# If you beat it...



## Howard Gaines III

*If you beat it, it will learn!*​ 
Sure and just like yourself, you learned the best when you were worked over. So, how do you think that dog feels or learns? Breaking the problem down into smaller and more manageable pieces is the start. Showing the dog or puppy PART of the end result is the first step. Too often, we as handlers or trainers look only to the end result and do it without regard for the steps to success. WHAT??? 

Beat it and it will learn, use the heavy hand and it will learn QUICKER! What a BS line this is! I have never seen faster and more positive results than those with food/toy rewards and verbal markers. If I had been more open minded to it 30 years ago..........stop me please!!!

For newbies, here's your word for the day, REWARDS = Success, Success = Fewer Headaches.


----------



## maggie fraser

You been drinking Howard, you been watching the world cup ?


----------



## Lee H Sternberg

maggie fraser said:


> You been drinking Howard, you been watching the world cup ?


If he is Maggie, I could use some.:smile:


----------



## Lee H Sternberg

maggie fraser said:


> You been drinking Howard, you been watching the world cup ?


There you go back on the World Cup boredom thing again. You need to get loaded to watch that stuff.:lol:


----------



## maggie fraser

Lee H Sternberg said:


> There you go back on the World Cup boredom thing again. You need to get loaded to watch that stuff.:lol:


Oh, it was worth a watch! 

Sorry Howard :^o


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Howard said'


> For newbies, here's your word for the day, REWARDS = Success, Success = Fewer Headaches.


Howard, I am not buying that at all. Since I have been doing this Koehler, the dogs are waiting at the gate for their turn to go out and they are doing great. They haven't gotten a reward yet beyond the occasional pat on the head and an atta boy.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

I'll take the headaches but be sure the dog knows he's got to do what's to be done!

I break down the various parts of an exercise but once he's learned this and I put it together, the lure of the helper sometimes causes me to "beat" him - your words, not mine!

If it were all so easy, rewards bring success or are you meaning it ironically?


----------



## Howard Gaines III

What is World Cup? Tupperware or something???](*,)


----------



## maggie fraser

Howard Gaines III said:


> What is World Cup? Tupperware or something???](*,)


 
Nope, what's tupperware Howard ? Is that what you store your juice in ? :lol:


----------



## Lee H Sternberg

This is just another PORNO thread.:smile:


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Lee H Sternberg said:


> This is just another PORNO thread.:smile:


Where are the others? \\/


----------



## maggie fraser

Gillian Schuler said:


> Where are the others? \\/


Oh, we're right here \\/


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Hey, I'm not from the other side??


----------



## maggie fraser

Me neither. At this minute... Germany 2 Australia 0


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Now that surprises me, Australians are known as good fighters! Toni's watching agog!

Must admit, to watch a football match from start to end it would have to be England vs any of the other countries, or Switzerland versus any of the other countries. And England vs Switzerland is non plus ultra in our household.

I actually prefer Rugby - it's more manly - they don't lie down and grasp their knees and scream!


----------



## Howard Gaines III

Lee H Sternberg said:


> This is just another PORNO thread.:smile:


 Figures it would go dog style.....
#-o


----------



## Anne Pridemore

Beating is not training. Properly timed and applied physical correction is not beating.

I have had success with treat training and it is great for teaching tricks. But I have had it fail some of my own dogs so badly as to put people and other dogs in danger. Some dogs are hard and strong willed; a pez dispenser owner will never have that animals respect. The dog will do what it wants - because it can, and because you won't do anything about it. 

One of my own GSDs spent a year working with a positive only behaviorist and properly applied cookies, clickers, head collars, basket muzzle, sunshine and flowers to try and "humanely" cure him of his dog reactivity and resource guarding (he would guard me- from EVERYTHING). I was going to give up and let him life a sad life of home confinement.

Then I stopped buying into the hype and got with a group of trainers that showed me how to properly teach and correct a dog of my GSDs caliber. The result - within weeks the dog reactivity was almost gone, at 3 months out he was playing with his mortal enemy. (A mal he sent to the vet twice for injuries) His obedience is spot on, he can go anywhere with me and not be a danger, and most of all he is happy. He doesn't tuck his tail or shy away, he is confident and pleased to have a master that is in control of the situation.

He still gets treats. But he doesn't have to earn a one - they are treats because I love him, and he is just fine with that.

Inhumane training is training that fails in the real world under real life stress and results in the dog getting hurt or killed, or brings harm to another person or animal.


----------



## Lynda Myers

Don Turnipseed said:


> Howard said'
> 
> 
> Howard, I am not buying that at all. Since I have been doing this Koehler, the dogs are waiting at the gate for their turn to go out and they are doing great. They haven't gotten a reward yet beyond the occasional pat on the head and an atta boy.


I wonder if this has more to do with the individual attention their receiving from you as opposed to the method used. It would seem that people who have a large group of dogs to look after are most times hard pressed to giving all the dogs their individual time everyday with the caretaker. So by under taking training those dogs are getting more time with you...the pack leader. And what pack member wouldn't want to spend more time with just them and the leader?


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Don't thinks so Lynda. Over the years I have spent much more time with many of the dogs, taking them hunting. The training time is nothing in comparison. We have a somewhat different view of dogs and positions also. I am not their pack leader and I am not going to lower myself to their level. As pack leader, any up and coming dog may think they can challenge me for pack leadership. That isn't in the cards. I am not a dog, I am superior to them and I am their god and not subject to any chgallenging. It has to be this way because one on one...I would lose. Besides, they are not stupid. They know I am not a dog and they know I am the one that makes fun things for them to do.....like fight bears and hogs.

Being a realist, I know dogs that come and want to be next to go out on the heeling and different exercises are in no way offended by this training regardless of what people try to read into it through simple observation. So far, they have all looked forward to the training much like they looked forward to hunting. Why? Because they are enjoying it. They look forward to it and yet not one treat or bribe has been given out. Hard to imagine I suppose.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

You mean you didn't break it down into tiny pieces like howard and reward =success=reward ??

So how are the dogs learning Don ?? Must be magic.


----------



## Steve Strom

Howard Gaines III said:


> *If you beat it, it will learn!*​
> 
> 
> 
> .


And there'll be no Gaines the fourth.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Lynda Myers said:


> I wonder if this has more to do with the individual attention their receiving from you as opposed to the method used. It would seem that people who have a large group of dogs to look after are most times hard pressed to giving all the dogs their individual time everyday with the caretaker. So by under taking training those dogs are getting more time with you...the pack leader. And what pack member wouldn't want to spend more time with just them and the leader?


Any time the dogs hear a prong collar rattle or I pick up the e-collar, they get extremely excited and they practically won't leave me alone until the collar goes on and they get to go somewhere. I agree, I doubt they're like "Oh, SWEET! We're going to get corrected! AWESOME!" \\/ They're probably just excited to get worked or to get to go somewhere. I don't think it has anything to do with the method.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Or, it might be that mine very seldom need a correction. Most of the correction was done in the first 6 days, Since then It is more of a matter of placing them in a sit until they do it on their own, placing them in a stand, placing them in a down. placing them back in the original position on the stay..... and practicing a lot until they have the positioins correct. All I am showing them is that each command has a position. No tension on the choker means that is where they want to be. Pretty simple really. When they feel the choker tightening up, they step up the pace or move to relieve the tension. That they learned in the first 6 days. I have never owned a prong and don't own a shock collar but if I was jerking the dogs around like most people perceive is done with this method, I really doubt they would get excited about doing it. I can see where dogs may get excited hearing the prong collar rattle or possibly the ecollar being put on because they have come to relate those items to treats rather than getting to do something special.


----------



## Lynda Myers

Don Turnipseed said:


> Or, it might be that mine very seldom need a correction. Most of the correction was done in the first 6 days, Since then It is more of a matter of placing them in a sit until they do it on their own, placing them in a stand, placing them in a down. placing them back in the original position on the stay..... and practicing a lot until they have the positioins correct. All I am showing them is that each command has a position.


I understand you like the method and all which is great. However and this is just an observation...for the amount time you've spent training the Kohler method you could have had them all excuting sits, downs, and fuss position on command correctly with a clicker but to each his own carry on.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Lynda Myers said:


> I understand you like the method and all which is great. However and this is just an observation...for the amount time you've spent training the Kohler method you could have had them all excuting sits, downs, and fuss position on command correctly with a clicker but to each his own carry on.


Don't try to BS me Lynda. I don't believe that for a second. I have watched people try that soft peddled training with theses dogs for years. That is what impressed me about the method, it worked without the gimickry. The picture below is an example of what appears to be trained pups. I say appears to be for a reason. I learned a long time ago that just because I can get them all to sit on cue doesn't mean they are trained. When the treats are gone, so are they.


----------



## Ben Colbert

Don Turnipseed said:


> That is what impressed me about the method, it worked without the gimickry.


Don,

You may not think positive methods would work with these dogs. Hell, you might be right. I've never trained an airdale though I'm inclined to think an experienced trainer could do just as well as you have using positive. But just because you like how Koehler method works doesn't mean you can write off everything else as gimickry.

Positive training works. It may not be your favorite method but to write it off completely would be as silly as me trying to write off compulsive methods as ineffective.

They both have their places and they are both effective.


----------



## Howard Gaines III

They use marker training for whales...if it works for "tricking" them, I mean "clicking" them, it can work for dogs too. Old skool is hard to break, I know. Clickers I will NEVER use, but verbals are highly effective.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Ben Colbert said:


> Don,
> 
> You may not think positive methods would work with these dogs. Hell, you might be right. I've never trained an airdale though I'm inclined to think an experienced trainer could do just as well as you have using positive. But just because you like how Koehler method works doesn't mean you can write off everything else as gimickry.
> 
> Positive training works. It may not be your favorite method but to write it off completely would be as silly as me trying to write off compulsive methods as ineffective.
> 
> They both have their places and they are both effective.


Ben, you should read the studies done by the Brelands in animal behavior. They got chickens to dance and got animals to to all kinds of wierd things with food rewards. Basically what they found out is that when the rewards ended, instinctual drift came into play and they reverted back to what nature dictated. That is why the training method is referred to as positive re-inforcement.....it needs continual re-inforcement to work.....like all the pups in the picture. Those pups are not "trained" to sit but it only took 20 minutes to get them to do it. I don't deny there is a place for positive training. It is great for teaching tricks but you have to always have the reward ready. While Koehler may take a bit longer, you have a solid dog in the end and don't need to carry treats and balls because the dog is actually trained. To put it another way, the dog has altered his own behvior with some help and it stays altered.


----------



## Ben Colbert

Don,

You don't think "instinctual drift" will take over if you stop training? Do you think that for some reason training with no rewards means the dog will always remember and choose to obey?

The word reinforcement has nothing to do with having to continually reward. I have no use for koehler when teaching a behavior. If I need to teach a dog to sit then I can use treats to do it and get a much faster, more reliable, and more motivated sit than I ever could with force.

Remember that many trainers use 4 phases of training:

Teaching 
Correcting
Proofing
Maintaining

I feel that when you hear positive reinforcement you see us dancing around with rainbows and smiles. Some dogs need a good ass kicking but in 99% of the cases its so much easier for everyone (dog included) to teach the dog what you want by making him want to do it before teaching him that he has to do it. Does that make since?


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Ben, you have your mind made up and that is OK with me. Train however you like for the results that satisfy you. I will train for the result that I want. I believe it was you, no, I know it was you that said your dog is close to uncontrolable on leash when another dog approaches. You keep doing it your way.


----------



## Ben Colbert

And let me know when you trial for you next BH. I'll come and watch.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Don Turnipseed said:


> Ben, you should read the studies done by the Brelands in animal behavior. They got chickens to dance and got animals to to all kinds of wierd things with food rewards. Basically what they found out is that when the rewards ended, instinctual drift came into play and they reverted back to what nature dictated. That is why the training method is referred to as positive re-inforcement.....it needs continual re-inforcement to work.....like all the pups in the picture. Those pups are not "trained" to sit but it only took 20 minutes to get them to do it. I don't deny there is a place for positive training. It is great for teaching tricks but you have to always have the reward ready. While Koehler may take a bit longer, you have a solid dog in the end and don't need to carry treats and balls because the dog is actually trained. To put it another way, the dog has altered his own behvior with some help and it stays altered.



Koehler was my first detailed method, too.  

But Don, what's your own experience with other training methods and basic ob? Did you really find that positive-reward-based training was only "great for teaching tricks but you have to always have the reward ready"?


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Ben Colbert said:


> And let me know when you trial for you next BH. I'll come and watch.


Ben, you just keep us posted on how your dog does on that BH.


----------



## leslie cassian

Howard Gaines III said:


> They use marker training for whales...if it works for "tricking" them, I mean "clicking" them, it can work for dogs too. Old skool is hard to break, I know. Clickers I will NEVER use, but verbals are highly effective.


Except sometimes the whales give the trainers the flipper and decide they'd rather play than work.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...hale_kills_trainer_at_orlandos_sea_world.html


----------



## maggie fraser

My current gsd is well controlled, actually better off leash than on. I've used very little force and/or treats in his training, he has never worn a long line, ecollar or tieback for that matter in any of his early training. He has never ever broken a long down, or any down stay for that matter in any of the many different scenarios he has been in. I taught him when he was 3 mths old by placing him in a down and saying down stay, he never forgot it.

And that has worked for me, cos it worked exactly the same way with my last two gsds which preceded this one. (It took my jrts a little longer, like a couple of years or so lol)

Just thought I'd throw that in here.


----------



## Ben Colbert

Don Turnipseed said:


> Ben, you just keep us posted on how your dog does on that BH.


Passed. Working on retrieves right now and doing really well I think. Hope to have Sch1 on him by next spring. Not bad for a rescue dog and a green handler.


----------



## Jim Nash

I've participated in many of these compulsion vs positive debates in the past and depending what type of discussion it is I'm usually labled either a old school ass kicker or purely positive P***y . There seems to be no in between if you come to the defence of either style . 

Having trained many PSD's from the ground up and starting off years ago using mainly Keohler , correction and compulsive methods I can tell you that having changed throughout the years I have found that starting off to initially training behaviors , I've found using as positive as possible methods at first to set the foundation works best . Coupling with the proofing stages and along with corrections later I've found we get much quicker more reliable responses from the dogs .

Please don't put me in the positive only ranks because I'm far from it . I still use compulsion and corrections in training . I've worked with some very tough dogs that we've had come to Jesus sessions with some but if I could have found away to avoid forcing or compelling anything at first in training I would have . But there are just some dogs that won't take the easy way . 

There's a place for Koehler , compulsions , corrections , positive , motivational and the variety of different training styles out there . 

For me I've found using as positive as possible approach to teaching the behaviors in the beginning works best and I'm glad I opened my mind to those types of training methods because I initially said swore them off .


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Ben Colbert said:


> Passed. Working on retrieves right now and doing really well I think. Hope to have Sch1 on him by next spring. Not bad for a rescue dog and a green handler.


Passed...with the dog that is out of control on the leash?? And what do you mean "green trainer"! You have clearly stated numerous times that you are a dog trainer.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

leslie cassian said:


> Except sometimes the whales give the trainers the flipper and decide they'd rather play than work.
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...hale_kills_trainer_at_orlandos_sea_world.html


Refresh my memory leslie, how many people have these "trained" whales killed over the years. I can't recall the number. LOL


----------



## Howard Gaines III

Leslie thanks as I needed that one to get my day rolling. 

Jim, I think we agree on this one!!! Keeping it as positive as possible, BUT if the need calls for a can of whoop *ss...then so be it!!

I can tell you some dogs will take that rainbow, skippy feel good marker stuff and put it in your face. I have used my share of yank and crank IF AND WHEN it was needed, just like the e-collar. But I have also seen many marked and fast improvements with the dogs in our club simply employing markers and food.

When the behavior has been changed, it seems to stick and they want that reward. I feel that the food/bait is the paycheck for a hungry dog and they will then work for your verbal rewards...because most dogs do want to please.

Using my teaching background, you can't yank and crank kids when they don't get it. BUT setting the question up in a way that they understand and later are able to answer it with success...there's the answer to continued positive learning!!!!


----------



## Jim Nash

Howard Gaines III said:


> Leslie thanks as I needed that one to get my day rolling.
> 
> Jim, I think we agree on this one!!! Keeping it as positive as possible, BUT if the need calls for a can of whoop *ss...then so be it!!
> 
> I can tell you some dogs will take that rainbow, skippy feel good marker stuff and put it in your face. I have used my share of yank and crank IF AND WHEN it was needed, just like the e-collar. But I have also seen many marked and fast improvements with the dogs in our club simply employing markers and food.
> 
> When the behavior has been changed, it seems to stick and they want that reward. I feel that the food/bait is the paycheck for a hungry dog and they will then work for your verbal rewards...because most dogs do want to please.
> 
> Using my teaching background, you can't yank and crank kids when they don't get it. BUT setting the question up in a way that they understand and later are able to answer it with success...there's the answer to continued positive learning!!!!


I'll just add since you mentioned them wanting that reward that for me the reward in later phases of training is given variably (at diffent times , not for every behavior , dog doesn't know when they are getting it ) and that the reward could be anything from praise , toy or food . 

Also down the road there is the expectation that the dog is going to do what I say regardless if there is a reward or not . While working the street there for sure isn't any reward just the knowledge they must do it .


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Connie Sutherland said:


> Koehler was my first detailed method, too.
> 
> But Don, what's your own experience with other training methods and basic ob? Did you really find that positive-reward-based training was only "great for teaching tricks but you have to always have the reward ready"?


Connie, I have never gotten ito much training. All the training I did was was in regard to free ranging dog such as broke off of livestock when I am not there, dogs living in the house when I am not there. Possey training is about worthless in these situations. I consider all those puos sitting a one trick pony and it impresses the heck out of people to see a litter of pups sitting there so well behaved. Took about 20 minutes and I just had to make sure I had enough treats to keep them there while my point was made for the customers. In no way do I consider those pups trained even after doing this "trick" countless times. They would always check my hand and pockets before sitting. I relied heavily on the youg dogs observing the older dogs to learn to "load up" and other things needed to hunt. 
After years of observing the various bribery techniques, I prefer this method as far as the results I see WITH THESE DOGS. I made that clear all along. I do believe that many dogs need the soft peddled techniques. Jennifer had problems getting Jager to sitt more than 3 times and a treat wasn't going to make him do it. Corrections wouldn't make him do it either. This method is great FOR THESE DOGS and gets results fast considering how long it would take since they won't give in even for a fresh steak once they decide they are done. To be honest, Jack, after four so so weeks, is by far the best trained dog I have had and he is picking thiungs up faster as we progress.

Where we are not going to see eye to eye is that Ben and others like this method to basically brow beating the dog into doing things. The first phase with the longe is the roughest on them but they are learning to pay attention to me and not something I am chumming them with. After the first few days it is actually close to correction free and my shirts and pants don't smell like hot dogs.

So I have used some possey techniques so I can have my opinion where how my dogs take to it is concerned. Ben has never tried Koehler and seems to have his opinion. Ben couldn't train one of these dogs because they would decide when they were going to do something and what it was going to cost him to get them to do it.

Bottom line, people can work there dogs anyway they see fit and I will do what works with mine. I do find it very misleading that this method is so harsh. I don't see that at all.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

I want a clear demonstration as to how you teach your dog not to countersurf when your not in the room by using treats to train them. I want to see a demo of a dog that is dead broke off of livestock when you are at the truck a mile away. I have yet to see it done providing the dog is tall enough to reach the counter. These situations are not under the handlers control.


----------



## Ben Colbert

Don,

Why is it all or nothing with you? Why can't you acknowledge that for most of us the best way of training is mostly positive methods but very few of us never use corrections.

If I had a problem with a counter surfing dog I might use mouse traps or a long line and prong. 

But if I'm teaching him to heel out comes the clicker and treats. Why does it have to be mutually exclusive?


----------



## leslie cassian

Don Turnipseed said:


> Refresh my memory leslie, how many people have these "trained" whales killed over the years. I can't recall the number. LOL


To be honest, Don, I have no idea. A couple, maybe, and a couple of trainers that had near miss incidents of being bounced around the pool by a playful whale. I suspect that there are a lot of handler protocols that try to avoid these incidents. 

When things go wrong in a show, does anyone in the audience really know. If they whale decides to swim a few extra laps before jumping through the hoop, does anyone notice that the same way they would if a schutzhund dog took the dumbbell and danced around the field with it before presenting it to the handler?

I like marker training. It's fun for me and for my dog and that works for me as I develop my own personal training style. It's not the only way I train. I'm figuring all this out as I go along. Messed up my first working dog and did lots wrong, but also some good solid training with him, at least enough to earn a BH and pass a couple of CKC obedience classes. 

I guess my point is that things can go awry with marker training, just as they can with any training method. Punishment heavy training has it's own pitfalls as well, if what I've read on this board is correct, and can produce handler aggressive dogs. There has to be a happy middle ground somewhere.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Howard said,


> Using my teaching background, you can't yank and crank kids when they don't get it. BUT setting the question up in a way that they understand and later are able to answer it with success...there's the answer to continued positive learning!!!!


Howard, I am the product of being raised by two teachers. You feel free to use me as an example of what can be achieved from your perspective. :wink:


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Leslie said,


> Punishment heavy training has it's own pitfalls as well, if what I've read on this board is correct, and can produce handler aggressive dogs.


So who is doing punishment and heavy training. Not me! Absolutely the only thing I am enjoying about this is watching how much fun the dogs have doing it. 

That being said I will say one of the problems I see is when you said with marker training you and your dog are having fun and that works for you. I am not training them for fun. I hate everything about it but, they are having fun which makes it bearable for me. I am training them for demos when people are here. It is a job for me and I have had jobs I enjoyed a lot more.....like chumming a litter of pups into sitting. Yes, that was much easier and more enjoyable and it was fast but it doesn't last.


----------



## leslie cassian

Don Turnipseed said:


> That being said I will say one of the problems I see is when you said with marker training you and your dog are having fun and that works for you. I am not training them for fun. I hate everything about it but, they are having fun which makes it bearable for me. I am training them for demos when people are here. It is a job for me and I have had jobs I enjoyed a lot more.....like chumming a litter of pups into sitting. Yes, that was much easier and more enjoyable and it was fast but it doesn't last.



I am lazy and easily bored. If something doesn't have some element of fun for me I won't do it. And no, I don't train just 'for fun'. I want my dogs to title and work with that goal in mind. Your dogs have fun, my dogs have fun, we're really not that far apart. Whatever method we use, does it matter if we accomplish what we set out to? 

I wasn't suggesting that you were using punishment heavy training, just that at either end of the training spectrum - be it positive or negative, there are things that can go wrong.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

As much fun as this banter is, I have to go to work for awhile. Just heard it is supposed to hit 100 today and I got a tree to buck up and remove. On the fun scale it is just ahead of training for me. Toodles. LOL


----------



## Howard Gaines III

Jim Nash said:


> I'll just add since you mentioned them wanting that reward that for me the reward in later phases of training is given variably (at diffent times , not for every behavior , dog doesn't know when they are getting it ) and that the reward could be anything from praise , toy or food .
> 
> Also down the road there is the expectation that the dog is going to do what I say regardless if there is a reward or not . While working the street there for sure isn't any reward just the knowledge they must do it .


 I agree...=D>
"Ah Grasshopper... I say, you do." :twisted:


----------



## Howard Gaines III

Ben Colbert said:


> Don,
> 
> Why is it all or nothing with you? Why can't you acknowledge that for most of us the best way of training is mostly positive methods but *very few of us never use corrections.*
> 
> If I had a problem with a counter surfing dog I might use mouse traps or a long line and prong.
> 
> But if I'm teaching him to heel out comes the clicker and treats. Why does it have to be mutually exclusive?


 Ooooops! Time out here Ben! Few of us use corrections, not sure about that one dude! You can't correct what YOU haven't taught. But you better correct at some point!

Clicker and treats...:-k bait and switch...:-# 
*The Gaines Way...*

Ask
Command
Demand
End of story...

Teaching any behavior first starts with the dog and handler being in the right mindset, show the critter what you want, verbals first and baits or balls next.

As the dog understands the position the food AND vervbals come at the SAME time. Slowly remove the "food line" and the verblas* are* the REWARD. Why? Because the dog works for MMMEEEEE!

I understand what Don and Jim are saying and the end result with any method is never BOMB PROOF. It's an animal......


----------



## maggie fraser

Jim Nash said:


> I'll just add since you mentioned them wanting that reward that for me the reward in later phases of training is given variably (at diffent times , not for every behavior , dog doesn't know when they are getting it ) and that the reward could be anything from praise , toy or food .
> 
> Also down the road there is the expectation that the dog is going to do what I say regardless if there is a reward or not . While working the street there for sure isn't any reward just the knowledge they must do it .


 
Jim, do you find that when the dogs are working that even though they may have been trained with reward, a reward or not is of little consequence ?

I've found that many dogs once they know what they are doing, they are happy to do it, reward or not.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Howard, how do you mean that:

You ask???
Command
Deman

How am I to understand that - how do you ask a dog to do what you want it to do?

It doesn't even work with OH!

Curious!


----------



## Howard Gaines III

maggie fraser said:


> Jim, do you find that when the dogs are working that even though they may have been trained with reward, a reward or not is of little consequence ?
> 
> *I've found that many dogs once they know what they are doing, they are happy to do it, reward or not.[/*quote]
> Maggie this ISN'T the Border Collie Forum!!! LOL


----------



## Howard Gaines III

Gillian Schuler said:


> Howard, how do you mean that:
> 
> You ask???
> Command
> Deman
> 
> How am I to understand that - how do you ask a dog to do what you want it to do?
> 
> It doesn't even work with OH!
> 
> Curious!


Look Hill Country...*Ask is a directive*, the CEA has issued a "request" so if you like LIFE as you have it ...you just do it!

When the dog understands the commands, it's "I say and you do." 
To "request" the dog do any action means you aren't in charge!

I can see Gillian isn't married...cause if she were the hubby would be laying down so law!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah..hate me now~


----------



## Jim Nash

maggie fraser said:


> Jim, do you find that when the dogs are working that even though they may have been trained with reward, a reward or not is of little consequence ?
> 
> I've found that many dogs once they know what they are doing, they are happy to do it, reward or not.



Generally speaking yes that's one of the benefits I've seen when started off as positive as possible . Not that it didn't happen also with the methods I used years ago , just see more dogs now happier to do it , do it faster and more consistantly regardless of a reward .


----------



## maggie fraser

Howard Gaines III said:


> maggie fraser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jim, do you find that when the dogs are working that even though they may have been trained with reward, a reward or not is of little consequence ?
> 
> *I've found that many dogs once they know what they are doing, they are happy to do it, reward or not.[/*quote]
> Maggie this ISN'T the Border Collie Forum!!! LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My reference was mainly toward gsds Howard, but I won't argue with you on the border collies...they live to work. By the way, have you ever owned a gsd?
Click to expand...


----------



## Howard Gaines III

What is a "gsd?" 

I have owned two and I'm in the process of being converted...well sorta! 

I love the BC and will always own one, even though I sold all my sheep a month ago and don't need a herder. Something about them that requires a poor shepherd to atleast pretend!

Bouviers...keeping them too! Amish looking animals are kool!!!

The converted breed, we have a club member who owns a VERY nice male and the plans are to breed with a nice female in late summer +/-. 

Like a good fishing rod or gun, this is something I MUST OWN! I could be punished for life if I missed out on this one! Never question a man and his toys!!!#-o


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Howard Gaines III said:


> Look Hill Country...*Ask is a directive*, the CEA has issued a "request" so if you like LIFE as you have it ...you just do it!
> 
> When the dog understands the commands, it's "I say and you do."
> To "request" the dog do any action means you aren't in charge!
> 
> I can see Gillian isn't married...cause if she were the hubby would be laying down so law!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Yeah..hate me now~


No, no Delaware, ask is a request!

Hillybillies not so daft!


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Ben Colbert said:


> Don,
> 
> Why is it all or nothing with you? Why can't you acknowledge that for most of us the best way of training is mostly positive methods but very few of us never use corrections.
> 
> If I had a problem with a counter surfing dog I might use mouse traps or a long line and prong.
> 
> But if I'm teaching him to heel out comes the clicker and treats. Why does it have to be mutually exclusive?


How do you figure it is all or nothing with me Ben. I don't care how you train....just do it. I really don't understand why you make such a point about noit forcing a dog to do or not do something yet are so quick to add that your not afraid to use a hard correction if needed. What, are you playing to both sides of the discussion. I'll tell you why you do it....because you know you can't train a dog without corrections. Ah, yes, but you only use them if you want the dog bomb proof. A bit hypocrytical to swear by one and have to rely on the other for the tough stuff, but hey, thats ok if you swing both ways. I use food if I want a quick fix to impress someone also....but I don't care if you like to think your a possie but one that can get tough when needed of course. All possie trainers do it because they know they can't train without it with certain dogs. I made it very clear why I was using this method several times...you just can't accept that.


----------



## Anne Pridemore

When I first started training I thought PR was the ONLY way to train. Then the more dogs I worked with I started to see failures in compliance and dependency of reward. The rewards were taking longer to phase out then it took teaching all the basic commands. Proofing was iffy depending on the dog. Distractions often got the better of many dogs in classes.

The first two puppies I raised I started all PR. They did well, but they were not solid or reliable. Once I added prong collar corrections and held them accountable for what they were properly taught - behaviors and commands were improved in no time. Only then could I move them too off-lead training.

I've seen some great cookie dogs, and if the owner is happy with what they have then so be it. I demand more from my dogs. I want more reliability, more focus, and all around solid obedience. To each his own is right on the money. The only thing two trainers will ever agree on is that the third one is wrong.
:wink:


----------



## Lynda Myers

Don Turnipseed said:


> Don't try to BS me Lynda. I don't believe that for a second. I have watched people try that soft peddled training with theses dogs for years. That is what impressed me about the method, it worked without the gimickry. The picture below is an example of what appears to be trained pups. I say appears to be for a reason. I learned a long time ago that just because I can get them all to sit on cue doesn't mean they are trained. When the treats are gone, so are they.


Then the method was not used correctly! Many try to lure dogs into position and call it marker training and that's not it. Not trying to BS you just know what others and myself can get out of dogs when using this method.


----------



## Lynda Myers

Don Turnipseed said:


> Don't try to BS me Lynda. I don't believe that for a second. I have watched people try that soft peddled training with theses dogs for years. That is what impressed me about the method, it worked without the gimickry. The picture below is an example of what appears to be trained pups. I say appears to be for a reason. I learned a long time ago that just because I can get them all to sit on cue doesn't mean they are trained. When the treats are gone, so are they.


 Cute puppies by the way have a guy coming out to the club next weekend who happens to have an Airedale puppy...oh yeah!


----------



## maggie fraser

Anne Pridemore said:


> When I first started training I thought PR was the ONLY way to train. Then the more dogs I worked with I started to see failures in compliance and dependency of reward. The rewards were taking longer to phase out then it took teaching all the basic commands. Proofing was iffy depending on the dog. Distractions often got the better of many dogs in classes.
> 
> The first two puppies I raised I started all PR. They did well, but they were not solid or reliable. Once I added prong collar corrections and held them accountable for what they were properly taught - behaviors and commands were improved in no time. Only then could I move them too off-lead training.
> 
> I've seen some great cookie dogs, and if the owner is happy with what they have then so be it. I demand more from my dogs. I want more reliability, more focus, and all around solid obedience. To each his own is right on the money. The only thing two trainers will ever agree on is that the third one is wrong.
> :wink:


I think you must have done it all wrong then :-D Joking aside, my experience is the opposite to yours although I never started out PR as you refer to it, didn't know any method as such. I started all my puppies off leash and taught them ob off leash and most other things, off leash. One thing all my dogs (gsds), but not the jrts whom I didn't spend too much time training, had very solid and reliable, responsive ob.
Each to their own.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Lynda Myers said:


> Then the method was not used correctly! Many try to lure dogs into position and call it marker training and that's not it. Not trying to BS you just know what others and myself can get out of dogs when using this method.


That's fine Lynda. If you get what you want out of your method, you should use it by all means. In the case of these pups, it may not have been done right but you can see what 20 minutes will do to a bunch of wild pups that have never even been inside of a house. You did tell me all the things I could have the dogs doing with your method with the time I have put into the training I have done. That may be but I seriously doubt that they would do it without a treat in theat short of time. I had fun doing this with these pups in the picture Lynda. I had them all shaking and laying down also. Piece of cake. I actualy thought I might enjoy training mpuppy because they are so animated. After having them sit and down like this countless times, I was showing off my training skills and told one of them to sit. That pup came and sniffed both hands and my pocket and blew me off without a second thought. Even 10 week old pups learn to play that game fast. I am with Anne, if I am going to put the time in, I want the dog trained. 

Also, no one should take offense at my views on PR being great for trick training. Y'all depict Koehler as being akin to beating the dog routinely. Neither of which is true.


----------



## Anne Pridemore

maggie fraser said:


> I think you must have done it all wrong then :-D Joking aside, my experience is the opposite to yours although I never started out PR as you refer to it, didn't know any method as such. I started all my puppies off leash and taught them ob off leash and most other things, off leash. One thing all my dogs (gsds), but not the jrts whom I didn't spend too much time training, had very solid and reliable, responsive ob.
> Each to their own.


I think that is why you see so many cross over trainers - people going from old school to new or from new to old. I can say for starting a puppy I think Positive methods give you a good head start- but in the end for solid reliability (IMO) it has always come down to needing some kind of correction. That may not be a prong correction, some dogs are soft and a loud verbal is all they need. Training really is more about knowing your dog and how to read him than anything else. Then it is up to you how to properly communicate with that dog with the training method that will give you the results you’re looking for.


----------



## Lee H Sternberg

Lynda Myers said:


> Cute puppies by the way have a guy coming out to the club next weekend who happens to have an Airedale puppy...oh yeah!


Lynda - First you try to slam Don in the post above this one on marker training. Then you "suck up" to him in this, I can't wait for a Airedale to come to our club, post.

I think the way to handle it with Don is choose your poison and stick with it.:-D


----------



## maggie fraser

Lee H Sternberg said:


> Lynda - First you try to slam Don in the post above this one on marker training. Then you "suck up" to him in this, I can't wait for a Airedale to come to our club, post.
> 
> I think the way to handle it with Don is choose your poison and stick with it.:-D


 
Quit stirring the porridge pot you! I didn't interpret Lynda's post as a suck up, but more of a watch this space with our methods lol :-D


----------



## Lee H Sternberg

maggie fraser said:


> Quit stirring the porridge pot you! I didn't interpret Lynda's post as a suck up, but more of a watch this space with our methods lol :-D


:-DJust "killing time", Maggie! Stirring the pot? Me?


----------



## Lynda Myers

Don Turnipseed said:


> I want a clear demonstration as to how you teach your dog not to countersurf when your not in the room by using treats to train them. I want to see a demo of a dog that is dead broke off of livestock when you are at the truck a mile away. I have yet to see it done providing the dog is tall enough to reach the counter. These situations are not under the handlers control.


Ah but here's the thing I only use PR for competition training I'm not some fluffy tree hugger. Actually have a copy of Koehler's Method of Guard Dog Training on my shelf among others. It was one of the very first books I bought back oh let's just say quite a few years ago.:-D 
For me there's training for trials and then there's manners...manners will get you compulsion depending on the problem.
Oh by the way the cure for counter surfing is a fist crashing down on the muzzle, trapping it between the counter and the fist. I can leave a plate of food on the coffee table and leave. Knowing it will still be there because my dogs have learned it's better to just follow her then stay in the room with the food. In all honestly though have to say I don't have too many battle of wills with my dogs as they just naturally obey me. Maybe because I have a strong personality so don't need any undue force. But then again I don't allow my dogs to sleep in my bed or sit on the couch with me, don't pet them when they demand or solicited it. Rarely feed them from me plate, I enter doors before they do, if I need to pass I tell the dog to move and if he/she does not will physically knock the dog out of my way while purposely stepping on them in the process etc. etc. 

Ok have only dealt with the livestock problem once and was successful using pr. Porkie loved to chase the horses and can't tell you how times he was send flying through the air. Porkie would hit the ground jump up shake it off and be back at them. He liked biting them on their shoulders and often times would try for their faces. 
But he loved the flirt pole so much more. When I got around to dealing with this problem he would start after them and I would go pull out the flirt pole worked like a charm could call him off the horses from 3 acres away.:-D eventually he stopped chasing them almost all together and every once in a great while might try it but by then could just call him off without having the flirt pole in hand. 
Here's a picture shortly after curbing this issue. Porkie eyeing the horses


----------



## Ben Colbert

Don Turnipseed said:


> A bit hypocrytical to swear by one and have to rely on the other for the tough stuff, but hey, thats ok if you swing both ways.


Did you fail reading comprehension in high school?

I have never and will never use punishment or force to teach a behavior. In my opinion its a lazy way of training. I teach a behavior with positive reinforcement and proof it with corrections.

Teaching (using positive reinforcement to make the dog want to sit)
Corrections (teaching the dog that he must sit even when he doesn't want to)
Proofing (adding distractions to ensure the dog will sit in any environment)
Maintenance (continually to train so the dog is motivated to sit) 

When I say there's a time and place for all methods this is what I mean.

It's not being hypocritical or playing both sides of the fence. It's being open to all training methods. You should try it sometime.


----------



## Lynda Myers

Lee H Sternberg said:


> Lynda - First you try to slam Don in the post above this one on marker training. Then you "suck up" to him in this, I can't wait for a Airedale to come to our club, post.
> 
> I think the way to handle it with Don is choose your poison and stick with it.:-D


Wrong Lee I didn't slam Don just added what I have observed with others and myself. I personally like the look of Ariedales. The thing about the Airedale pup coming out to train with us is to see if they really are as different to train as Don says. True it's not one of his pups but should be able to see semblance in the breed. Further more what was untrue about my sentence that stated the puppies were cute? They are! I can't help it if some people can't remark on the positives of others with whom they may disagree with.
I am one of those people who can have a heated discussion about something and not take offense to it. i get along with pretty much everyone even if we disagree. Because everyone is free to choose their our path.


----------



## Chris Michalek

Ben Colbert said:


> Did you fail reading comprehension in high school?
> 
> 
> It's not being hypocritical or playing both sides of the fence. It's being open to all training methods. You should try it sometime.



For a guy that has demonstrated he doesn't know shit about training a puppy you sure talk big. How about you STFU and learn from those that know more than you? After a few years of experience, actually using different methods with demonstrated result then you can talk.

I see from your blog that you talk about working dogs, do you even know how to read a dog? You didn't do a great job with your pup in the last vid.


----------



## Ben Colbert

Wow Chris, you could use some reading comprehension lessons too. Did you actually read the blog? Did you see how I at no point give people advice and that's simply a training log?

Don't know shit about training a puppy? That's a joke. Could I use some more enthusiasm? Yeah, for sure. Is my timing off from time to time? Yep. That's why I post it here. I'm not an expert and I want the advice.

Don has been doing this method for what? 6 weeks? And now he's the master trainer? He knows enough to shit talk other methods?

You guys are both jokes.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

That is good Lynda. We are making headway also. I am not really training for competition. I want manners. In your examples on countersurfing and livestock, I got the impression you were still around. Can you leave goodies out and go to town? Can you trust that your dogs are not chasing cattle when your a mile away with the tracking equipment....or holding your flirt pole which ever you choose?


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Ben Colbert said:


> Did you fail reading comprehension in high school?
> 
> I have never and will never use punishment or force to teach a behavior.


No actually I did pretty well at reading. Obviously the little girl in you is coming out and you don't know what you have said. Anyone can correct me if my memory is off but you said you would put mouse traps on the counter or use a prong collar to stop counter surfing. Maybe that isn't training to you.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Lynda Myers said:


> Wrong Lee I didn't slam Don just added what I have observed with others and myself. I personally like the look of Ariedales. The thing about the Airedale pup coming out to train with us is to see if they really are as different to train as Don says. True it's not one of his pups but should be able to see semblance in the breed. Further more what was untrue about my sentence that stated the puppies were cute? They are! I can't help it if some people can't remark on the positives of others with whom they may disagree with.
> I am one of those people who can have a heated discussion about something and not take offense to it. i get along with pretty much everyone even if we disagree. Because everyone is free to choose their our path.


Hey, I haven't taken offense at anything anyone has written in this discussion. Now, about the airedale coming to train Lynda. My dogs may be considerably different and are different than most dales today. Jack is an eleven generation dog and was bred to not back up even with bad odds. Most dales today are bred as pets or show and are marginal , many times, in the pet category. See where the dog comes from.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Don Turnipseed said:


> That's fine Lynda. If you get what you want out of your method, you should use it by all means. In the case of these pups, it may not have been done right but you can see what 20 minutes will do to a bunch of wild pups that have never even been inside of a house. You did tell me all the things I could have the dogs doing with your method with the time I have put into the training I have done. That may be but I seriously doubt that they would do it without a treat in theat short of time. I had fun doing this with these pups in the picture Lynda. I had them all shaking and laying down also. Piece of cake. I actualy thought I might enjoy training mpuppy because they are so animated. After having them sit and down like this countless times, I was showing off my training skills and told one of them to sit. That pup came and sniffed both hands and my pocket and blew me off without a second thought. Even 10 week old pups learn to play that game fast. I am with Anne, if I am going to put the time in, I want the dog trained.
> 
> Also, no one should take offense at my views on PR being great for trick training. Y'all depict Koehler as being akin to beating the dog routinely. Neither of which is true.


 
Don,

There is a difference between training based on reward [food, toy, etc.] and training based on markers. A part of marker training is fading the reward or variable reinforcement. If you have worked your marker system correctly, the dog isn't working off the presence of food or the food as a bribe to work.

Terrasita


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Your telling me that food or reward isn't the means your using to get the dog to do what you want so you can mark it at the correct moment? If so, what is the dog working for and why do you have the food at all?


----------



## Lynda Myers

Don Turnipseed said:


> That is good Lynda. We are making headway also. I am not really training for competition. I want manners. In your examples on countersurfing and livestock, I got the impression you were still around. Can you leave goodies out and go to town? Can you trust that your dogs are not chasing cattle when your a mile away with the tracking equipment....or holding your flirt pole which ever you choose?


Don't know as I will rarely leave a dog out loose in the house alone and would never leave them outside loose without being home it's just too much of a liability. So those are moot points for me. On the few occasions I've left a dog out neither the trash nor the dog food was harmed. :-D


----------



## Lynda Myers

Don Turnipseed said:


> Hey, I haven't taken offense at anything anyone has written in this discussion. Now, about the airedale coming to train Lynda. My dogs may be considerably different and are different than most dales today. Jack is an eleven generation dog and was bred to not back up even with bad odds. Most dales today are bred as pets or show and are marginal , many times, in the pet category. See where the dog comes from.


Don this was directed at Lee not you. My reference to "some people" was just that a general statement.


----------



## Chris Michalek

Ben Colbert said:


> Don't know shit about training a puppy? That's a joke. Could I use some more enthusiasm? Yeah, for sure. Is my timing off from time to time? Yep. That's why I post it here. I'm not an expert and I want the advice.
> 
> 
> 
> You guys are both jokes.


Oh really? If you know how to train a puppy then why were you doing what you were doing?

Let's go over the list again.

1. You're boring
2. Session was WAY too long
3. training too many things at once. 
4. food rewards were too large
5. timing sucked.


Yep, I'd recommend you to help train a pup. Put the pipe down for a while and get real with yourself.

I watched your tracking video too, don't get me started on that.... [shakes head]


----------



## Ben Colbert

Chris,

I find your criticism unwarranted. I created a whole thread on how much I suck and how I can get better. If you go back and look at my posts you'll see that most of them involve me asking for advice or information.

At no point have I started doling out specific advice on puppy training. This thread is about methods used. Don apparently thinks there is only one way to train a *real* dog and I (and most other trainers) disagree. I'm not sure why you would find it necessary to pick apart my training in such a situation.

Do I really have to worry that every time I post a video it will be used against me in a separate thread that pissed off someone. Even if the two are on unrelated topics.


----------



## Ben Colbert

Don Turnipseed said:


> No actually I did pretty well at reading. Obviously the little girl in you is coming out and you don't know what you have said. Anyone can correct me if my memory is off but you said you would put mouse traps on the counter or use a prong collar to stop counter surfing. Maybe that isn't training to you.


Subtle difference Don. I find counter surfing to be an incorrect behavior. I'm not actually trying to teach a behavior but am trying to convince a dog that an intrinsically rewarding activity is no longer worth it.

Reinforcement does indeed fail when the reward for the wrong behavior (looking away) is greater than the reward for the correct behavior. That's the point in training where the dog must learn that looking at me is not an option. Its not a please. Its a must.


----------



## maggie fraser

What is counter surfing ? Is that what you see in funny films where dogs are searching for food on the kitchen work top ? Never ever seen it first hand before. I doubt it has ever crossed any of my dogs minds, my cat is fed at one end of the kitchen worktop and has been for years, my jack russell still goes spare if she so much as moves out of that corner where her feed is.

I suppose my point is, for dogs which are raised in the house or those who spend spells in the house, I think it has nothing to do with training methodology. It is all about respect, some folks have a deep rooted notion that a dog will always do XYZ, why ? because it can, is utter tosh.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Maggie, I think we are talking about real live dogs here. I get the impression from several posts that yours may be stuffed....or maybe you acquired them from Ben already trained.


----------



## Chris Michalek

Ben Colbert said:


> Chris,
> 
> I find your criticism unwarranted. I created a whole thread on how much I suck and how I can get better. If you go back and look at my posts you'll see that most of them involve me asking for advice or information.
> 
> At no point have I started doling out specific advice on puppy training. This thread is about methods used. Don apparently thinks there is only one way to train a *real* dog and I (and most other trainers) disagree. I'm not sure why you would find it necessary to pick apart my training in such a situation.
> 
> Do I really have to worry that every time I post a video it will be used against me in a separate thread that pissed off someone. Even if the two are on unrelated topics.



Ben,

I don't have a beef with you but I see you saying this and saying that. Of course there is no ONE way to train a dog but any dog trainer knows that. In my experience, a good dog trainer will use whatever tool necessary to get the job done. 


I love it when people talk big but you have to be able to back it up with results. I'm sure you're going to do a great job with your dog, but if you're going to be putting vids out there, it needs to be good. You were asking for advice which is great but then you are fighting about methods and philosophies while you should be learning about them I think it's way cool that Don is trying the Kohler Method and documenting it for us.


I took a position with you when I saw all of your posturing with respected memebers when you really don't have it together to begin with. You are still at the point where you should be learning instead of telling. Me too so I'm going to STFU now.

Have a good one.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Sounds like her dogs are not of the working drive type.


----------



## Lee H Sternberg

Ben Colbert said:


> Chris,
> 
> I find your criticism unwarranted. I created a whole thread on how much I suck and how I can get better. If you go back and look at my posts you'll see that most of them involve me asking for advice or information.
> 
> At no point have I started doling out specific advice on puppy training. This thread is about methods used. Don apparently thinks there is only one way to train a *real* dog and I (and most other trainers) disagree. I'm not sure why you would find it necessary to pick apart my training in such a situation.
> 
> Do I really have to worry that every time I post a video it will be used against me in a separate thread that pissed off someone. Even if the two are on unrelated topics.


The answer to your video question is "yes". Many here have memories like elephants. They can remember posts and videos months latter and bring them back up to beat you silly with them.:grin:


----------



## maggie fraser

Don Turnipseed said:


> Maggie, I think we are talking about real live dogs here. I get the impression from several posts that yours may be stuffed....or maybe you acquired them from Ben already trained.


 
You can think and get any impression you like Don, I think and get the impression that many just can't get their heads round (you included ) that which isn't written down for them by someone else.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: Don apparently thinks there is only one way to train a real dog and I (and most other trainers) disagree. 

Who are all these other trainers ?? Are you far enough along to dis Bill Koehler as a trainer ?? I sure doubt that.

The guys that seem to do well have a system, and they go out and find or breed dogs that fit this system. They don't vary a whole lot that I have seen.

If you have ever done the Koehler method, I think that you would not be here discussing this. I see a lot of the "yellow belt" syndrome in new dog trainers.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

I haven't read Koehler but it could be he leans towards Konrad Most's methods?

One of our trainers said a number of years ago, dog training is easy! I agree, it can be easy if you can make the dog understand what you want from him and what you won't tolerate. Dogs don't have such complicated minds as humans and the more humans make the dog training complicated, the more the dog becomes confused.

In a way I see only two commands "yes" and "no", reinforced according to the dog's temperament.

I didn't train properly for the last 2 years and now, with a good helper, I'm starting again. At first, it seemed a doddle and the helper was surprised that I had the dog under such good control but now a few trainings later, I look like a zombie in training. The first helper was German and he didn't talk much, just swore if you did something wrong and raised his eyebrows if you did something right!

What is missing in me at the moment is the inner conviction to mentally "force" my dog to heel and wait his chance to go to bite. I know I'll get there but the more trainings we have, the more liberties he's taking. So, I have to ignore the "know-alls" on the bank in front of the clubhouse and concentrate on getting it right. I have a good dog and I'm going to overcome this.

At one training, holding the tug to capture his attention, I fell into the idiocy of thinking it might work!

This isn't a case of the dog not understanding what he has to do - this is a case of the dog showing me where I'm lacking but I'm convinced no tricks will get me there just plain hard work and conviction in what I'm doing. I don't even need to watch a video - I know we look like crap together!


----------



## Howard Gaines III

Gillian you're a hoot! Gotta love it!!!!!!!!!!!!!! \\/

There are good dogs, and bad dogs...but you just can't beat a *chili dog*! Ummmm good lunch! And with a cold beer priceless...


----------



## Gillian Schuler

You know what Howard, why don't you take the time to tell me why I'm a "hoot". If you don't agree with my ideas, then tell me why - would be a basis for discussion, at least.

Why should I say I have a "bad" dog when I haven't. I'm honest enough to admit such things.

Sometimes you really talk through your nose!

What's bitten you lately , not enough PR? Or too many female hormones?


----------



## Howard Gaines III

G- never seen that dawg, can't say what it is or isn't. Can't say your training is bad...hot tea and feet up are good meds...:razz:


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Howard, did it ever occur to you that I didn't ask for your opinion?

Mensch! I used to think Jeff O was harsh with you but am thinking otherwise - what do you actually contribute to discussions?


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

And so you doubted me.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

I didn't doubt what you were saying, Jeff, just am not used to such blunt talk but guess it's better than hedging around, i.e. better the end with terror as the never ending terror!


----------



## Chris Michalek

Gillian Schuler said:


> Howard, did it ever occur to you that I didn't ask for your opinion?
> 
> Mensch! I used to think Jeff O was harsh with you but am thinking otherwise - what do you actually contribute to discussions?


well he's a decent looking chap eh? Or at least he says so.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Jeez, I get to see enough nice-looking guys, if not in dog training, then at the jam sessions!!! I'm not desperate!​


----------



## maggie fraser

Gillian, I wonder if Howard gets lost in translation... I found your post funny too but in an endearing way. Howard sounded to me he was poking fun at the fact you are old, I think you let him off light.;-)

Let me offer a suggestion... you could say instead of saying he is talking through his nose, you could say he is talking through a hole in his head.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Gillian Schuler said:


> I haven't read Koehler but it could be he leans towards Konrad Most's methods?
> 
> One of our trainers said a number of years ago, dog training is easy! I agree, it can be easy if you can make the dog understand what you want from him and what you won't tolerate. Dogs don't have such complicated minds as humans and the more humans make the dog training complicated, the more the dog becomes confused.
> 
> In a way I see only two commands "yes" and "no", reinforced according to the dog's temperament.
> 
> I didn't train properly for the last 2 years and now, with a good helper, I'm starting again. At first, it seemed a doddle and the helper was surprised that I had the dog under such good control but now a few trainings later, I look like a zombie in training. The first helper was German and he didn't talk much, just swore if you did something wrong and raised his eyebrows if you did something right!
> 
> What is missing in me at the moment is the inner conviction to mentally "force" my dog to heel and wait his chance to go to bite. I know I'll get there but the more trainings we have, the more liberties he's taking. So, I have to ignore the "know-alls" on the bank in front of the clubhouse and concentrate on getting it right. I have a good dog and I'm going to overcome this.
> 
> At one training, holding the tug to capture his attention, I fell into the idiocy of thinking it might work!
> 
> This isn't a case of the dog not understanding what he has to do - this is a case of the dog showing me where I'm lacking but I'm convinced no tricks will get me there just plain hard work and conviction in what I'm doing. I don't even need to watch a video - I know we look like crap together!


 

With Konrad Most, you'll also find elements of marker training, especially for the teaching phase. I was actually surprised to see this. As for the counter surfing, I agree, dogs raised in the house understand the rules. Even my cat understands that she isn't allowed on my counters or the stove, but she can get on my doggie table. I've had a couple at some point in their lives lose their heads but it certainly isn't habit. I've never had mals but have lived with GSDs all my life and the last 14 with bouvs. Hopefully, this post doesn't get lost in cyber space as my last, but yes Don, you start with the reward be it food or toy and you fade it. Also, reward can be a pat on the head. The dog can see reward through you the handler without externals such as food. You can work up to full routines. That said, once learned---truly understood, dogs pretty much perform. 

Terrasita


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Well, looks like it is a wrap for this thread. Maggie is being catty about Gillians age and Ben finally quit crying about what I think of things. In all seriousness, what I think or Chris things shouldn't be of so much concern to Ben. I think he is frustrated because he wants our approval and isn't geting it.


----------



## maggie fraser

You certainly seem to have lost your sense of humour lately Don, has it been all that dog training ? Someone must have hurt your feelings somewhere lol


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Sshhhh. I am stirring the pourrige..


----------



## maggie fraser

Don Turnipseed said:


> Sshhhh. I am stirring the pourrige..


Now that's much better Don!


----------



## Donna DeYoung

when giving a food or physical reward, do you guys go into the dog or have the dog come into you? I was reminded by my trainer to have the dog come more into me ... trying to bring more drive and energy out of the dog. My habit is to go to the dog w/ the reward (we're talking minor body language here, such as bending forward and quarter step toward the dog). My habit mostly comes from training horses where I teach the horse to always maintain its position unless I step back several steps and draw the horse into me. I don't draw horses into me very often since in the equine world, a horse coming toward another is the dominant one. The one retreating is the submissive one. So a dog pouncing on me for a treat would be dominant. Which I guess is okay if the dog needs more confidence. In horse training, I use retreat (backing away) as a reward, it can help reinforce to the EQ that I'm not a predator (since predators don't retreat, they engage and come into the animal). 

I suppose w/ dogs since we are both "predators", the body language is different. Sometimes its hard to switch over from my EQ language I have been working in for over 30 years to the canine language which I've only practiced intermittently over the years. W horse you can only use so much force since you cannot win an argument with a 1000 lb animal. It really forces you (no pun intended) to find other ways to pressure the horse, make the horse work against itself, and use positive reinforcement . You want the horse in a parasympathetic state (signalled by seeing the horse "chew" its gums) not the fight or flight state. You can actually use bio-feedback to get the horse into this state by putting your finger in the corner of the horse's mouth and "making him chew" when he is tense. W/ dogs the only parallel I can think of is the height of the tail? IE, tail tucked/position of ears would be fight or flight. Manually raise the tail, head, and you put dog in parasympathetic? don't know how you do that. Food is actually probably the KEY, since bringing out food makes the dog salivate - bingo - into parasympathetic or learning phase. Vs. beating - bingo - sympathetic state fight or flight. Research shows horses learn best and can be molded best in parasym. but if you do one really harmful thing to them in fight or flight, it goes into a long term memory that can take a LONG time to reverse.

I use both positive and force methods in the "in between" area and have used clicker. Recently was having problems w/ my bitch WANTING to work and give me eye contact on the heel and as soon as she heard that clicker her ears pricked up and she gave me what I wanted. She was probably worked that way as a puppy/young dog before I got her.

D


----------



## maggie fraser

Hey Donna, I have background in training horses, what I have never done is analyse what I do/did, I just transferred and developed how I was with horses to dogs. And it works a treat, you already have a start on many of the dog trainers lol  Personally, I don't think it wise to get caught up in the analytical stuff, that's for the novices to animal training lol


----------



## Ben Colbert

Don Turnipseed said:


> I think he is frustrated because he wants our approval and isn't geting it.



I assure you that your approval is the last thing I'm looking for. But I hope those personal jabs makes you feel better about yourself.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

ooooooooooooo he DOES want our approval. Awwwwww, how cute. Seriously, try asking questions as opposed to trying to punk your way to making people believe that you know more than dick **** about dog training.

Sorry your video presentation didn't work out the way you wanted.


----------



## Ben Colbert

Hey Jeff,

Have you seen how many topics I've started? Have you seen how many of them were questions?

Did you read the post in my "video presentation"? Where I was asking for feedback?

Have you noticed that I'll ask random questions on helper work when someone posts a video?

By implying that I don't ask questions you really do make yourself look stupid.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: By implying that I don't ask questions you really do make yourself look stupid.

No I don't. You try and punk people. Sure you ask occasional questions, but you are angry about something.


----------



## Ben Colbert

I'm angry about something?

Pot meet kettle, kettle meet pot


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Any chance this can return to dog training instead of more of this?

(Terrasita, Donna, thank you for trying!)


----------



## Donna DeYoung

when you train 2 completely different species ( predator vs prey, meat-eater/killer vs walking hamburger meat) I think it helps to analyze how you are with one species vs the other. Just like working w/ different animals of the same species, you have to taylor your training regime. If you never look at what you do and how the animal percieves you on their terms, it's hard to improve.


----------



## Sanda Stankovic

OK here is my question: What happens when the reward that I provide isnt as much fun as chasing the cat, which the environment provides? Nobody ever answers me that question. I am a newbie, have been training the reward based thing for over a year now, I still cant get my stupid dog to ignore cats and/or certain dogs... So, what happens when what I have in my hand as a reward isnt as much fun! Nothing, aside from a cat in my pocket will work. What then? Then I try in desparation Koehler method and I can see that once a dog sees that even though it will get a reward for doing something right, there is another dimension to this which is that they need to do something right not only when the reward is good enough that they will work for it, but also that they must do certain things a certain way when asked, not just when they feel like it...


----------



## Sanda Stankovic

So I guess, if all methods come down to the same thing: teach, correct/proof, why does it matter which came first? At the end of the day, you are still correcting for something you havent taught the dog, ie. you are correcting for lack of attention on you as a handler in any situation, something that can be taught only by correcting the dog. Whether you reward it for attention but then have to correct so that dog knows that that means ALWAYS or if you correct so dog figures out that it means ALWAYS isnt really that big of a difference imo.


----------



## Chris Michalek

Sanda Stankovic said:


> OK here is my question: What happens when the reward that I provide isnt as much fun as chasing the cat, which the environment provides? Nobody ever answers me that question. I am a newbie, have been training the reward based thing for over a year now, I still cant get my stupid dog to ignore cats and/or certain dogs... So, what happens when what I have in my hand as a reward isnt as much fun! Nothing, aside from a cat in my pocket will work. What then? Then I try in desparation Koehler method and I can see that once a dog sees that even though it will get a reward for doing something right, there is another dimension to this which is that they need to do something right not only when the reward is good enough that they will work for it, but also that they must do certain things a certain way when asked, not just when they feel like it...



time for compulsion. 100% PR doesn't always work. I don't know anybody that trains 100% positive and gets good results, then again I don't know a tonne of people.

You should have noticed the cat before the dog and the second he glaces towards the cat, give a soft "No" and if he doesn't look back, then you give a little pop on the collar. If that doesn't work you can try a harder pop or pinch the ear. As soon as the dog looks back at you, reward and make it a big deal. Get really active with the dog and play play play so you're more interesting than the cat.

Ben Colbert probably has a better ideas because he's a dog trainer. I'm not.


----------



## Sanda Stankovic

Tried it all, doesnt work. Soft pop, hard pop, serious yank to a point that she does a flip when she goes after a cat also doesnt work. In fact, when I dont say anything, and just correct, seems to work better which is where Koehler comes in. Now we are at least ok with stationary cats and many dogs. But that whole, distract before she sees a cat is all good and it works, until she sees a cat. We are actually at a point where she checks every front yard for cats on our walks.


----------



## Ashley Hiebing

Sanda Stankovic said:


> OK here is my question: What happens when the reward that I provide isnt as much fun as chasing the cat, which the environment provides? Nobody ever answers me that question. I am a newbie, have been training the reward based thing for over a year now, I still cant get my stupid dog to ignore cats and/or certain dogs... So, what happens when what I have in my hand as a reward isnt as much fun! Nothing, aside from a cat in my pocket will work. What then? Then I try in desparation Koehler method and I can see that once a dog sees that even though it will get a reward for doing something right, there is another dimension to this which is that they need to do something right not only when the reward is good enough that they will work for it, but also that they must do certain things a certain way when asked, not just when they feel like it...



Um... you start WAY WAY smaller, under the dog's threshold of reactivity? Instead of setting your dog up for failure by marching right up to what it's reacting to and then taking its head off, which isn't going to do a thing except perhaps make the dog MORE reactive.

So basically, you start at a level where the dog notices the cat or the other dog or whatever but isn't reacting (for some dogs this would be at quite a distance, but you can find it), and reward the dog for remaining calm. Some trainers prefer the dog to look at them and reward for that, but I like the dog to look at the object itself, remain calm, and be rewarded, because this changes the dog's emotional state. GRADUALLY you move closer to the object, at the DOG'S pace, not yours. This seems to be the part where most people throw up their hands and go "Positive training is a load of bullshit!" Because THEY weren't getting results fast enough for their liking.

"We are actually at a point where she checks every front yard for cats on our walks."

That's not surprising... you've proven to her that cats are something to look out for.


----------



## Sanda Stankovic

I would think 1 year to just ignore cats would be plenty of time. This is so frustrating for me because I have the other dog that is so easy to train, yet when I give examples of what I am going through with my female people think I am a total idiot. There is no slowly approach a cat. We see a cat=100% attention. Cat moves= 1000% attention. There is no slow approaching and increasing the distraction. Well there is: dog sees a cat, dog doesnt see a cat. 



> "We are actually at a point where she checks every front yard for cats on our walks."
> 
> That's not surprising... you've proven to her that cats are something to look out for.


I dont get how I've done that? I actually did train all positive and did the whole, uh, there is a cat, quick, distract, reward if she looks at me.. So how would you have approached it assuming that what I am saying is correct, there is no SLOW introduction to the cat... Also, its not like I have cats falling from the sky so I can tailor when she sees one and at what distance I introduce them to her slowly. Cats just appear, and she likes them. I should say I have only been doing Koehler for few weeks and I see more control in her, so why is one method that works (better) so much worse than the one that doesnt work, for my dog at least.


----------



## Ashley Hiebing

100% attention no matter how far away the cat is? What happens when she does see the cat, then? Do you remain stationary, or do you move around? I always have to remind myself to keep moving when working with reactive dogs, because standing there trying to get the dog's attention never works. What is your demeanor like? Are you calm, or do you get jumpy?

It definitely sucks to be surprised... when I work with my own dog, who is reactive toward other dogs while on leash, if one happens to pop out of nowhere and surprise us, I start moving around, shuffling backwards, until he realizes that hey, I'm not going to go forward to get that dog. He turns to look, he gets C/T until he calms down enough that we can make forward progress. I look like an idiot, I'm sure, but it works.


----------



## Sanda Stankovic

> Um... you start WAY WAY smaller, under the dog's threshold of reactivity? Instead of setting your dog up for failure by marching right up to what it's reacting to and then taking its head off, which isn't going to do a thing except perhaps make the dog MORE reactive.


Actually, if I read Koehler correctly, that is exactly what you should do. And surprisingly, it does work although you do still have to start somewhat slowly and gradually introduce distractions. For example, stationary cat, first. Until she knows that its not just good not to go after a cat but that its bad to go after a cat she will not get it and I think this is something that gives power to the correction regardless of how slowly you introduce the distraction. At some point, as Chris said, most dogs do have to be corrected... Which brings me back to my question about why such relevance to when the correction is given.


----------



## Ashley Hiebing

"At some point, as Chris said, most dogs do have to be corrected"

I would disagree with that, but that is one big can of worms that I'd rather not open.

Assuming you went gradually enough, in theory you would get the same result with that method, i.e. a dog that ignores cats. But I guess I would prefer to change the emotional response, instead of just deadening the behavior, if that makes sense. Treat the cause instead of the symptoms?

At any rate, go with what works for you and your dog.


----------



## Sanda Stankovic

Ashley Hiebing said:


> 100% attention no matter how far away the cat is? What happens when she does see the cat, then? Do you remain stationary, or do you move around? I always have to remind myself to keep moving when working with reactive dogs, because standing there trying to get the dog's attention never works. What is your demeanor like? Are you calm, or do you get jumpy?
> 
> It definitely sucks to be surprised... when I work with my own dog, who is reactive toward other dogs while on leash, if one happens to pop out of nowhere and surprise us, I start moving around, shuffling backwards, until he realizes that hey, I'm not going to go forward to get that dog. He turns to look, he gets C/T until he calms down enough that we can make forward progress. I look like an idiot, I'm sure, but it works.


Well, I am calm but I brace myself,lol.. I dont know ... 

But isnt what you are describing just avoidance rather than training to handle dogs very close by? I mean, what is the realistic time frame in which you think your dog will become 100% non-reactive to other dogs no matter what. I have done that, split second distraction and it really does work, I reward when she doesnt look, or if she stops herself from lunging at a dog, gets a reward and it works wonderful IF I am right there and if I catch what she will do before she does. But imo that's just it. She just learns that if I distract her on time, she can control herself. What happens with off leash work then or when I dont catch her in time? She still doesnt learn that she must control herself, just that its fun if the distraction isnt great enough. Gradual introduction of distraction then doesnt really work because YOU are the one that regulates her emotional state not by teaching her to control herself, but to distract her so that she doesnt have to control herself...


----------



## Anne Pridemore

Dogs and Cats. 

My goat killing GSD first came to me wanting to eat all of my kitties. (I had 4 at that time) I can tell you it stopped with one solid correction. He is now wonderful with my cats and ignores stray cats on walks.

If you want to turn it off you can overwhelm the behavior with one solid correction. Or you can spend the next 6 months to 5 years managing the dog out of the behavior. Both ways work. I am of the mindset that my dogs will only live so long, I would rather have them well behaved and enjoy our life together than spend years on one issue.

This is just my opinion, and I fully respect anyone who works with their dogs’ behavior no matter what training method they use. A dog whose master cares enough to train them is less likely to give them up to the shelters or put them down.


----------



## Ashley Hiebing

Sanda Stankovic said:


> Well, I am calm but I brace myself,lol.. I dont know ...
> 
> But isnt what you are describing just avoidance rather than training to handle dogs very close by? I mean, what is the realistic time frame in which you think your dog will become 100% non-reactive to other dogs no matter what. I have done that, split second distraction and it really does work, I reward when she doesnt look, or if she stops herself from lunging at a dog, gets a reward and it works wonderful IF I am right there and if I catch what she will do before she does. But imo that's just it. She just learns that if I distract her on time, she can control herself. What happens with off leash work then or when I dont catch her in time? She still doesnt learn that she must control herself, just that its fun if the distraction isnt great enough. Gradual introduction of distraction then doesnt really work because YOU are the one that regulates her emotional state not by teaching her to control herself, but to distract her so that she doesnt have to control herself...


I don't like to give time frames, because every dog and every owner is different. There are so many variables involved that it's not realistic to say "Your dog should be able to walk past a dozen cats running by 2 feet in front of her in 6 months!" Because what if you're at the six month mark and your dog still hasn't met that goal, you'll get frustrated and think that maybe the method doesn't work, or maybe your dog is stupid, or maybe you're a bad trainer. None of which are the true.

There is no such thing as a 100% reliable living creature, dog, human, anything. Training will stack the deck greatly in your favor, but 100% every time, no matter what happens, isn't achievable.

I could ask the same question of you. When the leash and collar is off and she is not in danger of being corrected, will she remember to control herself if that emotional response is still there? I'm going to guess no. Correction WILL NOT change the emotional response, it just kills the behavior (for a little while, at least).

Google "Look at That game." I switched from having my dog look at me to doing that, and the results have been phenomenal.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Actually, what can happen is that the dog will see the stimulus, choose not to react, and choose interaction with the handler. I did this one day carting with my bouv. She has reactive prey drive. I spent a lot of time walking her past the prey stimulus and C/T for looking at me. Eventually and this took over an hour, I could walk past the prey stimulus without her looking at it. This is her choosing not to engage, not me distracting. Its the same with livestock work. Last week I spent almost 5 hours sitting in an alleyway with several sheep. I sat in my chair and knitted. She was loose. The name of the game was to understand that there are times we engage and times we don't. There were several sheep in the adjacent corral and 2 sheep in the adjacent pen so she had sheep all around her. I had already done a couple of sessions of this on ducks as well. It was interesting to see her load, load, load, take herself further away before she exploded for a bite and then calm. They KNOW that the explosion isn't the desired behavior. Its that self control and choosing self control that I'm after. With the sheep she eventually settled and when she layed down with no sign of panting and had her head down [relaxed], I get up and take her to do some work which included gathers on the two sheep. This was a test. One of the hardest thing to do is to work 1 sheep or 2. Dog has to work with great balance and really know how to work the flight zone. They also can trigger the dreaded prey drive. She did a great job of controlling them. Then when we would come back into the pen with the other sheep, she was nearly nose to nose---no reactivity. Back to my chair for knitting and relaxation. Now, I could use my because I say so button and do obedience with downs, but she wouldn't learn the self control that I'm after. That's just me controlling her. 

Bob's dog Thunder will fight in pressure. I want him to learn ease and control in pressure with the stock. The first sign you'll see of the pressure is if you give a down command and the dog won't take it. If he thinks he's in the fight zone of the stock,he will resist a belly up down. So I told him to back up. Once he backed up, he was out of the pressure and downed. Later I was working him on flanks. I flank him and ask for a standing stop. He was in the pressure where he would generally want to go in for a bite. But he knows, I don't want him to bite. What does he do???? He backed himself [on his own] out, stood, and looked up at me for confirmation and he got a resounding "YES." I had given him an alternative behavior for the situation and he chose it. That's self control and analysis. 

A lot of times with the other methods we as the handler are just saying what NOT to do. We are not teaching the dog an affirmative behavior or alternative. With the stock work, you'll hear me saying to handlers, instead of yelling "NO" and telling the dog what not to do, give him something affirmative TO do that he understands. I deal with dogs with livestock and the prey and control freak buttons so its all about dealing with emotions/instincts whatever you want to call it. Traditionally, you just shut down the drive with obedience, but that's not want I want. Sure there are elements of obedience but you are screwing with how the dog really relates to the stock if you overdo it. The marker training takes out the stress component or greatly reduces it and emphatically lets the dog know what RIGHT is. 

Terrasita


----------



## Sanda Stankovic

> When the leash and collar is off and she is not in danger of being corrected, will she remember to control herself if that emotional response is still there? I'm going to guess no. Correction WILL NOT change the emotional response, it just kills the behavior (for a little while, at least).


Well I guess the point is that she never connects collar with correction, rather her actions... Hopefully correction will change the emotional response from WHOOHOO, CAT=RUN=CATCH to WOOHOO CAT=DONT RUN cos bad things happen=HAPPY CAT... 

With rewards only, its WOOHOO, CAT=RUN=WHERE IS THE REWARD SO I DONT RUN=? 

This is how this newbie is compartmentalizing it for her own training benefit.. I havent done either method successfully so this is only my experience with 1 very difficult dog. 

OK thanks, will google that...


----------



## Ashley Hiebing

My take on the emotional response would be this:

Before training: SEE A CAT, LET'S GET IT

After compulsion training: SEE A CAT, OH MAN I AM SO EXCITED... but mom's right there (with the leash and the collar) so I guess I shouldn't do anything. OR, with a softer dog, SEE A CAT, OH GOD GET AWAY!

After positive reinforcement training (desensitization and counter conditioning): See a cat. Meh.

When you say "With rewards only, its WOOHOO, CAT=RUN=WHERE IS THE REWARD SO I DONT RUN=?" You are making the very common mistake of confusing a reward with a bribe. The dog needs to perform the desired action, thus making the reward appear, not the other way around. You MAY need to wave a reward in front of her nose at first to get her to focus on you, but you can absolutely wean that off very quickly. What Terrasita said about the dog making a decision and choosing not to react is spot-on.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

I think people really have a difficult time believing dogs don't have malice in their hearts and they will choose right when they KNOW what right is. Maggie Fraser was essentially stating this as well. Mostly its a communication issue and having the patience to see the training through.

Terrasita


----------



## tracey schneider

I trained my last dog w/ mostly positive methods in ob esp going into the BH/ I. Ya know, I never fully trusted him in anything until I was able to give a good correction on him. Did he have malice? Lol….uh no….. more like…….. “hmmmm I wonder what will happen if I try it this way today?” or maybe it was “hmmmm this way may work better” o r “hmmm let me show her how smart I am by taking the short cut”. He could do it perfect a gazillion times…. But until that day came I never considered him “reliable” and pretty much just waited it out for the day he sought his independence and I was given the opportunity to explain (correction) to him that it was not an option. 

I don’t know if anyone else is thinking the same thing…. But what is the big deal with giving a correction? A correction is STILL communication….

Only to create further conversation……will “purely” positive methods ONLY affect the dogs in the end? Will folks start breeding for dogs that are more reliant and less independent? Dogs that are more sensitive? Less driven etc? = easier to train? I don’t know, I kinda like a lil bit of “asshole” in my dogs:twisted:](*,)

t


----------



## Chris Michalek

I think corrections should be taught. 

I taught my dogs how to take corrections. With a prong.. YANK... treat. yank treat. With verbal corrections, I would yell and as soon as they did what I wanted or stopped what I wanted then I switch my emotions to show happiness. NOOOOOOOOOOO......AH GOOOOOOOOOOOD BOOOOY!!! Play play play.....






tracey delin said:


> I trained my last dog w/ mostly positive methods in ob esp going into the BH/ I. Ya know, I never fully trusted him in anything until I was able to give a good correction on him. Did he have malice? Lol….uh no….. more like…….. “hmmmm I wonder what will happen if I try it this way today?” or maybe it was “hmmmm this way may work better” o r “hmmm let me show her how smart I am by taking the short cut”. He could do it perfect a gazillion times…. But until that day came I never considered him “reliable” and pretty much just waited it out for the day he sought his independence and I was given the opportunity to explain (correction) to him that it was not an option.
> 
> I don’t know if anyone else is thinking the same thing…. But what is the big deal with giving a correction? A correction is STILL communication….
> 
> Only to create further conversation……will “purely” positive methods ONLY affect the dogs in the end? Will folks start breeding for dogs that are more reliant and less independent? Dogs that are more sensitive? Less driven etc? = easier to train? I don’t know, I kinda like a lil bit of “asshole” in my dogs:twisted:](*,)
> 
> t


----------



## Howard Gaines III

This sounds like rocket stuff! Teaching is nothing more than breaking understanding down into small enough segments that the dog/student can handle and understand it.

I have had a few conversations in the past days about tough dogs and corrections. B/c the dog is tough doesn't mean it can deal with a tough correction...dahhhhh! 

Dogs in a prey mode are there for one reason. Think... if you the leader break the "spell" the dog is under and redirect the behavior, it HAS TO FOLLOW the leader's direction. If my BCs were ass busting across the field moving sheep and into the wire fence, I would do nothing but fence fix 24/7!

Beating the dog is a short cut to teaching failures! Frustration builds drive, frustration without results yields nothing productive...


----------



## Howard Gaines III

"I taught my dogs how to take corrections. With a prong.." 
Same dogs that allowed a home invasion how many months ago? Nice trainer..


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I think people really have a difficult time believing dogs don't have malice in their hearts and they will choose right when they KNOW what right is. Maggie Fraser was essentially stating this as well. Mostly its a communication issue and having the patience to see the training through.
> 
> Terrasita


I don't believe that dogs have malice in their hearts and I believe they will do the right thing if the right thing benefits them more than,not the "wrong" thing but rather what instinct tells them. It is a trade off. My dogs as, an example, have been heavily bred for one thing specifically. That is to find and conquer things more dangerous than they are. It isn't even the thrill,of the kill, it is the fight. Once the ****, possom pig, cat or whatever is dead, they don't give it a second look, they go look for another. The best you will do his hold a nice steak out and even if they take it, you better have them tied because they are on a mission. When dogs have been bred to this level, you are going to have to offer them a distraction they value more than the satisfaction they derive from what the instincts offer. I haven't found one that will compete in this case. An example is I can leave a piece of chicken, easy reach, on the counter and go to town and be assured the chicken will still be there when I get back. Why, because the dog knows that chicken just isn't worth it and he has figured out I left it there on purpose just like I did when I broke him/her. 
Basically food work with these dogs as long as there is nothing else to choose from and that requires a sterile environment such as I used getting all the pups on the deck to sit. It would have been a lot tougher to do out in the yard where there were a lot of options that will over ride the treat. 

I picked the Koehler method because it offers no choices. There are no requests. No method covers all dogs and I hade to put Jack up today because he decided today he would swing his butt away from me and down at my left facing me. He decided today he would take two steps back for the sit. I did correct him a couple of times and he did it anyway as he looked right at me so I put him up rather than let him get used to doing it. We have had a couple other days he decided to do it his way but the next day he is fine. I know it is pointless to continue when I see him staring me right in the eye because I know his mind is made up for today. I also know I could win this momentary bit of free will, but at what cost? I may let him win a couple of small battles but I will win the war.


----------



## tracey schneider

Do I understand you correctly? A correction is the equivalency to “beating”? Is that what people think? Is that why the aversion to them?

Also on tough dogs and tough corrections….. the point of the correction isnt to break the dog. The level of correction is not the same for every dog or every situation and I personally believe they need to be kept in balance… similar to Chris only I don’t do a “session” on it, I just balance as we go.


----------



## Chris Michalek

Howard Gaines III said:


> "I taught my dogs how to take corrections. With a prong.."
> Same dogs that allowed a home invasion how many months ago? Nice trainer..



yeah but they don't get run off the field....nice training :-\"


----------



## Howard Gaines III

If you were to say how YOU were raised, would it be K. style or free range?

I can tell you, I would get an a$$ bust IF I even thought wrong. I think we often train in the manner we were raised...


----------



## Howard Gaines III

Chris Michalek said:


> yeah but they don't get run off the field....nice training :-\"


 Chris who ran off the field. Sounds like sport stuff and as YOU know I don't do, PPD remember. How did you get that thought...nothing of mine run off bud!!!!!!! Come to DE and catch it for yourself.


----------



## tracey schneider

Howard Gaines III said:


> If you were to say how YOU were raised, would it be K. style or free range?
> 
> I can tell you, I would get an a$$ bust IF I even thought wrong. I think we often train in the manner we were raised...



Now you're confusing me.... so you Do believe in corrections? or did you mis-write that?


----------



## Chris Michalek

Howard Gaines III said:


> If you were to say how YOU were raised, would it be K. style or free range?
> 
> I can tell you, I would get an a$$ bust IF I even thought wrong. I think we often train in the manner we were raised...


that doesn't makes sense. A good trainer should be well versed in many techniques and uses whatever tools is necessary. 

If I trained the way I was raised, I would make my dogs fat and then yell at them for being fat and then punish them by reading Cardiology text books and then give a short lecture to the family on things like circulating catecholamines or parasympathetic preganglionic fibers.


----------



## Howard Gaines III

tracey delin said:


> Now you're confusing me.... so you Do believe in corrections? or did you mis-write that?


Tracy read....if you were...
I was raised with a strong hand and in my home ANY BS was stopped! I use corrections and I've used them in the classroom. You CAN"T correct/beat for a better word, for what you *have not* taught. 
Correct to adjust a position is allowed. Corret as to jack their ass...wrong. 
Again, teach it, show it, proof it under distraction. But to correct as in punishment is wrong. The dog/student MUST UNDERSTAND the outcome and correcting is allowed it repositions the body or outcome. Corrections as in beating for a lack of understanding.....

Just b/c I was raised old skool doen't mean I reproduce those modes in my life. 

Still lost...******* 102 if you need it...


----------



## Howard Gaines III

Chris Michalek said:


> that doesn't makes sense. A good trainer should be well versed in many techniques and uses whatever tools is necessary.
> 
> If I trained the way I was raised, I would make my dogs fat and then yell at them for being fat and then punish them by reading Cardiology text books and then give a short lecture to the family on things like circulating catecholamines or parasympathetic preganglionic fibers.


Chris go back to your football days, were all your coaches the same or had the same mindset to the coaching game? All trainers aren't and can't be the same! A good trainer should be well versed, BUT they better understand that not every application fits every event. Defensive coaches and offensive coaches,,,both are coaches and yet skilled in their area of strength.


----------



## tracey schneider

I have to say Im not diggin the whole "corrections/ beatings" term. To me a correction is nowhere near the same thing as a "beating". Beating to me is a loss of control on the "beaters" part. A handler should always be in control. The two terms are NOT synonymous.

t


----------



## Chris Michalek

Howard Gaines III said:


> Chris go back to your football days, were all your coaches the same or had the same mindset to the coaching game? All trainers aren't and can't be the same! A good trainer should be well versed, *BUT they better understand that not every application fits every event.* Defensive coaches and offensive coaches,,,both are coaches and yet skilled in their area of strength.



A good trainer should at least have basic comprehension skills. Thanks for emphasizing back to me what I already said.


----------



## Howard Gaines III

tracey delin said:


> I have to say Im not diggin the whole "corrections/ beatings" term. To me a correction is nowhere near the same thing as a "beating". Beating to me is a loss of control on the "beaters" part. A handler should always be in control. The two terms are NOT synonymous.
> 
> t


 Tracey go back and make the terms fit...
Define correction-

Define beating-

Define teaching-

Beating a dog/puppy for not understanding IS A LOSS OF CONTROL! When the handler or teacher is no longer in control the lesson is useless! Can you agree?


----------



## Howard Gaines III

Chris Michalek said:


> A good trainer should at least have basic comprehension skills. Thanks for emphasizing back to me what I already said.


 Ah...continue in a positive manner sir! Don't be so selective...


----------



## Chris Michalek

Howard Gaines III said:


> Ah...continue in a positive manner sir! Don't be so selective...




Tunnel vision....something I learned from my Malinois.


----------



## Howard Gaines III

Chris Michalek said:


> Tunnel vision....something I learned from my Malinois.


 Tunnel vision- single purpose, single motion? I'm done for today, ya'll solve the world's ills; for me I've got kennels to clean, dogs to feed, and MAYBE I get to eat...\\/


----------



## tracey schneider

Howard Gaines III said:


> Beating a dog/puppy for not understanding IS A LOSS OF CONTROL! When the handler or teacher is no longer in control the lesson is useless! Can you agree?


That is what I just wrote? I cant tell…. are you seriously asking me or are you being facetious? I think your right, we are speaking two different languages apparently….venus vs mars I suppose….. it IS exhausting. ](*,)

t


----------



## maggie fraser

Don, are you intending keeping/selling any of these pups for hunting ? Have you considered any possible ramifications of this early non choice, non thinking, automatic response training for these purpose bred hunting dogs ? Just wondering about that.


----------



## maggie fraser

tracey delin said:


> That is what I just wrote? I cant tell…. are you seriously asking me or are you being facetious? I think your right, we are speaking two different languages apparently….venus vs mars I suppose….. it IS exhausting. ](*,)
> 
> t


:lol::lol:


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Don Turnipseed said:


> I also know I could win this momentary bit of free will, but at what cost? I may let him win a couple of small battles but I will win the war.


Don,

You indicate that you are breeding a single purpose dog that doesn't include selection for trainability. However, that said, you are also getting into a fight with a fight drive dog. Part of what goes on in training [for me] is choosing the handler over all things. If all you have is the whips and chains on a social dominant dog, you are going to be fighting a lot of battles. Good luck on keeping tabs on who is winning. I do think there are some theoretical socially dominant dogs that have no concept of pack or of being anything other than the leader. So what type of dog you are dealing with can be relevant. We are all dealing with command over instinct. I don't necessarily believe that you have to have a higher distraction beyond the instinctual stimulus. What you need is a relationship with the dog and you build that from puppyhood. If you don't have that relationship, then you might have to reach in your bag for some other tools. For a lot of dogs, the handler can mean more to them than an instinctual stimulus and no that doesn't mean that they are low instinct. 

As far as is there anything wrong with a correction? No. To each's own. Bottom line you work with the method that works best for you. Its like religion, you either believe or you don't. I believe in one thing as more effective for *teaching* an affirmative behavior vs. a correction to indicate what NOT to do. Others like their correction system in the teaching phase. Personally, for the way that I like to communicate with a dog, Kohler was good for one thing--the random walkabout to teach the follow the left leg. Its a great game that I play with puppies. Pretty soon, they are heeling fools. I don't have to jerk them around and I say nothing. I just randomly walk and turn. A few sessions and wallah. I do the same walkabouts when I'm working on balance with a stock dog. 

There are some misconceptions though about marker training as bribes. That's just simply not the case if you have done it right. Reward isn't a bribe or distraction.

Terrasita


----------



## Don Turnipseed

maggie fraser said:


> Don, are you intending keeping/selling any of these pups for hunting ? Have you considered any possible ramifications of this early non choice, non thinking, automatic response training for these purpose bred hunting dogs ? Just wondering about that.


I suppose I will keep and seel the dogs for hunting since that is what they are bred for. In response to the non thinking, non choice, auto responce, the dog got you beat by a mile in the thinking category Maggie. The training illocits natural learning. Let me take you back for a refesher course. If a pup is running around the cactus with the big 2" thorns.any times do yopu think he is going to have to slam into them befor he decides it is not a good thing to do??? Not many. It is how they learn naturally. That thorn made a quick impression on the dog.....same as a sharp correction rather than some of the limp wristed corrections I see most do. One good correction is worth a whole bunch of limp wristed once. What y'all really are saying is natural earning sucks and you can do it better but instead of a couple of minutes, it might take 6 mo. Now also, if you bothered to read AND think while you read....I stressed the importance of the release command at the end of the exercises. Very important to know he can do what he wants. I suppose you think the dog walks at a heel whenever I am around or sits on the other side of the yard whenever I stop for something. Automatic response or not, they only do it when asked. I have been meaning to mention also that I could do a demonstration using PR methods and make it look absolutely brutal while making this method look like it is made for pantywaists....not mentioning any names.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Don,
> 
> You indicate that you are breeding a single purpose dog that doesn't include selection for trainability. However, that said, you are also getting into a fight with a fight drive dog. Part of what goes on in training [for me] is choosing the handler over all things. If all you have is the whips and chains on a social dominant dog, you are going to be fighting a lot of battles. Good luck on keeping tabs on who is winning. I do think there are some theoretical socially dominant dogs that have no concept of pack or of being anything other than the leader. So what type of dog you are dealing with can be relevant. We are all dealing with command over instinct. I don't necessarily believe that you have to have a higher distraction beyond the instinctual stimulus. What you need is a relationship with the dog and you build that from puppyhood. If you don't have that relationship, then you might have to reach in your bag for some other tools. For a lot of dogs, the handler can mean more to them than an instinctual stimulus and no that doesn't mean that they are low instinct.
> 
> As far as is there anything wrong with a correction? No. To each's own. Bottom line you work with the method that works best for you. Its like religion, you either believe or you don't. I believe in one thing as more effective for *teaching* an affirmative behavior vs. a correction to indicate what NOT to do. Others like their correction system in the teaching phase. Personally, for the way that I like to communicate with a dog, Kohler was good for one thing--the random walkabout to teach the follow the left leg. Its a great game that I play with puppies. Pretty soon, they are heeling fools. I don't have to jerk them around and I say nothing. I just randomly walk and turn. A few sessions and wallah. I do the same walkabouts when I'm working on balance with a stock dog.
> 
> There are some misconceptions though about marker training as bribes. That's just simply not the case if you have done it right. Reward isn't a bribe or distraction.
> 
> Terrasita


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Well, I screwed that post up, how about a treat. Terrasita, I only read as far as the whips and chains. No point in continuing a mindless discussion. Read what I just posted to Maggie. I could make PR methods look brutal.


----------



## maggie fraser

Don Turnipseed said:


> I suppose I will keep and seel the dogs for hunting since that is what they are bred for. In response to the non thinking, non choice, auto responce, the dog got you beat by a mile in the thinking category Maggie. The training illocits natural learning. Let me take you back for a refesher course. If a pup is running around the cactus with the big 2" thorns.any times do yopu think he is going to have to slam into them befor he decides it is not a good thing to do??? Not many. It is how they learn naturally. That thorn made a quick impression on the dog.....same as a sharp correction rather than some of the limp wristed corrections I see most do. One good correction is worth a whole bunch of limp wristed once. What y'all really are saying is natural earning sucks and you can do it better but instead of a couple of minutes, it might take 6 mo. Now also, if you bothered to read AND think while you read....I stressed the importance of the release command at the end of the exercises. Very important to know he can do what he wants. I suppose you think the dog walks at a heel whenever I am around or sits on the other side of the yard whenever I stop for something. Automatic response or not, they only do it when asked. I have been meaning to mention also that I could do a demonstration using PR methods and make it look absolutely brutal while making this method look like it is made for pantywaists....not mentioning any names.


You're awfully defensive Don, I'm not a dog trainer and I guess you like to take a pot shot at the proverbial soft target (me), but I have experience obviously where you do not. I know and understand the value of relationship with an animal as Terrasita so eloquently puts it, you can attempt to patronise all night long and all you'll get out of me is a quiet condescending laugh because you are beginning to sound like a proper old clown. :-D

You can forget taking me on any 'refresher' course 'cos as old as you are, I reckon I've been out more than you by the sounds of it. We can start again, or you can continue to bang on like a boring record.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Terrasita, this point you made is pretty darned important: _"There are some misconceptions though about marker training as bribes. That's just simply not the case if you have done it right. Reward isn't a bribe or distraction."_

If it's not clear to someone that bribes, lures, and rewards are three different things, it's just about impossible to explain marker training.

As mentioned by others, it's irritating when folks who have no real Koehler basic-ob experience analyze or dismiss it. It's no less annoying when people who have no marker-training basic-ob experience sum it up with a quote from an article they read. 



But I know I latched onto the first detailed method I tried and dismissed all others out-of-hand as if I knew them all. I guess it's human nature. :lol:

Jim Nash summarized it well, I thought: _"There's a place for Koehler , compulsions , corrections , positive , motivational and the variety of different training styles out there .... For me I've found using as positive as possible approach to teaching the behaviors in the beginning works best and I'm glad I opened my mind to those types of training methods because I initially said swore them off."_


----------



## Don Turnipseed

maggie fraser said:


> You're awfully defensive Don, I'm not a dog trainer and I guess you like to take a pot shot at the proverbial soft target (me), but I have experience obviously where you do not. I know and understand the value of relationship with an animal as Terrasita so eloquently puts it, you can attempt to patronise all night long and all you'll get out of me is a quiet condescending laugh because you are beginning to sound like a proper old clown. :-D
> 
> You can forget taking me on any 'refresher' course 'cos as old as you are, I reckon I've been out more than you by the sounds of it. We can start again, or you can continue to bang on like a boring record.



Just calling a spade a spade Maggie.


----------



## maggie fraser

Don Turnipseed said:


> Just calling a spade a spade Maggie.


 
Likewise Don.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter

Howard Gaines III said:


> This sounds like rocket stuff! Teaching is nothing more than breaking understanding down into small enough segments that the dog/student can handle and understand it.


I rarely understand a thing you say, no matter how it is broken down:mrgreen:


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Connie Sutherland said:


> Terrasita, this point you made is pretty darned important: _"There are some misconceptions though about marker training as bribes. That's just simply not the case if you have done it right. Reward isn't a bribe or distraction."_
> 
> If it's not clear to someone that bribes, lures, and rewards are three different things, it's just about impossible to explain marker training.
> 
> It's irritating when folks who have no real Koehler basic-ob experience analyze or dismiss it. It's no less annoying when people who have no marker-training basic-ob experience sum it up with a quote from an article they read.
> 
> 
> 
> But I too latched on to the first detailed method I tried and dismissed all others out-of-hand as if I knew them all. I guess it's human nature. :lol:
> 
> Jim Nash summarized it very well, I thought: _"There's a place for Koehler , compulsions , corrections , positive , motivational and the variety of different training styles out there .... For me I've found using as positive as possible approach to teaching the behaviors in the beginning works best and I'm glad I opened my mind to those types of training methods because I initially said swore them off."_


Connie, I am familiar to some extent with what the other methods are. I know the difference between bribes etc also. I bribed those pups to sit on the deck. As I said they are not trained. I am familiar enough with marker traini9ng to know I am not going to use it with thede dog for reasons I have explained to the point of being boring according to Maggie. The instance today where Jack decided to exert his independence and do things just a little different is a prime example of why I like it. When I corrected him the second time and his head swung around and he looked me dead in the eye as he back up his two step before he sat, I knew he just adopted the attitude of "try and make me" for the day. The trainer that has Jacks brother said when he crosses a very specific line, he is done for the day. The beaty of the "for my dogs" is that they learn where to walk as a natural progression of learning. I don't ask them to walk at a heel, until they are walking at a heel on their own. Then you give the place a name and that place is named "heel". I yhaven't place one dog next to me in that heel position yet....it is just where they decided it was the the most comfortable to walk....then I give it a name. Same with sit. You don't tell the dog to sit until you have quietly put him in a sit through two days of exercises. The dog closes the heel with an automatic sit and I name that poition "sit". That is why it is easy for them to understand it. It is all like that. You don't have to drag the dog into position, he is there.


----------



## Sanda Stankovic

> Terrasita, this point you made is pretty darned important: _"There are some misconceptions though about marker training as bribes. That's just simply not the case if you have done it right. Reward isn't a bribe or distraction."_
> 
> If it's not clear to someone that bribes, lures, and rewards are three different things, it's just about impossible to explain marker training.


Do you think dogs often know the difference. In their mind, they are still associating self-control with a reward just like dog that have been corrected associate it with no punishment. Because I think dogs are thinking creatures, I cant see them changing their natural prey drive due to training and totally becoming desensitized to something that is hard wired in them (such as chasing a cat). I cant see a dog ever fully not caring about something they lived for doing initially. 

Do people that use positive method alone ever have to go back to the reward (if you weaned dogs off it) so that dog doesnt revert back to the original behaviour or can they stop it fully and for good.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Sanda, the Breland study with different species says they all drift back when the reward stops.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Sanda Stankovic said:


> Do you think dogs often know the difference.


Do you mean "do dogs know the difference between bribes, lures, and rewards"?

They are used for different things. That's what I'm trying to say. 

If someone says "marker training is bribing the dog," then (IMHO) that person either doesn't understand the difference or has not seen/learned real marker training. If you don't know the difference, how can you know which is used 
when? :lol:


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Don Turnipseed said:


> ... I don't ask them to walk at a heel, until they are walking at a heel on their own. Then you give the place a name and that place is named
> "heel" ...


Me too, Don.


----------



## Anne Pridemore

Sanda Stankovic said:


> Do people that use positive method alone ever have to go back to the reward (if you weaned dogs off it) so that dog doesnt revert back to the original behaviour or can they stop it fully and for good.


I have had to go back to rewards more than once with my fully positive trained dog. That is why I started retraining him at 7yrs old to learn there will be a real consequence for non-compliance now. The "uh-uh punishment" or just not getting the treat/toy has gotten me no kind of reliability. 5 years of consistant training and handling, and this dog is not able to be off lead for total lack of a recall. 

I compare that to my dogs that started positive only then at the teen stage were introduced to behavior and non-compliance corrections (via-prong collar)-- And my one reactive rehab who has been trained old school and about to start off-lead training-- I just have to say I have not been impressed with the consistency of results with purely positive training. Somewhere along the line, without some kind of corrections that mean something to the dog, you have to realize you are just managing behaviors and not training the animal.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Yes Connie, but you got him into that position with a bribe.LOL Actually, years ago I found the best way to get a dog to walk on the left and in position was to keep a cookie in my left pants pocket.


----------



## Sanda Stankovic

Thanks Don. 

Connie, ok but lets say that often it can be just a misunderstanding or using a wrong word. Most people will figure out a difference between immediate bribing and rewarding because bribing doesnt really work whereas rewarding does (and desparate times sometimes call for bribery by newbies lol). However, from what Don says, imo, bribing can be used to describe the method because at the end of the day, the dog is working for a reward so you are telling it that IF something is done, they will get the reward. Dogs might choose to do something, but it is to get the reward.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Anne Pridemore said:


> I have had to go back to rewards more than once with my fully positive trained dog. That is why I started retraining him at 7yrs old to learn there will be a real consequence for non-compliance now. The "uh-uh punishment" or just not getting the treat/toy has gotten me no kind of reliability. 5 years of consistant training and handling, and this dog is not able to be off lead for total lack of a recall.
> 
> I compare that to my dogs that started positive only then at the teen stage were introduced to behavior and non-compliance corrections (via-prong collar)-- And my one reactive rehab who has been trained old school and about to start off-lead training-- I just have to say I have not been impressed with the consistency of results with purely positive training. Somewhere along the line, without some kind of corrections that mean something to the dog, you have to realize you are just managing behaviors and not training the animal.


One of my dogs was trained for obedience. She was entered in the Great Western Terrier Show obedience several times. She was positively trained except treats were no used in competiton. Several years in roiw roiw she just walked of halfway through the competition and layed down by the bleachers. Finally in 2004 I believe, she stayed through the whole competition and was the high pointing dog. She was probably about 7 by then. They wouldn't compete her again because they acknowledged that she had one but knew she may just walk off again at any given time.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Don Turnipseed said:


> One of my dogs was trained for obedience. She was entered in the Great Western Terrier Show obedience several times. She was positively trained except treats were no used in competiton. Several years in roiw roiw she just walked of halfway through the competition and layed down by the bleachers. Finally in 2004 I believe, she stayed through the whole competition and was the high pointing dog. She was probably about 7 by then. They wouldn't compete her again because they acknowledged that she had one but knew she may just walk off again at any given time.



Bad training is really sad, when she had that kind of potential.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Don Turnipseed said:


> Yes Connie, but you got him into that position with a bribe. ....


Really? 

Or do you mean a lure?

Or maybe free-shaping ..... :lol:


----------



## Sanda Stankovic

Don Turnipseed said:


> Sanda, the Breland study with different species says they all drift back when the reward stops.


do you know of a particular book that she wrote which talks about this, or something similar.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Sanda Stankovic said:


> do you know of a particular book that she wrote which talks about this, or something similar.


They are very well know studies outside of positive/re-enforcement circles Sanda. Punch "Breland studies of animal behavior" into google. "Re-enforcement is kind of a telling word don't you think?


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Bribe, lure, bait, chum,. Synonyms


----------



## Sanda Stankovic

Don Turnipseed said:


> "Re-enforcement is kind of a telling word don't you think?


lol


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Don Turnipseed said:


> Bribe, lure, bait, chum,. Synonyms


So does your boss bribe you to work for them?


----------



## Sanda Stankovic

Well yes, nobody works for the sake of working.. Whether its personal satisfaction/gain, money, whatever, nobody does something they dont like just because... The end result is the same- certain action for a reward. If there was never anything rewarding at the end, why would you do it. Of course, reward or lack of punishment.


----------



## Chris Michalek

Sanda Stankovic said:


> Well yes, nobody works for the sake of working.. Whether its personal satisfaction/gain, money, whatever, nobody does something they dont like just because... The end result is the same- certain behaviour for a given reward.



I don't know about that. I love my job and I can be found spending 15hrs + per day doing it often without any compensation. And speaking of doing things people don't like "just because..." Look at all of those people who are married and more or less despise their spouse but stick it out anyway?


----------



## Sanda Stankovic

Yes, but you like it obviously. I said why would you do something you dont like doing if there was noting at the end for you. A dog will run after a ball forever, but will not just do what you tell it (even if taught the action) unless there is something making him do it be it the reward or punishment.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Myself likewise. I'd like to get paid enough to be comfortable. But like the old saying goes, if you love your job, you won't work a day in your life. Sanda, do your dogs not like to work?


----------



## Chris Michalek

Sanda Stankovic said:


> I said why would you do something you dont like doing if there was noting at the end for you.



I've been married for 20years. I'm not saying I don't like my wife but if I weren't married I'd be in Europe courting Gillian or perhaps Maggie or at least just living in Italy or Spain.


----------



## Sanda Stankovic

and I am sure there are some parts you dont like in your job but you do them because the other parts are enough of a reward for you to do those parts. If you just had to do those parts and there was no good bits that you like, you wouldnt find it so much fun.. Isnt this the whole basis of reward based training anyway.


----------



## Sanda Stankovic

Chris Michalek said:


> I've been married for 20years. I'm not saying I don't like my wife but if I weren't married I'd be in Europe courting Gillian or perhaps Maggie or at least just living in Italy or Spain.


I am sure there is something for you in it. For example, I could sometimes kill my partner of more than 10 years when he snores, but he makes really good dinners, so I tolerate the bad, to get the good. :lol:


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Maren Bell Jones said:


> So does your boss bribe you to work for them?


Well, I obviously wouldn't work for him if he didn't have something to barter with that I valued enough to work for him. I have had bosses short term that didn't offer enough to make it worthwhile and I found someone that offered enough. Regardless of what y'all want to call it, you are still using something the animal values to elicit a very specific response. Camoflague it which ever way you want so it sounds credible to yourselves.


----------



## Chris Michalek

Sanda Stankovic said:


> and I am sure there are some parts you dont like in your job but you do them because the other parts are enough of a reward for you to do those parts. If you just had to do those parts and there was no good bits that you like, you wouldnt find it so much fun.. Isnt this the whole basis of reward based training anyway.



I can relate my job to my dog training.

My job is simply being me, I know it sounds weird but my way of living and being who I am is how I make money. I can be nice or I can be an asshole and I will still get paid for what I do and how I do it. It's accepted in my line of work and in fact if you're aren't a little nuts, people worry and you'll find yourself with less work.

My dogs have a certain way of living as well. When all is said and done everything is more or less a routine and dogs are masters at figuring out patterns and routines. 

I'm consistent in how I am and the dogs just go along for the ride. It makes everything easy.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Eh, not necessarily. Like I like to learn for the sake of learning. No real direct reward in that to me monetarily or otherwise. Anyways, my point is a reward is more like pay for a job well done, not coercion or a bribe. On the opposite side of things for the "reward based training is bribing" crowd, what happens at a trial when the corrective collars come off and the dog figures "oh, awesome, now I can do whatever the heck I want!" I don't train 100% positive (I personally don't think that technically exists, but whatever), but I try to use corrections judiciously and give intermittent rewards. Intermittent rewards are probably better than intermittent corrections at least. With intermittent rewards, the dog will likely just try harder, particularly if he/she loves the work. Intermittent positive punishment may just let the dog get away with stuff.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Don Turnipseed said:


> Well, I obviously wouldn't work for him if he didn't have something to barter with that I valued enough to work for him. I have had bosses short term that didn't offer enough to make it worthwhile and I found someone that offered enough.* Regardless of what y'all want to call it, you are still using something the animal values to elicit a very specific response. *Camoflague it which ever way you want so it sounds credible to yourselves.


Yeah, absolutely. But I don't think it's "camoflauging." I'm big on semantics and all, but bribery/coercion and reward/payment are not synonyms though. I think Bob discussed this elsewhere, perhaps in this thread or elsewhere.


----------



## Sanda Stankovic

> Like I like to learn for the sake of learning.


That IS the reward for you! Pretty much anything you LIKE is a reward. You like to run for fun, thats a reward. You make me run for no apparent reason, that is work. There has to be either concequences or reward at the end of that if you want to see me run! Again, that's the whole principle of reward based training... You take what dog likes to make it do what it doesnt like...


----------



## Sanda Stankovic

Maren Bell Jones said:


> Anyways, my point is a reward is more like pay for a job well done, not coercion or a bribe. On the opposite side of things for the "reward based training is bribing" crowd, what happens at a trial when the corrective collars come off and the dog figures "oh, awesome, now I can do whatever the heck I want!"


But not if there is the anticipation of a reward. That is why I asked can people wean dogs off rewards complitely and the answer according to those that spent most of their life figuring it out (thanks Don for the info) is NO. I taught my dog everything she knows using a reward based method and it works great, just not for everything...


----------



## Don Turnipseed

There is one thing that Jim Nash brought up that makes all possey more useful/predictable. Jim said the dogs don't know when they are getting the reward. That in itself, within a very specific environment, would make the dog more predictable as far as a response. That is a happy medium makes it work. After all, nobody could carry treats around all the time. IN reverse would be my piece of chicken on the counter. Why won't he take the chicken? Is it because he can't? Sure he can take it but what is stopping him is that he remembers that every time he did before I came through the door, magically, and snatched him up off the floor and just screamed at him. He "won't" take it because he is programed to not be sure which time I will come through that door. In Jims case, they are programmed to the possibility of something positive 50% of the time.. Jack has been programmed to the possibility of something negative and even though there is a 50/50 chance I won't show, he won't take it any time.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Sanda, and if you take away all corrections or if a dog gets "collar wise" and then finds itself without a collar and maybe bolts out the door after a cat, doesn't the exact same thing happen? They can just revert back to previous behavior?


----------



## Sanda Stankovic

Maren Bell Jones said:


> Sanda, and if you take away all corrections or if a dog gets "collar wise" and then finds itself without a collar and maybe bolts out the door after a cat, doesn't the exact same thing happen? They can just revert back to previous behavior?


Yes, but the correction inprints in their head much more strongly than a reward does.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

So is that why your dog is totally bomb proof around cats because of all the corrections you're using? It sounds like the reward of kitty chasing is much more influential...my dog is the same way around sheep though and I've put HARD compulsion on him for cheap shotting sheep during herding. Doesn't help at all. Removing him from the work (negative punishment) is better for him than positive punishment and much, MUCH less conflict.


----------



## Anne Pridemore

Maren Bell Jones said:


> So is that why your dog is totally bomb proof around cats* because of all the corrections you're using?* It sounds like the reward of kitty chasing is much more influential...


 
It is not about 100 corrections for the same behavior - if that is what is happening then that is ignorant training and IMO abusive. A behavior correction should only have to happen once to completely overwhelm the behavior and not have to happen again. If you have to correct constantly than all you are doing is nagging the dog and building immunity to the correction. That is why you see dogs pulling away into prong collars - incorrect training by ignorant handlers.

I corrected my high drive GSD from going at my cats with one stern correction. He has been loose with them for two years without even a hit of the behavior. Is all his drive gone? No. He will take out squirrels and run down a ball without hesitation, but he has made the lasting connection that cats are off limits.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Then your dog's drive for the cat was probably not likely that great, to be honest, if he was fine with one single "hey, knock it off." All my dogs have very high prey drive (particularly Fawkes with sheep), but they leave my cat alone too. I can't think of a much bigger positive punishment for a dog than getting skunked or porcupined right in the face, but there are plenty of dogs who are completely oblivious and they come in time and time again for deskunking or to get the quills pulled. While the sanity or intelligence of those dogs may be in question :lol: , sometimes the drive for the reward is too strong for any amount of positive punishment. A pride of lions hunting cape buffalo or wolves hunting bison (two of the most dangerous animals on their respective continents) is also an illustration of this.


----------



## Anne Pridemore

Maren Bell Jones said:


> Then your dog's drive for the cat was probably not likely that great, to be honest, if he was fine with one single "hey, knock it off."


 
That will always be the down side of Forum life. You don't get to see the behavior that is being talked about. Without seeing the dog you can never say "XZY" MUST be true of this dog. I can tell you this dog came to me as a killer of critters. Cats, wild life, and even a goat - as well as dog reactive/aggressive. Training is a powerful thing - even more so when you can read your dog and know what will and will not work. 

Like you said with your guy - leaving the sheep is a powerful correction to him. Correction does not mean beat the snot out of your dog. Correction is a negative that ends the behavior.


----------



## John Wolf

I think results speak for themselves. Look at what Ivan Balabanov, Michael Ellis, Bart Bellon, Jogi Zank, etc... do. If Kohler was really more reliable wouldn't more people excelling at sport use this method? There was a video on this board not too long ago of Chico Stanford. I have heard he uses a lot of compulsion, but even in his video is saw the dog was rewarded with a ball. Try teaching complex behaviors using Kohler.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Anne Pridemore said:


> That will always be the down side of Forum life. You don't get to see the behavior that is being talked about. Without seeing the dog you can never say "XZY" MUST be true of this dog. I can tell you this dog came to me as a killer of critters. Cats, wild life, and even a goat - as well as dog reactive/aggressive. Training is a powerful thing - even more so when you can read your dog and know what will and will not work.
> 
> Like you said with your guy - leaving the sheep is a powerful correction to him. Correction does not mean beat the snot out of your dog. Correction is a negative that ends the behavior.


No, not really. I usually speak in terms of operant conditioning. Correction, whether verbal or physical or both, is positive punishment: i.e.-you ADD something (a verbal or physical correction) to make a behavior LESS likely to occur (chasing the cat). Giving him a no reward marker (I use "game over") and otherwise wordlessly leading him out of the round pen without physical or verbal correction is negative punishment, not a correction (positive punishment): you TAKE AWAY something (getting to work with the sheep) to make a behavior LESS likely occur (cheap shotting at the sheep). Like I said, I'm almost border collie obsessive about semantics, but it is helpful in these sorts of terminology discussions to have clear definitions or we just go round and round.

I still maintain if your dog's drive for your specific cat was THAT high (like to the level of my dog's drive for sheep), a stern verbal correction would not be enough. BTW, I'm not saying your dog doesn't have high prey drive. He's learned situationally what is allowed, which is fine. My old 13 year old husky/Rottweiler mix was a failed adoption from the shelter not once but twice for trying to eat a cat as I was fostering him before I ended up keeping him. :lol: But he acts like my cat doesn't exist. Strangely, never even had to tell him at all to leave the cat alone. That's kinda odd now that I think of it.


----------



## Sanda Stankovic

> So is that why your dog is totally bomb proof around cats because of all the corrections you're using? It sounds like the reward of kitty chasing is much more influential...


Well, I wouldnt expect Koehler to do in few weeks what positive training couldnt in a year. I am however seeing an improvement. I am sure if I was a stronger person, my corrections would have been even more memorable and therefore more effective. But, it does work, at least for me and I was stuck with reward based training which is what I started out with anyway. 



> Removing him from the work (negative punishment) is better for him than positive punishment and much, MUCH less conflict.


this is really not possible in all situations. It is when the reward is to interact with what they want, lets say he wants to ball and will get to have the ball, just on your terms. What happens when the reward is totally different to what they want. ie. wants a cat, I remove her from the cat and give her a ball. Doesnt make sense to me.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Sanda, oh yeah, I'm not saying negative punishment works in all situations, but I would suspect you'd get good results with positive reinforcement by teaching what you want (reward) and proofing with correction (positive punishment) when you are 100% sure the dog knows without a shadow of a doubt what is expected in that situation. Doing counter conditioning and desensitization is about distance, duration, and distraction. It's not fair to the dog to correct if they don't know what is expected. You have to teach both what you want as well as what you don't want. Like have your dog down stay and reward for the stay, correct for non compliance (assuming your dog *can* down stay under a high level of distraction). Anywho, time for bed! :grin:


----------



## Sanda Stankovic

> If you have to correct constantly than all you are doing is nagging the dog and building immunity to the correction. That is why you see dogs pulling away into prong collars - incorrect training by ignorant handlers.


well, I have to say even though I noticed an improvement I am certainly not there yet even with multiple corrections for the same behaviour. When people use e-collars, dont they need to use them for prolonged periods of time to see a consistent result for a behaviour? What I do see is an attempt of self control and on the next encounter a toned down behaviour, not enhanced. A second delay turns into 2 seconds, that type of thing...


----------



## Anne Pridemore

Real world obedience trumps instinct. I've heard various comments and mumblings about "no matter how good a training system is...instinct will always win over obedience." No matter how much people want to argue it - current research states that dogs did come from wolves. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100317/sc_afp/scienceanimalsdogs)

So let’s look at the wolf for a moment on this instinct thing. As everyone knows...wolves howl. They howl for many different reasons...such as boredom, happiness, sadness, and when they stray away from the pack. But, did you know that certain wolves in the pack howl because they're "sexually frustrated." 

Seriously. The alpha male and alpha female in the pack are the ONLY ones allowed to mate and reproduce. The ONLY ones. When a lower ranking member is caught "disobeying" he is banished from the pack. Some pack members will break off and start their own family...so they can have their "own way." But more often than not, the pack stays with the pack. 

So, here's my point: If untrained, wild wolves will restrain themselves from the SECOND STRONGEST (the first being to survive) instinct known to them in order to be obedient to their higher ranking authority ("master" per say)...then a training system that yields balanced, happy, and truly obedient dogs will have no problems fighting instinct. 

If the dogs instinct is to herd/chase/kill lesser animals, such as cats or sheep, is stronger than the dogs instinct to survive and procreate- then I can see balanced proper training (using ALL quads of OC not just two) may have an issue dealing with that dog. But short of brain damage I don't see that as likely. 

Call me old school, but dogs correct stupidity with teeth, I very much doubt my prong collar for bad behavior is any more harmful to the dog than the teeth of a pack mate would be. I send a clear message to my dogs in a language they understand. It is not "beating" or abusive as the cookie evangelist would have everyone believe. As this thread will go nowhere other than down the drain and into insults and BS this is the last I will say on it. 

Everyone draw your own conclusions and train your dog how you see fit. I am pleased with what my training is giving me with my dogs; hopefully you all feel the same about how you chose to train.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

John Wolf said:


> I think results speak for themselves. Look at what Ivan Balabanov, Michael Ellis, Bart Bellon, Jogi Zank, etc... do. If Kohler was really more reliable wouldn't more people excelling at sport use this method? There was a video on this board not too long ago of Chico Stanford. I have heard he uses a lot of compulsion, but even in his video is saw the dog was rewarded with a ball. Try teaching complex behaviors using Kohler.


John, Koehler is basically a method of training a dog to be well behaved in most all situations pertaining to living in our world and being functional in a vast multitude of scenarios. I don't think any one is going to disagree that to get very complicated routines executed in a very specific environment, such as a schutzhund field, positive re-enforcement is going to get the best results. Koehler is basically simpler commands with high reliability.....off leash reliability. Sit, down, come, heel, and many variations of the same in any environment. In the more advanced sessions you have things like forced fetch and other things but I haven't looked a that yet. Personally, I need a dog that is just reliable to go places with me without causing an uproar. I want a dog that is reliable.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Don Turnipseed said:


> They are very well know studies outside of positive/re-enforcement circles Sanda. Punch "Breland studies of animal behavior" into google. "Re-enforcement is kind of a telling word don't you think?


The trouble with the Breland studies is that they weren't done with domesticated dogs. The bottom line is Jack won't counter surf for fear of the possibility of a correction. The flip side of that is the dog that is performing in anticipation of reward happening* at some point*. For some, reward can be the actual work itself. For others it can be external such as food or ball. Once you advance that marker training, you don't need the presence [sight, smell, etc.] to get that dog to perform. My bouv bitch is 6 years old. I marker trained several behaviors before she was 12 weeks old. 

From what you know of Kohler, do you really think that when Jack planted his feet and looked you dead in the eye and said "no" regardless of your corrections, he would have said, how about a time out and I'll pick my battle???


Terrasita


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: I think results speak for themselves. Look at what Ivan Balabanov, Michael Ellis, Bart Bellon, Jogi Zank, etc... do. If Kohler was really more reliable wouldn't more people excelling at sport use this method? There was a video on this board not too long ago of Chico Stanford. I have heard he uses a lot of compulsion, but even in his video is saw the dog was rewarded with a ball. Try teaching complex behaviors using Kohler.

What complex behaviors are these people training that others have not trained in the past with compulsion ??

How many of all of you that are arguing about positive training have done anything ?? Where are your trial dogs ??

All we have here on this board who has done it is Bob Scott, and really, he did only a couple trials on his home field. I commend him for his patience, but the title is not where you should stop, it is where you start.

I would love to hear how all the people who have used compulsion to train their dogs and have competed with their methods for years just don't know what they are talking about. Please elaborate on this.


----------



## Jim Nash

Don , I think reading your detailed use and success using the Koehler method what a slap in the face it is to those that try to descredit it in order to promote their type of training , which usually has been a positive type training method in my experiance . You're doing an awesome job and deserve alot of credit for it and thanks for detailing it for us here . 

But where you start losing me and I feel do yourself a disservice to your accomplishments , is when you then after following very strictly to the Koehler training protocol start comparing it to the positive training methods where it is clear you haven't ever followed one to the degree 
you have Koehler . As evidenced by your descriptions of such use and constant use of the word "bribery" in reference to positive training methods .

You'll get no arguement from me why you feel Koehler works best for training your dogs . Your description and knowledge of them are enough for me to take your word for it . But please be fair and when comparing the pros and cons of different methods , do it comparing the proper , complete and appropiate use of both those methods instead of the properly used Koehler method compared to an incomplete , incorrect or improper use of another method . 







Don Turnipseed said:


> There is one thing that Jim Nash brought up that makes all possey more useful/predictable. Jim said the dogs don't know when they are getting the reward. That in itself, within a very specific environment, would make the dog more predictable as far as a response. That is a happy medium makes it work. After all, nobody could carry treats around all the time. IN reverse would be my piece of chicken on the counter. Why won't he take the chicken? Is it because he can't? Sure he can take it but what is stopping him is that he remembers that every time he did before I came through the door, magically, and snatched him up off the floor and just screamed at him. He "won't" take it because he is programed to not be sure which time I will come through that door. In Jims case, they are programmed to the possibility of something positive 50% of the time.. Jack has been programmed to the possibility of something negative and even though there is a 50/50 chance I won't show, he won't take it any time.



And to further muddy this discussion up let me clear some of your beliefs about me . I have never trained a dog "all possey" as you stated above . It's been more of a mixture of training methods based on the individual dog . Since the dogs I have trained , mostly for PSD work are dogs that I don't have the luxury of getting that all fit the type of dog I work best with . They are all different in characteristics and combinations of behaviors that can either make it easier or hinder the many things I have to train a dog for in Police K9 work . Having trained anywhere from 10-30+ dogs a year for PSD work I soon found out I had better success coming out of my narrow view of how dogs should be trained and start looking at other traing methods (for me mostly were e-collar and mor positive training methods) that I had early in my career swore off . By adding that stuff(not replacing it for what I already knew) to my training knowledge I greatly improved as a trainer .

As for the chicken stealer . Of the dogs I have owned that lived in my homes all of them have been trained the same way with great success . Since it's such a simple type of problem (much like the trash invaders that I have more experiance with ) to solve I personally solved it by teaching the dogs that I will kick their a**es if they do such a thing . 

None suffered any proplems in other areas of training or had it effect their good relationship with me .


----------



## John Wolf

First, I am not advocating for PR only. I find that it fails as soon as the dog finds something more satisfying than you (self rewarding). I am talking about having the dog learn in PR and adding compulsion later. How much compulsion is based on the dog. 

Name one high level trainer who teaches obedience from the get-go w/ strictly Koehler methods. Even the heavy compulsion trainers(that i have seen) have a ball or tug to have a release from the stress of the compulsion. 

I played football for the better part of 20 years, and I look at it this way. Yeah in the 60's they played football and they had their way of training and practicing, but as the years have gone on the game has evolved and gotten better IMO because of a better understanding of the principles of the game and methods of training. It doesn't make the old way wrong, just not as effective.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Chris Michalek said:


> I've been married for 20years. I'm not saying I don't like my wife but if I weren't married I'd be in Europe courting Gillian or perhaps Maggie.


Chance'd be a fine thing my lad :grin:


----------



## Chris Michalek

Gillian Schuler said:


> Chance'd be a fine thing my lad :grin:



Of course it would be a fine thing. I'm a musician who is incredibly passionate and with a highly trained, world class tonguing skills.... :-\"


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Jim, My use of the term bribery is every bit as effective a description for me as the terms whips and chains is to decribe Koehler. I have bribed many dogs using food and don't claim that any were actually trained, but, I have watched people use this bribery method(my view) for many years and seen many things done using it with these dogs. They were just well past their prime by the time the job got done. In breeding, it can be likened to breeding dogs that are very late bloomers in contrast to breeding dogs that can be working by 1 year old.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Why all the skits at e-collar, prong, etc.? If used with intelligence, the transition from these to normal or no collar works. Most human beings have notably more brain cells than canines and those that do, go on to trial their dogs with admirable success.

Maybe some should do a little studying of these "folter instruments" and their application just like some who use them also maintain an open ear for the theories of positive only education / training.

One thing is clear, the trainer who is aware of how the dog learns, can read his own dog and has an open mind, is at an advantage, however he trains.

The bad names for "positive only" or "compulsion + reward" (Zuckerbrot und Peitsche) are brought about by people who have not understood the works of both well enough but just go ahead and use them or copy the latest "training idol"


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Chris Michalek said:


> Of course it would be a fine thing. I'm a musician who is incredibly passionate and with a highly trained, world class tonguing skills.... :-\"


Passing this on to the Swiss Deprived Wives' Club....no, it isn't an sp but they might be a wee bit depraved, too


----------



## maggie fraser

Chris Michalek said:


> Of course it would be a fine thing. I'm a musician who is incredibly passionate and with a highly trained, world class tonguing skills.... :-\"


But can you swim and counter surf ?


----------



## Jim Nash

Don Turnipseed said:


> Jim, My use of the term bribery is every bit as effective a description for me as the terms whips and chains is to decribe Koehler. I have bribed many dogs using food and don't claim that any were actually trained, but, I have watched people use this bribery method(my view) for many years and seen many things done using it with these dogs. They were just well past their prime by the time the job got done. In breeding, it can be likened to breeding dogs that are very late bloomers in contrast to breeding dogs that can be working by 1 year old.


This statement is another example of what I mean when I stated ; 

" But please be fair and when comparing the pros and cons of different methods , do it comparing the proper , complete and appropiate use of both those methods instead of the properly used Koehler method compared to an incomplete , incorrect or improper use of another method . "

If all those people were doing was bribing the dogs it's NOT an effective , complete , or proper use of that method . I said the exact same thing you just did about it years ago because that's what I saw and knew little about it other than that . When I actually looked into it further and saw people with dogs that had been trained properly I realized it wasn't all about bribing when you got to the finished product and saw very reliable well trained dogs I was much more comfortable adding it to my knowledge base . 

Once again I'm not knocking Koehler I feel I'm actually more effective sticking up for Koehler methods when the positive only nuts start using bad training examples to discredit Koehler or the use of corrections and complusion in dog training , then I am sticking up for positive methods . You should really look into it more Don I think you'd be suprised when you see it done properly .


----------



## Gillian Schuler

I posted something similar before but only my short summary translation. Here's the official publication in English:

Publication by the University of Hannover Veterinary University 2009

Comparison of three training methods in police dogs regarding their effect on the dogs’ stress level as assessed by salivary cortisol values, and on their learning effects

The aim of the present study was to investigate and compare three training methods for dogs: a previously trained quitting signal representing negative punishment, and pinch collar and electric training collar both representing positive punishment. Forty-two police dogs of the breed „Belgian Malinois“ recruited from two police departments (H and M) were included in this research project. According to a particular experimental design, construed in advance, every dog was subjected to each of the three training methods. 
The aim of the present study was to determine whether each training method was (a) suitable in quitting undesired behaviour, and (b) able to produce learning success. A further aim was to compare the effects of the three training methods with regard to stress, using the salivary cortisol level as neuroendocrine stress parameter. The results of this study demonstrated that under high levels of arousal a previously trained quitting signal representing negative punishment was not sufficient in stopping dogs from showing unwanted behaviours. In contrast to this, the application of both electric training collar and pinch collar lead to successful learning. A significant difference between both forms of positive punishment, however, was not observed. The analysis of the salivary samples showed no significant differences in the cortisol values obtained after either application of electric training collar or pinch collar. Overall, 17 dogs reached maximum cortisol levels after application of the previously trained quitting signal, 15 dogs after application of the electric training collar, and 10 dogs after application of the pinch collar.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Terrasita,

Can't find your post where you said you were surprised to find Konrad Most used Markers.

Konrad Most's book has a sub-title "Die Abrichtung des Hundes - individuell und ohne Strafen"

"Training dogs - individually and without punishment"

This isn't directed at you but I think a lot of people think compulsion is punishment, just as so many think Markers are bribery.

He even suggested the prong would not be necessary to train a dog in heeling after the foundation work was done but he was not against using it.

Extremely hard dogs (practically untrainable) he rejected, as he was training service dogs.


----------



## Ben Colbert

Gillian Schuler said:


> This isn't directed at you but I think a lot of people think compulsion is punishment, just as so many think Markers are bribery.


I can't speak for others but when I use the term punishment I am refering to it in the behavioral scinece since.

A leash correction is positive punishment. There should be no negative connotation. It is what it is.


----------



## Chris Michalek

maggie fraser said:


> But can you swim and counter surf ?


I'll eat anything on the counter and I float, so we're good to rock and roll... :wink:


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Is that an offer Maggie - you can accompany him on the bagpipes into the bargain!


----------



## maggie fraser

Chris Michalek said:


> I'll eat anything on the counter and I float, so we're good to rock and roll... :wink:


:-o Wow, I'm impressed, ever fancied Portugal instead ?


----------



## Howard Gaines III

Ben Colbert said:


> A leash correction is *positive punishment*. There should be no negative connotation. It is what it is.


How can punishment be positive? I enjoyed being grounded and having the car taken away for weeks! Yahooooo what a thrill it was........Ben not feeling it!

A correction is an adjustment in my book, not positive or negative. The sit isn't straight, it is corrected to the proper position.

Punishment is meant to be felt in a physical and or mental manner. It showcases a higher's displeasure with the lower's action or lack there of...


----------



## Chris Michalek

Howard Gaines III said:


> How can punishment be positive? I enjoyed being grounded and having the car taken away for weeks! Yahooooo what a thrill it was........Ben not feeling it!
> 
> A correction is an adjustment in my book, not positive or negative. The sit isn't straight, it is corrected to the proper position.
> 
> Punishment is meant to be felt in a physical and or mental manner. It showcases a higher's displeasure with the lower's action or lack there of...



BDSM Howard.... I'm sure dogs can be kinky too.

Ben Colbert is right again!!!


----------



## Chris Michalek

maggie fraser said:


> :-o Wow, I'm impressed, ever fancied Portugal instead ?



Of course! =P~


----------



## Gillian Schuler

How about a "Mènage à trois?"

I've always wanted to visit Portugal :grin::grin::grin:


----------



## maggie fraser

Gillian Schuler said:


> How about a "Mènage à trois?"
> 
> I've always wanted to visit Portugal :grin::grin::grin:


Get lost, I took the initiative first :lol: Only kidding, the more the merrier, what says you Chris, can you float enough for two?


----------



## Chris Michalek

maggie fraser said:


> Get lost, I took the initiative first :lol: Only kidding, the more the merrier, what says you Chris, can you float enough for two?



I agree the more the merrier.


----------



## Howard Gaines III

Chris Michalek said:


> Of course it would be a fine thing. I'm a musician who is incredibly passionate and with a highly trained, world class tonguing skills.... :-\"


 Hate to see Chris' version of a "Highland Fling" and with piper skills...Maggie [-X


----------



## maggie fraser

I'll get my passport and flip flops out toot sweet


----------



## maggie fraser

Howard Gaines III said:


> Hate to see Chris' version of a "Highland Fling" and with piper skills...Maggie [-X


He'll not be needing any piper skills, Gillian's the one I imagine who could have a problem with a highland fling on the surf :lol:


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Maggie, 

You just want him for yourself. Be honest!


----------



## Ben Colbert

Howard Gaines III said:


> How can punishment be positive? I enjoyed being grounded and having the car taken away for weeks! Yahooooo what a thrill it was........Ben not feeling it!
> 
> A correction is an adjustment in my book, not positive or negative. The sit isn't straight, it is corrected to the proper position.
> 
> Punishment is meant to be felt in a physical and or mental manner. It showcases a higher's displeasure with the lower's action or lack there of...


 
Positive denotes adding a stimuli to the dog (could be a hotdog or a leash pop)

Punishment denoted that the stimuli is intended to make a behavior less likely to occur.

Positive punishment is the addition of a stimuli that is less likely to make the target behavior occur in the future.


Now if only I could take all this knowledge of theory and turn it into actual training chops.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Howard, keep out of this,you might get hur!!


----------



## maggie fraser

Gillian Schuler said:


> Howard, keep out of this,you might get hur!!


Words of wisdom, Ok Gillian you packed yet ?


----------



## Gillian Schuler

I can't answer for laughing, Maggie!


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Howard, you wanna join us?


----------



## Gillian Schuler

We're sure going to get the thread locked for frivolity?


----------



## Howard Gaines III

Chris is in his quiet mode...
No thanks, in times of great numbers, sometimes it's better to stand back.......and watch! :-o8-[
In my case, much safe to go clean kennels and drink a McEwans.
Geniessen!:-#


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Enjoy your McEwans, then Howard!


----------



## Chris Michalek

Howard Gaines III said:


> Chris is in his quiet mode...
> No thanks, in times of great numbers, sometimes it's better to stand back.......and watch! :-o8-[
> In my case, much safe to go clean kennels and drink a McEwans.
> Geniessen!:-#



I was recording some tracks for a furniture company commercial. I have one of the best jobs in the world. $600 for about 45min of work. \\/ 

Maggie and Gillian, let's go waste some money. 


Maybe Connie should join us so we can't get in trouble for our frivolity.


----------



## maggie fraser

Whey hey, I thought you'd done a runner Chris, I'm all packed and at the ready steady, flippers n'all \\/


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Don Turnipseed said:


> Jim, My use of the term bribery is every bit as effective a description for me as the terms whips and chains is to decribe Koehler. I have bribed many dogs using food and don't claim that any were actually trained, but, I have watched people use this bribery method(my view) for many years and seen many things done using it with these dogs. They were just well past their prime by the time the job got done. In breeding, it can be likened to breeding dogs that are very late bloomers in contrast to breeding dogs that can be working by 1 year old.


 
Hahah, Don if you've read Kohler, he does employ whips and [throw] chains. On the other hand, correct use of marker doesn't involve bribery. One of the problems with these discussions is that they always deteriorate into folks saying there is nothing wrong with correction. There isn't. At some point about something, you will tell your dog "no." That's corrective. You may even employ a stern "knock that crap off." There may even be a physical correction. Correction comes in varying degrees from a verbal no to frying them on a e-collar or hanging them ala Kohler. I'm sure everyone has their range that is comfortable for them. It has nothing to do with the the belief that marker training is effective for *teaching *a behavior. You may have watched someone bribe a dog with rewards. It wasn't marker training. It was bribery and that generally isn't too effective for achieving reliability.

T


----------



## Chris Michalek

maggie fraser said:


> Whey hey, I thought you'd done a runner Chris, I'm all packed and at the ready steady, flippers n'all \\/



you won't be needing flippers dear. :wink:


----------



## Gillian Schuler

:lol: :lol: :lol:

flippin' heck!


----------



## maggie fraser

Chris Michalek said:


> you won't be needing flippers dear. :wink:


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Chris Michalek said:


> ... Maybe Connie should join us so we can't get in trouble for our frivolity.



:lol: You will be mighty disappointed in my in-person seriosity. :lol:


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> ... You may have watched someone bribe a dog with rewards. *It wasn't marker training. * It was bribery and that generally isn't too effective for achieving reliability.


Good luck with these insanely reasonable statements. :lol:


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Hahaha. I think its time to bail. I think frivolity is the only way to go at this point. 


T


----------



## Gillian Schuler

It's a pity, but I guess this is how it works.

We could learn so much from each other, It doesn't mean we have to abandon our own training methods, but in certain situations we could profit from other ideas where our own have failed.

But with two camps with some people thinking one side is beating their dogs and the other side laughing at the other's attempts to "assuage" thiings, guess we'll not all of us meet in the middle.

I once read an article by a man who said he never gave his dog command - he spoke to him. Interesed, I read on and then when my dog was barking at the window, I went up to him and said "hey mate, that's a mighty pretty bitch you're barking at - why don't you give it a rest?"

He shut up immediately, whereas a harsh command would not have been much use!!

It's true what I wrote but I'm not bought into the method lol but I can see why it worked - would have worked without the "pretty btich talk!"


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Gillian,

Some dogs are just that verbal. My GSDs and my bouv bitch have been scary that way. If you want to take it to a even deeper level, explore Kayce Cover and Syn Alia. Once you start talking to a dog you'd be surprised at what they comprehend in terms of the spoken word. But when you say this or write what you wrote above, some people will look at you like you've bumped your head. I can remember when I thought treats were bribery. They can be if used that way. However, rewards whether they are access to work, food, toys, whatever can be invaluable to developing and understanding regarding desired behavior between the handler and the dog. I think someone mentioned with the advent of different techniques, training has evolved. Jim Nash mentioned being open minded enough to explore different tools as they become available and making them a part of your tool kit depending on the dog in front of you. That's it in a nutshell.

Terrasita


----------



## maggie fraser

That's interesting that you say that Gillian, anyone eavesdropping on my place wouldn't realise there were dogs in the house by the way I communicate. I talk to my beasts all the time in this very manner, even an excuse me and the response is instant. That probably sounds off the wall to many, another thing, often the more quietly you talk to them, the sharper they listen. Always spoke to the horses too.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

If you possies only realised how boring all this repetition is. How many times are you going to say food isn't bribery with out a logical, I repeat logical, reason it isn't bribery. Tell me it because the dog is focused on the marker after 500 repetitions instead of the food.

Terrasita, Your whips and chains left the impression that you intended. The illusion of bondage and torture. Don't embarass yourself by changing it to throw chains. Also, I never said I read all of Koehler but I am reading it as I use it. I also pointed that out a few posts back. I will have to find out what very very specialized part has to do with whips also since you make it sound like part of the program. Why don't you take a stab at explaining the use of treats logically if it isn't a bribe to either ellicit a specific behavior before or after the fact(as a reward). I am all ears.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

I don't think dogs realise what you are saying - I mean I could say "that's one helluva mean bitch out there - it's not worth losing your vocal chords over her."

What the main point for me is, that the dog at the window, showing aggression, is not going to lower his aggression if I come shouting up behind him "hey, stop it". He's going to hear "hey, carry on - the boss doesn't like it either."

I've tried throwing a Birkenstock, one lift of your foot and the sandal aims in the right direction. Momentary quiet. "Momentary" is the key word.

I can knock the living daylights out of him but this is also momentary. Truly, this dog will look as though he's found $2 dollars and lost $1000.

Next day, we start from new.

This is why I thought we could all learn from each other. Some "hard" dogs can be better "brought to reason" by softer methods whereas nervy dogs will probably never respond to hard methods.

On the other hand, I'm out on the training field and my dog doesn't obey - for me a clear correction is in order. Not punishment.

Maren,

You say you put your dog away if he starts disobeying (can't remember your exact words, but not relevant).

How long is the tiime span from "disobeying" to being put away. Does the dog have any idea why he received the "punishment"? Withholding the "treat" is ok but here there must be a time lap?

I'm absolutely b'd and am going to train tomorrow morning to ensure Buster doesn't bust my authority
as in the evening we are in training proper.

Don't let this thread die - the frivolity was a welcome break, I'd say, not an end to the discussions.


----------



## Guest

Bribing is what I'd think of when one is luring.

A behavior repeating itself because it's been reinforced with something a dog likes (be it food, or anything else)...

...

Not sure why that's such a limp wristed concept....?


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Stefan, are you referring to my quietly stopping him from barking at the window? Because, if you are, I can understand it.

On the other hand, if I beat him solidly, he'd be there tomorrow with the same behaviour!


----------



## Guest

Fräulein Schuler,

Im allgemeinen. Das war nicht dir spezifisch.


----------



## Ashley Hiebing

Don Turnipseed said:


> If you possies only realised how boring all this repetition is. How many times are you going to say food isn't bribery with out a logical, I repeat logical, reason it isn't bribery. Tell me it because the dog is focused on the marker after 500 repetitions instead of the food.
> 
> Terrasita, Your whips and chains left the impression that you intended. The illusion of bondage and torture. Don't embarass yourself by changing it to throw chains. Also, I never said I read all of Koehler but I am reading it as I use it. I also pointed that out a few posts back. I will have to find out what very very specialized part has to do with whips also since you make it sound like part of the program. Why don't you take a stab at explaining the use of treats logically if it isn't a bribe to either ellicit a specific behavior before or after the fact(as a reward). I am all ears.


Okay, I'll bite.

Reward: Behavior comes first, then reinforcer (food, play, access to resources). The dog DOES NOT KNOW for sure if a reinforcer is coming or not, but he decides to play the odds.
Bribe: Reinforcer comes first, eliciting behavior. You present a treat, the dog learns to associate that treat with sitting, so he sits. No treat? No sit.

I can see where you can consider a reward a bribe if the dog gets a reward every single time. Cue the dog to sit 15 times in a row. Every single time, the dog gets his reward after every single sit. If you go cold turkey on the rewards after that, the dog has no desire to perform for you.

What GOOD trainers will do, after the dog is responding reliably to the cue (80% of the time, usually), they will put the rewards on what's called a variable-interval reinforcement schedule. You stop rewarding every time, and start selecting for, say, straighter or faster sits (one criteria at a time!). The dog is basically playing slots. Eventually you can bring it down to, say, every sit out of 50 gets a treat. And after THAT you can phase out the treats all together, if you want, by having the dog sit for other things besides food, such as getting the leash put on to go for a walk, or access to other dogs, or getting his bowl of food. This is the part that people seem to have the most difficulty doing (along with asking too much of the dog too quickly) that leads to less-than reliable responses.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Dankeschön Herr Lepic - ich hab's verstanden!

Ich bin, wenn ich so sagen darf, eine "Frau" nicht ein "Fräulein". Nicht, dass es eine Rolle spielt.

Bist Du nicht mehr schwanger - hast Du dein Kind geboren? Du hast es so eigenartig geschrieben - hab an Arnold Schwarzenegger gedacht!

Liebe Grüsse
Gill


----------



## Guest

Hier ist der andere Herr Lepic mit fast drei monaten:


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Oh! he's beautiful Stefan - hast es doch feritg gebracht!!!

There's nothing more important than this little new Erdenbürger!!

Ich wünsche Dir und deine Frau viel vergnügen damit!

Und das ein Leben lang!

Liebe Grüsse
Gill

Danke für den Foto Papa!!


----------



## Don Turnipseed

OK, before anyone else attemps to explain food, tugs or toys as a reward, here is a heads up Websters Dictionary

"Bribe...anything given or *promised* as and inducement to do something."

Y'all understand the word "promise" don't you. Just because y'all call it a reward doesn't change the fact that it is used as a bribe.

This is the reason than no one has attempted to explain just how it is not used as a bribe. Plain and simple it is a bribe.

Steve brought up a good point if I understand what he was getting at. Why are you all so afraid to admit you are bribing the dog??? That in itself is puzzling except that it does have a negative connotation to it doesn't it. Like when I say it.


----------



## Guest

That's the point, though. Reinforcement doesn't have to be _promised_. Reinforcement, whatever the source, isn't neccesarily bribery. I don't care about connotation, but it's not accurate neccesarily to call all positive reinforcement bribery.

Unless there's some robot dog, I've yet to see one which didn't require maintenance here and there over the long term. A reminder that good things can happen with compliance, or that bad things can happen for non-compliance.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

What a bribe is, is clear!​ 
What do you really want to say, don?​


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Steven Lepic said:


> That's the point, though. Reinforcement doesn't have to be _promised_. Reinforcement, whatever the source, isn't neccesarily bribery. I don't care about connotation, but it's not accurate neccesarily to call all positive reinforcement bribery.
> 
> Unless there's some robot dog, I've yet to see one which didn't require maintenance here and there over the long term. A reminder that good things can happen with compliance, or that bad things can happen for non-compliance.


Steven, when starting a green dog or pup that has not had repeated exposuer to the treats, it is bribery plaina and simple. At a future date, very future, it may become reinforcment....but it is bribery to start with and changing it to reinmforcement later is questionable because it still comes under the heading as offering somethin to induce a specific response.

Why they are afraid to admit it is because bribery does sound a bit sleazy when compared to "reward" or "positive re-enforcment". To be realistic, bribes sounds no worse than the favored expression being used for the "other method" of yank and crank and whips and chains....so I will stick to bribery since that is what it is.

To be clear, I have nothing against it. Bribing an untrained dog is no different than putting the dog on a 15' longe line to keep him close enough to work with. It would be exceedingly tough to work a 6 mo old pup that either had no restraint or a food treat to get him/her focused.

One other thing I meant to cover. Terrasita passed off the Brelands studies because they didn't specifically use a dog. They did mammals and it reallt didn't matter what species they did, it was always the same, some reverted faster than others but without compensation, they did all revert. Had the Breland studies proved that animals did indeed show a permanent behavior modification, Terrasita would have likely brought the study up herself as proof. Just didn't work that way. Kind of reminds me of discussion on breeding and since there has never been a study inbreeding dogs, mice are used because they are so similar to dogs.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Gillian Schuler said:


> What a bribe is, is clear!​
> What do you really want to say, don?​


I think I said it Gillian. You might let some of the others borrow your by line there. The one about "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance......"


----------



## Anne Pridemore

Steven Lepic said:


> Reinforcement doesn't have to be _promised_.


:-k So to train with postive reinforcement you do not have to use reinforcement... 

I need to keep this tread closed. :lol:


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Anne Pridemore said:


> :-k So to train with postive reinforcement you do not have to use reinforcement...
> 
> I need to keep this tread closed. :lol:


Don't abandon me now Anne. They have been baffeling us with BS for 20+ pages. Ask to see a little brilliance and to explain just what it is if not bribery and everyone disappears. Don't leave Anne, I expect a new wave of BS as soon as someone figures out a saleable angle.


----------



## Anne Pridemore

Don Turnipseed said:


> Don't abandon me now Anne. They have been baffeling us with BS for 20+ pages. Ask to see a little brilliance and to explain just what it is if not bribery and everyone disappears. Don't leave Anne, I expect a new wave of BS as soon as someone figures out a saleable angle.


I don't know, that statement may have just killed the debate. :lol: :wink:


----------



## Anne Pridemore

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/bribe 

*Main Entry: bribe 
Part of Speech: noun 
Definition: payoff 
Synonyms: allurement, bait, blackmail, boodle, buyoff, compensation, contract, corrupt money, corrupting gift, enticement, envelope*, fee, fringe benefit, gift, goody*, graft, gratuity, gravy*, grease*, hush money*, ice*, incentive, inducement, influence peddling, kickback, lagniappe, lure, payola*, perk*, perquisite, present, price, protection*, remuneration, reward, sop*, sweetener*, sweetening*, take, tip*


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Don Turnipseed said:


> ... Steve brought up a good point if I understand what he was getting at. Why are you all so afraid to admit you are bribing the dog??? That in itself is puzzling except that it does have a negative connotation to it doesn't it. Like when I say it.


To me, bribes, lures, and rewards are three different things in dog training. The reason I am "afraid to admit" that using markers is bribing the dog is because dog trainers use the three differently.

I agree with Terrasita that you may indeed have watched someone bribing the dog, but it wasn't marker training.

Bribery exists. I have used it! But it isn't what's in play (in my definition) when I'm marker-training.

When you told me that I used a bribe to "get the dog into position," that would be what I (and I think everyone else who actually does marker work) would call a lure. 

I would call it a bribe if I were using the food (or whatever) to bribe the dog into doing something he didn't want to do.

This is where I think you keep getting hung up and why people who incorporate markers into their training "won't admit" that they are bribing.

The lure (for me) guides the dog into the new position I want. It's not repeated whenever I want the associated behavior; it isn't used to convince the dog to comply with a command. 

If bribery (the way I use the word in dog training) worked great, I'd probably use it. :lol: But it doesn't. At least, not in my definitions.

_“Jim Nash mentioned being open minded enough to explore different tools as they become available and making them a part of your tool kit depending on the dog in front of you. That's it in a nutshell.”_ (said Terrasita)


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Anne Pridemore said:


> http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/bribe
> 
> *Main Entry: bribe
> Part of Speech: noun
> Definition: payoff
> Synonyms: allurement, bait, blackmail, boodle, buyoff, compensation, contract, corrupt money, corrupting gift, enticement, envelope*, fee, fringe benefit, gift, goody*, graft, gratuity, gravy*, grease*, hush money*, ice*, incentive, inducement, influence peddling, kickback, lagniappe, lure, payola*, perk*, perquisite, present, price, protection*, remuneration, reward, sop*, sweetener*, sweetening*, take, tip*


I'll be darned Anne. Just to be clear. Isn't a synonym a word that means the same as another word?? Funny how certain words just came with an underline.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

There are many words used in dog training with different meanings from the dictionary/thesaurus definitions.

I like "kickback," "graft," and "payola," though!

Gotta figure out how to use them, but I like them. :lol:


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Connie Sutherland said:


> To me, bribes, lures, and rewards are three different things in dog training. The reason I am "afraid to admit" that using markers is bribing the dog is because dog trainers use the three differently.
> 
> I agree with Terrasita that you may indeed have watched someone bribing the dog, but it wasn't marker training.
> 
> Bribery exists. I have used it! But it isn't what's in play (in my definition) when I'm marker-training.
> 
> When you told me that I used a bribe to "get the dog into position," that would be what I (and I think everyone else who actually does marker work) would call a lure.
> 
> I would call it a bribe if I were using the food (or whatever) to bribe the dog into doing something he didn't want to do.
> 
> This is where I think you keep getting hung up and why people who incorporate markers into their training "won't admit" that they are bribing.
> 
> The lure (for me) guides the dog into the new position I want. It's not repeated whenever I want the associated behavior; it isn't used to convince the dog to comply with a command.
> 
> If bribery (the way I use the word in dog training) worked great, I'd probably use it. :lol: But it doesn't. At least, not in my definitions.
> 
> _“Jim Nash mentioned being open minded enough to explore different tools as they become available and making them a part of your tool kit depending on the dog in front of you. That's it in a nutshell.”_ (said Terrasita)


Connie, I am not getting hung up on anything. Just because a small group of people decide to redefine the meaning of an action doesn't really change it in the real world. It is what it is.....and it does need re-enforcing

As far as Jim mentioning being open minded......I am more open minded than most on this thread., Using food treats, in it's own right, is done for the same reason using PR as using the 15' longe is used in Koehler. If you can't get the dogs attention, you are not going to be successful at training it. I have no problem with calling it bribery because that is what is taking place and I have used it many times. The opposing debators find the word bribe less than favorable. I find the terms yank and crank and whips and chains less that favorable but that stopped nothing.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Don Turnipseed said:


> .... Just because a small group of people decide to redefine the meaning of an action doesn't really change it in the real world. It is what it is.....and it does need re-enforcing ...


Using the "lure" example I mentioned above ... no, it doesn't need reinforcing. It was a way to guide (lure) the dog into a new position for a new command.


----------



## Nicole Stark

Connie Sutherland said:


> There are many words used in dog training with different meanings from the dictionary/thesaurus definitions.
> 
> I like "kickback," "graft," and "payola," though!
> 
> Gotta figure out how to use them, but I like them. :lol:



How about:

I kickback my dog when she come at me like that.

We were playing tug and out of no where she graft it out of my hand.

When I give her the ball she payola time with it.

\\/


----------



## Julie Ann Alvarez

Man-o-man.... This is getting ridicules. 

Why can't you all agree to disagree?

No big deal. Really we all use what we need to use to get the job that we want out of OUR dogs- not YOUR dogs..... 

Don isn't training his dogs in sport for trialing, he is practicing Khoeler. He wants reliable dogs not flashy accurate sprort dogs..... 

I trained 2 dogs Khoeler style a Rot and and AB. Both were reliable, pretty good house dogs, nothing I could salvage for Schutzhund. They were way to flat. Now I train in drive except when teaching a new concept then I take it way down and will even pull out the clicker. 

I think just about everyone who started dog training in the 80's & 90's has some of the Khoeler books. There is some good stuff in there but nothing for 100 pt OB routines. I still flip through mine periodically when I am working on a new exercize that maybe coming out different than I had planned.... and I am looking for inspiration. That being said I also look at other books and video's. I gather together a new plan and get back at it. Give it a few sessions and see where it takes me. If I like what I see I keep it, if I don't I either tweak it or toss it.

As long as you are satisfied with your results why argue over some one elses training style or use of the word BRIBE/LURE? (You really don't have to answer that was more of a statement) :-$


Julie


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Nicole Stark said:


> How about:
> 
> I kickback my dog when she come at me like that.
> 
> We were playing tug and out of no where she graft it out of my hand.
> 
> When I give her the ball she payola time with it.


I like the last one best. :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Julie Ann Alvarez

Nicole Stark said:


> How about:
> 
> I kickback my dog when she come at me like that.
> 
> We were playing tug and out of no where she graft it out of my hand.
> 
> When I give her the ball she payola time with it.
> 
> \\/


LOL @ Nicole


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Ok, I have the answer, Koehler is not compulsive. I "coax" the dog into the right behavior. Coax is one of the new words to fit what I want it to fit. A correction is no longer a correction....I think a "suggestion" sounds better. I merely "suggest" the dog stand here rather than there even though I popped the leash. The new terminology is "coax and suggest" rather than yank and crank. Yours is Lure and reward. We can all live happily ever after in our make believe world. LMAO.


----------



## Lee H Sternberg

Don Turnipseed said:


> Ok, I have the answer, Koehler is not compulsive. I "coax" the dog into the right behavior. Coax is one of the new words to fit what I want it to fit. A correction is no longer a correction....I think a "suggestion" sounds better. I merely "suggest" the dog stand here rather than there even though I popped the leash. The new terminology is "coax and suggest" rather than yank and crank. Yours is Lure and reward. We can all live happily ever after in our make believe world. LMAO.


Now you got it. You should rewrite that Koehler book. It will be a new best seller. I can't think of a different word for downing the dog in the hole he just dug. I'm not sure you got to the problem section yet.\\/


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Lee H Sternberg said:


> Now you got it. You should rewrite that Koehler book. It will be a new best seller. I can't think of a different word for downing the dog in the hole he just dug. I'm not sure you got to the problem section yet.\\/


I haven't gotten there yet Lee but I think that would be a "positive correction" because it sounds nice. LOL I don't really care what he says about digging holes and probably many of his other methods simply because I don't get as anal about what dogs do....they are dogs. I am not going to correct a terrier for digging because that is what they do. Ivan and others were brought up as proof how good PR methods are. Well nopw, I would be impressed if even one person in this debate stepped up and said his porfolio was more impressive, training wise, than B. Koehlers. I may even listen to them....but it ain't gonna happen.


----------



## Lee H Sternberg

Don Turnipseed said:


> I haven't gotten there yet Lee but I think that would be a "positive correction" because it sounds nice. LOL I don't really care what he says about digging holes and probably many of his other methods simply because I don't get as anal about what dogs do....they are dogs. I am not going to correct a terrier for digging because that is what they do. Ivan and others were brought up as proof how good PR methods are. Well nopw, I would be impressed if even one person in this debate stepped up and said his porfolio was more impressive, training wise, than B. Koehlers. I may even listen to them....but it ain't gonna happen.


I go as far as I can ass kissing my dogs. Then it's corrections. Most here have heard about my female. She is also dog aggressive. I spent a year hanging out around Petco and other places dogs frequent working with her. 

I finally said screw this and the next dog she hackled up on I lifted her up. That's the politically correct way of saying I kept her front legs off the ground with a choke collar to cut off the air. It took 2 times and now she can pass another dog close by with no BS.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Lee H Sternberg said:


> I go as far as I can ass kissing my dogs. Then it's corrections.


Lee,

How about
I go as far as I can ass kissing my dogs. Then it's ass kicking


----------



## Don Turnipseed

That's the way it should be done Lee. Remember how many disaproved my smacking Jack upside the head(which was just a siggestion remember) for grabbing my hand when he was pissed? It was mentioned in this thread earlier, but, when the beta dogs get outa line the alpha doesn't kiss their ass, he kicks it the first few times. After that a look will get the job done. Correcting certain behaviors loke biting the owner shouldn't take months to correct....maybe, when it can be done in a few seconds positively. Your a better man than me though Lee, I am not going to hang a dog in front of petsmart in this day and age. LOL


----------



## John Wolf

Don Turnipseed said:


> I haven't gotten there yet Lee but I think that would be a "positive correction" because it sounds nice. LOL I don't really care what he says about digging holes and probably many of his other methods simply because I don't get as anal about what dogs do....they are dogs. I am not going to correct a terrier for digging because that is what they do. Ivan and others were brought up as proof how good PR methods are. Well nopw, I would be impressed if even one person in this debate stepped up and said his porfolio was more impressive, training wise, than B. Koehlers. I may even listen to them....but it ain't gonna happen.


Here again, Ivan, nor any big time trainers that I know of, using strictly PR. They do incorporate corrections to proof the behaviors. As far as his portfolio being better. I could not say because other than some of the Hollywood stuff(which is currently done by PR trainers) and working military dogs, I dont know much about his accomplishments. Were his books groundbreaking? absolutely. However, I don't have the knowledge to compare the two.

On a side note, I was watching some of a tape of a seminar I attended w/ Jogi Zank and the way that we was teaching beginning obedience was a mixture of Koehler and PR (I know it sounds ridiculous). He trains it the same way as Bart Bellon. NEPOPO (negative positive positive). Example: Teaching sit

push down on butt (negative)
once in proper sit release pressure (positive)
Mark and reward (positive)

(The negatives and positives are not the theory type that people have been talking about. I don't understand that stuff)


----------



## Sanda Stankovic

In regards to Koehler and other corrective methods. One thing I have noticed and managed to understand is that with my female (if for a second we assume she is a somewhat hard dog) is that positive reinforcement worked better than correction IF I used firm NO and then correction, ie. corrections had very little effect. She just wouldnt care and I had to make it fun for her so that she would play along. This also meant that any correction had much less effect. With Koehler however, even though there was a bit more yanking initially, she didnt have the same attitude as with the same correction that was preceeded with a verbal NO. I think therefore corrections had a greater effect. 

So from this I concluded that with Koehler method it works better than correction with verbal NO, because I am not correcting her, the leash is if she doesnt pay attention to me and there is not much conflict between two of us. As soon as I interact with her in any sort of corrective manner verbally (which by mistake I did once even though the book says to NOT do this), back to less attentive and the corrections had very little effect. 

Sorry, maybe this should have gone into other thread.


----------



## Lee H Sternberg

Don Turnipseed said:


> That's the way it should be done Lee. Remember how many disaproved my smacking Jack upside the head(which was just a siggestion remember) for grabbing my hand when he was pissed? It was mentioned in this thread earlier, but, when the beta dogs get outa line the alpha doesn't kiss their ass, he kicks it the first few times. After that a look will get the job done. Correcting certain behaviors loke biting the owner shouldn't take months to correct....maybe, when it can be done in a few seconds positively. Your a better man than me though Lee, I am not going to hang a dog in front of petsmart in this day and age. LOL


That's why it took a year. I had to get pissed enough to get the testicles to follow through with it.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

John Wolf said:


> Here again, Ivan, nor any big time trainers that I know of, using strictly PR. They do incorporate corrections to proof the behaviors. As far as his portfolio being better. I could not say because other than some of the Hollywood stuff(which is currently done by PR trainers) and working military dogs, I dont know much about his accomplishments. Were his books groundbreaking? absolutely. However, I don't have the knowledge to compare the two.
> 
> On a side note, I was watching some of a tape of a seminar I attended w/ Jogi Zank and the way that we was teaching beginning obedience was a mixture of Koehler and PR (I know it sounds ridiculous). He trains it the same way as Bart Bellon. NEPOPO (negative positive positive). Example: Teaching sit
> 
> push down on butt (negative)
> once in proper sit release pressure (positive)
> Mark and reward (positive)
> 
> (The negatives and positives are not the theory type that people have been talking about. I don't understand that stuff)


Thank you for a down to earth post John. There are things in some of Koehler I am not going to do and I haven't read all the methods. What I am intrigued by is the way the foundation work is set up. I can see why many refer to it as yank and crank simply because many without any sense would apply it that way. For me, it is easier to stay under control because the the way it is set up, the dog ends up where he is supposed to and there is little talking which I think is important rather than repeating a command 10 time and confusing the dog. I think the foundation in this method prepares the dog to learn and be attentive without the reward system. I may get into training a bit out of the "Open" book but that is down the road so I don't even know what is in that. I am having fun with it and since I am not a trainer and have zero patience, I am impressed with the ease the dogs seem to pick it up without reward.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Sanda Stankovic said:


> In regards to Koehler and other corrective methods. One thing I have noticed and managed to understand is that with my female (if for a second we assume she is a somewhat hard dog) is that positive reinforcement worked better than correction IF I used firm NO and then correction, ie. corrections had very little effect. She just wouldnt care and I had to make it fun for her so that she would play along. This also meant that any correction had much less effect. With Koehler however, even though there was a bit more yanking initially, she didnt have the same attitude as with the same correction that was preceeded with a verbal NO. I think therefore corrections had a greater effect.
> 
> So from this I concluded that with Koehler method it works better than correction with verbal NO, because I am not correcting her, the leash is if she doesnt pay attention to me and there is not much conflict between two of us. As soon as I interact with her in any sort of corrective manner verbally (which by mistake I did once even though the book says to NOT do this), back to less attentive and the corrections had very little effect.
> 
> Sorry, maybe this should have gone into other thread.


Sanda, every dog is different and I think observation is the key to deciding what will work with an individual dog. It sounds like you are paying attention to how your dog is reacting and that will tell you more than anything.


----------



## Bob Scott

I'm trying to catch up on all this after being gone for a week +. One thing pops up a number of times.

"Reward trained dogs will disobey when they know there isn't a reward."
This is absolutely no different then the dog that refuses to perform because it knows you can't correct it. 
BOTH are training issues not method issues!

Jeff, yes we got all our Schutzhund titles at my club. 
My AKC ob titles were all at different, unfamiliar places and all indoors where we did little to no training.
You may dissagree with this but I will say confidently that the distractions at an AKC show are light years stronger then any Schutzhund trial I've seen. 
Again, it's not so much the method as it is the ability to use the method. I've had good, recorded success with both methods.  :wink:


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Gillian Schuler said:


> Maren,
> 
> You say you put your dog away if he starts disobeying (can't remember your exact words, but not relevant).
> 
> How long is the tiime span from "disobeying" to being put away. Does the dog have any idea why he received the "punishment"? Withholding the "treat" is ok but here there must be a time lap?


Good question, Gillian. I use a specific no reward marker ("game over") for this specific application. With the set up of my herding instructor's round pen, he's on a line that goes around his mid section, so if he lunges at the sheep, I say "game over" and immediately escort him out of the pen just by leading him out by the line, but with no active physical correction from me. We get to walk back into the pen when the attitude is correct. If the attitude further deteriorates (i.e.-more hysterical barking), we just walk further away. The car is almost 100 meters away, so fortunately he hasn't had to go all the way to the crate just yet. :wink: Usually after a number of repetitions of this and how tired he's getting, he's getting that if I say "game over," he gets this "awww, crap..I was trying really hard but I just lost my head!" look on his face and follows me out on his own. MUCH less direct conflict than the positive punishment was giving him and while it takes more patience from all parties, more effective too.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Maren Bell Jones said:


> Good question, Gillian. I use a specific no reward marker ("game over") for this specific application. With the set up of my herding instructor's round pen, he's on a line that goes around his mid section, so if he lunges at the sheep, I say "game over" and immediately escort him out of the pen just by leading him out by the line, but with no active physical correction from me. We get to walk back into the pen when the attitude is correct. If the attitude further deteriorates (i.e.-more hysterical barking), we just walk further away. The car is almost 100 meters away, so fortunately he hasn't had to go all the way to the crate just yet. :wink: Usually after a number of repetitions of this and how tired he's getting, he's getting that if I say "game over," he gets this "awww, crap..." look on his face and follows me out on his own. MUCH less direct conflict than the positive punishment was giving him and while it takes more patience from all parties, more effective too.


I am not a trainer but since no reward is used as a correction, pr runs into problems in an obedience ring where no rewards are allowed. Every movement no matter how good becomes a correction.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Lee H Sternberg said:


> I finally said screw this and the next dog she hackled up on I lifted her up. That's the politically correct way of saying I kept her front legs off the ground with a choke collar to cut off the air. It took 2 times and now she can pass another dog close by with no BS.


PM sent.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Don Turnipseed said:


> I am not a trainer but since no reward is used as a correction, pr runs into problems in an obedience ring where no rewards are allowed. Every movement no matter how good becomes a correction.


In the realm of operant conditioning, there are consequences to just about anything. I'd say a correction is a consequence, but not all consequences are corrections (square is a rectangle, but rectangles aren't squares kind of thing). Also in an obedience ring or trial, corrections aren't generally allowed either or at least not looked upon favorably.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Don Turnipseed said:


> Connie, I am not getting hung up on anything. Just because a small group of people decide to redefine the meaning of an action doesn't really change it in the real world. It is what it is.....and it does need re-enforcing
> 
> As far as Jim mentioning being open minded......I am more open minded than most on this thread., Using food treats, in it's own right, is done for the same reason using PR as using the 15' longe is used in Koehler. If you can't get the dogs attention, you are not going to be successful at training it. I have no problem with calling it bribery because that is what is taking place and I have used it many times. The opposing debators find the word bribe less than favorable. I find the terms yank and crank and whips and chains less that favorable but that stopped nothing.


From the man:

_It has been my good fortune to work with dogs in a great variety of training challenges in addiiton to the obedience training and disciplines essential to all of the fields. Always when a dog's action is favorable, a reward of some kind should be given. I prefer verbal praise to food awards for many reasons, and I always have it with me. And, it doesn't spoil. _

_In training dogs for the behaviors that make them more suitable as companions or useful for various types of service, my readers will see a consistent program of teaching those correct behaviors, praising for each step in the process until the dog demonstrates he uderstands perfectly what he should do and then and only then is he made to respond to the command and perform the behaviors he was taught, regardless of any temptation to do otherwise._


So, do you think Koehler was bribing the dog with his rewards and praise?


T


----------



## Sanda Stankovic

But I think with his method its truly a praise. He rewards dogs for doing things right, but teaches them that if they dont he will kick their butt. So, a dog will do what he wants regardless of whether he gives them a praise or not. That is a bit different to positive reinforcement training...


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> From the man:
> 
> _It has been my good fortune to work with dogs in a great variety of training challenges in addiiton to the obedience training and disciplines essential to all of the fields. Always when a dog's action is favorable, a reward of some kind should be given. I prefer verbal praise to food awards for many reasons, and I always have it with me. And, it doesn't spoil. _
> 
> _In training dogs for the behaviors that make them more suitable as companions or useful for various types of service, my readers will see a consistent program of teaching those correct behaviors, praising for each step in the process until the dog demonstrates he uderstands perfectly what he should do and then and only then is he made to respond to the command and perform the behaviors he was taught, regardless of any temptation to do otherwise._
> 
> 
> So, do you think Koehler was bribing the dog with his rewards and praise?
> 
> 
> T[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> That is exactly what he is doing.


----------



## Guest

> Steven, when starting a green dog or pup that has not had repeated exposuer to the treats, it is bribery plaina and simple.


That's one way, yes. Probably the easiest way too for a lot of things, practically speaking. But you don't have to bribe green dogs. It just may take a long time to catch them doing what you want them doing at random and getting the timing of associations right. Bribery is quick to mold the mechanics of something. The key with bribery, though, is that consequence precedes the behavior. 

On the other hand, reinforcment is when behavior drives consequence. Do it first, then a good thing happens (or bad). For the concept here, don't get hung up on the practical idea of "treats in a pocket" and the fact that the dog can smell them etc. 

But forget food entirely for a minute, and think of reinforcement in the abstract. It doesn't have to come from the handler. It could simply be something the environment. Any old thing the dog would want, which would make the odds a little greater of the dog repeating the behavior.

Those "behavior shaping devices" for drug dogs represent a reasonably pure example of what I'm talking about. The thing which flings the ball is staged out of sight and 10 feet away from the odor. Dog finds the odor, offers a behavior, and the ball magically appears out of nowhere (as far as he concerned). Handler has nothing to do with it. It's just the environment providing something "good" and a behavior tending to repeat. Handler is outta the picture, and has nothing on him. 

Just the other night, our drug was deployed 5 times, with a few positive alerts. He was never reinforced on the street, and the behavior showed no indication of disappearing because of that anytime soon. He just knows it may occur eventually.

As a mental exercise, I tried to train something by just letting the dog loose to sniff bitch piss. I had nothing on me, and he was naive to the idea of being reinforced that way. I knew he wanted access to it, so when I got what I wanted, he was allowed to sniff and chatter away. It worked about as quick as anything else.

Connie is choosing her words carefully. Don't make any additional assumptions about them. Her descriptions are accurate, and she's not redefining anything.


----------



## Guest

In other words, they gotta have faith that something _may_ be a consequence at any given time. Pain and/or pleasure. 

FYI, pain isn't a bad word either. But I'm sure you've seen the shysters redefining THAT word. 

You get some really sharp results when both are utilized according to their respective strengths. By that I mean some methods are better at eliciting behaviors, some things are better at eliminating them.

When people get progressive and try to reverse those time honored rules, you get Fred Hassen's "reinforcing pain" starring the Twitchy the malinois puppy.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Steven Lepic said:


> But forget food entirely for a minute, and think of reinforcement in the abstract. It doesn't have to come from the handler. It could simply be something the environment. Any old thing the dog would want, which would make the odds a little greater of the dog repeating the behavior.
> 
> Those "behavior shaping devices" for drug dogs represent a reasonably pure example of what I'm talking about. The thing which flings the ball is staged out of sight and 10 feet away from the odor. Dog finds the odor, offers a behavior, and the ball magically appears out of nowhere (as far as he concerned). Handler has nothing to do with it. It's just the environment providing something "good" and a behavior tending to repeat. Handler is outta the picture, and has nothing on him.


Actually, the reward is being supplied Steven. The dog is being given something he likes to get something in return. The actual, real life self reward in this situation would be if the dog dug the drugs out and used them to get high enough to think the ball was just something that fell out of nature. The handler doesn't have to give the treats, bribes, rewards, re-enfircers, lures..... have a helper do it and the dog is still going to do what you want.



Steven Lepic said:


> Connie is choosing her words carefully. Don't make any additional assumptions about them. Her descriptions are accurate, and she's not redefining anything.


Redefine no she isn't .Webster's and all other dictionaries already defined what is going one. Dancing around it, yes but as was said, it has been well defined in any dictionary.

I got things to do.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Steve,

Great example. I don't think that its easily understood that in a marker system, the reinforcement can be in the work itself and/or doesn't have to be immediate. I worked up to working my obedience dog with having the reward in a different room and ultimately in the house if I was outside. Over time you build the number of repetitions before there is mark/reward. When the dogs really love the work, or they have high social drive [Khaldi] and praise from the handler is a reinforcer, then the external rewards are faded altogether. When you're outside of competitive situations and just regular manners, you may have TAUGHT sit, down, recall, etc. with markers but does that mean you will always have to reinforce with external rewards? No. I teach those basic behaviors by the time the dog is 12 weeks old. From there, I just command it. Balabanov and Ellis are examples of trainers who combine the two or at least know that as a income generating adventure, you need to appeal to both tools to sell products. One of the things I see is corrections used along with markers before the dog really understands the command/behavior. Say you taught sit at home with no distractions. Without any gradual escalation of distraction and training, you take the dog in a livestock pen with all sorts of prey stimulation and you exptect that your sit is trained for that. Dogs aren't generalists. You have to keep varying the locations and stimulus/distraction levels before you declare him trained. 

Furthermore, dogs that are bred for a high level of social dominance, you can still teach with markers and you might have more success over might makes right. A lot of training has leadership as an implicit component. If you have bred that dog so high on social dominance that it takes a two by four to convince him that you are the leader, then you have a different ball game. If you have a dog that is unsafe in public and you have not been able to train him to a degree of public safey and reliability, are ya gonna whip out the cookies??? No. If a dog is into biting the hand that feeds them, is it time for cookies?? No. These are pack leadership issues not training/teaching a behavior issue. Part of selection in dogs and breeding is trainability. If you are breeding/selecting in disregard of these two things then yes you are going to be banging your head against the wall. 

Terrasita


----------



## Anne Pridemore

I see Koehler as positive training for the dog. On a field of Koehler trained dogs I hear TONS of verbal praise and encouragement from the handlers. The dogs are happy to work and thrilled to be with their master. Where in any of the positive reinforcement classes I have been a part of- most or all of the handlers are ALWAYS being pushed by the trainer to praise their dog. I see a weakness in the bond between dog and handler, and no respect from the human or the dog for each other.

I think the positive reinforcement training came along and does so spreading because HUMANS seek out approval and warm fuzzy feelings. So they elect a training that makes them feel like their dogs best friend and equal. Dogs - while awesome and very much the center of my life- are NOT equal to humans. It would be nice to see LESS "pet parents" and more masters, even more so in working breeds that are being dumbed down to be great family pets.

Really as long as a dog is not a danger to others, or in danger from ignorant/abusive handler, it doesn't matter if they are properly schooled in any method. All that will ever matter in debates over training is how many Masters are faced with how many Pet Parents- and of those how many of us are just happy with the progress we have on our own dogs. 

I can bet my standard of expected obedience is not the same as many people. More often than not I find the dog people I have the hardest time getting along with are the ones that would never even think to train to my standard. I do not like, nor will I tolerate, spoiled and disobedient dogs. (Or children for that matter :roll But now I am getting off on a rant... :lol:


----------



## Bob Scott

My idea of "expected obedience" is what I have always referred to as a good truck dog. That's first and formost with any dog I've ever owned.
You can go anywhere, do anything and not worry what the dog may or may not do. No leashes needed and no precision necessary as long as the dog understands.
Competition is, of course, a whole nuther ball game.;-)


----------



## maggie fraser

Quote; I do not like, nor will I tolerate, spoiled and disobedient dogs.

Me neither, what has that to do with exclusively Koehler ?

Koehler was my first venture in a dog training method.... twenty five years ago, along with 'training the german shepherd dog' by John Cree, I instinctively didn't like the Koehler method (a personal thing), so I developed my instincts instead.

You hear and come across a lot of people who are very well versed indeed academically on animal training.... their reading and writing is very good too, but somehow there seem to be an awful lot who just don't get it.

I believe animal training is an art, a developed art, meeting in the middle with the science I believe is the way to go...but the tricks don't all come from a book. JMO


----------



## Lynda Myers

Don Turnipseed said:


> I am not a trainer but since no reward is used as a correction, pr runs into problems in an obedience ring where no rewards are allowed. Every movement no matter how good becomes a correction.


uh Don you can't take a prong or e-collar for that matter in ring or on the trial field either and in the disciplines(schutzhund/PSA) I train for the leash must be attached to the dead ring of the fur saver. 

Below is just an example of what is expected ob wise from the dogs I've trained using only the rp method. True his basic position is faulty (so was my right knee) but I can live with that. Rook was the first dog I trained using this method. The dogs I've since trained have beautiful basic positions and all give me that one way undivided attention. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GXdNNB8iMA

Yesterday ran Rook through the PSA 1 OB routine just to see what needs working on one month out from our trial in July. This was all new for him as the field is littered with junk ...bite sleeves, toys, plastic water bottles, balls, food refusal in the long down, helper chucking hula hoops with stuff attached to them in one of the motion exercises near the dog and gunfire in the heeling portion. Gone is the pristine field condition of schutzhund.
I didn't train for each scenario all I've ever trained was the behaviors needed in schutzhund. Rook executed the routine well and I only rewarded him once or twice for scenarios I knew were triggers to him.
Rook is a little different in that once he knows a behavior doesn't require a reward from me because in his mind working with me is a reward. Which was something that became a link in the chain leading to the reward. This is why different people have stated on here that rp training is not bribery or luring. You don't really have to know how a dog thinks or learns when you lure them into position, you just need the right toy or treat to motivate. RP training is about teaching the dog to think and to be able to put complex routines together. While the other methods of training can be effective. It doesn't leave room for problem solving or higher learning all it gives you is a placement dog or put another way because "I said so" dog.
I personally want to create an environment that encourages higher thinking and problem solving in my dogs.


----------



## Anne Pridemore

maggie fraser said:


> Quote; I do not like, nor will I tolerate, spoiled and disobedient dogs.
> 
> Me neither, what has that to do with exclusively Koehler ?


Honestly the method I use with my dogs is not Koehler- but based in his method and closely related. It is an adaptation of one man's idea of training by another. Everything evolves to a point. I have just seen more failed attempts as solid training with cookie classes than with compulsion classes. That has been MY personal experience, and really do any of us have more than what we have personally seen and done to go on? When it comes down to it _for your dog_- are you going to trust yourself or some dead guy, or guys in lab coats, or some loon telling you that your dog thinks like a captive whale?


----------



## Anne Pridemore

Bob Scott said:


> My idea of "expected obedience" is what I have always referred to as a good truck dog. That's first and formost with any dog I've ever owned.
> You can go anywhere, do anything and not worry what the dog may or may not do. No leashes needed and no precision necessary as long as the dog understands.
> Competition is, of course, a whole nuther ball game.;-)


Mine is about the same.


----------



## Bob Scott

Lynda Myers said:


> uh Don you can't take a prong or e-collar for that matter in ring or on the trial field either and in the disciplines(schutzhund/PSA) I train for the leash must be attached to the dead ring of the fur saver.
> 
> Below is just an example of what is expected ob wise from the dogs I've trained using only the rp method. True his basic position is faulty (so was my right knee) but I can live with that. Rook was the first dog I trained using this method. The dogs I've since trained have beautiful basic positions and all give me that one way undivided attention.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GXdNNB8iMA
> 
> Yesterday ran Rook through the PSA 1 OB routine just to see what needs working on one month out from our trial in July. This was all new for him as the field is littered with junk ...bite sleeves, toys, plastic water bottles, balls, food refusal in the long down, helper chucking hula hoops with stuff attached to them in one of the motion exercises near the dog and gunfire in the heeling portion. Gone is the pristine field condition of schutzhund.
> I didn't train for each scenario all I've ever trained was the behaviors needed in schutzhund. Rook executed the routine well and I only rewarded him once or twice for scenarios I knew were triggers to him.
> Rook is a little different in that once he knows a behavior doesn't require a reward from me because in his mind working with me is a reward. Which was something that became a link in the chain leading to the reward. This is why different people have stated on here that rp training is not bribery or luring. You don't really have to know how a dog thinks or learns when you lure them into position, you just need the right toy or treat to motivate. RP training is about teaching the dog to think and to be able to put complex routines together. While the other methods of training can be effective. It doesn't leave room for problem solving or higher learning all it gives you is a placement dog or put another way because "I said so" dog.
> I personally want to create an environment that encourages higher thinking and problem solving in my dogs.



I've said it before and I'll say it again.!!Rook Rocks!! My all time fav AB and he truely is a dog that works just for the joy of being with Lynda. They have a great connection!

My fav quote from Lynda in her early training with RWDC

"How can I get him to quit staring at me so much"? ](*,)](*,) :lol: Luvs ya girl! :wink:


----------



## maggie fraser

Quote; When it comes down to it _for your dog_- are you going to trust yourself or some dead guy, or guys in lab coats, or some loon telling you that your dog thinks like a captive whale?

That all depends on how easily influenced you are :-D.


----------



## Lynda Myers

Anne Pridemore said:


> I see Koehler as positive training for the dog. On a field of Koehler trained dogs I hear TONS of verbal praise and encouragement from the handlers. The dogs are happy to work and thrilled to be with their master. Where in any of the positive reinforcement classes I have been a part of- most or all of the handlers are ALWAYS being pushed by the trainer to praise their dog. I see a weakness in the bond between dog and handler, and no respect from the human or the dog for each other.
> 
> I think the positive reinforcement training came along and does so spreading because HUMANS seek out approval and warm fuzzy feelings. So they elect a training that makes them feel like their dogs best friend and equal. Dogs - while awesome and very much the center of my life- are NOT equal to humans. It would be nice to see LESS "pet parents" and more masters, even more so in working breeds that are being dumbed down to be great family pets.
> 
> Really as long as a dog is not a danger to others, or in danger from ignorant/abusive handler, it doesn't matter if they are properly schooled in any method. All that will ever matter in debates over training is how many Masters are faced with how many Pet Parents- and of those how many of us are just happy with the progress we have on our own dogs.
> 
> I can bet my standard of expected obedience is not the same as many people. More often than not I find the dog people I have the hardest time getting along with are the ones that would never even think to train to my standard. I do not like, nor will I tolerate, spoiled and disobedient dogs. (Or children for that matter :roll But now I am getting off on a rant... :lol:


Many times in those classes you are witnessing PET people who are trying to learn a method and train the dog at the same time. People like dogs all process information differently and just because you hear people praising doesn't always mean the dog is receiving it that way. This is what makes being able to read the whole dog body language priceless. Ya know rp training is like the game chess easy to learn but takes a life time to master. Which is why most trainers opt for another method...they lack patience even when it's proven the other way yields higher reward and benefits to the trial competitor.

You said you think humans are seeking out approval and warm fuzzy feelings if they are using a RP method of training. Whoa Nelly that's a pretty broad brush stroke your painting with there! Again are you talking about PET or DOG people because there is a huge difference between the two groups. I use strictly marker based training when training for competition and can tell you I don't fit the mold you just casted for RP trainers. I am neither seeking approval from my dogs #-o:lol::lol::lol: nor do I see them as equal to me which is why they sleep on the FLOOR next to my bed and not in it. Nor are they allowed ride on the couch with me.
I'll go there with ya though... I truly do believe some people who use other harsher methods of training secretly like the feeling of control they get when making a dog comply to their commands. Even if it means inflecting pain on the dog or pup their supposedly training. You can anger that there is a right and a wrong way but unfortunately those same people believe by any means necessary and it's not pet people doing it...ok yes some of the pet people are way outer there and I hate dealing it them.


----------



## tracey schneider

Ok feelin "sassy".... 

Remind me again what is the definition of insanity?? Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome.

I can't believe you guys are still going back and forth and saying the same things in different words. No one is going to pop up from one view and go "oh u are right I am wrong". In case ya'll haven't caught on yet lol....


----------



## Lynda Myers

tracey delin said:


> Ok feelin "sassy"....
> 
> Remind me again what is the definition of insanity?? Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome.
> 
> I can't believe you guys are still going back and forth and saying the same things in different words. No one is going to pop up from one view and go "oh u are right I am wrong". In case ya'll haven't caught on yet lol....


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

It's fun...debating as long as everyone can do it without getting mad! :wink:


----------



## maggie fraser

tracey delin said:


> Ok feelin "sassy"....
> 
> Remind me again what is the definition of insanity?? Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome.


 
Don lol :lol:

Sorry Don :^o


----------



## Bob Scott

tracey delin said:


> Ok feelin "sassy"....
> 
> Remind me again what is the definition of insanity?? Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different outcome.
> 
> I can't believe you guys are still going back and forth and saying the same things in different words. No one is going to pop up from one view and go "oh u are right I am wrong". In case ya'll haven't caught on yet lol....



:-o But...but.....it's fun! :lol:


----------



## Guest

> Actually, the reward is being supplied Steven. The dog is being given something he likes to get something in return.


Right. We're asking for a kind of unnatural thing. The dog still loves hunting, regardless. We just need him to do something wierd like sit...instead of dig them out and eat them like the actual source was a chipmunk. The hunting is not being rewarded (doesn't have to be)...the sitting or scratching is. 

The hunting will never fade, but if the sitting is, it may degrade if ignored for long enough. May go from a perfect sit to a slightly hovering ass. From hovering ass to a stand. From a stand to unwanted scratching. I'm just making up a progression of degradation. You get the point.

I don't really see people maintain that kind of thing with corrections, but...I guess one could. I guess they don't want to risk dampening enthusiasm for what's mostly a drive exercise. Maybe someone with experience can comment on that.

Anyway, are you saying that once you're done with this process, that no maintenance training will ever be required for whatever it is you taught?


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Lynda Myers said:


> Yesterday ran Rook through the PSA 1 OB routine just to see what needs working on one month out from our trial in July.


Oh crap, don't remind me. :-# Did you run Rook in OB before I got there yesterday? I was on deck with Fawkes or Lily the whole time, didn't really get to see him work much. But Rook's obedience is just about always spot on, barring the occasional water bottle. ;-) He does seem improved on that though.


----------



## Anne Pridemore

I guess it is just my personal feeling that if you OWN a dog you should be held responsible for that dog’s solid training. "PET or DOG" people doesn't matter one lick to me. What matters are that dogs are not put down or given up because of the "cookie evangelist" saying that if PR doesn’t train the dog nothing will. It is BS. No two dogs are the same so why should they train the same. 

With my own dogs I train them how they dictate. I have soft and hard dogs, working and pet quality. They are all held to the same standard, and while the method may be "the same" it is adjusted to each dog’s temperament.

PR gave me an ok pack of dogs, and for many owners it would have been enough. I wanted more than that so I found a method that would get me where I wanted the pack to be. I am not ashamed I have no regrets. The only think that honestly pisses me off is the PR people who refuse to see merit or use in other styles of training. 

I can acknowledge that PR gave me a good starting point and has its use for fun and sport. But for the solid obedience I need to make this pack work- I made the personal choice of finding a better way for me and my guys. Our way may not be yours and that is fine.


----------



## Ashley Hiebing

Anne Pridemore said:


> Honestly the method I use with my dogs is not Koehler- but based in his method and closely related. It is an adaptation of one man's idea of training by another. Everything evolves to a point. I have just seen more failed attempts as solid training with cookie classes than with compulsion classes. That has been MY personal experience, and really do any of us have more than what we have personally seen and done to go on? When it comes down to it _for your dog_- are you going to trust yourself or some dead guy, or guys in lab coats, or some loon telling you that your dog thinks like a captive whale?


For me at least, science will always trump dogma and mythology (which is so, so, so prevalent in dog training). As far as dogs thinking like captive whales, anything with a brain is subject to operant conditioning. Here's a cute story of a 17 year-old girl clicker training a hermit crab: http://www.clickertraining.com/node/2314


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Anne Pridemore said:


> The only think that honestly pisses me off is the *compulsion only* people who refuse to see merit or use in other styles of training.



There we go. Fixed.  :lol: ;-)


----------



## Anne Pridemore

Ashley Hiebing said:


> For me at least, science will always trump dogma and mythology (which is so, so, so prevalent in dog training). As far as dogs thinking like captive whales, anything with a brain is subject to operant conditioning. Here's a cute story of a 17 year-old girl clicker training a hermit crab: http://www.clickertraining.com/node/2314


I know OC has its place and will work IF done correctly. But many PR people I have come across only use or support 2-3 of 4 quads of OC. That or do not apply it correctly to the animal they are working with. 

(as a random side note: Did you know they are using science to prove dogma - look up the creation musem.) 



Maren Bell Jones said:


> _The only think that honestly pisses me off is the *compulsion only* people who refuse to see merit or use in other styles of training. _
> 
> 
> 
> There we go. Fixed.  :lol: ;-)
Click to expand...

I’m going to take this in jest- as you can clearly read I do think that PR has it's merit and uses for others. Just not for me or my guys.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Oh yeah, it was in jest. Tolerance is as tolerance does. And as I've said like a bunch of times, I use P+ myself as well occasionally and as judiciously as possible. I'd say I train obedience about 90-95% positive and mostly leash free. Heeling is one thing I almost cannot tolerate teaching on leash. About 5 years ago, I relied much more on P+, but then I realized I wasn't being smarter than the dog. Too big of a temptation to crank and yank instead of problem solve. In fact, getting ready to do something as simple as a CGC on leash can sometimes be a bit challenging for me since the leash introduces a different dynamic. For bitework, we're doing relatively mild compulsion for putting rules to the game plus rebites for a reward.

As a side note, as both a Christian and someone trained extensively in both biological science and medicine, I find things like the creation museum just an absolute travesty. But that's a whole nuther story...


----------



## maggie fraser

Wot's the creation museum ?


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Long story short and I don't want to derail the thread, but it's a bunch of literal Bible fundies trying to basically fit God in a box of what He can and cannot do.


----------



## maggie fraser

Maren Bell Jones said:


> Long story short and I don't want to derail the thread, but it's a bunch of literal Bible fundies trying to basically fit God in a box of what He can and cannot do.


 
Ok thanks, not much use to an aetheist then ?


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Not much use to a Christian either, I'm afraid...


----------



## Ashley Hiebing

The Navy's Marine Mammal Program is a fabulous way to see just how far you can take "purely positive" training. These dolphins are trained, using only positive reinforcement, to swim miles away form the handler and detect sea mines via echolocation as well as other extremely useful tasks. You want to talk about complexity? How about reliability? This isn't teaching a dog to retrieve a dumbbell. Lives are on the line here, there is very little room for error.

http://www.nosc.mil/sandiego/technology/mammals/training.html
http://www.nosc.mil/sandiego/technology/mammals/mine_hunting.html


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

maggie fraser said:


> Quote; When it comes down to it _for your dog_- are you going to trust yourself or some dead guy, or guys in lab coats, or some loon telling you that your dog thinks like a captive whale?
> 
> That all depends on how easily influenced you are :-D.


OMG, an independent thinker. ;-)

T


----------



## Lou Castle

Ashley Hiebing said:


> The Navy's Marine Mammal Program is a fabulous way to see just how far you can take "purely positive" training.


I have a friend who used to be a MM handler for the SEALs. He tells me that often these animals simply swam off, never to return, on their first open ocean swim. He also says that they were not very reliable even when they stuck around, only achieving 50−75% reliability. 



Ashley Hiebing said:


> These dolphins are trained, using only positive reinforcement,


Sorry but this is not true. All phases of OC are used with them. In fact, in spite of what some may claim it's IMPOSSIBLE to use only the +R phase of it. Punishment must be part of the picture. Sometimes people who say this simply don't understand the definition of punishment and don't realize that they're using it. 



Ashley Hiebing said:


> This isn't teaching a dog to retrieve a dumbbell. Lives are on the line here, there is very little room for error.


Lives are on the line in many kinds of dog training. Where it is, except in detection work, no one trains using only +R, even it if it was possible.


----------



## Ashley Hiebing

How do you use punishment when training a dolphin, then?


----------



## Mike Scheiber

Ashley Hiebing said:


> How do you use punishment when training a dolphin, then?


BB gun


----------



## Guest

I don't know how one would issue a timely application of positive punishment, but one could:

-Put the dolphin up til he's bored out of his mind (negative reinforcement)
-Withhold reinforcement (negative punishment)

Do you really think no dolphin has ever swam off, like he said?

How about this? One time incident? 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTXE653JPOg&feature=related

Nope:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1VTkucWO-Y&feature=related

haha:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52o5yV6G7tY&feature=related

Yikes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGEv70zPW5A

Woops!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu_yxLXFEo4&feature=related
Look at them scramble. Looks like goofball dog owners when a fight starts. Uncanny similarity. Slapping the water: Stop it! Stop it! haha


----------



## Ashley Hiebing

Of course dolphins have swam off. If Lou's friend's estimations are accurate, sure, I'll eat some humble pie. But obviously they must have a good rate of success if "the team proved so effective that coalition forces were able to open Umm Qasr to ship traffic, including the British supply ship _Sir Galahad_ loaded with rice and other foodstuffs, only a week after hostilities began. 'Without the dolphins, we would probably still be out there trying to clear those waterways,' says Garrett’s colleague, Sgt. Scott Young, 29, who is also a dolphin handler."

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Uncle_Sams_Dolphins.html?c=y&page=1


----------



## Guest

If they could slap an e-collar on some expensive-ass dolphin to make sure he doesn't take off, I'm inclined to believe they would.

I'm guessing a single dolphin is quite expensive, and any losses are a big deal.


----------



## Ashley Hiebing

An electronic collar on a marine animal?


----------



## Guest

Figuratively!

If they could use a little pain to save thousands of dollars, they would.


----------



## Lou Castle

Ashley Hiebing said:


> How do you use punishment when training a dolphin, then?


Several ways. Electricity is used sometimes. So is isolation. So is withholding food entirely or withholding the food that was just offered. Sometimes physical punishment is administered by other dolphins. 



Ashley Hiebing said:


> But obviously *they must have a good rate of success *if "the team proved so effective that coalition forces were able to open Umm Qasr to ship traffic, including the British supply ship _Sir Galahad_ loaded with rice and other foodstuffs, only a week after hostilities began. 'Without the dolphins, we would probably still be out there trying to clear those waterways,' says Garrett’s colleague, Sgt. Scott Young, 29, who is also a dolphin handler." [Emphasis Added]


Of course they have some success. They deploy with many more dolphins that are needed and they use only ones that have NOT swum off (obviously). But still the reliability rate is fairly low. But perhaps some think that 50-75% is _"a good rate of success."_ 

In the MM shows at various aquariums around the world the animals are interchangeable. They often don't feel like performing at all and so the handlers simply substitute another one. Perhaps we should keep a spare dog in the car? 

MM's also attack and injure or occasionally kill their trainers. These trainers must sign a confidentially clause in their contracts that they won't disclose those incidents. I used to be on a list with a former MM trainer who decided that keeping these attacks quiet was the wrong thing to do and she spoke freely of them. They're surprisingly frequent. We only see the ones that occur during shows, probably less than 10% − 25% of the time that the trainers are interacting with those animals. The rest are covered up. Of course the deaths, which occur more rarely, don't get covered up, but the injuries certainly do. 

Dogs aren't marine mammals. MM's are not pack animals and they don't interact with their trainers as dogs do. Some of the methods are perfectly good for using on dogs but to try and use them exclusively, is a mistake. And to use any other animal as a model for what's effective on dogs is just as big a mistake.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Lou Castle said:


> Dogs aren't marine mammals. MM's are not pack animals and they don't interact with their trainers as dogs do. Some of the methods are perfectly good for using on dogs but to try and use them exclusively, is a mistake. And to use any other animal as a model for what's effective on dogs is just as big a mistake.


Dolphins and orcas are highly social, intelligent, and very predatory "pack" (technically pod) animals. Orcas in particular aren't nicknamed the wolves of the sea for nothing...


----------



## Lou Castle

Earlier I wrote,


> Dogs aren't marine mammals. MM's are not pack animals and they don't interact with their trainers as dogs do. Some of the methods are perfectly good for using on dogs but to try and use them exclusively, is a mistake. And to use any other animal as a model for what's effective on dogs is just as big a mistake.





Maren Bell Jones said:


> Dolphins and orcas are highly social, intelligent, and very predatory "pack" (technically pod) animals. Orcas in particular aren't nicknamed the wolves of the sea for nothing...


Thanks for helping make my point. Neither dolphins nor orcas interact with each other as do wild or domesticated canids. As to their nickname, it's just someone being _"cute."_ There's another important difference between canids as predators, they are not apex predators and so will behave quite differently in the presence of predators (including us) that are bigger/stronger than they are. 

Orcas _"in particular"_ ARE apex predators and have nothing to fear OR respect from humans. We are either treat/food dispensers or food.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Lou Castle said:


> Earlier I wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for helping make my point. Neither dolphins nor orcas interact with each other as do wild or domesticated canids. As to their nickname, it's just someone being _"cute."_ There's another important difference between canids as predators, they are not apex predators and so will behave quite differently in the presence of predators (including us) that are bigger/stronger than they are.
> 
> Orcas _"in particular"_ ARE apex predators and have nothing to fear OR respect from humans. We are either treat/food dispensers or food.


How many times have I been told that it is natural instinct for dogs to hunt the superior pedators such as lions, bears and 400 lb boars? There is nothing natural about it.


----------



## Lynda Myers

Bob Scott said:


> I've said it before and I'll say it again.!!Rook Rocks!! My all time fav AB and he truely is a dog that works just for the joy of being with Lynda. They have a great connection!
> 
> My fav quote from Lynda in her early training with RWDC
> 
> "How can I get him to quit staring at me so much"? ](*,)](*,) :lol: Luvs ya girl! :wink:


Oh and I thought it was "Hell take her home and shave er down...there might be a supermodel under all that fat!!!\\/

Thanks Bob for the kind words...Remember I was trying to work on the recall but couldn't get Rook to move away from me so that I could. :lol:
I thought Chimney(RM) was going to bust a vein when I said that. LOL What did he said "well we all should have that problem.:razz:" 


Bob hope you are able to come out and support us at the trial in July.


----------



## Lynda Myers

Maren Bell Jones said:


> Oh crap, don't remind me. :-# Did you run Rook in OB before I got there yesterday? I was on deck with Fawkes or Lily the whole time, didn't really get to see him work much. But Rook's obedience is just about always spot on, barring the occasional water bottle. ;-) He does seem improved on that though.


Yes I did, I think you pulled up shortly after we had finished. You are correct Goof Troop loves those water bottles.
Speaking of improvements your line handling has improved quite a bit in just a week good job.


----------



## Bob Scott

Lynda Myers said:


> Oh and I thought it was "Hell take her home and shave er down...there might be a supermodel under all that fat!!!\\/
> 
> Thanks Bob for the kind words...Remember I was trying to work on the recall but couldn't get Rook to move away from me so that I could. :lol:
> I thought Chimney(RM) was going to bust a vein when I said that. LOL What did he said "well we all should have that problem.:razz:"
> 
> 
> Bob hope you are able to come out and support us at the trial in July.




 Now you know I wouldn't be that mean! :wink:

When and where on the trial? Who's giving it? 
RM has also left RWDC.


----------



## Lynda Myers

Anne Pridemore said:


> I guess it is just my personal feeling that if you OWN a dog you should be held responsible for that dog’s solid training. "PET or DOG" people doesn't matter one lick to me. What matters are that dogs are not put down or given up because of the "cookie evangelist" saying that if PR doesn’t train the dog nothing will. It is BS. No two dogs are the same so why should they train the same.
> 
> PR gave me an ok pack of dogs, and for many owners it would have been enough. I wanted more than that so I found a method that would get me where I wanted the pack to be. I am not ashamed I have no regrets. The only think that honestly pisses me off is the PR people who refuse to see merit or use in other styles of training.
> 
> I can acknowledge that PR gave me a good starting point and has its use for fun and sport. But for the solid obedience I need to make this pack work- I made the personal choice of finding a better way for me and my guys. Our way may not be yours and that is fine.



I agree that all people should be responsible for training their dogs. But "pet" people are just that most don't have the knowledge, resources or where with all to get this done. While "dog" people are usually in the know so should be held to a higher accountability. 

I'm also of the opinion that there is training for competition and training for manners. When training for manners will and have employed other less fluffy training methods. It is in this area where because I said so must be enforced. But in competition its more important for me to portrait a picture of balance and happy teamwork which all of my dogs sport. RP will give you the happy upbeat dog that executes behaviors correctly and with the energy of capped drive. Besides isn't the name of the game to keep as many points as possible when competing?

I don't run my dogs in a pack...this where is I'm different then most I want my dogs bonded more with me then with the other dogs. Also want each of them to feel like they are second in command under myself and therefore do not have to defer to another dog.


----------



## Lynda Myers

Bob Scott said:


> Now you know I wouldn't be that mean! :wink:
> 
> When and where on the trial? Who's giving it?
> RM has also left RWDC.


Yes I had heard that...wow! Seem like every so many years there is a cycling out.


This will be the first of many PSA events too come.

Trial Date: July 17th and 18th 
Field location: 2547 Hwy 94 
Host clubs: No Boundaries Canine Club and No Drama Working Dog Association

Judge: Daryl Richie

Helpers:
Scott Nordgren
Mic Foster
Mike McMahon
Corey Dewberry
Thomas Burlile

I'm all psyched about it...PSA is fun and loose not rigid like schutzhund so far I really like it. Rook loves biting the suit which has brought more intense to the sleeve work...oh yeah!:-D


----------

