# Koehler method vs Marker training?



## Jacob Stewart (Aug 2, 2014)

Which is better for the overall training in the dog (Relationship, obedience/Engagement.)

I know Leerburg doesn't advice this, but some do, who uses Marker or Who uses the "yank and crank" method?

(Side question for any K9 handlers.. Which method do they use in K9 training?)


----------



## Jacob Stewart (Aug 2, 2014)

I don't know much about Koehler, but i figured some may..


----------



## Jay Quinn (Apr 1, 2012)

a balanced method of marker/motivational training with corrections where required... you will have a much better relationship with your dog!

definitely have a read through Koehler, but i would not employ it to train a dog these days when there are so many other methods out there that are kinder to the dog...


----------



## Amber Fort (Aug 18, 2012)

I will say I am not a professional dog trainer and I have only put a couple titles on dogs back in the late 80s. 
When I first started training a long time ago, I learned the using a lot of compulsion. 
Life happened and I was out of dog training for about 10 or so years and I am just getting back into it and learning Marker training.
I will have to say I personally like the results I am getting from the Marker training better.
I can see using light corrections to add intensity once the dog understands the command. 

Personally, I don't think there are many dogs that can handle and excel using the yank and crank methods.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I started with Koehler back in the 50s. I slowly evolved until about 10+ yrs ago I started to marker train with a Schutzhund club. I've titled dogs in different venues with both methods. 
I agree with suggestions of finding a happy medium for what works for YOU and YOUR dog.
IMHO the need for any corrections is brought way down when the fundamentals are built with markers.

Amber, the "yank and crank methods" have been successful since the beginning of dog training. 
Not praising or condemning the methods but it's a pretty strong and incorrect statement to say that not many dogs can handle and excel with yank and crank methods. 
ANY method is only as good as the handler and the dog they are used on.


----------



## Jacob Stewart (Aug 2, 2014)

Marker training with mine has been great, she definitely responds well too it best- I've used a couple corrections but nothing much.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Bob Scott said:


> I started with Koehler back in the 50s. I slowly evolved until about 10+ yrs ago I started to marker train with a Schutzhund club. I've titled dogs in different venues with both methods.
> I agree with suggestions of finding a happy medium for what works for YOU and YOUR dog.
> IMHO the need for any corrections is brought way down when the fundamentals are built with markers.
> 
> ...


I disagree, "Yank and Crank" or compulsive methods are actually a 'relatively' new concept and a blip in an otherwise motivationally oriented, hands off history of dog training. 
I am defining yank and crank/compulsive methods as USING force to teach and train the behaviour.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Dammit, timed out.

They have been successful though from a purely did the dog get trained point of view.


----------



## Jacob Stewart (Aug 2, 2014)

That's fine and dandy if you don't want a relationship with your dog then.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Bob Scott said:


> Amber, the "yank and crank methods" have been successful since the beginning of dog training.
> Not praising or condemning the methods but it's a pretty strong and incorrect statement to say that not many dogs can handle and excel with yank and crank methods.
> ANY method is only as good as the handler and the dog they are used on.


 Good job I read your post twice, Bob.

"Yank and crank" is a completely primitive way to describe training carried out by Koehler or Konrad Most who knew their dogs. Koehler I haven't read. Konrad Most would never have enforced a method on a dog that would have harmed him. He thought to much of his dogs. This comes clearly through when you read his books.

As Bob says:

ANY method is only as good as the handler and the dog they are used.

A lot of the difference between Koehler's and Most's methods stems from the fact that they could read their dogs, knew how much compulsion they could take and administrated it accordingly.

Today, a lot of handlers cannot read their dogs, have little or no knowledge of what they could take in way of compulsion.

Compulsion has become a dirty word but there is no way to success without it. The way it is applied is the winning factor.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

These threads asking which is a "better" method irk me. 

In my opinion, what separates the "better" trainer/handlers from the rest is they have an excellent working knowledge of many tools, so they can use what's best for the dog in front of them, rather than limiting themselves to one type of training. There is no "one size fits all" when it comes to dogs or handler/trainers.


----------



## Phil Dodson (Apr 4, 2006)

I was taught the yank and crank method as a MWD handler over 35 years ago. I teach Koehlers method exclusively with very little, I repeat very little deviation from his method to my PSD teams and obedience classes and it is by far no where near the yank and crank method you individuals who claim to be expert anti Koehler fans claim.

Keep your markers and your toys, E collars and all the other nonsense you want, I will stick with a tried and true method that has worked for over half a century. Just look at the inside of the book and look at all the achievements. Can anyone on this forum match it?


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Phil Dodson said:


> I was taught the yank and crank method as a MWD handler over 35 years ago. I teach Koehlers method exclusively with very little, I repeat very little deviation from his method to my PSD teams and obedience classes and it is by far no where near the yank and crank method you individuals who claim to be expert anti Koehler fans claim.
> 
> Keep your markers and your toys, E collars and all the other nonsense you want, I will stick with a tried and true method that has worked for over half a century. Just look at the inside of the book and look at all the achievements. Can anyone on this forum match it?


Phil I'm going to go ahead and assume you're just tired of people jumping on the Koehler Hater bandwagon. I get that, because I get tired of people jumping on the Ecollar Hater bandwagon just as much. I'm pretty much one of the the first to always pipe up and say there are many paths to the top of the mountain. But I do have to call you out on your statement. For you to describe the other methods you listed as "nonsense" is not fair, those methods are proven and tried and true too.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

For all of the anti Köehler / Most handlers, can anyone tell me how they brought up their pup from 7-8 weeks' old?

All of my pups were taught from day 1 at 7-8 weeks' old that not to obey involved in consequences. It's ridiculous when you think about it - the 7-8 week old pup has checked you out within seconds of entering your threshold. If you let him, he has one over on you.

My pups have also experienced fun and fun training.

I've already told you about the 8-week old pup who tried to hump me when we brought him home. If I had not corrected him for this, I would have worn a number 2 on the back of my jacket.

8 week old pups who are brought up to respect their handlers, have less problems with corrections in training.

If you ever have a chance to watch a litter where the mother shows her pups in no certain terms who is the boss, you will notice how quickly and successfully punishments are dealt out
I feel in some cases that children are punished sometimes too harshly without explanation and pups / young dogs are on the other hand allowed to get away with murder.

What sort society are we living in?


----------



## catherine hardigan (Oct 12, 2009)

Phil Dodson said:


> I was taught the yank and crank method as a MWD handler over 35 years ago. I teach Koehlers method exclusively with very little, I repeat very little deviation from his method to my PSD teams and obedience classes and it is by far no where near the yank and crank method you individuals who claim to be expert anti Koehler fans claim.
> 
> Keep your markers and your toys, E collars and all the other nonsense you want, I will stick with a tried and true method that has worked for over half a century. Just look at the inside of the book and look at all the achievements. Can anyone on this forum match it?


Personally, I've never thought of Koehler as "yank and crank," but I guess it depends on your reading comprehension and how you implement his methods. 

Koehler is not a panacea, but it works fine for lots of dogs for lots of things. It agree, however, that if you have a dog that needs to be built up, or if you want very sharp, stylized obedience a la schutzhund, then it probably isn't the best road to Rome.


----------



## Jacob Stewart (Aug 2, 2014)

Suppose i shall check out the method. When i said marker training, i meant have both marker and correction, however not correcting the dog till it actually knows what i'm asking him/her to do, including with distractions and such..?


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Gillian Schuler said:


> Good job I read your post twice, Bob.
> 
> "Yank and crank" is a completely primitive way to describe training carried out by Koehler or Konrad Most who knew their dogs. Koehler I haven't read. Konrad Most would never have enforced a method on a dog that would have harmed him. He thought to much of his dogs. This comes clearly through when you read his books.
> 
> ...


Khoeler advocates filling the hole your dog dug with water and shoving it's head in until it half drowns.


----------



## Haz Othman (Mar 25, 2013)

Why didnt I think of that?!


----------



## Alice Bezemer (Aug 4, 2010)

Matt Vandart said:


> Khoeler advocates filling the hole your dog dug with water and shoving it's head in until it half drowns.


Koehler suggest you TELL your dog what to do once its learned the exercise where as marker training ASKS the dog to perform a desired behaviour in hopes of it actually doing it for a cookie..... 

Its all about being consistant with Koehler and a lot of people confuse that with abuse or give their own ideas of torture to it when nothing could be less true. 

Simply stated:

Koehler ----> NO grey areas.

Marker -----> 50 shades of Grey and then some.

[-(


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Alice Bezemer said:


> Koehler suggest you TELL your dog what to do once its learned the exercise where as marker training ASKS the dog to perform a desired behaviour in hopes of it actually doing it for a cookie.....
> 
> Its all about being consistant with Koehler and a lot of people confuse that with abuse or give their own ideas of torture to it when nothing could be less true.
> 
> ...


I concur, I was only pointing out that Koehler is not innocent of abusive methods.
I think half the problem is many modern 'sport bred' dogs cannot take Keohler type training without either shutting down or becoming neurotic.
I think this is a major failing of R+ only training in the long run.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Marker training has nothing to do with asking a dog to do something and it certainly is not confusing to a dog. It's simply a manner of immediately conveying to the dog it is correct, it can be a verbal mark like "yes", it can be a "click". Marker training is not the same as luring with food. It also doesn't necessarily mean training without corrections.


----------



## Catherine Gervin (Mar 12, 2012)

Matt Vandart said:


> Khoeler advocates filling the hole your dog dug with water and shoving it's head in until it half drowns.


this is terrible. waterboarding a dog for digging a hole is introducing that dog to fear you for a minor infraction and that is beyond unnecessary--it IS cruel.
the old stand-bys have their wisdom and their flaws--every system does--and it would be blind foolishness not to pluck the good, useful, applicable stuff and keep it in one's repertoire to trot out as needed, but why wouldn't one want to check out evolution and see what the modern methods have to offer?
to make a barely tangible analogy between dog raising tactics and parenting methods: the Kennedy patriarch had his daughter lobotomized because she was willful and they feared it would lead to promiscuity. she ended up a vegetable. now she would probably just be on birth control, in therapy, and under strict surveillance. not as good as just listening to her actual oppinions and talking to her like a thinking/feeling individual, but better than opening her skull and removing a chunk of her brain to make sure she changes her ways.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

yank and crank?

LOL


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Catherine Gervin said:


> this is terrible. waterboarding a dog for digging a hole is introducing that dog to fear you for a minor infraction and that is beyond unnecessary--it IS cruel.
> the old stand-bys have their wisdom and their flaws--every system does--and it would be blind foolishness not to pluck the good, useful, applicable stuff and keep it in one's repertoire to trot out as needed, but why wouldn't one want to check out evolution and see what the modern methods have to offer?
> to make a barely tangible analogy between dog raising tactics and parenting methods: *the Kennedy patriarch had his daughter lobotomized because she was willful and they feared it would lead to promiscuity.* she ended up a vegetable. now she would probably just be on birth control, in therapy, and under strict surveillance. not as good as just listening to her actual oppinions and talking to her like a thinking/feeling individual, but better than opening her skull and removing a chunk of her brain to make sure she changes her ways.


what is this about?


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Matt Vandart said:


> what is this about?


lol...

Rosemary Kennedy, sister to Ted, John F Kennedy, prominent American Political figures...

She basically was not up to the standards expected by the family, was not really smart enough at all to keep up to expectations..and was not acting right for a "Kennedy"

as a young lady she developed violent mood swings, and was getting into lots of trouble... she was then labotomized, which was not a success. Big scandal back then, the father made the decision on his own...

side note, I knew a once super violent murderous dude that got a lobotmoy in the 70's.. in 1987 when I met him I was 16 and working at Burger King..he was probably 30 or so at that time.

Guy always was smiling, he would hold his hand up and say HI!..everytime he saw you...even if it was the 20th time that day.. Nice guy, he mopped, took out the trash and was trusted to put the buns on the toasting conveyor occasionally...


----------



## Haz Othman (Mar 25, 2013)

Sounds like upper management material or at minimum the makings of a great politician.


----------



## Catherine Gervin (Mar 12, 2012)

Joby Becker said:


> lol...
> 
> 
> side note, I knew a once super violent murderous dude that got a lobotmoy in the 70's.. in 1987 when I met him I was 16 and working at Burger King..he was probably 30 or so at that time.
> ...


did he have a big caustic scar? not to be terrible, but i always wondered how much the landscaping changed after they went in and did that stuff. 
i'm intrigued,too, that he became all relaxed and smiley after the procedure...kicking around how successful it kindof was versus the horrifying rape of nature to tinker around with the actual brain, but he became a societolly acceptable individual???? i guess i don't know how i feel about it, other than it makes me sad


----------



## Jim Engel (Nov 14, 2007)

These discussions go on and on forever.
Much of this chapter discusses these issues in detail:

http://www.angelplace.net/Book/Ch3.pdf


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I don't trash any training method be it Koehler, e-collars, etc but that doesn't mean I will use them. I have used "correction training" for a lot more yrs then anything else. 
As Susan said, markers don't have to be correction free. Can they be? For ME and MY dogs they have been on the training field but that didn't eliminate home manners requiring a good scrufing when needed as a pup. 
My tool box will always be open to other methods......if needed. :grin: :wink: 
Markers will forever be my initial start with a dog.


----------



## Rob Maltese (Jan 8, 2014)

susan tuck said:


> These threads asking which is a "better" method irk me.
> 
> In my opinion, what separates the "better" trainer/handlers from the rest is they have an excellent working knowledge of many tools, so they can use what's best for the dog in front of them, rather than limiting themselves to one type of training. There is no "one size fits all" when it comes to dogs or handler/trainers.


I'm in complete agreeance. Each dog is an individual, one in which needs a different level or correction, attention, and training. The goal for ME and MY dog is to become knowledgeable in any training methods possible to best understand and read my dog to determine what training method would work best when needed. Understanding both marker and compulsion training and finding a balance that works best for the dog is key. 

I think Leerburg put compulsion in a negative light with all their marker training, just my personal opinion.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Do you know what either "method" is?

I doubt you could explain either. This isn't a problem as I am sure you are here to learn. Except you are trying to compare two things you don't understand vs. Learning one or both first.

Susan had a very good point. Add to that most people use both even if they don't admit it... maybe a better way to ask would be how do you apply either to gain success. What are the pros and cons. 

Call people out when they answer by asking their experience. It's your right and obligation as a student. It's easy to mock or dislike what you don't understand, or don't use. It's human nature.



Jacob Stewart said:


> Which is better for the overall training in the dog (Relationship, obedience/Engagement.)
> 
> I know Leerburg doesn't advice this, but some do, who uses Marker or Who uses the "yank and crank" method?
> 
> (Side question for any K9 handlers.. Which method do they use in K9 training?)


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

I think all training is marker training really.
Even with the harshest compulsion type training people say 'good dog' when they get it right and 'no' or 'bad dog' when they get it wrong.

Also relief of pressure from the lead 'marks' when the dog is correct.

Equally Marker training is about communication with sound, compulsion is just communicating with force or removal of force.

Training is completely about communication, both methods asked about do just that, it's just one method is more 'forceful' than the other.
Both are IMO equally effective at training behaviours, the rest is just an ethical question and as Alice and Gillian pointed out that is a grey area and subjective anyway.


----------



## Ben Thompson (May 2, 2009)

I really like Knut Fuchs training methods he has the right balance of control and he seems to really know how to promote drive. Just based on watching his videos.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Alice Bezemer said:


> Koehler suggest you TELL your dog what to do once its learned the exercise where as marker training ASKS the dog to perform a desired behaviour in hopes of it actually doing it for a cookie.....
> 
> Its all about being consistant with Koehler and a lot of people confuse that with abuse or give their own ideas of torture to it when nothing could be less true.
> 
> ...


Hi Alice,

You said it much more eloquently than I did.

It's true - I once issued a "command" and Toni said "that's not a command - that is "Frommer Wunsch = pious hope:lol:


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Alice, marker training isn't about asking for a behavior. It's teaching a behavior in a non confrontational manner and using food, toy, etc for a reward. 
To many mistake it as "asking" and to many mistake it for bribing. 
If a person "asks" or expects a "bribe" to get a dog trained then nothing is going to work. 
My dogs have an excellent sit, down and come by the time they are 12-13 wks old. I also start on holding positions at that age, also with markers and reward.
It's all trained as a game and because of that when/if corrections are added later on then the level of correction needed will be much lower because the dog has learned the behaviors as a game. The seriousness can be brought out as the dog matures and I don't believe a serious dog will go all sweet and soft if marker trained. :grin:
I'll be 70 in about 13 months and I've used lots of methods since the 1950s. The past 10+ yrs with markers have been an eye opener for me........not that I'll forget the other methods if needed. It ALL has it's place when done correctly. :wink:


----------



## Travis Ragin (Apr 10, 2010)

Matt Vandart said:


> I think all training is marker training really.
> 
> Training is completely about communication, both methods asked about do just that.
> 
> Equally Marker training is about communication with *sound*


Been around dogs since the early 70's and this post made me realize that is all 'maker' training after all......and always has been since ....like, forever..........whenever the domestic dog became a globally accepted part of human culture/households.


Regarding *sound*......I think that physical cues/gestures are included in the process of marker communication since the beginning too, it just requires the dog to actually look directly at the handler before understanding what they are _saying._ Regarding *Humans*......they have to look directly at their dogs (and pay CLOSE attention) for effective communication and compliance.


the OP asked : Which is better for the overall training in the dog (Relationship, obedience/Engagement.) 

The answer? Marker Training


----------



## Travis Ragin (Apr 10, 2010)

Alice Bezemer said:


> Koehler ----> NO grey areas.
> Marker -----> 50 shades of Grey and then some.



Hey Ms. Alice BezemerO


After rolling this around in my head for a few days, I think that Marker communication has no gray areas just like Koehler Method.

Once the connection from a signal to a performed command is made, and understood.....the performed command/signal does not change......unless the handler does it.(unwittingly or not)

Consistency is what makes either method just as effective. If Mr. Koehler tells a handler to make a dog 'heel-sit' 50 times in a row 'til the dog understands..

Wouldn't being consistent with catching or willing your dog to 'heel-sit' identically 50 times in a row be just as effective/clear?


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

I agree, travis. But, I don't think there is a very clear understanding of marker training with most. Maybe I don't get it either though. Alice gets trained dogs by marking both good and bad and simply allowing what she wants and not allowing what she doesn't want. The dog sees a shoe. Bites it. Hears no and gets picked up by it's scruff. Negative marker no, followed by a consequence. Henceforth the shoe may have an association but over time, "no" certainly will as she repeats it in other circumstances.

Most people you will find who don't like or are unclear on markers associate them with the all positive clicker only my way or the highway folks. It would be like an all positive trainer watching Alice and not seeing where she marks and rewards or marks and punishes and call her an all compulsion trainer. 



Travis Ragin said:


> Hey Ms. Alice BezemerO
> 
> 
> After rolling this around in my head for a few days, I think that Marker communication has no gray areas just like Koehler Method.
> ...


----------



## Travis Ragin (Apr 10, 2010)

Dave Colborn said:


> Henceforth the shoe may have an association but over time, "no" certainly will as she repeats it in other circumstances.


That concept was something that was in mind when posting, but couldn't really sum it up in short enough terms for Forum format without rambling.


My dog(s) end up learning this over time......as my release command of _'OK_' will later on in their lifespan be used to mean a couple of different things. To add even more gray area into my dogs mind....words/commands like _'allright'_ and '_chill out' _and _'OK' _will all be pretty much interchangeble and mean different stuff depending on the enviornment/context/situation that I say it in.

With that said, I do hope that more *doggie thinkers* get bred...less people can own them because they can't outwit them..and less snake-oil selling , doggie lobotomizing dog trainers get their grubby paws on* them.*


----------



## Maggie Gould (Feb 4, 2012)

I learned the Koehler method from a US Marine dog handler in the 1970s and read the books. 
It can be used with a light touch.
I have since used a version of this method for seven of my own dogs -- all working breeds.
When I was competing in obedience with Dobs I got lots of high score in trials and had happy working dogs competing up to utility. Am now doing tracking and search.

My takeaway from Koehler is not to be punitive but most importantly never to demand anything from the dog without first being absolutely sure that the dog understands the task. Then make it the dog's responsibility. His emphasis on teaching the dog to stay within a zone around you early on is invaluable to building a trusting relationship and creating that responsibility (whether you use the long line method or something else). But "make your dog a believer" - and mean what you say when you say it.

I am always in training mode with pups, take them everywhere, place and praise, build up the challenges but they don't realize they are being trained at that stage. I have worked with people who prefer clicker methods and shaping with LOTS of food but my dogs are usually more reliable.
I prefer to talk to the dog's head than its stomach. I think that dogs are intelligent enough to understand both words and concepts and to put those together if you build the relationship with respect and clarity.

My current Malinois is calm, smart and motivated, utterly dependable in search, tracking, obedience on and off lead. It just takes time. I can't say the same for some of the dogs I have been asked to "fix" -- dogs trained with food by inexperienced handlers who are baiting instead of rewarding, and end up with untrustworthy thugs.


----------



## Rip Reinhold (Jun 18, 2014)

Maggie Gould said:


> I learned the Koehler method from a US Marine dog handler in the 1970s and read the books...


Nicely said.


----------



## Travis Ragin (Apr 10, 2010)

Maggie Gould said:


> I have since used a version of this method for seven of my own dogs -- all working breeds
> 
> I am always in training mode with pups, take them everywhere, place and praise, build up the challenges but they don't realize they are being trained at that stage.


This ^........... is what I now realize has been Marker Training all along.



And when a person experiences owning/raising & watching & reading that many dogs, at least five or more(not in laboratory or clinical study)......you begin to realize that your dog has always been 'one step ahead of you'....and time kind of slows down enough to tune into their brain waves. Nothing metaphysical or stuff like that. I think it is just as simple as communication barrier-that dogs secretly laugh at us from behind! And Absolutely we agree, It does take time.








> Originally Posted by *Maggie Gould*
> I think that dogs are intelligent enough to understand both words and concepts and to put those together if you build the relationship *with respect and clarity.*
> 
> It just takes time.


An honorable Military Veteran down in Oklahoma told me...No DOG or human or animal on Earth will follow an unjust or unfair Leader. If your dog doesn't *respect* you and doesn't *understand* you....

Why should he listen to you?? Dummy!!




p.s.- this is where _training tools_ enter the picture


----------



## carole henry (May 4, 2011)

Also having used the Koehler method for training my dogs (Keeshonden) and also using his method for teaching adult ed dog obedience, plus using his methods in my breed handling classes to turn around show dogs who either were snappy or scared and getting them winning in the ring again, I can say his methods work and if used the way he outlines, you will have a happy working dog that ignores everything that is going around except you.

The first time I used his method was with my first show dog. Brought as a 10 month old who was badlu kennel shy, and no one gave me hope to turn him around. Using the Koehler method, he was not only turned around but went on to a BIS as well as many HIT at AKC shows and to being the first Kees to achieve both Top Kees show dog and Top kees obedience dog. This from a dog that would let no one near him. I also protection trained him and he saved my a-- in N

This included twenty personal dogs that were top workers as well as a nine year old I started out in obedience for her UD. At age thirteen she achieved her title wi*th high scores as well as coming back into the vets obed. ring scoring and working a 99 at age 15 1/2. Using Koehler.

Now have Cattle Dogs and employ his methods with them, they are happy to work and listen. Tho have to say I also use Ceasar Methods a lot now for natural control of my ACD pack.

When I see others comment about the jerk methods, I know that they did not read Koehlers books. They are missing out.

Also remember when, many, many year ago, I had attended a after show party for the members and judges, as we were leaving the party a few obedience judges were discussing how hard Koehler methods were. Barbara Jacoby looked over at me and said I know you dont use Koehler the way your dogs work, what method do you use. I looked at her , smiled and said Koehler. They were blown away, again none of them read the books.

Dogs are dogs and what they respect they will love, follow and protect.

Carole
*


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Rip Reinhold said:


> Nicely said.



Rip, please don't forget your intro here:

http://www.workingdogforum.com/vBulletin/f20/


Thank you.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Dave Colborn said:


> I agree, travis. But, I don't think there is a very clear understanding of marker training with most. .... Most people you will find who don't like or are unclear on markers associate them with the all positive clicker only my way or the highway folks. ....


I think this is true. I run into it a lot ... the idea that markers equate all-positive-reward training.

One thing markers do, IMO, is eliminate just about all gray areas for the dog about what he is being trained to do. That instant short word or click at the precise moment that the dog performs an action is very clear. And the loading (charging) done in advance clearly makes the marker something the dog wants to trigger. I've seen it done badly, of course, often with the handler's bad timing or lack of having sufficiently charged the marker beforehand, but all training methods can be done badly.


I can't imagine myself training without markers again.


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Just curious:

1) Are we making any distinction between people who use fair and consistent, properly-timed corrections done only as hard as necessary where the dog knows exactly why the corrections and coming, and ones where they the handler just yanks hard for everything? Because I've seen people use Koehler-style techniques and the dogs still seem happy and pretty well trained, and then I've seen people who seem to not be able to read their dog and the dog suffers for it from over-corrections or confusing corrections. They do not seem the same thing.

2) What about people who use a mixture? For example, people who mark behaviors and are more +R, but also give physical corrections if/as needed when the dog has a clear understanding, reward the dog, and give verbal corrections (i.e. "nope") when the dog does something wrong and they want the dog to try again without it having done anything to warrant a correction but they just did not do something quite right.

I guess I am not seeing everything as inherently quite so black-and-white in this.

-Cheers


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Absolutely the two can blend well together but giving the dog a "correction" before it understands what you want no longer makes sense to me. Yes, it works but I personally would rather the dog understand what I want before corrections are required or even needed.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

At our Club the dog doesn't leave the training area until he has performed the exercise correctly upon which he is verbally praised and to ascertain this has no negative association with the next exercise is put in his kennel with a short tug play beforehand.

Withholding praise until he does it correctly.

BTW I can hardly see "nope" as a correction

I am finding the discussion very enlightening.

I think what has annoyed me about handlers using the marker training in my country is the fact that they label everyone else who uses a correction or any kind of "tool" to enforce their commands. as brutal. If they hadn't started this "war" against the so-called "forced training methods", the dog sport would be in a much healthier position.

Handlers have been denounced, spied on and rumours have spread. E-collars, pinch collars, choke collars (not on the dead link) are banned here.

The tragic thing about it is that the majority of the "opposition" comes from the dog handlers themselves.

A few years ago there was a move to ban Schutzhund for any civil citizen. I went round to all the dog handlers in my neighbourhood to collect signaltures for a petition and met only with hostility and no signatures. 

Luckily we can still do Schutzhund but for how long?


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Gillian Schuler said:


> BTW I can hardly see "nope" as a correction


This is incorrect, however I agree with the rest.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Sorry read that completely wrongly NM


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Bob Scott said:


> Alice, marker training isn't about asking for a behavior. It's teaching a behavior in a non confrontational manner and using food, toy, etc for a reward.
> To many mistake it as "asking" and to many mistake it for bribing.
> If a person "asks" or expects a "bribe" to get a dog trained then nothing is going to work.
> My dogs have an excellent sit, down and come by the time they are 12-13 wks old. I also start on holding positions at that age, also with markers and reward.
> ...



And applied correctly, you eliminate any shades of grey. They know exactly what the performance/reward criteria is and that's the beauty of it--no confusion.

T


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Such a biggie ..... when done right, all grey is gone. The exact precise action that earned the dog the reward is crystal clear to the dog.

As has been said, of course it can be done crappily, as can all methods.

But I know (after 8 or so years of marker training) that if the trainer has good timing and knows what marker training is, then it can only be a plus.

As mentioned above (more than once), the definition is NOT all-positive-reinforcement. And it's NOT "just click when you're happy with something."

But I have seen elements of both in every single thread I have ever seen arguing the merits or demerits of marker training.


For it to make training more confusing to the dog, it HAS to be done wrong. Because when the marker is properly charged and correctly used, it can only clarify and pinpoint exactly what the dog needs to do to win that reward.

JMO, of course. I truly do just wish that in these neverending Koehler vs Markers arguments (and what kind of vs is that, anyway?), each debater actually knew about and had correctly done both.

But that's almost never the case.




ETA 

I don't mean any of that to insult anyone at all. There's plenty of stuff I know nothing about (and yes, I have probably propounded an opinion). 

But the whole marker thing, such a simple and exact and non-exclusive protocol, has just gathered such a coating of verbal junk ..... and it keeps getting passed along and enlarged on as other terms ("all-posi," for example) are attached to it .....


----------



## Steve Burger (Jan 2, 2009)

I studied Koehler methods exclusively 32 years ago when I got my first Doberman. This is all that I followed before getting into Schutzhund a little over 10 years ago. I believe it would be very difficult to excell these days using the Koehler method, with the demands that the competition dog be both precise and "free". Of course the methods work, but will only take you so far with what is required to successful at high levels these days. 

The main drawbacks is the dog completely follows the lead of the handler. From the very beginning the dog learns to anticipate what the handler is doing. This would be absolutely fatal in high levels of competition (at least in Schutzhund). For example the dog learns to look for the change in direction for heeling. It also says nothing about absolutely correct and straight positioning in the basic position and heeling. Good luck with that using the Koehler method. 

In our system we define compulsion as something different than a correction. Compulsion is using force to either teach an excercise or get the dog to do it (once it supposedly knows the excercise). In this type of training method there is not a sense of ownership from the dog. You get absolutely get compliance and yes it is effective. However, expression is highly unlikely. In our system a correction is different than compulsion, as the dog must work through the correction as there is no direction provided. In the past this meant non-directive pops on the leash/pinch collar. Now it would mean stimlulation from the remote collar.The dog is not forced to the "correct" position. 

As others have stated, marker training is merely well timed verbal/clicker marking of correct positioning. What some have mentioned about gray area or asking the dog and hoping is ridiculous. 
Virtually all of our training in the teaching/showing phase is done with positive reward. From there we move to proofing and securing where distractions and corrections are added.


----------



## Steve Burger (Jan 2, 2009)

Maggie Gould said:


> I learned the Koehler method from a US Marine dog handler in the 1970s and read the books.
> It can be used with a light touch.
> .


 Light touch?? I remember clearly his statement that one should never ever make the mistake of an under-correction. I stronly agree with this statement.

Different dogs have a different correction threshold. The average Doberman or Malinois tend to be somewhat handler sensitive so what some might perceive as a light touch may be enough..or not. Early this was the case with my current Dobermann bitch. My GSD bitch on the other hand is extremely hard. Her correction threshold is very high. A physical correction level with my Dobermann would just be stimulation for her.


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Bob Scott said:


> Absolutely the two can blend well together but giving the dog a "correction" before it understands what you want no longer makes sense to me. Yes, it works but *I personally would rather the dog understand what I want before corrections are required or even needed.*


That is what I am talking about, and my personal goal or ideal. That seems to be very much inline with Michael Ellis' philosophy, albeit I am saying that from a pretty small sample of what I have seen of his training. But communication seems key so the dog has a crystal clear idea of what is expected and training/working comes across as a mutually beneficial collaboration. Hopefully that makes sense without sounding too romanticized.

-Cheers


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

" But communication seems key so the dog has a crystal clear idea of what is expected and training/working comes across as a mutually beneficial collaboration".


Absolutely!

At the chance of all the naysayers disagreeing with me........again :twisted: I can tell you my oldest GSD, now 10 1/2 has all his titles without having any physical corrections for any of his corrections other them house manners training field. That was rarely more the a scruff and lift off the ground. 
My younger GSD, now 6+ would be crushed by any physical correction. My voice can damn near crush him. Nice dog and fun to live with but way to handler soft for me. He has his TT and CGC only. I still have thoughts of getting a few titles on him but I'm getting older and lazier. 

SAR trained in live and cadaver, article search, water search, SchIII, AKC CDX, AKC HT, TT, CGC.


----------

