# Table training discussion



## Butch Cappel (Aug 12, 2007)

Noticed Jody(?) asked why the original Table training thread was locked (surprise surprise!) in the article section, which says it is _not_ a discussion section. She also asked some very basic simple questions (Which seem to be the hardest for some to answer) 

I thought I might put up her question in a _discussion_ forum and add a little historical perspective in an attempt to answer her first questions (I will then quickly duck and cover until what happens, happens)

Jody asked; _I was curious to see if anyone was going to actually explain the table training itself? Why it matters if the dog is on a table or on the ground? Decoy Skill? Defense? Age of animals? Why or why not, etc etc.
_

Jody table training in the U.S. started with bird dog trainers, it was used originally to make it easier to teach a forced retrieve. It probably started
with Webster Price a professional trainer back in the twenties. 

_Why it matters if the dog is on a table or on the ground? _

Price started on the table for several reasons first it made it easy for the human to reach and control the dog, but mostly he said it put the dog in an insecure position. This insecurity makes the dog more attentive to the trainer and compliant to manipulation. 

Later Larry Mueller, one of the top trainers of the fifties, wrote that "Most trainers' table their dogs so the dog feels less secure, which makes them more willing to cooperate". Mueller even took it a step further. To teach the dog how to hold a strong point he used a barrel, to increase insecure feelings and footing, while teaching a steady "Whoa on point"

In the seventies a trainer named Delmar Smith added another dimension to the table. He used what he called a "nerve pinch" which was a cord around two of the dogs toes. This was pulled to make the dog open his mouth for the retrieve item or 'Buck'. Again Smith recommended the table for the insecurity it caused, increasing attention in the dog.

So how did the table creep into bite work? Sorry for this one I can't give you any references but I can tell you what I saw and sort figured out
as bite training evolved. Gene England was a SchH trainer who was familiar with the table training methods of Delmar Smith. He was very fond of the table in teaching the dumbbell retrieve for SchH. 

I think (certainly open to correction here) that as more and more bite work people saw the table used to teach the retrieve, someone figured out "Hey, that dog wont chase a sack, but it will be easy to push it into defense, IF it is up on an unstable surface and it can't choose flight cause there aint no where to go" and table training for bite work was born.

Now today's crop of trainers are prone to see a technique that works on one dog and immediately take it as their own, without ever asking why, how, or if it fits all dogs, so this form of training became popular where it worked on a dog and fell into disfavor where it didn't.

A lot of the "table" training I see done is just the same thing as what you would do on the ground, but as is evidenced by the early pioneers it does increase the dogs attentiveness, no matter what someone is doing in front of them. So whether they know why or how to use the table they will still get a little improvement in each dog just for the added attention they get from the dog in the beginning.

So there is the little I know about the "what is"of table training, the why and how are two entirely different topics and no body has ever asked that any way, so I'll slide out of here and wait for the padlock!

Hope that helps a little


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Thanks for the history lesson!!!


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

Dave Colborn said:


> Thanks for the history lesson!!!


Dave some of this sound familiar???


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Jody Butler said:


> Dave some of this sound familiar???


 
A little. I still want to see for myself what the ones currently are using it for. Like Jeff said in Mike Suttles rendition of him and Jeff (think it was Mike) Seeing in a video is believing!!!


----------



## Marina Schmidt (Jun 11, 2009)

Butch Cappel said:


> _Why it matters if the dog is on a table or on the ground? _
> 
> Price started on the table for several reasons first it made it easy for the human to reach and control the dog, but mostly he said it put the dog in an insecure position. This insecurity makes the dog more attentive to the trainer and compliant to manipulation.
> 
> Later Larry Mueller, one of the top trainers of the fifties, wrote that "Most trainers' table their dogs so the dog feels less secure, which makes them more willing to cooperate". Mueller even took it a step further. To teach the dog how to hold a strong point he used a barrel, to increase insecure feelings and footing, while teaching a steady "Whoa on point"


Plus some trainers say it's also to place the dog into an "eye to eye" position with the decoy.


----------



## Melody Greba (Oct 4, 2007)

The prey table which is the round table with the pivoting center has a tie
that is just slightly longer than the edge of the table. It can teach the
dog to move with the decoy and continue barking without getting dirty. The
dog learns to use self-control because if he falls over the edge of the
table with his front feet (and typically he'll pivot around and his rear
feet will follow, he is at an uncomfortable position and he'll jump back up
on the table...as it isn't but about 20 in (+/-) off the ground. So the dog
learns self-control from his mistake and does a nice hold and bark along the edge and doesn't cross the line until the helper offers the grip. 

Lots of handler errors can be negated, so the helper is happy about that.
Dog learns from his own mistake and natural timing of his own correction that he, himself is responsible for and corrects. Grips can be worked on, nicely. Great drive building, and neutralization to being up off of the ground. " Good for teaching proper targeting of the center of the sleeve. Also good for reducing thrashing, especially in the bully breeds. 

The defense table is where people have a moral dilemma with. Table size approx. 4ft W x 4ft L x 4 ft off the ground. The original defense table had a wide, flat collar attached to the middle post. The dog
had 0 avoidance, ability other than peeing or pretending the threat doesn't exist. 
Helpers that want to "figure it out", SHOULDN'T. The job of the helper is extremely important in reading a dog and letting him win. Because most helpers just "figured out the process" instead of going to the master and receive his instruction; people started tying the dog to a short chain instead of using the collar bolted to the post that gave the dog 0 % movement on the post.

1. Dog must be aclimated to the table so he doesn't learn bad association
with it.
2. Dog is posted and is very insecure because he tied in place.
3. Dog struggles and learns there is a back edge to the table and the rear
feet can slip off, so ceases to struggle. (very similiar to pet dogs and the grooming table experience)
4. Dog tries other avoidance behaviors.
5. Helper appears and uses body language/eye contact to gain the dog's attention.
6. Dog either directs aggression at the helper and the helper submits, or the dog tries to ignore the helper or show submission so the helper continues to come in, menacing but without much movement (it's not prey).
7. Same as above
8. If dog continues to ignore the threat, the helper may bite or twist the dog's toe. (much like the field trial dog's forced fetch with the string on the toe)
9. Dog digs deep and gets angry and dog is rewarded by helper going away.
10. Dog learns the key to success. The lightbulb that goes off in the dog's head is clear and obvious.
11. When the dog no longer thinks of any avoidance and is thoroughly empowered, he goes to the short chain on the post instead of the posted collar. (as in the original process)

*Many Helpers Do NOT have the experience to do this without some sort of direction.

The Advantage that the dog has on the defense table is that he is at the
level of the helper and not below(this provides a psychological advantage
for the dog once he learns that he's going toe to toe with the helper). He also learns that he is in control. When done right, the dog easily gets the message of how powerful that he can be. The insecurities is tough to for some watch but short-lived.
The defense table intrupts the typical routine/exercise training on the sport field. It teaches absolute empowerment and sometimes sport dogs grow up learning only know equipment wins but never the real deal. 

On a side note, it can also neutralize the guardian breeds to the stick
threat that often causes them to lose a proper grip or come off the sleeve,
altogether. 

When done properly dogs that are trained on it will drag their owners to the table to "let the games begin". They like their new found power.

Bite Box

The bite box helps direct the dog work into the helper while on a slick
surface. Dog is in a harness. Dog cannot spin. Dog is elevated, off the
ground about 20". This is a nice exercise for dogs going into LE depts as apprehension K9s due to taking bites on slipper flooring, and sport dogs alike. 

All of these are varying exercises, to the regular sport exercises drills.
There are variable advantages to each. They aren't just for weak dogs or dogs that are marginal. But for those that dissect a behavior, these tools can tailor a behavior and remove 50% of timing mistakes (handler), in the process. 

And if anyone has further questions, I'm sure that Gene has your answers.


----------



## John Watcher (Jun 22, 2009)

Here's my interpretation of what I just read:

Table training is more about having a weaker trainer/agitator/decoy than it is about the dog. 

Note: I am not saying you are weak because you use it, I am saying that a good trainer/agitator/decoy could (and have) figure out how to do these things with the dog standing on the ground. But, it's easier if you're learning or less experienced to use a table.

Table training is kind of like the e-collar. It gets the job done, but a good dogman doesn't need it.


----------



## Melody Greba (Oct 4, 2007)

John Watcher said:


> Here's my interpretation of what I just read:
> 
> Table training is more about having a weaker trainer/agitator/decoy than it is about the dog.
> 
> ...


Table training is a moulding tool. It removes most of the unnecessary behaviors that is likely to occur when on the ground and sets the dog up for success in a very clear manner. 

A good dogman uses a variation of methods for the dog to be successful by. Gene who developed this method in the beginning was hardly a weak helper--quite the opposite. But he had a highly intuitive knowledge of behavior and used this to mould dogs' bitework behavior. 

Much like biosensory stimulation has refined puppies neurological development for preparation of the real world. It's really about splitting hairs for refined development.

Of course, protection has been successfully taught in the traditional on the training grounds, manner for decades. 

Table training moulds specific behaviors for people looking at enhancing a particular traits for service or sport or to break up the monotany of the typical routine drills.


----------



## Adi Ibrahimbegovic (Nov 21, 2008)

Hmmm. Which helper have you seen go in and bites the dog's toe? I'd pay money to see that.

"8. If dog continues to ignore the threat, the helper may bite or twist the dog's toe."


----------



## Adi Ibrahimbegovic (Nov 21, 2008)

The rest of what you wrote made a lot of sense to me,except biting the toe part... Kind of hard to imagine a helper doing that I'd think.

Either way, thanks for posting, I appreciate reading it and getting more info.


----------



## Frank David (Jul 4, 2008)

John Watcher said:


> Here's my interpretation of what I just read:
> 
> Table training is more about having a weaker trainer/agitator/decoy than it is about the dog.
> 
> ...


Here's a sugestion, re-read the post and instead of interpreting someones else's discription (which is excellent) find out first hand whether or not it's a useful tool.


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

In the movie "Snow Dogs", he bit the ear. LOL All good dog people know that from time to time you must bite the dog. 





Just kiddin


----------



## John Watcher (Jun 22, 2009)

Frank David said:


> Here's a sugestion, re-read the post and instead of interpreting someones else's discription (which is excellent) find out first hand whether or not it's a useful tool.


Wow, there are some sensitive people on this forum. I never said it wasn't a useful tool, nor did I say it was wrong to use. In fact, I said exactly the opposite. I said it was great for someone that was not a good dogman which means at least you're resourceful and recognize your own weakness. Could you at least admit if you can't get the dog to do what you want, that it's your fault and not the dog? 

Using a table will help you get the results you want if you don't know how to get them on the ground. It is a tool, no more, no less.

A good dogman can mold a dogs behavior issues when they arise without using a table. 

Melody Greba said it his/herself, it's (no table) been done for decades (I would say since the beginning of time).


----------



## Melody Greba (Oct 4, 2007)

John:

In my opinion, a weaker decoy (in attitude or physically) isn't better served with a dog on the table compared to on the dog being on the ground. As with the defense table, the more physical presence the decoy possesses, the easier to get the dog to realize the psychological threat.

For the prey table, the height of it I think it helps save a helper's back but it doesn't necessarily do anything more for a weak decoy.

However, for the bite box--the dog is on a slick surface so even a small, non-athletic helper or woman helper would have a better advantage.

And yes, I'm Melody not Richard.


----------



## Butch Cappel (Aug 12, 2007)

OK, I am a little in the dark here, seems several years ago folks started asking me to put on training seminars, so I haven't had the chance to go to the other more modern ones. I need a little help with this latest way of doing things. 

I'll give you your words, and then tell you what my question is. If you can tell me why that is, instead of the results from doing it that way, I would appreciate it.
You wrote;
_The prey table which is the round table with the pivoting center has a tie
that is just slightly longer than the edge of the table. It can teach the
dog to move with the decoy and continue barking without getting dirty. 
_

So it seems you are saying _round_ triggers a dogs "prey drive" kind of like, if I can get my dog to stand on a big beach ball it will now want to chase down prey?

Then you wrote;
_The defense table is where people have a moral dilemma with. Table size approx. 4ft W x 4ft L x 4 ft off the ground. The original defense table had a wide, flat collar attached to the middle post. The dog
had 0 avoidance, ability other than peeing._

So that means if the table is square (you said 4x4) dogs instantly feel defensive? Oh and they also must be four feet off the ground. (So is that better than.. say....... flanking?) This new high tech stuff is something.

So your basic premise on "table training" is that the shape of the table is what gets the dog working in Prey or Defense? How does that happen? Am I wasting my time with a sack and a whip? 

Thank you for your answer.


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

You should see what the octagon table does. It's not only the shape and distance but mostly what the decoy does in front of it.

If anyone is wondering, I was just kiddin about the octagon table.


----------



## Melody Greba (Oct 4, 2007)

Butch Cappel said:


> So your basic premise on "table training" is that the shape of the table is what gets the dog working in Prey or Defense? How does that happen? Am I wasting my time with a sack and a whip?
> 
> Thank you for your answer.


=; Don't shoot the messenger. 

Wasn't it you that gave the history leading up to Gene's development of the tables? 
Jody posted links to videos on a table thread, asking questions and all that came of the thread was a lot of nonsense. 
I provided steps to the exercises for those that wanted to know. 
If you want to ask Gene why he shaped the tables the way that he did, ask him. 
I noticed that Gene posted an ad for a table seminar last summer.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Melody Greba said:


> I noticed that Gene posted an ad for a table seminar last summer.


Hi Melody,

Could you post a pointer to that ad or PM me?
I knew that Gene had been doing a couple of table seminars over the last couple of months, but hadn't seen anything recent. I found your post on the different types of training tables, very informative. Most of the other smart azz posts aren't worth reading


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

Butch Cappel said:


> Gene England was a SchH trainer who was familiar with the table training methods of Delmar Smith. He was very fond of the table in teaching the dumbbell retrieve for SchH.


Wouldn't something like this be simpler and easier for training a retrieve ?? I suppose when table training was invented people had a different mindset.

http://www.og-schwabmuenchen.de/download/Isa_2008-01-05.wmv


----------



## Mike Scheiber (Feb 17, 2008)

Thanks for posting that Melody I have read or read something very similar to your post a couple of years ago.
Is this something Gene wrote if I remember rite?


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

Melody Greba said:


> =; Don't shoot the messenger.
> 
> Wasn't it you that gave the history leading up to Gene's development of the tables?
> Jody posted links to videos on a table thread, asking questions and all that came of the thread was a lot of nonsense.
> ...


Thank You Very Much!


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Jerry Lyda said:


> In the movie "Snow Dogs", he bit the ear. LOL All good dog people know that from time to time you must bite the dog.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


35 or so yrs ago I dove on top my GSD/Dane and bit him on on the muzzle for growling at the wife. 
She got pissed at ME! 
Haven't bit a dog since! ;-)


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I am not really aquainted with training methods but this training table sound like it's purpose is an awful lot along the lines of a tie back. Putting the dog on a very short lead and attaching it to a ring in the ground. It removes all hope of fleeing and is used to put a dog into defense. I don't see much difference other that the table has been elevated.


----------



## Sue DiCero (Sep 2, 2006)

I think that the table training was ressurected (sp?) with the articls that Nate wrote a few issues back in SCH USA. Gene did not really travel to give seminars, just to NY and GA, prior to that. 

As I mentioned then, I was surprised it was not an interview with Gene.

The tables were used in Europe long before here. Exposure of trainers and competitors to it in Europe brought the idea to the US and, as with any training tool, modified to the individual trainer.

The long table is definitely from the retrieving training. But, used for the dumbell and the "down on the article" for tracking.


----------



## Frank David (Jul 4, 2008)

John Watcher said:


> Here's my interpretation of what I just read:
> 
> Table training is more about having a weaker trainer/agitator/decoy than it is about the dog.
> 
> ...


 
Not sure how you've managed to interpret anything as sensitive... for that matter I'm not sure how you interpreted " Table training is more about having a weaker trainer/agitator/decoy than it is about the dog."

One of the biggest benefits to table training is it limits the dogs options in unwanted behaviors and controls it's environment. Allowing the dog to understand the behavior your training, faster. Another goal of any good dogman regardless of training tools or style. 

I noticed you made the comparison with Table training and the e collar... How it's really not that important if your a good dogman... How many hunting/bird dog trainers do you know? I'm not aware of one that doesn't use a collar.

In my personal opinion I think table training is met with a lot of apprehension because of the bad examples people have been exposed to or the misunderstanding of it's benefits. Unless you've seen Gene's training you haven't seen it done right.

I think both of your posts are an excellent examples of how people misinterpret someone's description of something, no matter how good the description. This is why I suggested seeing the training for yourself.

Good Luck...


----------



## John Watcher (Jun 22, 2009)

Frank David said:


> Not sure how you've managed to interpret anything as sensitive... for that matter I'm not sure how you interpreted " Table training is more about having a weaker trainer/agitator/decoy than it is about the dog."
> 
> One of the biggest benefits to table training is it limits the dogs options in unwanted behaviors and controls it's environment. Allowing the dog to understand the behavior your training, faster. Another goal of any good dogman regardless of training tools or style.
> 
> ...


You said "Unless you've seen Gene's training you haven't seen it done right"

That statement alone tells me you have an issue with idol worship and that is blinding to your learning ability and reading comprehension skills. Gene is the only one that can do proper table training? You've just insulted every person that has ever done table training (right or wrong).

Here's another good one: "How many hunting/bird dog trainers do you know? I'm not aware of one that doesn't use a collar." I am going to assume that you meant e-collar. If you didn't, I apologize for making the wrong assumption. But WOW! Bird hunters must have been really fit chasing down all those birds before e-collars came along since their dogs wouldn't retrieve not wearing an e-collar. Either that or they went through a bunch of dogs before they came across one that would naturally do what they wanted it to do. God knows they couldn't train it without an e-collar so they just had to rely on luck of the draw! HAH!

Again, if you're a good dogman, you don't need a table, e-collar, biosensory stimulation or all the other gimmicks that make people money. I will say it again in all caps but I still don't think you'll get it: I NEVER SAID IT WAS WRONG! I SAID A GOOD DOGMAN DOESN'T NEED A TABLE. THERE ARE PLENTY OF WAYS TO GET THE JOB DONE AND IT HAS HAPPENED AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL WITHOUT EVER PUTTING A DOG ON A TABLE.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

As a reminder; the discussion is table training. If it continues in a personal slam fest this discussion, like it's predecessors, will be locked. 

DFrost


----------

