with the flash and spunk. She is very cognizant of the dogs state of mind and keeping it fun for them and their handlers.

-Cheers


----------



## Ashley Hiebing

Don Turnipseed said:


> Ashley said'
> "Personally, my dog is my partner and my team mate, not my slave. If he doesn't do what I ask, it's because of a mistake on MY part, not his. "
> 
> I get so tired of hearing this lame line. Maybe you did everything perfect and your dog is to stupid to understand. Maybe he just doesn't give a rip what you want at that moment and wants to see if you can make him do it. Right then is where you are going to make your mistake. I got dogs that know exactly what they are supposed to do as they look me in the eye and blow me off.


You are really anthropomorphizing there, Don. But I guess if you want to believe that dogs have morals and know right from wrong, that's your prerogative.

How is positive training stressing a dog out? I would think that being yanked around on a choke chain would be a little more stressful on a dog.


----------



## Ashley Hiebing

David: Who do you train with? Would I be able to come and take a look?

I guess my biggest issue with traditional training is that you are setting the dog up to fail, constantly. There are a million different things a dog can do "wrong" and only one thing the dog can do "right." Why would you want to correct the dog a million times?

Heeling, for example. The dog gets corrected over and over again until he finally realizes that this tiny spot next to you is the "safe zone." Or, he could understand that the tiny spot next to you is where he WANTS to be (as opposed to MUST be), and why bother going anywhere else because nothing good happens? I'm sorry if that wasn't the clearest explanation.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Ashley Hiebing said:


> You are really anthropomorphizing there, Don. But I guess if you want to believe that dogs have morals and know right from wrong, that's your prerogative.
> 
> How is positive training stressing a dog out? I would think that being yanked around on a choke chain would be a little more stressful on a dog.


Are you Ben in drag?? Where, in what I said, have you conjured up anthropomorphising or morals?


----------



## tracey schneider

I found some Koehler vids....

same dog here week 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9QIhtyNfck

same guy diff dog http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gptCuseP83A

others....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7i9PI9W-Fc&feature=player_embedded#at=58

more from the same lady....

the before is pretty funny lol
http://www.youtube.com/user/Gorunner3434#p/u

completed dog?
http://www.youtube.com/user/Gorunner3434#p/u/1/ubFcPLnLTSU


----------



## David Ruby

Ashley Hiebing said:


> David: Who do you train with? Would I be able to come and take a look?
> 
> I guess my biggest issue with traditional training is that you are setting the dog up to fail, constantly. There are a million different things a dog can do "wrong" and only one thing the dog can do "right." Why would you want to correct the dog a million times?
> 
> Heeling, for example. The dog gets corrected over and over again until he finally realizes that this tiny spot next to you is the "safe zone." Or, he could understand that the tiny spot next to you is where he WANTS to be (as opposed to MUST be), and why bother going anywhere else because nothing good happens? I'm sorry if that wasn't the clearest explanation.


I learned from, and still hang out with regularly, Polly Dake. She's in Beaver Dam, WI. Check her out. Honestly, nothing I can say will give you a feel for it nearly as well as paying her a visit. I'm sure she'd let you come take a look. I'm currently training Mondio, so I'm actually up on Bonduel, WI for that, but that's not solely praise & compulsion. But check out Polly. If nothing else, I think it'll change your mind on the upside of Koehler-type training. Besides that, she's a nice person who has much more on her resume than I probably ever will and really knows her stuff and how to apply it to all different types of dogs. She does basic-to-advanced OB, she's done SAR and protection work, I forget what else.

http://www.caninesolutionsllc.com/

I will say your perception of things is different than my experience of what happens, but check it out for yourself. If nothing else you meet a nice person who does things a tad differently than you, and if you still think I'm wrong you have a common ground to tell me specifically what you didn't like and why I'm wrong. I've had worse happen, and I can handle being wrong.

-Cheers


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Ashley Hiebing said:


> David: Who do you train with? Would I be able to come and take a look?
> 
> I guess my biggest issue with traditional training is that you are setting the dog up to fail, constantly. There are a million different things a dog can do "wrong" and only one thing the dog can do "right." Why would you want to correct the dog a million times?
> 
> Heeling, for example. The dog gets corrected over and over again until he finally realizes that this tiny spot next to you is the "safe zone." Or, he could understand that the tiny spot next to you is where he WANTS to be (as opposed to MUST be), and why bother going anywhere else because nothing good happens? I'm sorry if that wasn't the clearest explanation.


Ashley, you are Ben I am sure of it. You have the dog on a 20' line, you start walking the dog pulls, you change directions and the dog corrects. This is repeated a few times. In theses few times, the dog starts paying attention to where you are at and realizes the line is 20' long, 20'1" is out of the comfort zone so he quicly learns to watch you and stay within the comfort zone. Within the comfort zone means NO corrections....not "getting corrected a million times" as you wish to imply . After several days of no corrections, the leash is shortend to say 15' Yes, he gets corrected when he hits the end but catches on quickly now and realizes the comfort zone is smaller and quickly adjusts so no more corrections.....Or, you could throw a 6' leash on and put the dog in the exact spot you want him in and start jerking him around every time he loses that exact position. So now the dog is totally stressed and there was never any comfort zone....just this is where I want you and you will stay here. Personally, I like the first better because it is done very gradually and THE DOG UNDERSTANDS THAT IN THAT ONE SPOT IS WHERE "HE" WANTS TO BE.....NOT WHERE "YOU" WANT HIM TO BE.......BECAUSE HE HAS HAD SEVERAL WEEKS TO DECIDE WHAT IS BEST FOR HIM.....WHICH IS WHAT YOU WANTED ANYWAY.


----------



## Noah Gaboriault

Okay, I've read this entire thing, followed it along all the while, with no intentions of posting myself (in fact, at one point I started getting bored, but I took a break and then kept reading). But now, I have to post...

Ashley, I've been on another site for years now and actually wondered if you were a regular over there because the primary thing said over there is the exact things you're saying and the same exaggerations are made. You want so badly to convince other people that you simply refuse to read, consider, or understand what others (likely with more experience, or who intimately know what they are talking about) are saying. It's doing you absolutely no favors.

I have seen no anthropomorphizing here, no mention of dogs having morals: right and wrong does not equate to morals...a dog can be right and wrong in their choice of behavior regardless of method or tools used simply by way of whether that is what you want or will tolerate or not. That's not morals.

What's more, I personally am well versed in calming signals and signs of stress in a dog: I've had to be with my current dog, and she's been a huge learning experience. Honestly, I knew all about them long before I even knew people had actually put a specific name to them. I even flipped through a book once about them and was unimpressed because I read far more into the picture and could tell you more about what was going on than the author gave. That said: the pup in your Koehler video was not throwing out signs of stress by any means. That dog was simply uninterested and unmotivated, and who could blame him? That guy was less interesting than a teacher I had in high school whose class I ultimately ended up dropping because I wasn't learning anything and never would in her class. Motivation is the biggest factor in the learning or training process, and that dog simply neither saw nor was given any motivation, be it positive punishment from a leash correction for lagging behind or adequate positive reinforcement (be it praise, food, toy) when he does what the guy is wanting or whatever. If there is no motivation, there is no interest, only boredom. There was no stress, let alone fear, in that pup. Honestly, I couldn't even see a sighthound being afraid of what I saw in that "trainer": he was simply boring, and I doubt he even understood or knew what he was supposed to be doing, because it didn't look like it to me.

Honestly, if you're going to argue and debate for the methods you feel are best, especially on a working dog forum full of people who have strong opinions as well and have years of experience to support their views, you might want to come at it forgetting your preconceived notions of what "traditional training" is and read what is actually being discussed at the moment. You'll get a lot further, and sound less like a broken record (just keep repeating the same thing without hearing anything). It also helps to watch or read objectively, rather than actively looking for what you want to be there and claiming it is.


----------



## Ashley Hiebing

Noah Gaboriault said:


> Okay, I've read this entire thing, followed it along all the while, with no intentions of posting myself (in fact, at one point I started getting bored, but I took a break and then kept reading). But now, I have to post...
> 
> Ashley, I've been on another site for years now


Which site is that? I'm active on very few sites, believe it or not. Mostly I just lurk.



> and actually wondered if you were a regular over there because the primary thing said over there is the exact things you're saying and the same exaggerations are made. You want so badly to convince other people that you simply refuse to read, consider, or understand what others (likely with more experience, or who intimately know what they are talking about) are saying. It's doing you absolutely no favors.


Actually, I'm not trying to convince anyone. I know I won't. I'm just stating my opinions, as I'm pretty sure everyone else here is. I am reading and considering what others are saying; I'm not sure how you developed telepathy. And I'm not about to start debating who has what experience or how much. Every time ANYONE tries to make any sort of contrary argument on here, it turns into a whose wee-wee is bigger contest. It's a big reason why I DON'T bother contributing and just lurk. Also, please tell me where I'm exaggerating.



> I have seen no anthropomorphizing here,


"Maybe he just doesn't give a rip what you want at that moment and wants to see if you can make him do it. Right then is where you are going to make your mistake. I got dogs that know exactly what they are supposed to do as they look me in the eye and blow me off."

Don's comment right there anthropomorphizes dogs, making them have human behaviors and a moral compass. And as far as Koehler goes, he was the biggest anthropomorphizer of all (goodness what a mouthful)... I've never seen someone talk about dogs doing things to spite their owners as much as he has.



> no mention of dogs having morals: right and wrong does not equate to morals...a dog can be right and wrong in their choice of behavior regardless of method or tools used simply by way of whether that is what you want or will tolerate or not. That's not morals.


Morals: ethical motive: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong.

I did not say that a dog cannot be right or wrong, in a person's eyes. If I tell my dog to sit and he lays down, he would be wrong in my eyes, for example. The DOG does not know right from wrong, only safe from dangerous.



> What's more, I personally am well versed in calming signals


I should hope so, if you want a degree in behaviorism.



> and signs of stress in a dog: I've had to be with my current dog, and she's been a huge learning experience. Honestly, I knew all about them long before I even knew people had actually put a specific name to them. I even flipped through a book once about them and was unimpressed because I read far more into the picture and could tell you more about what was going on than the author gave. That said: the pup in your Koehler video was not throwing out signs of stress by any means.


So, based on your experience with your own dog, what do you consider signs of stress?



> That dog was simply uninterested and unmotivated, and who could blame him? That guy was less interesting than a teacher I had in high school whose class I ultimately ended up dropping because I wasn't learning anything and never would in her class. Motivation is the biggest factor in the learning or training process, and that dog simply neither saw nor was given any motivation, be it positive punishment from a leash correction for lagging behind or adequate positive reinforcement (be it praise, food, toy) when he does what the guy is wanting or whatever. If there is no motivation, there is no interest, only boredom. There was no stress, let alone fear, in that pup. Honestly, I couldn't even see a sighthound being afraid of what I saw in that "trainer": he was simply boring, and I doubt he even understood or knew what he was supposed to be doing, because it didn't look like it to me.


I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then. Everything I have read on stress signals confirms what I'm seeing in that dog.



> Honestly, if you're going to argue and debate for the methods you feel are best, especially on a working dog forum full of people who have strong opinions as well and have years of experience to support their views, you might want to come at it forgetting your preconceived notions of what "traditional training" is and read what is actually being discussed at the moment.


Yeah, there's that telepathy again... I wonder how you can tell whether or not I'm reading what's being posted. You may not believe this, but I've used traditional methods before, found they didn't work for me and my dog, and changed my methods. I have no problem with people using corrections if the situation warrants it. But I do NOT agree with using corrections to teach a behavior. I don't think it's fair to the dog and I don't think it makes things clear to the dog what you want.



> You'll get a lot further, and sound less like a broken record (just keep repeating the same thing without hearing anything). It also helps to watch or read objectively, rather than actively looking for what you want to be there and claiming it is.


Thanks for the advice.


----------



## David Ruby

I do want to note something:



Ashley Hiebing said:


> "Maybe he just doesn't give a rip what you want at that moment and wants to see if you can make him do it. Right then is where you are going to make your mistake. I got dogs that know exactly what they are supposed to do as they look me in the eye and blow me off."
> 
> Don's comment right there anthropomorphizes dogs, making them have human behaviors and a moral compass. And as far as Koehler goes, he was the biggest anthropomorphizer of all (goodness what a mouthful)... I've never seen someone talk about dogs doing things to spite their owners as much as he has.
> 
> Morals: ethical motive: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong.
> 
> I did not say that a dog cannot be right or wrong, in a person's eyes. If I tell my dog to sit and he lays down, he would be wrong in my eyes, for example. The DOG does not know right from wrong, only safe from dangerous.


That's not anthropomorphizing. Don's not talking about right or wrong in some moral or Judeo-Christian sense (Don, if you are, I need one of your dogs, mine's a frickin' thief and somewhat of a liar), they know what is right or wrong according to the rules set in place. And yes, a dog will look you in the eyes, you both know what is expected, and they will blow you off and more or less decide to test you a/o that they do not want to do what you are asking of them. I'd bet money you've had that experience. Pointing out that the dog is aware of this (they might not have the same sense of morals as humans, but they are not stupid) but are acting in their own interests or whims is NOT anthropomorphizing.

And if you tell your dog to sit and he lays down, he's probably confused, or messing with you (intentionally, or just because he doesn't feel like doing it).

-Cheers


----------



## Ashley Hiebing

David: I've actually talked with Polly a little bit before... I thought she uses both treats/toys and corrections? She invited me to come watch her teach classes at Animart, but we never found a time that worked out.


----------



## Ashley Hiebing

Ack, I seem to have missed my edit time allowance.

I think that might be where the fundamental difference is... I don't see the dog as blowing me off, or giving me the finger, or defying me. I can definitely see how someone can come to that conclusion, but I'm just not buying it.


----------



## David Ruby

Ashley Hiebing said:


> David: I've actually talked with Polly a little bit before... I thought she uses both treats/toys and corrections? She invited me to come watch her teach classes at Animart, but we never found a time that worked out.


Hey Ashley, usually, at least as far as I've seen, no. Maybe on a case-by-case, or in some situations. I don't think she'd be totally die-hard opposed to it, but generally speaking I don't think she uses them. Put it this way, I don't think she'd vomit in her mouth at the suggestion, but I don't think she'd rely on it heavily if at all. That said, if she told me to do so, I trust her enough to listen to her. I think very highly of her as a trainer and as a person. Polly's good people.

If you get a chance, check her out if you are at all curious. Her general training, and what I learned, and every class I've ever seen/attended with her was pretty much praise and correction style of training. I think you'd find it a bit more positive than Koehler training generally gets portrayed as, and literally anything she says should trump anything I might say or think on dogs. It's be educational, and Polly is a lot of fun and I have nothing but utmost respect and gratitude for her.

-Cheers


----------



## Joby Becker

Polly is a CLASS A person...


----------



## David Ruby

Ashley Hiebing said:


> Ack, I seem to have missed my edit time allowance.
> 
> I think that might be where the fundamental difference is... I don't see the dog as blowing me off, or giving me the finger, or defying me. I can definitely see how someone can come to that conclusion, but I'm just not buying it.


You just haven't found the right dog.  Maybe I'm totally wrong, but I do not believe so. Dogs can decide they just don't feel like doing something, and basically look you straight in the eyes and stubbornly tell you in no uncertain terms, "no." I find it both frustrating and kind of endearing.

-Cheers


----------



## David Ruby

Joby Becker said:


> Polly is a CLASS A person...


Hey Joby,

You'll never hear me say anything else about Polly. I have tons of respect for her on a lot of levels.

Funny story; I made the mistake of joking one of her dogs she sold was kinda/sorta like a Mal; the handler was being a bit too free with the corrections and was about to get a Bulldog coming up the leash and, knowing Polly for years, I naturally made a wise crack. Wow, she didn't care for that one bit. :razz: She threatened to take my dog back on grounds that the comparison amounted to animal abuse. Good times! It was all in good fun, we had a good laugh about it, and I still have my dog. 

Joby, you probably know everybody I've trained with and learned from in this kind of training, definitely more than anybody else on this forum. If I'm full of it or flat-out-wrong, let me know.

-Cheers


----------



## Ashley Hiebing

My dog does that to me almost every day =) He does like to do things his way. I just take it as, okay, we haven't trained enough in this kind of situation. Or maybe he doesn't know the command yet. Chances are, I'm moving too fast and raising criteria too much (he is what Don would call "stupid.")

Is he blowing me off? Maybe. I guess I would rather just take a step back and build a better foundation with less distractions than try and avoid the fallout that can come with positive punishment.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Ashley, you keep referring to that one dog, I am curious as to how many dogs you have trained?I haven't trained any so be honest. LOL


----------



## Noah Gaboriault

Telepathy? Nice. No, no telepathy here, simply going by the fact that what you're typing about is not being discussed in this thread: for example, you seem to be in the same discussion (most people think Koehler when they say "traditional training") and you're posing questions, but what you brought up in your last post before my first one is not what anyone else is talking about. Logical conclusion is that either you're having your own conversation, or else you're reading what is being typed in a technical sense, but not actually comprehending (which is what is usually meant by reading: reading and comprehending).

Perhaps you're not trying to convince people to agree, but any time someone steps into a conversation of any kind they're usually trying to convince someone to at least see what they're saying and where they're coming from. Really, the same response applies.

Exaggerations? Constantly setting a dog up to fail? Yanked around? Absolutely MISERABLE? Throwing tons of stress signals? Dragged around? Pushed into a sit? Only obeying out of fear? Slave? Safe from dangerous? Even your two video examples were an exaggeration between the different types, and your analysis of the "calming signals" that pup was purportedly giving off was exaggerated. Okay, so maybe some of this could be a difference of perspective or whathaveyou, I'll give you that, but you're using a lot of words that could be considered loaded, which really presents as an exaggeration.

I still see no anthropomorphizing. Human behaviors and a moral compass? I saw no behaviors in that example which were inherently human and human alone. The second part of that definition? Right and wrong by way of ethics. There are no mention of morals because none of the behaviors discussed, behavior in canines, has an ethical element to it. David did a good job of covering this.

Based on my experience with my own dog and many others. That question really isn't something that can be answered in a way that benefits conversation, in my experience: there's too much that can be said and too much that can be missed, and only discussing what can be seen really gives an idea of one's experience. In the video, yes, the pup performs the commands super slowly, but he is relaxed: the body is not tense, and it's more of a lazy response than anything. The pup is also slow to walk alongside the man, lagging behind or going ahead quite often, but with no interest in what is going on as far as the training. The ears aren't pushed back: more often than not they're forward and alert. Closest thing to "pushed back" is when he's lying down and even then it's not a stressed earset: he's looking around, relaxed, observing and keeping track of what's going on around him. Any time his head turns away he's simply looking around: there's no effort to purposefully not look at the handler (rather just has no interest or reason to pay attention to him and look at him), he's still very much relaxed, mouth isn't closed or tight, he doesn't even lick his lips at those times. In fact, he actually quite often looks as if something he sees is interesting to him. Any time he licks his lips it's still in a relaxed manner: it's brief and not excessive, not to mention the dog is panting so he's bound to "lick his lips" occasionally. When the man praises him nothing changes and, as you said, he shows no reaction. Given everything else, that to me says the dog simply does not care, not that he's stressed.

If that pup is stressed, then I know a lot of dogs that must be having heart-attacks every single day, multiple times a day.

Agree to disagree is fine by me. Perhaps that's it then, that reading about stress signals makes it easier to think that you're seeing them in a dog than learning about them long before reading anything about them. I see very little in that video to indicate any stress, and what little I do, given everything else I see, it's momentary at most and certainly not related to training method. I honestly think it's a stretch to say the pup is giving off signs of stress.

Again, no telepathy here: just going off of what I'm reading. What examples of "traditional methods" you're using aren't being brought up until you mention them. There's actually very little indicating how people actually train behaviors, but several times where they agree that correcting before a dog knows what is expected by way of how you describe it (correcting repeatedly) is not fair. If you're declaring that you're describing the same training method for heel as Don is, well, apparently I'm not the only one who doesn't agree.


----------



## maggie fraser

I just took a look at Ashley's vid there, the pup didn't look very interested to me, in fact I'd say he was more than a tad preoccupied with something else going on, like he was sore and very loose in his right hind. I'm not jumping on a band wagon here but there is no way you can equate that guy and trainer in the same sentence, therefore that vid has no meaning to me, neither training nor method.


----------



## Jack Roberts

Some of the things that I noticed with training with compulsion and motivational style training. 

Motivational Style Training: Food, Clickers, Prey Items, Toys, Tugs, Using some of these items as a lure especially food when young to teach OB.

Compulsion Training: One of the better compulsion trainers is Barbara Woodhouse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Woodhouse . I could not find any videos demonstrating her own dogs but there are some of her training other dogs. Compulsion training could be snapping the leash when teaching the dog to heal, using knee for a quick turns, pinching the ear to teach the hold and flanking the dog for quicker turns in healing. You could also use a e-collar to stim the dog to make a hold. I look at most e-collar training as compulsion, especially with escape training which is what most people use with e-collars.


Positives of compulsion training:

I can teach a dog to walk quickly on a leash. It may not be pretty but the dog will learn within 5 minutes.

In this thread, I explained how I teach stop to a dog. Let the dog get going on a long line or flex leash and give the command "stop", hit the button or stop the long line and the dog corrects himself with forward momentum. It is not the nicest way to teach it but it is the most effective. The dog learns quick that "Stop" means stop. I would say a two trial learning at the most before the command is understood.

With an e-collar, you can get results fast. It really does not take long at all to get the basic OB down especially if you have good timing. 

**I think that dogs taught with compulsion are better behaved.

Negatives of Compulsion:

The dog does not think as much for themselves. Personally, I think it takes something away from the relationship. I think it is harder to teach new exercises when using compulsion. The dog is not as motivated to learn the behavior and looks to the handler for direction instead of testing new behaviors.


Positives of Motivational Training:

Dog will throw different behaviors out and generally be much more exuberant during training. The dog is thinking or at least attempting to earn the reward by giving various type of behaviors. The dogs will also train longer, since it is a game for them. There is a relationship that is developed between handler and dog that compulsion does not give. You are working at the dog's level. Its a win-win game for both handler and dog. The dog is rewarded with play and a game and the handler with a behavior that you are training for. 

Negatives of using motivational only:

I have noticed that the dog is not as obedient if you are only using pure motivation. I am not sure if it has to do with a relationship of seeing handler and dog as equals but the dog may try you more, especially a strong dog. 

I have found that I've had to modify some training with some compulsion if the dog gets to be disobedient with me. I am using training here as being obedient to the handler. In other words, the dog is going to be respectful of the handler. Usually, a couple of days of rigorous training with compulsion is enough to straighten the dog up. I have only had to do this twice and may have to do it again but the time between the two times is once a year. These periods that I saw with disobedience could just have been a dog maturing and testing boundaries. 


Corrections:

I believe in using corrections, especially for behaviors that are inappropriate. I expect my dogs to live in my house and behave. The word on/off switch means that a dog has learned to behave in the house. When I hear that about a dog that can not be kept in the house it is a training issue and someone just does not know how to train a dog to behave in the house. When raising a puppy, I will keep letting the pup out with me to be in the house. I will use a correction for bad behaviors like running over my kids not respecting people, chewing on inappropriate things, etc... I would not try to use motivational methods for household manners. I want household manners to be black and white. 


Some books on motivational type training:

A good mix of motivational training using a dog's prey drive and some compulsion is Kevin Behan's Book "Natural Dog Training". You have to remember that Kevin's book came out in 1992. A lot of the trainers that you see today are using the same methods that people like Behan and others developed. A lot of these methods of using prey for training were written in a book "Playtraining your Dog" which came out in 1982. These methods have been around for a long time, perhaps just not well known.


***One of the best books on dog behaviors, dog genetics and training is 
Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training by Steven Lindsay . It comes in 3 volumes. If you really want to learn about dogs, there is no finer books in my opinion. He also has some excellent training tips for dealing with issues that you may face with dogs.


----------



## Guest

Don Turnipseed said:


> Vin, he said that exercise you brought up as a challenge is a Rally exercise which is a watered down exercise for dogs that can't cut real obedience. He suggested if you want a real challenge, put a UD on your pup by two year old. I haven't got a clue what any of this means, maybe you do.


Then quite your bitchin and let's see some video, Don! :-\" All I see is you making excuses and whining. If your buddy is the man, then let's see him do it. Let's see how watered down the trick is and how strong of a trainer you are. You guys keep going in circles about this stuff and noone is stepping up except for David Ruby who seems like a reasonable guy and genuinely interested in learning something either way about dog training. 

I even offered an infinitely easier variation on the challenge because I just want someone who is on here arguing that compulsion and physical manipulation are the best ways to train a dog to do a behavior to try it. Really, someone step in the arena. 

Don what you wrote up there is actually pretty funny since I don't know of many trainers who have the combination of the skills and the right dog to pull that trick off and I know of only *one* very gifted trainer who has actually bothered to train this behavior soup to nuts and she has the honor of being it's inventor. Rally O? I don't think so. I could be wrong, as I don't know much about Rally, but I don't think so. 

I guess that goes to show the difference in complexities you are thinking about compared to what a truly complex trained behavior is. I think you are not quite understanding the maneuver I am challenging you to train. The dog is not heeling with you or walking through some traffic cones. Imagine a weave pole setup in agility and a dog running through it full speed. Now put the dog in half speed and make it trot and weave backwards. 

I promise you, trying to train a dog to do this will make you a better trainer if you get *past what methodology* you are using and get down to understanding and discovering how dogs learn best. 

Or, you can keep arguing. It doesn't really matter to me.

David, at this point in the conversation, feel free to try to train this any way you see fit with any dog you have. At this point you seem to be the only interested person with the right attitude and a set of cojones.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Vin Chiu said:


> Then quite your bitchin and let's see some video, Don! :-\" All I see is you making excuses and whining. If your buddy is the man, then let's see him do it. Let's see how watered down the trick is and how strong of a trainer you are. You guys keep going in circles about this stuff and noone is stepping up except for David Ruby who seems like a reasonable guy and genuinely interested in learning something either way about dog training.
> 
> I even offered an infinitely easier variation on the challenge because I just want someone who is on here arguing that compulsion and physical manipulation are the best ways to train a dog to do a behavior to try it. Really, someone step in the arena.
> 
> Don what you wrote up there is actually pretty funny since I don't know of many trainers who have the combination of the skills and the right dog to pull that trick off and I know of only *one* very gifted trainer who has actually bothered to train this behavior soup to nuts and she has the honor of being it's inventor. Rally O? I don't think so. I could be wrong, as I don't know much about Rally, but I don't think so.
> 
> I guess that goes to show the difference in complexities you are thinking about compared to what a truly complex trained behavior is. I think you are not quite understanding the maneuver I am challenging you to train. The dog is not heeling with you or walking through some traffic cones. Imagine a weave pole setup in agility and a dog running through it full speed. Now put the dog in half speed and make it trot and weave backwards.
> 
> I promise you, trying to train a dog to do this will make you a better trainer if you get *past what methodology* you are using and get down to understanding and discovering how dogs learn best.
> 
> Or, you can keep arguing. It doesn't really matter to me.
> 
> David, at this point in the conversation, feel free to try to train this any way you see fit with any dog you have. At this point you seem to be the only interested person with the right attitude and a set of cojones.


Vin your defensivness about your training style is totally blockinging your reading comprehensions skills. I am not talking about training dogs to do tricks. I am talking about getting specific dogs like the ones I have, and I beleive the bulldog you were crying about all the time before you broke down and got another dog you could work with using your method, to comply with what you want and basic obedience. Read the material before you fall apart. I brought up Koehler and all you softies started the comparisons to the sweeter methods that make you feel good. They don't always get the job done with certain dogs. They rarely make a dog bullet proof in the house when you are gone, they don't keep a dog from doing a damned thing unless you are standing there watching them. Vin, when I was growing up along with a few others,dogs lived in the house many time. The average Joe made them totally predictable and they went to work with the dogs in the house. You see, this was before the cheap plastic crates. Now with the new training methods and high calibre trainers there appears to be more dogs locked in crates all day than there ever was. Why?


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Jack, I meant to bring up the way you teach a pup the meaning of stop. I am going to have to give that a go because it sounds good to me.

I also think you last post was an excellent evaluation of all methods.

This is the exact reason I was impressed whith Koehler.

Jack wrote'
"I have noticed that the dog is not as obedient if you are only using pure motivation. I am not sure if it has to do with a relationship of seeing handler and dog as equals but the dog may try you more, especially a strong dog."

I personally don't care how many people cry about Koehler, it makes training dogs like mine cut and dried and I am not trying to teach them tricks. My dogs will beat you down and frustrate the hell out of you if you put them on equal terms. I used to try and force them into compliance. It dawned on me fonally that I could not exert the force necessary to make them give up their edge. They rip the guts out of porcupines and pull their heads off for the fun of it. They have retrieve porkies to hand and finish fight with hogs and I find out later at home they got four broken ribs and people think a little compulsion is going to scar their psychy. 

Actually I had no opinions one way or another a few months ago. Jennifer her on this forum has a dog from me, Jager, who is giving her a run for her money on compiance with obedience. He knows the drill but just sits and grins at her. At the same time, I am watching a completely different method being used on essentially the same dog and the guy is training OB and raving about how easy it is and he can put a UD on the dog by 2 years at the latest. I am sorry, it caught my interest.


----------



## Jason Hammel

Chris McDonald said:


> The more I learn about working dogs the more I think it is a broken system. From my understanding dogs such as the GS health continue to decline. And hyper spas dogs have become the dogs of choice to make up for bad training and handling? Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, I would like to hear other view points. I bought a dog from a training facility no one seems to really know much about, but many in the dog world seems to love to complain about them for some reason? So I get one of their dogs and take a weekend course. I filmed this video of him goofing around in a few hours and it has almost 19,000 hits and I get emails from all around the world telling me how amazing it is. When experienced trainers and LE K9 guys see my dog do this stuff they say very few dogs could ever do it. But when I go to where he was trained every dog there can do this or more? I am not experienced but the few dog training clubs I have been too I have been underwhelmed. I have also been underwhelmed by 90% of the LE dogs and handlers I have met. How pathtic is the dog world that I can buy a 14 month old dog and take a weekend course and there actually be people who are even slightly impressed? I think sometimes the people who are impressed must just not know much and it’s a fun video to look at if you dig dogs. I have found that to not be the case. Look at this guy, he claims to have been importing, breeding and training LE dogs for 32 years and he has no videos of his own dogs to post? Ha, what a looser. I understand that he is not claiming my dog to be one of his but still its week. Can you guys who have been in the dog world for 30 or more years tell me if people expect less from their dogs now than years ago? When did bribery with treats and balls become the norm? Dogs have been used for needed tasks for many years before treats and tugs were used how where they trained? Why does it seem like hunting dogs aren’t trained with treats or tugs like “working dogs”. I have watched labs retrieve ducks all day for nothing more than a pat on the head. Other bird dogs will work pointing birds all day for no treat or tug? But a drug dog now needs to have a party thrown for it when after a search. I think what has got me going is I would really like a good German Shepherd one of these days. As much as I like the DS I have heard form experienced people that there is nothing better than a real good GS. And the fact of the matter is I am really skeptical to get one due to their health issues. Think about how weak that is! Dog breeders from around the world actually wreaking a breed. Can someone please straiten me out over here? Am I seeing things correctly or am I just nuts?


Hey y'all there has been some very good stuff thrown up on here about training methods, behaviours, making behaviour vs. actual training etc. BUT

wasn't the OP question in essence....

Do sport line dogs lack the innate ability to think/reason there way through problems. Are sport line dogs breed to be so focused on certain jobs that the dog may loose the total package. Or better yet does anyone think that one time in the distant past dogs were more like a leatherman tool or still more single purpose like a bottle opener?

Have they been breed to be so 'retarded' for a ( add reward here ) that they aren't focused on the actual situation that maybe unfolding in front of them.


----------



## Jack Roberts

I disagree about sport dogs. The dogs are just dogs at their core. They may have more prey drive in some lines but their essence is still the common dog. If a sport dog was only bred for sport then you would only see a dog litter only doing one job. This is not true. You see sport litters used in Search and Rescue, Police, Scent Work, Home Protecters, Pets, etc.. 

The people that I see criticizing sport dogs are the ones selling their own "special dogs" that are not sport dogs. It is a business and the goal is to sell you a dog. If their dogs are good then they should be able to do sport work. A good sport dog litter should be able to do any other job. When looking at dogs, it is more of a potential not just a job. It is where you focus the dog's potential.

There is a lot of myths and legends of past dogs. The good old days are never that great when you are living them, only when looking back. 

I am hesitant myself to buy a pup from well known trainers. If you are not prejudiced about pedigrees or titles, you may find a good dog from someone who is just a regular breeder. I think with the well known trainers that you may see the training more than the dogs. If you see someone who is not a great trainer but they still have good dogs then the dogs must be bred well. 


Possible place to find a good dog:
A country boy breeder or farmer comes to mind. If you know what you like in a dog then go look at litters and see the parents. If the parents are the kind of dogs you like then more than likely the pups will be similar. If you know what you are looking at in a puppy than the job should be a little easier.


----------



## Guest

Don Turnipseed said:


> Vin your defensivness about your training style is totally blockinging your reading comprehensions skills. I am not talking about training dogs to do tricks. I am talking about getting specific dogs like the ones I have, and I beleive the bulldog you were crying about all the time before you broke down and got another dog you could work with using your method, to comply with what you want and basic obedience. Read the material before you fall apart. I brought up Koehler and all you softies started the comparisons to the sweeter methods that make you feel good. They don't always get the job done with certain dogs. They rarely make a dog bullet proof in the house when you are gone, they don't keep a dog from doing a damned thing unless you are standing there watching them. Vin, when I was growing up along with a few others,dogs lived in the house many time. The average Joe made them totally predictable and they went to work with the dogs in the house. You see, this was before the cheap plastic crates. Now with the new training methods and high calibre trainers there appears to be more dogs locked in crates all day than there ever was. Why?


I don't see where I'm being defensive. I'm not arguing for any specific training techniques although I am personally bound by a professional code of ethics and conduct which does not condone the primary use of +P to train dogs. What I am really interested in is what works best and is best for the dogs. 

What bulldog are you talking about Don? I never complained about my dogs which are and have always been old Carver/ Tudor gamebred American Pit Bull Terriers until I got a Malinois pup *specifically* for SAR. 

My dogs are not AB mutts. I have owned Pits almost as long as you've been breeding. *Maybe you are confusing me with someone else since you keep bringing it up over and over.* My old Pits are equally as driven as my new young Mali if not moreso and actually seem to enjoy the obedience work more and are far more persistent working for a goal. That may change when the Mali matures but right now the old dog that can still run will run circles around the Mali. The pits are 12 and 10 years old with numerous permanent injuries and handicaps from living good active lives. Their ages and injuries along with a healthy dose of SAR politics is why I got a new dog. 

*I don't know where you picked up that I am somehow dissatisfied with my dogs because that is ****ing ridiculous.* If you knew me you'd know how asinine that is. You seem to be really caught up in other people's _crappy dogs_ why is that?

The last question you ask, if you are serious about finding an answer, start a new thread and look beyond this forum. It is a complex thing you bring up and it is not necessarily linked to what you are referring to as "new training methods and high calibre trainers." For one, Marker training has been a presence for 80+ years which is just slightly less time than formal "traditional" dog training has been around as we know it, (Most.) Michael Ellis did not invent marker training and it is not a new fad used only by idiots. Sure there are plenty of idiots using positive methods just as there are idiots using e-collars and prong collars but used properly in the proper sequence with good timing and a full comprehension of what is motivating a dog positive training methods can be as reliable if not more so than traditional training methods. You often hear that that is untrue from people who do not know much beyond _click and treat._ 

I could write about this all day but I don't really have the time. I have dogs to train. I'm out. 

*For the record. I have nothing against you personally. I don't know you. I just call it like I see it as I'm sure you are doing. I'd like to keep this civil. *


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Vin Chiu said:


> I don't see where I'm being defensive. I'm not arguing for any specific training techniques although I am personally bound by a professional code of ethics and conduct which does not condone the primary use of +P to train dogs. What I am really interested in is what works best and is best for the dogs.


Maybe we both need better reading comprehension skills then. I really did take you video challenge "to all you tough guys" using Koehler as arguing that your method was better. Sorry about the misinterpretation. How you choose to train is more about personal ethic but I agree with you all the way, +P has little place in actuall training, but it everything in the right circumstances. 



Vin Chiu said:


> What bulldog are you talking about Don? I never complained about my dogs which are and have always been old Carver/ Tudor gamebred American Pit Bull Terriers until I got a Malinois pup *specifically* for SAR.
> 
> My dogs are not AB mutts. I have owned Pits almost as long as you've been breeding. *Maybe you are confusing me with someone else since you keep bringing it up over and over.* My old Pits are equally as driven as my new young Mali if not moreso and actually seem to enjoy the obedience work more and are far more persistent working for a goal. That may change when the Mali matures but right now the old dog that can still run will run circles around the Mali. The pits are 12 and 10 years old with numerous permanent injuries and handicaps from living good active lives. Their ages and injuries along with a healthy dose of SAR politics is why I got a new dog.
> 
> *I don't know where you picked up that I am somehow dissatisfied with my dogs because that is ****ing ridiculous.* If you knew me you'd know how asinine that is. You seem to be really caught up in other people's _crappy dogs_ why is that?


Maybe I am mistaking, I thought you were the one asking how to keep your dog fired up during the bite. I could be mistaking on that. To be clear though, I am not caught up in other peoples crappy dogs. I have some myself. While the reality is they can still be great dogs, they can't do what I want them to do so I refer to them as crappers. What I do bring up is that people spend so much time working them in something they are not, and never will be suited for.


----------



## Maureen A Osborn

I may be steering a bit off topic, but I have to ask this.....for those trainers that like to give corrections and hard ones at that, what do you do when you are training a true genetic alpha and you go and correct it and it comes back up the leash at you? Or have those that ignore the correction and say FU and shut down and won;t work for ya? Do you consider that a problem or do you consider that dog "smarter" than the average dog that does whatever you want and is your "robot?" Do you want a dog that thinks a problem thru, or just does what its told?


----------



## Julie Ann Alvarez

Maureen A Osborn said:


> I may be steering a bit off topic, but I have to ask this.....for those trainers that like to give corrections and hard ones at that, what do you do when you are training a true genetic alpha and you go and correct it and it comes back up the leash at you? Or have those that ignore the correction and say FU and shut down and won;t work for ya? Do you consider that a problem or do you consider that dog "smarter" than the average dog that does whatever you want and is your "robot?" Do you want a dog that thinks a problem thru, or just does what its told?


Maureen, I am pretty sure if you search you see a few good threads on the topic of "dog comes up the leash after corrections". Both of my dogs will fight "at times" corrections. This is usually when there is a helper on the field (or two) and they don't want to pay attention- factor in the dog is super sensitive when his drive is super high (like during bite work). I ignore it. Then re-direct into a capping exercise (like a platz). I make them come down a little before progressing. I want their heads clear and "thinking" if you can call it thinking- rather than blinded by desire for helper love \\/

I think if a dog shuts down from a correction then either the dog is a POS or the correction was way to hard. I don't think shutting down would not be ignoring a correction but avoiding the work due to percieved or real pressure. Saying FU to the handler IMO is a training issue. Some where along the line some things were missed/gaps if you will. Obviously the handler wasn't prepared for the FU (being able to prevent or anticipate a problem and setting the dog up to fail so he learms he must be correct or face the music).

Sorry to hi-jack the thread even further.

Peace- Julie


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Maureen A Osborn said:


> Or have those that ignore the correction and say FU and shut down and won;t work for ya? Do you consider that a problem or do you consider that dog "smarter" than the average dog that does whatever you want and is your "robot?" Do you want a dog that thinks a problem thru, or just does what its told?


Maureen, this is exactly the dog I am talking about. They will do what you want a few times and then just look at you. Once they decide they have done it enough, you simply can't correct them hard enough to make them do it. The more force used, the more determined they are to not do it. This is what caught my eye about Koehler. The foundation work eliminates the confrontation and it isn't you against the dog.

Julie, I have said many times I am not a trainer but a page or two back, a poster made the comment that this type of training "sets the dog up to fail" in a very negative sense. You make it sound like a positive thing for a specific type of dog ....or do you think most dogs would benefit from it.


----------



## Guest

Don Turnipseed said:


> What I do bring up is that people spend so much time working them in something they are not, and never will be suited for.


Well, Don, we do agree on something there.
=D>


----------



## Joby Becker

Maureen A Osborn said:


> I may be steering a bit off topic, but I have to ask this.....for those trainers that like to give corrections and hard ones at that, what do you do when you are training a true genetic alpha and you go and correct it and it comes back up the leash at you? Or have those that ignore the correction and say FU and shut down and won;t work for ya? Do you consider that a problem or do you consider that dog "smarter" than the average dog that does whatever you want and is your "robot?" Do you want a dog that thinks a problem thru, or just does what its told?


It's the bond that counts with the "hard" dogs. Hard corrections are a necessity at times, if the bond is good and the corrections are "fair" most dogs in most circumstances are not going to be too big of a problem. A dog like you describe is never gonna be anybodies robot.

I could be wrong, but it appears you may be against corrections? Hard corrections do not always equal a "robot dog". 

Lets say you have a dog that wants to kill other dogs, or a dog that wants to try to eat people at inappropriate times, I don't see a dog "thinking through" these types of problems.

If the dog is very clear on what you are asking it to do and you are in the proofing stage and it refuses to comply, how would "thinking through the problem" apply? There is no thinking needed, the dog already thought about it and decided not to comply.


----------



## Guest

Don Turnipseed said:


> What I do bring up is that people spend so much time working them in something they are not, and never will be suited for.


Well, Don, we do agree on something there.
=D>


----------



## Bob Scott

Everyone is hung up on the good. better, best method to train. I've probably used as many different methods in my life time as anyone. I enjoy the challenge of learning something new as much for myself as for the dog.
I've trained some very nice dogs (family and competition) with Koehler methods and I've taken the motivational method farther then most. 
It boils down to your knowledge of what makes a dog tick and your ability to be a leader to your dog.
Method comes second to that! 
If there is a weakness in the dog training world it's being closed minded (either method) to what might work for the individual dog.
I'll pick and choose what to use based on the dog I'm training. :wink:


----------



## jack van strien

Bob,
You are totally right! No amount of talking or reading can may up for experience.
You either have the gene for dogtraining or you don't.


----------



## Julie Ann Alvarez

Don Turnipseed said:


> Maureen, this is exactly the dog I am talking about. They will do what you want a few times and then just look at you. Once they decide they have done it enough, you simply can't correct them hard enough to make them do it. The more force used, the more determined they are to not do it. This is what caught my eye about Koehler. The foundation work eliminates the confrontation and it isn't you against the dog.
> 
> Julie, I have said many times I am not a trainer but a page or two back, a poster made the comment that this type of training "sets the dog up to fail" in a very negative sense. You make it sound like a positive thing for a specific type of dog ....or do you think most dogs would benefit from it.


To me it is positive Don, because the dog will learn and be better for it. In the begining we set them up to be successful always building the dog (confidence/speed/accuracy etc). Starting with stupid simple and getting more difficult as they come along. Eventually we need to raise the bar and think of all kind of weird or strange stimuli- set them up to fail a task and then correct them for it so they realize the consquences. Like placing the dog in a place where you know he is going to break (long down in a busy park etc) you have to be ready to stop him and he has to have a punishment so he remembers not to make that choice again. IMO this is what is going to set apart the scores. When a dog gets past the proofing he should be a 110% reliable 95% of the time (the other 5% can be other unbelievable shit that you aren't prepared for). However they are not robots or machines and constantly need maintenance training/proofing/ and tweeking. 

It is just my opinion. I use everything/anything to train. I am not married to one specific style but my dogs (I think) perform very consistantly. I have been training for about 9 years now. The first 2/3 years I managed to go through one dog with too much yank & crank, then I started watching Flinks and Balavanof video's and attending seminars and watching everyone else. I came up with a training plan (not married to it either) but I use it as guidlines to try and stay within. 

My dogs get verbal praise for good work and physical rewards for excellent work. They get fixed (fooied/nick'd/pinch'd) moved into place gently and gently praised while we are working out exact positions (maybe the down in motion was slightly crooked). But if I am working on speed then I am rewarding for speed. I try not to overwhelm them with too much in each session. 

If my dog decides that something else is more important than me we have a very hard memorable correction. I have goals and they involve scoring highly in OB this summer. The corrections won't effect my dog negatively- my dogs both are hard and very drivey. They can take a lot. Personally I prefer 1 harsher correction rather than several little ones.

I am never going to be some one who only trains positively. I am never going to be that good. I will use everything in my bag. Some force makes certain things crystal clear. Take away the grey and it becomes black and white. 

Wait till I start forced tracking with my TD..... It is not at bad as people want to think it is. They hear the word "force" and flip out. Simply put there is some pressure (lightly trying pulling the dog off the track making him work very hard) and rewards at the article (pressure removed- food, petting etc.). At least this is what is being explained to me. No food on the track either (just at the articles).


----------



## Maureen A Osborn

HI Joby,
I can't say I am really against harsh corrections, I have just learned that every dog is different and every situation is different when it comes to corrections and training. I came from the old school of "alpha rolls" and hard pops on pinch collars until getting dogs that are bred to ignore pain and fight even harder when in pain/injured. I've had 2 male dogos that when keyed in on another dog to fight, doesn't matter how hard you correct them, pinch collar or e-collar on contiuous highest setting, all it does is escalate the aggression. I have learned to "redirect" the focus of the dog and have them do OB instead and remove them from the situation. I have more to type, will have to wait til later, I have to go get ready for class.


----------



## Geoff Empey

jack van strien said:


> No amount of talking or reading can may up for experience.
> You either have the gene for dogtraining or you don't.


To a point Jack. There is no gene for dog training it is for the most part a learnt skill. Sure you have guys like David Hartwig with Skidboot who have that touch, a bond with animals that can relate to training them. But that sure is not the norm. At least it is for me cause everyday I train I learn something with my dogs not only about them but about me. 

I'm sure that the first day you showed up at the club as a green handler or decoy your skill set was not what it is today no matter what your genes predispose.  I'll put money on that you learnt a lot not just by doing it .. but by talking with other more experienced handlers and decoys at the club and even reading. To me that is where a lot of everyone's experience comes from. Knowledge about the task at hand is not a bad thing. 

The senior people in the groups that I work with for always being objective and critical of how I train my dog. Without their experience and guidance with my bad dog training genes I'd screw up a lot of dogs! :lol: Thankfully I read and talk (which includes seminars and regular training work) and have actually learned a lot and can even train a dog not half bad now. :-\"


----------



## Jack Roberts

I agree with Geoff about dog training. Knowledge is extremely important and I have grown as a trainer by learning and observing. I have taught people how to work their dogs. They were open to learning. It was not a gene but hard work. 

Usually, time spent studying dog behaviors and various methods of training will pay dividends in your own training. There are many books on the subject and people who have studied dogs a lot longer than I will every have a chance to. A lot of dog people seem lazy to me and will not take the time to educate themselves on how dogs learn. If it is not a video or seminar than they do not want to take the time or they look for the magic tug or magical training method. 

We often speak about timing in dog training. Timing comes from practice but also observation. Practice and doing without application of knowledge will get you the same thing over and over. You have to learn to observe well not just look. It just like the difference between hearing and listening. Listening and observing are active processes unlike seeing and hearing which are usually passive processes.

An example of observing would be on your daily trip being able to give what every sign says on your way to work. When I go places, I try to observe stores and streets and put them in my memory. I do the same thing when training my dog. What are his eyes showing. How is his posture, breathing, and his reactions to what I'm doing. It gives me the ability to judge how the training goes. The excellent trainers are using the observation skills and applying knowledge when they are working dogs. It is not a genetic trait but usually hard work with proper knowledge applied. I am not calling myself an excellent trainer. I have a lifetime to go, which is the proper attitude in my opinion. Every trainer should aspire to learning throughout life, especially if you want to perfect your craft. 

disclaimer: Because someone has trained dogs for years does not make them an excellent trainer. They could just be repeating the same bad training over and over.


----------



## Julie Ann Alvarez

Jack Roberts said:


> I agree with Geoff about dog training. Knowledge is extremely important and I have grown as a trainer by learning and observing. I have taught people how to work their dogs. They were open to learning. It was not a gene but hard work.
> 
> Usually, time spent studying dog behaviors and various methods of training will pay dividends in your own training. There are many books on the subject and people who have studied dogs a lot longer than I will every have a chance to. A lot of dog people seem lazy to me and will not take the time to educate themselves on how dogs learn. If it is not a video or seminar than they do not want to take the time or they look for the magic tug or magical training method.
> 
> We often speak about timing in dog training. Timing comes from practice but also observation. Practice and doing without application of knowledge will get you the same thing over and over. You have to learn to observe well not just look. It just like the difference between hearing and listening. Listening and observing are active processes unlike seeing and hearing which are usually passive processes.
> 
> An example of observing would be on your daily trip being able to give what every sign says on your way to work. When I go places, I try to observe stores and streets and put them in my memory. I do the same thing when training my dog. What are his eyes showing. How is his posture, breathing, and his reactions to what I'm doing. It gives me the ability to judge how the training goes. The excellent trainers are using the observation skills and applying knowledge when they are working dogs. It is not a genetic trait but usually hard work with proper knowledge applied. I am not calling myself an excellent trainer. I have a lifetime to go, which is the proper attitude in my opinion. Every trainer should aspire to learning throughout life, especially if you want to perfect your craft.
> 
> disclaimer: *Because someone has trained dogs for years does not make them an excellent trainer. They could just be repeating the same bad training over and over*.


Excellent post Jack. I couldn't agree more. I might even add that repeating the bad training will definately teach the dog to be slow/lazy/ inconsistant etc but they can still get some titles (it just might take forever). 

For a seasoned trainer doing this I don't feel bad (except for the dogs potential being screwed up). Some people can't except the idea of changing their training plans. It is as if one size fits all and once they get on the field they are on auto pilot.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Well, I am glad I never claimed to be a trainer for sure. Last dog book I ever read was White Fang. Never come across one I thought was near as interesting since. LOL I have had 20 to 30 dogs for about 25 years and they keep moving in and out. We sit up on the side of a mountain kind of away from access to all this until about 1999 someone thought I should join the real world and dumped his old computer on me. Some years later I stated realizing the world out there required giving treats as bribes for everything they do....kind of the way kids are raised today. I don't read a lot about dogs because I usually get part way through the first chapter and find myself thinking what bs this is I am reading. But I can sit in the house and watch the dogs interact for hours. If I go outside they act differently. I get to see and understand things about their behavior. Watching 2 three month old pups sit in a whelping box, totally facsinated, as they watch and older female of the pack whelp a litter of pups. All the while the new mom treating those 2 pups like one of the family. All the time this is going on, every member of that pack either lays by the whelping box or sticks his/her head in regularily.
Now most of what I pick up is on the net. Believe me it is no less confusing with the varied opinions than it is picking up a couple of books with totally different outlooks. What limits me most is that these are fun but very hard dogs. I hear about some of the methods and I know the dogs will play you for everything your worth. It is more of a partneship with these dogs, they will give you their best if your fair....but they will play you like a fiddle if you let them. I am not interested in training dogs to do trick etc, I do want to be able to live with them.


----------



## Jack Roberts

Don,

If you are really interested in sinking your teeth into learning something this book ( See link at bottom of the page)will really help you. It will just add to what you already know but may bring it all together for you. You will learn more than any other book for the time spent. 

This is not so much a dog training book as a book that takes all the research through the years on dogs and brings it together. He discusses training but this book is on dogs more than training methods. You can look at the table of contents. It is an expensive book but discusses genetics in dogs and could possibly help you develop your lines even better.

You can look at the table of contents on Amazon. I had my public library get this book for me years ago. You can get your public library to get it for you on interlibrary loan for free. This is not fluff but real world studies from someone who has been studying dogs since the 1960s. 

Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training Book 1
http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Applied-Behavior-Training-Vol/dp/0813807549


----------



## Geoff Empey

Don Turnipseed said:


> Well, I am glad I never claimed to be a trainer for sure. Last dog book I ever read was White Fang. Never come across one I thought was near as interesting since. LOL
> 
> Now most of what I pick up is on the net. Believe me it is no less confusing with the varied opinions than it is picking up a couple of books with totally different outlooks. What limits me most is that these are fun but very hard dogs. I hear about some of the methods and I know the dogs will play you for everything your worth. It is more of a partneship with these dogs, they will give you their best if your fair....but they will play you like a fiddle if you let them. I am not interested in training dogs to do trick etc, I do want to be able to live with them.


He he mine was "Call of the wild" which was poor book for training techniques btw. But inspired me to build bonds with my animals, and also inspired me to buy my first dog which was a wolf hybrid. (that was a mistake overall but I digress) :-\"

I think the majority now a days pick most everything off the net. I barely read 'print' material for anything anymore. From newspapers to rulebooks it's all there, so why would anyone want to pick up something in 'print' when almost everything is online? Good or bad it is what it is. Sifting through crap to find the golden nugget. =; 

I truly believe like you say Don "It is more of a partnership with these dogs" To me building a bond with a dog will go a long way towards that partnership. Don't matter if you are doing detection, Sport or even silly pet tricks. It boils down to that basic foundation of trust and respect. That has to go both ways from animal to human whatever training methods the human uses to get the most from the animal without trust and respect you got nothing.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Thanks Jack, I will take a look at it. Weather is just getting to were I can get out and get back to work and make some money. LOL


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Jack Roberts said:


> .... Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training Book 1
> http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Applied-Behavior-Training-Vol/dp/0813807549


A great series that took me forever to acquire (begging for gift certificates for every occasion until I had enough to get each one :lol: ).


----------



## maggie fraser

Connie Sutherland said:


> A great series that took me forever to acquire (begging for gift certificates for every occasion until I had enough to get each one :lol: ).


 
Bought mine (Vol 1) for £35 off ebay


----------



## Maureen A Osborn

Maureen A Osborn said:


> HI Joby,
> I can't say I am really against harsh corrections, I have just learned that every dog is different and every situation is different when it comes to corrections and training. I came from the old school of "alpha rolls" and hard pops on pinch collars until getting dogs that are bred to ignore pain and fight even harder when in pain/injured. I've had 2 male dogos that when keyed in on another dog to fight, doesn't matter how hard you correct them, pinch collar or e-collar on contiuous highest setting, all it does is escalate the aggression. I have learned to "redirect" the focus of the dog and have them do OB instead and remove them from the situation. I have more to type, will have to wait til later, I have to go get ready for class.


 I have learned that my male dogo works because of the bond I have with him because he wants to please me...my trainers are in awe at how much he is attached to me. My AB, who is 12.5 y/o now, was trained with the old methods of alpha rolls and hard corrections, and she still turned out to be a wonderful, obedient dog that did OB, bitework, and therapy work. Now if I were to alpha roll my male dogo, I would imagine he would not tolerate it, being he is a dominant true alpha male, who is 107 lbs of solid muscle. Joby, I think I am bringiing all that up b/c a lot of the dogo people believe in things like taking a mag light and hitting the dogo over the head and all sorts of harsh corrections, and then you see some dogos eventually turn on their owners because they have made fear biters and/or the dogo just had enough of it and said FU and I have seen many a dogo PTS cause of it. I am glad I found my trainer before I listened to their advice with my male dogo who is dominant dog aggressive and no matter how hard of a correction it won't stop him once he is keyed in on a dog who challenged him. I am enjoyinging reading this forum and reading everyone's opinions and various methods, since I am not "stuck" on one any one over the other, since I have learned what works for one dog may not work for another, and I am by no means an "expert" on dog training, always learning.


----------



## Bob Scott

Of the long shelf full of dog books I have the three vol set by Steven R. Lindsay are, hands down, top of the list.
Only problem with them is I had to hock the wife's wedding ring and her car to afford them. :^o
That and Leerburg gift certificates.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

I thought things like alpha rolls was new innovative training. At least new than traditional. I have to ask, did it work???


----------



## Bob Scott

The Monks of New Skete made the Alpha roll popular. I think even they have realized it's crap. 
In reality the Alpha dog doesn't have to roll the subordinate. The subordinate gives up it's belly to the dominate. 
As you know the mom doesn't necessarily roll the pups. She may hold them with her muzzle but the pup isn't rolled. Often times it's just with a vocal or look from the mom. 
I will admit that in the past I rolled my share of dogs into submission but it often times created fight or panic in the dogs.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

I know a fair amount of dogs I am not going to alpha roll.....they can be alpha before I am getting into a position that close up and personal. The only challenge I am getting into is one where my face is still 6' off the ground.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Getting back on topic,"how weak is the dog world?, one would think with all the advances in genetics, advances in positive training techniques and such, the dog world would be stronger than ever. I have to wonder why we still rely heavily on importation of Eurpean dogs. We have been importing good stock long enough to where we should be over run with great dogs. What's up? Do we keep breeding the good imported stock down?


----------



## jack van strien

Geoff,
I did not mean to imply that i was born to work with dogs but it came out a little different.
I was trying to say that talent is a very lucky thing to have.I used to run about 150km every week for years but no matter how hard i trained my friend could outrun me any day of the week and he never trained for it! 
If you are lucky enough to have interest in the thing you have talent for you can do amazing things and it will feel easy and natural.
That goes for most things in life i guess.


----------



## Maureen A Osborn

Don Turnipseed said:


> I thought things like alpha rolls was new innovative training. At least new than traditional. I have to ask, did it work???


Some dogs yes, some no, and to different extents. My dalmatian I could heel off leash around the whole neighborhood and her recall was awesome and before I got divorced and the hubby got custody of her, was training her for agility and she was doing wonderfully. My AB yes, wonderful dog, OB, bitework, and therapy (she's almost 12.5 y/o now). My belated AmStaff, yes to an extent, was still a spaz though. The Dogos, no, but every dogo I have owned I have had the knack of picking the alpha of the litter(on top with them being a "dominant" breed) and also being that the breed is in general handler sensitive, all it did was make them not trust you. Sorry for hijacking the thread and getting it off topic. Forgot to add, my dogos now with the current training will roll over and automatically show me their bellies without me touching them. I have earned their respect and they willingly take a subordinate position to me, even though both male and female are alphas.

Back on topic, IMHO, the dog world is very weak, esp in the US, and esp the working breeds. Too many people are getting certain breeds and then breeding without consideration of what the dog's original purpose for being created was. People aren't breeding for "the whole package" (function,form, health, temperament, etc) they are just picking whatever their breeding stock has and are going with that, ignoring the qualities that their stock is lacking and not trying to bring in what they are missing, but just making excuses why it is ok not to have what they are lacking. Also when breed clubs change the original breed standards to suit what is being bred instead of trying to breed to get a dog that fits into the original standard. People are taking too many shortcuts and making too many excuses.


----------



## Chris McDonald

Man, I cant keep up with this thread, I don’t even know what the OP was asking and I read it twice. Some of it is interesting to read though. I didn’t think that it would really turn into a thread of comparing training methods. I think a true correction needs to be used really rare. A bit of a wiggle should be all that is needed. 
I do think that many of the sports such as SCH have reduced the capabilities of the dog and handler as a whole. When you train for a test especially a test that is the same every time it takes away from the whole picture. After a few generations of this you tunnel versioned the dogs and handlers into nothing. After watching SCH a few times I really thought to myself that these people working the dogs were really not dog handlers in the way I would define dog a dog handler. They were more like performers. It’s not as if the dog and handler are working together to solve a problem or resolve an issue. There just there to make the dog look as flashy as possible. To me the majority of usable training is not done during the formal training session but is done day to day activities. Such has when you and your dog walk up to the front door of your house. Does your dog know if you want him to go in first or behind you without you verbally saying anything, maybe just a bit of a body language jester by you? To me the dogs that pay attention to small things such as this are good dogs. He is not doing it for a treat or a toy or out of fear to me he is doing it out it because is not a non thinking ass hole spas. 
I think another good example of what I was trying to get at was Chris talking about how he does not want to walk with his dog to the training field. He then listed his reasons. I am not busting on Chris at all here as much as I am busting on the dog world causing someone to even think like this. How pathetic and broken is that? He is concerned about his dog sniffing and marking, there is nothing wrong with a dog sniffing a bit it is how they take things in, a simple leave it should be all that is needed and no dog should be going around marking all over. This is just the owners own fault. I think the reality should be anytime spent doing anything with your dog should improve both you and the dog. 
The fact that the flash is judged to the extent it is, is the problem. The flash is a waste of energy that should not be instilled in a dog that is to be considered a working dog. That is just a performance dog. 
Again this is only coming from me and my general observations with very limited knowledge


----------



## Amy Swaby

At a romp in the park thing like.. last weekend there was a pretty cool dutch shepherd doing frisbee work. When the announcer was talking what did she say dutchies were commonly used for? Flyball and agility.... :roll: That should say something about the dog world


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Maureen, how are your dogo's together. I think you said you had 3 and you always were lucky in picking the most dominate.


----------



## Chris McDonald

I know what you are getting at, but I can see a DS being good at both and I aint got a problem with dogs doing either. But let’s not breed dogs just because they are good at fly ball.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Chris, the flash is found in sport dogs but not cicil dogs....some of those got a flash oif there own anyway. In some of the previous discussions we have had I got the impression many don't consider sport dog working dogs in the sence that they are not actually performing a useful service. They are performing for points and flash is points.


----------



## Maureen A Osborn

The oldest, the 7 y/o spayed female was queen until my almost 2 y/o intact female(who is a true alpha) got into a fight with her(the older one started it thinking the other had food) and she now took the beta role. They can walk by one another without wanting to fight, but b/c the older is fearful now and the younger one will feed off of it, I don;t allow them to interact. My intact male and spayed female get along fine, but he does not get along with the alpha female since she started a fight with him over a toy(my fault) and he who is also an alpha) will not tolerate her. My AB 12 y/o spayed female gets along with everyone. Lots of fun. Both Alpha male and alpha female have off the wall prey drives and fight drives. I work the male in bitework now and am just starting to introduce a sleeve to the female.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Maureen, I was curious because I can't have my males around each other unless they are hunting and know they are going to fight a hog. When they get back to the truck I get them off the ground as fast as I can, which many times isn't fast enough. Simple eye contact and it is on and no one is going to accept being the second stringer


----------



## Maureen A Osborn

What are you using as catch dogs and are you also using curs? I've been down to TX,LA, and SC to test my dogs and even went on a hunt with my AB years ago. Will be moving to TX in a few years so I can really get my guys on some more hogs. For now, to "appease" my dogo's prey drive, I am doing bitework.


----------



## Chris McDonald

Vin Chiu said:


> Good point, but you forgot sadistic.
> 
> So, let's see just how weak the working dog world is and set up a challenge since your talk is so big.
> Challenge for all you tough guys:
> Video tape yourself training your dog, using only the training method you support in this thread, to do a pretty complex maneuver, a reverse weave through 12 poles. That means walking backwards. Don't edit the footage except to shave off time and redundancy and post it. Let's have some fun. Climbing ladders is easy.
> 
> let's make it 8 poles.


 

Vin, this being a “challenge” is exactly why I think the dog world is weak. Again it’s the fact that somehow the dog world got you to even think like this. Your talking about training a dog to walk weave in and out of poles backwards as being a hard thing to do. And for me it would take a lot of time to train to do, it would be challenging for me to teach. But that is not the point. You also talk about teaching it as a bribery vs correction method challenge. If I was to try and get my dog to do this I don’t really see why I would really need to be giving corrections for any reason. But again none of this was really the point I was trying to make, your helping to make my point though. 
I really have no idea on how to teach a dog something as this, but I did see someone teaching a dog to weave with chicken wire runway going in and out of the poles. Im sure there are many ways but again not relevant. 
So lets pretend that we have a very tight strong runway weaving in and out off 25 poles. It is tight and strong enough that there is no way for the dog to turn around and it has a roof….. only one way out. To me I would be more interested in seeing a dog that has never even seen weave poles placed inside the tight weave runway fence with the poles to his rear and a fence placed in front of him….. only one way out. 
If the owner walked out of site and called the dog what would the dog do? Ideally it would figure out to just keep walking backwards on its own because this is the only way it can move? But how many great titled dogs would stand there and cry and bark and go nowhere? I can’t promise you my dog would figure it out but it would be interesting. 
If the owner walked up to the dog would he be able to talk the dog out, or would the dog be too much of a mess to do anything? 
Now I think someone like you would think the dog that was the easiest to bribe to walk backwards through the poles is the one that should be breed. But I would think the dog that was able to figure out how to get out of the fenced area himself should be the one to breed.


----------



## Chris McDonald

Don Turnipseed said:


> Chris, the flash is found in sport dogs but not cicil dogs....some of those got a flash oif there own anyway. In some of the previous discussions we have had I got the impression many don't consider sport dog working dogs in the sence that they are not actually performing a useful service. They are performing for points and flash is points.


 
Got it, 
I dont even know what a cicil dog is


----------



## Joby Becker

Chris McDonald said:


> Got it,
> I dont even know what a cicil dog is


CIVIL, I assume (maybe incorrectly) Don's dog is typing for him


----------



## Chris McDonald

Joby Becker said:


> CIVIL, I assume (maybe incorrectly) Don's dog is typing for him


Oh ya, I see now. 
Wow his dogs type better than me 
Would you breed a dog that could type?


----------



## Maureen A Osborn

Don Turnipseed said:


> Chris, the flash is found in sport dogs but not cicil dogs....some of those got a flash oif there own anyway. In some of the previous discussions we have had I got the impression many don't consider sport dog working dogs in the sence that they are not actually performing a useful service. They are performing for points and flash is points.


IMHO, the more flashy the dog is the more points you get is a big downfall to the dog world. I want to know if the dog can do its job and obey its owner. Yeah, it looks pretty for a dog to stare at it's owner, pretty and flashy belong in conformation shows, not working dog events.


----------



## Guest

Chris McDonald said:


> I know what you are getting at, but I can see a DS being good at both and I aint got a problem with dogs doing either. But let’s not breed dogs just because they are good at fly ball.


Bad breeding practices are not limited to foo foo dogs, show breeders and sissy sport competitors. Plenty of "Working Dog breeders" are just as bad, they just base their bad decisions on different criteria. 

In the end, I would *much* rather have a dog regardless of breed or pedigree that is an ace frisbee dog or flyball competitor over some well pedigreed "working" dog that only has nice bites under its belt, as both of the aforementioned sports require a dog that is not only a top athlete, (well put together and with good stamina,) they require a dog that is biddable, social with people and animals, intelligent and extremely environmentally sound; all things that say, a FR or MR title would hopefully help to assess as well, (depending on how the dog was trained of course.)


----------



## maggie fraser

I've been quite curious throughout this thread, just what exactly is the dog word and how would one describe the dog word, in a nutshel ?


----------



## Joby Becker

maggie fraser said:


> I've been quite curious throughout this thread, just what exactly is the dog word and how would one describe the dog word, in a nutshel ?


The "Dog Word" is.... WOOF ! :wink: Hi, Maggie


----------



## Chris McDonald

They way things have evolved and are headed in a very, very, very broad way? Has the thought process of the “dog world” allowed for better more healthy GS to be produced that 30 or 50 years ago?


----------



## maggie fraser

Joby Becker said:


> The "Dog Word" is.... WOOF ! :wink: Hi, Maggie


Hey hey Joby, long time no type, how you doing ? You bruise free yet ? :-D Woof's as probably a good enough answer as I'll probably get.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Maureen A Osborn said:


> What are you using as catch dogs and are you also using curs? I've been down to TX,LA, and SC to test my dogs and even went on a hunt with my AB years ago. Will be moving to TX in a few years so I can really get my guys on some more hogs. For now, to "appease" my dogo's prey drive, I am doing bitework.


I just use airedales. They do the tracking baying and catching. I don't want them catching as I would rather see them work a hog rather that see dogs getting tossed in the air as I am coming down the hill.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Don Turnipseed said:


> Getting back on topic,"how weak is the dog world?, one would think with all the advances in genetics, advances in positive training techniques and such, the dog world would be stronger than ever. I have to wonder why we still rely heavily on importation of Eurpean dogs. We have been importing good stock long enough to where we should be over run with great dogs. What's up? Do we keep breeding the good imported stock down?


Guess it's about time I retired - have been wondering post, after post, what "how weak is the dog "*word*" means

I know it's only one letter that's missing but if you don't "get it" you don't "get it" sometimes.

Thanks Don


----------



## Chris McDonald

Gillian Schuler said:


> Guess it's about time I retired - have been wondering post, after post, what "how weak is the dog "*word*" means
> 
> I know it's only one letter that's missing but if you don't "get it" you don't "get it" sometimes.
> 
> Thanks Don


 
Sorry, I am bad with that stuff…. I don’t know if it was breeding or training but I am a bad speller


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Chris, no matter, but I really took it literally and couldn't combine.

Now if you'd spelt "dog" as a dyslexic, it would have been even wierder for me :-D


----------



## Guest

Chris McDonald said:


> Vin, this being a “challenge” is exactly why I think the dog world is weak. Again it’s the fact that somehow the dog world got you to even think like this. Your talking about training a dog to walk weave in and out of poles backwards as being a hard thing to do. And for me it would take a lot of time to train to do, it would be challenging for me to teach. But that is not the point. You also talk about teaching it as a bribery vs correction method challenge. If I was to try and get my dog to do this I don’t really see why I would really need to be giving corrections for any reason. But again none of this was really the point I was trying to make, your helping to make my point though.
> I really have no idea on how to teach a dog something as this, but I did see someone teaching a dog to weave with chicken wire runway going in and out of the poles. Im sure there are many ways but again not relevant.
> So lets pretend that we have a very tight strong runway weaving in and out off 25 poles. It is tight and strong enough that there is no way for the dog to turn around and it has a roof….. only one way out. To me I would be more interested in seeing a dog that has never even seen weave poles placed inside the tight weave runway fence with the poles to his rear and a fence placed in front of him….. only one way out.
> If the owner walked out of site and called the dog what would the dog do? Ideally it would figure out to just keep walking backwards on its own because this is the only way it can move? But how many great titled dogs would stand there and cry and bark and go nowhere? I can’t promise you my dog would figure it out but it would be interesting.
> If the owner walked up to the dog would he be able to talk the dog out, or would the dog be too much of a mess to do anything?
> Now I think someone like you would think the dog that was the easiest to bribe to walk backwards through the poles is the one that should be breed. But I would think the dog that was able to figure out how to get out of the fenced area himself should be the one to breed.


Who said anything about bribery? Chris, Your assumption about me and what I would breed if I were a breeder are way off-base. One reason I have never bred a litter, aside from ethical considerations, is because I am such a freakin stickler for what is and is not worth breeding. In fact, the way I train dogs encourages them to make mistakes and try again to do whatever it takes to get their reward. Is the fisrst step in that very long process showing a dog what I expect either through luring or free shaping? Yes, of course. That is part of being fair and maintaining trust. _Does that look incredibly stupid on video or to an observer sometimes? Hell yes!! Does it sometimes take a long time? Hell yes!!_ Does luring a dog look like bribery? Hell yes. Is it bribery? Only if you keep doing it and doing it badly. But in the end the dog benefits from learning how to problem solve. Problem solving is the most basic foundation of free shaping behavior. Without the desire or ability to try new things, (wether it be that the dog is genetic dud or that is has been corrected so much that i won't try new things out of ear of being corrected,) a dog will just shut down. One shouldn't have to be an engineer and build a contraption to teach a dog to walk through weave poles, which is not to say that that would not be an interesting way to teach the behavior. And there are thin plastic guide rods you can buy to do just that. 

Like I said before, many of the problems we see with using non-coercive training methods comes from incomplete comprehension of training techniques which leads to very incorrect training execution. Impatience and false assumptions based on just plain not understanding motivations are equally prevalent. Someone said something about dog training being intuitive and how if you have intuition you are most of the way there to being a great dog trainer. That is really misleading as a lot of what motivates dogs is absolutely counter-intuitive to humans. I see this all the time. The best example would be assuming the dog-aggressive dog is being disobedient regardless of body language, circumstance, training level, history etc. when it ignores your command to stop acting like a dipshit. The advice I keep seeing on here is to hit it hard with the e-collar to achieve some level of compliance. Regardless of what is motivating the dog to engage another dog, that is truly a JV move. 

Chris, the fact that you admittedly don't know how to approach this challenge, which I am assuming noone will take, says something. :-k 

I don't really see how my challenge equates to what is wrong with the dog world. Again, all I am trying to do is get people to actually get out there are try something because that is how some people learn most efficiently regardless of methodology. You may read follow up posts for clarification if it concerns you enough.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Chris McDonald said:


> They way things have evolved and are headed in a very, very, very broad way? Has the thought process of the “dog world” allowed for better more healthy GS to be produced that 30 or 50 years ago?


I think it is a combination of things Chris, In view of the number of supposedly good European stock that has been brought in, there should be a lot of solid working stock here....certainly enough to sustain good breeding programs. We are still importing because generally, the dogs are being used up and watered down and they just bring in some more. Then of course they go up on websites because they draw more money and sales. Another thing is that people views have changed dramatically since the 50's and 60's. Those great dogs that can think and have a mind of their own are much less desireable for most people because they can't train them easily with the new positive methods. Some people got the fortitude to tough it out but most don't. Easy handling dogs are the big ticket item these days....but you have to give up a lot of dog to get easy handlers as a general rule. Right here in this thread you can see what trainers think of Koehler and that method was the standard not long ago and it worked on real dogs. There is a continual progression in life and it isn't always for the better. Change can be good . Change can be devastating.


----------



## Joby Becker

Chris, I think most of us didn't even notice. I was just trying to be funny after the question was asked...I noticed it today. LOL

I think most places around the world where working dogs are bred, TRAINING is part of the culture, and "breeding" is more serious.

Here, working breeds "for the most part" get bred to be pets first and foremost. "For the most part", means volume of "breeders", and I use that term loosely. Breeding dogs that haven't been trained or tested in anything...

I think it is pretty lame that a "breeder" needs to link a video of YOUR dog to his website, unless they produced your dog. I was looking on Ebay a while back for some training stuff and saw a video of ME in some guys ad for a hidden sleeve. LOL....never met the man in my life....

Here you go Mags... (sorry Chris for the off topic banter)


----------



## Maureen A Osborn

Don Turnipseed said:


> I just use airedales. They do the tracking baying and catching. I don't want them catching as I would rather see them work a hog rather that see dogs getting tossed in the air as I am coming down the hill.


Nice! Would love to see airedales work a hog!


----------



## maggie fraser

Joby Becker said:


> Chris, I think most of us didn't even notice. I was just trying to be funny after the question was asked...I noticed it today. LOL
> 
> I think most places around the world where working dogs are bred, TRAINING is part of the culture, and "breeding" is more serious.
> 
> Here, working breeds "for the most part" get bred to be pets first and foremost. "For the most part", means volume of "breeders", and I use that term loosely. Breeding dogs that haven't been trained or tested in anything...
> 
> I think it is pretty lame that a "breeder" needs to link a video of YOUR dog to his website, unless they produced your dog. I was looking on Ebay a while back for some training stuff and saw a video of ME in some guys ad for a hidden sleeve. LOL....never met the man in my life....
> 
> Here you go Mags... (sorry Chris for the off topic banter)


 
Love the wallpaper, your choice Joby ?


----------



## Amy Swaby

Chris McDonald said:


> I know what you are getting at, but I can see a DS being good at both and I aint got a problem with dogs doing either. But let’s not breed dogs just because they are good at fly ball.



Well my point was more that the announcer completely ignored what dutch shepherds are mainly used for and used to be used for. I guess I just take issue with them completely ignoring the fact that these dogs do have "real" jobs which they are still mostly utilised for. It kind of rang like "we're going to ignore this part of what they do because either no one cares or it's not cute"


----------



## Chris McDonald

Vin Chiu said:


> Who said anything about bribery? Chris, Your assumption about me and what I would breed if I were a breeder are way off-base. One reason I have never bred a litter, aside from ethical considerations, is because I am such a freakin stickler for what is and is not worth breeding. In fact, the way I train dogs encourages them to make mistakes and try again to do whatever it takes to get their reward. Is the fisrst step in that very long process showing a dog what I expect either through luring or free shaping? Yes, of course. That is part of being fair and maintaining trust. _Does that look incredibly stupid on video or to an observer sometimes? Hell yes!! Does it sometimes take a long time? Hell yes!!_ Does luring a dog look like bribery? Hell yes. Is it bribery? Only if you keep doing it and doing it badly. But in the end the dog benefits from learning how to problem solve. Problem solving is the most basic foundation of free shaping behavior. Without the desire or ability to try new things, (wether it be that the dog is genetic dud or that is has been corrected so much that i won't try new things out of ear of being corrected,) a dog will just shut down. One shouldn't have to be an engineer and build a contraption to teach a dog to walk through weave poles, which is not to say that that would not be an interesting way to teach the behavior. And there are thin plastic guide rods you can buy to do just that.
> 
> Like I said before, many of the problems we see with using non-coercive training methods comes from incomplete comprehension of training techniques which leads to very incorrect training execution. Impatience and false assumptions based on just plain not understanding motivations are equally prevalent. Someone said something about dog training being intuitive and how if you have intuition you are most of the way there to being a great dog trainer. That is really misleading as a lot of what motivates dogs is absolutely counter-intuitive to humans. I see this all the time. The best example would be assuming the dog-aggressive dog is being disobedient regardless of body language, circumstance, training level, history etc. when it ignores your command to stop acting like a dipshit. The advice I keep seeing on here is to hit it hard with the e-collar to achieve some level of compliance. Regardless of what is motivating the dog to engage another dog, that is truly a JV move.
> 
> Chris, the fact that you admittedly don't know how to approach this challenge, which I am assuming noone will take, says something. :-k
> 
> I don't really see how my challenge equates to what is wrong with the dog world. Again, all I am trying to do is get people to actually get out there are try something because that is how some people learn most efficiently regardless of methodology. You may read follow up posts for clarification if it concerns you enough.


 
I have never seen it done before, but have been thinking about how I might go about it and came up with a few ideas. I will try and bang a few broom sticks into the ground and give it a try next week. I will take a few videos of it. I think I might start trying to get him to go forward first? 
As far as your example of a dog picking fights I have seen firsthand a dog getting broken out of picking fights with a few corrections from god. I really don’t know much about it, but making the dog think twice about starting a fight due to the possibility of a correction just broke the habit. I could care less about why the dog wanted to fight, the dog was just being an ass and it was stopped.


----------



## Bob Scott

Chris McDonald said:


> I have never seen it done before, but have been thinking about how I might go about it and came up with a few ideas. I will try and bang a few broom sticks into the ground and give it a try next week. I will take a few videos of it. I think I might start trying to get him to go forward first?
> As far as your example of a dog picking fights I have seen firsthand a dog getting broken out of picking fights with a few corrections from god. I really don’t know much about it, but making the dog think twice about starting a fight due to the possibility of a correction just broke the habit. I could care less about why the dog wanted to fight, the dog was just being an ass and it was stopped.



Never been in the middle of a couple of pissed off terriers huh Chris! :-D


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Bob Scott said:


> Never been in the middle of a couple of pissed off terriers huh Chris! :-D


Yeh Bob, I have been having my own private chuckle at some of this talk about breaking dogs off a good knock down drag out.


----------



## Chris McDonald

Bob Scott said:


> Never been in the middle of a couple of pissed off terriers huh Chris! :-D


no not yet, whole nother level i talke it


----------



## Alan Fielding

I remember back about 35 years ago when I owned Airedales and occasionally went to conformation shows they brought all of the dogs into the middle of the ring as a group - nose to nose, as Airedales were not supposed to be "shy" in these circumstances. The fury that sometimes resulted was Humorous as handlers tried to separate their dogs. I guess they do not do that any more !!! What a shame !!!


----------



## Chris McDonald

I only seen one Airedale ever do bite work. Holly smokes! Not that I would want any dog hanging off my arm but that thing was crazy. Don is anyone doing bit work with your dogs? Would love to see a video of that…. I would like to see video of your dogs in general. How are Airedales known overall for their people tracking ability?


----------



## Geoff Empey

Chris McDonald said:


> As far as your example of a dog picking fights I have seen firsthand a dog getting broken out of picking fights with a few corrections from god. I really don’t know much about it, but making the dog think twice about starting a fight due to the possibility of a correction just broke the habit. I could care less about why the dog wanted to fight, the dog was just being an ass and it was stopped.


The only problem with correcting a dog with that correction that takes his head off from god. Is that now that when it wants to move forward to start a ruckus with another dog, you've have not changed the behaviour. Especially in a pointy eared dog. If it has been nailed at that point it just learns that it is better to be stealthy in its approach to stir up a fight. Then you get no warning just a dog that you can't trust around any other dogs. Be careful what you wish for my friend! :-\"


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Not at the present time Chris....but we are working on it. These dogs I have are trackers because that is what I have bred them for. They always do well in tracking. These are serious dogs Chris. Vastly different from what they have ever sparred in the show ring. The comments made about dog fights did amuse me. These guys never start a fight except with each other because their lives revolve around absolute dominance and I can't stop that so I keep them separated. I can hunt them together because they are focused on killing something else until they get back to the truck and I get them off the ground as fast as I can. 

I won't take my dogs to public beaches and parks. People that buy them do. They have been convinced that a lot of socialization is the answer. I tell them they won't start fights. They take them to public places anyway and the first thing they notice is all dogs, but bull dogs, tuck their tail between their legs when these dogs walk in. The other dogs avoid them as a norm...except the bull dogs. There have been numerous set twos with the bull dogs but it is always over before anyone can get to them to break it up. This is when people get stupid and many times it is the people that are the problem and not the dog. 

Here is a perfect example that I encounterd the other day. I had sold and very quiet unassuming retired man a dog about a year and a half ago. He was curious to see if I was pulling his leg and took the dog to a friend of his that lived back in a canyon and had a 5 year old,90lb rottie, chow cross that would kill stray dogs on the property around his livestock. The guy muzzled the dog foir the pups safety. The guy I sold the pup to told him "Oh, you don't need the muzzle, if your dog hurts mine I will accept all responsibility. The pup had just turned 13 mo. Well, after a few minutes, the rottie mix attacked the pup. It was over before they could get up and stop it and the pup walked away and layed down while the older dog layed their on his back in full submission. Now he proudly takes this dog to the dog park 3 times a day and when people have dominate dogs he tells them oh, just let them play, they will work it out. A big male boxer bit this pup and boxers, dobies and such, you don't realize it has even started and it is over. Needless to say, I gave this guy and ass chewing when he casually said, "I don't know why people won't let dogs be dogs, they will work it out". I told him it is real easy to have that outlook when you know your dog can crush these other dogs. What I have seen is that a lot of people think there dog is cute when they are doing the bullying but when the hammer gets dropped on their dog they get pissed.


----------



## Ben Colbert

Glad to see that you sell your dogs to people who are so reckless as to put a pup around an dog aggressive dog. And you're proud of it. Awesome!


----------



## Ben Colbert

Geoff Empey said:


> Then you get no warning just a dog that you can't trust around any other dogs. Be careful what you wish for my friend! :-\"


This is an awesome point. I always cringe when people correct their dogs for growling at other people. Did the dog learn not to be mean or did it learn not to growl? next time it gets stressed it may not tell you, it may just bite. I hate to correct a dog for warning me that it's not happy.


----------



## Guest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTtEbpl5TT4

This is what running through forward should look like just for a visual reference. Chris, you should use pvc if you have some laying around, not broom sticks so they bed and give a bit without falling over as your dog weaves.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Ben Colbert said:


> This is an awesome point. I always cringe when people correct their dogs for growling at other people. Did the dog learn not to be mean or did it learn not to growl? next time it gets stressed it may not tell you, it may just bite. I hate to correct a dog for warning me that it's not happy.


I've probably come in this a bit late and don't know what I'm talking about for one thing. But, if my dog is on a lead held by me and growls at another person, dog, etc., this is a violation of my "lead rules" and will be corrected. 

I understand what you mean - my dog learns not to growl because I forbid him. But how would you condition him to liking all people and all animals?

I have an over-friendly GSD with people and a reserved GSD with people. The over-friendly would like to kill all animals, insects, etc. It's easy to talk about conditioning but far more difficult to achieve it.

BTW, if my dog just growls at the judge in the "Unbefangenheitstest", in Schutzhund, we're disqualified.


----------



## Chris McDonald

Vin Chiu said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTtEbpl5TT4
> 
> This is what running through forward should look like just for a visual reference. Chris, you should use pvc if you have some laying around, not broom sticks so they bed and give a bit without falling over as your dog weaves.


Ha there hauling, thanks Vin. I hope you don’t think that’s what your gona be seeing from me. At the speed we will be moving I don’t know if banging will be a problem. I am just going to try to get him to go through them at any speed. Baby steps.


----------



## Chris McDonald

Ben Colbert said:


> Glad to see that you sell your dogs to people who are so reckless as to put a pup around an dog aggressive dog. And you're proud of it. Awesome!


I didn’t see the part about him being proud about it?


----------



## Chris McDonald

Geoff Empey said:


> The only problem with correcting a dog with that correction that takes his head off from god. Is that now that when it wants to move forward to start a ruckus with another dog, you've have not changed the behaviour. Especially in a pointy eared dog. If it has been nailed at that point it just learns that it is better to be stealthy in its approach to stir up a fight. Then you get no warning just a dog that you can't trust around any other dogs. Be careful what you wish for my friend! :-\"


I will be the first to admit that I don’t have much experience with this. But from what I saw my guess would be that the dog was just broken out of the habit or mindset that made him want to start fights. I don’t know enough to say it will work with every dog every time. But I do know enough to say that it will work with some dogs some of the time 
I don’t know where I was going when I started the thread but it wound up being an OK and fairly interesting read. 
I would like to point out that if this conversation was happening in real life I think everyone would find my expressions to be much less confrontational and more question like than I think a lot of you are taking it. Although maybe I am just reading some of you guys wrong. Those yellow heads just don’t really do expressions in conversations justice. 
Don’t get me wrong I like busting balls and picking on retarts but in a fun way. 
Don I do get the feeling you have some very serious dogs. I would like a few more dogs but I really need a bigger yard. I would like to do my best to get a dog devoted to mostly to tracking/ trailing. My 7 year old wants a pug real bad. For some reason I don’t see the pug being a tracking machine. Although pug are cool I am kinda anti dog that needs to be born via C-section. Seems like someone played a bad joke on the breed.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Ben Colbert said:


> Glad to see that you sell your dogs to people who are so reckless as to put a pup around an dog aggressive dog. And you're proud of it. Awesome!


Ben, you really are too stupid for words. Even tho the guy was a very quiet, unassumeing sort, you would be surprized what having dogs like this does to people. As I said, he got his butt chewed because I expect people to have the utmost responsibilty with these dogs. As far as the pups, they can take care of themselves and that wasn't the point anyway.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Chris, the only drawback I can see with using a pug for tracking is they may be prone to scratching their eyeballs.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Don Turnipseed said:


> .... the only drawback I can see with using a pug for tracking is they may be prone to scratching their eyeballs.


The really serious ones make up for all those handicaps with their stern work ethic.


----------



## Chris McDonald

Don Turnipseed said:


> Chris, the only drawback I can see with using a pug for tracking is they may be prone to scratching their eyeballs.


As they drag there stomach on the ground


----------



## Maureen A Osborn

Ben Colbert said:


> This is an awesome point. I always cringe when people correct their dogs for growling at other people. Did the dog learn not to be mean or did it learn not to growl? next time it gets stressed it may not tell you, it may just bite. I hate to correct a dog for warning me that it's not happy.


Yep, people just don't seem to understand taht correcting a dog for growling at someone or another dog may just stop them from doing their warning and have them go straight for the bite next time. People need to evaluate the situation and see why the dog is growling and see if it is a miss-cue on the owners part or what. There are certain dominate breeeds taht you are not going to change them from wanting to fight another dog, but you can learn to redirect their attention without correcting them. Trust me, I have had my share of fights with my dogs that I have had to break up, and if I was paying more attention or didn't leave toys out they wouldnt' have happened. Its better to prevent a fight than to break one up.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Chris McDonald said:


> As they drag there stomach on the ground


Injecting a note of seriousness: a fat Pug is as much the owner's fault as a fat Lab or a fat any other breed. 

That guy to the left there is trim, fit, and well-trained.


eta

And serious. :lol:


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Connie Sutherland said:


> The really serious ones make up for all those handicaps with their stern work ethic.


Really???? I see your avatar. You do bitework with that little guy Connie?


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Don Turnipseed said:


> Really???? I see your avatar. You do bitework with that little guy Connie?


Not yet. 

I just haven't had him up as my avatar in ages. :lol:


----------



## Gerry Grimwood

Ben Colbert said:


> I hate to correct a dog for warning me that it's not happy.


 
That's anthromonopoly Ben.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Gerry Grimwood said:


> That's anthromonopoly Ben.


You're good Gerry. LMAO


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Got my Koehler books out last night. Got to go to town and pick up some chokers and long lines or material to make them. I got a few dogs out there and have decided on a training method I like if I can get my mind around being that regimented myself. Spent the rest of the day, since it was supposed to rain and looked like it would, researching various stills and distilling processes. I need a hobby.


----------



## Jason Hammel

Don Turnipseed said:


> researching various stills and distilling processes. I need a hobby.



So the whole dog breeding thing doesn't count?

or them thar dogs driving a man to drink some shine:-k


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Jason Hammel said:


> So the whole dog breeding thing doesn't count?
> 
> or them thar dogs driving a man to drink some shine:-k


Dogs are the passion Jason.......and they are going to guard the still. No one sneaks up on my house. LOL There was a reason for building the dog yards completly around the house. LOL Of course I just plan on it as a fuel source.


----------



## maggie fraser

Don Turnipseed said:


> Dogs are the passion Jason.......and they are going to guard the still. No one sneaks up on my house. LOL There was a reason for building the dog yards completly around the house. LOL Of course I just plan on it as a fuel source.


 
:lol:


----------



## David Frost

Them revenoorers kept a lookin' but my daddy kept a cookin' ---- white lightenin'


----------



## Jennifer Marshall

Well seeing as how I'm mentioned in this thread I felt I should add some stuff. 

I will start off by saying that I avoid this type of "discussion" because I find it kind of pointless.. I don't care enough about what other people do with their own dogs. Must be a fault of mine, but unless it is a client that is paying me to fix what they did wrong by using my methods then I just shrug and keep my mouth shut.

In this type of discussion people get very heated up because they are thinking of dogs they own/have owned or have handled before. People frequently forget that there are lots of very different types of dogs in the world. Not every method works for every dog. Not every dog is suited to the tasks we try to accomplish with them. Perhaps it is the methods. Perhaps it is the dog. Perhaps both.

The main thing that gets some people fired up is they forget to think of training as something that is done in stages. Teaching and proofing are the two basic steps.. the dog learns what is required, then is shown there is no option but to do what it has been shown when told to do so.

The primary difference I see with compulsion and possitive/reward based training(not "purely" possitive) is that with reward based training the dog is taught with the use of rewards that motivate and manipulate it. We control what the dog wants and are basically trading something of value to the dog (the reward) for something of value to us (obedience) When the rewards are faded out because the dog has learned the verbal cue for specific physical tasks, corrections are introduced for non compliance, slow compliance, distraction, etc. The dog then learns, I obey and I am likely to get a reward, if I do not obey I do not get a reward, I get a correction.

Compulsion never gives the dog an option. From the start the dog obeys and in a lot of cases non compliance is a non-issue because there was never a choice, there is no reward that is now being taken, obedience has been a plain and simple fact. The demeanor of the dog depends on the handler's/trainer's skill... the same methods can be used on a variety of dogs but just toned down for dogs that are not as hard. People think of koehler and compulsion demontrated on a hard, confident dog and then think of the softest dog they know and think how horrible would that be! And indeed if you expected to always use the exact same level of correction or force on every dog it would be too much for some dogs and too little for others. 

Now, the dog I have from Don, Jager, is very very smart. Super duper easy to teach, catches on quick and does everything with a flair. Teaching with possitive/reward based methods is no problem and is not the problem in my training. The assumption that the second stage of introducing corrections for non compliance would be effective was my problem. I try to explain to people how this dog is and unless you have experienced one for yourself you won't understand. I know this because I didn't understand until I had Jager! Don explained the traits of these dogs to me many times but I did not fully realize what I had gotten into until Jager hit "puberty." Correction as a means of "punishment" is pretty ineffective unless you want to do things like ear twists, which would likely only work the first few times you used it.

People talk about a dog's reaction or lack of reaction to correction using the terms "soft" and "hard" - soft meaning a dog that you hardly have to correct, you could snap your fingers or raise your voice and it would be enough to get the desired result. Hard being a dog that is resilient to physical correction, whether with a poke or a jab or a collar yank, etc. hard dogs can be either a dog that takes the correction in stride(can be a hard correction or not), no loss of drive, no real reaction from the dog other than responding by ceasing the undesired behavior, etc. or a hard dog can be a dog that doesn't respond except to very hard physical correction. This dog is beyond hard, there is no reaction whatsoever no matter how hard I correct him. No loss of drive and also no compliance... and no recognition of anything having happened at all. It is truly as though he does not feel it at all. Like I am tapping him with my pinky or there was a breeze.

An example would be he tried to rush the gate the other day. He was excited, wanted his turn to run, and tried to nose his way out. I reacted quickly, a blind grab for whatever I could get - a handful of skin on his back. Not his shoulders, not his tail, the middle of his back near the spine. I pulled him backwards 3 feet with only that handful of skin - zero reaction, he didn't even turn his head. A lot of dogs I know would have screamed or at the very least turned their head in recognition of the pain. Nothing, still raring to go, pulling against me even.

Teaching with rewards is very easy with one of these dogs, expecting to use physical corrections as a means of enforcing compliance has been the issue. I could force him, but I am choosing not to at this time. I don't want to become frustrated and risk getting angry.

So it is not that possitive, reward based methods don't work on these dogs.. it does, for teaching them what you want. It is very effective for teaching. The problem is thinking that physical correction is going to be a simple matter of popping the leash when the dog doesn't sit. 

I do see compulsion/koehler methods being very effective with these dogs when used from the beginning because it does not leave room for non compliance. Correction and compulsion are not "punishment" to these dogs. Compulsion based methods are more of a way of very clearly and physically guiding the dogs while leaving no room for "choices." BUT with my limited knowledge of Koehler/compulsion I don't see how it would be effectively used for something like Mondio. Either I am not that smart or I am not that creative.

I do prefer possitive/reward based methods for teaching, and correction for proofing. It is not that I don't think my dogs can handle compulsion, simply that I am not very interested in Koehler and have not seen it used in Mondio.

Gotta run, I may continue later...........


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Good post Jennifer. I was not knocking how you were doing it at all. Im knoiw the frustation they can cause personally. Teaching them is a piece of cake. Getting them to comply when they feel something else is more intersting can drive you up the wall. I am not real familiar with the ins and outs of different training methods but, after my experiences and some o0f yours, it amazed me to see how easily Dan got everything out of his dog. He even made the comment that it was probably the easiest dog he had ever worked. Afdter many conversations with him, I see the foundation of no choice in the matter as the key element. Without that 2 to 4 week foundation where the dog is conditioned to the fact he simply has no choice, he would be pulling his hair out also.
I am still very curious as to how cratinging him for the session every time he heven tries to be non compliant works. Eventually, he will make up his own mind that it is in his best interest top comply. That is pretty much the way I have learned to handle many issues with them. They work better if they make up there own mind to do it because you can't force them.


----------



## Jennifer Marshall

I think crating will work because it is a different form of punishment. He *wants* to work, he loves going out, he is officially in love with the ball on string now... he always has lots of energy, happy, prancy, etc. its the repitition he doesn't like. He wants to work, he just doesn't want to do the same thing, he wants something different. Constant movement would be his preference.

By taking the work away from him it will become a choice of getting to work by doing what he is told while working, or not get to do anything at all and watch another dog have fun. I wish I could do it where I live currently but him barking like a lunatic in his crate outside would get me evicted so I have to wait until I move. 

My view on the dog world depends on which part I look at.. some are very weak and promote weak dogs. But this is based on my personal opinion of what a strong dog is. There is always room for improvement... if there wasn't it wouldn't be as interesting. If every dog was the same quality and only one method was used that was an absolute guarantee to work everytime, I wouldn't be training dogs and I wouldn't be interested in dogsport. Without poor there is no good, without average there is no great. If there was no such thing as a weak dog or bad handler or poor method there would be nothing to compete over. Everyone would be number one.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Well, maybe the threshholds are to high for protection work. They need those threshholds for doing what they were bred for. Looks like it is a matter of how to work around it.


----------



## Sanda Stankovic

> This dog is beyond hard, there is no reaction whatsoever no matter how hard I correct him. No loss of drive and also no compliance... and no recognition of anything having happened at all. It is truly as though he does not feel it at all. Like I am tapping him with my pinky or there was a breeze


ok, so at a risk of sidestepping this topic, can you expand on how you would approach training a dog like this?


----------



## Geoff Empey

Sanda Stankovic said:


> ok, so at a risk of sidestepping this topic, can you expand on how you would approach training a dog like this?


Use your brain not brawn .. i.e. find something he/she likes ball tug and use that to your advantage. Big thing is to build trust and a bond with a dog like that.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

There is a professional retriever trainer that has worked with a number of my dogs. He had come up with some intersting ways around things. Dog knew how to swim but wouldn't swim for him. He found a bitch in heat and had the dog walking on water whenever he wanted it to. He has more control over them also because he can use the very thing they live for in persuading them....live game. He was teaching Buck to whoa and couldn't stop him from busting a covey with a tritronics on the highest setting. Buck just blew it off and did what he wanted. When he strapped that collar around Bucks waste and family jewels he got his attention. While the last method wouldn't be considered positive, the dog had been with him for 6 mo and knew the drill and that he had a job to do. The trainer knew the dog well by then and with the adjustment in the EC, he said but fell in line in 5 minutes. 
I have some dogs here I am going to try Koehler on when they are 6 mo. Got a month and a half to wait. They already come, sit lay down. I want to see how it works for myself because, Over the years I have personally tried every form of bribery that is common in todays training. I wanted to give a dog a pill for something once and he didn't like the way I called him. He knew I was up to something and wouldn't come. I went in and got a big chunk of steak.....he passed on the steak rather than come withing 5 feet. So, how have I gotten the dogs to load up when hunting and countless other things....I put them with older dogs that know the drill. If they see the top dogs do it, they seem to be more willing to give a bit. My training doesn't require anything other than very basic stuff but even that could be challenging years ago. To get those older dogs to load up I used to have to run them in front of the truck for 15 to 20 miles or until their feet were bleeding. Then I would stop, wait for 5 to 10 minutes for them to stiffen up, and walk over and pick them up and toss them in the truck. Borrowed a shock collar and ended all that nonsence in less than 5 minutes.
I notice that many refer to having many of these tools in "their tool box" but having them in the tool box is pointless if you refuse to use them when the situation warrents them. I am going to town today to get the longe lines, chokers in different sizes, and proper leashes. I don't own a shock collar, pinch collar, or any chokers and I make my own leashes with nylon rope, so this is going to be new to me for sure. LOL I really think the hardest part for me it to make my own self be regimented enough to stick to Koelers method and spend the time it takes to do stuff I don't need.....my goal is to put the pups in a down stay while people are here to see the pups. If they stay while we look around the yards and visit with numerous pups that are on the money obedient, I can get $2500 for the trained ones. That is my incentive.


----------



## Julie Ann Alvarez

Jennifer Marshall said:


> Well seeing as how I'm mentioned in this thread I felt I should add some stuff.
> 
> I will start off by saying that I avoid this type of "discussion" because I find it kind of pointless.. I don't care enough about what other people do with their own dogs. Must be a fault of mine, but unless it is a client that is paying me to fix what they did wrong by using my methods then I just shrug and keep my mouth shut.
> 
> In this type of discussion people get very heated up because they are thinking of dogs they own/have owned or have handled before. People frequently forget that there are lots of very different types of dogs in the world. Not every method works for every dog. Not every dog is suited to the tasks we try to accomplish with them. Perhaps it is the methods. Perhaps it is the dog. Perhaps both.
> 
> The main thing that gets some people fired up is they forget to think of training as something that is done in stages. Teaching and proofing are the two basic steps.. the dog learns what is required, then is shown there is no option but to do what it has been shown when told to do so.
> 
> The primary difference I see with compulsion and possitive/reward based training(not "purely" possitive) is that with reward based training the dog is taught with the use of rewards that motivate and manipulate it. We control what the dog wants and are basically trading something of value to the dog (the reward) for something of value to us (obedience) When the rewards are faded out because the dog has learned the verbal cue for specific physical tasks, corrections are introduced for non compliance, slow compliance, distraction, etc. The dog then learns, I obey and I am likely to get a reward, if I do not obey I do not get a reward, I get a correction.
> 
> Compulsion never gives the dog an option. From the start the dog obeys and in a lot of cases non compliance is a non-issue because there was never a choice, there is no reward that is now being taken, obedience has been a plain and simple fact. The demeanor of the dog depends on the handler's/trainer's skill... the same methods can be used on a variety of dogs but just toned down for dogs that are not as hard. People think of koehler and compulsion demontrated on a hard, confident dog and then think of the softest dog they know and think how horrible would that be! And indeed if you expected to always use the exact same level of correction or force on every dog it would be too much for some dogs and too little for others.
> 
> Now, the dog I have from Don, Jager, is very very smart. Super duper easy to teach, catches on quick and does everything with a flair. Teaching with possitive/reward based methods is no problem and is not the problem in my training. The assumption that the second stage of introducing corrections for non compliance would be effective was my problem. I try to explain to people how this dog is and unless you have experienced one for yourself you won't understand. I know this because I didn't understand until I had Jager! Don explained the traits of these dogs to me many times but I did not fully realize what I had gotten into until Jager hit "puberty." Correction as a means of "punishment" is pretty ineffective unless you want to do things like ear twists, which would likely only work the first few times you used it.
> 
> People talk about a dog's reaction or lack of reaction to correction using the terms "soft" and "hard" - soft meaning a dog that you hardly have to correct, you could snap your fingers or raise your voice and it would be enough to get the desired result. Hard being a dog that is resilient to physical correction, whether with a poke or a jab or a collar yank, etc. hard dogs can be either a dog that takes the correction in stride(can be a hard correction or not), no loss of drive, no real reaction from the dog other than responding by ceasing the undesired behavior, etc. or a hard dog can be a dog that doesn't respond except to very hard physical correction. This dog is beyond hard, there is no reaction whatsoever no matter how hard I correct him. No loss of drive and also no compliance... and no recognition of anything having happened at all. It is truly as though he does not feel it at all. Like I am tapping him with my pinky or there was a breeze.
> 
> An example would be he tried to rush the gate the other day. He was excited, wanted his turn to run, and tried to nose his way out. I reacted quickly, a blind grab for whatever I could get - a handful of skin on his back. Not his shoulders, not his tail, the middle of his back near the spine. I pulled him backwards 3 feet with only that handful of skin - zero reaction, he didn't even turn his head. A lot of dogs I know would have screamed or at the very least turned their head in recognition of the pain. Nothing, still raring to go, pulling against me even.
> 
> Teaching with rewards is very easy with one of these dogs, expecting to use physical corrections as a means of enforcing compliance has been the issue. I could force him, but I am choosing not to at this time. I don't want to become frustrated and risk getting angry.
> 
> So it is not that possitive, reward based methods don't work on these dogs.. it does, for teaching them what you want. It is very effective for teaching. The problem is thinking that physical correction is going to be a simple matter of popping the leash when the dog doesn't sit.
> 
> I do see compulsion/koehler methods being very effective with these dogs when used from the beginning because it does not leave room for non compliance. Correction and compulsion are not "punishment" to these dogs. Compulsion based methods are more of a way of very clearly and physically guiding the dogs while leaving no room for "choices." BUT with my limited knowledge of Koehler/compulsion I don't see how it would be effectively used for something like Mondio. Either I am not that smart or I am not that creative.
> 
> I do prefer possitive/reward based methods for teaching, and correction for proofing. It is not that I don't think my dogs can handle compulsion, simply that I am not very interested in Koehler and have not seen it used in Mondio.
> 
> Gotta run, I may continue later...........


Great post Jennifer. I like the way you think. You explain yourself very well.

Julie


----------



## Sanda Stankovic

Geoff Empey said:


> Use your brain not brawn .. i.e. find something he/she likes ball tug and use that to your advantage. Big thing is to build trust and a bond with a dog like that.


It seems however that a 'live prey' drive is always greater than toy drive. Maybe carry a cat instead of a ball.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Well, I picked up a few chokers, a 15' longe line. and a good leather leash. Question.....a longe line eems to be what we used to refer to as a check cord. The other thing is, I almost stroked out at $37.50 for a good leather leash. Haven't quite recovered from that yet. The cheaper ones were a lot stiffer but $37.50 for a 6' x 5/8" strip of leather???? I admit that I am not much of a shopper and tend to get the first thing that stikes my fancy but good grief.....


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Sanda Stankovic said:


> It seems however that a 'live prey' drive is always greater than toy drive. Maybe carry a cat instead of a ball.


That will work Sanda. I remember one time pulling a board off in the shed that had a pack rat nest behind it. I grabbed on big packrat by the tail and turned around not realizing one of the dogs was behind me. I almost lost part of my hand as I heard those jaws close and never even got a glimpse of that rat again.

Another time I cought two pack rats in the shed and had them in a coffee can. I was working Magnum at the time so I took them into his yard and tossed one on the ground. Magnum went nuts and the pack rat ran up the leg on my overalls. Magnum cools see it moving around and that made me more nervous that the rat by a long shot. I kept turning to keep Magnum in front of me as the rat made his way up the back of the overalls. Suddenly the rat got to high ground which was on top of my head and Magnum was airborn and I dropped to the ground as he went over me. I heard those jaws slam shut and never saw the rat again. Needless to say, I went outside of the yard and flipped the other one over the fence to him. I guess presentation is everthing but it pays to think it through first.


----------



## Candy Eggert

Regarding "live prey" being better than toys...Steve Garvin (Bogan's owner) was going to come over to do something in my backyard. I said just put Vini up in the kennel. What I didn't realize was that he was going to bring his Brussel Griffon with him. 

So he said he walked in to the yard with the Brussel's tucked up near his left arm pit. First mistake ;-)Well Vini started jumping up to see what it was. New toy? Steve pushed him off and Vini flips in to heel position :smile: Heeled all way to the kennel! But no reward, damn it!! LOL

So yes live prey is much more interesting and fun, than a toy any day! 

And Don...a pack rat up your pants?! Holy crap! Not sure I'd be more worried about the rat itself or dog so intent on getting it that I would become collateral damage ;-) Has happened with my mutts a time or two  Quick reflexes you have! Good thing you dropped and rolled!


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Well, I am going to work BlackJack in a while. I am going to take him diown to a property I have some spraying to finish up and work him there. This means he has to be kenneled for at least two hours prior to his short beginning work out. Can't kennel him as his favorite female sidekick is in heat and I don't want her bred and she is penned up. Put him in another kennel and the damned crying and yowling from himmbeing separated from being right outside her kennel would have all the neighbors up in arms so I brought him in the house. Where they can't hear him .....but he is driving me nuts. I am going to have breakfast and we are going to head out. His mind is definitely on that little bitch though. 

Candy, you would be surprised at how fast you can move when you see....damned, Jack is standing next to me while I type, crying in my face for me to let him out. He is patheitc and he is pissing me off big time......when you see the dog launching with his mouth open. Ex wife spent 11 days in the hospital from not being fast enough......but that is another story. LOL I did say EX didn't I.


----------



## Jennifer Marshall

Sanda Stankovic said:


> ok, so at a risk of sidestepping this topic, can you expand on how you would approach training a dog like this?


It requires creativity and to under no circumstances lose your temper. Which I have already been on the bring of once and is the reason I am not pushing it and am taking a break from any official work with Jager. He still gets exercised because he would be unbearable if he didn't get exercise - he bounces like a superball everywhere, no walking, all bouncing, if he isn't run at least once a day.

This particular dog likes to work, and likes his rewards, just does not like repitition. He also is quite competitive and dominant and has been known to suddenly have intense interest in something he never paid attention to before simply because another dog has/had it. This is explained in the thread titled "How Many" that I update our progress in. So when I move to a place that has more room (10acres) and landlords/neighbors that don't care about very loud obnoxious barking for 20-30 minutes a day I can take his crate out and when he refuses he will be crated on the field while I work my other dog. Then he will be brought back out, asked again, and every time he refuses he will be crated and the other dog worked.



Geoff Empey said:


> Use your brain not brawn .. i.e. find something he/she likes ball tug and use that to your advantage. Big thing is to build trust and a bond with a dog like that.


Geoff, I wish it were that simple. He loves his rewards, and it took a long time to get to this point, reasons explained in the thread "How Many." A dog like this needs to respect you above all else, though I agree trust and a good relationship do help greatly. Don't lose your temper, be firm and consistent. These dogs will figure you out very quickly if you don't mean business, they will show you how weak you are while at the same time making you feel brilliant, because they are very observant and intelligent. They have a certain pride about them, they like to prance and strut, are very confident and have rock solid nerves.


----------



## Jennifer Marshall

P.S. one thing I have observed when comparing the two methods of training is that they both test a dog in different ways.

People often think that a dog trained with reward is a weaker dog that "couldn't take" the other method of training. I don't agree. I also don't agree that dogs trained with compulsion/Koehler are stronger or better dogs.

A lot depends on the skill of the handler and what you are training the dog to do. Some tasks are more stressful than others to teach and to execute.

Lets look at dogs taught with reward and then proofed with correction. Any dog with drive for a ball or food is pretty easy to teach using rewards. But then you start to take the rewards away and you introduce something entirely new.. corrections. These corrections should be tailored to the dog's type (soft/hard) but are still stressful because you just changed the game, you added a direct conflict. 

Now, what I do is buffer the introduction of corrections with rewards, I don't cold turkey the dog, but some people do. I teach them what a correction means first - it's guidance, not force. I use fur savers, no regular chokes or prongs. Few hard fast single pops, I use mostly multiple light and annoying pops that make the collar rattle and jangle. It's more to guide the dog than to jerk them back or sideways. I want the dog to choose to move or stop rather than be forced to. I hope that makes sense... It basically conditions the dog to obey lighter corrections and the sound of the collar. 

Anyhow, some dogs don't know how to react at first and you will see uncertainty, or nervousness depending on the dog, the infraction, and the level/type of correction. The dog shows another side of it's temperament in how it reacts to and overcomes correction. No matter if the dog is hard or soft it will tell you more about the dog you are working when you change the game and add conflict and stress. 

Compulsion/Koehler is the same from the get go, nothing is changed or switched up. It is a a strict regiment, and becomes fact and the dog is conditioned to the method and knows what to expect. The steps build upon each other, you teach one thing that helps in teaching the next. It can be just as effective on a soft dog as with a hard dog if done right. The consistency can be a benefit to nervous dogs that don't react well to change and need a quiet(verbally and physically) handler. I don't consider it cruel if done properly. I have seen people do cruel things that are not part of the foundation while saying it's Koehler training.

The thing with Koehler training is it does not rely on drive. A dog with very little drive for objects/toys/food can be a pain to motivate and try to train with rewards. These dogs are great candidates for Koehler. Dogs that do have drive are taught control inspite or despite of that drive (distractions don't matter) and because the training does not rely or depend on the dog's drive there is no risk of losing it for taking away rewards or with ill timed/overly harsh correction etc. Koehler is every "stage" rolled into one. 

Now, I have limited knowledge of Koehler, I only know what I have observed others do and read though I have not done any real research into it because I personally am not interested in the methods. The above are just my observations based on the foundation work for Obedience. 

Plus and minus for both. It's all personal choice and based on what we are trying to get the dog to do.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

You confuse the shit out of me. The dog doesn't respect you, as he won't do things when he doesn't want to, but good grief, the way you talk, I woldn't want to train with you either. With your limited knowledge of Koehler, maybe you shouldn't make sweeping generalizations like you were doing. You couldn't clean that mans kennels, and you are out here talking like you know better. 

It sounds to me like you are flipping all the **** about, and have taught the dog that he can ignore you. NOT "he doesn't like repetition". The dominant one plays when THEY decide, I guess you missed that part in your study of Koehler.


----------



## Chris McDonald

This cluster of a thread I started without me really knowing what the hell I was getting at made me order my first Koeler book something about guard dogs. Probably not the first one I should have ordered. 
And Vin I did not forget about you. I just had to get a procedure that the doctors said would lay me up for a bit and I didn’t believe them… but they were right. My ass aint doing much for a few more days except seeing if my add/ retartism will allow me to get through this book… maybe ill just read the pages with pictures. 
And Jeff where you in PA? you in PA to just play with dogs?


----------



## kristin tresidder

Chris McDonald said:


> This cluster of a thread I started without me really knowing what the hell I was getting at made me order my first Koeler book something about guard dogs. Probably not the first one I should have ordered.


actually, the obedience in that book is absolutely identical to the obedience in the first koehler book.


----------



## Bob Scott

I still have a couple of Koehler books........that I bought when they were new. 8-[


----------



## Jason Hammel

Now that y'all have officially turned chris's thread into a Koehler thread of sorts. How many books are there? I saw 4? Koehler Method, Guard dog training, Utility dog training,and Tracking. Were there any more?

Seems like a decent book to get for reading.


----------



## Chris McDonald

They aint cheap, I didn’t see the tracking on Amazon


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

I am like two hours south east of Pittsburg...............I think. I am here working with dogs.


----------



## Jennifer Marshall

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> You confuse the shit out of me. The dog doesn't respect you, as he won't do things when he doesn't want to, but good grief, the way you talk, I woldn't want to train with you either. With your limited knowledge of Koehler, maybe you shouldn't make sweeping generalizations like you were doing. You couldn't clean that mans kennels, and you are out here talking like you know better.
> 
> It sounds to me like you are flipping all the **** about, and have taught the dog that he can ignore you. NOT "he doesn't like repetition". The dominant one plays when THEY decide, I guess you missed that part in your study of Koehler.


 
Jeff, Confused? Disagrees? Oh well, I'm not going to get my feathers in a ruffle about it.

Pretty much everything else is perfect with this dog, but I am not claiming it is not a respect issue at all. I did not want to repost the entire "How Many" thread here so I did not post a lot of information specifically regarding my current issues with Jager because this thread is not about Jager. 

My post above is general information based on my observations and opinions, nothing more. I like to explain things, I'm a writer, so shoot me 

My understanding of Koehler is based on basic obedience training and foundation, nothing more and I don't claim to know more than that. As previously stated many times everything written is based on my personal observations and opinions. Unlike many others I don't claim to be an expert, which is one of the reasons I take so much time and effort to explain myself.


----------

