# Training the Out - Lou Castle Method



## Lou Castle

A couple of people have asked for this article. You can find it HERE.

If there's something that's not clear, feel free to ask.


----------



## Pete Stevens

Good food for thought Lou, thanks for posting it.


----------



## Joby Becker

reposting here,

Thanks for the posting Lou...

Lou I do have a question or two.

First off, thanks for making the article available for reading here.
Upon reading it, it seems like a very sound philosophy to me to accomplish the end result. A recall under "combat drive" circumstances, and the ability to direct the dog to various targets.

Do you feel the method can be modified to only use one decoy, if the goal in the beginning is just to get the "out" (release) and the recall. Perhaps by walking around in heeling under control and resending on initial decoy? Or having that decoy move to another position after dog is recalled and is heeling away? Or will this create some conflict with the actual out/recall of the dog, if the intial goal is just an out/recall, and not being able to direct the dog to bite a second person. Do the multiple decoys serve a function to get the dog to out more easily off the bite, by providing more options for biting?

I did read the whole thing and as I said it looks like a great method to accomplish the goal. It was a little light on explaining the method of the actual release, unless it really is just that simple.

Aside from the topic of modification to just one decoy, assume there is 2 or 4 decoys, since that may be integral to the method.

Just so I have this correct...

Dog is sent to bite first decoy, short fight, lock up, and recall command is given. If dog does not out then continuous stim at very low level with repeated commands. The stim is used until the dog is on his way back to the handler, and then is cut off, dog is praised for the recall and after controlled heeling is sent to another decoy. The stim is not stopped for the out, only when the dog is coming back to handler, and if dog re-engages, no fight, repeat process.

So as far as the actual OUT (recall) is concerned, omitting the other goals of the method, it is basically a waiting game with multiple recall commands and low level stim until dog is recalling, with repetition for failure. Is that correct? 

One other concept that is a little unclear for me is the actual use of the pinch/leash in the method. In the beginning of the article it is used to stop dog from lunging and to get a controlled heel. What to do with the pinch is not discussed in the rest of the article. 

It is used in the execution of the release at all?
Is it used at all to complete the recall and heeling once the release occurs, or is dog allowed to break recall or heel, and re-engage the decoy, to repeat the process, and just use ecollar with low level stim is used for those functions?

Thanks again for posting it. Answer if you have the time...

Joby


----------



## Lou Castle

Joby Becker said:


> Upon reading it, it seems like a very sound philosophy to me to accomplish the end result. A recall under "combat drive" circumstances, and the ability to direct the dog to various targets.


Thanks, that's what I was going for. 



Joby Becker said:


> Do you feel the method can be modified to only use one decoy, if the goal in the beginning is just to get the "out" (release) and the recall. Perhaps by walking around in heeling under control and resending on initial decoy? Or having that decoy move to another position after dog is recalled and is heeling away? Or will this create some conflict with the actual out/recall of the dog, if the intial goal is just an out/recall, and not being able to direct the dog to bite a second person. Do the multiple decoys serve a function to get the dog to out more easily off the bite, by providing more options for biting?


The article is aimed primarily at those folks who are having trouble with the out and have tried other methods that were not successful. It could be used to teach the out initially, that is before a problem developed, with one decoy. But having two decoys helps to keep the dog's mind engaged instead of allowing him to load up. This sets the stage for much of what comes later and allows "the redirect" to be introduced easily and without conflict. Remember that these decoys don't have to be very skilled. Even in very small K−9 units I've been able to get two guys suited up. Four decoys? − very hard to get; but two is easy. 



Joby Becker said:


> I did read the whole thing and as I said it looks like a great method to accomplish the goal. It was a little light on explaining the method of the actual release, unless it really is just that simple.


I know it's hard to believe, especially after a problem has developed, but it really is that simple most of the time. I've probably done this protocol about 150-200 times personally. All of them have been with dogs that had serious issues. Almost all of the dogs released on the very first command. Often I've had handler's "freeze" in surprise when the dog came off so quickly and I had to remind them to start walking towards the other decoy. They could not believe that the dog came off that easily or that quickly. 

One dog, my hardest case, had to be touched on the testicles with a cattle prod before he'd release. And he was starting to fight through that! It took about 45 minutes to get him to release verbally. About 20 minutes of that time he spent biting the first decoy. We had to do the "active sleeve laid over the inactive sleeve" thing with him. But on the very next bite, on the other decoy, he outed with a verbal command. I think I've only had to do that "overlay" 3-5 times. 



Joby Becker said:


> Just so I have this correct...
> 
> Dog is sent to bite first decoy, short fight, lock up, and recall command is given. If dog does not out then continuous stim at very low level with repeated commands. The stim is used until the dog is on his way back to the handler, and then is cut off, dog is praised for the recall and after controlled heeling is sent to another decoy. The stim is not stopped for the out, only when the dog is coming back to handler, and if dog re-engages, no fight, repeat process.


You left out the initial back and forth heeling where the Estim is coupled with the leash correction. But other than that sounds like you got it. Excellent condensation of my lengthy article. 



Joby Becker said:


> So as far as the actual OUT (recall) is concerned, omitting the other goals of the method, it is basically a waiting game with multiple recall commands and low level stim until dog is recalling, with repetition for failure. Is that correct?


It's only a waiting game if the dog does not release initially. But it's much more than just the out. It's a different philosophy of doing OB and of how OB is tied to the search work. Usually OB is done out of pack drive, dominance and submission. Even when it's done with play or treats, dominance and submission are part of the picture. It also teaches the dog that OB is not just "Do it because I said do it." OB becomes part of the search, part of the hunt, part of the fight and so the dog does not resist it. 



Joby Becker said:


> One other concept that is a little unclear for me is the actual use of the pinch/leash in the method. In the beginning of the article it is used to stop dog from lunging and to get a controlled heel. What to do with the pinch is not discussed in the rest of the article.


It's not used once the link has been made between the leash correction and the Estim. The stim replaces it. Once he's released a few time the leash is dropped and the dog just drags it around. I prefer to do this rather than to have the handler take it off him. If the handler touches the dog it "takes him out of the moment." The handler becomes a distraction to what is going on between the handler, the dog and the decoys. 



Joby Becker said:


> It is used in the execution of the release at all?


No, it's not. Hard, multiple corrections with the pinch are often one of the first methods that are tried to fix this problem. They're one of the steps going "up the discomfort/pain scale." Some dogs learn to fight through them. Some dogs bite their handlers for such multiple corrections. It just becomes another part of the conflict. 

BTW I've never gotten a handler bitten by his own dog while doing this. I mention the possibility, especially with dogs that have shown aggression towards the handler in the past, because it exists, especially if the Estim goes too high. There's a tendency among some, especially if their only use of the Ecollar is in giving corrections for behaviors the dog already knows, to go to high too fast. This is counter−productive here and will just reintroduce the very conflict that I'm seeking to avoid. 



Joby Becker said:


> Is it used at all to complete the recall and heeling once the release occurs, or is dog allowed to break recall or heel, and re-engage the decoy, to repeat the process, and just use ecollar with low level stim is used for those functions?


Once the dog clearly understands this process and is reliable on the out, I'll use the pinch to clean up a bit of the sloppiness with the OB, especially in the heeling, that this method sometimes induces. But that's usually done away from this work. Since the average biting dog has had tons of heeling corrections and knows the correct position well, this is quickly and easily done.


----------



## Joby Becker

Lou..
Thanks for the clarifications...


----------



## Jerry Cudahy

Interesting Read. What Police Dept/K9 Units use this method ?


----------



## Lou Castle

Probably not very many Jerry. I did a seminar several years back with Brian Mowry (formerly of Tri-Tronics and now bomb detection dog trainer for the Secret Service ) and Mike Horn (trainer or former trainer for the Las Vegas Metro PD) and they both were doing something nearly identical except for the search at the end. 

LAPD used to use it when Donn Yarnall was there but since he's retired I don't have as much contact with them. Both Donn and I have shown it (separately and together) at seminars around the country but I can't say with any specificity if any of those agencies adopted it. "You can lead a horse to water ..."

I've done demos for local departments here and when I was traveling, when they came to me with an outing problem. Some of them brought me back for Ecollar seminars and a couple of them sent people to the LA area to work with me.


----------



## Jerry Cudahy

Interesting, also odd that Mowrey in conjunction with Tritrononics. Never shared this type of teaching the out with me. Mr. Mowrey purchased a dog from me that was showcased in the Tritronics Catlogue in the Police Dog Section . I spent a week in Marysville on their dime. I must have missed that part of the training we did.

Am I to understand that you are saying that the Secret Service for the United States has detailed your method of outing a dog in the description you have outlined.

Brian certified as a French Campagne Decoy the same day as I attained the Campagne Certification. It was overseen by French Judge Fromage in California.

Sounds very secretive and I have travelled the world doing this dog training stuff and never once observed any of this poppycock.


----------



## Bob Scott

This is a conflict free zone. Keep this to friendly discussions, even disagreements but, calling one another out should go to PMs or drop it.


----------



## Jerry Cudahy

Mr. Castle, I ask that you move this entire thread, the Training the Out - Lou Castle Method. To another catagory, so that the discussion can be debated in the manner it needs to be addressed.

Placing the article link to your webpage within the Conflict Free Discussion section is an Oxmoron. Conflict is central to a dog being removed from a working drive and placed into another working drive.

All respect to the board, the Admin, the members and yourself.

Training the Out - Lou Castle Method is in the incorrect location to be as the point of a Discusion Board.

jc


----------



## Joby Becker

Jerry,

I agree with you...but...I am just glad to finally SEE it...
I am going to try it the next time I get access to 2 or more decoys in a suit.

I will still use OUT (or some other command if the OUT word is really the source of the conflict) for SCH..to include the bark/guard...

I will use the PLACE/Whistle for the Lou Castle method...

I am hoping it is this easy and conflict free, and effective...I would say the recall is the strongest command I have right now...(under non-combative circumstances at least)



Dog has alot of fight with the decoy...and the handler#-o#-o


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Jerry Cudahy said:


> All respect to the board, the Admin, the members and yourself.
> 
> Training the Out - Lou Castle Method is in the incorrect location to be as the point of a Discusion Board.
> 
> jc


Actually, Jerry, the mods agree; maybe it's here by mistake. It is indeed a "_training discussion_," and in fact, that's where it started at http://www.WorkingDogForum.com/vBulletin/f9/lou-castle-out-method-19251/

We're moving it back to the "Training Discussion" forum.


----------



## Jerry Cudahy

Connie Sutherland said:


> Actually, Jerry, the mods agree; maybe it's here by mistake. It is indeed a "_training discussion_," and in fact, that's where it started at http://www.WorkingDogForum.com/vBulletin/f9/lou-castle-out-method-19251/
> 
> We're moving it back to the "Training Discussion" forum.


 Thank You ......................

....................................................


Lou, I have a whole batch of questions for you.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Jerry Cudahy said:


> Thank You ......................
> 
> ....................................................


Not at all.  Nothing to do with you (or anyone else) .... we had been wondering how it had migrated anyway and it was on its way to being moved.


----------



## Jerry Cudahy

*partially deleted - see below*


I would like if you would qualify your personal ability to produce the poppycock you directed people to your own website to learn from you.

Pls do not use others who you say you saw.

Let start with your police credentials. You used your former police k9 as a basis where you applied the method you put forth.

How many dogs were on your unit ?


----------



## Connie Sutherland

The thread is about the training method posted.

Questions, challenges, conversation, discussion .... need to be about the training method posted.

So if you can rephrase your questions to be actual questions (and your comments as comments on the method posted), that will be great. If the questions start with "You owe an apology to all the new dog people who have read your article," then the thread will end up locked as just another flame war and the questions will never be answered.

Actual questions about an article named "The Out for Police Service Dogs" could include _You used your former police k9 as a basis where you applied the method you put forth. How many dogs were on your unit ?
_

OK? Maybe we can actually have a thread. :wink:


----------



## Jerry Cudahy

I STAND CORRECTED.

LOU

_You used your former police k9 as a basis where you applied the method you put forth. How many dogs were on your unit ?_


----------



## Adam Rawlings

Is Thomas on holidays?


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Adam Rawlings said:


> Is Thomas on holidays?


Hey Adam,

It was 66 degrees in Colorado Springs today. So I had better things to do  Besides I have the Brian Mowry "Out" for Patrol and Detector Dogs" Part I and II from Dobbs, which is a lot clearer then what Lou posted. I find the article confusing. If Joby or anyone else finds the article helpful it's fine with me


----------



## Jerry Cudahy

I am so confused now, when did lou do a consult on the Dogtra Vid that describes Lous Method of Training the Out.

Thread appears over and lol, OUT Lou Style.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Jerry Cudahy said:


> I am so confused now, when did lou do a consult on the Dogtra Vid that describes Lous Method of Training the Out.
> 
> Thread appears over and lol, OUT Lou Style.


Jerry,

The Mowry/Dobbs tape was copyrighted in 1996. There is no mention of Lou Castle on either of the two tape jackets or as far as I recall on the tapes themselves. Even Lou himself puts at the end of the article, how he borrows from other trainers and his techniques isn't original. Of course this is in the small print at the end of the article after the title (and the subject lines on the WDF)blast out "LOU CASTLE Method" but hey, Lou makes
useful information accessible for free to cheapskates who wouldn't pay for the original and it's only fifteen years out of date. (inappropropriate )


----------



## Jerry Cudahy

Thomas Barriano said:


> Jerry,
> 
> The Mowry/Dobbs tape was copyrighted in 1996. There is no mention of Lou Castle on either of the two tape jackets or as far as I recall on the tapes themselves. Even Lou himself puts at the end of the article, how he borrows from other trainers and his techniques isn't original. Of course this is in the small print at the end of the article after the title (and the subject lines on the WDF)blast out "LOU CASTLE Method" but hey, Lou makes
> useful information accessible for free to cheapskates who wouldn't pay for the original and it's only fifteen years out of date. (inappropropriate )


 Lou Sir is priceless and your comment is mild to what I want to say.

Over to the mods.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Jerry Cudahy said:


> ... Over to the mods.


PARTIAL QUOTE from the O.P. link:
_
And finally, while this article may be called "The Lou Castle Method of Getting the Out," I didn't invent it. Like everything and everyone else, I've stolen from the dozens of trainers who helped me out by giving freely of their time and knowledge when I asked for their help with a problem. I took what worked for me from them, put my own spin on things and now I've passed it on._

END PARTIAL QUOTE



As far as other questions directed to Lou, already posted or perhaps to follow, I imagine he will see the thread and reply. 

As with other articles and advertisements posted on WDF (even though this one was specifically requested by a WDF member), real questions relating to the article or advertisement are expected to be answered (here, of course, and not with a link).


This has nothing particularly to do with Lou; it came up a few weeks ago with regard to another link posted here.


So far it's still a thread. Good job! :lol:


----------



## Lou Castle

Jerry Cudahy said:


> Interesting, also odd that Mowrey in conjunction with Tritrononics. Never shared this type of teaching the out with me.


I don't find this either "interesting" or "odd." But opinions vary. 



Jerry Cudahy said:


> Mr. Mowrey purchased a dog from me that was showcased in the Tritronics Catlogue in the Police Dog Section .


I wonder what this has to do with this topic? 



Jerry Cudahy said:


> I spent a week in Marysville on their dime. I must have missed that part of the training we did.


Perhaps you did miss it. When were you there? Perhaps Brian started doing this after he left TT. Perhaps he didn't feel that you needed to see it. Perhaps ....... It sounds a bit like you are questioning that Brian has ever used a technique that's similar to the one that I described. Since you and Brian are such close friends I suggest that you give him a call and ask him about it. BTW Brian's name is _"Mowry"_ not _"Mowery."_ Being that you seem to want us to believe that the two of you are such good friends, I'd thought you'd know that. 



Jerry Cudahy said:


> Am I to understand that you are saying that the Secret Service for the United States has detailed your method of outing a dog in the description you have outlined.


Here's something that IS odd, I don't remember saying anything of the sort. Since you're trying to attribute it to me c an you point out where I said this please? I DID say that Brian now works for the Secret Service training bomb dogs, but somehow I'm unable to fine ANYWHERE that I said that they have "detailed [my] method of outing a dog." 



Jerry Cudahy said:


> Brian certified as a French Campagne Decoy the same day as I attained the Campagne Certification. It was overseen by French Judge Fromage in California.


At once, both a miraculous coincidence and fascinating! But what has this to do with this discussion? 



Jerry Cudahy said:


> Sounds very secretive


It is so secret that I posted it on a dog training forum with almost 5,500 members, some of whom will probably post it elsewhere as well. Sssh don't tell anyone. It's a *secret! * ROFL. 



Jerry Cudahy said:


> and I have travelled the world doing this dog training stuff and never once observed any of this poppycock.


"Travelling the world" is pretty vague. Obviously you've never been to the places where I've shown it to folks and they're using it. 

As far as "poppycock," please feel free not to use my method. It's never let me down. I've been called in quite a few times after people had gone through everything that they and their trainer knew to do and have never failed to give the handler a verbal out. Not a miracle cure of course, just a method, that if he continued to use it to condition the dog, would maintain the verbal out. 

There's an old lawyer's adage that goes, _"When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When the law is on your side, argue the law. And when you don’t have either the law or the facts on your side, pound the table!"_ There's a lot of table−pounding going on here. Any questions about the article?


----------



## Lou Castle

Jerry Cudahy said:


> _You used your former police k9 as a basis where you applied the method you put forth. How many dogs were on your unit ?_


I think you're saying that I've said that I used this method on my own PSD and/or on my department when I was the in−house train there. Neither are the case and I never said anything of the sort. If you can find such a statement, please show it to us. 

Wondering, could you please stop trying to put words into my mouth? 

As to how many dogs were on my unit − based on your previous posts in this thread, this is the start of an interrogation as to my qualifications to train dogs. They are available HERE. 

If you have questions about the protocol I'll be happy to answer them, but I see no reason to bother with this sort of query. When every other trainer on this list is required to submit to this kind of questioning, I'll participate in it. Until then ... use the protocol or don't, I really don't care.


----------



## Lou Castle

Thomas Barriano said:


> Besides I have the Brian Mowry "Out" for Patrol and Detector Dogs" Part I and II from Dobbs, which is a lot clearer then what Lou posted. I find the article confusing. If Joby or anyone else finds the article helpful it's fine with me


I have those videos too. They're great, but they were done in the mid 1990's and Brian has added to his repertoire since then, as have I, and so, I'd bet, have most trainers! What he does on those videos is not at all what he did at the seminar I referred to earlier. That seminar was about 8-10 years after those videos came out. What he did at this seminar is similar to the method I've posted. He may be doing both at this time, I haven't spoken to him for quite a while. 

Thomas can you tell me what you find confusing? The article I posted was revised many times but I'd still consider it an early draft.  Always looking to improve my articles to make them more user−friendly and easier to understand.


----------



## Lou Castle

Jerry Cudahy said:


> I am so confused now, when did lou do a consult on the Dogtra Vid that describes Lous Method of Training the Out.


When did anyone say that I did a consult on a Dogtra video? The video that Thomas mentions is from The Dobbs Training Center and features Brian Mowry. He was using TT's at the time of that video.


----------



## Lou Castle

Thomas Barriano said:


> Jerry,
> 
> The Mowry/Dobbs tape was copyrighted in 1996. There is no mention of Lou Castle on either of the two tape jackets or as far as I recall on the tapes themselves.


Why would there be? I had nothing to do with it. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> Even Lou himself puts at the end of the article, how he borrows from other trainers and his techniques isn't original. Of course this is in the small print at the end of the article


That's pretty misleading Thomas. There is no "small print." Of course it's at the end of the article, that's where one finds disclaimers of this sort. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> Lou makes useful information accessible for free to cheapskates who wouldn't pay for the original and it's only fifteen years out of date.


I have no idea why you compare my method with what's shown on Brian's video. There's little, if any similarity with my method. 

As far as it being "fifteen years out of date" YOU are the one who said that you that you preferred it to my article. Now it's no good because it's 15 years old?


----------



## Christopher Jones

Lous reply is actually not as long as I thought it was going to be.


----------



## Lou Castle

Due to some feeling that I took something from the Dobbs video "Out for Patrol and Detector Dogs," Here's a summary of the video that's being discussed. 

In part I Brian starts by teaching the recall command without any decoys. Then he teaches the out from loose inanimate objects. Then he uses objects that have a short rope attached. Then he uses more exciting objects that are on a short rope. Then he turns up the stim level to get a faster response and more motivation to release. Then he moves to a more exciting toy, still on a rope. 

In part II Brian works with a dog that won't out from a sleeve. The dog won't drop a slipped sleeve so Brian puts a leash through his abdomen area and he lifts the dog of the ground by the abdomen at the same time that the handler lifts him off the ground by his leash, attached to the dog's collar. Next he works on the recall with the Ecollar just as in Part I. He has the handler walk around while he provides a distraction with a toy until the dog is staying with the handler reliably. Then he moves to outing the dog off objects, just as in Part I. Then he moves to outing the dog off more exciting objects. Next he has the dog heel over and around a sleeve that's lying on the ground. Then he goes to using a sleeve that's slipped after a bite and outing the dog off that. 

Next he uses a barrier and a sleeve. The barrier, a table, is to prevent the dog from getting a bite. He works on having the handler call the dog away without a bite. Then he does it with a bite and has the handler call the dog back from the bite. Then he changes the location and type of barrier. He has the handler drop the long line and drag it around. 

Then he introduces the call off using a chain link barrier (a kennel) between the dog and the decoy. Again the barrier prevents the bite. He has the handler recall the dog. Next he the opens the kennel gate and has the handler call the dog off while he's enroute to the bite. As the dog approaches, the decoy closes the gate, again imposing the barrier. Next he gives the dog a bite and recalls the dog from it. Next he has the gate partway open and the handler recalls the dog from quite a distance away before he gets to a bite. Then he mixes the last couple of exercises up; changing from one to another. Then he does some running call offs with the decoy going into the kennel and closing the door as the dog approaches. 

Then he uses a vehicle instead of the kennel, transferring the training that's been done so far. It's nearly identical to the work that was done with the kennel. Then he uses a muzzle to do the call off without a barrier. Then he does a running call off. Then he does a call off while the decoy keeps fighting. 

*There is not even passing similarity between the method shown in this video and my method. I have no idea where anyone would get the idea that I took anything from that video for my method.*


----------



## Jerry Cudahy

Lou Castle said:


> fighting.
> 
> *There is not even passing similarity between the method shown in this video and my method. I have no idea where anyone would get the idea that I took anything from that video for my method.*


 
*Copyright* is a set of exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work.

You also admitted to stealing, in print from other trainers. You did post that admission to Stealing here on this board. While still maintaining it as yours .

Your word ................... Stealing. You did publish stealing.


Stealing like a gadafy stole from his own people.

In this case you stole from Dog People.


----------



## Howard Knauf

You never "procured, borrowed, copied, emulated, shadowed, and yes...stole" ANY information from any other trainer in your dog training career? If no, then you're the first person I ever heard of born with all the information about training right out of the box. Good on you.


----------



## Joby Becker

I have seen many training methods used here for lots of things, and a lot of posts describing how certain people do things. 

Everyone learns things from a bunch of different people over time. 

If I say this is MY method for training a dog to jump a hurdle, and it may contain elements of things learned from people on here, and things learned from watching agility training videos and other videos, does that mean that I am saying that I invented all the elements, or does it mean that this is the method that I put together and use?

I posted the request for the method, mainly because I felt after reading reference after reference eluding that there WAS a method, (which sounded like it was going to be different than most by the references, and it was) after wading through all the quote by quote posts and seeing that Lou made several posts stating that he would post it here, I just wanted to finally read it. To be honest I personally felt it was OWED to me..that I earned it......LOL

I was not even aware of the Dobb's videos on the subject. 

I do not know Lou and absolutely HATE wading through line by line quotes, but his articles and this OUT article is an interesting read, glad to finally see it Lou.
Thanks

Copyright laws pertain to the actual "piece of work", in this case the video content, meaning whatever was physically burned to the disc, as in video footage,interviews, speeches, whatever. 

It does not apply to training methods shown on the tape, which appear from LOU's summary of the video are quite different. 

And before we go way out in left field, if I summarize or describe what is on a produced video for someone, in a post....that is also very far from a copyright infringement, it is called a summary or it is a review. 
Go to IMDB and you will see millions of reviews, and summaries.

I have no clue who invented the pinch collar, I have seen probably a 1000 people using a pinch collar... If I made a training video about training pet OB with a pinch and sold it, is that stealing? 

If I watched 500 people training the 2 ball, 2 hose or 2 tug method over time in training, and I adopted it as the method I used, and wrote an article describing how I do it, is that stealing? 

If Lou sat down and watched this production from Dobbs, and then wrote an article that basically described the EXACT method used, and stamped his name on it, it would still not be copyright infringement, although I WOULD call that stealing, from an ethical standpoint...

If Lou learned some things that were on the Dobbs production, and some other things from here, and some other things from there, put them all together into a method that works for him and wrote an article about the method he uses, that is NOT stealing, even if he stamps his name on it as HIS method...

Whether you like Lou or not, that is your choice, but.....

Lets get back to reality here.


----------



## Howard Knauf

Joby Becker said:


> I do not know Lou and absolutely HATE wading through line by line quotes, but his articles and this OUT article is an interesting read, glad to finally see it Lou.
> Thanks


 Personally....I get a hell of a charge when when someone's BS gets called out, otherwise it goes unchallenged and those statements are taken as truth. Plus, it's easier to keep track of the conversation. Usually when Lou addresses BS there is no reply and that's the end of it or a decent discussion follows.


----------



## Joby Becker

Howard Knauf said:


> Personally....I get a hell of a charge when when someone's BS gets called out, otherwise it goes unchallenged and those statements are taken as truth. Plus, it's easier to keep track of the conversation. Usually when Lou addresses BS there is no reply and that's the end of it or a decent discussion follows.


yes but sometimes my eyes start going crazy and I feel like I might have a siezure..


----------



## Howard Knauf

Joby Becker said:


> yes but sometimes my eyes start going crazy and I feel like I might have a siezure..


They have meds for that.


----------



## Jerry Cudahy

Howard Knauf said:


> They have meds for that.


 Here, here and Sniff Sniff as the sick guy says.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Joby Becker said:


> If Lou sat down and watched this production from Dobbs, and then wrote an article that basically described the EXACT method used, and stamped his name on it, it would still not be copyright infringement, although I WOULD call that stealing, from an ethical standpoint...
> 
> If Lou learned some things that were on the Dobbs production, and some other things from here, and some other things from there, put them all together into a method that works for him and wrote an article about the method he uses, that is NOT stealing, even if he stamps his name on it as HIS method...
> 
> Whether you like Lou or not, that is your choice, but.....
> 
> Lets get back to reality here.


Joby,

The reality (IMO) is, Lou is an author and not a trainer. 
There seems to be a tendency to suggest a relationship with various well known trainers, that likely doesn't exist. Most of the articles on Lou's website are well written and contain useful information. Just don't pretend they're based on hands on personal experience. The articles are based on other peoples work.


----------



## Jerry Cudahy

Hey I have a serious question for the board members.

Would it be bad taste and not wanted here if I posted a link to the 

World Famous Castle Website that has _dogged_ Lou.

If everyone feels it is bad taste I will not do so.


----------



## Howard Knauf

Thomas Barriano said:


> Joby,
> 
> The reality (IMO) is, Lou is an author and not a trainer.


 Based on what?


----------



## Lou Castle

Jerry Cudahy said:


> *Copyright* is a set of exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work.


I'm pretty familiar with copyright law Jerry. A big part of my college education is in journalism. I used to support myself as a professional photographer. I've registered thousands of photos with the US Copyright Service. 



Jerry Cudahy said:


> You also admitted to stealing, in print from other trainers. You did post that admission to Stealing here on this board. While still maintaining it as yours .
> Your word ................... Stealing. You did publish stealing.
> Stealing like a gadafy stole from his own people.
> In this case you stole from Dog People.


Connie quoted from my article Jerry, not me. I deeply apologize for using common everyday slang in a way that was too difficult for you to understand. I stole from those trainers in the same way that anyone who uses corrections has stolen from Konrad Most. In the same way that anyone who uses a clicker has stolen from the Baileys. In the same way that anyone who uses a ball has stolen from the first caveman to toss a toy for his dog. When you teach a client how to give a leash correction do you have a copyright on it? Has he stolen when he gives his dog a leash correct after that? Is he required to pay you a royalty on each and every correction he gives his dog or do you give him a package price? 

The method I posted is *mine *because I've taken a little bit from most every trainer that I've worked with and put it together into this protocol. Some have contributed more than others. But I've changed it and put my own spin on it. Therefore, I'll call it mine. 

But turning this bit of absurdity back on you, I suppose that everything that you do is original. You're giving corrections in a way that NO ONE before you ever has. I suppose that you're doing decoy work in a way that no one before you has. I wonder why you bothered going to that course on Campagne Decoying if you weren't going to *steal * what the instructor was teaching. I guess that makes you the first person in history to do EVERYTHING in a completely different way than EVERYONE who trained a dog before you came along. 

Once again, any questions or comments about the article?


----------



## Lou Castle

Joby Becker said:


> I posted the request for the method, mainly because I felt after reading reference after reference eluding that there WAS a method, (which sounded like it was going to be different than most by the references, and it was) after wading through all the quote by quote posts and seeing that Lou made several posts stating that he would post it here, I just wanted to finally read it. To be honest I personally felt it was OWED to me..that I earned it......LOL


I promised to work on the article after a discussion here quite some time ago. I then promptly forgot about it. Mea Culpa. You reminded me that I'd said I'd complete it and post about it here. Thanks again for reminding me. 



Joby Becker said:


> I do not know Lou and absolutely HATE wading through line by line quotes, but his articles and this OUT article is an interesting read, glad to finally see it Lou.
> Thanks


Thank YOU for the kind words. 



Joby Becker said:


> Lets get back to reality here.


Great idea.


----------



## Lou Castle

Thomas Barriano said:


> Joby,
> 
> The reality (IMO) is, Lou is an author and not a trainer.


The various people that I've trained would say that I'm an author AND a trainer. I've done 50 seminars and more scheduled. When I get up in front of the group and work their dogs, I'm training. So, while you're entitled to any opinion that you like, you're not entitled to your own facts. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> There seems to be a tendency to suggest a relationship with various well known trainers, that likely doesn't exist.


I mentioned Mike Horn and Brian Mowry because they are both in LE, they both use a very similar method to the one I wrote about and Jerry had asked what police departments used this protocol. Otherwise they'd probably not have come up. I've known Brian and Mike for years have done at least one (possibly more but memory fades) seminars with them. A few years back Mike recommended me to teach at a seminar in Las Vegas when he was unable to make it. I've got calls in to both of them so I can ask if they're still using their versions of the protocol. As always, you are invited to phone these folks and ask for yourself. I suggest that you do so you can put this foolishness out of your head once and for all. 

There are a couple of other trainers that I mention once in awhile. I won't name them to avoid this silly accusation being thrown out again. (Anyone who is curious, just ask in PM's). Usually their names come up when someone asks, as Jerry did, who else is using (the method under discussion) Since I know them and know what they do it's natural for me to mention them. How else would I answer such a question? One of them is my best friend and another one who heads the POST K−9 training for his state, is a good friend. Far more than a nodding acquaintance. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> Most of the articles on Lou's website are well written and contain useful information.


Thanks for the kind words Thomas. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> Just don't pretend they're based on hands on personal experience. The articles are based on other peoples work.


Since EVERYTHING is "based on other people's work" that's not much of a criticism. But the crittering / dog−to−dog aggression article is completely and originally mine. I didn't get it from anyone else.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Howard Knauf said:


> Based on what?


I base my opinion that Lou is an author and not a trainer based on the fact that he doesn't train a dog 
A trainer is someone that competes or works with their own dog
(or client dogs for hire) on a regular basis. I'd say at least 4-5 days/week. Lou can verify, but I believe the last time he worked any kind of street dog was 20 or more years ago. Doing a seminar once a month isn't training IMO. Offering an opinion on someone else dog isn't training IMO. A medical sales rep can teach a doctor how to use a specialized surgical robot, that doesn't make the sales rep a Doctor.


----------



## Howard Knauf

Thank god we have your definition of what standard constitutes a trainer. 

So when you're too old to physically do it you then default to???????


Nevermind. Back to the topic.


----------



## Lou Castle

Thomas Barriano said:


> I base my opinion that Lou is an author and not a trainer based on the fact that he doesn't train a dog
> A trainer is someone that competes or works with their own dog


Really? I call those people handlers, not trainers. The trainer is the guy who trained the handler. If the handler has done the work with his own dog then he might be called THAT dog's trainer but I usually don't apply the term that way. To me a trainer has worked with lots of dogs, not just his own, and has the knowledge to fix just about any issue that comes down the pike. Someone who's only trained his own dog probably isn't going to know more than how to train that animal. If some new issue comes up, he probably won't know how to fix it since he lacks the experience of working with many dogs. 



> (or client dogs for hire) on a regular basis. I'd say at least 4-5 days/week.


I see. So since I'm retired and only train dogs when I feel like it, I'm no longer a trainer? ROFL. David Frost is the head trainer for the state of Tennessee's police K−9's. (Sorry but I'm not sure of his exact title). He does not "compete or work with [his] own dog." He also does not work with "client dogs for hire on a regular basis." So by your definition he's not a trainer? If he is now, when he retires in a few months, he'll no longer be a trainer? All his dog training knowledge will be drained from his brain? David is gonna be pissed when he learns that he's not a trainer. He'll have to change all his business cards. 



> Lou can verify, but I believe the last time he worked any kind of street dog was 20 or more years ago.


That's right. After my dog retired (my department did not allow anyone [they still don't] to get another K−9 and stay in the program). That's when I became the in−house trainer for the department and served in that capacity for the next 15 years or so except for some brief periods when I'd piss off a certain Lt. or when the department closed down the unit for a short time, due to budget problems. Shall I show a photo of my retirement letter over the signature of the Chief of Police where he lists, among my other assignments, "K−9 handler and trainer?" 



> Doing a seminar once a month isn't training IMO.


In MY opinion what you are calling a trainer, most everyone else would call a full−time trainer. If you wanted to be more specific I'd say that I'm a part−time trainer, but a trainer, nonetheless. It sounds as if you invented the way you use the term "trainer" specifically to exclude me. 



> Offering an opinion on someone else dog isn't training IMO. A medical sales rep can teach a doctor how to use a specialized surgical robot, that doesn't make the sales rep a Doctor.


No idea what this means. Rarely am I called on to "offer an opinion on someone else's dog." I am called on occasionally to show someone how to stop their dog from crittering or get the out. That involves hands on working with the dogs. At most of my seminars I'm working with the dogs that the participants bring that they're having issues with. 

Why is it that some people are turning an article that's in the training section into a discussion about me? Could it be that they're have nothing to say about the article and can only attack me? Sure is a lot of "table pounding" going on here lately. 

I thought the idea of moving this to the Training Forum was so that people could ask questions about the article. It would seem that some have another agenda.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Lou Castle said:


> As to how many dogs were on my unit − based on your previous posts in this thread, this is the start of an interrogation as to my qualifications to train dogs. They are available HERE.


"As with other articles and advertisements posted on WDF (even though this one was specifically requested by a WDF member), real questions relating to the article or advertisement are expected to be answered (here, of course, and not with a link)."

Answer or refuse (based on irrelevancy or anything you like); even paste your own text from elsewhere. But please don't reply to questions here with links to another site. Thank you.


----------



## Lou Castle

Howard Knauf said:


> Thank god we have your definition of what standard constitutes a trainer.
> 
> So when you're too old to physically do it you then default to???????
> 
> Nevermind. Back to the topic.


As a friend of mine says, "You can't go back to a place you've never been."


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Jerry Cudahy said:


> Hey *I have a serious question* for the board members.
> 
> Would it be bad taste and not wanted here if I posted a link to the
> 
> World Famous Castle Website that has _dogged_ Lou.
> 
> If everyone feels it is bad taste I will not do so.


Tell you what: if ANYone posts a link to anything remotely like it, they will find a problem with their next post. That is a serious answer.

The Mods and Admin


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Howard Knauf said:


> Thank god we have your definition of what standard constitutes a trainer.
> 
> So when you're too old to physically do it you then default to???????
> 
> 
> Nevermind. *Back to the topic.*


Any chance of questions/discussion about the topic? The thread is about a training method, remember?


----------



## Howard Knauf

Lou Castle said:


> David Frost is the head trainer for the state of Tennessee's police K−9's. (Sorry but I'm not sure of his exact title). He does not "compete or work with [his] own dog." He also does not work with "client dogs for hire on a regular basis." So by your definition he's not a trainer? If he is now, when he retires in a few months, he'll no longer be a trainer? All his dog training knowledge will be drained from his brain? David is gonna be pissed when he learns that he's not a trainer. He'll have to change all his business cards.


 That there is funny.=D>




> Why is it that some people are turning an article that's in the training section into a discussion about me? Could it be that they're have nothing to say about the article and can only attack me? Sure is a lot of "table pounding" going on here lately.


 No s**t. If you don't like the message, kill the messenger, eh?. Petty BS.

Respond, agree, disagree...whatever. Just let the petty school yard, teenybopper he said/she said BS go for christsakes.


----------



## Joby Becker

No more questions until I try it out and see how it works, seems like an interesting method on paper.


----------



## Ian Forbes

Jerry Cudahy said:


> *Copyright* is a set of exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work.
> 
> You also admitted to stealing, in print from other trainers. You did post that admission to Stealing here on this board. While still maintaining it as yours .
> 
> Your word ................... Stealing. You did publish stealing.
> 
> 
> Stealing like a gadafy stole from his own people.
> 
> In this case you stole from Dog People.


 #-o


----------



## Ian Forbes

Thomas Barriano said:


> I base my opinion that Lou is an author and not a trainer based on the fact that he doesn't train a dog
> *A trainer is someone that competes or works with their own dog*
> *(or client dogs for hire) on a regular basis. I'd say at least 4-5 days/week*. Lou can verify, but I believe the last time he worked any kind of street dog was 20 or more years ago. Doing a seminar once a month isn't training IMO. Offering an opinion on someone else dog isn't training IMO. A medical sales rep can teach a doctor how to use a specialized surgical robot, that doesn't make the sales rep a Doctor.


That might be your definition. Plenty of people might disagree with you.


----------



## David Frost

It's a shame when this thread is typical of so many others. The topic of this discussion was requested. Whether a person agrees or disagrees with the methods, it's beyond me why it can't be discussed as adults. Instead, there are those that, rather than have a discussion, are content to turn it into a personal attack. An attack that has absolutely nothing to do with the method. It's a shame some of you have nothing to add to a discussion other than discord. Is that the real problem I wonder. Even after some of the pretty childish words, one poster even admits that he doesn't really know if it would work, because he hasn't tried it yet. I suspect none of the other trash talkers have tried it either. 

As for the definition of a trainer; well, ya see, I have nothing to sell. I'm not trying to sell dogs or training, videos, equipment or even myself. To be honest with you and you can believe it or not, I didn't know who M. Ellis was until I joined this forum. I still don't know who a couple of people are when names are bandied about. The answer why isn't all that difficult, but unimportant, because you've never heard of those that I know as trainers. The results of my work. Well you can do your own homework. I'd suggest starting with the TN State Courts and then extending your search to Federal Courts. There are at least 3 6th Circuit decisions involving THP K9's. Any drug arrest involving the TN Highway Patrol, that involved a THP K9 in the past 22 years was purchased, trained, and certified by me. I didn't handle a single one of them. Last dog I actually handled was BlackJack or as I affectionately called him "Muffin Bucket" the cadaver dog. He was retired in 2005 or 6, I can't remember honestly. The last street dog I worked was uhhhhh well never mind you already know I'm old. 

I consider myself a trainer. Beyond that, and the handlers I train for, I really don't give a flip what others think. 

DFrost


----------



## Jerry Cudahy

Lou, I am going to attemp to bring some civility into the thread.

The dog "Game" is not a normal work place.

That covers the complete gauntlet. From pet people, sport people, pro both those that earn a living and or teach. I concider cops as pro, they get paid. Humane advocates, pros. Dog Catcher, pro.

Aunt Mary who feeds alley cats, she also is in the game so to speak.

Would you agree/disagree with my statement ?

And why do you agree/ disagree ??


----------



## maggie fraser

What was the question again ?


----------



## David Frost

maggie fraser said:


> What was the question again ?


and what does it have to do with the OP's question.

DFrost


----------



## Howard Knauf

Are we discussing this out method or baiting the person providing it? 

How about discussing, or disproving this method if you wanna swap ideas in a civil manner. That would be novel.


----------



## Jerry Cudahy

Jerry Cudahy;256579The dog "Game" is not a normal work place.
Would you agree/disagree with my statement ?
And why do you agree/ disagree ??[/QUOTE said:


> There is the question asked.


----------



## David Frost

Jerry Cudahy said:


> There is the question asked.


and my question is still, what does that have to do with the question; Training the Out. 

DFrost


----------



## Jerry Cudahy

David Frost said:


> and my question is still, what does that have to do with the question; Training the Out.
> 
> DFrost


 Getting there, let Lou speak for himself.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Lou.

Do you have any video footage of this process from a seminar?


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Howard Knauf said:


> Are we discussing this out method or baiting the person providing it?
> 
> How about discussing, or disproving this method if you wanna swap ideas in a civil manner. That would be novel.


Howard,

A discussion of any training method, should also include the methods origin. I take exception to anyone taking credit for someone else work. When I pass on specific training advise I give credit where credit is due. I don't claim it's the Thomas Barriano retrieve if it's something that I got from Michael Ellis.
I also don't obfuscate and dissect a post into fragments that confuse the meaning. As far as whether David F is a "trainer" or not? I'm not sure what he has to do with the topic other then an attempt to attract an ally. A trainer is also someone involved in training handlers. They don't have to be hands on the dog.
It's about a regular (reasonably recent? )involvement with training dogs, not something 20 years ago or a once a month seminar.
If you think that David and Lou are on an equal level as trainers? Then you and I have a different criteria.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Who is Ryan Anchors and why is he getting "credit" for what I wrote?


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Thomas Barriano said:


> Who is Ryan Anchors and why is he getting "credit" for what I wrote?


It looks like he's a 22 yr old male model
http://www.modelmayhem.com/1426572
obviously not me 
Which begs the question. Why would Lou get us confused? ;-)


----------



## Howard Knauf

Water under the bridge Thomas. Everything you asked about has been addressed. Given your train of thought then there are only a couple true trainers out there that invented all of it and nothing new has been discovered in the last 100 years. 

So every time you post advice I want to see credits at the bottom of the page for whom you stole it from. Sounds fair eh? I also want to see you go for the jugular on every other popular trainer giving advice. After all, it's all been discovered already and everyone is just parroting those great founding fathers of dog training. My bad, maybe you haven't developed something different worth mentioning.


----------



## Al Curbow

Lou has helped me a LOT with my ecollar training. Never asked for money, never judged the way I look at training and is a gentleman to speak with. I leave the house everyday with an offleash dog and I go to some really distracting busy places with them and don't leave them in the truck, they're with me, pretty cool. Thanks again Lou for your help.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Howard Knauf said:


> Water under the bridge Thomas. Everything you asked about has been addressed. Given your train of thought then there are only a couple true trainers out there that invented all of it and nothing new has been discovered in the last 100 years.
> 
> So every time you post advice I want to see credits at the bottom of the page for whom you stole it from. Sounds fair eh? I also want to see you go for the jugular on every other popular trainer giving advice. After all, it's all been discovered already and everyone is just parroting those great founding fathers of dog training. My bad, maybe you haven't developed something different worth mentioning.



Howard,

When I give specific training advise and claim it as my own or put my name on it Then feel free to jump all over it 
We're not talking about borrowing an idea or two. We're talking about a 7K word article placed on Lou's website and labeled both here and there as "Lou Castle Method" when it is, at the very least, derivative of Brian Mowry's copyrighted material


----------



## Jerry Cudahy

Al Curbow said:


> Lou has helped me a LOT with my ecollar training. Never asked for money, never judged the way I look at training and is a gentleman to speak with. I leave the house everyday with an offleash dog and I go to some really distracting busy places with them and don't leave them in the truck, they're with me, pretty cool. Thanks again Lou for your help.


Is Fred dead ?

Al, you have answered a lot of questions in just two sentences.


----------



## Bob Scott

How many mods need to step in here before all the personel call outs are stopped?
WE MODS, AS A GROUP, IN ADDITION TO ADMIN, are getting sick and tired of this. 
EVERYONE on the WDF forums know exactly what you all think about one another as a person.
NOBODY needs to keep dragging up the same old crap, good OR bad!
GET OVER IT OR GET OUT! It's that simple!


----------



## Howard Knauf

Tell you what Thomas. Pull out Mowry's protocol, put it next to Lou's, then point out the blatant plagerism that supports your claim. Do it on this forum or provide it to those who would like to see it for themselves so that you can make everyone a believer. If you're gonna call the man out, have facts and documentation to support your claim. Maybe you can get some help from your buddy Steve. Lets put it all to rest with the facts and stop the merry-go-round. I feel like I'm in an Abbott and Costello movie.

And once again the original topic is still derailed. I'm sad to be part of it. Sorry Bob and David but Thomas needs to put up or shut up so we can move on.](*,)

This is the last from me on this.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Howard Knauf said:


> Tell you what Thomas. Pull out Mowry's protocol, put it next to Lou's, then point out the blatant plagerism that supports your claim. Do it on this forum or provide it to those who would like to see it for themselves so that you can make everyone a believer. If you're gonna call the man out, have facts and documentation to support your claim. Maybe you can get some help from your buddy Steve. Lets put it all to rest with the facts and stop the merry-go-round. I feel like I'm in an Abbott and Costello movie.
> 
> And once again the original topic is still derailed. I'm sad to be part of it. Sorry Bob and David but Thomas needs to put up or shut up so we can move on.](*,)
> 
> This is the last from me on this.



Steve???? He isn't even a member of this forum and has ZERO to do with my opinions or my posts
You said blatant plagarism, not me. Don't try to put words in my mouth. I gave my opinion on the article. I don't have to put up anything, just because you demand it. If you want to move on? There is nothing preventing you.


----------



## Joby Becker

Thomas Barriano said:


> e. I don't claim it's the Thomas Barriano retrieve if it's something that I got from Michael Ellis.


Does Michael explain who came up with the methods he uses for each aspect of each excercise in his videos, at seminars, or in his training school?

Does he explain who came up with the various aspects of his marker training methods, breaking it down to what he uses from each of the people that he has learned from?

Or do you think he invented every thing he uses himself?

Back to Lou..
In regards to the Loud Castle Method for the Out....

Lou pretty much stated what he does not like about other methods, and then described why he chooses to teach his method. 

You pretty much have said that Lou ripped of the method from the Dobbs video that you have, in so many words.

You have the Dobbs tape, is the method identical as what Lou describes that he does?

Is there anything that is shown in the Dobbs tapes, that Lou states he does not like for some reason in his article?

This all seems really really ridiculous to me..

If I wrote an article on how to build a birdhouse, and called it:

"Building birdhouses the Joby way" 

should I make of list of credits that includes everyone that taught me all the skills needed to make a birdhouse?

...from who taught me what wood to use, who taught me the right size holes for different birds and why, who taught me what type of perches are good, , who taught me how to use a tape measure, who taught me how to use a pencil, who taught me how to use a straight edge, who taught me how to use a protractor, who taught me how to use a saw, who taught me how to use a drill, who taught me how to use a miter box, who taught me how to make a box joint for joining the pieces together, who taught me how to use wood glue, who taught me how to use sandpaper, who taught me what type of paint to use, who taught me what type of painting methods to use, who taught me how high it should be placed for whatever species of bird it is for, who taught me how to mount it, who taught me how to clean it out....

seems ridiculous does it not?


----------



## Doug Zaga

Thank you Lou for sharing your article and method for training the out!

All the rest of you negativeF#*S [-X


----------



## Christopher Smith

Thomas Barriano said:


> I don't claim it's the Thomas Barriano retrieve if it's something that I got from Michael Ellis.


Maybe you should give credit to the guy that Mike stole it from.

Any trainer worth their salt is a excellent thief.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Lou thanks for your post. Not many here have the courage and conviction to post a step by step account of how they achieve a behavior.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Joby Becker said:


> Does Michael explain who came up with the methods he uses for each aspect of each excercise in his videos, at seminars, or in his training school?
> 
> Does he explain who came up with the various aspects of his marker training methods, breaking it down to what he uses from each of the people that he has learned from?
> 
> Or do you think he invented every thing he uses himself?
> 
> >Joby,
> 
> >It you want to know what Michael explains about where he
> >derives his training methods? Then buy the DVD or attend one
> >of his seminars or his school.
> 
> Back to Lou..
> 
> Snip
> 
> >NO you go back to Lou, not me.
> >When you want to discuss what I actually wrote, then provide
> >an accurate quote. Don't paraphrase or misquote or try to put
> >words in my mouth. If you want to compare the "Lou Castle
> >OUT" to Brian Mowry "OUT" for Patrol and Detection Dogs
> >then BUY THE TAPE
> 
> /QUOTE]


----------



## Timothy Stacy

Christopher Smith said:


> Maybe you should give credit to the guy that Mike stole it from.
> 
> Any trainer worth their salt is a excellent thief.


Some are better than others and reproducing the behavior, explaining, and teaching.


----------



## Joby Becker

LOL...

Thomas.

I have purchased 2 Ellis DVD's, the Ivan OB Without Conflict and about 25 others...

None of them give the credits that you are expecting Lou to give. 

I do not need to compare anything. 

You are the one who drew the comparison and is claiming that he ripped off Mowry. 

I saw Lou's summary of the Mowry video, and he clearly states the differences in the two methods.

I get it... you don't like Lou... 

And it also appears you have some amount of disdain for people that may try to use something without rushing out and paying for it. 

I have many videos and books that I have purchased, which I have loaned out to various people...I have also borrowed books and videos from other people.

I loan out dog equipment and household tools too and am not afraid to ask someone to borrow something I might want or need for only a short period of time if I do not own it, before I just go out and buy it....

I have 2 books on home repair that I just borrowed from a friend today, because I am installing some tile in the bathroom this weekend. 

I saw them both at Home Depot, they each retail for $34.95, maybe I should just probably send a check to Creative Publishing Co. for $70.00, because they got cheated.

When I pick up the tile (wet) saw that I am going to borrow from someone else on Friday, I should send a check to DeWalt for $746.00 because I cheated them too....


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Now you're throwing in Ivan and Home Depot? Try to keep on subject. Quote where I said Lou ripped off Mowry. If you want to compare Lou's article with the Mowry tape then do it yourself. Don't tell me what Lou said. I can read that myself. I also read the article AND have seen the tape. You and others are pissing and moaning about the subject is getting diverted by me BUT I can't debate or discuss anything with myself. If you want to discuss the 
friggen article then discuss the friggen article. JEEZ!


----------



## Joby Becker

I liked the article. LOL 

I liked the originality of it the most.

good job Lou...


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Joby Becker said:


> I liked the article. LOL
> 
> I liked the originality of it the most.
> 
> good job Lou...


I thought you wanted a serious discussion? My mistake ;-)


----------



## Lou Castle

Jerry Cudahy said:


> Lou, I am going to attemp to bring some civility into the thread.


Sorry Jerry, it's too late for this. Between your rudeness and the wanna−be name calling, I have no interest in discussing anything with you. In any case, I see no relevance to the topic in your question.


----------



## Lou Castle

Dave Colborn said:


> Lou.
> 
> Do you have any video footage of this process from a seminar?


Some might exist Dave. I'll see if I can get a hold of it.


----------



## Lou Castle

Thomas Barriano said:


> Howard,
> 
> A discussion of any training method, should also include the methods origin.


I've been to several hundred hours of seminars. I don't recall a single instructor talking about the origin with any specificity, of what he does. That includes a prolific Ecollar trainer who would have said that he learned all he knows from bird dog trainers and that he had not invented a thing himself. Yet his name was plastered all over "his method." 



Thomas Barriano said:


> I take exception to anyone taking credit for someone else work. When I pass on specific training advise I give credit where credit is due. I don't claim it's the Thomas Barriano retrieve if it's something that I got from Michael Ellis.


If you've taken something directly from Mr. Ellis and not changed it at all, this is appropriate. But if you have taken things from dozens of trainers, changed them to suit how you train and then applied your own "spin" I think it's appropriate. Those trainers might recognize an element or two of their work but the rest would be foreign to them. If I took what Brian Mowry shows on the video from Dobbs, copied it, even changed it only slightly that would still be Brian's method. If I changed it significantly and only incorporated one element, say outing the dog from a low interest toy, (which I have not done, I don't use a toy anywhere in my method) It would be a combination of his method and that of others. 

How many trainers who use corrections give credit to Konrad Most at their seminars? 



Thomas Barriano said:


> I also don't obfuscate and dissect a post into fragments that confuse the meaning.


If you think that any meaning is lost by my habit of breaking down a post into the separate thoughts that they are, you are free to return the meaning in a reply. But how is this related to any definition of being a dog trainer? 



Thomas Barriano said:


> As far as whether David F is a "trainer" or not? I'm not sure what he has to do with the topic other then an attempt to attract an ally.


I'm not sure what your definition of "a trainer" has to do with the topic at all, except to try and disparage me. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> A trainer is also someone involved in training handlers. They don't have to be hands on the dog.


Huh? Is this a modification or an addition to your original definition. I suggest that you call CCPD and speak to Sgt. Aubrey Kellum. He's in charge of the K−9 unit nowadays and he's also one of the last two handlers that I trained. Looks like I finally made it! HOORAY!!!



Thomas Barriano said:


> It's about a regular (reasonably recent? )involvement with training dogs, not something 20 years ago or a once a month seminar.


I see. So when David retires, he loses his status as a trainer. Even if he occasionally goes back out to see what his guys are doing. I'm sure that they'll shun him and won't ask him any questions if they have some issue. Cause, after all, he's not a trainer any more. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> If you think that David and Lou are on an equal level as trainers? Then you and I have a different criteria.


It's good to know that you are the arbiter of not only who is a trainer and who is not, but also the level of dog trainer that they are. What was it that David said? Oh yeah, "I don't give a flip."


----------



## Lou Castle

Thomas Barriano said:


> Who is Ryan Anchors and why is he getting "credit" for what I wrote?


Apologies Thomas. He's a guy on another forum that I'm having a discussion on at the same time that this is going on. I mistakenly cut and pasted his info into my response to you. And then missed that when I reviewed it. Mods is there a way to unlock that post so I can fix this? Or can one of you do it? It's post #46.


----------



## Lou Castle

Thomas Barriano said:


> Howard,
> 
> When I give specific training advise and claim it as my own or put my name on it Then feel free to jump all over it
> We're not talking about borrowing an idea or two. We're talking about a 7K word article placed on Lou's website and labeled both here and there as "Lou Castle Method" when it is, at the very least, derivative of Brian Mowry's copyrighted material


Let's see how do I put this delicately? *BULLSH!T. * There is NOTHING in Brian Mowry's "copyrighted material" that is in my method. See post # 30. This is simply NOT TRUE. We both use an Ecollar, we both teach the recall first but after that we use radically different methods. 

Since you seem to disagree, please point out what is "derivative" in my method. Failing that this is a complete falsehood. You should be ashamed to make such a claim. 

As I said then. *There is not even passing similarity between the method shown in this video and my method. I have no idea where anyone would get the idea that I took anything from that video for my method. *


----------



## Lou Castle

Joby Becker said:


> If I wrote an article on how to build a birdhouse, and called it:
> 
> "Building birdhouses the Joby way"
> 
> should I make of list of credits that includes everyone that taught me all the skills needed to make a birdhouse?


If you don't then YOU STOLE. AND YOU STOLE FROM BIRD PEOPLE! There's nothing lower than someone who would steal from bird people. I really ought to quote the laws on COPYRIGHT to you. That would teach you a lesson!


----------



## Lou Castle

Al Curbow said:


> Lou has helped me a LOT with my ecollar training. Never asked for money, never judged the way I look at training and is a gentleman to speak with. I leave the house everyday with an offleash dog and I go to some really distracting busy places with them and don't leave them in the truck, they're with me, pretty cool. Thanks again Lou for your help.


Thanks Al. Glad to have been of assistance. 



Doug Zaga said:


> Thank you Lou for sharing your article and method for training the out!
> 
> All the rest of you negativeF#*S [-X


Thanks Doug. I hope it's helpful (or at least an interesting read) to you. 



Christopher Smith said:


> Lou thanks for your post. Not many here have the courage and conviction to post a step by step account of how they achieve a behavior.


Thanks Christopher. I appreciate the support. 



Joby Becker said:


> I liked the article. LOL
> I liked the originality of it the most.
> good job Lou...


Thanks for the kind words Joby but until you put it to use it's just an interesting (for some) read. But when you see the results and how fast they come THAT'S when I want to hear back.


----------



## Lou Castle

Thomas Barriano said:


> Quote where I said Lou ripped off Mowry.


You didn't use those words but you said this, _"We're talking about a 7K word article placed on Lou's website and labeled both here and there as "Lou Castle Method" when *it is,  at the very least,  derivative *of Brian Mowry's copyrighted material."_ 

To anyone who can read you're insinuating that I stole material from that tape. That's not true. I've outlined Brian's video and there's NOTHING that even similar except for the few details that I've already mentioned. 

Are you going to make the stupid assertion that because we both use an Ecollar and both start with the recall that my method is "derivative" of his videos? How ridiculous! How petty!


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Lou Castle said:


> Mods is there a way to unlock that post so I can fix this? Or can one of you do it? It's post #46.


Done. Now the thread makes total sense. Logical, on point, and thoughtful.

Thank heaven someone saw the problem.


----------



## Bob Scott

In spite of multiple warnings about keeping this "discussion" about methods it still ends up as nothing more then people trashing.
CLOSED!


----------

