# Defense table



## Jerry Lyda

Does anyone use a defence table? If so, what type of dog do you put on the table and at what age? If you don't use a defence table, what is it that you don't like about it? What are your likes and dislikes. How many people has never heard of it? Just curious.


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

I've never used a table before, but I'm not quite sure what to think about them. I've come accross a few trainers lately who have used tables and have no objection to them, but have never seen this type of training in person. I'm not quite sure how it differs from tying a dog to a post other than being able to have the decoy go lower than the table, so if you agree with post training then I don't quite see what the big deal is about a table... but I've read the Table Training article by Ed Frawley and even though he agrees with post and tie-out work, he disagrees strongly with table training.

I'd be interested in hearing the consensus to your question Jerry, it's a topic that much intrigues me, because I don't see how it's any different to working on the ground other than that you're elevating the dog to make them feel more superior... at least, that's how I understand it. There's others, such as Ed F I believe, who think of table training as a "tie em to a post on a table then beat the hell out of the dog till he bites" type tool, but the same could be done with post work, so I think it's more about the trainer using it as a tool than a specific style of training.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

*Re: Defence table*



Jerry Lyda said:


> ..... How many people has never heard of it? Just curious.


This is the only part I can answer first-hand: I have heard and read about table-training, mainly in "what to avoid" on threads about looking for a trainer or club, but also in the article Mike cites above.

I have no personal experience, no first-hand knowledge.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

I can't believe I had never heard of the world-famous site you link to, Woody!

Having read the world-famous disagreements in their original venues, I probably don't need to go too deeply into it, but I think it's hilarious that such a site exists.

Edited to say that the first Google return on "dogs, gerry howe" was 
http://www.ratbags.com/ranters/howe010515.htm
Title: "Full Canvas Jacket Award - Jerry Howe, 15 May 2001"

I guess this is something of a hijack. Sorry, Jerry.

The discussion is defense table training.


----------



## Woody Taylor

Connie Sutherland said:


> I can't believe I had never heard of the world-famous site you link to, Woody!
> 
> Having read the world-famous disagreements in their original venues, I probably don't need to go too deeply into it, but I think it's hilarious that such a site exists.


You dog trainers are goofy-a$$ people. I can say that as an outsider. 8) 

Want to emphasize I'm linking to that just because he's got videos of table work and that's the topic of discussion. I really mean no offense to people or techniques he's attacking. I think those people are well aware of this person as well as the credibility of his claims.

Mods you can yank the link if you want, I understand.


----------



## David Frost

I think "table training" is not only archaic, but counter-productive. In my opinion, it demonstrates a lack of skill and knowledge.

There, I've toned it down a bit, but I think you can get my drift that I'm not too much in favor.

DFrost


----------



## Bob Scott

David Frost said:


> I think "table training" is not only archaic, but counter-productive. In my opinion, it demonstrates a lack of skill and knowledge.
> 
> There, I've toned it down a bit, but I think you can get my drift that I'm not too much in favor.
> 
> DFrost


Ditto!


----------



## Woody Taylor

Bob
Scott said:


> David Frost said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think "table training" is not only archaic, but counter-productive. In my opinion, it demonstrates a lack of skill and knowledge.
> 
> There, I've toned it down a bit, but I think you can get my drift that I'm not too much in favor.
> 
> DFrost
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto!
Click to expand...

You cats got to go into detail! Why would it be counter-productive, in David's opinion, etc. This is a really interesting topic to me...please expand on your thoughts?


----------



## Elly Elsenaar

Can anyone tell me exactly what table training is, may be when you explain I know what it is.

May be a stupid question.


----------



## Woody Taylor

Elly Elsenaar said:


> Can anyone tell me exactly what table training is, may be when you explain I know what it is.
> 
> May be a stupid question.


Follow the link to Leerburg Mike S has posted above. Ed F has a definite POV about table training--he hates it--but that article does have a definition of what it "is."


----------



## Bob Scott

My expierience in PPD and PSD is very limited compaired to many here. Giving much more then MY opinion wouldn't be totally based on expierienced. 
That being said, IMHO, just about any dog can look like a great PPD when table trained in defence. It's all about creating a dog that has no choice but to fight. Purely fear based defence! That's not the dog I want at my side.....IF I were in need of a PPD or PSD.
Again, JMH inexpierienced O!


----------



## Elly Elsenaar

Oke I found it thanks!


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen

I don´t like the defense drive at all in a sports/workingdog. If this table increases the defense I surely don´t like the use of it. BUT I never saw anybody working it, nor a dog who is worked on it, so this is an subjective view.


----------



## David Frost

<<<I don´t like the defense drive at all in a sports/workingdog. If this table increases the defense I surely don´t like the use of it.>>>

Exactly my point. Now take a dog, put it in a position where the only option it has it to fight (you've taken away it's flight option) and what do you have. In my opinion, an unreliable, weak nerved disaster in the making. Even the old Nazi trainer I started with in 1966 (he really was an ex-nazi) thought it was cruel and that was one of the hardest men I've ever seen with a dog.

DFrost


----------



## Al Curbow

Mike, wouldn't the major difference be that on a tie-out the dog can avoid if it wants to and then you'd know the dog can't or won't do the job (trainers don't evaluate dogs on tables, right?) the table seems like the dog can ONLY fight no matter what its temperament is. So, you can probably take a dog like my male (goofy A.J. ) and force him to bite when it's just not in his genetic make-up. He would only bite out of fear for his life, that's a fact, (he's a gentle, loveable ball freak) , as i'm typing this i'm thinking of 2 dogs that i've met that will bite for real in any situation and neither one would need a table to get'em to mix it up :lol: Don't you guy's think that a dog that needs to be table trained is not cut out for protection work?


----------



## Woody Taylor

*Re: Defence table*



Jerry Lyda said:


> Does anyone use a defence table? If so, what type of dog do you put on the table and at what age? If you don't use a defence table, what is it that you don't like about it? What are your likes and dislikes. How many people has never heard of it? Just curious.


Jerry, what are your thoughts on table training? We need a counterpoint. :wink:


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

Al, unless the decoy runs circles around the table chasing the dog that's avoiding the decoy... much like chasing a dog around a post that's tied to a post, then the dog can still avoid the fight, he's just on a shorter line, but still has movement 360* around the table.

That said, I don't know enough about table training to have an opinion other than basing it on Ed F's article that I linked above -- but I have heard table training described differently too, so the big :?: is "Which is right?". Obviously most people view table training the same way Mr Frawley does, as is witnessed in this thread... but take a look at people like Mike Diehl, alotta people say he's a good trainer right?

Watch this video:
http://www.diehlspolicek9training.com/K9SZEMBITEBOX.wmv

He calls it the "Bite Box".... looks worse than a table to me, the dog has no escape left/right/around like on a table, he's on a short line, can't turn around, n walls left/right of him... but this is a young dog, the dog is being worked without being challenged, so is this form of training acceptable if the decoys job is done properly? Or is Mike Diehl perhaps not as good a trainer as I had originally heard?

*Selena* -- what is your definition of defense? How do your dogs work if they don't work in defense when a man is threatening them? I'm not saying you're wrong or anything, but I've always learnt that you work a dog in prey for foundation (play/side to side/run away bites/the dog wants to catch the sleeve as a prey toy), then later you also work on defensive training (the decoy comes to the dog full on, no side to side, straight at the dog, decoy threatens the dog, stares the dog down, psychological pressure) -- the dogs demeanor changes, a dog barking in defense has a deeper more serious bark, a dog barking in prey tends to have a higher pitch "please give me the sleeve!!" type bark. Now, I know that a dog that is 100% prey with no defensive drives can still bite, they just don't realize so much that they are being threatened, n all their biting is done because they love to bite, n they bite a human arm because they don't care what they bite -- but a civil dog is a dog who will take defensive pressure and want to bite the man, not the equipment... this is different from a dog who doesn't care what they bite as long as they are biting. So what drive are your dogs in when someone is threatening their life trying to kill the dog in a police apprehension? Again, I'm not saying you're wrong, you probably know better than I do -- but I've never met a trainer who doesn't work their dog defensively when training for police work. Even in Schutzhund, a deep defensive bark sounds better barking in the blind than a high pitched whiney prey bark, my GSD is notorious for his annoying high pitched bark :lol:

I'm just fueling discussion here, I don't have any solid opinion one way or the other on table training


----------



## Jerry Lyda

OK here goes. The table used correctly is a great devise as is the prong collar. I do use it and I don't think it is counter productive. I do use it differently than what most of you think that it is being used. I don't make the dog think he has no option other than to fight. I start a dog off on the table that don't even look like the ones in those videos. The table I use is about three feet tall and it's four foot square with a pole in the middle. I use a blind to hide behind. I act very suspicious. I'll stick my head out as I tap on the blind, when I get a bark I'll go back into hiding. I will continue to build from there. The handler will stan beside the dog with a loose leash attached to a prong collar. When I go back into hiding he will lift, very camly, the leash straight up and say sit. Then we start all over again.
The dog is put into defence very very slowly and he don't know it's even being done. When you get dogs that can't get past the first part then they don't do it anymore. Those dogs can't handle it. With the other dogs you progress more and more. To them it is no different than being on the ground BUT being up high it does make them feel superior. As you prgress with these dogs they know that you can't bully them and they love this table work. They will run to the table to get on.
Like it or not it is a great training tool and it's easier on the decoy. This is also a great place to teach the out and the hold and bark if that is what you want to do. Dogs that won't make it on the table won't make it on the ground either. If you saw it used correctly you may have a different opinion.


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

Jerry, that is exactly how my trainer explained it to me, which is why I was torn between the various opinions on table training. The way you describe it, and the way that my trainer explained it to me (he doesn't have the tables so I have never seen it done) makes perfect sense, but the strong opposition against the tables is what gives me 2nd thoughts. Like I said, if it's done right (something like what you're talking about) then I don't see how it's different from a dog on the ground... now, if the decoy runs at a dog waving a stick threatening to kill the poor thing, I could see it being negative.... but you can be just as abusive on the ground. The superiority the dog feels from standing over the decoy makes more sense to me than instilling stress in the dog from being off the ground, because even when working on the ground, when a decoy falls over from a dogs bite it's a HUGE confidence builder... so towering over the decoy in a dominant position on a table should be more effective, right?


----------



## Tim Martens

i've never seen it done in person. a trainer who i greatly respect uses it. i'll try and get him to post on it....


----------



## Jerry Lyda

Mike, what you hear from others about the table is what they precieve it to be if they hadn't seen it done. Now if they have seen it done and it's not done the way I do it then I can understand how they would feel about it. I'm NOT the best and don't claim to be but as in all training you have to do what the dog will let you do. If you force anything on the dog you're just asking for trouble. That's counter productive and I agree.


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

Of course dogs have got to bite anywhere, i.e. on top of tables, trucks, cars wherever whatever the handlers will it, but what is it exactly one tries to achieve in table training?


----------



## Bob Scott

Jerry, your thoughts and explinations are much apprieciated. Your's is quite different from what has been explained (not seen) to me in the past. I'm still curious about why the table is used.


----------



## Gregg Tawney

Jerry....I agree with you. I have been using the table for about ten years. Just like anything else it can be abused and I have seen dogs worked on the table that should not have been anywhere near a table or bitework in general. If the dog does not have fight/defense then the table should not be used. You can not develop what nature has not put into the dog at birth. I use the table with some of my sport dogs and practically all of my police dogs. Here are the following reasons why I like it as opposed to using a back tie and working fight/defense on the ground :

1 - It elevates the dog so I can come in from under the dog which is less preasure then over the top of the dog.

2 - It allows me to get within six inches of the dogs mouth during civil agitation. I can call the dog's "bluff" and get up close and personal. 

3 - If I need to grab the dogs paw or fur to make myself a threat I can without getting bit (most of the time :lol: ). 

4 - It is easier to work targeting if the dog is elevated. I can work inside bites and back bites much easier then if the dog is on the ground. I will often put a younger dog on the table and simply work arm pit bites over and over again prior to working them on the ground. It is easier on the dog as well as me. When I do this I am not working the dog in fight/defense. I am simply working on targeting. 

Like Jerry has said....Our dogs run and jump on the table. They like it because when done correctly they win in every session. I train police dogs so it is imperative that I do everything that I can to insure that the dog will engage a suspect on his first couple of bites...an officer's life may count it. The table helps me insure that the dog is not just about equipment but has a fight/defense side that is willing to bite a person without equipment and without movement. 

Gregg


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Not a big fan of the table, but like Gregg said, anything can be abused. At best I watched a bunch of dogs get worked on the table like you would in normal training. Easier on the back. At the worst, hysterical screaming and thrashing, with the anal glands exploding.

I could see it if you were the only decoy for a large number of dogs, and you wanted a break from the normal decoying to be a bit easier on your back. For what I do, this has no purpose what so ever.

As far as defense, if you have to add it to a PS dog, what is up with the dog? Is it really good enough to be a PSD??? Even dumb dogs eventually figure out you are not gonna cross that line. Just curious what people using the table here think, and how it worked.


----------



## Gregg Tawney

Jeff - 

Yes, we select dogs because they have fight/defense but if you give a dog 1000 bites with equipment in training and then send them on thier first street bite on a passive suspect without equipment the dog may naturally have problems engaging. I think a police dog trainer that does not work a dog in defense/fight on a regular basis is setting a young street dog up for failure. It has been my experience that some dogs are much more prey oriented. Those are the dogs that I work more regularly on the table until they have gotten a few bites on the street. 

Just because the dog has some natural fight/defense does not mean that you dont tap into it and make the dog confident in that particular drive. It is all about balance. I like to keep a balance between prey and fight/defense. 

I dont understand you statement about dumb dogs figuring out that you are not going to cross the line? :?


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen

Mike: defense to me is the other side of wanting to flight but can´t. So dog is scared and can´t get away. Biting out of fear, not because it wants to bite. In dutch: angst agressie. (fear agression?)

The way Jerry and Gregg explains the use of the table it is just another way of aggitation like on a poal. That way I don´t have any troubles with it.

Usually my dogs learn to bite on prey drive (and some are serious from a very young age, so we pass the stage of prey) when they´re on the suit the get to realize they bite a man, then they get more serious. It is a natural thing, they get more real by aggression out of wanting to dominate (or fight drive..aaawww touchy subject..)
Some sportdogs (my malinois by example) don´t ever realize they´re biting a man, and if they knew they hurt someone they would never took a bite, they do it out of preydrive..´cause they like the game.

If you see the vids I have posted recently working my young dog you´ll see that is still preydrive.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote:I dont understand you statement about dumb dogs figuring out that you are not going to cross the line?

I am talking about the line that designates the furthest point a dog can reach the guy working him, and the fact that all the dogs that I have seen worked this way in the past, all eventually figured out that you are NOT going to walk within their reach (general you, not YOU the person)

Quote:then send them on thier first street bite on a passive suspect 

If he is passive, then why is the dog sent? I am not sure of the way you are using the term. Like passive, but armed? I am not sure how defense would come into play, as much as a conditioned response to bite when told would.


----------



## Woody Taylor

Jose Alberto Reanto said:


> Of course dogs have got to bite anywhere, i.e. on top of tables, trucks, cars wherever whatever the handlers will it, but what is it exactly one tries to achieve in table training?


Al, check out the links at the start of the thread, I think (I think) you are supposing that this is just another training environment for the dog...as all parties are referring to it in this thread, they are talking about a specific training apparatus (A small table or tables with a chain on them) used to provoke particular drive responses in a dog in a physical environment they can better control. I think that is a fair definition, based on how you all are describing it?.

So this is an excellent discussion! It made it through the night without anyone mentioning fight drive!!! :lol: 

But anyway...those of you who are advocating table training seem to be (in my inexperience opinion) describing using it in a way that those who are against it are assuming it's used. 

So...for those of you advocating table training...are you explicitly putting them up there to put them in defense or not? Just wondering. 

I understand the notions of being lower than the dog, protecting one's own back, etc. but I thought the fundamental purpose of table training was to quickly put the dog into a high-stress environment to elicit serious amounts of defensive drive. And I still can't get past that there must be some fundamental adjustments the dog will make because it has four legs confined to a small, raised platform. Just like how I think playing hard tug with my dog on tile is more stressful for her than on grass (but at the same time, seems to make her focus on her grips more ?)

As always, I'm just reading what you all are posting, I have no experience with this myself. Really interesting thread, though!


----------



## Woody Taylor

Woody Taylor said:


> But anyway...those of you who are advocating table training seem to be (in my inexperience opinion) describing using it in a way that those who are against it are assuming it's used.


Sorry, this was unclear, I meant that the pro-'tablers' seem to be using the table to get benefits that the con-'tablers' either disregard or have not considered.


----------



## Gregg Tawney

Jeff - 

The nice thing about the table is that I can occassionally cross the line and actually grab a paw or some fur. That makes the threat more real for the dog compared to a back tie where I cant get within a few feet of the dog. That, in my opinion, is one of the fundamental differences between the table and a back tie. 

Police dogs bite a lot of passive suspects. Most of the time, the dog is deployed on a felony suspect that has fled the crime scene minutes or hours prior to the officers arriving on scene. The dog is used to locate the suspect that is usually hiding in a field or in a house/business. (the dogs are used to clear atics and under houses). Most of the time the suspect lays there motionless. For a young dog this can be difficult. the odor of the suspect is different. There is no movement nor equipment. If the suspect is in a small space such as an atic or crawl space this adds additional environmental preasures. 

Woody - I agree with you. The table does put some environmental stress on the dog. This can help with channeling the dog into fight/defense (Sorry Woody.....I said the F-word  ) easier. The table can be used for both fight/defense and prey (targeting and environmental exposure for a young dog).

Gregg


----------



## Woody Taylor

Gregg Tawney said:


> Woody - I agree with you. The table does put some environmental stress on the dog. This can help with channeling the dog into fight/defense (Sorry Woody.....I said the F-word  ) easier. The table can be used for both fight/defense and prey (targeting and environmental exposure for a young dog).
> 
> Gregg


Would you all train your own dogs on tables? I mean, you act as the aggressor?


----------



## Gregg Tawney

As for me....no. If I am working fight/defense I would not put my own dog on the table. I think it would cause too much conflict for the dog and would be counter productive. My goal is at the end of a table session that the dog feels that he has backed me down and has kicked my butt. As you can see, that could cause some relationship problems with dogs that you live with. 

I try not to channel dogs into fight/defense that I live with. I work my wife's sport dogs but I do mostly the prey stuff with them. 

Selena - Have you seen or heard of anyone in the Netherlands using a table? Do you guys do civil agitation with your dogs? 

Gregg


----------



## Tim Martens

i think the major difference here is the dog, not the training. people like you know who hate the table because they've seen it used to bring a dog that wouldn't otherwise bite to a place where they will bite. basically taking a genetically inferior dog and forcing the dog to bite.

this isn't what gregg and jerry seem to be talking about. they're talking about making a strong dog stronger, not by "forcing them to bite", but by basically doing staked civil agitation with the benefit of the dog being elevated (beneficial to the dogs psyche and the decoy's back). while i've never seen it done, i wouldn't hesitate for a minute to put my dog on the table with gregg as the helper (one day hopefully i will)...


----------



## Woody Taylor

Tim Martens said:


> i think the major difference here is the dog, not the training...this isn't what gregg and jerry seem to be talking about. they're talking about making a strong dog stronger, not by "forcing them to bite", but by basically doing staked civil agitation with the benefit of the dog being elevated (beneficial to the dogs psyche and the decoy's back).


This is the part I can't get my hands around. Any positivity the dog gets out of being elevated would seem to be cancelled out by the fact that it's unsure of its footing and offset by its lack of escape routes. But Jerry and Gregg are also saying their dogs get psyched up to be put on the table, so perhaps you are right (I still think there is a fundamental notion of training that's different between the two groups, JMO) about it being keyed to particularly "fine" dogs.

So, having said that...Jerry and Glenn...do you all choose not to put up certain dogs on the table (do you test them for that "test") or do you put up any dog on the table and run the risk of breaking it?

This is not meant to be a confrontational question, I don't know, and I'm not sure I necessarily disagree with the notion of risking breaking dogs for particular applications (MWD, PSD) but that's probably an unpopular opinion. (I just kind of think you have to know in those types of dog roles...this is a whole thread of discussion in itself, I imagine).


----------



## Tim Martens

Woody Taylor said:


> lack of escape routes.


this is where you are having trouble. again, i have not seen it done, and i don't have any first hand experience with this, so i'm just going off of regular training philosophies here....

escape routes don't play into it. again, a dog looking to escape is a weak dog. whether it be on a table or just staked out. if the footing was an issue for a dog the first time he/she was put on it, then i'm sure the next step would be some prey stimulation. some runaways with the sleeve, let the dog win the sleeve. you're not just going to start putting pressure on the dog if they're unsure of the environment. that goes for any training. table or otherwise. then once the dog gets comfortable you slowly begin to up the pressure. 

so it's like any other training. you slowly build the dog up to the point where you can work them in whatever drive you want to.

is this right jerry, GREGG?


----------



## Jerry Lyda

We've all seen weak dogs and we know that this dog will not benefit by this training. BUT IF you start this weak dog off right he can overcome some of his problems. You have to work all dogs to see what it can take. Never would you want to put too much on a dog too soon. I'll even start dogs on the table that I think they may not be a good candidate by putting them up there and then taking them off. May do this many times to get a feel of the dog. If this dog still shows signs that he would be too weak for it then he don't go on it. If he seems comfortable with it then I'll start him slow. Some dogs get up there and buddy, they are ready and want you to bring it on. :lol: 
It's like any training tool, if used right you won't go wrong.


----------



## Woody Taylor

Jerry Lyda said:


> We've all seen weak dogs and we know that this dog will not benefit by this training. BUT IF you start this weak dog off right he can overcome some of his problems. You have to work all dogs to see what it can take. Never would you want to put too much on a dog too soon. I'll even start dogs on the table that I think they may not be a good candidate by putting them up there and then taking them off. May do this many times to get a feel of the dog. If this dog still shows signs that he would be too weak for it then he don't go on it. If he seems comfortable with it then I'll start him slow. Some dogs get up there and buddy, they are ready and want you to bring it on. :lol:
> It's like any training tool, if used right you won't go wrong.


Hah, all the "against it" folks have stopped posting, I'm getting undue influence from Jerry on this now. :lol: :lol: This is the danger with an open forum...it needs CONSTANT VIGILANCE from all opinions!!!  Where did everybody go???


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Woody Taylor said:


> ..........Hah, all the "against it" folks have stopped posting, I'm getting undue influence from Jerry on this now. :lol: :lol: This is the danger with an open forum...it needs CONSTANT VIGILANCE from all opinions!!!  Where did everybody go???


LOL!

Perhaps they don't want to debate. I'm not speaking for anyone; I'm just guessing.

That doesn't mean others can't! This thread is going very well, considering the feelings I was afraid might erupt. Good group of civil writers, IMO.


----------



## Gregg Tawney

A good debate is healthy for a board.  Keeps things interesting. Just ask my wife. :? 

Tim you are right. We begin slowly with the dog. Like Jerry said, sometimes it may be as simple as putting the dog on the table and beginning your agitation from a 50 feet away. As you work closer to the dog you will see if the dog is insecure or weak. With a dog that is on the weaker side it may take me four or five sessions before I am within a few feet of the dog. If the dog does not have it then we dont try to put into the dog that which nature has not. There have been dogs that we decide to not work on the table becuase there is nothing to bring out. Those dogs are not police prospects. There are some dogs that have fight/defense but are insecure in that drive and by giving the dog some "wins" in that drive then they become stronger as a result. After you have the desired behaviour on the table then I bring them onto the ground and try to get the same intensity. 

It is like other parts of training. There is no hurry. Take your time and reward the desired behaviour. 

Gregg


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen

Gregg Tawney said:


> Selena - Have you seen or heard of anyone in the Netherlands using a table? Do you guys do civil agitation with your dogs?
> 
> Gregg


never heard or seen it, but that doesn´t mean it isn´t used. I thought that it is used in Germany, but I´m not sure.

I only know agitationsessions on (don´t know right english word) a place were the dog is chained with the boss next to him. The dog is agitated, works on the grip of the dog or the hold and bark...does this makes sense to you? (poal?)

Agitation is done only with sleeve or suit on. Civil bites are obedience excercises. If you remember the time you were here (other wise it is on your video), we use the command "vast" (english translation will be: hold) while a dog bites. This command is also used with passive civil bites. The decoy has an civil leg or arm sleeve under his clothes, the dogs is brought in a situation, and only on command the dog may bite on the spot the handler is taking him.

The advantages of aproaching it as an ob excirces is that the dog ALWAYS bites on command..whether it is an telephonepoal or a passive crimanal or in a group of people..the dog will bite on the command on the person he is pointed to.

If the dog has only learned to bite when agitated you could come in a situation that the dog will not bite. I know an example from this region with a drunken, disordered man, butt naked in his shower.. and a small passage to the shower. Dog bit on the command "vast", i´m sure a lot of dogs wouldnt take this bite.


----------



## Tim Martens

Selena van Leeuwen said:


> Agitation is done only with sleeve or suit on. Civil bites are obedience excercises. If you remember the time you were here (other wise it is on your video), we use the command "vast" (english translation will be: hold) while a dog bites. This command is also used with passive civil bites. The decoy has an civil leg or arm sleeve under his clothes, the dogs is brought in a situation, and only on command the dog may bite on the spot the handler is taking him.
> 
> The advantages of aproaching it as an ob excirces is that the dog ALWAYS bites on command..whether it is an telephonepoal or a passive crimanal or in a group of people..the dog will bite on the command on the person he is pointed to.


very, very interesting. 

gregg, you should work on the POST guidelines where part of POST certification is spending a week in the netherlands learning from the dutch...


----------



## Woody Taylor

Gregg Tawney said:


> A good debate is healthy for a board.



:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: 

Okay. So, is table training superior to other methods of drive development for working dogs? Based on how you all are describing it, I'm not sure why it would not be an essential part of conditioning out a MWD or a PSD.


----------



## Woody Taylor

Woody Taylor said:


> Gregg Tawney said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good debate is healthy for a board.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
> 
> Okay. So, is table training superior to other methods of drive development for working dogs? Based on how you all are describing it, I'm not sure why it would not be an essential part of conditioning out a MWD or a PSD.
Click to expand...

And...have any of you who use tables ever ruined a dog because of poor judgment/lack of experience on your own part?


----------



## Jerry Lyda

Has anyone dne the same without the table?


----------



## Woody Taylor

Jerry Lyda said:


> Has anyone dne the same without the table?


Don't miss what I'm getting at here--I'm just asking. If this is an objective discussion about a tool that some of you are using, and that many of us either don't understand or don't value, I'm asking this as a learning opportunity. Nothing more. I still think there is some fundamental thing I'm missing here--Gregg did acknowledge it--about the nature of the stress that is put on the dog and how that can get out of hand. 

This should not be considered any more objectionable than me asking if anyone's ruined a dog because of misuse of an ecollor or a prong. I'm asking it here because I think it's relevant to the discussion you initiated.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Woody. Do be careful encouraging people to use the table. There are too many out there that do NOT have a clue how to work a dog in defence. It is not for beginners, and not funny like you appear to be taking it. I have seen some pretty nice dogs ruined for life because of bad training with a table. If you have NO EXPERIENCE, then leave it alone.

There are people out there that do this, and have an understanding. Leave it to them.


----------



## Woody Taylor

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Woody. Do be careful encouraging people to use the table. There are too many out there that do NOT have a clue how to work a dog in defence. It is not for beginners, and not funny like you appear to be taking it. I have seen some pretty nice dogs ruined for life because of bad training with a table. If you have NO EXPERIENCE, then leave it alone.
> 
> There are people out there that do this, and have an understanding. Leave it to them.


Fair enough--I don't want to appear to be taking it lightly. My sense is that there are a lot of experienced people with very strong reservations about table training that are not commenting on it. That I'm not crazy about because, as you say, my understanding is that it's a powerful tool that seems readily abused by both ignorant and macho folks. Like prongs, chains, and ecollars, but perhaps more so.

I have *no experience*, and I would leave it alone, my own impression is that it's a tool that is well beyond anything I'm interested in attempting. What I am interested in is an objective treatment of it, which I why I'm asking about whether people have ruined dogs with them, etc. because right now I think the tone is not really capturing what I think must be involved with the tool. Based on my perception. 

I just like learning stuff, Jeff, but you are right in that I should not be treating this in a way that a casual user would think it appropriate for them. Folks in here can back me up when I say I have--via PM and emails--shared the same concerns with them when this site initially started up and casual conversations around avoidance training, sharpened prongs, etc. began showing up. 

So basically, anyone reading my posts and thinking that I'm either accepting of this or encouraging it or considering it--my apologies. I'm just trying to flesh it out right now in my head. Is that fair?


----------



## Jerry Lyda

Don't worry Woody. I didn't mean for that to sound sarcastic. I was just saying that any tool used in training in the wrong hands can ruin a dog. I've seen dogs ruined in forced tracking and in forced retrieves. I've seen other dogs that have done great. The dogs ruined are by people that don't have a clue. There's a lot of people out there that don't like table work. They don't like it because they have heard from a friend that heard it from his great uncle that it was no good and that's ok too. Others don't like it because they saw some *%%$$^&*^&^ use it badly. Like I said before, that used correctly it can be a great training tool. To get my dog to his highest potential I'll use what I can as long as it's not abusive or can hurt him in anyway.


----------



## Gregg Tawney

Woody to answer your question.....I have seen dogs "ruined" which is subjective. I have seen weak dogs backed down and the agitator apply pressure until the dog came forward in self preservation. That is not my intention. 

I am very careful with the table and error on the side of caution so I have not personally done that. I am not saying that I am "Gods gift to civil agitaiton" but I do start the dogs off slowly and if the dog does not have the fight/defense drives that I am looking for then I don't proceed.

Selena - I remember my conversation with Dick when he spoke about dogs biting what they are told to bite. If he tells his dog to bite a sofa then the dog is to bite a sofa. The Dutch dog, Rudie that we imported was on a search in an atic last week. The dog was out of site of the handler and the handler thought that the dog may have found the suspect but did not bite immediately. The handler gave the dog the bite command and the dog bit the heating duct because that was what was in front of him. The suspect was not present but the dog was given the command and he complied. I very much like that philosophy, however that does raise a question. Since biting is an obedience command then is there a punishment for the dog that refuses to bite and if so what type of correction do you give the dog?

Gregg


----------



## Gregg Tawney

Tim Martens said:


> [gregg, you should work on the POST guidelines where part of POST certification is spending a week in the netherlands learning from the dutch...[/quote




Tim.....sounds good. When do we leave?

Gregg


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

I guess my biggest thing with the table is that I have seen dogs that had a lot of potential go south. I am not new to the table, and some of the "good" trainers worked the dogs I saw go south. 

How do I explain this? It is difficult. I guess I saw a dog that had potential to be 8 out of 10. All I saw after was just under 6. I did see an effect from this training. The dog is still a good dog, but it brought something to the surface that wasn't needed, and then was rewarded.

For the most part I don't have any need to tap into defence this way. Honestly, I would scrap a dog that needed something like this, although keep in mind that if I was training a dog that was to be someones PSD, I would probably get fired for all the dogs I would reject. To me, I want the guy to get home at the end of the day. I could give two shits if the officer couldn't go visit the kindergarten class. I want that sharpness there without me doing anything about it.

As far as I am concerned, I know people that get all rabid about the table and how good or bad it is, but the bottom line is that it is lazy training. I can think of about 50 different and better ways to test a dog, and train a dog than the table. I refuse to get into it with those people. They know good and damn well that this is a tool that is abused more than not. 

I just watched a video that was sent to me with table training in it. The dog was 10 months old. WTF are you doing with a immature dog on a table? This dog was training for Sch, and trust me, this dog has the genetics to be dangerous. Lazy lazy lazy. Call me naughty, but I really want to see the video when the guy works the dog at 20 months and he plants a big fat bite on the guys face.

So here is the basic table training breakdown for trainers. 

1. Lack of imagination.

2. "F"in LAZY helper work

3. Never seen it do anything but hinder potential. Even some of the "good" guys.

4. Good potential for abuse.



So many people think that defense equals power. Panic creates power as well. The line between is very thin. Giving a bite at the wrong time is gonna possibly reward what you are not looking for.

How many think that they can tell the difference (panic/defense)in a strong dog?(notorious for not showing much) How many think they can reward with such perfect timing that they catch the exact emotion they are trying to promote?

And in conclusion boys and girls of ALL ages, this rant is mostly for the inexperienced, and semi experienced to think about. It really is easy to take a possibly great dog, and relegate it to a lessor creature. As an added bonus, you may not know you did it.

If all else fails, take it from someone who has broken a lot of dogs in his past trying to reach "true potential". I fell for the need for defense crap, misread a lot of strong dogs, then broke them thinking I could MAKE THEM BETTER. Listen to the fuck-up. Been there done that.


----------



## Gregg Tawney

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> So here is the basic table training breakdown for trainers.
> 
> 1. Lack of imagination.
> 
> 2. "F"in LAZY helper work
> 
> 3. Never seen it do anything but hinder potential. Even some of the "good" guys.
> 
> 4. Good potential for abuse.


I "respectfully" disagree. I will leave it at that. 

Gregg


----------



## Gregg Tawney

Connie - 

If you ever want to see the table used properly. come to Sacramento and I would be happy to show you. I think it would change your perspective. As we have discussed in this thread, everyone does it differently so don't judge the table based upon someone who misuses it. I was told for years that the e-collar was a terrible tool and I believed it until I educated myself and saw it used properly. 

Gregg


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Gregg. What about the rest of the post? Please don't think that I was on you about the table, as much as I was about the table in general.

Playing with defense for NOOBS that are out there reading this is not a good thing. Too easy to make a mistake. 

And c'mon, lot easier to work a dog on a table, than to get creative with scenarios. Gotta give me that one.

How much leeway does a Police dept give a trainer to dump a dog? This is what I would like to hear about.


----------



## Gregg Tawney

Jeff - 

I think scenario training is important for both the dog and handler but I do like to channel the dogs into different drives on occassion. I like to sometimes get away from equipment and work on the civil drives of the dog. If I had to give it a percentage I would say that I work scenarios about 30% of the time, searches 25%, field work (grips, entries, control, obedience) 40%, and table maybe 5%. I would never profess the table be a replacement for any of the other training that I have listed. For me, it is simply icing on the cake. 

As a matter of fact, I could say that it is easier for trainers to work only scenarios. I have seen trainers that give sleeves to the other handlers and have them take bites in scenarios. That would be much easier for a trainer then actually working dogs on the table and channeling drives. 

As far as leeway with giving a dog the axe, I have found that the departments are pretty cooperative. If you mention to the department that the dog is an officer safety risk then they usually listen. That has been my experience anyway. The problem that some of our agencies have is that the handler is responsible for purchasing the dog so the agencies aren't out a dime. IMO, the bigger problem is that some handlers cant afford a "top of the line" dog so they wind up settling for a dog that has some issues. 

Gregg


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Funny, every once in a while, there are dogs out here in sportland that are given away that would be more than enough for depts. I know a lot of sport people that wouldn't do it because of the rabid table training/new cop handler stuff. Not so often, but occasionally I run across dogs that aren't wierd or screwed up. If I do, maybe you can use them. Just pay the shipping if you like the darn thing. That might help.

Most people know I am piss poor, and have no concept of money. Well, have the concept, it's just not that important. Ethics are a bit more important to me. I definately could take peoples money, but in the end, I would rather have a packed house at my funeral, than money now. Call me weirdo.


----------



## Bob Scott

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Funny, every once in a while, there are dogs out here in sportland that are given away that would be more than enough for depts. I know a lot of sport people that wouldn't do it because of the rabid table training/new cop handler stuff. Not so often, but occasionally I run across dogs that aren't wierd or screwed up. If I do, maybe you can use them. Just pay the shipping if you like the darn thing. That might help.
> 
> Most people know I am piss poor, and have no concept of money. Well, have the concept, it's just not that important. Ethics are a bit more important to me. I definately could take peoples money, but in the end, I would rather have a packed house at my funeral, than money now. Call me weirdo.


Well, the wierdo part is a given but I admire your ethics.  :wink: 
ps. As a Moderator, my name calling was totally a joke. Honest folks!


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen

Gregg Tawney said:


> I very much like that philosophy, however that does raise a question. Since biting is an obedience command then is there a punishment for the dog that refuses to bite and if so what type of correction do you give the dog?
> 
> Gregg


We start to give the command at the suit (so there is always a reward) at a young age. By the time you got the dog the command is so trained it always does it. No corrections on this one, only some leash help on things he would not know. A bit tension on the leash and than let it go, this is the non-verbal command "vast" and is given with the verbal one. Haven´t met a dog who doesn´t obey the command this way (don´t forget, dogs is than trained about 3 yrs this way and had always a reward (biting))


----------



## Stacia Porter

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Funny, every once in a while, there are dogs out here in sportland that are given away that would be more than enough for depts. I know a lot of sport people that wouldn't do it because of the rabid table training/new cop handler stuff. Not so often, but occasionally I run across dogs that aren't wierd or screwed up. If I do, maybe you can use them. Just pay the shipping if you like the darn thing. That might help.
> 
> Most people know I am piss poor, and have no concept of money. Well, have the concept, it's just not that important. Ethics are a bit more important to me. I definately could take peoples money, but in the end, I would rather have a packed house at my funeral, than money now. Call me weirdo.


Awww Jeff that bordered on sentiment! First you post nutrition information, now you're gettinng all mushy on us? Are you going soft? :wink: 

FWIW, there is more than one story about rescued shepherds going into law enforcement. It's amazing what people will just "throw away." In fact, there is a LEO in VA (I think, don't hold me to that) who uses only rescued dogs!


----------



## David Frost

<<How much leeway does a Police dept give a trainer to dump a dog? This is what I would like to hear about.>>

Jeff, since I've already given my response on "table training" which is similar to yours, only less wordy, I thought I'd touch on this particular question. It had to be answered in two parts.

Part 1. In my experience, departments with larger canine sections, on-staff trainers such as ours have absolute power to "dump a dog". Having said that however, it's important to point out, they(the training staff) also select the dog prior to procurement. If purchased from a reputable vendor it will have a guarantee as to health and "trainability". Generally speaking, prior to procurement, the trainer (s) have researched the vendor talked to references etc. As you can imagine, once you've selected a dog, you certainly feel more of an obligation and sense of personal responsibility to train it. The good vendors will, on occasion, take back a dog that the trainer(s) say in not suitable, even though they may disagree, because thier reputation is more important than a disagreement on training style.

Part 2. Departments without a canine training staff are often at the mercy of a vendor. They buy a trained dog, the officer recieves a minimum of training. Often times the handler, be default becomes the resident expert on canine within his department. Training opportunities are limited and often with a department in the same situation. The leeway to dump a dog in this situation is tentative at best. It is often times directed by management because of a bad bite or poor performance.

DFrost


----------



## Matt Hammond

IMO most (and I say this loosely) that do not like table training have never seen table training they just hear how abusive it CAN be and form an option. BUT these are the same folks that will use a back tie. IT is the same thing! Just off the ground. If a helper/decoy puts dogs in a situation where they jump off the table and hang them selves or the bust an anal gland to me you have a problem with your helper not the table. If the helper does not know how to use the table then he can destroy a good dog if he does know how to use a table then he can really bring some good stuff out. 

I have had departments down here with dogs that they just could not get to out, e-collars, choking, beating they have tried it all, I put that same dog on the table with a short lead hook to a prong under the dogs chin and work the out I usually can get the dog to start to out in 2-5 bites. It is not magic you just have to know what you are doing. Now I am sure I could achieve the same thing on the ground but now you have to factor in handler error, timing and good old Murphy. Just take all those out of the training session and you have a dog that outs and understands the command of out now. Now tricks no smoke and mirrors just good old fashion dog training. Jerry and I have done in a million times, and every time we do it I am more amazed that others are to closed minded to try this. 

Some people have a lot of influence in the dog world and I will not name names, but he busts out and says that table training is for Fat lazy helpers and it is abusive and the rest of the world jumps on his wagon. You can always learn something new, it doesnt matter how long you have been in the game no one knows it all. I had a trainer from Virginia come pick up some dogs, He was very skeptical of the table and the way he heard it is used. I took a 12 month old puppy put him on the table and had him doing a out and guard in a few minutes. Like I have said before if it is used right then it can be great, if not then it can hurt your dog like everything. Look at Wallace Payne and his dog pedro he won the nationals this year and is in the world team for Schutzhund, How does his dog get worked and cleaned up.on a table.

The only thing two trainers will ever agree on is that the third one doesn't know what he is talking about.


----------



## Andres Martin

Most of the opinions so far have been oriented towards the fact that table training is exclusively a defense/fight stimulation tool. That is not so. A dog that has good prey drive will do well on a table. Shallow biters particularly.

Points to consider:
1) A table is no big deal.
2) Movement restriction is no big deal.
3) A dog is first "socialized" to the table...or should be, so the table itself doesn't hinder learning.
4) The table is not ONLY elevation. It is also AN EDGE. Dogs will bite down MUCH harder as they approach the edge. (It's the same thing if you guys are training off the back of a pick up truck, or car jacking scenarios, etc.) If dogs are consistently rewarded when they bite down hard, it will become a desirable conditioned response.
5) Elevations, slippery surfaces, the dark, the unknown... all exacerbate dog's responses to threats. A table is no different, and just as with the aforementioned can be successfully used (or not) to promote intensity.

Just like everything else...if you don't know when, with which dog, and how to use a particular tool...not only do you run the risk of ruining a dog, but more commonly of simply not progressing. IMO, there are almost no absolutes.

Someone that knows how to read a dog will cause far less stress to a dog using a table ocasionally to develop the bite, THAN TEACHING A FORCED RETRIEVE!

Anyone who stresses a dog to the point of shut down is ignorant and compassionless...whether on a table or anywhere else.


----------



## Kristen Cabe

Before I got Jak, I was presented with the opportunity to get a puppy from a guy that breeds and trains German shepherds specifically for police departments. I asked how he trained his dogs, and I admit, when I heard the words "then I put them up on a table," I actually stopped listening to the man and basically wrote him off on the spot. This was over a year ago, and the views on table training on the board I belonged to then had me CONVINCED that table training was cruel and inhumane, and resulted in a dog that when presented with a real threat, might choose to flee rather than fight, given that he then had the option to do so.  

I won't say that I _dread_ it now, looking back, because I think I have a good dog now; but I _do_ feel like it may have been a good opportunity missed. I wanted a dog for personal protection, and this guy trains dogs for police departments, and has done so for MANY years, so he obviously knows what he's doing. Instead, when I heard the word table, rather than asking more questions, I decided I didn't want to even go out and meet the man and see his dogs or watch him train. Then I bought a dog for over $1000 more from someone who trains primarily for sport. All because of the opinions of one man.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

*Gene England*

I was fortunate enough to attend two workshops with Gene England. one
in New Mexico and one in Colorado. Tabel training is one of the most
missunderstood and abused tools in dog training. The strong negative opinions from people who have never even seen one being used. amaze me.
The square table (wrongly called defense table) is a confidence builder.
Gene would hide behind a blind and play peak a boo, When the dog
gave the desired response it was rewarded. He would also have the
dog turn on and turn off. He'd make eye contact the dog would alert,
he went neutral and the dog would turn off. The dogs were neer worked in
defense. The dogs could reach the ground wiith their back feet, no dogs
were hung up. No dogs were pushed off the table.
The reason tables are usually found in buildings (not out in the open)
isn't because anyone is trying to hide anything, it is because a good table is hard to build and not exactly portable. It isn't something you can drag
out to the training field or that you'd want to leave out in the weather ot
rust and warp.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

*Re: Gene England*



Thomas Barriano said:


> I was fortunate enough to attend two workshops with Gene England.......


Do you agree with this opinion (expressed by a couple of police trainers I watch work, and who were gracious enough to review with me, frame by frame, the few table-training videos we were able to round up): "Very few trainers have the ability of Gene England to read a dog well enough to do what he does."

Also, a well-known PPD trainer maintains that "There is nothing about table work that can't be done by a good trainer with a back-tied dog on the ground just as well, without the danger of injury."

I'm asking sincerely for opinions on these beliefs.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

*Re: Gene England*



Connie Sutherland said:


> Thomas Barriano said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was fortunate enough to attend two workshops with Gene England.......
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree with this opinion (expressed by a couple of police trainers I watch work, and who were gracious enough to review with me, frame by frame, the few table-training videos we were able to round up): "Very few trainers have the ability of Gene England to read a dog well enough to do what he does."
> 
> ABsolutely  Gene is the MAN. Unfortunatley Gene isn't doing as much
> dog training as he used to.
> 
> Also, a well-known PPD trainer maintains that "There is nothing about table work that can't be done by a good trainer with a back-tied dog on the ground just as well, without the danger of injury."
> 
> 
> I disagree with that. The dogs perspective is different, three feet off the
> ground. There is LESS danger of injury to both decoy and dog with a table
> The decoy knows how far the dog can go more accurately on a table
> than on the ground. The decoy is more erect (face to face) not bend over and off balance. The trick (IMO) is a properly designed table where the
> dogs back feet can reach the ground and he can't get hung up. The swivel
> must work properly. I think the lower round table iis better for most bite work.
> 
> I'm asking sincerely for opinions on these beliefs.
Click to expand...


----------



## Lou Castle

Gregg Tawney said:


> Most of the time the suspect lays there motionless. For a young dog this can be difficult. the odor of the suspect is different.


Just an aside, and I'm probably taking something out of context, but how is the odor of a stationary person different from that of a moving one? And in either case, how does this make it more difficult for a dog to bite? 



Gregg Tawney said:


> The table does put some environmental stress on the dog. This can help with channeling the dog into fight/defense


It's probably just a difference in how we train or semantics, but I almost never use defense. 

Are your tables out in the open or do you have them indoors? 



Jerry Lyda said:


> We've all seen weak dogs and we know that this dog will not benefit by this training. BUT IF you start this weak dog off right he can overcome some of his problems.


He's till going to be a weak dog. Except for learning purposes, I don't see the point. Not saying it's wrong or that it's not right for you. 

Same question I asked of Gregg, are your tables outdoors? 



Gregg Tawney said:


> Those dogs are not police prospects. There are some dogs that have fight/defense but are insecure in that drive and by giving the dog some "wins" in that drive then they become stronger as a result.


This clears up my question about why this is done. What is being done with these dogs? 



Jeff Oehlsen said:


> For the most part I don't have any need to tap into defence this way. Honestly, I would scrap a dog that needed something like this


Perhaps I've never used a table because I was almost always able to select the dogs that I trained. 



Jeff Oehlsen said:


> although keep in mind that if I was training a dog that was to be someones PSD, I would probably get fired for all the dogs I would reject. To me, I want the guy to get home at the end of the day.


That was always my motivation too. 



Connie Sutherland said:


> They both call it "lazy man's training."


I'm not fond of this transition. As has been said, the table in an inanimate object. It may be abused more than it is used properly but that's not the fault of the table. Abuse or misuse is always on the trainer. I'll suggest that the people in this thread are not part of that problem. 



Jeff Oehlsen said:


> How much leeway does a Police dept give a trainer to dump a dog?


Varies from department to department. It's more dependent on the admins than the trainer. 

The only dog that I ever dumped was a dog that was selected when I was out of the program. He tried to run the first time I ever raised my hand to him. How he made it past the weeding-out process of others, I'll never know. 

For the most part, departments with in-house trainers can get rid of a dog much easier than those who rely on an outside vendor. 



Matt Hammond said:


> IMO most (and I say this loosely) that do not like table training have never seen table training they just hear how abusive it CAN be and form an option. BUT these are the same folks that will use a back tie. IT is the same thing!


Well, not really. You can knock a dog off the table and have him strangle if he refuses to bite. You really can't do that on the ground. I believe that you said that your table isn't tall enough to do that with so I wonder why you bother with the table? 



Matt Hammond said:


> I have had departments down here with dogs that they just could not get to out, e-collars, choking, beating they have tried it all, I put that same dog on the table with a short lead hook to a prong under the dogs chin and work the out I usually can get the dog to start to out in 2-5 bites.


I do the same thing with an Ecollar at low stim levels in about 20 minutes. An Ecollar is much more portable. 



Matt Hammond said:


> Now I am sure I could achieve the same thing on the ground but now you have to factor in handler error, timing and good old Murphy.


Why? Why can't the dog be backtied and have the handler stand alongside him? 



Matt Hammond said:


> Jerry and I have done in a million times, and every time we do it I am more amazed that others are to closed minded to try this.


Not a matter of being closed minded. I just don't see the reason to bother with building or carrying around a table. 



Matt Hammond said:


> Some people have a lot of influence in the dog world and I will not name names, but he busts out and says that table training is for Fat lazy helpers and it is abusive and the rest of the world jumps on his wagon.


Just because some people share an opinion doesn't mean that they've jumped on someone else's wagon. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> I was fortunate enough to attend two workshops with Gene England.


A while back I spoke to Mr. England on the phone. Someone had told him that I'd said that he'd hung dogs off his tables. I wanted to let him know that I hadn't made that statement. He responded, "We've all done things in the past that we wouldn't do today." I took that as an admission that he had indeed hung dogs off his tables. Can anyone suggest what else he may have meant? 



Thomas Barriano said:


> The reason tables are usually found in buildings (not out in the open) isn't because anyone is trying to hide anything, it is because a good table is hard to build and not exactly portable. It isn't something you can drag out to the training field or that you'd want to leave out in the weather ot rust and warp.


I find it rather odd that most agility obstacles are made of wood, they're not very portable and aren't something that can be "dragged out to the training field" at least not without a lot of work' yet they're typically left outside. Some have lasted for decades. Most houses in the US are built of wood and some have managed to survive for a couple of centuries. It's amazing what a little paint and some occasional maintenance will do to prevent "rusting and warping!" 

Let's not ignore the obvious. The reason that most tables are built and kept indoors is so that abusive trainers can work unobserved.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

BTW, Lou's remark about abuse or misuse of the table:

QUOTE: I'll suggest that the people in this thread are not part of that problem. END

would appear to be a reasonable assumption, from the posts. 

That is probably what's keeping the thread civil. 8)


----------



## Tim Martens

Lou Castle said:


> Gregg Tawney said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the time the suspect lays there motionless. For a young dog this can be difficult. the odor of the suspect is different.
> 
> 
> 
> Just an aside, and I'm probably taking something out of context, but how is the odor of a stationary person different from that of a moving one? And in either case, how does this make it more difficult for a dog to bite?
Click to expand...

i'm sure you've heard about the chemicals secreted by the body in "fight or flight" situations or the "scent of fear". while a conscious, motionless suspect is still secreting these it is far less than if they were running or actively resisting. there was an interesting article i read a couple of years ago about quantities of signature odors. the article dealt with explosives. i forget the amount, but the people who did the research found that the signature odor of the explosive changed at a certain amount (it was like 2 kg) which explains why dogs who have only been trained with small amounts of drugs or explosives have a difficult time alerting on large quantities. i think this might be what gregg is talking about.

i believe what he meant to say was difficult for the dog was the motionless aspect and not necessarily the difference in odor.



Lou Castle said:


> A while back I spoke to Mr. England on the phone. Someone had told him that I'd said that he'd hung dogs off his tables. I wanted to let him know that I hadn't made that statement. He responded, "We've all done things in the past that we wouldn't do today." I took that as an admission that he had indeed hung dogs off his tables. Can anyone suggest what else he may have meant?


no i cannot suggest what else he may have meant as i didn't hear the ENTIRE conversation, but i can surely see the picture you are trying to paint.



Lou Castle said:


> Let's not ignore the obvious. The reason that most tables are built and kept indoors is so that abusive trainers can work unobserved.


this has been addressed. i don't think there is a need to call those people liars. there is a difference in the way the weather affects a plank versus a large piece of plywood that is parallel to the ground. warping is much more of a concern to a large piece of plywood. a jump window is made of plywood you say? ah yes, but it is upright and standing water pooling on top of it isn't a concern. you can see that can't you?


----------



## Woody Taylor

Tim Martens said:


> Lou Castle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not ignore the obvious. The reason that most tables are built and kept indoors is so that abusive trainers can work unobserved.
> 
> 
> 
> this has been addressed. i don't think there is a need to call those people liars. there is a difference in the way the weather affects a plank versus a large piece of plywood that is parallel to the ground. warping is much more of a concern to a large piece of plywood. a jump window is made of plywood you say? ah yes, but it is upright and standing water pooling on top of it isn't a concern. you can see that can't you?
Click to expand...

I guess I don't get this argument either, although I think Lou makes a great deal of sense everywhere else. I would think the majority of us have to be discrete about some of our training. Would any of you wear a bite suit, crack a whip, and take a bite from a friend's dog in your own front yard? My house is next to a school bus stop, I can tell you what would happen. Even describing how I establish leadership to regular folks (like I did last Wednesday) sounds rough. Lots of tools you all use "look" abusive. Tying out a dog to a post and agitating it would look very weird to me if I didn't know what I was seeing.

I understand where you are coming from on this, Lou, and table training (from what I have seen online) does look pretty medieval...but so do prongs...and ecollars sound very tough to many people (as you know better than me).

Anyways, great discussion! Keep going!


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Woody Taylor said:


> .......I understand where you are coming from on this, Lou, and table training (from what I have seen online) does look pretty medieval...but so do prongs...and ecollars sound very tough to many people (as you know better than me).
> 
> Anyways, great discussion! Keep going!


This reminds me (again) of how extremely difficult it was for me to round up videos of table training. I saw several of dogs who were strictly in *prey* drive, yes. But bringing out defense with table-training -- well, those videos were really few and far between. I see what Tim and Woody are saying about the valid reasons for tables being under cover (indoors), but what is the reason for the dearth of videos?

For example, are there videos of Gene England? I couldn't find any.

Several posters here and elsewhere have complained that people express opinions on the subject without having actually seen an expert do it, but I found out that it's not so easy to see an expert do it, not the way you can find videos of every other type of training.

This may have a strong reason behind it (like maybe Mr. England doesn't want amateurs to get all excited about it without having the skill or experience necessary?), but that's what I'm asking.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

*Re: Gene England*



> For the purpose of this discussion, would anyone mind if we limit the physical danger/benefits to the dog? I say this only becauuse I think everyone is well aware of the physical benefits to the human, and because this one aspect taints a lot of the opinions, I think...... the idea that the table is meant to benefit the human who might have back problems or maybe a little extra weight, and that maybe it's at the expense of the dog's safety.
> 
> With that in mind, what is the physical-risk benefit to the dog (you mention both decoy *and* dog)?


Hi Connie

Height = power simplistic, but accurate. dogs feel more powerfull when
they can look the decoy (or another dog) in the eye. or look down on him Of course you have
to allow for familiarization to the new environment. The table limits the
dogs movement and options. Of course if you put the dog in defense and
don't give it the option of flight, you can easily ruin a dog. Of the hours of
high table work I saw Gene do, over two seminars. There was NO/ZERO
defense work done



> There seem to be very very few recent (and even not-recent) videos available (which seems to fuel the idea of secrecy), but I did watch some, and I saw only one low (2') table.
> 
> What is the reality? Has the low table (obviously far less risky to the dog) taken over?


The reality unfortunately, is very few people do table work anymore and
even fewer do it right :-(



> I quote the same well-known PPD trainer here:
> QUOTE: The theory of table training was to bring out defense, usually in a dog that wouldn't/ couldn't show defense at ground level (because it wasn't feeling threatened enough). END QUOTE


That maybe the way PPD trainers use it, but it sure the He11, ian'r the
way Gene uses it 



> When you say "The dog's perspective is different," does that mean that yes, the table (the height) is meant to make the dog feel more threatened or stressed than on the ground?


NO the exact opposite 



> If not, then what is the different perspective's advantage?\


See above


----------



## Lou Castle

Earlier I wrote: . . . how is the odor of a stationary person different from that of a moving one? And in either case, how does this make it more difficult for a dog to bite? 



Tim Martens said:


> i'm sure you've heard about the chemicals secreted by the body in "fight or flight" situations or the "scent of fear". while a conscious, motionless suspect is still secreting these it is far less than if they were running or actively resisting.


The byproducts and breakdown products of those chemicals are still present. I'd challenge anyone to show that they've diminished by any significant amount and even if they have that this diminishment affects the dog's scenting ability or their ability to detect it in the slightest. Dogs can pick this up from very long distances away. I've seen dogs respond "harder" in a 50,000' sq building if someone is present, even though they're hiding motionless. 

Can I get a response from the person who made the statement please? 



Tim Martens said:


> there was an interesting article i read a couple of years ago about quantities of signature odors. the article dealt with explosives. i forget the amount, but the people who did the research found that the signature odor of the explosive changed at a certain amount (it was like 2 kg) which explains why dogs who have only been trained with small amounts of drugs or explosives have a difficult time alerting on large quantities. i think this might be what gregg is talking about.


At least one researcher, Fulton (I think it was Fulton) thinks that this is the case with human scent as well (not just fear scent). He proposes that there's something going on *besides quantitatively *with HRD (human remains detection). He's found that dogs trained on small amounts of HRD don't respond to the same to an intact human body. Sometimes they walk the scent completely with no body changes at all. 

Dogs are capable of finding people who aren't emitting fear scent so I wouldn't think this is a significant difference. 



Tim Martens said:


> i believe what he meant to say was difficult for the dog was the motionless aspect and not necessarily the difference in odor.


I think so too but want to be sure. 

Earlier I wrote: Let's not ignore the obvious. The reason that most tables are built and kept indoors is so that abusive trainers can work unobserved.



Tim Martens said:


> this has been addressed. i don't think there is a need to call those people liars.


I didn't call anyone a liar. What is going on with you that you think that anyone that I disagree with I'm calling a liar? 

I disagree with them and since I know that tables can be used for just about the worst kind of abuse possible in the name of dog training, I think they're wrong. 



Tim Martens said:


> there is a difference in the way the weather affects a plank versus a large piece of plywood that is parallel to the ground. warping is much more of a concern to a large piece of plywood.


Sort of like the top of a cat walk? Using marine plywood and then sealing and painting it completely eliminates any problems with warping. 



Tim Martens said:


> a jump window is made of plywood you say? ah yes, but it is upright and standing water pooling on top of it isn't a concern. you can see that can't you?


The edges of a piece of plywood are the real problem as far as rain and it's the edges of the plywood in a window jump where the water pools. But many people have built completely new structures just to house their tables. This seems a bit extreme if the only reason to do so is to protect it from the weather. Seems pretty cost *IN*effective to me. This strikes me as some pretty weak reasoning. 

Ever seen any "Table Training videos" available for sale? 



Woody Taylor said:


> I would think the majority of us have to be discrete about some of our training. Would any of you wear a bite suit, crack a whip, and take a bite from a friend's dog in your own front yard?


Most of my training work was done in public parks in the town where I used to work and neighboring cities as well, when we'd train with outside agencies. We'd often draw a crowd. One particular park was in a residential neighborhood and we'd get people come out on their porches and sit in their swings and chairs and watch. When we stopped going there (we found a super location to train in) we got calls asking us to come back. Nowadays many of my seminars are done in public. Even the LE ones occasionally have civilian visitors. I don't have a problem doing any of the things you mention. My front yard is kinda small though and training there might interfere with traffic. LOL. I'm not one to care very much what the public thinks. If they have questions or complaints I'll be glad to address them. 




Woody Taylor said:


> table training (from what I have seen online) does look pretty medieval...but so do prongs...and ecollars sound very tough to many people


I use both prong collars and Ecollars in public just about every day. I don't think that there's any need to hide any legitimate training from the public. I still maintain that those who abuse dogs on tables do it indoors so the public can't see it and that's why there are few tables built outdoors. 

I think the "protection from weather" argument is groundless and weak. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> Of the hours of high table work I saw Gene do, over two seminars. There was NO/ZERO defense work done


****** mod edit**********



Thomas Barriano said:


> That maybe the way PPD trainers use it, but it sure the He11, ian'r the way Gene uses it


You mean that you didn't see it at the seminars you attended. Based on his statement to me, I doubt that he's doing it any more.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Thomas Barriano said:


> I was fortunate enough to attend two workshops with Gene England.


A while back I spoke to Mr. England on the phone. Someone had told him that I'd said that he'd hung dogs off his tables. I wanted to let him know that I hadn't made that statement. He responded, "We've all done things in the past that we wouldn't do today." I took that as an admission that he had indeed hung dogs off his tables. Can anyone suggest what else he may have meant?

Well I guess civility is losing ground :-( 
I would suggest that when Gene has the courtesy to converse with a stranger (you) on the phone, that you npt take his general comments
out of context and attempt to "prove" a point. Gene is a good old boy
who says what he means. IF he had meant to admit that he had hung
dogs off of tables. That is exactly what he would have said.. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> The reason tables are usually found in buildings (not out in the open) isn't because anyone is trying to hide anything, it is because a good table is hard to build and not exactly portable. It isn't something you can drag out to the training field or that you'd want to leave out in the weather ot rust and warp.


I find it rather odd that most agility obstacles are made of wood, they're not very portable and aren't something that can be "dragged out to the training field" at least not without a lot of work' yet they're typically left outside. Some have lasted for decades. Most houses in the US are built of wood and some have managed to survive for a couple of centuries. It's amazing what a little paint and some occasional maintenance will do to prevent "rusting and warping!" 

Let's not ignore the obvious. The reason that most tables are built and kept indoors is so that abusive trainers can work unobserved.[/quote



ARRGGG. Very few Schutzhund clubs I train at, have their own field.
Well built tables are heavy. You can believe what ever you want.


----------



## Tim Martens

wow. you must have a pretty wide catwalk. ours is only about 16 inches wide. tables for training are about what? 6 feet wide? like i said, you must have a pretty wide catwalk to compare it to that...

don't try to hide behind semantics. people here who use tables have given you their reasons for not keeping their tables outside and you continually come back with your "you don't want the public to see you abuse the dogs" rhetoric. while you may not have used the word "liar", you continue to not believe the reasons they give and pipe back your reasons. that isn't a disagreement. you choose to believe they aren't telling the truth. thus a defacto lie.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

*Adios*



Thomas Barriano said:


> Of the hours of high table work I saw Gene do, over two seminars. There was NO/ZERO defense work done


If I was abusing dogs on a table I wouldn't show it at a seminar either. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> That maybe the way PPD trainers use it, but it sure the He11, ian'r the way Gene uses it


You mean that you didn't see it at the seminars you attended. Based on his statement to me, I doubt that he's doing it any more.[/quote]

List members and owners

I have better things to do, than enter in another useless discussion with
****MOD EDIT***...throttle it down...[/Woody]*. Gene England has trained more Police and sport
dogs (to V scores) than Mr. Castle has seen. If this board allows such 
personal attacks on someone who isn't on the list? I don't want any part of it. I also have dogs to train.


----------



## Woody Taylor

Lou, let's back off the conjecture on what Gene England may have once done. 

Thomas, I do not like you using those words to describe Lou Castle. I understand the context and it won't be tolerated on the board.

Let's get it back on track, okay?


----------



## Tim Martens

Woody Taylor said:


> Let's get it back on track, okay?


pretty hard to do with lou. with him it's his way only and everyone else that does something different is doing it wrong AND abusing their dogs. sadly he's turned off another member.

don't judge all of us by lou thomas. i hope you continue to post here...


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

Glad to see we can continue a nice discussion :roll:

Personal attacks are not tollerated at all, unfortunately sometimes mods can't step in fast enough. There's nothing I hate more than locking a thread, so I'm gonna start quoting forum rules for y'all instead 



> 2. All users must be courteous and truthful to others, personal attacks are not tollerated.





> If you disagree with someone because you feel the information they are offering is entirely wrong and/or dangerous advice, then contact a Moderator or the Admin -- if you find that it is a personal difference of opinion, leave it alone and move on to the next topic!! A friendly debate is fine, but when it turns into a \"I'm Right and You're Wrong\" argument the forum becomes less enjoyable for everyone.


This is not aimed at anyone in particular, just a friendly reminder to all to keep personal comments to PM's. I wonder what Gene England would say if he were to read what everyone claims he says or does....

So like Woody said, tone it down a notch and get back to the way this thread was going a few hours ago  Thanks guys!


----------



## Woody Taylor

Tim Martens said:


> Woody Taylor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's get it back on track, okay?
> 
> 
> 
> pretty hard to do with lou. with him it's his way only and everyone else that does something different is doing it wrong AND abusing their dogs. sadly he's turned off another member.
> 
> don't judge all of us by lou thomas. i hope you continue to post here...
Click to expand...

Folks, it sucks (personal feeling here) when we post things about the boards on the boards. Particularly broad categorizations about people. Take it to the Ask A Moderator forum or PM one of us. Lou's fine, you're fine, Thomas is fine, this is an internet chatroom. Let's just make it a good one. Talking about what one member must be in the context of a thread brings things to a roaring halt...it's a non-sequitur...focus on the thread.

I haven't noticed anything about Lou I don't notice with any of you...passionate and confident in his beliefs. Lou is pretty good with dry humor and nuance, I have to admit.

This is a passionate subject and we can discuss it maturely. It's very obvious to me that there are two schools of thought presented in this thread. One views table training use as acceptable and humane. My guess is they've had good experience with their own dogs on the table. Another views table training as at best unnecessary and historically (in many cases) abusive. This sets up an interesting dynamic, but let's work through it.


----------



## Lou Castle

Thomas Barriano said:


> Gene is a good old boy who says what he means. IF he had meant to admit that he had hung dogs off of tables. That is exactly what he would have said..



****MOD EDIT***...the Gene England speculation will stop. On both sides. Thanks. Give him a call to come over and talk...we need the dues! :lol:[/Woody]*



Thomas Barriano said:


> ARRGGG. Very few Schutzhund clubs I train at, have their own field. Well built tables are heavy.


I bet you know of at least a couple of clubs or kennels that have their own facility or field where they keep agility equipment out in the open. How many do you know of that have a table out in the open? 

Remember Mr. Leigh's comment? It was (to the effect) "Soon after (he) first saw table training (he'd) erected a building to house (his) tables." Seems to me that if he was so excited about getting started with the work that *first *he'd build the tables so that he could use them. He'd keep them covered to protect them from weather until he could build his room for them. But that's not what he did. FIRST he put up the building and THEN he built the tables. The only reason I can see for that is to keep the public from seeing what he's doing. Can someone suggest something else? 



Thomas Barriano said:


> You can believe what ever you want.


I notice that you haven't address either my or Connie's questions about the rather complete absence of commercially available videos for table training. Neither has anyone else. With videos addressing all sorts of dog training these days I wonder why no one has been able to find any? 



Tim Martens said:


> wow. you must have a pretty wide catwalk. ours is only about 16 inches wide.


Actually 16" is pretty wide. The ones I've used are only 12" But I fail to see what this has to do with this conversation. 



Tim Martens said:


> tables for training are about what? 6 feet wide? like i said, you must have a pretty wide catwalk to compare it to that.


I still fail to see what the width of a catwalk has to do with this discussion. And I've not seen tables used for agitation that are 6' wide. the ones I've seen are about 4' square (2' on a side) and about 3'-4' in diameter. There's *less *area than on a 10' long catwalk. 



Tim Martens said:


> don't try to hide behind semantics.


I don't hide behind anything. 



Tim Martens said:


> people here who use tables have given you their reasons for not keeping their tables outside and you continually come back with your "you don't want the public to see you abuse the dogs" rhetoric.


I've never discussed *anyone here *who uses tables. If you'd been paying attention I specifically *exempted *people on this list as anyone who is abusing dogs on tables. Connie even commented on that fact in one of her posts. 



Tim Martens said:


> while you may not have used the word "liar", you continue to not believe the reasons they give


Since I'm not accusing them of any abuse and there isn't anyone here who will say that they abuse dogs on their tables, their comments don't apply. 



Tim Martens said:


> you choose to believe they aren't telling the truth. thus a defacto lie.


Now who's playing games with semantics? As has been pointed out a couple of times my comments are *NOT *addressed to anyone here. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> List members and owners. I have better things to do, than enter in another useless discussion with ****MOD EDIT***...throttle it down..*.


I wonder why it is that some folks are incapable of controlling their emotions? Or is it that they're unwilling? 



Thomas Barriano said:


> Gene England has trained more Police and sport dogs (to V scores) than Mr. Castle has seen.


****MOD EDIT***[/Woody]*


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Test post. Ignore.


----------



## Tim Martens

if you don't know that the larger the surface area of the wood the more it is prone to warp and the more noticeable it is, then you need to go back to woodshop...

your comments are not directed at anyone here? in the other thread you stated that the only reason to "hide" table training was due to some "untoward" methods. then in this thread you repeatedly ask PEOPLE HERE why their tables aren't in the open. you mentioned deductive reasoning? it's not hard to see what you are implying about PEOPLE HERE.

is it that hard for you to say something like "some people have probably misused the tool in the past and may still be misusing it, but if these non-hanging methods are yielding good results, have at it"? it is possible that there are people out there that get good results using methods that differ from your own.


----------



## Al Curbow

Can some of the people on this board that use a table for training make a video then post it? Then all of us people that never seen it done can get a better idea of what the deal is and form our own opinions, hopefully you guys can post more than one so we can see different techniques.
AL


----------



## Tim Martens

probably won't happen al. they will probably continue to keep their methods shrouded in secrecy to keep their abusive methods out of the public eye :roll:


----------



## Woody Taylor

Tim Martens said:


> probably won't happen al. they will probably continue to keep their methods shrouded in secrecy to keep their abusive methods out of the public eye :roll:


I think it's a great suggestion and I would ask that someone take up Al on his request. We dont' have a lot of reference points. Might be informative.


----------



## Tim Martens

Woody Taylor said:


> Tim Martens said:
> 
> 
> 
> probably won't happen al. they will probably continue to keep their methods shrouded in secrecy to keep their abusive methods out of the public eye :roll:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's a great suggestion and I would ask that someone take up Al on his request. We dont' have a lot of reference points. Might be informative.
Click to expand...

yeah, actually gregg asked me about doing a video of his table training. the next time i make it up to his neck of the woods, i'll see if i can get some video...


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

I love the "cleaning up the out" part. Maybe if they knew how to teach it in the first place................. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: 

Don't worry, I think everyone here should put their dog on a table. That way you can learn just how foolish you really are.

You will either think "lazy decoy" or "WTF" are you doing to my dog?

Go ahead and try it, after all nothing can go wrong according to the experts. I figure if you have the balls to ask, you should have the balls to put your dog up on the table and see what is up. Why listen to people that have seen the negative side affects??? I say go ahead, just knock it on Roy.

Thomas, good to see you here. However, if I stare at a dog, what drive am I most likely to elicit??????????? HOW DARE YOU!!!! That is right it is defence. Staring is a challenge buddy. A confident dog just stares back. 

I broke a lot of dogs figuring this out. Just trying to help out.


----------



## Woody Taylor

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Thomas, good to see you here. However, if I stare at a dog, what drive am I most likely to elicit??????????? HOW DARE YOU!!!! That is right it is defence. Staring is a challenge buddy. A confident dog just stares back.


Now that I think about it...Jerry opened this thread calling it a "defense table." Why is it called that?


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Woody Taylor said:


> Jeff Oehlsen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas, good to see you here. However, if I stare at a dog, what drive am I most likely to elicit??????????? HOW DARE YOU!!!! That is right it is defence. Staring is a challenge buddy. A confident dog just stares back.
> 
> 
> 
> Now that I think about it...Jerry opened this thread calling it a "defense table." Why is it called that?
Click to expand...

The defense table was called that because it was developed to elicit defense, usually in a dog that wouldn't/couldn't show defense at ground level (because it wasn't feeling threatened enough).


----------



## Bob Scott

Connie Sutherland said:


> Woody Taylor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Oehlsen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas, good to see you here. However, if I stare at a dog, what drive am I most likely to elicit??????????? HOW DARE YOU!!!! That is right it is defence. Staring is a challenge buddy. A confident dog just stares back.
> 
> 
> 
> Now that I think about it...Jerry opened this thread calling it a "defense table." Why is it called that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The defense table was called that because it was developed to elicit defense, usually in a dog that wouldn't/couldn't show defense at ground level (because it wasn't feeling threatened enough).
Click to expand...

Why would a dog feel MORE threatened if it is closer in height to the trainer? 
I would think it would feel more threatened on the ground, lower then the trainer.


----------



## Woody Taylor

Connie Sutherland said:


> Woody Taylor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff Oehlsen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas, good to see you here. However, if I stare at a dog, what drive am I most likely to elicit??????????? HOW DARE YOU!!!! That is right it is defence. Staring is a challenge buddy. A confident dog just stares back.
> 
> 
> 
> Now that I think about it...Jerry opened this thread calling it a "defense table." Why is it called that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The defense table was called that because it was developed to elicit defense, usually in a dog that wouldn't/couldn't show defense at ground level (because it wasn't feeling threatened enough).
Click to expand...

Q.E.D. So why all the talk about working these dogs in prey, making them feel superior, etc.? This is what I don't understand.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Woody Taylor said:


> ....Now that I think about it...Jerry opened this thread calling it a "defense table." Why is it called that?


The defense table was called that because it was developed to elicit defense, usually in a dog that wouldn't/couldn't show defense at ground level (because it wasn't feeling threatened enough).[/quote]

Q.E.D. So why all the talk about working these dogs in prey, making them feel superior, etc.? This is what I don't understand.[/quote]

Apparently other uses for it have developed since its original use, and after following this thread closely today, I now believe that there are people who have not seen it used for the purpose for which it was created, and therefore do not understand the distaste the mention of it causes in people who *have.*

This is JMO, after (as I said) watching the videos I was able to gather up a couple of weeks ago with a couple of trainers who showed me both the "defense table" use of the table and then the "doggies in prey playing on the table" use which I guess is what some people have seen exclusively. 

And maybe the old, original use has been phased out....?


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Bob Scott said:


> ....Why would a dog feel MORE threatened if it is closer in height to the trainer? ....I would think it would feel more threatened on the ground, lower then the trainer.


Because the dog is on a table (not 2' high, either) with no place to go but over the side. Given a choice, if the dog would retreat, where does he retreat to on a table? Trapped.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

But again, it appears that there are other uses for the "defense table" and that there are a number of people who have seen only those uses.

I am starting to understand the divide now.


----------



## Lou Castle

Tim Martens said:


> if you don't know that the larger the surface area of the wood the more it is prone to warp and the more noticeable it is, then you need to go back to woodshop.


Still unable to stay away from the personal attacks I see. No trip to woodshop will be necessary. Especially since the table used for agitation, at least the ones that I've seen, are *smaller *than any catwalk I've ever seen. That would make them *less *likely to warp, wouldn't it? 



Tim Martens said:


> your comments are not directed at anyone here? in the other thread you stated that the only reason to "hide" table training was due to some "untoward" methods. then in this thread you repeatedly ask PEOPLE HERE why their tables aren't in the open.


Tim you really need to learn to read more carefully. I never asked *WHY *their tables aren't in the open. I asked *IF *their tables are in the open. It's obvious that you can't see the difference. No one ever responded that I saw anyway. 



Tim Martens said:


> is it that hard for you to say something like "some people have probably misused the tool in the past and may still be misusing it, but if these non-hanging methods are yielding good results, have at it"?


I said just that in the other thread on table training. That thread seems to have been deleted. 



Tim Martens said:


> it is possible that there are people out there that get good results using methods that differ from your own.


No, that's absolutely impossible. 

Didn't you say in another thread that you weren't going to be responding to my posts any more? I wish you'd keep your word since you don't seem capable of anything but ad hominem attacks.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

QUOTE: I said just that in the other thread on table training. That thread seems to have been deleted. END

No table-training thread has been deleted that I know of. 

There were comments deleted on today's thread -- and that's it.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Connie Sutherland said:


> QUOTE: I said just that in the other thread on table training. That thread seems to have been deleted. END
> 
> No table-training thread has been deleted that I know of.
> 
> There were comments deleted on today's thread -- and that's it.



Here is the other thread on table-training:

http://www.workingdogforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=672&highlight=


----------



## Lou Castle

Connie Sutherland said:


> No table-training thread has been deleted that I know of.


Quite right Connie. I did a search for the starting author's name and it didn't turn up. I now realize that I put his name into the wrong box of the search engine. DUH! 

In any case, in that thread I wrote, "Like any tool it can be used properly or it can be abused."


----------



## Andres Martin

Much ado about nothing. 6 pages worth. Some of the posts are loooooooong due to quoting, and deriding the quote. That style is confrontational and personal. And unnecessary. I don´t post at the leerburg board any more because of that exact style.

I really like this board because of it´s easygoing style. Please don´t mess with that, by answering posts in "defense" or in a condescending way. It might be entertaining to some folks, but by and large, it does not stimulate diversity.

Let´s work hard to make a good thing great. I think we should strongly promote diversity by arguing the issue HARD, while being soft on the people.


----------



## Woody Taylor

Andres Martin said:


> Much ado about nothing. 6 pages worth. Some of the posts are loooooooong due to quoting, and deriding the quote. That style is confrontational and personal. And unnecessary. I don´t post at *Board X* any more because of that exact style.


I don't think it's 6 pages of nothing. I think it's natural for threads to degenerate over time...probably the best indication of this is whether the original poster and other folks are still involved. They're not. So it may make sense for them to weigh in at this point. I will agree that the personal attacks are unnecessary...and that they are happening on both sides...but this is a pretty contentious issue that is, overall, being handled well and shedding insights...that would have been shut down at other board sites. 



> I really like this board because of it´s easygoing style. Please don´t mess with that, by answering posts in "defense" or in a condescending way. It might be entertaining to some folks, but by and large, it does not stimulate diversity. Let´s work hard to make a good thing great. I think we should strongly promote diversity by arguing the issue HARD, while being soft on the people.


I agree 100%. Thanks for this post. Now...enough of the board talk about the boards! Back to mesa training.


----------



## Andres Martin

Howdy Woody,

I mean "much ado about nothing" because table training is NO BIG DEAL. Sure it stresses a marginal dog more than if he´s on solid ground...but that´s it. With care, you´ll just develop whatever he´s got. If he´s got nothing but friendliness or insecurity, and he´s pressured on a table, on a back tie, or wherever...he´ll move between shutdown and avoidance...and may bite, but you´ll smell it because the anal glands blow, etc. etc. and he won´t bite at a long distance. Note that the same will happen if you back tie that dog, or tie him up on the bed of your pick up truck. He´ll be wanting to flee. That dog should learn OBEDIENCE and PERHAPS an alert...and be a well socialized an well loved PET.

If you´re working a GOOD dog, a table won´t phase him at all. Many dogs will bite on a roof top, in a dark and restricted closet, in a drainage pipe, in an attic, in water, etc. and those situations are FAR MORE STRESSFUL than a simple table.

People that use tables don´t use tables exclusively. And those that don´t use them well, don´t use them for long. Their customers get really pissed off, spread the word, and business declines.

Tables CAN develop intensity and harder bites...in spite of a mediocre decoy AND handler. They are simply EQUIPMENT.

Testing a police dog candidate...is done on a back tie, where movement is restricted, and a strong attempt is made to cause avoidance in the evaluee. Many, many don´t make the grade...and it´s not abusive...The dog gets built back up...and the owner gets an explanation regarding how to continue that dog´s career.

If a half assed trainer chooses to include a table as one of the chapters of a particular dog´s schooling curriculum, HE WILL NEVER ALLOW THAT DOG TO STRESS TO FULL AVOIDANCE as in a Police test. It takes TOO LONG and is not cost effective to turn that around and return a "trained dog" back to it´s owner.

Decoying a dog on a table is note NECESSARILY a lazy way to train...because decoying in training is not ALWAYS exhausting. Many times decoys must teach passive subject bites...and when doing that decoys don´t move (much) at all.

It´s only lazy if the (bad) trainer uses a table as a shortcut to get a dog to bite because it can´t flee, and must fight. More people do that with dogs on the ground than on tables. More people screw dogs up by applying undue pressure at the wrong time on the ground.

Tables cost money...and few people will invest money if they can´t get their investment´s worth. A leash and a tree are far cheaper.

And finally, unscrupulous trainers try to get "high" performance from "working" dogs by stressing them, regardless of what the DOG REALLY IS. This is primarily a money issue. Trainers in cahoots with breeders sometimes. In other words...BALANCED DOGS ARE HARD TO FIND. And titles don´t make it any easier.

Ooops, I lied. THIS is "FINALLY"...the cookie cutter approach to dog bite training is as follows: Teach a pup to bite a moving and jerking rag, reward him with the rag, change up the bite surfaces, increase opposition while strengthening the bite and the entry, include control, and optionally introduce defensive and fighting bites. This is easy to teach TO PEOPLE and easy to perform on a dog. It´s cookie cutter because it works. It takes NO experience or subtlety. It works for most everyone. It´s tiring because the decoy and handler need to run around with the dog either chasing the prey item, or parading the prey item around. It´s a method for everyone..."G" rated. Tables are not for everyone, just as race horses, automatic guns, parachuting, are not for everyone. But the people that can have fun and do well with them, can EASILY do the "G" rated stuff.


----------



## Jerry Lyda

Andres Martin
When are you coming to Ga?  

Woody, I started the post and haven't posted to much on it but have found out everything that I have asked by I think everyone. It has been great. I think we have a lot of mature people on this board and they have been great. I'm glad that I can be a part of this board with such good people. I would be proud to invite you and your dog(s) as well as anyone else that would like to come and play with us.
Now just because I'm satisfied with what I was looking for in starting this please don't stop posting. It's been a great discussion and I'm looking forward to hear more. ( Everyone, be nice and I know you all will.)


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Jerry Lyda said:


> Andres Martin
> When are you coming to Ga?
> 
> Woody, I started the post and haven't posted to much on it but have found out everything that I have asked by I think everyone. It has been great. I think we have a lot of mature people on this board and they have been great. I'm glad that I can be a part of this board with such good people. I would be proud to invite you and your dog(s) as well as anyone else that would like to come and play with us.
> Now just because I'm satisfied with what I was looking for in starting this please don't stop posting. It's been a great discussion and I'm looking forward to hear more. ( Everyone, be nice and I know you all will.)


Jerry, I have to agree with you about the thread. I finally figured out the huge and passionate divide between the schools of thought about the subject. 

Excellent thread -- AND it did not have to be locked! \/ \/ \/


----------



## Thomas Barriano

*Video*

several people asked for videos of table training. I posted a pointer to a site with twelve examples and an opinion of why there weren't more.
It seems to have gottten deleted? Am I missing something here?


----------



## Woody Taylor

*Re: Video*



Thomas Barriano said:


> several people asked for videos of table training. I posted a pointer to a site with twelve examples and an opinion of why there weren't more.
> It seems to have gottten deleted? Am I missing something here?


If you are referring to the prokeys website, that user was banned. Please refer to the explanation the owner of this website gave in the thread Steve initiated a few days ago:

http://www.workingdogforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=672&start=20

PM me or post a question in "Ask A Moderator" if you have any concerns. Thanks!


----------



## Connie Sutherland

I'd like very much to see more videos too: recent ones, especially, made by some other trainers. They're *very* hard to find.

Thomas, you've been to Mr. England's seminars. Do you know how I can purchase videos? I Googled, but failed.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

*Re: Video*



Woody Taylor said:


> Thomas Barriano said:
> 
> 
> 
> several people asked for videos of table training. I posted a pointer to a site with twelve examples and an opinion of why there weren't more.
> It seems to have gottten deleted? Am I missing something here?
> 
> 
> 
> If you are referring to the prokeys website, that user was banned. Please refer to the explanation the owner of this website gave in the thread Steve initiated a few days ago:
> 
> http://www.workingdogforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=672&start=20
> 
> PM me or post a question in "Ask A Moderator" if you have any concerns. Thanks!
Click to expand...

Hi 'Woody,

Thanks for the pointer. It is too bad Steve Leigh was banned. He has the
only table training videos, I am aware of posted on the web. Like him or
not (I happen to like him) Steve is one of the most knowledgable table
traners around, next to Gene England.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

<<< next to Gene England. >>>>>

If anyone knows how to get a video of Mr. England's training, the info would be welcome!


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Connie Sutherland said:


> I'd like very much to see more videos too: recent ones, especially, made by some other trainers. They're *very* hard to find.
> 
> Thomas, you've been to Mr. England's seminars. Do you know how I can purchase videos? I Googled, but failed.


HI Connie

I am not aware of any table trianing videos available anywhere :-(
It is really too bad, that a very effective training tool, has gotten such a 
bad reputation. I believe because of miss informantion and unwarrranted
hype and hysteria.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Thomas Barriano said:


> Connie Sutherland said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like very much to see more videos too: recent ones, especially, made by some other trainers. They're *very* hard to find.
> 
> Thomas, you've been to Mr. England's seminars. Do you know how I can purchase videos? I Googled, but failed.
> 
> 
> 
> HI Connie
> 
> I am not aware of any table trianing videos available anywhere :-(
> It is really too bad, that a very effective training tool, has gotten such a
> bad reputation. I believe because of miss informantion and unwarrranted
> hype and hysteria.
Click to expand...

OK, thanks. 

Maybe some good videos (recent ones) would be a reputation aid.


----------



## Tim Martens

everyone seems to say that table training takes an experienced decoy who really knows how to read a dog. maybe that is why you don't see many videos. maybe they don't want some n00b trying to do it without the proper skills which just about everyone agrees can majorly set a dog back...


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Tim Martens said:


> everyone seems to say that table training takes an experienced decoy who really knows how to read a dog. maybe that is why you don't see many videos. maybe they don't want some n00b trying to do it without the proper skills which just about everyone agrees can majorly set a dog back...


Actually, Tim, I DID hear exactly that about Gene England. I don't know whether it's true, but I did hear or read that -- that he thinks it's a bad idea for average trainers to attempt and that that's why he produces no videos.

I've never heard of such care taken in the production of videos of any other training method or tool..... so if that's the case, I must say that I'm impressed.


----------



## Lou Castle

Connie Sutherland said:


> Actually, Tim, I DID hear exactly that about Gene England. I don't know whether it's true, but I did hear or read that -- that he thinks it's a bad idea for average trainers to attempt and that that's why he produces no videos.


The problem with this attitude is that _someone _sooner or later will produce a video on table training. They probably won't be as skilled as Mr. England so what will be shown will be lower quality work than can be done. I think it would be best to show the best possible work, rather than show nothing. 

This is the danger of a free society. People will misuse or abuse tools often without meaning to; especially if there's a vacuum of information about them. 

Any tool can be misused. Any tool can be abused. No tool is idiot-proof to the right idiot.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Lou Castle said:


> .... _someone _sooner or later will produce a video on table training. They probably won't be as skilled as Mr. England so what will be shown will be lower quality work than can be done. I think it would be best to show the best possible work, rather than show nothing......


Good point.


----------



## Woody Taylor

Tim Martens said:


> everyone seems to say that table training takes an experienced decoy who really knows how to read a dog. maybe that is why you don't see many videos. maybe they don't want some n00b trying to do it without the proper skills which just about everyone agrees can majorly set a dog back...


I guess I just find this hard to believe (this is not a knock on you, Tim). Think of all the crap you can buy now...books on Amazon called "Manstopper," etc and videos/DVDs that explicitly show PPD training. Unless table training is exponentially more dangerous to a user and a dog than anything I could buy on Amazon or Leerburg, etc. I don't buy that rationale. Bottom line is everything is filmed these days. Production costs are too cheap for there not to be some underground tapes, if nothing else. We've all seen the dog fighting stuff (I'm not equating table training with dog fighting)...it just exists.

I would understand if there are trainers out there (like Gene England, who I know next to nothing about) who wouldn't do a video for fear of abuse. If I were a dog equipment distributor, I'd have my own reservations about selling this kind of stuff to anyone off the street. I just don't believe that all trainers or all distributors or all table enthusiasts would have reservations about putting together media about table training beyond snap shots of prey-play activity that we have seen to date.


----------



## Kristen Cabe

> It is too bad Steve Leigh was banned. He has the
> only table training videos, I am aware of posted on the web.


This may be true, but his vids are more than a decade old, as are the rest of his dog training days. This is not a 'stab' at him or his reputation, just sharing of information as told to me personally by Mr. Leigh.


----------



## Stacia Porter

*Re: Video*



Thomas Barriano said:


> Thanks for the pointer. It is too bad Steve Leigh was banned. He has the
> only table training videos, I am aware of posted on the web. Like him or
> not (I happen to like him) Steve is one of the most knowledgable table
> traners around, next to Gene England.


Well if he is so very knowledgeable on the subject, he sure does a wonderful job of turning others off the idea with his website and his pedantic postings on various web boards and message lists.

I don't like the idea of a table. I see too many opportunities for ruining a dog or injuring it with one. Now if said dog were off leash on a low table training for PPD work, I would have no problem (as in Jose's dogs, who train on all sorts of terrain). In othher words, as long as the dog can get off the table I wouldn't see an issue. But tying a dog to a pole in the middle of a small table? And can someone please explain to me how you "clean up the out" on a table? That makes zero sense to me.

And Andres, this is 6 pages of good discussion. The point of debate is learning. If we all sat back and said, "We agree to disagree and never talk about this topic again" it would benefit no one. There is value in analyzing a subject from all sides, making an effort to understand other view points, and challenging belief systems. It's great that those of you who support hte table like it. But why? And where do you use them? And how? And where are your videos of it? Help the rest of us to understand why you believe table training is a valuable resource in your bag o'training tricks.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

*Lost art form?*



Kristen Cabe said:


> It is too bad Steve Leigh was banned. He has the
> only table training videos, I am aware of posted on the web.
> 
> 
> 
> This may be true, but his vids are more than a decade old, as are the rest of his dog training days. This is not a 'stab' at him or his reputation, just sharing of information as told to me personally by Mr. Leigh.
Click to expand...

HI Kristen

That's true and unfortunate. Steve doesn't activlely train and I understand
Gene England spends more time doing Real Estate then dog training
anymore :-(
There are a couple of posters that use tables and seem to understand
the advantages and dangers. Hopefully they will share more of their
experiences. Maybe shoot some video?
I doubt if there will ever be an instructional video on table training.
Not enough of a potential customer base and too much information and
nuance to try to cover in one video.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

*Re: Video*



Stacia Porter said:


> Thomas Barriano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the pointer. It is too bad Steve Leigh was banned. He has the
> only table training videos, I am aware of posted on the web. Like him or
> not (I happen to like him) Steve is one of the most knowledgable table
> traners around, next to Gene England.
> 
> 
> 
> Well if he is so very knowledgeable on the subject, he sure does a wonderful job of turning others off the idea with his website and his pedantic postings on various web boards and message lists.
> 
> >Stacia
> 
> >You are certianly entitled to your opinion. Many people find Steves
> >webiste and posts both entertainiing and informative. Many of us have
> >also been victimized by the same tactics used against Steve. Since >the .moderators have choosen to ban him. It isn't reallly fair to "attack" >him?
> 
> I don't like the idea of a table. I see too many opportunities for ruining a dog or injuring it with one. Now if said dog were off leash on a low table training for PPD work, I would have no problem (as in Jose's dogs, who train on all sorts of terrain). In othher words, as long as the dog can get off the table I wouldn't see an issue. But tying a dog to a pole in the middle of a small table? And can someone please explain to me how you "clean up the out" on a table? That makes zero sense to me.
> 
> >What is your background in Schutzhund or protection sport? Having a >dog loose on the table defeats the purpose of restricting its options. Bad >training ruins dogs NOT tables. Dogs can't be injured on a properly
> >designed table with a funtional swivel and a proper length chain and a
> >collar (There are designs/plans on Steves website)
> >Cleaning up the Out: There are several ways to use a table for the out.
> >You can go passive (like Ivan Balabanov) so the dog gets no movement >and the dog outs and can then get rewarded. You can have a separate
> >prong or nylon choke collar that you can use to get an opostion reflex
> >You pull the dog towards you and the sleeve, the dog will pull in the >opposite reaction, the dog outs and you mark and reward. You can place
> >the collar to get a gag reflex and the dog will spit out the sleeve. The
> >big advantage is, the dogs reach is limited and he can't regrip and self >reward. If you want to blast the dog off the sleeve with a prong or >ecollar?
> >You sure don't need a table to do that.
> 
> And Andres, this is 6 pages of good discussion. The point of debate is learning. If we all sat back and said, "We agree to disagree and never talk about this topic again" it would benefit no one. There is value in analyzing a subject from all sides, making an effort to understand other view points, and challenging belief systems. It's great that those of you who support hte table like it. But why? And where do you use them? And how? And where are your videos of it? Help the rest of us to understand why you believe table training is a valuable resource in your bag o'training tricks.
Click to expand...

>I agree that the point of debate is learning, but your initial commnet was
>"I don't like the idea of a table" how open are you to learning about >table trainng ? I'm sorry, but I see way too many people who have zero
>experience with table training that have opinions based on some second
>hand horror story or somone elses tiirade on another webpage. If you 
>(or anyone else) are interested in table training the best way is to learn
>from sumeone. North Carolina isn't that far from Bowling Green KY.
>Contact Gene England and ask for recommendations and help.
>If you've already decided you don't like tables (and there is nothing
>wrong with that) there isn't much to be gained by continuing to debate?
>There are NO "How to Table Train" videos. I don't think there ever will
> be?


----------



## Kristen Cabe

> North Carolina isn't that far from Bowling Green KY.
> >Contact Gene England and ask for recommendations and help.


Mr. England no longer lives in Bowling Green. He's moved further out west, though I can't remember exactly where (Steve knows). 

I tried to contact him several times last year and he never responded.


----------



## Andres Martin

In my view, a table training video would be a BAD idea because it's difficult enough to explain to the masses the subtleties of dog expression, let alone ask the masses to SEE them while a dog is working. To put that on tape is nigh on impossible.

The fact is decoying while a mediocre dog is under a bit of stress takes finesse...on a table or ANYWHERE else. VERY FEW PEOPLE HAVE IT. And if someone wants to learn about the subtleties of "TRAINING DECOY" work, that person will first need TALENT, and then will have to take bites regularly for a few years under good supervision before he/she becomes decent at it.

Regarding "Injury to a dog" it's waaaay more likely to occur on a schutzhund sleeve on a "courage test", retrieving ducks, in SAR, than on a table!!

I have learned nothing new in these seven pages...but I and others have tried to explain that "what's good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander". People have made tables appear sinister and abusive. There is nothing sinister or abusive about *equipment*. It's the people. More people screw dogs up by not caring for them properly, by not training them, by using chokers, prongs and ecollars...BY FAAAR...than on a table. My guesstimate: 10,000 to 1.

I'm not advocating that tables are essential to all dogs as part of their training. I'm saying they're NO BIG DEAL.

If anyone has come to this debate with PREJUDICE I hope a little bit of that has gone away. For those that train for sport or pets, I think it's best to keep an open mind and not blindly follow "what a guy, told another guy, that told ano...", unless you've "been there and done that" and hold an opinion product of your experience.

I would be interested in reading some conclusions authored by people who held the opinion at the *beginning* of this thread that table training is abusive and worthless. If anything has changed then we have had a learning experience. If not, it's been 7 fruitless pages.

That's my story...and I'm sticking to it. :lol: :lol:


----------



## Woody Taylor

Andres Martin said:


> I would be interested in reading some conclusions authored by people who held the opinion at the *beginning* of this thread that table training is abusive and worthless. If anything has changed then we have had a learning experience. If not, it's been 7 fruitless pages.
> 
> That's my story...and I'm sticking to it. :lol: :lol:


My own impression (n00b)--based on what's been presented in this thread--is that tables have been historically used for harsh training (i.e., as hard tests of dogs) that have little developmental advantages in and of themselves that can't be accomplished in other environments. Again, no evidence for this other than what's been put forth here. I get that the table proponents here are 1. using it as another environmental scenario in "prey" and 2. also do some defense work with "dogs that can handle it." 

What I have not seen yet is a pro-table person saying that a table is *a necessary element of training a dog.* Or at least I've missed it. It does seem like the "pro" element here spends more time defending the tool than talking about the relative merits of it. Which I can understand, given the perceptions the "con" folks have about table training. 

So...at this point in time, seven pages in and 1600 views later ;-), it seems at best "unnecessary" (or at best "highly specialized) to me...particularly given the risks of its use. I might even argue that some of you talk about this like some people talk about identifying "fight drive"..."It's powerful, it's there, it's something only I can see/do because of my years of expert training...and those of you who dismiss it are simply uninformed."

And I still believe that table training is used by some punk, wimp trainers that get off on breaking dogs. Same as many, many other tools. But I might add that it seems to be an awfully efficient way to break a dog, based on everyone's comments.


Just observations, you asked. 

*So, table trainers:
1. Do you need it? 
2. Could you train others to use it?
3. Are your table-trained dogs better than others without it?*

I would think 1 and 2 would be both necessary and sufficient conditions for a great tool, and 3 perhaps indicative of that tool's true capabilities.


----------



## Andres Martin

Woody...
That's a few inflammatory conclusions!
Do you work for a tabloid by any chance?
:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Woody Taylor

Andres Martin said:


> Woody...
> That's a few inflammatory conclusions!
> Do you work for a tabloid by any chance?
> :lol: :lol: :lol:


  

Not intended as inflammatory. Provocative, maybe. :wink: What bothered ya?

Edited to say *I hope it goes without saying--before the PMs roll in--that I'm not saying (not saying again in this thread! ;-)) that any of you use it to break dogs. Or are punks and wimps. Or whatever. Just put away the letter to the editor. :lol:*


----------



## Lou Castle

*Re: Lost art form?*



Thomas Barriano said:


> I doubt if there will ever be an instructional video on table training. Not enough of a potential customer base and too much information and nuance to try to cover in one video.


Seems like the perfect opportunity to show the world what table training is really about. It wasn't too long ago that people were saying (some still are) the same sorts of things about Ecollars. Now there are quite a few videos on using that tool. 

Once the world sees how great the table can be, I'm sure that it's use will grow by leaps and bounds.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

*Re: Lost art form?*



Lou Castle said:


> Thomas Barriano said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt if there will ever be an instructional video on table training. Not enough of a potential customer base and too much information and nuance to try to cover in one video.
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like the perfect opportunity to show the world what table training is really about. It wasn't too long ago that people were saying (some still are) the same sorts of things about Ecollars. Now there are quite a few videos on using that tool.
> 
> Once the world sees how great the table can be, I'm sure that it's use will grow by leaps and bounds.
Click to expand...

Dry humor is good, too! :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Mr. England no longer lives in Bowling Green. He's moved further out west, though I can't remember exactly where (Steve knows). 

I tried to contact him several times last year and he never responded.[/quote]


I attended a Ivan Balabanov/Mike Ellis seminar, two years ago in Scottville Scottdale? KYwhich is near Bowling Green and Gene was living there then. I hadn't heard he had moved further west?


----------



## Woody Taylor

PING...I really would like feedback on the questions I ask here if it's possible. 



> My own impression (n00b)--based on what's been presented in this thread--is that tables have been historically used for harsh training (i.e., as hard tests of dogs) that have little developmental advantages in and of themselves that can't be accomplished in other environments. Again, no evidence for this other than what's been put forth here. I get that the table proponents here are 1. using it as another environmental scenario in "prey" and 2. also do some defense work with "dogs that can handle it."
> 
> What I have not seen yet is a pro-table person saying that a table is *a necessary element of training a dog.* Or at least I've missed it. It does seem like the "pro" element here spends more time defending the tool than talking about the relative merits of it. Which I can understand, given the perceptions the "con" folks have about table training.
> 
> So...at this point in time, seven pages in and 1600 views later ;-), it seems at best "unnecessary" (or at best "highly specialized) to me...particularly given the risks of its use. I might even argue that some of you talk about this like some people talk about identifying "fight drive"..."It's powerful, it's there, it's something only I can see/do because of my years of expert training...and those of you who dismiss it are simply uninformed."
> 
> And I still believe that table training is used by some punk, wimp trainers that get off on breaking dogs. Same as many, many other tools. But I might add that it seems to be an awfully efficient way to break a dog, based on everyone's comments.
> 
> 
> Just observations, you asked.
> 
> *So, table trainers:
> 1. Do you need it?
> 2. Could you train others to use it?
> 3. Are your table-trained dogs better than others without it?*
> 
> I would think 1 and 2 would be both necessary and sufficient conditions for a great tool, and 3 perhaps indicative of that tool's true capabilities.


----------



## Tim Martens

*Re: Lost art form?*



Connie Sutherland said:


> Lou Castle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Barriano said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt if there will ever be an instructional video on table training. Not enough of a potential customer base and too much information and nuance to try to cover in one video.
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like the perfect opportunity to show the world what table training is really about. It wasn't too long ago that people were saying (some still are) the same sorts of things about Ecollars. Now there are quite a few videos on using that tool.
> 
> Once the world sees how great the table can be, I'm sure that it's use will grow by leaps and bounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dry humor is good, too! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Click to expand...

****MOD EDIT***...no personal attacks, please. Thanks! [/Woody]*

connie, before you make any final judgements, you have the opportunity to see it first hand. didn't gregg volunteer to show it to you? if he will show it to you, i'd recommend you see it before passing final judgement. i know i will...


----------



## Gregg Tawney

WOW.....I thought this one was going to slowly go away.....who started this mess!!! :lol: Just kidding, friendly dialogue is good for everyone. 

In response to Woody's questions.....

1. Do I need it? I dont NEED it but I use it. Just like other tools it helps me obtain a goal. For me the goal is to let the dog "win" in aggression without the obvious presence of equipment. I can channel the dogs drives. At a certain point in training I can channel him from prey to fight. Back and forth. 

2. Can I train others? yes. I let a skilled trainer or decoy watch many sessions and then under instruction I let them learn on a dog that is very strong. The student will then error on the side of caution and give the dog many wins. It is interesting....I have found that most trainers or decoys have the ability to put preasure on the dog but few know how and when to take the preasure off which is more important and is the problem with newbies putting dogs on the table without experience or proper instruction. Becuase of this, it makes the table a dangerous tool in the hands of some. Can anyone learn how to work a dog on the table?....."no". You need some natural ability. Having said that, I only put my dogs on the table with people that I know and trust. I would never put my dog on a table without knowing the trainer that was doing the table work. 

3. Are table trained dogs better then non-table trained dogs? No, since every dog is different. Like most of you, I have seen some very nice street dogs that do a great job that have never set paw on the table. I think some dogs benifit more from the table then others. Once a dog is proven on the street and has figured out what his job is then I use the table less and less throughout his training. 

Since we are talking particulars.....I will give you my reasons for tabling a dog last week. I am training a new dog for police work (3 years of age). The dog has seen a lot of bites on equipment (suits, sleeves, hidden suits, hidden sleeves, etc.) I put him on the table to channel him from prey to fight. From equipment to the man. The dog initially barked in prey and without seriousness. Like Jeff said previously...."the dogs learn that you are not able to cross a line", which would have been true if the dog was on a tie out. This dog looked away for a second which allowed me to grab him. (not hard, just sudden). This makes everything more real for the dog. His posture and bark became much more serious and I immediately gave him a win. That was it. The dog was probably on the table for about two minutes. I keep table sessions short. The next time, he jumped on the table and was "ready to rumble". He was much more serious and I was able to give him two or three wins. Next week I will probably channel him into fight and then I will quickly (a speedy presentation from behind the back is important) present the hidden sleeve, let him bite me, and then take a submissive position under the dog (since he is elevated) while he is on the bite. Of course every time he imporves his bite I will act as if he is killing me. I will then have the handler come in and remove the dog from the bite. 

That's it. That is one of the ways I use the table. Connie...the offer still stands if you would like to see it in person and see for yourself how it is properly used. I cant speak for videos....I have not seen any on the table. I learned the table ten years ago from my mentor. If anyone on this board is ever it the Sacramento area I would be happy to show you how I have chosen to use it. 


Sorry this one got a little "wordy" 

Gregg


----------



## Jerry Lyda

I doubt there will be any videos of table training. Ricky Nelson( showing my age) had a song called," You can't please everyone." That's the case here. If one is put out someone will down it's use no matter how well the training was done and the good that was gotten out of the dog.
There's a lot of schutzhund clubs and other type of dog training organizations that do not allow videos of their training sessions. Anyone ever wounder why? Ecollars,prong collars and choking dogs out. Not short of dog abuse. Table training is a tool that you can narrow down the particulars of some training. Easier way of removing the gray areas in some dogs minds where black and white are right and wrong. This benifits the dog as well as my back. I was always taught to work smart not hard. I'm all about the easy way as long as the finished product is not compremised. I agree with Thomas and Martin that a video will not show everything. How can you show on video how to read a dog.
This has been an excellent thread and I have not tried to force my way on anyone.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Just observations, you asked. 

>I don't consider myself a "table trainer" my dogs have been on a table
>and it was a postivie experience. If I found someone who know how to
>READ a dog (like Andres said) I wouldn't heistitate to use one again.

*So, table trainers:
1. Do you need it? 
>Nope, you don't NEED any tool. I use an e-collar but I can train withour
>it. Same with a prong collar. Tools make things easier, they don't
>substitute for reading your dog and using common sense.
2. Could you train others to use it?
>Not a chance in he11 

3. Are your table-trained dogs better than others without it?*

>My dogs are better than any dogs in the world IMHO no matter how
>they were trained


----------



## Gregg Tawney

WOW.....I thought this one was going to slowly go away.....who started this mess!!! :lol: Just kidding, friendly dialogue is good for everyone. 

In response to Woody's questions.....

1. Do I need it? I dont NEED it but I use it. Just like other tools it helps me obtain a goal. For me the goal is to let the dog "win" in aggression without the obvious presence of equipment. I can channel the dogs drives. At a certain point in training I can channel him from prey to fight. Back and forth. 

2. Can I train others? yes. I let a skilled trainer or decoy watch many sessions and then under instruction I let them learn on a dog that is very strong. The student will then error on the side of caution and give the dog many wins. It is interesting....I have found that most trainers or decoys have the ability to put preasure on the dog but few know how and when to take the preasure off which is more important and is the problem with newbies putting dogs on the table without experience or proper instruction. Becuase of this, it makes the table a dangerous tool in the hands of some. Can anyone learn how to work a dog on the table?....."no". You need some natural ability. Having said that, I only put my dogs on the table with people that I know and trust. I would never put my dog on a table without knowing the trainer that was doing the table work. 

3. Are table trained dogs better then non-table trained dogs? No, since every dog is different. Like most of you, I have seen some very nice street dogs that do a great job that have never set paw on the table. I think some dogs benifit more from the table then others. Once a dog is proven on the street and has figured out what his job is then I use the table less and less throughout his training. 

Since we are talking particulars.....I will give you my reasons for tabling a dog last week. I am training a new dog for police work (3 years of age). The dog has seen a lot of bites on equipment (suits, sleeves, hidden suits, hidden sleeves, etc.) I put him on the table to channel him from prey to fight. From equipment to the man. The dog initially barked in prey and without seriousness. Like Jeff said previously...."the dogs learn that you are not able to cross a line", which would have been true if the dog was on a tie out. This dog looked away for a second which allowed me to grab him. (not hard, just sudden). This makes everything more real for the dog. His posture and bark became much more serious and I immediately gave him a win. That was it. The dog was probably on the table for about two minutes. I keep table sessions short. The next time, he jumped on the table and was "ready to rumble". He was much more serious and I was able to give him two or three wins. Next week I will probably channel him into fight and then I will quickly (a speedy presentation from behind the back is important) present the hidden sleeve, let him bite me, and then take a submissive position under the dog (since he is elevated) while he is on the bite. Of course every time he imporves his bite I will act as if he is killing me. I will then have the handler come in and remove the dog from the bite. 

That's it. That is one of the ways I use the table. Connie...the offer still stands if you would like to see it in person and see for yourself how it is properly used. I cant speak for videos....I have not seen any on the table. I learned the table ten years ago from my mentor. If anyone on this board is ever it the Sacramento area I would be happy to show you how I have chosen to use it. 


Sorry this one got a little "wordy" 

Gregg


----------



## Woody Taylor

Excellent posts, Gregg and Thomas! Thank you for answering my questions.

See, Andreas? That wasn't so bad... :wink:


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Tim,
Sacto isn't easy for me, since I'm on the coast with mountain ranges between me and anything but Monterey and points south, but I am going to be on the "other" coast next week and I have been given an opportunity to see a demo there. I am accepting. I was going to wait until I got back to post all about my exciting field trip, but I wanted to assure you that yes, I AM planning to see "the real thing." 

I do not agree with what you said about dry humor, but I realize (the whole board realizes - OFTEN) that you two dislike each other. Personally, I find that it skews the otherwise-intelligent posts you both make (when you aren't busy attacking each other), but hey..... maybe others enjoy it. I do find it slightly more palatable if there's some humor thrown in.

And Gregg, I DO manage to attand RailFair, so it isn't like Sacto is on the moon for me! :>) So I will absolutely PM you when RailFair comes up, which should be happening next winter, and see if I can take you up on that. That's very nice of you.


----------



## Gregg Tawney

WOW.....I thought this one was going to slowly go away.....who started this mess!!! :lol: Just kidding, friendly dialogue is good for everyone. 

In response to Woody's questions.....

1. Do I need it? I dont NEED it but I use it. Just like other tools it helps me obtain a goal. For me the goal is to let the dog "win" in aggression without the obvious presence of equipment. I can channel the dogs drives. At a certain point in training I can channel him from prey to fight. Back and forth. 

2. Can I train others? yes. I let a skilled trainer or decoy watch many sessions and then under instruction I let them learn on a dog that is very strong. The student will then error on the side of caution and give the dog many wins. It is interesting....I have found that most trainers or decoys have the ability to put preasure on the dog but few know how and when to take the preasure off which is more important and is the problem with newbies putting dogs on the table without experience or proper instruction. Becuase of this, it makes the table a dangerous tool in the hands of some. Can anyone learn how to work a dog on the table?....."no". You need some natural ability. Having said that, I only put my dogs on the table with people that I know and trust. I would never put my dog on a table without knowing the trainer that was doing the table work. 

3. Are table trained dogs better then non-table trained dogs? No, since every dog is different. Like most of you, I have seen some very nice street dogs that do a great job that have never set paw on the table. I think some dogs benifit more from the table then others. Once a dog is proven on the street and has figured out what his job is then I use the table less and less throughout his training. 

Since we are talking particulars.....I will give you my reasons for tabling a dog last week. I am training a new dog for police work (3 years of age). The dog has seen a lot of bites on equipment (suits, sleeves, hidden suits, hidden sleeves, etc.) I put him on the table to channel him from prey to fight. From equipment to the man. The dog initially barked in prey and without seriousness. Like Jeff said previously...."the dogs learn that you are not able to cross a line", which would have been true if the dog was on a tie out. This dog looked away for a second which allowed me to grab him. (not hard, just sudden). This makes everything more real for the dog. His posture and bark became much more serious and I immediately gave him a win. That was it. The dog was probably on the table for about two minutes. I keep table sessions short. The next time, he jumped on the table and was "ready to rumble". He was much more serious and I was able to give him two or three wins. Next week I will probably channel him into fight and then I will quickly (a speedy presentation from behind the back is important) present the hidden sleeve, let him bite me, and then take a submissive position under the dog (since he is elevated) while he is on the bite. Of course every time he imporves his bite I will act as if he is killing me. I will then have the handler come in and remove the dog from the bite. 

That's it. That is one of the ways I use the table. Connie...the offer still stands if you would like to see it in person and see for yourself how it is properly used. I cant speak for videos....I have not seen any on the table. I learned the table ten years ago from my mentor. If anyone on this board is ever it the Sacramento area I would be happy to show you how I have chosen to use it. 


Sorry this one got a little "wordy" 

Gregg


----------



## Stacia Porter

*Re: Video*



Thomas Barriano said:


> >What is your background in Schutzhund or protection sport? Having a >dog loose on the table defeats the purpose of restricting its options. Bad >training ruins dogs NOT tables. Dogs can't be injured on a properly
> >designed table with a funtional swivel and a proper length chain and a
> >collar (There are designs/plans on Steves website)
> >Cleaning up the Out: There are several ways to use a table for the out.
> >You can go passive (like Ivan Balabanov) so the dog gets no movement >and the dog outs and can then get rewarded. You can have a separate
> >prong or nylon choke collar that you can use to get an opostion reflex
> >You pull the dog towards you and the sleeve, the dog will pull in the >opposite reaction, the dog outs and you mark and reward. You can place
> >the collar to get a gag reflex and the dog will spit out the sleeve. The
> >big advantage is, the dogs reach is limited and he can't regrip and self >reward. If you want to blast the dog off the sleeve with a prong or >ecollar?
> >You sure don't need a table to do that.


My dog is a SchH dog, I grew up in Germany. I've never seen a dog injured during a courage test. I'm still confused as to why the out takes so much effort for many people. I have found it easier to train than the down (my dogs all hate the down and I have to continually work on it..but the out? Never a problem).

Why is a table inherent in those methods of cleaning up on out anyway? I don't see one thing you have listed that can't be done with the dog on the ground.



> >I agree that the point of debate is learning, but your initial commnet was
> >"I don't like the idea of a table" how open are you to learning about >table trainng ? I'm sorry, but I see way too many people who have zero
> >experience with table training that have opinions based on some second
> >hand horror story or somone elses tiirade on another webpage. If you
> >(or anyone else) are interested in table training the best way is to learn
> >from sumeone. North Carolina isn't that far from Bowling Green KY.
> >Contact Gene England and ask for recommendations and help.
> >If you've already decided you don't like tables (and there is nothing
> >wrong with that) there isn't much to be gained by continuing to debate?
> >There are NO "How to Table Train" videos. I don't think there ever will
> > be?


Not liking the idea of a table is not the same as refusing to hear well laid, logical arguments in its favor. Once upon a time I taught English, speech, theater, and debate. I'm always good for a discussion, enjoy hearing good arguments, and have a fairly open mind. Aristotle said it was the mark of an educated mind to hear others' viewpoints without accepting them as our own. Just because I would never allow someone to place my dog on a table does not mean information from those who would is worthless. 

I have not been swayed by the masses, but rather my own personal ethics in dog training. I do not place my dog in situations I deem dangerous. I'm standidng here staring at my ample dining room table thinkng that if my animal were to slip off that, there is a good chance he'd injure something. I also really don't like the idea of putting a dog in a situation where he has no choice but to bite. It defeats his genetics. My dog was never "taught" to bite; he did it naturally. If I produced a sleeve this very minute he'd bark and go for it.  

However, as stated, I would watch video of table training and listen to fair explanation of its uses, methodology, and value.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Just observations, you asked. 

>I don't consider myself a "table trainer" my dogs have been on a table
>and it was a postivie experience. If I found someone who know how to
>READ a dog (like Andres said) I wouldn't heistitate to use one again.

*So, table trainers:
1. Do you need it? 
>Nope, you don't NEED any tool. I use an e-collar but I can train withour
>it. Same with a prong collar. Tools make things easier, they don't
>substitute for reading your dog and using common sense.
2. Could you train others to use it?
>Not a chance in he11 

3. Are your table-trained dogs better than others without it?*

>My dogs are better than any dogs in the world IMHO no matter how
>they were trained


----------



## Gregg Tawney

*Re: Video*

"My dog was never "taught" to bite; he did it naturally. If I produced a sleeve this very minute he'd bark and go for it. [/quote]"

Stacia - 

What if a suspect was laying in your atic and you needed your dog to engage him. If all he has seen is a sleeve, he may not. As a police dog trainer, I need to do everything that I can to insure that the dog will bite a person without equipment. The table is just another tool to help me work towards that goal. 

Also, your dog was "taught" to bite the sleeve. He had the natural desire, yes, but you probably developed that natural desire through training......just like I develop the natural drives on the table. 

Gregg

PS. Sorry for the duplicate posts.....technical difficulties!!!!!!!!


----------



## Woody Taylor

*Re: Video*



Gregg Tawney said:


> "My dog was never "taught" to bite; he did it naturally. If I produced a sleeve this very minute he'd bark and go for it.


"

Stacia - 

What if a suspect was laying in your atic and you needed your dog to engage him. If all he has seen is a sleeve, he may not. As a police dog trainer, I need to do everything that I can to insure that the dog will bite a person without equipment. The table is just another tool to help me work towards that goal. 

Also, your dog was "taught" to bite the sleeve. He had the natural desire, yes, but you probably developed that natural desire through training......just like I develop the natural drives on the table. 

Gregg

PS. Sorry for the duplicate posts.....technical difficulties!!!!!!!! [/quote]

Gregg, you are not kidding on the technical difficulties. Sheesh, I apologize to everybody for this, not sure what's going on. If it's any consolation, I think we're all double-posting, etc. 

Anyway, I can't tell if the post is actually there that I put up earlier :roll: , but thanks to both Gregg and Thomas for responding to my questions.

And Gregg, you make a good point: there may be some applications of dog work (MWD, PSD) in my mind which may very well beg the question of using as many different methods as possible to ensure the best result. A sport dog is an entirely different animal (on many, many levels) to me.

So Gregg (and others): who taught you to use a table? Did they teach you to use a table the way you use it now?


----------



## Thomas Barriano

[quote="Connie Sutherland" 

I do not agree with what you said about dry humor, but I realize (the whole board realizes - OFTEN) that you two dislike each other. Personally, I find that it skews the otherwise-intelligent posts you both make (when you aren't busy attacking each other), but hey..... maybe others enjoy it. I do find it slightly more palatable if there's some humor thrown in.

>Hi Connie,

>I didn't see Tims comment on dry humor. The original comment was
>made in response to my post. I read it as sarcasam, not humour
>of any sort. In the interest of playing nice, I choose not to reply to
>certain people.


----------



## Jerry Lyda

Stacia, you said, My dog is a SchH dog, I grew up in Germany. I've never seen a dog injured during a courage test.

I have. I've seen canines come out, I've seen jammed necks and I've seen helpers get hurt to keep a dog from being injured.

You also said,I do not place my dog in situations I deem dangerous. 

When you do sport work or police dog work you DO put your dog in a place where he CAN get hurt.


----------



## Woody Taylor

*Re: Video*



Gregg Tawney said:


> "My dog was never "taught" to bite; he did it naturally. If I produced a sleeve this very minute he'd bark and go for it.


"

Stacia - 

What if a suspect was laying in your atic and you needed your dog to engage him. If all he has seen is a sleeve, he may not. As a police dog trainer, I need to do everything that I can to insure that the dog will bite a person without equipment. The table is just another tool to help me work towards that goal. 

Also, your dog was "taught" to bite the sleeve. He had the natural desire, yes, but you probably developed that natural desire through training......just like I develop the natural drives on the table. 

Gregg

PS. Sorry for the duplicate posts.....technical difficulties!!!!!!!! [/quote]

Gregg, you are not kidding on the technical difficulties. Sheesh, I apologize to everybody for this, not sure what's going on. If it's any consolation, I think we're all double-posting, etc. 

Anyway, I can't tell if the post is actually there that I put up earlier :roll: , but thanks to both Gregg and Thomas for responding to my questions.

And Gregg, you make a good point: there may be some applications of dog work (MWD, PSD) in my mind which may very well beg the question of using as many different methods as possible to ensure the best result. A sport dog is an entirely different animal (on many, many levels) to me.

So Gregg (and others): who taught you to use a table? Did they teach you to use a table the way you use it now?


----------



## Gregg Tawney

Hi Stacia - 

One of my mentors currently trains dogs for the Secret Service and I am not sure he would want me to post his name so out of respect for him I won't. Sorry. 

I do not use the table exactly like he showed me. I think everyone uses the table a little differently. That is what makes this discussion so difficult. I agree with you.....sport dog training is different then police dog training. I have sport dogs in my club that will not see the table for fight/defense. 

Gregg


----------



## Lou Castle

Gregg Tawney said:


> For me the goal is to let the dog "win" in aggression without the obvious presence of equipment.


Can you explain how this is "without the obvious presence of equipment." Seem to me that its quite obvious to the dog that he's on a table. 



Gregg Tawney said:


> I can channel the dogs drives. At a certain point in training I can channel him from prey to fight. Back and forth.


What is the advantage of the table for doing this? 



Gregg Tawney said:


> I think some dogs benifit more from the table then others.


Can you describe the dog that will get more benefit from the table than another dog? Can you describe the table that you're using; how big, shape, how far off the ground? 



Jerry Lyda said:


> If one is put out someone will down it's use no matter how well the training was done and the good that was gotten out of the dog.


That's going to be the case with some people no matter how good a video is or what topic it's on. I don't think that's a good reason not to put out a video. 



Jerry Lyda said:


> How can you show on video how to read a dog.


Seem to me that's the perfect media to teach that. Some people have tried to do it with photos or sketches in a book, but in a video you can stop the tape and highlight the signs that you want the student to look at. Then you can run it at normal speed so they can see it clearly. 



Gregg Tawney said:


> What if a suspect was laying in your atic and you needed your dog to engage him.


It's a bit off-topic but I don't see the need for a dog to "engage" someone in an attic. It's a dangerous place for a dog. He's lost his advantage of speed and agility. There are toxic substances present in many of them. And there are dangling wires and ducting that can easily entrap him. And there's always the very possible, seen it several times during training, of him breaking through the ceiling and being injured during the 7' fall. 

This might make for a better separate topic if anyone is interested in discussing it. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> The original comment was made in response to my post. I read it as sarcasam, not humour of any sort.


Actually only the last sentence was meant as sarcasm and that's a form of humor. The rest was serious. Humor, like art, is in the eye of the beholder. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> In the interest of playing nice, I choose not to reply to certain people.


Reply or don't, doesn't mean a thing to me. I'm capable of staying professional even if some aren't.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

*Re: Video*

[quote="Stacia Porter"

My dog is a SchH dog, I grew up in Germany. I've never seen a dog injured during a courage test. I'm still confused as to why the out takes so much effort for many people. I have found it easier to train than the down (my dogs all hate the down and I have to continually work on it..but the out? Never a problem).

>Hi Stacia

>Wow if you've never seen a dog injured doing a courage test. You've
>been very fortuanate or only seen experienced decoys or both 
>I just had my Dobermann male jam his right leg because the decoy
>didn't catch him properly. Luckily it wasn't serious. I'm not sure how
>much trouble everyone else has, with training the out. The "problem"
>I having now is Jago has started to reward himself. He'll spit out the
>sleeve like it had hot sauce on it, BUT he'll give himself a reward bite
>after waiting for 5-10 seconds.  Heck if I didn't want a "training 
>challenge" I wouldn't have Dobermanns 

Why is a table inherent in those methods of cleaning up on out anyway? I don't see one thing you have listed that can't be done with the dog on the ground.

>It is just easier on the table



> >I agree that the point of debate is learning, but your initial commnet was
> >"I don't like the idea of a table" how open are you to learning about >table trainng ? I'm sorry, but I see way too many people who have zero
> >experience with table training that have opinions based on some second
> >hand horror story or somone elses tiirade on another webpage. If you
> >(or anyone else) are interested in table training the best way is to learn
> >from sumeone. North Carolina isn't that far from Bowling Green KY.
> >Contact Gene England and ask for recommendations and help.
> >If you've already decided you don't like tables (and there is nothing
> >wrong with that) there isn't much to be gained by continuing to debate?
> >There are NO "How to Table Train" videos. I don't think there ever will
> > be?


Not liking the idea of a table is not the same as refusing to hear well laid, logical arguments in its favor. Once upon a time I taught English, speech, theater, and debate. I'm always good for a discussion, enjoy hearing good arguments, and have a fairly open mind. Aristotle said it was the mark of an educated mind to hear others' viewpoints without accepting them as our own. Just because I would never allow someone to place my dog on a table does not mean information from those who would is worthless. 

>Diffeerent strokes for different folks. I enjoy training my dogs, more
>than debating and the only Aristotle I'm familiar with is, Jachie O's
>second husband 

I have not been swayed by the masses, but rather my own personal ethics in dog training. I do not place my dog in situations I deem dangerous. I'm standidng here staring at my ample dining room table thinkng that if my animal were to slip off that, there is a good chance he'd injure something. 

>The table has a steel pole in the middle with a short chain and a swivel
>The dog can't fall off a properly designed table


----------



## Thomas Barriano

*Re: Video*

[quote="Stacia Porter"

My dog is a SchH dog, I grew up in Germany. I've never seen a dog injured during a courage test. I'm still confused as to why the out takes so much effort for many people. I have found it easier to train than the down (my dogs all hate the down and I have to continually work on it..but the out? Never a problem).

>Hi Stacia

>Wow if you've never seen a dog injured doing a courage test. You've
>been very fortuanate or only seen experienced decoys or both 
>I just had my Dobermann male jam his right leg because the decoy
>didn't catch him properly. Luckily it wasn't serious. I'm not sure how
>much trouble everyone else has, with training the out. The "problem"
>I having now is Jago has started to reward himself. He'll spit out the
>sleeve like it had hot sauce on it, BUT he'll give himself a reward bite
>after waiting for 5-10 seconds.  Heck if I didn't want a "training 
>challenge" I wouldn't have Dobermanns 

Why is a table inherent in those methods of cleaning up on out anyway? I don't see one thing you have listed that can't be done with the dog on the ground.

>It is just easier on the table



> >I agree that the point of debate is learning, but your initial commnet was
> >"I don't like the idea of a table" how open are you to learning about >table trainng ? I'm sorry, but I see way too many people who have zero
> >experience with table training that have opinions based on some second
> >hand horror story or somone elses tiirade on another webpage. If you
> >(or anyone else) are interested in table training the best way is to learn
> >from sumeone. North Carolina isn't that far from Bowling Green KY.
> >Contact Gene England and ask for recommendations and help.
> >If you've already decided you don't like tables (and there is nothing
> >wrong with that) there isn't much to be gained by continuing to debate?
> >There are NO "How to Table Train" videos. I don't think there ever will
> > be?


Not liking the idea of a table is not the same as refusing to hear well laid, logical arguments in its favor. Once upon a time I taught English, speech, theater, and debate. I'm always good for a discussion, enjoy hearing good arguments, and have a fairly open mind. Aristotle said it was the mark of an educated mind to hear others' viewpoints without accepting them as our own. Just because I would never allow someone to place my dog on a table does not mean information from those who would is worthless. 

>Diffeerent strokes for different folks. I enjoy training my dogs, more
>than debating and the only Aristotle I'm familiar with is, Jachie O's
>second husband 

I have not been swayed by the masses, but rather my own personal ethics in dog training. I do not place my dog in situations I deem dangerous. I'm standidng here staring at my ample dining room table thinkng that if my animal were to slip off that, there is a good chance he'd injure something. 

>The table has a steel pole in the middle with a short chain and a swivel
>The dog can't fall off a properly designed table


----------



## Tim Martens

i agree


----------



## Lou Castle

*Re: Video*



Thomas Barriano said:


> The table has a steel pole in the middle with a short chain and a swivel The dog can't fall off a properly designed table


It's possible I'm missing something here but I fail to see anything that would prevent a dog from losing his footing and falling off the table. Perhaps if the table was quite large and the chain was quite short he couldn't near the edge but I've never seen a table like that. Of course, I haven't seen everything. Is this how "the dog can' fall off a properly designed table," he can't get near the edge?


----------



## Lou Castle

*Re: Video*



Thomas Barriano said:


> The table has a steel pole in the middle with a short chain and a swivel The dog can't fall off a properly designed table


It's possible I'm missing something here but I fail to see anything that would prevent a dog from losing his footing and falling off the table. Perhaps if the table was quite large and the chain was quite short he couldn't near the edge but I've never seen a table like that. Of course, I haven't seen everything. Is this how "the dog can' fall off a properly designed table," he can't get near the edge?


----------



## Thomas Barriano

*Duplicate posts etc.*

First off. sorry for the quadruplicate post. I'm not sure what happened.
It acted like it was locked up and so I back stepped and tried again

************************************************************

Lou Castle wrote:


Thomas Barriano wrote: 
The original comment was made in response to my post. I read it as sarcasam, not humour of any sort. 


Actually only the last sentence was meant as sarcasm and that's a form of humor. The rest was serious. Humor, like art, is in the eye of the beholder. 

Thomas Barriano wrote: 
In the interest of playing nice, I choose not to reply to certain people. 


Reply or don't, doesn't mean a thing to me. I'm capable of staying professional even if some aren't.

>Mr Castle

>I have no interest or desire, to engage in any debate, discussioo, 
>argument, etc. on any subject, with you. Been there, done that.
>With all the members of this Forum and other lists, that seem to enjoy
>that activity, it doesn't seem unreasonable to request, that you refrain
>from commienting on, or replying to any of my posts? I hope Woody or
>one of the other Moderators will ask you to honor my request. 
_________________


----------



## Stacia Porter

*Re: Duplicate posts etc.*

Thomas, I mean this with all due respect, but if you have no interest in discussion of working dog training methods and related subject, why are you here? And while you believe your comment concerning Aristotle to be humorous, I don't find it as such. I am never amused by insulting education.

For those who have seen dogs injured during courage tests: I don't doubt it. I've just never seen it. To me, there is more risk of damage to a dog on the table (and with other training methods not discussed here) than on the field with an experienced helper. Nowhere in this thread have I deemed the table abusive or trainers who employ it lazy or even wrong. I have simply stated that it is not a method I would choose to employ. I also do not use the e-collar; it doesn't make it a bad thing, and it doesn't mean I won't listen to discussion. It just means I don't use it.


----------



## Guest

Just to stir the pot... :twisted: : no offense to anyone, truly, but it seems a bit unreasonable to request that someone not reply to your posts. This is a discussion forum, unless I'm mistaken (sarcasm/humor), and therefore, posts that are written are up there for comments and replies from whoever damn well feels like it-not just the people you LIKE. :wink: Isn't arguing one of the finer things in life anyway? :lol: I personally am not all that interested in straight up name calling, but a heated debate or full-blown argument is interesting and informative in situations like this, because they happen when people are passionate in their beliefs. Most people only become passionate about something if they have SOME knowledge. So...hopefully...these somewhat passionate debates are teaching those who know NOTHING a little SOMETHING. At least, they have been for me. So, truly, no offense to anyone; I like seeing people have conviction, and am interested in the reasons behind the conviction.  And for the record, I find most things in life, pleasant or not, can be amusing. :wink:


----------



## Lou Castle

Thomas Barriano said:


> I have no interest or desire, to engage in any debate, discussioo, argument, etc. on any subject, with you. Been there, done that. With all the members of this Forum and other lists, that seem to enjoy that activity, it doesn't seem unreasonable to request, that you refrain from commienting on, or replying to any of my posts? I hope Woody or one of the other Moderators will ask you to honor my request.


I think that's an unreasonable request. If you make some wazoo statement I'm going to comment. You're not required to reply. It used to be, with a few exceptions (and he's been banned from just about list he's ever been on, including this one) that dog trainers could disagree without getting rude or unprofessional. Based on your behavior here that's not the case with you. Notice that it's your comments that have been censored by the moderators because they were out of line. None of my comments towards you have been censored. Seems like I should be the one who would be whining to a moderator for protection. But that's not the case. 

Repeatedly moderators have asked that such comments as yours NOT be posted in the middle of a thread. They've asked that they be PM'd or that these comments go to the Moderator forum. 

Don't expect me to ignore statements of yours that I either agree with or disagree with. Some anger management classes might be in order or perhaps just remembering that you don't (and neither do I) have all the answers. 

There's an easy way to have me not respond to your posts. Don't write any. Of course then I and the rest of the members of the list would be deprived of your extensive experience. (No sarcasm intended). Failing that, I'd suggest that you develop a thicker skin. This isn't your home training field where everyone will nod and say, "Uh huh" at every one of your marvelous pronouncements. (That was sarcasm).


----------



## Woody Taylor

This one's easy...if you don't want to interact with somebody, don't. That's totally cool. Hate to see that, because I think sound, provocative interaction is the spice of life. But if there's a deeper current there, by all means, just brush it off. This is a very tiny slice of the internet, we're suckers if we get pulled into it and it's crazy not to enjoy your time here. 

What we don't want is personal attacks in the midst of working through things *we all really care about* even though that's natural. So it's all good, take a deep breath, and keep in mind these are real folks with real stuff happening to them outside of this forum. This forum is not the ultimate expression of who they are. Assume that they're good people, even if they are momentarily (consistently?) off of their rockers relative to your understanding of dogs.

In most cases, in my experience, they almost always are good folks.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

*Re: Duplicate posts etc.*



Stacia Porter said:


> Thomas, I mean this with all due respect, but if you have no interest in discussion of working dog training methods and related subject, why are you here? And while you believe your comment concerning Aristotle to be humorous, I don't find it as such. I am never amused by insulting education.
> 
> >Hi Stacia,
> 
> >My comment was aimed at one individual. I am very interested in
> > "discussion of working dog training methods and related subject"
> >I am not interested in long winded "debate" with more attention to
> >how clever we can be, than in listening to other ideas or opinions.
> >I'm sorry you didn't see the humor. Aristotle Onasis is as relevant to
> >a discussion of dog trianing as the philosoher is? I an not amused by
> >people who insutl the "education" that someone gains through
> >experience, as opposed to formal education. Some of the most
> >educated people I know, never graduated from High School. Conversly
> >I've known doctorate candiddates who were certifiable idiots.
> 
> For those who have seen dogs injured during courage tests: I don't doubt it. I've just never seen it. To me, there is more risk of damage to a dog on the table (and with other training methods not discussed here) than on the field with an experienced helper. Nowhere in this thread have I deemed the table abusive or trainers who employ it lazy or even wrong. I have simply stated that it is not a method I would choose to employ. I also do not use the e-collar; it doesn't make it a bad thing, and it doesn't mean I won't listen to discussion. It just means I don't use it.


>the whole idea is "experience" I see less risk of injury on a table than
>on a courage test with an experienced decoy. The experience for the
>courage test is more mechanical (timing, moving iwth the force and 
>diretion of the dog) the experiece with the table is more in "reading"
>the dog. Knowing when to challenge and when to reward.


----------



## Lou Castle

Thomas Barriano said:


> the whole idea is "experience" I see less risk of injury on a table than on a courage test with an experienced decoy. The experience for the courage test is more mechanical (timing, moving iwth the force and diretion of the dog) the experiece with the table is more in "reading" the dog. Knowing when to challenge and when to reward.


I agree. I recall many years ago seeing a great photo on the cover of a magazine, I think it was SchH USA, of a dog about to make contact with a decoy during a SchH championship. It was awesome. The dog had all four legs off the ground and was about to make contact with all four legs and his teeth at the same time. 

I was told that dog was injured during that hit and was not able to work any more. The collision between a decoy and the dog during the courage test can be very tricky. If the decoy's timing is off, it's not hard to injure the dog.


----------



## Andres Martin

Let me summarize:

1) A table is about as dangerous to a dog as a bunch of other things.
2) An idiot trainer will more likely ruin a dog on the ground than on a table, simply because there are more idiot trainers with access to a leash and a tree.
3) Dogs don't fall off tables.
4) As a means of elliciting more intense behaviors, a table is a good tool. Don't think for a minute the following is not true: ALL street dogs get strong CIVIL agitation to get STRONG aggression in return, by using many different means.
5) Those more intense behaviors are not necessary for the general public.
6) Yes, they can also be obtained by other means.
7) Working a dog in defense (or fight) is only for experts.
8 ) A dog does not view a table as equipment. Sheeesh. It views sleeves, suits, tugs, as equipment. Many dogs have told me this. (Humor...although not so good).
9) A table is not the end, it's ONE of the means. The end is to bring intensity TO THE GROUND.

Slightly off topic...and perhaps the subject of another thread...but by jove I COULD NOT LET THIS PASS... (sarcastic humor)

I don't know the age of the poster but it could have something to do with the wazoo comment that follows: (sarcastic humor)

"It's a bit off-topic but I don't see the need for a dog to "engage" someone in an attic. It's a dangerous place for a dog. He's lost his advantage of speed and agility. There are toxic substances present in many of them. And there are dangling wires and ducting that can easily entrap him. And there's always the very possible, seen it several times during training, of him breaking through the ceiling and being injured during the 7' fall."

All of us that use dogs on the street know the aforementioned to be illogical and delusional...maybe senile (some more sarcastic humor). There are a BUNCH of tactical scenarios that call for a dog to go into the "dangerous" place and not the human handler.

By the way, a table helps with elevation and foot placement (regular humor).


----------



## Gregg Tawney

"Cant we all just get along?" :lol: ......It is amazing how dog training is such a personal thing....I get caught up in it too but we all have 2 things in common.....we love dogs and love training so lets put the other stuff aside and "talk dog". 

First off, I am glad to see that I am not the only one that posts things three or four times!! 8) 

Lou, In response to your questions.... 

Yes, it is obvious to the dog that he is on a table (I think all of us can agree on that one!  ) ) When I said equipment I was refering to prey attractions such as sleeves, hidden sleeves (because they are not so hidden) and anything else that would elicite prey. 

When I was talking about channeling dogs back and forth I meant that the table allows me to do this easier because the dog looks at me as a threat....why?....because I was able to "cross that line" on a few occassions and actually grab his paw or other part of the dog which I can not do on a back tie. So when the dog has had a few sessions on the table I can show him a prey attraction such as a sleeve and put him into prey and then take it away and show him confrontation and the dog channels into fight. I sometimes tell the handler to shut his eyes and listen and by the tone of the bark the handler will tell me when the dog channels into a different drive. Good learning experience for the handler. 

The dogs that benifit the most from the table are the dogs that have fight drive but have not used it (it has never been tapped into). In other words it is genetically there but the dog is not confident in the drive. So, my job is to tap into it, let the dog display it and then reward the dog for it. Thus the dog becomes stronger in that drive. Compare it to prey.....a dog comes out initially and shows prey drive...we show him that it is okay to bite, how to bite full and we reward the full bite with a carry. The dog naturally becomes stronger in Prey with repetition. Well, I do the same thing with fight drive on the table. 

Now having said that, some dogs have fight and genetically have no issues with biting and fighting a human without much training. Those dogs would receive less benifit from the table then the other that I just mentioned. 

Since so much of our bite work training is with equipment I try to balance the dog with some table work occassionally. I want a police dog operating around 75/25 prey/fight. 

As far as the atic insertions. How do you handle looking for a wanted subject in a house if you believe he may be in the atic? If you are not sure then it is a waste of time for SWAT (they would be called out every week for an atic search), so the other alternative is to send an officer or let the guy stay up there and leave. It is an officer safety nightmare so we opt not to send one up there. Our dogs have found guys hiding under insulation. An officer would almost have to step on him to find him. In my training group (four agencies) we probably do one atic insertion per week. Most of the time no one is up there but on the few occassions there was someone hiding it was a great deployment. :wink: 



Gregg


----------



## Woody Taylor

Move Attic Insertions to a thread in the Police section...go check it out! Looks like a good discussion brewing.


----------



## susan tuck

Lou, I saw that cover shot, too & heard the same thing. In fact, as I recall there was an idea being kicked around to stop doing the courage test, & one of the reasons was because of the damage that can be done to a dogs' back. Of course the other reason was because of public perception.


----------



## Gregg Tawney

If you remove the "courage" test in Sch. then you are watering down an already watered down sport. I for one would hate to see that. 

I would be interested in hearing about any dogs that are injured in KNPV. A sport that is ALOT tougher in the frontal attack then any other in the world....and produces the toughest dogs in the world.....just my opinioin of course. 8) Those of you that have seen it know that there is little give by the decoy upon the entry of the dog. You here a loud "thud" and maybe the decoy's grunt as he is slammed by a dog.......it is a beautiful thing!!!!!!! 

It is my understanding that they did away with the upper body bites on the bike due to decoy injuries as opposed to dog injuries. A competetor stated that they put the docoy's safety above the dog's. That is a fundamental difference in thinking then I have seen here in the U.S.. 

Sorry Woody....maybe this is another thread too. :? 

Gregg


----------



## Andres Martin

Gregg,

I think in KNPV there are less injuries in the stok attack due to the mechanics of the bite plane...

The bite surface does not protrude from the "backstop". When using a sleeve, if the dog is coming in fast and the decoy slams the dog, the dog´s head stays at least 12 inches behind where the body slams, and can hurt a dog´s spine. In KNPV the entire dog flattens out against the decoy´s body...a beautiful thing.

With a sleeve and a fast dog...if the decoy is good, and allows the dog´s kinetic energy to dissipate slowly up through the tail pointing up to the sky...another beautiful thing...but the dog doesn´t bite down hard, the covers on the sleeve can snag the canines and dogs loose teeth.

hmmm...instead of watering down schutzhund, why not use suits instead of sleeves...? :twisted: 

and...teach the schh crowd to ramp up their dog´s fighting ability!!!! :twisted: :twisted: tables anyone??

just to get back on subject :lol:


----------



## Woody Taylor

Gregg Tawney said:


> Sorry Woody....maybe this is another thread too. :?
> Gregg


Well yeah, but in a good way. :twisted: Don't take it personally if I ever pull one of your posts into another thread. There are two things going on there: 1. you made (to me at least) a relevant post that was off-topic but interesting enough (to me at least) to warrant discussion and 2. this can let you burn the argument candle on both ends because god forbid you all actually use the day to train your dogs or anything. ;-) I just wanted to prune and water a bit, definitely because you are doing something right. If it bugs you, PM me. But not tonight. You guys ran me through the ringer today. :evil:

I would encourage any of you to prune threads when interesting stuff comes up. That's the point, in my mind...beating each other up on table training is bound to yield some additional thoughts about whatever we can build on somewhere else. It's pretty neat how it works, in my opinion.

Good day today, thanks to everybody for participating and keeping their heads on at the end of it.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote:Like Jeff said previously...."the dogs learn that you are not able to cross a line", which would have been true if the dog was on a tie out. This dog looked away for a second which allowed me to grab him. (not hard, just sudden). 

If a dog looks away from you while you are aggitating, it is a form of avoidance, or possibly you suck at it. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: 

I can grab a dog without a table just fine. :wink: 

Maybe this will get posted 40 times like all the others!


----------



## Andres Martin

Are you grabbing the two legged variety? :twisted:


----------



## Gregg Tawney

Jeff - 

Really....................where have you grabbed dogs while on a tie out?


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Woody Taylor said:


> .......You guys ran me through the ringer today. :evil:.......Good day today, thanks to everybody for participating and keeping their heads on at the end of it.


Ditto. That's all the typing energy I have left.


----------



## Lou Castle

Earlier I wrote: "It's a bit off-topic but I don't see the need for a dog to "engage" someone in an attic. It's a dangerous place for a dog. He's lost his advantage of speed and agility. There are toxic substances present in many of them. And there are dangling wires and ducting that can easily entrap him. And there's always the very possible, seen it several times during training, of him breaking through the ceiling and being injured during the 7' fall."



Andres Martin said:


> All of us that use dogs on the street


Just so you know, I worked a dog "on the street" for over five years. After he retired I was the in-house K-9 trainer for the department for the most part for the next 15 years. I'm not some theorist with no experience. 



Andres Martin said:


> know the aforementioned to be illogical and delusional...maybe senile (some more sarcastic humor).


Ya'see calling someone names is just rude and shows how limited is your ability to deal with others. There's a difference between saying "I don't think that what you're doing is correct." or "I think there's a better way to do it." or "What you're doing doesn't make sense to me." and saying that someone is illogical, delusional or senile. I don't appreciate being called names especially by a . . . well, I'll just let it go. I can see that you've chosen to join the ranks of those who can't stay polite and professional in a conversation where people are disagreeing with you. 

I just talked to a friend of mine who is a trainer for LAPD. They're doing in the vicinity of 5,000 searches per year with 1,200- 1,400 finds in those searches. In the past nine years they haven't put a K-9 into the attic once! I guess those guys are all "senile, illogical and delusional." LASD also doesn't put dogs into attics. But what do two of the best and busiest K-9 Teams in the US know? Obviously you should be training them! 

But this difference could be regional. In this part of the world attics are not living spaces. They're not even storage spaces. They're strictly for insulation. The ceiling above my head is sheet rock nailed to the underside of joists. It's not strong enough to bear much weight. It's not strong enough to support the weight of a man so one couldn't hide under the insulation. In some parts of the US attics are living space, and the floors are plywood, often with a covering over it, but not always. Perhaps attics are different where you work and that could explain the difference in how we work. But how would I know since I'm illogical, delusional and senile? I doubt that you'd be so impolite so as to speak this way if we were having this conversation face to face. I wonder why you think it's OK to do it here? 



Andres Martin said:


> There are a BUNCH of tactical scenarios that call for a dog to go into the "dangerous" place and not the human handler.


I've only been training police dogs since 1979 but I've never thought that an attic, of the type that is common here, was an appropriate place to put a dog. It's something that people train for but I've never seen the need. Dogs should be able to make the find from the ground or at least be trained to alert from the entrance to the attic or a vent. Then it's up to the SWAT team to get him out. Dog are good at finding but not so good at apprehension. 

So what other "dangerous places" do you think that a dog should go into but "not the human handler?" Generally I don't think it's proper to send a dog someplace that I wouldn't send his handler. Just a question, what do you do when your dog makes that find in the attic and bites the suspect? Do you call the dog off and then order the suspect to come down? Do you send the handler in? Oh no, wait you said it was too dangerous for him. What if the suspect refuses to come down? Do you redeploy the dog over and over and over until he does? Perhaps you do. I see that you're from El Salvador. I don't know if that's your birthplace or where you work now. But I'll assume the latter. Do they have lawyers down there? I know if you did that in the US you'd be looking at both civil and criminal liability. 

And can someone tell me how it's impossible for a dog to fall off a table? 



Gregg Tawney said:


> "Cant we all just get along?"


Based on results I'd say not. But we really don't have to. It's fine to disagree. It's fine to defend a position passionately. What isn't OK is what several of forum members have done, get rude, call names and engage in flaming. 



Gregg Tawney said:


> When I said equipment I was refering to prey attractions such as sleeves, hidden sleeves (because they are not so hidden) and anything else that would elicite prey.


I get it, you're working the dog on the table and not wearing any equipment. 



Gregg Tawney said:


> When I was talking about channeling dogs back and forth I meant that the table allows me to do this easier because the dog looks at me as a threat....why?....because I was able to "cross that line" on a few occassions and actually grab his paw or other part of the dog which I can not do on a back tie.


I get this too. I do this on a bite with body language and eye contact. The table lets you do it without equipment. I can also do it while the handler holds the leash (if he's good) or with the dog backtied. 



Gregg Tawney said:


> The dogs that benifit the most from the table are the dogs that have fight drive


Where were you during the discussion of fight drive? LOL. Some list members don't think that it exists. 



Gregg Tawney said:


> Since so much of our bite work training is with equipment I try to balance the dog with some table work occassionally. I want a police dog operating around 75/25 prey/fight.


I use the muzzle to avoid the dog making associations with equipment. First he has to be desensitized to it so that he doesn't associate it with training. I don't use my prey work except to build up the bite or to use it for de-stressing and play. 



Gregg Tawney said:


> As far as the atic insertions. How do you handle looking for a wanted subject in a house if you believe he may be in the atic?


I life the dog into entrance to the attic and the vents. If someone is present the dog will alert. If he does it's either a SWAT call, depending on the crime or officers will make the entry. I've seen dogs crash through the ceiling boards probably six or seven times, each time injuring themselves. Never was anyone in the attic. 



Andres Martin said:


> 3) Dogs don't fall off tables.


How is this possible? Perhaps if you were to describe the size and shape of the table it would be more clear. 



Andres Martin said:


> 8 ) A dog does not view a table as equipment. Sheeesh. It views sleeves, suits, tugs, as equipment.


This is just a semantic difference. I define as "equipment" anything that the dog associates with biting or training. The table certainly would fall into that category.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Lou Castle said:


> Andres Martin said:
> 
> 
> 
> know the aforementioned to be illogical and delusional...maybe senile (some more sarcastic humor).
Click to expand...


****MOD NOTE******


I missed that; sorry. 

Andres, that kind of "humor" isn't humor, sarcastic or not, and it's NOT OKAY. It's not okay from ANY forum member.


----------



## Tim Martens

one of your fellow so-calites, brad smith, would disagree with you on the use of dogs in attics.

****MOD EDIT***. You two, yes you guys. You two probably will be best off not addressing each other. Calling into question each other's work history, repetitively playing the ad hominem stuff, falling back on "I know you are but what am I " etc. is way off topic. Stop posting to each other because this is silly. Thanks. PM me if you have any concerns but please cut it out in the public forums. Or PM each other and get it figured out. Just not here. The exchange you two are having is disrespectful to the other people in this forum. It's disrespectful to the mods. Just...stop. I really, really do not want to have to address this crap again today.[/Woody]*


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote:Really....................where have you grabbed dogs while on a tie out?

How bad do you have to be at aggitating that the dog would look away? Looking away for a second is avoidance clear and simple buddy, love ya, but if you are working a dog and it looks away...........................well, pushing dogs into avoidance is one of the things a table can do for you.

I can, and have, pushed a dog into this same avoidance years ago. (I didn't need a table though  ) I grabbed him by the side of the head right below the ear. If they look away, it is easy. However, if they look away, you are "F"ing up.

Sorry not a NOOB, and have done this many years, and screwed up a few times. (times a 1000  )


----------



## Gregg Tawney

Jeff - 

Again, I disagree. Not every dog that looks away for a split second is in avoidence. Have you ever heard of threat perception thresholds? 

What about a dog that bates you?....I guess that dog is in avoidence also. Been there done that....got the scars to prove it. 


Gregg


----------



## Woody Taylor

****There is a new, seperate thread for attic insertions over in the Police K9 section. Please take that topic over there and out of this thread; it seems to be an interesting topic and there are already folks chatting it up there. Thanks! [/Woody]*


----------



## Andres Martin

Dear Lou,

I´m truly sorry if I offended you. I was simply using some humorous adjectives. Regrettably they were only humorous to me. It must be because I´m from this part of the world, and speak and write other languages better than English. Please accept my apology.

I was born in El Salvador, but was educated extensively the States. I see you´ve been training dogs since 1979. Thanks for sharing. When I recieved my MBA from a prestigious US University, one of my Marketing professors once said something I will never forget:

*There´s a huge difference between having 30 years experience and having one year´s experience repeated 30 times.*

Please bear that in mind. I´m glad for you that you have had such an illustrious career. Keep up the good work.

Yours Truly,

Andres


----------



## Greg Long

This is crazy!Ive tried not to post but......!

This is an INTERNET discussion board people.You all need thicker skins,including the mods.Passionate discussions get personal and sometimes there are comments that are perceived as personal attacks.GET OVER it!Dont tell me you cant learn anything even though there are a few nasty comments thrown in.If I hear "lets keep it civil" one more time Im gonna puke.


You can definitely grab a dog while backtied although it gets harder and more dangerous as the dog's skill level develops.I wouldnt reccomend it for most people though.

A dog that turns or looks away is showing signs of avoidence most of the time.Avoidence is flight,flight is natural.Its not a bad thing.It is something the dog has to work through.I personally wouldnt use a table but Id listen and learn if I saw someone training with it.

Greg


----------



## David Frost

Greg, I agree discussions can become passionate, that doesn't mean they can't remain professional. From my perspective, the only time moderators have interceded is when there is name calling etc. That does nothing to promote good discussion. Exercise all the passion you need to make your point, just don't make it personal. YOu are certainly right about one thing; we can all learn. I mean gee whiz just look at the thread and it's easy to see more than one alpha just doesn't do well in a pack.

DFrost


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

I think it has been fun. At least nobody is quitting. Although I hate when something gets all edited up. I never get to see it.

I have had 1 years experience more than thirty times easily. Of course, they tell me it is called dating. I never get that stuff right.


----------



## Greg Long

David,

I agree to a point.The way I look at it,if someone calls me names then its their problem not mine.It really doesnt bother me...I guess Im weird.It doesnt keep me from discussing or learning.
If I met with any one of you face to face,I would show you complete respect..well at first anyway.. :twisted: .

The fact is,on the internet anyone can say anything no matter how much or how little they know on the subject.I find this very amusing.I wonder what would happen if all of us were to go to the field and show our training and dogs?Chaos?Fights?I doubt it.I bet we would all be very respectful even if we thought each other was crazy.But this is cyberland and all bets are off.Lighten up...GEEZ. JMO.

Greg


----------



## Gregg Tawney

Thank you Dr. Phil.


----------



## Greg Long

Low blow! :x 

I hate Dr. Phil. :x :?


----------



## David Frost

Greg, I certainly agree with your assessment of internet discussions. I would like to add a couple of things. Personally, I don't much care what others say about my training methods. My evaluations come from the 40 plus handlers that I have to frequently face. That however is neither here nor there. It is mature of you to be able to shrug off name calling etc in a discussion. If you and I, for example, were the only posters then I say go for it. I can either stand my ground or chose not to participate. The goal of a forum such as this however, should be to encourage those that are less experienced to contribute, if nothing more than asking for clarification or experienced opinions. Or for the more experienced yet not as thick skinned, to offer thier opinions without being personally insulted. As for lightening up, I really am trying, but at my age losing weight just isn't as easy as it was when I was a young man in my 40's.

DFrost


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote:I really am trying, but at my age losing weight just isn't as easy as it was when I was a young man in my 40's. 


I am in my 40's and can't loose it for nuthin. :lol:


----------



## Andres Martin

Jeff, if you manage to overcome your dating problem, that'll help with the weight as well. Cheers. :lol:


----------



## Guest

I hate editing. I miss everything. It makes the thread really difficult to go back to b/c the subsequent posts don't make sense anymore. :x 

I think we're having a Greg/Gregg problem. I didn't think Greg and David were disagreeing, and David took the "lighten up" personally, whereas I thought Greg meant it to everyone getting all riled up and name-calling, and the instantaneous editing...see how confusing this internet thing can get??? So, my point is....everyone needs to lighten up and who cares if there's some sarcasm in there??? I sure don't, and I've maintained my good attitude (if it was ever good  ) throughout much personal criticism...right Jeffy? :wink:


----------



## Andres Martin

Put one of the Greg(g)s on a table!!!

I'm trying to stick to the subject.


----------



## Gregg Tawney

But I might fall off!! :lol: 

Trust me...this old dog still bites. 8)


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Jenni, Jenni, who else would I turn to?


----------



## Andres Martin

Yeah! Jeff and Jenni! Maybe this board can moonlight as a "personals". :lol: :lol:


----------



## David Frost

<< David took the "lighten up" personally,>>

Oh Ms Jenni, I can't think of anything anyone could say on this board that I would take personally. I took it to mean exactly as it was written, actually, I was "lightening up". 

DFrost


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Andres Martin said:


> Yeah! Jeff and Jenny! Maybe this board can moonlight as a "personals". :lol: :lol:


Why don't we have that ROTFLOL rolly face????? :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Lou Castle

Greg Long said:


> Passionate discussions get personal and sometimes there are comments that are perceived as personal attacks.GET OVER it!Dont tell me you cant learn anything even though there are a few nasty comments thrown in.If I hear "lets keep it civil" one more time Im gonna puke.


Get your bucket ready. There's a vast gulf between "passionate discussions" and name calling. Name calling soon is returned. That soon escalates and people shouldn't be subjected to it. Many people will drop off the board rather than read that. These day I try to conduct myself as if I was having a face-to-face conversation. In those, rarely does anyone engage in name calling. Sarcasm is clearly shown to be joking by body language and voice inflection, two things that are missing in this medium. 

It's not that people can't learn anything if there are some nasty comments thrown in, it's that they shouldn't have to put up with it.


----------



## Woody Taylor

Andres Martin said:


> Yeah! Jeff and Jenni! Maybe this board can moonlight as a "personals". :lol: :lol:


100% humane and wise application of table training, IMHO.

We all done talking about table training? I think Greg was talking about avoidance stuff?


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Lou Castle said:


> Greg Long said:
> 
> 
> 
> Passionate discussions get personal and sometimes there are comments that are perceived as personal attacks.GET OVER it!Dont tell me you cant learn anything even though there are a few nasty comments thrown in.If I hear "lets keep it civil" one more time Im gonna puke.
> 
> 
> 
> Get your bucket ready. There's a vast gulf between "passionate discussions" and name calling. Name calling soon is returned. That soon escalates and people shouldn't be subjected to it. Many people will drop off the board rather than read that. These day I try to conduct myself as if I was having a face-to-face conversation. In those, rarely does anyone engage in name calling. Sarcasm is clearly shown to be joking by body language and voice inflection, two things that are missing in this medium.
> 
> It's not that people can't learn anything if there are some nasty comments thrown in, it's that they shouldn't have to put up with it.
Click to expand...

Not just that, as valid as that is ----- it's also so distracting. Distracting, unpleasant, nonproductive, and, I gotta add, boring, after a very short while.


----------



## Tim Martens

Lou Castle said:


> These day I try to conduct myself as if I was having a face-to-face conversation.


me too. actually, i tone down my posts here. if i posted my "first draft", i would probably be banned from here. 

one thing the moderators and others need to keep in mind is that people have differing vernaculars. when someone is smug, arrogant, close-minded, narcissistic, demeaning, and condescending somehow that is ok, but when i call that person an idiot somehow that crosses the line? that is ridiculous. we're all adults here and i'm sure hear worse things than that on the television shows you watch at night, but for some reason we have to be above all of that on an internet message board? lol...

lou you say you post as you would talk to someone? again, so do i. i have no problem calling a spade a spade. yes, this has gotten me in trouble my whole life (from grade school on up), but that's just me...


----------



## Woody Taylor

Tim Martens said:


> one thing the moderators and others need to keep in mind is that people have differing vernaculars. when someone is smug, arrogant, close-minded, narcissistic, demeaning, and condescending somehow that is ok, but when i call that person an idiot somehow that crosses the line?


Good point. Interpretation is subjective. Pointed attacks--ones we can see--are a lot easier to pick up than generalizations. And I can't resist here, Tim, generalizations like "If it ain't Dutch, it ain't much" because I have several ideas on what that can imply. Only a few of them are offensive or disrespectful to the people here with GSDs, so I'm gonna *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith*assume good faith and let it go as a forum participant. 

I would encourage you and anyone else who gives a rip about this discussion (and I really hope we get back to table training or end it) to follow that link. Assume good faith. We are here in a cooperative effort to build and better knowledge.

So again, if we're missing something...and I might add that more than one of you is awfully good at putting out ambiguous statements that can be read a variety of ways...let's just all suck it up. Assume good faith. When in doubt, talk to people the same way you would unarmed, unbadged, and tied to a table.


----------



## Tim Martens

Woody Taylor said:


> Only a few of them are offensive or disrespectful to the people here with GSDs, so I'm gonna *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith*assume good faith and let it go as a forum participant.


oooh. you're gonna let it go? thank you all mighty powerful one. gimme a break.

btw, you do know that there are GSD's that come from the netherlands right?


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

Since nobody's discussing table training anymore I assume that the topic has been covered adequately.


----------

