# Isn't Koehler a marker trainer?



## Shade Whitesel (Aug 18, 2010)

Okay, I'm trying to understand what people actually mean when they are talking about "marker" training. It's the release word, right? Are you marking the behavior and releasing the dog from said behavior? Are you marking the behavior and expecting the dog to stay in the behavior? And if it's case 2, isn't that just a glorified "good dog"? If it's case 1, then it's a release word? Like Okay? 
What's so special about "marker" training or are we just remarketing training that's been around for a while?


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Like I said in the other thread, a no reward marker marks in time what the dog was doing incorrectly that will not get them a reward. The reverse is true of a marker: it marks for the dog in time what it was doing correctly which gets paired with a reward (tug, toy, treat, praise, whatever). The marker is usually a release, but it doesn't have to be. To tell a dog it is doing a chain of behaviors correctly, you would use a bridge word. Kind of like in my warm/cold game analogy of being like "you're getting warmer" and then the click/marker word is the jackpot. A marker is also supposed to be non-emotional. "Good dog" is usually considered praise, which has an emotion attached.


----------



## Shade Whitesel (Aug 18, 2010)

The marker word itself is the jackpot? Or what comes after? And how fair would it be to sometimes have it be a release and sometimes not? Or is marker training just a catch all phrase for telling the dog it's done good (unemotionally) regardless of positive or negative training methods. So in this case, Koehler would be a marker trainer if we took his emotion out of his praise, and used "yes" for his release word?
I'm not trying to be contrary. I just think in order to have intelligent training discussions we need to define our terms. Marker training seems to be what every one is doing these days and I'd just like it defined.


----------



## Anna Kasho (Jan 16, 2008)

I use a bunch of words. YES for the instant bingo and release "that was exactly right, reward is coming" GOOD for the "keep doing that" followed by ALLRIGHT release to get reward. Same for the negatives. NO for "cease and desist", NOPE/ NOT THAT for offering the wrong behavior or not exact variation, GO BACK to previous position/behavior used mostly for positions and back-chaining a sequence of behaviors, ENOUGH or DONE when I am finished with a training session. Somehow the dogs and I do ok with all that...


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I use a marker (YES) to release with a reward for the behaviour. With the marker I will always reward the dog.
A release from work in general is "OK".
Example;
If I'm playing fetch I will command "OUT" and the dog releases the stick/ball/etc. When the out is clean I will mark "YES" and toss again. 
When the dog is running towards me with the stick/ball/etc I can give an "OK" command and the dog knows the stick/ball/etc is his to carry around. He knows the game is over and he doesn't even have to bring it back to me. (free time to chew up a stick)
I also use OK as a break in training. If he wants to run across the field or just go lay down it's his choice then. 
The marker is a release but he knows the game is still going on. "OK" means the game is over.
Make sense?


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Shade Whitesel said:


> The marker word itself is the jackpot? Or what comes after?


The marker word marks the jackpot is coming: food, tug, whatever.



> And how fair would it be to sometimes have it be a release and sometimes not?


It depends on the dog's reaction. Like when I was teaching my dog a flip finish (which only took me a few weeks after being taught to come around to heel for over 3 years) and he went to the correct location, I'd give him the yes and we'd play tug. So in that case, it was a release. But like if we're heeling with attention for food, I can often say yes and feed as he's still healing and he wants to go immediately right back to it. I don't think there's a hard and fast rule about it must be a release or not. Strictly speaking, my understanding is that it means the dog is released, but probably just depends on the circumstance.



> Or is marker training just a catch all phrase for telling the dog it's done good (unemotionally) regardless of positive or negative training methods. So in this case, Koehler would be a marker trainer if we took his emotion out of his praise, and used "yes" for his release word?
> I'm not trying to be contrary. I just think in order to have intelligent training discussions we need to define our terms. Marker training seems to be what every one is doing these days and I'd just like it defined.


I don't think it needs to be defined in general. Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't think you understand the point of marker training. It is not meant to be complicated. The marker is not a release word, like how people use "free" or some other cue word. The handler simply pairs a sound (a clicker or a word) to a reward and it tells the dog "you did a behavior correctly (as marked by the marker), so a reward is coming." The difference is that a clicker or "yes" or whatever you want to use is not praise. You can use praise if you want, but the marker in of itself is not praise or release.


----------



## Shade Whitesel (Aug 18, 2010)

So we've got Yes as our release with a reward right after, different words for negative markers and positive markers, Game over and All done (work is done) cues. 
So marker training is just dog training? With words? And perhaps using a verbal marker to signify the end of a cue instead of the body language of whipping out the toy? But what about using it during a down stay and expecting the dog to stay down? Or using it during heeling and expecting the dog to stay heeling? I've seen those applications as well. Would that not be marker training? Or marker training, style 2? The mark is praise but not a release?
Or are we just using the word "Marker" to mean verbal words we train the dog to know? In which case, how is that different from Koehler? He was big on a start to everything and an end to everything. The dog knew exactly when it was doing the right behavior (praise) and knew exactly when it was doing the wrong behavior (physical correction) and knew exactly the end (okay) or another command.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Conditioned reinforcement has a different effect than just "praise." The marker [conditioned reinforcer] hs a stronger unequivocl praise effect. For a test. Train dog with just good dog. Then trained dog with a conditioned reinforcer and you will see the difference.




Terrsita


----------



## Shade Whitesel (Aug 18, 2010)

Maren,
I actually understand clicker training very well. I don't understand "marker" training because I think everyone means something different. We can't have discussions about the pros and cons of marker training when no one can agree on the terms. And we can't have discussions about clicker training in bite sports and working dog sports when everyone compares it to marker training and they all mean something different. 
When you trained your dog to do the flip finish instead of coming around, did you use the same cue as the old way? And how long and how precise was your dog on the old way before you changed it? 
Perhaps I also used the wrong term when describing my two ways of finish. Both were to the left of me.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

For me and I know Bob, the clicker IS a marker--conditioned secondary reinforcer. What you use as the conditioned secondary reinforcer or marker can vary---clicker, verbal yes, etc.


Terrasita


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

You don't mark the down stay until it reaches the time you require. Time and distance are built up to and never at the same time.
When I do give my "yes" or "click", I don't care if the dog breaks. He's performed the command I gave him. 
The "YES" to my dog means he's getting a reward. Nothing more, nothing less. 
If I want the behavior to last longer I hold off on the marker until I'm ready.
A "good dog" means your doing good but keep doing it. 
As T said that's a conditioned reinforcer.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

I don't understand what Maren is talking about but the principle we work with is that the marker is conditinoed praise that both MARKS the behavior as correct and actas a release. If you wanna get deep, the marker is the "terminal bridge. " Now some folks use an intermediate bridge [IB] sometimes referred to as a keep going signal. Dog knows that he is right and that he should keep doing that behavior. This is great for time and distance and ultimately you are going to mark which acts as the release. For example, dog is heeling and in correct position, you say good. You think he had done enough paces, you mark---Reward. 

Terrasita


----------



## Shade Whitesel (Aug 18, 2010)

Terrasita,
And you would use the click as the release, right? Or the "yes". 
But again, and this might be my point, how is it different from Koehler's "okay" and release of pressure. 
When we talk about marker training, are we just clarifying that we use words to mark the good behavior and the release and not body language of "I'm about to drop the tug from under my arm" to signify the end of th exercise?
Or are we talking about training with a clicker? Seems to make people actually think about the actual behavior they are marking which is better for training dogs as a whole if people can actually be clearer. 
Are we implying that marker training is more positive? Which is why I bring up Koehler. He certainly wasn't positive but he was certainly very clear. And marked his beginning, end and middle very clearly to the dog.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Clicker training is nothing more then marker training with a tool (clicker).
The use of the voice or the tool is no different.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Shade Whitesel said:


> Maren,
> I actually understand clicker training very well. I don't understand "marker" training because I think everyone means something different. We can't have discussions about the pros and cons of marker training when no one can agree on the terms. And we can't have discussions about clicker training in bite sports and working dog sports when everyone compares it to marker training and they all mean something different.
> When you trained your dog to do the flip finish instead of coming around, did you use the same cue as the old way? And how long and how precise was your dog on the old way before you changed it?
> Perhaps I also used the wrong term when describing my two ways of finish. Both were to the left of me.


I have only skimmed this and the other thread.

To me a "marker" is the same thing as a "click" and is used in the same way. If you understand clicker training very well, all you have to do is throw your clicker in the garbage, and pick a word you will use as a marker in place of the "click". Say you use "oui"...load the word "oui" the way you would a clicker, and then whenever you would have clicked, you say the word "oui" instead. Et voila.

I have retrained an ob exercise that was crappy by starting over with a new command and a new non verbal cue. Great success. No old baggage for the dog to go back to when stressed. 

I also have two finishes. Different command, different non verbal cues.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Shade Whitesel said:


> Terrasita,
> And you would use the click as the release, right? Or the "yes".
> But again, and this might be my point, how is it different from Koehler's "okay" and release of pressure.
> When we talk about marker training, are we just clarifying that we use words to mark the good behavior and the release and not body language of "I'm about to drop the tug from under my arm" to signify the end of th exercise?
> ...


 
The marker [clicker, yes] is a release. As for Koehler and pressure, release training? Simple, its not a conditioned reinforcer. I work dogs in a venue that's pretty much all pressure and release training and release of pressure for a dog that isn't pressure sensitive isn't reinforcing enough to establish consistent performance of behaviors. Koehler worked more off avoidance of correction than reinforcement of performed behaviors. I don't know how you separate clicker training form marker training. They are the same. The word is the indicator that the behavior is correct. I don't think exercise ended is the same at all. It doesn't have the same reinforcement value for establishing that the behavior performed is the correct one. When you click as the nano second of performance, that's the indicator that the behavior is correct. You can heel for 10 paces and drop a toy. Okay, the heeling is over but is the dog 100 % sure he did it correctly??? Its not so much marking the beginning and end. Its communication to the dog regarding whether he performed the desired behavior. That commmunication has more value tied to something intrincsic to the diog; i.e. how you loaded the marker.

Terrasita


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Shade Whitesel said:


> Maren,
> I actually understand clicker training very well. I don't understand "marker" training because I think everyone means something different. We can't have discussions about the pros and cons of marker training when no one can agree on the terms. And we can't have discussions about clicker training in bite sports and working dog sports when everyone compares it to marker training and they all mean something different.
> When you trained your dog to do the flip finish instead of coming around, did you use the same cue as the old way? And how long and how precise was your dog on the old way before you changed it?
> Perhaps I also used the wrong term when describing my two ways of finish. Both were to the left of me.


Like others have said, clicker training=marker training. But not all marker training has to use a clicker. You can use a verbal marker, a vibrating remote collar, a flashing light, a whistle, whatever. 

I explained it in the other thread, but he was pretty reliable on the front/come around me to heel on the left side. He had done it that way since I taught him when he was a pup (he's 3.5 years old now) on the fuss cue. He would occasionally sit just to my left for the front (like at 11 AM on a clock face position in front of me) but was in general good. I just wanted to see if he'd do the flashier flip finish (also to my left) and we switched to au pied as the cue word. To train that, I used a combination of luring with a tug to get him to jump and marking and rewarding with the tug when he got in the right spot.


----------



## Shade Whitesel (Aug 18, 2010)

Yay! We are getting somewhere... People define marker training as more positive because the conditioned reinforcer with a reward right after produces more consistant results than a cue word like "okay" that doesn't have a reward right after but may only mean cessation of correction if dog gets it wrong.
So, next question: Is Ivan Balabanov's method marker training? Especially when training new behaviors?


----------



## Shade Whitesel (Aug 18, 2010)

Looks like we might have to define clicker training......
There is the instrument of the clicker and then there is the Method of clicker training.
Basically guys, I'm being such a stickler about these terms because I've had such good success with my methods. If people think that correcting the dog into heel positiion,and then releasing it with a clicker, and tossing a ball after the clicker is the same as clicker training, then they are not going to understand why I don't do that. And where I'm coming from when I'm trying to describe a training thing I've done with Reik and why he's so clear headed.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

First you have to define Balabanov's method. 

Terrasita


----------



## Shade Whitesel (Aug 18, 2010)

I wouldn't call Ivan a clicker trainer and I wouldn't call Michael Ellis a clicker trainer. I would call them marker trainers, at least how I understand it defined. Basically, get the behavior you want with mainly positive means, mainly luring, or leash pressure as well with the pinch in Ellis case, then place great emphasis on the release word marking the correct behavior. Very good clear training, very successful, very repeatable. Not the method of clicker training as put forth by Karen Pryor.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

KP says the clicker is clearer for the learning dog. I agree with that to a point but once the dog understands the process then the voice marker is just as easy. 
The clicker takes out any human emotion and variance in voice marking. Not something everyone has a problem with. It's also a very distinct sound that can "get through" a lot of distraction. 
I've used both but I usually fall back on voice...cause that's always with me. :wink:
A clicker trainer is no more, no less marker trainer then Balabanov and Ellis. That's just semantics. 
The differences are no more, no less then the differences among dog trainers.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

.... Shade, it just hit me what I "think" your trying to say. 
KP is more into "shaping" then the luring/guiding Balabanov and Ellis use.
The path to the behavour may change a bit but the end is all marker/clicker training. 
Does that clear anything up?


----------



## Shade Whitesel (Aug 18, 2010)

I don't think it's semantics and we may just have to agree to disagree. 
I think that when you lump correction into the getting the dog into the correct heel position, or in a sit, or whatever, and then end that behavior with a click, you are not doing "clicker training". You are successful, I am not debating that and you may be using a clicker, but you are not using the method of clicker training. 
The basis of clicker training is that the dog is free to offer behaviors and you are free to choose which ones you reinforce. If you want to set up the environment so that he chooses an appropriate behavior that you would like to train, so be it. But the key word is "choose". By physically guiding, whether with a leash or with your hands, you are not allowing the dog to choose. 
Therefore I would say trainers who use leash pressure and trainers who use luring are not using the method of clicker training.


----------



## Shade Whitesel (Aug 18, 2010)

I think this is very important to clarify. If I say sit, then press the button on my e collar till my dog sits, praising as I do it, click the end behavior, the same time releasing my e collar stim, then tossing a ball to my dog: I may be doing marker training but I am certainly not doing clicker training.


----------



## Shade Whitesel (Aug 18, 2010)

Provided I of course taught my dog how to turn the collar off, and conditioned the clicker to mean a reward, etc......


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I do understand what your saying..but ....clicker training is still just another form of marker training.
I put a SchIII, CDX, HT, TT, CGC on my GSD without any physical corrections OR guiding and I used a clicker AND voice marker. 
Am I a clicker trainer or a marker trainer? 
If I give a Fuss command and my dog can't leave my side till I give a click/mark, what is that?
Your looking at clicker training in it's "purest" description as only using shaping. 
From your definition I'm a marker trainer. I have no disagreement with that....but the clicker in itself is still just another form of marker. ;-)


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

OK, KP dos say you can get the behavior by shaping, luring, or modeling. However, modeling preety much enters the land of force/compulsion. I can shap or lure and still stay within the KP theory. Putting the dog in the position with your hands or a collar is force to me and outside of clicker/marker training.

Terrasita


----------



## Shade Whitesel (Aug 18, 2010)

I think that you and Terrasita are clicker trainers. And Kate. But I don't think most sport dog trainers are clicker trainers. I think you can call clicker training marker training. But there are many types of marker training that are NOT clicker training. And that is why everyone gets confused when you try to describe how much success you've had with your dog and they don't understand why their form of marker training is not getting the same results. You must have a soft dog, or a smart dog or any such excuse of why you and I seem to be getting results and not many people reproduce them. If you (and I) are using the click as the end, and many people are not, or worse yet, sometimes having it mean the end, as in sit-CT, and then 5 minutes later when they are working on a down stay, and requiring the dog to stay down after clicked, using it as a keep going cue, then their dog is not going to have the same understanding of the clicker method that Mike and Thunder and Reik do. Therefore, we can deny our dogs the bite during bite work and they understand! And their dogs don't. They are not as clear headed and they might try other behaviors built out of frustration that trainers have mistakenly trained into the dog's learning. And then, the other trainers say clicker training does not work with their "strong, ass kicking, whatever dog...."


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Yes, it may come down to distinguising. KP is basically positive reinforcement and negative punishiment and no force to get the behavior. Michael Ellis is quite clear that he is all four quandrants. Maybe for Shade, KP is synonomous with clicker; i.e. positive reinforcement and negative punishment. Marker although inclusive is for those that use a marker to mark correct but they will use force or modeling to get the hehavior and use negive reinforcement and positive punishment. 


Terrasita


----------



## Shade Whitesel (Aug 18, 2010)

Terrasita, I would agree with you. I pick on luring because I see so many people train the lure into the cue and then get mad when they take it out and the dog no longer does the behavior. Usually in the BH trial. And then the dog gets blamed for being observant enough to notice that the tug no longer is under that left armpit and his handler is nervous and being louder and smells like adreneline, so therefore, the dog says "that's not the heel that I was taught." And doesn't heel. And positive training also gets blamed because obviously it didn't work.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

I know and then they fault the method itself. I very early on quit having the reward on my body. It might be in the other room or even across the yard. There is the process of fading the lures and even the rewards for that matter. You may start with 1:1 reinforcement but if you haven't worked the dog through variable reinforcement past what is expected for your run, then you may have problems.


Terrasita


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Shade Whitesel said:


> Terrasita, I would agree with you. I pick on luring because I see so many people train the lure into the cue and then get mad when they take it out and the dog no longer does the behavior. Usually in the BH trial. And then the dog gets blamed for being observant enough to notice that the tug no longer is under that left armpit and his handler is nervous and being louder and smells like adreneline, so therefore, the dog says "that's not the heel that I was taught." And doesn't heel. And positive training also gets blamed because obviously it didn't work.


Shade, I think it can be summed up thusly: not all people who train with a clicker are drink the Kool-Aid, Karen Pryor worshiping clicker trainers, just like not all people who train with an e-collar are drink the Kool-Aid, Fred Hassen worshiping e-collar trainers. Like Bob likes to say, they're tools in the tool kit. I train about 95% positively, particularly in obedience, but I do use e-collars sparingly on occasion, particularly at a distance off leash.

I also have had better success putting the reward (either food or toy) in different locations instead of having the dog focus on a ball under the arm pit or food being spit at it (hotdogs, gross...). I'm not a trialing junkie nor do I have time or money to, but I'm hoping to test it at trail next spring for PSA, perhaps this fall for Sch if there's a trial I can attend.


----------



## Shade Whitesel (Aug 18, 2010)

Maren, right! That's what I'm trying to say! Fred Hasson might try to distinguish his e collar method by marketing into SMS. He might (I'm assuming since I haven't talked to him) get frustrated when people take his equipment of choice, the e collar, use it different from the way he does, and then say e collars don't work, or etc... 
If you and I use the clicker in different ways, it means a different thing to each of our dogs. We can't argue or discuss about why it works or doesn't work in different venues, because it doesn't mean the same thing to us. 
If I mean pure KP clicker training when I talk about how I placed high in a particular trial and someone else thinks clicker training means marker training with all it's variations, then it will be hard for us to have an intelligent discussion about how I'm using the the clicker in training Reik's escort position in french ring. And why I think that he's able to distinguish between the escort in french ring and the guard in Schutzhund. And why taking him off the field and denying him the chance to bite might actually work.
I am not knocking anyone's method! I am just saying we need to define our methods and terms if we want to talk about them....


----------



## Loring Cox (Sep 6, 2008)

Shade Whitesel said:


> I don't think it's semantics and we may just have to agree to disagree.
> I think that when you lump correction into the getting the dog into the correct heel position, or in a sit, or whatever, and then end that behavior with a click, you are not doing "clicker training". You are successful, I am not debating that and you may be using a clicker, but you are not using the method of clicker training.
> The basis of clicker training is that the dog is free to offer behaviors and you are free to choose which ones you reinforce. If you want to set up the environment so that he chooses an appropriate behavior that you would like to train, so be it. But the key word is "choose". By physically guiding, whether with a leash or with your hands, you are not allowing the dog to choose.
> Therefore I would say trainers who use leash pressure and trainers who use luring are not using the method of clicker training.


 
Aren't you just describing "free shaping" vs. "luring?" The "marker" has nothing to do with how the dog got into the "Snapshot", it just marks the snapshot. Right?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

With a true lure, the dog does choose. Modeling is something different. You are physically placing that dog in that position. There is no choice. 

Terrasita


----------



## Shade Whitesel (Aug 18, 2010)

Loring, that's a great question. And I think that might be the distinction between most types of marker training, and what pure KP clicker training might be. 
Supposedly what happens immediately before and after the "click" is just as important as the click itself. If you lure, correct, bribe, etc... a behavior, then click the end of that behavior, and reward in such a way; direction of reward, type of reward, that negates the behavior, you might accidently be teaching two things. First, a behavior chain that starts with the behavior the dog was doing BEFORE you started luring, correcting, bribing... And then also the most reinforcing for the dog was the thing that happened after the click. The reward.
Example: I am trying to teach correct hold and bark behavior in the blind. Nice barking, no touching the sleeve or helper with feet or mouth. Dog comes in, bites dirty, I correct with stick, get nice barking and correct distance, then I give dog a bite by jumping backwards into the blind by about 2 feet. I've just created a behavior chain (especially with a tough dog who doesn't really care about the stick) of bite dirty, bark, then push into helper for a bite. Not to mention a dog that looks at the helpers left shoulder because that is the first body language signal that signifies a bite. 
(I am not talking at all about drive work here, just pure behavior.)


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

When discussing different terms that have become popular, over the years, one phrase comes to mind. In academics the buzzword is; publish or die. In dog training, how does one seperate themselves from others if they don't come up with new terms for the same old thing.

DFrost


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Shade Whitesel said:


> Loring, that's a great question. And I think that might be the distinction between most types of marker training, and what pure KP clicker training might be.
> Supposedly what happens immediately before and after the "click" is just as important as the click itself. If you lure, correct, bribe, etc... a behavior, then click the end of that behavior, and reward in such a way; direction of reward, type of reward, that negates the behavior, you might accidently be teaching two things. First, a behavior chain that starts with the behavior the dog was doing BEFORE you started luring, correcting, bribing... And then also the most reinforcing for the dog was the thing that happened after the click. The reward.
> Example: I am trying to teach correct hold and bark behavior in the blind. Nice barking, no touching the sleeve or helper with feet or mouth. Dog comes in, bites dirty, I correct with stick, get nice barking and correct distance, then I give dog a bite by jumping backwards into the blind by about 2 feet. I've just created a behavior chain (especially with a tough dog who doesn't really care about the stick) of bite dirty, bark, then push into helper for a bite. Not to mention a dog that looks at the helpers left shoulder because that is the first body language signal that signifies a bite.
> (I am not talking at all about drive work here, just pure behavior.)


The trouble with this is that KP isn't just pure shaping. As far as the B & H, you would first break it down into tiny pieces or increments so that you aren't creating issues along the chain that you don't want. Also in the case of lures or other external cues, there is the part about extinction as you fade those externals and/or the lure. Shaping is fine but some things don't readily lend themselves to just shaping. To avoid screwed up chains, backchaining is also an option.

Terrasita


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

David Frost said:


> When discussing different terms that have become popular, over the years, one phrase comes to mind. In academics the buzzword is; publish or die. In dog training, how does one seperate themselves from others if they don't come up with new terms for the same old thing.
> 
> DFrost


Amen to that. LMAO. I woll have to remember that. Publish or die!!


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Amen to that. LMAO. I woll have to remember that. Publish or die!!


The cute way of saying it in academic circles with a little alliteration is "Publish or Perish". In case you ever find yourself in those circles Don

I would not call Koehler a marker trainer, but he was a trainer with lots of success, clear communication(with a few exceptions maybe), and great timing. I think great timing and clear communication are the halmarks of many different successful ways of training a dog. I see other trainers around today that have "re-branded" types of training that are more much more Koehleresque than marker training is IMHO.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Shade Whitesel said:


> Maren, right! That's what I'm trying to say! Fred Hasson might try to distinguish his e collar method by marketing into SMS. He might (I'm assuming since I haven't talked to him) get frustrated when people take his equipment of choice, the e collar, use it different from the way he does, and then say e collars don't work, or etc...
> If you and I use the clicker in different ways, it means a different thing to each of our dogs. We can't argue or discuss about why it works or doesn't work in different venues, because it doesn't mean the same thing to us.
> If I mean pure KP clicker training when I talk about how I placed high in a particular trial and someone else thinks clicker training means marker training with all it's variations, then it will be hard for us to have an intelligent discussion about how I'm using the the clicker in training Reik's escort position in french ring. And why I think that he's able to distinguish between the escort in french ring and the guard in Schutzhund. And why taking him off the field and denying him the chance to bite might actually work.
> I am not knocking anyone's method! I am just saying we need to define our methods and terms if we want to talk about them....


True to an extent, but there was a thread a while back by one of Hassen's minions about how an e-collar stim could be used as a marker instead of a clicker as a *insert eye roll here* "communication tool" with the dog. Which actually violates marker training because the marker is supposed to be neutral to the dog, not aversive. As the vast majority of dogs are going to find the stimulus aversive, by definition you are not following the "rules" of marker training. Just like you can play football with slightly different rules (NFL, college, high school, pick up tag football in the park, etc), it's still football. Move beyond the basics too much, like switching to a basketball or playing on an ice hockey arena and it's really not football any more, is it? So while I agree people use clicker or marker training differently (I know I do!), the basics still have to be there to some degree.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

It all goes back to "If you have more then one dog trainer in the room your going to get more then one opinion on how it's done.
FOR ME, if the dog is learning and still maintains a good attitude about the training you've done a good job. ;-)
David in your neck off the woods that "publish or die" is called "GITER DONE" isn't it? :-D :wink:


----------



## Mary Buck (Apr 7, 2010)

David Frost said:


> When discussing different terms that have become popular, over the years, one phrase comes to mind. In academics the buzzword is; publish or die. In dog training, how does one seperate themselves from others if they don't come up with new terms for the same old thing.
> 
> DFrost


Bingo!


----------



## Dave Kroyer (Feb 26, 2010)

Everyone gets so "excited" about all this new "marker" training. When in reality...its not the marker..(and its not new).its how you choose to shape behaviors, i.e. luring, chaining, shaping, free shaping, modeling, prompting ect...the "marker" or clicker (as I use it) just marks the correct behavior after its achieved. It can be used while using pressure also. The "art" is in how you create the behaviors. Thats what people are missing. Dave (hi shade...good to hear from you)


----------

