# OUT



## michelle bracht

Hi,
I am new member that has not yet figured out how to fill out my bio. Briefly, I have two GSD narcotics dogs that I have started French Ring with. The elder is 3 and outs slowly. He is handler soft so I am hesitant to be too hard on him. The younger, 17 months, knows what out means but 9 out of 10 times will refuse. He is a VERY high drive dog but still young. I have tried a pinch collar but it just makes him worse. Any suggestions?
Thanks,
Michelle


----------



## Thomas Barriano

michelle bracht said:


> Hi,
> I am new member that has not yet figured out how to fill out my bio. Briefly, I have two GSD narcotics dogs that I have started French Ring with. The elder is 3 and outs slowly. He is handler soft so I am hesitant to be too hard on him. The younger, 17 months, knows what out means but 9 out of 10 times will refuse. He is a VERY high drive dog but still young. I have tried a pinch collar but it just makes him worse. Any suggestions?
> Thanks,
> Michelle


Hi Michelle,

Are you talking about outing the sleeve while it is on the decoy and/or outing off of a slipped sleeve? If either dog is soft I would NOT go with pinch or electric (unless you use real low setting) I'd do trades. If the dog likes to play tug with you then use that as a reward for outing. Have the decoy lock up and immobilze the sleeve (no fight ='s no reward) While the sleeve is immobile you make your tug active and enticing. Ideally the dog outs the sleeve to play with the tug. When the dog outs you say OUT/AUS and play tug. What is the reward for the detection work? Hopefully a tug and not a ball. It is harder to reward the out with a ball
because it is less interactive then tug play.


----------



## michelle bracht

I have not used an e-collar on either dog and only used the pinch on the high drive pup. I have had some luck using two decoys to get the younger dog to out but using a tug with him has gotten him nippy with me. The older dog was a little confused with the two decoys and only mildly interested in the tug, although he does like to play tug in other settings.
michelle


----------



## James Downey

michelle bracht said:


> Hi,
> I am new member that has not yet figured out how to fill out my bio. Briefly, I have two GSD narcotics dogs that I have started French Ring with. The elder is 3 and outs slowly. He is handler soft so I am hesitant to be too hard on him. The younger, 17 months, knows what out means but 9 out of 10 times will refuse. He is a VERY high drive dog but still young. I have tried a pinch collar but it just makes him worse. Any suggestions?
> Thanks,
> Michelle


 
First, I would do this, I would put the dog on a pole, and have the decoy give him a bite, lock up...you say out, and the decoy just wait...when the dog outs which he will, He will not die on the sleeve not outing, eventually he will let go...just be patient, the dog gets another bite. When you see some progress stop. Do this for a few sessions. On the pole, no pressure, nothing...all the boogey men go away here. Once the dog has it on the pole, try having someone put some back pressure on a line in the middle of the field...this will require someone who can keep up with the decoy, and can handle a line well. Try that. The three year old dog, use a flat collar and give a correction on that. if that works in making the out faster...you have to move on to, poping after the dog outs or the dog will think the pop is part of the command, and doing it after the out, makes the dog even faster because they try to beat the pop that comes after (which they never can). 

And Michelle, I have to say if the dog does not out 9 out of 10 times. They really do not know what out means. Or they would out....and Out means "let go of the F#@!$ sleeve" They kind of do...Out means to them "let go of the sleeve when you wish". I would suggest going to the pole and then the back pressure line at first and see if that corrects it. Just what I would try. And if it is true the dog refuses, that's not a dog issue, drive issue....outs are always handler issues. I see with high drive dogs that have out issues, it's generally how they respond to correction they may not understand, or how they handle stress.


----------



## Howard Gaines III

michelle bracht said:


> Hi,
> I am new member that has not yet figured out how to fill out my bio. Briefly, I have two GSD narcotics dogs that I have started French Ring with. The elder is 3 and outs slowly. He is handler soft so I am hesitant to be too hard on him. The younger, 17 months, knows what out means but 9 out of 10 times will refuse. He is a VERY high drive dog but still young. I have tried a pinch collar but it just makes him worse. Any suggestions?
> Thanks,
> Michelle


 Dumb question, what are you "outing" from, sleeve or ball? Do you keep it the second the dog brings it back? I do two ball with my dogs and do fast rebites if I get a quick out. Is there conflict with the dog on your end or the decoy end?


----------



## Ted Efthymiadis

michelle bracht said:


> Hi,
> I am new member that has not yet figured out how to fill out my bio. Briefly, I have two GSD narcotics dogs that I have started French Ring with. The elder is 3 and outs slowly. He is handler soft so I am hesitant to be too hard on him. The younger, 17 months, knows what out means but 9 out of 10 times will refuse. He is a VERY high drive dog but still young. I have tried a pinch collar but it just makes him worse. Any suggestions?
> Thanks,
> Michelle


Play tug with the dog, then bring the dog in and pet him to let him settle down a little bit. 
When he's in your arm, still standing on the ground, wait until he look away from you, at that split second, grab his flank, near his ribs, and give it a good pull with your hand. 
At this point the dog should scream and drop the tug. Say good Out, and praise him. 
Doing this is a little harsh for some people, but it works, and works very well. 

My high drive Malinois outs like a dream with a tug, suit, sleeve....
I only had to grab his flank about 2 times before he got the idea.

good luck


----------



## Howard Knauf

Not a big fan of the flanking. It can create handler avoidance and redirected aggression issues. Not saying it wont work on some dogs, but there's a world of other things than can be done before having to flank a dog. 

Two rubber rings work good. Sandwich the two rings and play tug with the dog. Stop tugging and give out command. If dog refuses, work one ring loose and say out as soon as it comes out of his mouth. Throw the ring. When he returns with it give out command while showing the other. He should spit it out. Throw the other ring and pick up the dropped one.

This is a play off the two ball method but you are interacting with the dog and keeping the conflict low. It shouldn't take long for him to figure it out. He'll learn that there is immediate reward for his actions and no real force or handler dominance over the trade.


----------



## James Downey

Howard Knauf said:


> Not a big fan of the flanking. It can create handler avoidance and redirected aggression issues. Not saying it wont work on some dogs, but there's a world of other things than can be done before having to flank a dog.
> 
> Two rubber rings work good. Sandwich the two rings and play tug with the dog. Stop tugging and give out command. If dog refuses, work one ring loose and say out as soon as it comes out of his mouth. Throw the ring. When he returns with it give out command while showing the other. He should spit it out. Throw the other ring and pick up the dropped one.
> 
> This is a play off the two ball method but you are interacting with the dog and keeping the conflict low. It shouldn't take long for him to figure it out. He'll learn that there is immediate reward for his actions and no real force or handler dominance over the trade.


 
The old 2 toy game, did not work for my dog. she was just as happy having the toy she had. I think dogs that have a little more of retriever instinct in them 2 toy will work great. but for a possesive dog...No so much. Not that it's a bad game, it does work. But it's one of those games that works for certain dogs.


----------



## Howard Knauf

No method works for every dog. I like to try the least intrusive and motivating methods before using aversive ones. There's an old saying "Where violence starts...knowledge ends.."

Flanking may not be considered violent in some trainers' books, but it's a step in that direction.

Howard


----------



## Connie Sutherland

michelle bracht said:


> Hi,
> I am new member that has not yet figured out how to fill out my bio. ...


Just go gere http://www.WorkingDogForum.com/vBulletin/f20/ and start a new thread. 

And back to _"Out."_


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Howard Knauf said:


> ... Two rubber rings work good. Sandwich the two rings and play tug with the dog. Stop tugging and give out command. If dog refuses, work one ring loose and say out as soon as it comes out of his mouth. Throw the ring. When he returns with it give out command while showing the other. He should spit it out. Throw the other ring and pick up the dropped one.


This variation on two-ball sounds good to me, with the "tug" changing its character in the middle of the game.


----------



## Howard Gaines III

[-X


Howard Knauf said:


> Two rubber rings work good.


 Oh my goodness, like the cop with three donuts laced between his fingers and responding to a felony break-in......:---)


----------



## Jason Caldwell

Howard Knauf said:


> Not a big fan of the flanking. It can create handler avoidance and redirected aggression issues. Not saying it wont work on some dogs, but there's a world of other things than can be done before having to flank a dog.
> 
> Two rubber rings work good. Sandwich the two rings and play tug with the dog. Stop tugging and give out command. If dog refuses, work one ring loose and say out as soon as it comes out of his mouth. Throw the ring. When he returns with it give out command while showing the other. He should spit it out. Throw the other ring and pick up the dropped one.
> 
> This is a play off the two ball method but you are interacting with the dog and keeping the conflict low. It shouldn't take long for him to figure it out. He'll learn that there is immediate reward for his actions and no real force or handler dominance over the trade.


 
Really good post right there. I think teaching the out with toys is great for puppies but if you miss that window, while I've never tried your technique, it makes perfect sense.


----------



## Howard Gaines III

I too have seen flanking done and it is a fast way to do an "out." Now you are building two problems, the "out" and handler aviodance/mistrust. The dog has a fight/issue from both ends of the leash. Why is it needed? The handler is there to be a partner with the dog, not a co-combative element.


----------



## David Frost

Howard Knauf said:


> Not a big fan of the flanking. It can create handler avoidance and redirected aggression issues. Not saying it wont work on some dogs, but there's a world of other things than can be done before having to flank a dog.
> 
> .


I agree. I'll also trade an out for another bite. I'm not crazy about reinforcing the out with a ball or trading balls. I'm not opposed to waiting for the out, then reinforcing it with a bite. 

DFrost


----------



## Howard Knauf

I 100% agree, David. I only mention that technique because the OP is doing sport work with the dog. For police dogs I dont like using the toy for out work. I don't want the dog to come out of combat mindset to look for a toy...I want him coming out looking to tear up more ass.


----------



## David Frost

Ahhh so, makes sense Howard. I never thought about it being sport, ha ha. I'm sorely weak in that area.


----------



## vincent demaio

David Frost said:


> Ahhh so, makes sense Howard. I never thought about it being sport, ha ha. I'm sorely weak in that area.


 why dont you try using food,,that also worked for my dog..


----------



## Hoyt Yang

vincent demaio said:


> why dont you try using food,,that also worked for my dog..


The drive to bite may be too great to be overcome with food in most dogs I've dealt with high in drive.

I've had great success with having the dog out and come back to me on a tug/toy. I've found that training this with a helper WITHOUT doing bitework helps relax the dog so that he learns that outing is 'fun.' As soon as the 'OUT' command is given, the helper's tug freezes, while I entice the dog to come back to me with my 'active' tug. This concept is introduced into outing during bitework once the dog outs cleanly from the helper's tug- graduating into a part of the suit, sleeve, all not worn at first.

I like the game with 'two hoses', but found it difficult to train the dog to hold on to the hose when transitioning into a formal retrieve. It becomes a chore for me to teach the dog not to let go. I know there are methods to fix this, but I prefer not to deal with it at all. I like the dog to learn that interacting with me is much more rewarding (game of tug). I can command out- hold the object stationary until he lets go, and immediately re-engage the dog as a reward for letting go. (This is all done with a tug, which is IMO much easier than a ball with a string)


----------



## David Frost

vincent demaio said:


> why dont you try using food,,that also worked for my dog..


Admittedly, I've never tried food. I just don't see it working with the dogs we have. Saying that though, I pretty much have the same aversion to using food as I do with using a toy. Just doesn't seem appropriate for the task at hand. 

DFrost


----------



## Howard Gaines III

Ahhhh, pounds from the rear. What Richard Simmons can't do, K9 can!:razz:


----------



## Bob Scott

David Frost said:


> I agree. I'll also trade an out for another bite. I'm not crazy about reinforcing the out with a ball or trading balls. I'm not opposed to waiting for the out, then reinforcing it with a bite.
> 
> DFrost


 
I will add to this that even in sport most that I know would not take seriously a dog that would select a toy/tug/treat over another bite. 
The sport dogs I've seen in training have been rewarded with another bite. 
The bite is/should be the reason they are on the field.


----------



## andreas broqvist

you teatsh the dog the out with a tug/toy/ball switsh. Then when the dog know out you do not nead to switsh it to tuggs on the feeld. I feel that many do not teatsh ther dogs the out befor they start working the sleev.


----------



## Hoyt Yang

andreas broqvist said:


> you teatsh the dog the out with a tug/toy/ball switsh. Then when the dog know out you do not nead to switsh it to tuggs on the feeld. I feel that many do not teatsh ther dogs the out befor they start working the sleev.


Agreed- by teaching the out as a foundation with toys, it carries over to the OUT on sleeve much easier. This was the point I tried illustrating in my earlier post.


----------



## michelle bracht

Thank you to everyone that responded to my out question. I have tried giving the high drive pup a ball when he outs and also using two decoys. He is getting it! The other dog is still slow but I guess it will take a bit more time. Thanks again!

michelle


----------



## Courtney Guthrie

I also would NEVER use a ball to reward an out off a bite or any toy to reward an out off a bite. 

I honestly wait my dog out, we work on it a lot at home when playing tug. As soon as he lets go, he gets to bite again. He learned fairly quickly and "knows" aus BUT doesn't always aus on the slipped sleeve, he will out everytime on the decoy just not the slipped sleeve. But really, I'd rather it be this way than the other way around. Have you tried Ivan B's method? 

Good Luck. 

Courtney


----------



## Dan Brigham

Bob Scott said:


> I will add to this that even in sport most that I know would not take seriously a dog that would select a toy/tug/treat over another bite.
> The sport dogs I've seen in training have been rewarded with another bite.
> The bite is/should be the reason they are on the field.


Bob,
You said it!!!! A dog that would give up a bite for a toy/tug/treat is a POS that I don't want to have on the field. That dog is not serious. A dog that will out for another bite IS the dog I want.

Glad you finally said something that makes sense.


----------



## Bill Whatley

Dan Brigham said:


> Bob,
> You said it!!!! A dog that would give up a bite for a toy/tug/treat is a POS that I don't want to have on the field. That dog is not serious. A dog that will out for another bite IS the dog I want.
> 
> Glad you finally said something that makes sense.


We send the dog on a short distance (20-30-ft), off-leash attack, after about 5-seconds, a second decoy attacks the handler, who calls and/or whistles. The dog outs to return to defend the handler, who walks away after the bite and is attacked by the first decoy. Repeat this untill the handler feels the dog is tiring and when outed, the handler is NOT being attacked and when the dogs returns to heel, the ball is thrown away from the two decoys. I personally don't throw a ball, but either way, ball or no ball, it works.


----------



## Cesar A. Flores Dueñas

Hello!

I am a noob on dog training but i had the same problem and i want to share my experience and what worked for me 

A dog that understands the OUT command is the same if you are working the tug or if you are doing a hard suit agitation. OUT means OUT, and the more important thing is to teach your dog that.

Also operant conditioning working the outs, works the same with a soft dog than with the hardest dog.

I would suggest to you not to start working the Outs on the decoy.You need first to teach your dog what the word OUt means and a tug is better at the start, doesnt matters if your dog is already bitting sleeve or suit.

There is many methods you can use and as other people already said, all the dogs are different and you need to apply what you read on your dog is working better.

if your dog likes tug play , and i think he does, start with soft tug playing, then stop the movement of the tug and get the tug close to your body in order to void any movement of the tug if your dog is fighting or pulling, that way the reward will be the tug fight not the tug by itself.

When you stop the tug movement tell the command OUT , be patient and as soon as your dog get bored and outs the tug, MARK that behaviour with a word you use to mark good behaviours can be Good!, nice! etc. and inmediatelly reward moving the tug and offering more tug fight and movement, then stop the movement and ask for the OUT, remember to use a marker to reinforce the behaviour.

If the lack of tug movement doesnt works, as other people already said use 2 tugs, and at the movement you stop moving the first one, and ask the OUT, ofer and move the second one and remember to use a marker when the dog releases and reward an reinforce playing with the second tug.

If the food drive of your dog is high you can trade tug for food or tug for a ball or kong, at that moment you are teaching the word OUT and working with the prey drive of your dog, so for the people worried about killer dogs goin for a ball instead of a bad guy that doesnt goin to happen with a good dog bitting on a combination of prey drive and offensive agression drive........ but that will be later,at this moment you are teaching the word OUT.

When you start to get good outs with soft tug playing, increase the fight on the tug wars with your dog, and work the same. that way you are making the OUT teaching with your dog on more exciment.

You will notice when your dog start to understand what the word out means, the go to phase 2

you can start working with the sleeve, that will mean more excitement for your dog, but not on the decoy hold the sleeve and do like tug playing with your dog and work the same until you get good outs, HOLD the sleeve dont put the sleeve on maybe some people like that but i will not recomend it.

then you can start OUT teaching on the decoy.

I had the problem at the start with my dog that he already understand the OUT command but was not there another higher reward than bitting the decoy, so he refuses sometimes to make fast outs. there is where compulsion starts.

But never before your dog already understands the OUT command. I preffer e- collar over any other collar, for me means less invasive correction and less conflict with your dog.

if you need to use e collar for the outs because your dog understand the out command but needs an extra

start the out with e collar stimulation on the sleeve you holding it, not wearing it, that way you will not have the problem of your dog thinking electric stimulation comes from the decoy, because if that happens if your dog is a hard one he will not OUT trying to kill the "electric decoy" and if you have a soft dog, he can also get afraid of the decoy at some point.

ALso letting know the stimulation come from you let you use low levels on the OUT training.

Let me know what worked to you, that way i will learn from your experience


----------



## CJ Neubert

I had a dutch shepherd in the army a long time ago that had that problem. I re-taught the out with toys and a clicker. Then when I was ready to move to the decoy I started with a static decoy. No stimulation for the dog and no fight. this kept his head in the game enough to concentrate on what I was asking. We gradually worked up the stimulation levels from the decoy. Finally after weeks of work we were conducting a training session and in communication with the decoy I said " I think we should do an out now" in a conversational tone and he outed beautifully. 

this was a dog that would not out until you choked him off originally, and he went to a reliable outer with no reduction in his drive. Plus I could get my reward toys back after narc searches.


----------



## Dan Brigham

Bill Whatley said:


> We send the dog on a short distance (20-30-ft), off-leash attack, after about 5-seconds, a second decoy attacks the handler, who calls and/or whistles. The dog outs to return to defend the handler, who walks away after the bite and is attacked by the first decoy. Repeat this untill the handler feels the dog is tiring and when outed, the handler is NOT being attacked and when the dogs returns to heel, the ball is thrown away from the two decoys. I personally don't throw a ball, but either way, ball or no ball, it works.


At least this is trading a bite for another bite. I am not in love with the idea of the dog learning in such a haphazard fashion, however at least it isn't trading something important to be on the bite for something like just a ball. Once there is no attack, there is no reason to stay on a bite, at least in the sport world.

I still stand by my statement that a dog that will come off the bite for a ball or a tug is a POS that I don't want to be working with. The reason is that you cannot make many mistakes with such a dog and still have a dog that will bite. The OP said the one dog is soft, which makes it already a candidate for failure to bite, the bite must be much more important than the ball or WHEN a mistake comes in training (and it will come, these are body contact sports after all), the dog will give up and won't want to stay in the fight. 

You can use whatever operant technique you want BUT you cannot deny that bitework is a physical contact sport. There will be a day that the dog gets injured, even merely stepped on, and the dog that would rather go for the ball than the bite will be done, PERIOD. On a sport field, that may be merely embarrassing, which is bad enough. In a real-life situation, that could get you killed.


----------



## Jim Nash

On many of our dogs we use a toy for a reward to teach the out . First for outing off another toy or tug then yes off of a sleeve in the early stages of bitework . 

When I started in the K9 unit 13 years ago we didn't do this but we were working with more mature(mentally and physically) K9s that could take corrections while doing out work off of decoys . 

Due to supply and demand we started getting younger dogs (12-16months) . Most bit great and were very stubborn outing be it toys , tugs , sleeves or suits . We would still teach the out off the toy or tug first then progress to outing off a decoy . We used and still do use many of the techniques mentioned here . We use e-collars , prongs , chokers , a second decoy reward bite , waiting the dog out , etc. etc. . 

Unfortunatey with some of these young dogs when we had to move to compulsion for the out during the later more stressfull stages it caused many problems in this young dogs . 

With some of them we started using usually kongs or tugs when we progressed to the early stages of teaching the out off a decoy . Low presure from the decoy , little stress on the dog .

When the dogs were ready we progressed to more realistic engagements , more presure from decoy more stress on the K9 and we didn't use toys as rewards off the bite . This is where we traditionally had to resort to complusion to reenforce the out . Now we still usually had to resort to some compulsion but it didn't take as much and the dogs learned alot quicker because of the added foundation work we put into the out in it early on (using a toy in the earlier stages of outing off a decoy). This caused fewer problems with these young dogs because they had a better understanding of the out . 

ALL of our dogs have to engage real suspects over and over again throughout their carreer . I haven't seen 1 in out 21 K9 unit have the problem of coming out of combat drive for a toy off a real badguy or in a more realistic street training scenerio . We proofed dogs in these scenerios to see if they would go for a toy and they won't . 

Like I stated in an earlier discussion , I don't think folks give enough credit to a dogs ability to be situationally aware . Initial low stress or distraction training is vastily diffent then the latter more realistic training scenerios and the dogs easily pick up on this . 

In theory the whole dog coming out of combat drive doing this sounds credible and that was my concern when we started training this way . I was the trainer most against it . In REALITY if you have the right dog and balance your training , using a toy in the intial stages of outing a K9 off a decoy is simply a good way of laying a better foundation and understaanding in a dog of what "out" means . I simply haven't seen the dogs having the problems critics say they will have .


----------



## Mike Scheiber

Jim Nash said:


> On many of our dogs we use a toy for a reward to teach the out . First for outing off another toy or tug then yes off of a sleeve in the early stages of bitework .
> 
> When I started in the K9 unit 13 years ago we didn't do this but we were working with more mature(mentally and physically) K9s that could take corrections while doing out work off of decoys .
> 
> Due to supply and demand we started getting younger dogs (12-16months) . Most bit great and were very stubborn outing be it toys , tugs , sleeves or suits . We would still teach the out off the toy or tug first then progress to outing off a decoy . We used and still do use many of the techniques mentioned here . We use e-collars , prongs , chokers , a second decoy reward bite , waiting the dog out , etc. etc. .
> 
> Unfortunatey with some of these young dogs when we had to move to compulsion for the out during the later more stressfull stages it caused many problems in this young dogs .
> 
> With some of them we started using usually kongs or tugs when we progressed to the early stages of teaching the out off a decoy . Low presure from the decoy , little stress on the dog .
> 
> When the dogs were ready we progressed to more realistic engagements , more presure from decoy more stress on the K9 and we didn't use toys as rewards off the bite . This is where we traditionally had to resort to complusion to reenforce the out . Now we still usually had to resort to some compulsion but it didn't take as much and the dogs learned alot quicker because of the added foundation work we put into the out in it early on (using a toy in the earlier stages of outing off a decoy). This caused fewer problems with these young dogs because they had a better understanding of the out .
> 
> ALL of our dogs have to engage real suspects over and over again throughout their carreer . I haven't seen 1 in out 21 K9 unit have the problem of coming out of combat drive for a toy off a real badguy or in a more realistic street training scenerio . We proofed dogs in these scenerios to see if they would go for a toy and they won't .
> 
> Like I stated in an earlier discussion , I don't think folks give enough credit to a dogs ability to be situationally aware . Initial low stress or distraction training is vastily diffent then the latter more realistic training scenerios and the dogs easily pick up on this .
> 
> In theory the whole dog coming out of combat drive doing this sounds credible and that was my concern when we started training this way . I was the trainer most against it . In REALITY if you have the right dog and balance your training , using a toy in the intial stages of outing a K9 off a decoy is simply a good way of laying a better foundation and understaanding in a dog of what "out" means . I simply haven't seen the dogs having the problems critics say they will have .


My guess is your better smarter dog trainers than the critics.
Scabs and scare tissue dont make a better cop dog.
There was a K9 cop from Austin with a Mal I cant remember his name he used to come up and watch us train quite some time back.
I think he and his dog were pretty competitive with police trials. Not long ago he stopped by and thanked us and gave us kudos for some of his success and for letting him watch us train he said he took some of what he learned watching us and applied it to his K9 and it made them a better team on the street and trial field.
Thought that was sort of nice he took the time to stop by say thanks.


----------



## Jim Nash

That would be Jeff Ellis . He was national champ a few times over . Probably as perfect a dog in competition as they come . Dog hit and bit like a ton of bricks . Everything OB , agility , searchwork , bitework was a clean as they get . 

On the competitive side of PSD work I would say Jeff is one of the best. He has been all over to many different dog training sites and I could tell he used a little bit of everything from what he's learned from others . He's one of the few K9 handlers I know that trained his dog from a puppy , preparing it for the competition routines .

Suprisingly , I don't think he was fond of our using toys to teach an out . Not sure just the impression I got .Funny thing was he was watching us when a decoy mistakenly tried to reward my K9 with a tug in a situation where he shouldn't have and my dog attached himself to the decoys chest . Not a moment I'm proud of but my dog seemed to like it .


----------



## Mike Scheiber

Jim Nash said:


> That would be Jeff Ellis . He was national champ a few times over . Probably as perfect a dog in competition as they come . Dog hit and bit like a ton of bricks . Everything OB , agility , searchwork , bitework was a clean as they get .
> 
> On the competitive side of PSD work I would say Jeff is one of the best. He has been all over to many different dog training sites and I could tell he used a little bit of everything from what he's learned from others . He's one of the few K9 handlers I know that trained his dog from a puppy , preparing it for the competition routines .
> 
> Suprisingly , I don't think he was fond of our using toys to teach an out . Not sure just the impression I got .Funny thing was he was watching us when a decoy mistakenly tried to reward my K9 with a tug in a situation where he shouldn't have and my dog attached himself to the decoys chest . Not a moment I'm proud of but my dog seemed to like it .


Not sure what he got from us I can tell you it wasn't outing for a toy cause we don't do it.[-X


----------



## Jim Nash

I've been out to your club and others too . For me I learned some things that improved some of my OB. Not in the heeling area though . We don't train for that type and in competition that style is usually judged harshly . Most judges want the dog looking forward downfield . Our compettition is really not as tough as any sport I've seen but there are plenty of simularities also .

I enjoyed visiting those clubs . Nice people(other then the few who give you the "Oh you're a POLICE K9 handler " and not in a good way .

Plus there were always good dogs to watch and that's always fun and like everywhere else there were some sh^^ers that are good for a laugh also.


----------



## Lou Castle

Jim Nash said:


> On many of our dogs we use a toy for a reward to teach the out . First for outing off another toy or tug then yes off of a sleeve in the early stages of bitework .


This started out a discussion of the out for sport work but now it's taken a side road into dogs doing real work. 



Jim Nash said:


> When I started in the K9 unit 13 years ago we didn't do this but we were working with more mature(mentally and physically) K9s that could take corrections while doing out work off of decoys .
> 
> Due to supply and demand we started getting younger dogs (12-16months) . Most bit great and were very stubborn outing be it toys , tugs , sleeves or suits . We would still teach the out off the toy or tug first then progress to outing off a decoy . We used and still do use many of the techniques mentioned here . We use e-collars , prongs , chokers , a second decoy reward bite , waiting the dog out , etc. etc. .
> 
> Unfortunatey with some of these young dogs when we had to move to compulsion for the out during the later more stressfull stages it caused many problems in this young dogs .


I've never had this issue because I stay at a low level of compulsion. Doing so, rather than just escalating the level and type of corrections allows me to work with the dog instead of against him. 



Jim Nash said:


> With some of them we started using usually kongs or tugs when we progressed to the early stages of teaching the out off a decoy . Low presure from the decoy , little stress on the dog .
> 
> When the dogs were ready we progressed to more realistic engagements , more presure from decoy more stress on the K9 and we didn't use toys as rewards off the bite . This is where we traditionally had to resort to complusion to reenforce the out .


This is the usual pattern. 



Jim Nash said:


> Now we still usually had to resort to some compulsion but it didn't take as much and the dogs learned alot quicker because of the added foundation work we put into the out in it early on (using a toy in the earlier stages of outing off a decoy). This caused fewer problems with these young dogs because they had a better understanding of the out .


I've long been opposed to this for reasons that you discuss a bit later. But you only touch on the surface. 



Jim Nash said:


> ALL of our dogs have to engage real suspects over and over again throughout their carreer . I haven't seen 1 in out 21 K9 unit have the problem of coming out of combat drive for a toy off a real badguy or in a more realistic street training scenerio . We proofed dogs in these scenerios to see if they would go for a toy and they won't .


This isn't the main issue and it's what I referred to when I said that you were only touching on the surface of the situation. The issue *IS * that the dog who outs because he's anticipating play is in the wrong drive. He's not even in a combat drive of any kind any more. He's ready to play, not to fight. 



Jim Nash said:


> Like I stated in an earlier discussion , I don't think folks give enough credit to a dogs ability to be situationally aware .


This isn't a matter of _"situational awareness."_ It's a matter of being in the wrong drive. The drive isn't something that makes a dog aware of a situation or not. it's something that he can't help but respond to in a certain specific way. In this situation, it's in the WRONG way and the dog has no choice in the matter. He's _"a slave"_ to his drives. 



Jim Nash said:


> In theory the whole dog coming out of combat drive doing this sounds credible and that was my concern when we started training this way . I was the trainer most against it . *In REALITY if you have the right dog and balance your training , *using a toy in the intial stages of outing a K9 off a decoy is simply a good way of laying a better foundation and understaanding in a dog of what "out" means . [Emphasis added]


This may be correct. But often one doesn't know if you _"have the right dog"_ until it's too late. Do you have some test to measure this? 



Jim Nash said:


> I simply haven't seen the dogs having the problems critics say they will have .


Not seeing the problem does not mean that it's not present. And it may come up without warning. If using a toy or a ball was the only way to get the out, then I'd probably be all for it. but it's not. I think that it's a poor second choice due to the potential for life–threatening issues.


----------



## Dan Brigham

Lou puts my concerns into perspective very nicely and I was only looking at it from a sport aspect, not a life and death possibility.

My idea for a test of your theory is a 400 lb. biker on PCP that whips out a ball when the dog is on the bite. The biker on PCP is about the only one crazy enough to take a live bite and not feel it much. Throwing the ball and not having the dog go after it would make things exciting, one way or the other. 

I suggest a video to support your claims. My money is on the biker.


----------



## Chris McDonald

Dan Brigham said:


> Lou puts my concerns into perspective very nicely and I was only looking at it from a sport aspect, not a life and death possibility.
> 
> My idea for a test of your theory is a 400 lb. biker on PCP that whips out a ball when the dog is on the bite. The biker on PCP is about the only one crazy enough to take a live bite and not feel it much. Throwing the ball and not having the dog go after it would make things exciting, one way or the other.
> 
> I suggest a video to support your claims. My money is on the biker.


Now you just need a 400 pound biker on PCP willing to take a dog bite and throw a ball during the bite. Once you get this set up you better double check the battery life and stuff in the camera. I would hate to see all this go down only to find out the camera ran out of memory


----------



## Jim Nash

You got me Dan , you won't even have to go that far . Our dogs would run at the first sight of a 400 pounder wielding only a kong . 

Our dogs only bite badguys with bite sleeves on cause that's how we started them also . Guess we never figured out how to get the dogs to make the transition from the sleeve to the real thing also . From reading this discussion it's doesn't sound like it possible . 

Attention badguys the city of St Paul is yours for the taking all you need is a pocket full of toys .

Enroute to tell all the guys their dogs have never done what they've seen them do . It was all in our imagination .


----------



## Mike Scheiber

Jim Nash said:


> You got me Dan , you won't even have to go that far . Our dogs would run at the first sight of a 400 pounder wielding only a kong .
> 
> Our dogs only bite badguys with bite sleeves on cause that's how we started them also . Guess we never figured out how to get the dogs to make the transition from the sleeve to the real thing also . From reading this discussion it's doesn't sound like it possible .
> 
> Attention badguys the city of St Paul is yours for the taking all you need is a pocket full of toys .
> 
> Enroute to tell all the guys their dogs have never done what they've seen them do . It was all in our imagination .


Hey Jim how about we junk all we know and our dogs for that matter and just let the talking heads rule the way it should be.
I think we have lost sight of the one and only way to do things.


----------



## Lou Castle

Dan Brigham said:


> Lou puts my concerns into perspective very nicely and I was only looking at it from a sport aspect, not a life and death possibility.


I don't think I’m the right guy to carry your flag Dan. When Jim wrote this,


> I haven't seen 1 in out 21 K9 unit have the problem of coming out of combat drive for a toy off a real badguy or in a more realistic street training scenerio . We proofed dogs in these scenerios to see if they would go for a toy and they won't .


I responded with this,


> This isn't the main issue and it's what I referred to when I said that you were only touching on the surface of the situation. The issue *IS * that the dog who outs because he's anticipating play is in the wrong drive. He's not even in a combat drive of any kind any more. He's ready to play, not to fight.


I thought I was pretty clear that I wasn't concerned that a dog would come off the bite if a ball suddenly appeared; just that when he did come off the bite, he'd be in a play drive rather than a combat drive. 



Dan Brigham said:


> My idea for a test of your theory is a 400 lb. biker on PCP that whips out a ball when the dog is on the bite. The biker on PCP is about the only one crazy enough to take a live bite and not feel it much. Throwing the ball and not having the dog go after it would make things exciting, one way or the other.
> 
> I suggest a video to support your claims. My money is on the biker.


I wouldn't put my money with yours.


----------



## David Frost

Jim Nash said:


> You got me Dan , you won't even have to go that far . Our dogs would run at the first sight of a 400 pounder wielding only a kong .
> 
> .


Oh sure Jim, just tell all our secrets. I suppose next you will be giving detailed instruction on how to perform the secret cop handshake. 

DFrost


----------



## Dave Colborn

Michelle.

Where are you located? If it was in the thread somewhere, I missed it. I would recommend going to a good trainer, and get some help. While there are some good opinions on the internet occasionally, applying them correctly is extremely hard. Find a trainer you trust, research them (what have they done, and can they still do it?), make sure you can stand them in person, and stick with their methods once you start. Good luck.


----------



## Jim Nash

David stated :

" Oh sure Jim, just tell all our secrets. I suppose next you will be giving detailed instruction on how to perform the secret cop handshake . " 


Don't worry I learned on letting that secret slip . The 30 day doughnut eating suspension hurt . 


I wonder how many folks have actually tried using a toy to INITIALLY train an out and have actually seen the problem of the K9 coming out of combat drive in LATER phases of out training , that put more presure on the dog ? 

I'm talking about outting in a real bite situation or one where the decoy is putting alot of presure mimicing as best he/she can a real situation . So far the critics I've spoken with have never actually seen the problem just heard the negative theory behind it that drove their belief against it . 

To clarify , we don't use a toy to out in the these LATER stages of bite training . Just in the BEGINNING phases of bite work training .

In the beginning stages where we do this it's usually on a well lit flat grassy field for everyones safety , decoy wearing a visible sleeve , giving the new dog a prey bite on lead , low presure on the dog . The decoy then freezes up and usually a small tug or kong on a rope is presented next to his muzzle and simultaniously saying "out" while he's on the bite . Most dogs that I have seen will come of a "dead" sleeve where the game has ended (it is a game at this point ) for a tug or kong because they know there is a game in that . Some dogs we may have to wait out a bit but they eventually come off the sleeve and go for the toy or tug . That's been my experiance , we've suprised many who didn't think there dogs would come off a sleeve for such a thing . 

Yes , they are coming off the bite in play at this EARLY stage of bitework or out training , they haven't even been put into combat drive at this point either . That comes later and once again in the LATER stages a toy is NOT used for the out . 

In my experiance training for the out in the early stages like this using a toy works great in teaching what out means with some dogs . We don't use this technique for all our dogs . Some won't even think of outting for the toy even in these early stages . The only problem I have seen it cause with some dogs (again in only in these early stages) is some young dogs will anticipate the reward before the out command is given . With them we simply stop using this technique . 

I can tell you from experiance seeing our dogs out off of real suspects or decoys simulating as best they can a real engagement that our dogs are deffinately NOT in play drive when they are outted off a real badguy or decoy in these situations . That would be very easy to spot . But I guess you would just have to take my word for it that I know how to read dogs .

From my experiance using this technique with some dogs works great in getting the dog to understand what out means and this pays off later when we start outting the dog off of decoys simulating real engagements with the dog in a combat drive , where the toy is now NOT used . They have long since been weaned off of that for an out . This doesn't mean they have a perfect out off of anything when we reach the advanced stages . But , from my experiance has taken less work and been less stressful on the dogs on getting a dog to out off a bite in the later stages when the dog is on a bite in combat (again a toy/tug is NOT used at this point) , if they had this initial foundation in teaching the out . 

IMO , for a dog in a real engagement to out off of a real badguy and go from a combat to play drive the trainer would have to have severly screwed up this technique in order to get the dog to respond in such an unnatural way or the dog is a screwed up freak of nature that the possibility of playing with a toy would override it's knowledge that he is currently doing battle with someone that could hurt him/her.

Once again I have NEVER seen one of our dogs that we've trained in it's EARLY stages of bitework and out training using a toy , out and go into play drive off a real suspect or decoy in later stages where the dog's in combat drive on the bite . 

I'm not trying to sell this to anyone , it's a tough sell in this macho field and not the right technique for some dogs. There are plenty of other training techniques that can be used (we use them also , we aren't cookie cutter trainers) and to each there own . I'm simply stating my experiances with with it as opposed to the problems others have seen or heard about using this technique .


----------



## Dave Colborn

Why not use the decoy as a reward. Train the out with a re-bite on the decoy? Keeps the dog focused on the bad guy. Gives them a reason to out, when they know they'll get re-engaged with the bad guy. Easy to further the training by putting the reward bite on a variable reward so as to avoid accidental re-bites in a real situatioin or a trial. 

Or is the question really how to get the dog to out in the first place and I am missing the point?


----------



## Jim Nash

Dave , for us it's just a very easy non stressfull way to start off teaching the out intially off the sleeve with SOME dogs . 

We do use the technique you describe also . It depends on the dog . This is just ONE of MANY tools we use to teach the out . It depends on the dog and/or where the dog is in training .

Like any tool or training technique there are those who don't like a certain training tool or technique and will point out the negative things they have seen or heard about it . Then there are those who use that particular technique that will point out the successes they have had with that approach and will usually add that if others are having the problems they are having with that tool or technique that they are probably training it all wrong . 

This could be in the use of motivational training , use of corrections , e-collar , on and on . 

Some trainers have great success using specific techniques and aren't as successful using others . Some trainers use a wide variety of training techniques and are successful where others have a more limited variety of training techniques and are successful also . Whatever works for them great , as long as the end product is a good one . 

But just because they have seen or heard improper results in a certain technique they are uncomfortable with doesn't neccessarily mean others can't use that technique and have very different very positive results . 

Ecollar trainers , motivational trainers , trainers using corrections , choke collars , prong collars battle the same things justifying the techniques they use successfully . 

Once again I'm not trying to sell this technique to anyone . Just adding my 2 cents to the discussion and that I've had very different results with it then others . Take from it what you will .


----------



## Jim Nash

Sorry Dave I thought you were responding to me . Rereading it I don't think you were . After all that I feel like Gilda Radner . Never miiiiiinnnnndddddd.......


----------



## Dave Colborn

Just kind of a general question, Jim. Just wondering if the original poster is getting anything out of it, and wondering if I can get everyone on here together to prove that they can do what they say...I would love to be the equipment vendor at that event!!! Not picking on anyone (in particular) as I haven't SEEN any of you train, I just know how hard it is doing anything new and finding the right advice to get the job done.


----------



## Lou Castle

Jim Nash said:


> I wonder how many folks have actually tried using a toy to INITIALLY train an out and have actually seen the problem of the K9 coming out of combat drive in LATER phases of out training , that put more presure on the dog ?


I've seen it. And I've shown it to others who were present. They didn't see it until I pointed it out. Lots of people who think they're good at reading dogs don't see a lot of things. 



Jim Nash said:


> I'm talking about outting in a real bite situation or one where the decoy is putting alot of presure mimicing as best he/she can a real situation . So far the critics I've spoken with have never actually seen the problem just heard the negative theory behind it that drove their belief against it .


I saw it when a local agency went to this form of training. I went out to watch their training, saw it happening (I had no idea that they'd made this change) and asked if that's what they had done. It was. 

I've also seen it in my travels around the US when this method of teaching the out was done. Sometimes it's obvious, sometimes not so much. 



Jim Nash said:


> To clarify , we don't use a toy to out in the these LATER stages of bite training . Just in the BEGINNING phases of bite work training .


I've seen as late as a year after the initial work was done. 



Jim Nash said:


> In the beginning stages where we do this it's usually on a well lit flat grassy field for everyones safety , decoy wearing a visible sleeve , giving the new dog a prey bite on lead , low presure on the dog . The decoy then freezes up and usually a small tug or kong on a rope is presented next to his muzzle and simultaniously saying "out" while he's on the bite . Most dogs that I have seen will come of a "dead" sleeve where the game has ended (it is a game at this point ) for a tug or kong because they know there is a game in that .


I never teach biting to a police dog *as a game. * I will do that with a puppy that's just starting in bite work, but usually I'm working with an adult and converting a sport dog to a PSD. I NEVER want them to think that it's a game. It's a bit off topic but I think that this was one issue with your dog that did not bite when the handler broke his wrist on the TV show about your unit. That dog looks to me as if he thinks that biting was a game. 



Jim Nash said:


> Yes , they are coming off the bite in play at this EARLY stage of bitework or out training , they haven't even been put into combat drive at this point either . That comes later and once again in the LATER stages a toy is NOT used for the out .


When do you introduce combat in bite work? I do it from the start with anything but a puppy. 



Jim Nash said:


> I can tell you from experiance seeing our dogs out off of real suspects or decoys simulating as best they can a real engagement that our dogs are deffinately NOT in play drive when they are outted off a real badguy or decoy in these situations . That would be very easy to spot . But I guess you would just have to take my word for it that I know how to read dogs .


Sometimes it's VERY hard to read. I've shown it to some very experienced trainers who were unable to see it until I showed them. 



Jim Nash said:


> IMO , for a dog in a real engagement to out off of a real badguy and go from a combat to play drive the trainer would have to have severly screwed up this technique in order to get the dog to respond in such an unnatural way or the dog is a screwed up freak of nature that the possibility of playing with a toy would override it's knowledge that he is currently doing battle with someone that could hurt him/her.


Going from combat to play isn't something that the dog does consciously. He recognizes a situation that he's been in before and he responds as he's been conditioned. If that involves going into play, that's what he may do no matter how much of a real fight he's been in. The command to release puts him back into his training mindset. If that's play … 

Since this method of using play to get the out MIGHT result in problems I'm unable to comprehend why anyone would use it. If it does then you've _"built a mountain and now you have to climb over it."_ Time is already tight when getting a dog ready for the street. I see no reason to waste time in fixing a problem that the training itself created, even if it's only a possibility that it may occur. I've never had anything of the sort happen with my method of getting the out and so I've no reason to change anything.


----------



## Lou Castle

Dave Colborn said:


> Why not use the decoy as a reward. Train the out with a re-bite on the decoy? Keeps the dog focused on the bad guy.


I don't like doing this because it sometimes encourages the dog to cheap shot the decoy to get his _" reward bite."_ I prefer to focus him on something elsel some OB, another decoy, or a search instead. 

There is a method called _"The Two Decoy Reward System"_ but I also don't care for that. In that system the dog is rewarded for releasing a _"dead"_ decoy with a bite on another decoy who provides a fight. This can create a dangerous situation for back–up officers as the dog releases the dog and immediately looks for a new target as his reward. 

And yes, I've seen this happen in both training and real situations.


----------



## Kyle Sprag

"don't like doing this because it sometimes encourages the dog to cheap shot the decoy to get his _" reward bite."_ I prefer to focus him on something elsel some OB, another decoy, or a search instead."

The trick here is to keep the dog from being able to Self Reward with a Cheap shot. 

"There is a method called _"The Two Decoy Reward System"_ but I also don't care for that. In that system the dog is rewarded for releasing a _"dead"_ decoy with a bite on another decoy who provides a fight. This can create a dangerous situation for back–up officers as the dog releases the dog and immediately looks for a new target as his reward."

I agree 1000% I HATE this method and it WILL cause the dog to go Head Hunting once he/she outs!


----------



## Jim Nash

Lou , you seem bound and determined to convince me via the internet that using this type of training early on is going to cause the type of problems YOU say it will . I'm sure if done wrong it could and I don't doubt you've seen what you've seen . BUT the thing is , I have NOT seen it with the dogs WE have used it with early on in their training . You can insinuate all you want that I don't know how to read dogs . I can assure you I do .

You are a very good internet debater.I'm sure if you put your mind to it and I stated dog sh^t smells bad , you could make a more convincing arguement that it doesn't . BUT no matter how well you state your case it will not change what I've seen with my own eyes . 

When we initially went to this training technique I was skeptical based on what I've heard about the dog upon outing will go from being in a real fight to suddenly playing a game . I think you were one of the trainers I read stating those problems . I voiced my concerns but was told we would give it a try . We trained some dogs with this technique and low and behold they DID NOT HAVE THE PROBLEMS YOU PREDICTED .

About the dog you saw on television , I happen to have worked with him alot in person . I've spoken about him before and if anyone wants to know more about him go back and see my comments about him under the K9 Cops thread . He in no way is our strongest dog in apprehension work (he's our weakest dog in that area and because of it we almost washed him as a PSD) but his searching skills are top notch . For suspects , drugs and evidence . He has located many suspects , lots of drugs and lots of evidence that has put alot of people in prison making the city of St Paul alot safer . His handler knows the dogs weaknesses .

Having worked with the dog in question ALOT I would disagree . I've worked him alot as a decoy in muzzle . on a sleeve and in a suit . I quite frankly think it is a courage and confidence issue and all of the other trainers felt the same way when I was on the training staff .Believe me (but I'm sure you won't ) he doesn't think it's a game .


----------



## Jim Nash

We train dogs from 12 to about 18 months of age . Most too young to start out the way you like to . Unknown amount of bitework before we got them if any . That's why we work from the ground up . We put them through a 10 to 12 week course . Depending on the dog we move from it being a game to more realistic around half way through the course . Depends on what the dog is showing us .

We occassionally get titled dogs Schtz. , KNPV usually . I don't know of any that we have used the technique we are discussing on .


----------



## Erik Berg

Why would it be so bad to use a ball/toy when learning the dog what out means in a more playfull manner before you move on, we are not talking the finished product here, so what does it matter? Of course a dog must be trained to ignore ball,sleeves or whatever before it´s ready to work the streets. If a dog will be ruined by using a ball/toy in the initial stage in training the out I guess it will be likewise destroyed by using a sleeve/suit in training, because most criminals don´t wear those too.


----------



## Lou Castle

Jim Nash said:


> Lou , you seem bound and determined to convince me via the internet that using this type of training early on is going to cause the type of problems YOU say it will .


Jim I'm certainly not trying to convince you of anything. I have no need to, you've already made up your mind and you have no interest anyway. Now I'm just warning others of the potential danger of this kind of work. 



Jim Nash said:


> I'm sure if done wrong it could and I don't doubt you've seen what you've seen . BUT the thing is , I have NOT seen it with the dogs WE have used it with early on in their training . You can insinuate all you want that I don't know how to read dogs .


I've insinuated nothing about your ability to read dogs. 



Jim Nash said:


> You are a very good internet debater.


My debate skills come from my journalism, science and math background. My skill as a dog trainer comes from dozens of trainers who gave freely of their knowledge combined with my own experiences on the street. The two have little to do with one another. 
. 



Jim Nash said:


> BUT no matter how well you state your case it will not change what I've seen with my own eyes .


Or, as in this case, what you have NOT seen with your own eyes. You've told us that you read dogs well and I'm not disputing it. But no one is perfect at this skill. Anyone can miss, even the best. 



Jim Nash said:


> When we initially went to this training technique I was skeptical based on what I've heard about the dog upon outing will go from being in a real fight to suddenly playing a game . I think you were one of the trainers I read stating those problems . I voiced my concerns but was told we would give it a try . We trained some dogs with this technique and low and behold they DID NOT HAVE THE PROBLEMS YOU PREDICTED .


I've predicted nothing. Since the start of this discussion I've said only what _might happen, _not that _it would happen_ and that I've personally seen it happen quite a few times. I'm not alone in having seen this. 



Jim Nash said:


> About the dog you saw on television , I happen to have worked with him alot in person . I've spoken about him before and if anyone wants to know more about him go back and see my comments about him under the K9 Cops thread . He in no way is our strongest dog in apprehension work (he's our weakest dog in that area and because of it we almost washed him as a PSD) but his searching skills are top notch . For suspects , drugs and evidence .


I'd have washed him out or at least restricted him from searching for suspects. He'd probably do fine looking for just drugs or evidence. I don't care how good a dog's searching skills are, his bitework is qualifying or disqualifying. The performance he displayed on the show was disqualifying as far as I'm concerned. This is a bit like saying an _"officer who won't fight is good at report writing so we're going to keep him."_ The fact that he won't fight, like this dog, is for me, disqualifying. I'm certainly not telling you how to run your unit, just describing what I'd do. 



Jim Nash said:


> He has located many suspects , lots of drugs and lots of evidence that has put alot of people in prison making the city of St Paul alot safer .


I'm reminded of one of our dogs when we first got started. We found out in the first week that the dog was gun shy. He ran from a shooting and testing confirmed that he'd do so again. Yet the Department would not get rid of him. The handler didn't want to go thorugh another basic class and he'd become attached to the dog. The brass would not admit that a mistake had been made in the selection of the kennel to do our start–up training and the kennel was empty and could not supply us with another dog for months. I recall talking to a captain about the issue and his final word was, _"If Jones _[not his real name]_ wants to work with a gun shy dog, it's up to him."_ I replied, _"Captain we wouldn't keep an officer who ran from gunfire, why would we keep a dog that does the same thing?"_ (This explains in part, why it took me 18 years to make Sgt. I also thought that when a Captain asked my opinion _he really wanted it. _ ROFL). 

In the case of this dog, it's great that you think he 's made St. Paul so much safer. I think that he endangers his handler, his backup team and anyone else in the area anytime he's deployed on a dangerous suspect. I also think that the handler, knowing the dog's deficiencies, might escalate his level of force when a more competent dog could have handled the situation. If this ever occurs, I hope the plaintiff's attorney doesn't read your comments here! 



Jim Nash said:


> His handler knows the dogs weaknesses .


Every dog has weaknesses. It's essential that every handler knows those of his dog. But in my opinion, this dog's weaknesses are disqualifying, especially given what you say next! 



Jim Nash said:


> Having worked with the dog in question ALOT I would disagree . I've worked him alot as a decoy in muzzle . on a sleeve and in a suit . *I quite frankly think it is a courage and confidence issue * [Emphasis added]


When I got started I was a victim of poor training. Early in my K-9 career I got into a pursuit of a stolen car. The suspect crashed and fled on foot. I gave chase with my dog and commanded him to bite the driver, just as your officer on the show did. He ran up to him and then, not seeing any equipment, happily ran alongside him looking for the _"right guy"_ to bite. I'll never forget that feeling and I made damn sure that I never let that happen to anyone that I trained. 

*I find it heartbreaking that you'd front a handler with a dog that YOU KNOW lacks courage and confidence! *I couldn't sleep at night if I'd ever put a handler on the street with a dog like that. If I had such a dog and thought, as you say that you do, that the issue is one of courage and confidence, I'd wash him. At several times in the TV show, you folks talk of _"courage"_ as being such an important factor in the dog. I'm AMAZED that you admit that this dog lacks it and then turn around and put him on the street. 

MOST problems with LE K-9's start with the first and most important step – SELECTION. A friend of mind who is very politically correct says, _"You can't go back to a place you've never been."_. I'm much less PC and I say, _"You can't make chicken salad out of chicken sh!t."_ Nothing rude directed at anyone – it's just a saying. 



Jim Nash said:


> and all of the other trainers felt the same way when I was on the training staff .


Are you no longer on the training staff?


----------



## Lou Castle

Erik Berg said:


> Why would it be so bad to use a ball/toy when learning the dog what out means in a more playfull manner before you move on, we are not talking the finished product here, so what does it matter?


It matters because what a dog does on the street is a reflection of what he's done in training. As trainers from many venues will say, *You fight as you train! * 

If the dog has been conditioned that releasing the bite in exchange for a ball/toy is how it's done, when he releases the bite he'll go into play drive instead of staying in a combat drive. But on the street the combat might not be over and so if it continues, he's not ready. 



Erik Berg said:


> Of course a dog must be trained to ignore ball,sleeves or whatever before it´s ready to work the streets.


This is a completely separate issue. Most trainers use balls/toys at some point during their training, especially if, as is the case with this dog, he's a detector dog in addition to his patrol duties. Even if the dog is not trained for detector work using toys or balls to play with them is quite common. And so EVERY street dog must be trained to ignore these distractions as a matter of course. 

But this training, where *the reward for complying with a command is the ball, *takes that play to another level. The dog is conditioned that the release of the bite leads *directly *to play. 



Erik Berg said:


> If a dog will be ruined by using a ball/toy in the initial stage in training the out I guess it will be likewise destroyed by using a sleeve/suit in training, because most criminals don´t wear those too.


You're right dogs must be trained off the protective equipment worn by decoys, but one thing has nothing to do with the other. . 

We're talking about drives here and they have nothing to do with the presence or absence of protective equipment. They DO have to do with how the agitation is done. If it's done as a game it can lead to problems in the street. But that too, is another issue.


----------



## Jim Nash

Lou stated ;

" I'd have washed him out or at least restricted him from searching for suspects. He'd probably do fine looking for just drugs or evidence. I don't care how good a dog's searching skills are, his bitework is qualifying or disqualifying. The performance he displayed on the show was disqualifying as far as I'm concerned. This is a bit like saying an "officer who won't fight is good at report writing so we're going to keep him." The fact that he won't fight, like this dog, is for me, disqualifying. I'm certainly not telling you how to run your unit, just describing what I'd do. "


Thanks , Please don't try telling me how to run this unit . 

Do you feel the same way about Bloodhounds and others dogs that aren't trained at all to apprehend suspects also but are used alot to locate suspects ? 


Lou stated;

" In the case of this dog, it's great that you think he 's made St. Paul so much safer. I think that he endangers his handler, his backup team and anyone else in the area anytime he's deployed on a dangerous suspect. I also think that the handler, knowing the dog's deficiencies, might escalate his level of force when a more competent dog could have handled the situation. If this ever occurs, I hope the plaintiff's attorney doesn't read your comments here! "


WOW , Lou how big of you ! Now you are a witness for the defense . WHAT A GUY ! 

This is why I have stopped getting into any discussions with you anymore unless you quote me directly . Because you now will go to any length to try and prove your point . I've been in some very good discussions with you in the past . We could agree on some things and others we could simply agree to disagree . But things have changed with you and the above statement from you is an all time new low for you . 

Police Officers without K9's find themselves in these situations all the time . Evidently they should be sued because they are using too much force on suspects and should have a K9 there . 

It's not the K9 that dictates the use of force used on a suspect , it's the suspect's actions and the Officer/s' response to that in order to take the suspect into custody . As long as the Officer/s' use only the amount of force neccessary to take that suspect into custody I don't have a problem with dealing with that pathetic arguement you invented . 

The magic bullet for taking combative suspects into custody without getting anyone including the suspect hurt hasn't been invented yet . 

There are K9's of all different abilities out there . No matter how good a dog is there may be a suspect or situation that that particular dog's deployment may fail . Hopefully the Handler and backup know this and are prepared to take other actions if this happens . 

It would be nice for every K9 Handler(every Police Officer for that matter) to have a K9 with the ability to take care of every situation and suspect and disable them ASAP . Unfortunately we know that isn't the case . 

For me I intially didn't want this dog on the streets because of this issue . I was overruled and will admit was proven wrong . Yes I THINK and so do MANY others that this dog has made the city of St Paul , and it's Officers safer . From his apprehensions on the street I think he in fact is an asset when on scene , locating and engaging a combative suspect . Are there K9's that can do a much better job . YES . But for me I think he just meets the requirement with his engagement skills . Any less and I would say he's a liabilty . If I or the other trainers thought this dog was more of a danger then an assett in this situation he would NOT be there . 


Lou stated;

" I'm reminded of one of our dogs when we first got started. We found out in the first week that the dog was gun shy. He ran from a shooting and testing confirmed that he'd do so again. Yet the Department would not get rid of him. The handler didn't want to go thorugh another basic class and he'd become attached to the dog. The brass would not admit that a mistake had been made in the selection of the kennel to do our start–up training and the kennel was empty and could not supply us with another dog for months. I recall talking to a captain about the issue and his final word was, "If Jones [not his real name] wants to work with a gun shy dog, it's up to him." I replied, "Captain we wouldn't keep an officer who ran from gunfire, why would we keep a dog that does the same thing?" (This explains in part, why it took me 18 years to make Sgt. I also thought that when a Captain asked my opinion he really wanted it. ROFL). "


So far our adminstration has taken our training staff's requests to wash dogs . I think it's a testament to how valueable they think our opinions and abilities are . 

Lou stated;

" I find it heartbreaking that you'd front a handler with a dog that YOU KNOW lacks courage and confidence! I couldn't sleep at night if I'd ever put a handler on the street with a dog like that. If I had such a dog and thought, as you say that you do, that the issue is one of courage and confidence, I'd wash him. At several times in the TV show, you folks talk of "courage" as being such an important factor in the dog. I'm AMAZED that you admit that this dog lacks it and then turn around and put him on the street. "

He has courage , enough to get in there but not enough to get in there and fight hard . He hasn't had the problem your dog had with the running suspect . He has caught them and bitten them . It just wasn't impressive but he has gotten the job done . 

You're AMAZED huh ? I suppose it's kinda weird for you to see a K9 guy talk truthfully and not imply or insinuate that they are the best trainers around and ALL their dogs are hard hitting butt kickers . I've run into alot of those types . I've also got to see some of these guys real dogs for myself . Some are really well respected on internet that I've gotten into some good conversations with them and learned some good things . I still thought they were good trainers but from seeing some of their dogs they put out I realized their egos got the best of them and they tended to throw a good amount of BS around on the internet about how good their training and dogs were . Once again I still thought they were good trainers . Very good in fact . Just not as good as THEY thought they were . 

I've never seen any dogs you have trained by the way so I really don't know how good you actually are . From reading your stuff on the internet I think you're are a very good trainer . But as good as YOU think you are and desperately want others to believe is still up in the air for me till I see some of your dogs . I also wonder what you would have looked like on TV . Think there would be some critiques ? I'm sure you would have handled them well .


As for losing sleep . I don't sleep too well not because of that dog but because I have been intimately involved in incidents where a fellow Officer and friend has been killed . Those images don't leave my head very easily especially when I'm trying to sleep . That's what makes keeping my fellow Officers safety VERY important to me and because of that it was an overwhelming force in why I became a K9 Handler and trainer . So for you to sit behind that keyboard and lecture me after seeing a short VERY small picture of that dog is insulting . 

You will never hear me say that dog is the cat's meow . His scent work is some of the best I've seen . His engagement to man is not something I would hang my hat on or use as a good example as such . 

We knew we would get those who would use this as tool to broadbrush our entire unit to stroke their own egos . We could have easily asked them not to air that footage and believe me it was thought of . Folks critiques of that incident as weak are very valid but their imput on if that dog should be a PSD in that capacity aren't valid to me because they simply don't know the whole dog and are basing it one a few minutes they have seen on a television screen . 

Apprehensions are a small but admittedly important part of of their work . Many outside of PSD work think it's the main purpose and are suprised to find out that a Police K9's primary job is that of a LOCATING TOOL . So once again that was all a factor when desciding if that dog should be a PSD . 

Lou asked ;

" Are you no longer on the training staff? "

I am not . They were preparing me to possibly take over the training unit in several years . I ended up stepping down because I was trying to save my marriage . I have 3 small children also . When I stepped down my Sgt. said I shouldn't and that they would give me sometime away from training and that the other trainers would be willing to cover for me . I didn't think that was right for the good of the unit so I stepped down anyways . One of the biggest reasons for my divorce was my commitment to training . I often helped others in my unit and other departments on my own time . I also instructed at and attended several seminars around the country . 

As a K9 Handler I'm still one of 4 SWAT K9's and have been a member of several award winning competition teams ( 1 a USPCA 2000 National Champion Team). I have also won several awards for my work on the street with my current and past K9 partners . So I obviuosly put in alot of time with my own K9s also . Because of this I wasn't around much for my family due to my committment to K9 . My ex said I was having an affair with the job .

I have still been asked to help out from time to time with training and am asked my opinion on things also .

Lou . How did you leave your training unit ? Are you still handling a dog ? Are there Police K9s out there that you trained I could possibly see working sometime ? Not just K9's that you help from time to time but ones you put most of the training work into .

Not trying to insinuate anything or be rude . Just askin.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Lou Castle said:


> I don't like doing this because it sometimes encourages the dog to cheap shot the decoy to get his _" reward bite."_ I prefer to focus him on something elsel some OB, another decoy, or a search instead.
> 
> If you out the dog and have it sit, isn't that OB, you correct the dog for not sitting if he cheap shots.
> 
> There is a method called _"The Two Decoy Reward System"_ but I also don't care for that. In that system the dog is rewarded for releasing a _"dead"_ decoy with a bite on another decoy who provides a fight. This can create a dangerous situation for back–up officers as the dog releases the dog and immediately looks for a new target as his reward.
> 
> Another good method for starting the call off and working the out in strong dogs. Starting. Not finishing. You should be able to use successive approximation to turn it from a bite on one decoy to the other, then put a pause by the handler, then bring the dog into a heel and send him, then bring him into a heel and send him on the same decoy. Gotta keep training, never stop, as they are never finished.
> 
> And yes, I've seen this happen in both training and real situations.


I am sure with improper training, you would see this. May be due to the training the dog received.


----------



## Lou Castle

Jim Nash said:


> Thanks , Please don't try telling me how to run this unit .


*Nowhere *did I tell you how to run your unit. I told you what I'd do in the same situation. 



Jim Nash said:


> Do you feel the same way about Bloodhounds and others dogs that aren't trained at all to apprehend suspects also but are used alot to locate suspects ?


Had this situation occurred with a BH you'd NOT have heard the handler repeatedly giving his dog commands to bite the suspect. He'd have known that his dog would not. And so the handler would NOT have expected backup from a source that it turns out, would not provide it. That handler believed that he had a dog with him that would at least assist in the apprehension. The one you provided him with did not. There 's a significant difference between expecting a dog to perform that function and to have him fail to provide and not expecting it at all. 



Jim Nash said:


> WOW , Lou how big of you ! Now you are a witness for the defense . WHAT A GUY !


*NOWHERE *have I said that I was a witness for the defense. * That statement is entirely of your making. * AND it's a lie. 



Jim Nash said:


> Police Officers without K9's find themselves in these situations all the time . Evidently they should be sued because they are using too much force on suspects and should have a K9 there .


Those officers have no choice. That officer struck the suspect in the side of the head with his handgun. Had the dog done his job, that probably never would have happened. That officer broke his wrist. Had the dog done his job, that probably never would have happened. That officer facing the same situation again, *knowing that you've provided him with a dog that in your own words lacks courage and confidence, * may go to deadly forced to avoid another painful injury. Had you provided him with an adequate dog, one that met minimum standards and had engaged the suspect AT ALL, he might have the confidence that K-9 handlers should have in their partners. 

REPEATEDLY thorough out that TV series YOUR trainers and YOUR handlers talk about how vital courage is in the dogs. Yet you provided a handler with a dog that YOU KNOW lacked it. 




Jim Nash said:


> As long as the Officer/s' use only the amount of force neccessary to take that suspect into custody I don't have a problem with dealing with that pathetic arguement you invented .


I didn't invent the argument, defense attorneys did. I just applied it to the horrid situation you put that handler into just as they will when and if the time comes. 



Jim Nash said:


> There are K9's of all different abilities out there . No matter how good a dog is there may be a suspect or situation that that particular dog's deployment may fail . Hopefully the Handler and backup know this and are prepared to take other actions if this happens .


Yes we know. But the dog that you supplied didn't even try. What if this had been a rookie police officer who only watched as the suspect ran by him? And then, when his partner engaged in a fight with the suspect, where that officer was seriously injured, that rookie stood by and did nothing but watch! Do you think he may have been looking for a new job? I certainly do. I doubt that a human partner who did nothing, as was the case with that dog, would still be on the job. 



Jim Nash said:


> It would be nice for every K9 Handler(every Police Officer for that matter) to have a K9 with the ability to take care of every situation and suspect and disable them ASAP . Unfortunately we know that isn't the case .


It's one thing for a dog to try and to fail. Just as with humans, there's always going to be someone bigger, stronger and faster. *BUT TO FAIL TO EVEN TRY TO ENGAGE; * to fail to even *try *to protect his handler when he's in a fight, is unconscionable! 



Jim Nash said:


> But for me I think he just meets the requirement with his engagement skills .


I think the video proves you wrong. 



Jim Nash said:


> Any less and I would say he's a liabilty .


At the level you find acceptable, he failed to engage a suspect when commanded to do so repeatedly by his handler. This suspect was at one point, running, providing ample activation of even minimum levels of prey drive to the dog. Yet STILL he failed to engage. At one point, the suspect was actively fighting with his handler. Yet STILL the K-9 failed to engage. I find that to be a liability at the level he's at right now. 



Jim Nash said:


> He has courage , enough to get in there but not enough to get in there and fight hard .


This is a monstrous overstatement. It's not that he didn't _"fight hard"_ it's that he *didn't fight at all! * 



Jim Nash said:


> You're AMAZED huh ? I suppose it's kinda weird for you to see a K9 guy talk truthfully and not imply or insinuate that they are the best trainers around and ALL their dogs are hard hitting butt kickers .


No, I'm amazed that you find this level of performance acceptable. The latter part of your statement is quite true. ALL my dogs WERE hard hitting, butt kickers. The first part of their selection test measured this. 



Jim Nash said:


> I've run into alot of those types . I've also got to see some of these guys real dogs for myself . Some are really well respected on internet that I've gotten into some good conversations with them and learned some good things . I still thought they were good trainers but from seeing some of their dogs they put out I realized their egos got the best of them and they tended to throw a good amount of BS around on the internet about how good their training and dogs were . Once again I still thought they were good trainers . Very good in fact . Just not as good as THEY thought they were .


The dogs that I trained have either passed away or retired. Feel free to call my department. I'll be happy to supply you a list of handlers that I trained and you can ask them yourself. I'm sorry that I don't have any video to show you but the era of YouTube didn't exist when I was working. 



Jim Nash said:


> I've never seen any dogs you have trained by the way so I really don't know how good you actually are .


I'm happy to supply references to clear up any doubts in your head. But this is just an attempt to divert attention away from your actions. You fielded a dog that completely failed. 

I love how you try to turn this into something that's about me. Let's pretend that I've never trained a dog in my life. That does not change the fact that this dog FAILED COMPLETELY. MY training ability has NOTHING to do with this. But nice try. LOL. 



Jim Nash said:


> So for you to sit behind that keyboard and lecture me after seeing a short VERY small picture of that dog is insulting .


We all saw a failure. We saw a dog that did not stop * or even TRY to stop *a fleeing felon. * WE SAW A DOG THAT DID NOT EVEN PROTECT HIS HANDLER IN A FIGHT! * 



Jim Nash said:


> You will never hear me say that dog is the cat's meow . His scent work is some of the best I've seen . His engagement to man is not something I would hang my hat on or use as a good example as such .


He could have the best nose on the planet and I'd STILL not field him to do patrol work where an officer relied on his "stopping ability." I'd have him doing detection work exclusively. 



Jim Nash said:


> We knew we would get those who would use this as tool to broadbrush our entire unit to stroke their own egos .


ANOTHER great debate technique! This is a Straw Man argument. Attribute a premise to your opponent that he's never held and then berate him for it. LOL. 

I've NEVER _"broad brushed [y]our entire unit…"_ I'm talking to you Jim. You are the one making excuses for this dog's failures. I’m not talking to anyone else. I'm not talking about any other handlers or any other deployments; JUST THIS ONE FAILURE. 



Jim Nash said:


> Apprehensions are a small but admittedly important part of of their work .


Apprehension are a small *but VITAL *part of their work. If a dog won't engage when appropriate, he should either be dumped or restricted to doing other kinds of work. 

Just as with other *vital skills * that a police officer needs, shooting, driving, report writing, etc., there are certain minimum standards. Failing to engage when appropriate is not passing by any stretch of anyone's imagination no matter how much you wish it was. 




Jim Nash said:


> Lou . How did you leave your training unit ?


I was injured during training. Then followed a string of injuries and the department retired me.


----------



## Lou Castle

Post # 59 by Dave Colburn is a bit confusing. It starts out with _" Originally Posted by Lou Castle"_ but then contains someone else's comments within that "quote block." I'll assume that those _"other comments"_ are from Mr. Colburn. 

Earlier I wrote,


> I don't like doing this because it sometimes encourages the dog to cheap shot the decoy to get his " reward bite." I prefer to focus him on something elsel some OB, another decoy, or a search instead.





Dave Colborn said:


> If you out the dog and have it sit, isn't that OB, you correct the dog for not sitting if he cheap shots.


Correcting the dog for cheap shotting also takes him out of his combat drive and puts him into pack drive. 

Earlier I wrote,


> There is a method called "The Two Decoy Reward System" but I also don't care for that. In that system the dog is rewarded for releasing a "dead" decoy with a bite on another decoy who provides a fight. This can create a dangerous situation for back–up officers as the dog releases the dog and immediately looks for a new target as his reward.





Dave Colborn said:


> Another good method for starting the call off and working the out in strong dogs. Starting. Not finishing. You should be able to use successive approximation to turn it from a bite on one decoy to the other, then put a pause by the handler, then bring the dog into a heel and send him, then bring him into a heel and send him on the same decoy. Gotta keep training, never stop, as they are never finished.


Once you put the idea into the dog's head you never know when he'll go back to it. I prefer NOT to have the dog thinking that it's EVER OK to bite another police officer who's backing up the handler. 

Earlier I wrote,


> And yes, I've seen this happen in both training and real situations.





Dave Colborn said:


> I am sure with improper training, you would see this. May be due to the training the dog received.


Can you tell us how this is done so that the dog is NOT interested in biting someone else when he releases the bite? I don't know how this is done and so I'd love to learn!


----------



## Dave Colborn

Lee. Sorry for confusing you, but you seemed to pull out the meat of what I said, even if you got the ideas wrong. I had a great response typed out and due to my lack of proficiency as an internet trainer, I deleted it. If there are any miss spellings or jumbled sentences, I apologize up front. Here is a short version of what I wrote. 

Don't care how you train. Period. I can't change the world. Period. This is my OPINION based on what I have seen.

Cheap shotting on an out and sit isn't what I am correcting for. I am correcting for the sit. Not taking him out of drive at all if you reward with a bite when you get the sit. You progress to the point of out, sit, decoy back up, cuff, search, walk back in, re-bite, no bite, etc. Condition the response you want based on your SOP. If you tell me what certification you are training for I can help. If it is for officer safety and real life, then you definitely want the dog focused on the bad guy(s). Period. 

Lee, You said. "Once you put it into the dogs head, he could revert back to it." So I guess you only train on live decoys with no equipment. Otherwise, they may revert to needing equipment to bite on the street, IE Sleeve, suit, muzzle. Of course a half trained dog can bite back up. No kidding. Really. I got it. 

Also in your world, there must never be two bad guys. No "where there is one bad guy, expect at least two" rule. One bad guy behind you is definitely NEVER happening. Get real, it happens, train for it. Just like back up will be there sometimes, train for that too.

Lee. Of course a good dog is going to be looking for his next reward or "bite" we'll call it. We have a superb partner that is genetically strong, tough and courageous. He wants another bite. He is willing to get into it with the decoy. What we have to train is control while he is under competing motivations and here is how we do it, thanks for asking. By the way admitting you don't know how to do it is the first step in finding a solution.

1. get a green dog with great drives, social, and bites well in lots of different situations. Make sure he bites on slick floors in the dark, etc. All the normal police stuff. Equipment you'll need is a harness or flat collar. long line, pinch/chain collar and a 2 foot tab to put on the pinch/chain collar. Two decoys with sleeves, whips or clatter sticks are nice to have. This can also be done with an older dog as remediation for a call off problem.

2. Teach the out on the back tie. For this exercise, we'll say his out is "out". Make sure the dog doesn't have any adverse effects from the out, ensure he is still biting well. (outing is for another lesson Lee)

3. Set your two decoys about 40 feet apart with handler and dog in the middle. Send the dog on one decoy. (dog is wearing pinch with tab coming off the front, a on a thirty foot line on the harness) Dog bites first decoy, decoy works him moderately, freezes up, grabs out line in case he needs it. Always have access to a correction if you need it. Your out command was "out" for the out and sit, for the redirect we'll use the dogs name "bingo" and "come" for the recall. These words are what we are conditioning the response to, IE "out" means out and sit. "bingo come" recalls the dog. So dog is on the bite, decoy freezes with the out line, handler says "bingo come". A few things can happen here and this is what seperates the good and bad trainers. Expect the worst, and be prepared to correct for it. If something good happens, reward it. OK, so the dog stays on the bite, corrective action, correct the dog in accordance with the dogs titration as seen in the out previously. Once he outs, the handler pulls the dog toward himself and the second decoy while the second decoy agitates. The dog turns, hopefully misses the handler and bites #2. Repeat on one. End the session with a slip and run the dog out when he has something positive happens between the 2nd n 6 or 7th iteration. IE nice out and slightly redirected toward #2. Don't wear the dog out, here though. Find something positive and quit. What else could happen. The dog recalls and bites #2 quit quickly as the dog may have gotten it pretty quick. Or, the dog outs and sits, pull him toward #2, repeat above instructions. 
Get the dog proficient at re-directs and throw some out and sits in there for good measure so you can see that the commands are being conditioned. Then.... Send the dog on one, recall toward handler gather up line, and put the dog in a sit or down next to the handler. Take imperfection at first, don't demand excellence on your first try. Have the goal of a nice heel in mind and work towards it as you go. Dog downs, send him on #2. OK. This progresses to dog downs, handler turns back to one, keeping dog in heel and sends him BACK on #1. Now, condition this in different scenarios. Keep your second decoy behind you to get bit sometimes as you change areas. We want a fast recall. Also keep getting the dog cleaner and cleaner on the heel. Keep progressing. Once the recall is fast, don't let the dog bite the second decoy so much. Start considering him as back up. Now, you are training your dog not to bite the back up, instead of hoping he wont in a real situation. Also, if you have a bad guy to the back, or a second bad guy to go after after your first guy is in cuffs and secured with another officer, you are training for mulitiple subjects. Now we are dog training, Lee. Do buildings, areas, wherever you might work for real, getting the dog more and more conditioned not to bite back up. Training NOT to bite backup instead of hoping....We can extend this exercise into the call off (the great part of this method), in a no bite situation, by feeding the dog out and recalling him to the back decoy. Always keep him on a line, Lee.


The truth in all this is Lee, I am making fun of you to prove a point. The point is to stay open-minded. The training method above is valid as are several others, but you'll never try it because, I am sure, you are not open-minded. I know your name is Lou, just like mine is spelled Colborn, not Colburn. 

I think your closed mindedness will get people killed and waste training time which can prevent them being killed. I am tired of seeing guys like you think so highly of yourself and put yourself in a postion to influence a young handler to do the wrong thing out of ignorance or on purpose. Come down here with the rest of us, realize the common enemy, the "bad guys" and help the training get to a higher level to address it. Your discussions on here don't do that most of the time. I have trained and handled dogs and gotten bites. I have also not gotten bites when I could have, and still made apprehensions. I have learned from people what to do, and what not to do. There are many out there training, differently than me, and guess what, they get bites, they get apprehensions, they find dope, and track or trail well. Training that I have done is one way to do it, just like everyone else has their own way. Including you. You and those like you just irk me to the point of not keeping my mouth shut and just helping out in training or selling equipment, because people need to know how dangerous only having one method can be. How not training for the unexpected can get you killed. Yes. Cops getting killed gets me riled up. Training can be easier if they seek out help, not to be brow beaten over not knowing, on the internet. Knowing you don't know IS a great start to solving the problem.....Don't know if you come accross as such a know it all jerk to anyone else, but you do to me. I have said my piece and am back to the equipment sales. 

PS if anyone has any questions or comments, I would love to hear them, including you, Lou. 

Regards,
Dave Colborn


----------



## Matthew Grubb

My two cents.....Find what works for you as a trainer and more importantly what works best for each dog you work with.


----------



## Jim Nash

Lou , 

Lou stated;

" Nowhere did I tell you how to run your unit. I told you what I'd do in the same situation. " 


NOWHERE did I say YOU told me how to run our unit . 

I stated;

" Thanks , Please don't try telling me how to run this unit . "



Lou stated ;

" Yes we know. But the dog that you supplied didn't even try. What if this had been a rookie police officer who only watched as the suspect ran by him? And then, when his partner engaged in a fight with the suspect, where that officer was seriously injured, that rookie stood by and did nothing but watch! Do you think he may have been looking for a new job? I certainly do. I doubt that a human partner who did nothing, as was the case with that dog, would still be on the job. "


You see what you want to see in that video Lou . I've watched it myself MANY times . He did engage the suspect . Just not well . 



Lou stated ;

" Had this situation occurred with a BH you'd NOT have heard the handler repeatedly giving his dog commands to bite the suspect. He'd have known that his dog would not. And so the handler would NOT have expected backup from a source that it turns out, would not provide it. That handler believed that he had a dog with him that would at least assist in the apprehension. The one you provided him with did not. There 's a significant difference between expecting a dog to perform that function and to have him fail to provide and not expecting it at all. "


Now you have the ego to speak for our K9 Handler . 

For your knowledge this is his 2nd K9 . His first he worked for about 4 years . A very solid dog that the vendor told me was his favorite dog to ever come through his kennel . Ernies been in alot of situations with both dogs . 

His current dog(the dog in question) he is very happy with . I have PERSONNALLY spoken with him and he WAS NOT suprised by his dogs performance . He has known it's limitations from the beginning . 

In this situation he knew his dogs limitations and he knew he had the option to deploy without it (like many non K9 Police Officers find themselves in everyday ) . KNOWING this he still opted to deploy the dog . From speaking with him personally he would do the same thing again . BECAUSE HE FELT THE DOG WAS MORE OF A BENEFIT THEN A LIABILITY AND THOUGHT AND STILL DOES THAT IT HELPED HIM OUT IN THAT SITUATION . Not as much as his previous dog or others on the unit but HE STILL FELT IT WAS A BENEFIT TO HIM . 

Your ego is unbelievable . The things you think you know from behind a keyboard are like noone else . 


Lou stated ;

" The latter part of your statement is quite true. ALL my dogs WERE hard hitting, butt kickers. The first part of their selection test measured this. "

Thanks for clarifying you are fitting my statement more and more . Or is it because you didn't actually train that many so your odds improved . How many K9s are we talking about ?

Funny thing is you stated yourself you operated a K9 that would NOT apprehend a fleeing suspect . It failed to engage. You also stated you had a K9 on your unit that would run from gunfire . You also admitted you were unable to convince your admin to wash that dog and you kept it in service KNOWING THIS !


Lou stated ; 

" ANOTHER great debate technique! This is a Straw Man argument. Attribute a premise to your opponent that he's never held and then berate him for it. LOL. "


Like I've said before you know all the tricks to debating and use them better then anyone else . Not suprised you would know this . LOL . 

Define twists , spins and exaggerations as they apply to debate techniques . I know you know about them also . 



Lou stated ; 

" The dogs that I trained have either passed away or retired. Feel free to call my department. I'll be happy to supply you a list of handlers that I trained and you can ask them yourself. "


Lou I knew the answer . 

I have seen you make this same statement OVER and OVER again in many discussions . I just get a kick out of seeing you say it because it is very telling . 


Lou stated;

" I'm sorry that I don't have any video to show you but the era of YouTube didn't exist when I was working . " 


I'm sure you are very sorry .



Lou stated ; 

" NOWHERE have I said that I was a witness for the defense. That statement is entirely of your making. AND it's a lie. "


Once again NOWHERE did I state YOU said you were a witness for the defense . 

I stated you were being a witness for the defense since you publickly put out there something YOU felt would harm us if we went to trail . 

By saying this;

" I also think that the handler, knowing the dog's deficiencies, might escalate his level of force when a more competent dog could have handled the situation. If this ever occurs, I hope the plaintiff's attorney doesn't read your comments here! "




If you indeed hoped a plaintiff's attorney didn't read my comments you wouldn't have pointed them out or you would have sent your "concerns" via PM . But you didn't . It is obvious what you intended but I know you will never admit it .

Sounds to me like you are auditioning for a role as a defense witness with the information you were happy to supply . 

You pull a snakey move like that and have the nerve to call me a LIAR !


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

All this is about teaching the out ?? Or should I say correcting a poorly trained out ?


----------



## David Frost

Matthew Grubb said:


> My two cents.....Find what works for you as a trainer and more importantly what works best for each dog you work with.



Let me get this straight ----- Matthew are you saying there is more than ONE way and that possibly, only possibly mind you, not a single way works for every dog? 

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmm. 

DFrost


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Matt's dog doesn't out. LOL 

Ragged looking SOB though. It was good to see you in person.


----------



## Jim Nash

I hope you guys don't think I was ever pushing this method as the only one for every dog . For me it's just another tool in the toolbox . 

I just wanted to point out the benefits of it at times . It then got spun out of control in Lou's zeal to make his point .

I've been thinking the same thing as Jeff . All this typing for some simple training technique . 

Yeah I know Lou , you feel there is more to it then that . I'm sure you will let me know .


----------



## Matthew Grubb

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Matt's dog doesn't out. LOL
> 
> Ragged looking SOB though. It was good to see you in person.


It was great meeting you, Craig, Chand, and Rick at the decoy seminar! Glad you got to meet the hellion in person. He outs when you pop him hard enough on the pinch collar. Wish it wasn’t so… and watching those French Ring dog’s out was a thing of beauty!

When I look at dogs that have out issues you have to determine why the dog isn’t outing… the why dictates what avenue you are going to have to take to rehabilitate the dog. There is no cookie cutter way to fix the out because there are so many reasons why the dog may have an issue here. 

Was the dog abused earlier in it’s training during the teaching or enforcement of the out? We had a dog once at my PD where he was taught to out (in the Czech Republic) by someone jamming a thumb down in his ear. Needless to say…. Any time the handler came anywhere near the dog he would lock up in expectation of someone jamming a thumb in his ear. The issue with the out has to dictate the method.

There are out issues caused by obedience…. Those are easy fixes and are 99% issues with the handler and not the dog.

Then there are the out issues based on trust and the worry (on the dogs part) of not getting the reward (suspect/decoy) back if he outs. These are the finesse cases where a good trainer and an open mind make all the differences. I worked with a KNPV trained Mal for the past two years (IKE) who wouldn’t out at all…was totally uncomfortable on the bite… and had conflict with the handler. We took IKE all the way back to basics teaching him to out for toys and working around the suit where he wouldn’t get bites at all… all the time teaching Ike that to get the reward of play with the handler and ultimately fight with the decoy he had to out. The out brought the fight again. We did it all with toys… We taught the dog that outing off the decoy COULD get you another bit but that it also brought a ton of play time and attention from his favorite person…his handler.

Ike has around 14 bite apprehensions during this same two year period. He has outed clean off of every one. I’m sure many of you could find issue with how we addressed Ike’s issue….but it worked. And in the end we made the bond between Ike and his handler 100 times better. That’s what it’s all about … identify the issue…address it… and make them the best dog team you can!

Oh… and Ike has another Malinois partner named Jack… Jack had similar issues. We did the two decoy thing to help him with his out. The first time we did it without the second decoy… he came back and spotted me standing next to the handler…. BANG… caught one in the thigh. Jack was a French Ring dog… SOB!!


----------



## Phil Dodson

I must inject something into this, not to refuel the fire, but I have used a ball or toy on more than one occasion during my career to get a dog to out in lieu of having to use a more forceful means.

My life was saved by K-9 Kanto one night when he came off the bite and while returning to check on me turned around and reengaged the bad guy intent on getting up and coming towards me without any commands yet again while I was still lying on the ground shaking the cobwebs loose from hitting the back of my head on the pavement during an altercation with a perp drunk and high on dope as well.. 
He was my partner for 6 years and yes I used the ball method in place of any other aid, pinch collar, E collar or the yank as well. 
Makes you want to go Hmmmmmmmmmm!!


----------



## Lou Castle

Dave Colborn said:


> I had a great response typed out and due to my lack of proficiency as an internet trainer


I don't know what an Internet Trainer is. Can you tell us? 


Dave Colborn said:


> Cheap shotting on an out and sit isn't what I am correcting for. I am correcting for the sit.


The dog is sitting in front of the decoy and he's nipping at him, trying to get him to move so he can bite him again. If you correct the dog, since he's already sitting, you ARE correcting the cheap shotting.



Dave Colborn said:


> Not taking him out of drive at all if you reward with a bite when you get the sit.


If you are correcting you're drawing the dog's attention to you with the correction and putting him into pack drive. The bite is not a reward in my system.



Dave Colborn said:


> You progress to the point of out, sit, decoy back up, cuff, search, walk back in, re-bite, no bite, etc.


Sounds like pattern training to me. Not something I EVER want to do with a police dog.



Dave Colborn said:


> If you tell me what certification you are training for I can help.


I don't train for a certification. I train for the street. Doing that will enable the handler to pass just about any certification.



Dave Colborn said:


> If it is for officer safety and real life, then you definitely want the dog focused on the bad guy(s). Period.


Actually the focus should be split between the suspect and the handler's commands. 


Dave Colborn said:


> Lee, Once you put it into the dogs head, he could revert back to it." So I guess you only train on live decoys with no equipment.


Missed the point completely. What you've put into the dog's head with a two decoy reward method is that _" when he outs he'll get to rebite."_ 



Dave Colborn said:


> Otherwise, they may revert to needing equipment to bite on the street, IE Sleeve, suit, muzzle.


The muzzle teaches the dog that he does not need a sleeve or suit. And mixing up training where the decoy does not have any equipment on at first, teaches the dog that equipment isn't necessary as well. In any case, I desensitize the muzzle completely so that it does not mean _"bitework"_ to the dog. Then the most realistic training can be done.


Dave Colborn said:


> Also in your world, there must never be two bad guys. No "where there is one bad guy, expect at least two" rule. One bad guy behind you is definitely NEVER happening. Get real, it happens, train for it. Just like back up will be there sometimes, train for that too.


No need for me to respond in kind to your unprofessional and rude attitude, but I will point it out. ROFL. 

My method of teaching the out uses two decoys to start. Later I will use as many as five or six, as many as I can get. So the dog comes to expect that there may be more than one. But he does not get to automatically bite the next one. 



Dave Colborn said:


> thanks for asking. By the way admitting you don't know how to do it is the first step in finding a solution.


I already have a solution that's worked on every dog that's I've applied it to. That includes dogs that have not responded to EVERY OTHER METHOD that's been tried with them. I'm just looking to hear your method.



Dave Colborn said:


> 2. Teach the out on the back tie. …
> 
> 3. Set your two decoys about 40 feet apart with handler and dog in the middle. Send the dog on one decoy. …decoy works him moderately, freezes up, grabs out line in case he needs it. … so the dog stays on the bite, corrective action, correct the dog …


Sorry to have wasted your time Dave. I already know about this technique. I don't like decoys giving my dogs corrections. I never want a decoy correcting a dog. I never want my dog to think _"out"_ if the suspect grabs his collar and I think that's what could easily be the result of this sort of training. But thanks for taking the time anyway.



Dave Colborn said:


> The dog turns, hopefully misses the handler and bites #2.


_"[H]opefully misses the handler??????"_ Have you had handlers bitten during this training? I've never had a handler bitten by his own dog during training. 



Dave Colborn said:


> Repeat on one. End the session with a slip


A slip is something else I never do except with a very young beginning dog. Again, I think it puts a bad idea in the dog's head. That is, if he takes something from the decoy, the fight is over and he's won something. This easily can result in the dog taking a piece of outer clothing, such as a jacket off a crook, and ending his fight.


Dave Colborn said:


> I am making fun of you to prove a point.


Were you making fun of me?



Dave Colborn said:


> The point is to stay open-minded.


I'm always open-minded Dave. That's why I asked for your method in detail; I was hoping to learn something new. Turns out that I've already learned, tried and rejected your method for reasons already stated.

Nowadays I don't bother with flawed techniques that may give good results but are just as likely to cause problems of one kind or another. I go right to what works and I know will give great results without creating those side issues.



Dave Colborn said:


> The training method above is valid as are several others, but you'll never try it because, I am sure, you are not open-minded.


I don't know what the term _"valid"_ means in this context. It gives results but can create another issue that is far more dangerous than the issue it solves. I've seen lots of dogs trained with this method slow down or stop their efforts to subdue a decoy who grabbed their collar. He's expecting a correction and so anticipates the out.



Dave Colborn said:


> I know your name is Lou, just like mine is spelled Colborn, not Colburn.


Oh that's what the childishness was about. Sorry for having misspelled your name. I had an officer who worked for me named "Colburn" and I unconsciously reverted to that spelling. Did you think it was intentional? I'm not that petty.



Dave Colborn said:


> I think your closed mindedness will get people killed …


Still not closed minded Dave. I asked for your method didn't I? If I was _"closed minded"_ I'd not have asked.

As to _"get[ting] people killed"_ all I can say is that nothing even close to that ever happened. The dogs that I trained would out in the middle of a fight with their handlers as far away as their voices could be heard. It doesn't get much safer than that.



Dave Colborn said:


> I am tired of seeing guys like you think so highly of yourself and put yourself in a postion to influence a young handler to do the wrong thing out of ignorance or on purpose.


I've never said that I'm anything special. If you've gotten that it's something you've inferred, not anything I've implied.



Dave Colborn said:


> realize the common enemy, the "bad guys" and help the training get to a higher level to address it.


That is what this discussion is ALL about. Not fielding dogs that won't do the job. Getting the dogs to out cleanly from a distance to keep handlers safe. Giving a handler a dog that will do the job he's expected to do.

But there's more than just the criminals that need to be overcome to get that job done. Trainers who get ego involved and won't listen to new (to them) methods. Administrators who won't admit that they purchased the wrong dog from the wrong vendor. Handlers who believe that their dog will do something when it's clear that he won't. ANYONE who thinks that he's got all the answers. And more … 



Dave Colborn said:


> Your discussions on here don't do that most of the time.


Thanks for the review. But the responses I get from those with the open minds (while you keep talking about it, it's clear that it's just lip service from you) tell another story.

Your pettiness about my inadvertent misspelling of your name is a great example of the nonsense that interferes with communication. 


Dave Colborn said:


> You and those like you just irk me to the point of not keeping my mouth shut and just helping out in training or selling equipment, because people need to know how dangerous only having one method can be.


ROFLMAO. Except that this method has never failed me. 

I could tell you of one department that was all set to buy the K-9's handler a "doohickey" to wear on his belt so that he could carry a hot stick on searches to apply to the dog's testicles so that he could be outed off real bites. Nothing else had worked with that dog and even that was starting to give erratic results. 

This dog was my hardest case ever. It took me 45 minutes to get a clean verbal out. But he's now a model citizen and one of the most responsive dogs in his department. I'll happy to put you in touch with the handler so you can get the details yourself if you like.



Dave Colborn said:


> How not training for the unexpected can get you killed.


Not sure how this pertains. I always train for the worst while hoping for the best. YOU are the one who mentioned _"training for a certification,"_ not me. 



Dave Colborn said:


> Training can be easier if they seek out help, not to be brow beaten over not knowing, on the internet.


Please show me some of this _"brow beating"_ you allege I'm doing. I'll point out that I've asked you for the specific of your method. Please show us where you've asked for the details of mine. I'll point out that you immaturely used what you knew to be another name. I'll point out that several times you were quite rude, and that I didn't return it. Tell me again, which one of us is doing the browbeating?


----------



## Lou Castle

Sorry duplicate post


----------



## Lou Castle

Earlier Jim wrote,


> Thanks , Please don't try telling me how to run this unit .


I'll rephrase. NOWHERE did I TRY to tell you how to run your unit. I told you what I'd do in the same situation. Happy now?



Jim Nash said:


> You see what you want to see in that video Lou . …He did engage the suspect . Just not well .


Jim I use the word "engage" in place of the word bite. I did not see him BITE the suspect. Are you saying that he did? Or are you playing games with the word "engage?" If you are telling us that he did bite the suspect please support your statement with evidence.




Jim Nash said:


> For your knowledge this is his 2nd K9 . … Ernies been in alot of situations with both dogs .


Ernie? In previous discussion his name was "Mike." You've written,


> *Mike *had his gun in his hands and the badguys hands were empty so he couldn't shot him .


 What's up?



Jim Nash said:


> In this situation he knew his dogs limitations and he knew he had the option to deploy without it . KNOWING this he still opted to deploy the dog . … he would do the same thing again . BECAUSE HE FELT THE DOG WAS MORE OF A BENEFIT THEN A LIABILITY AND THOUGHT AND STILL DOES THAT IT HELPED HIM OUT IN THAT SITUATION


Please tell us how this dog was a benefit to this handler.



Jim Nash said:


> Your ego is unbelievable . The things you think you know from behind a keyboard are like noone else .


Actually there are quite a few people who have thoughts similar to mine. As you suggested, I read the previous thread on this situation. Here are some comment from others. Emphasis here is mine.

David Frost, wrote,


> I *was less than impressed with the dog …The dog never really engaged the suspect.* [I bet that David, like me, is using the word "engaged" to mean "bite."] …* What I saw in that dog would concern me a great deal.*


Todd wrote,


> *…I thought that dog should have slammed that guy…*:razz: , *… Then the officer probaby would not have broken his wrist.*


Jay Lyda wrote


> …* the dog really did not engage and did not bite and hold * which cause the bad guy to run again which led to the officer breaking his wrist. … * Hes lucky it was only a broken wrist, it could have been a lot worse.*


Michael Santana wrote


> …*I also get annoyed by the 10 min of how his K9 is so great and how good they work together... Mind you this is after a 10 min run around were the guy sent his dog and the suspect evaded it without getting bit (Cause the dog didn't seem to know what to do once it got there) and now the cop got a broken wrist for trying to Jackie Chan the dude.*


Khoi Pham wrote


> * They should learn from the show  … but even when the officer Jackie Chan the bad guy, and the guy was on the ground, the dog still wouldn't bite, *


I agree, _"They should learn from the show."_

Mo Earle wrote,


> … * I didn't think the dog was going to engage at all, * and thankfully the bad guy didn't have a gun to shoot at the dog or handler-*but I am sure good re-training or re-evaluation of the dog came out after the situation …*


Sorry Mo. The evaluation came BEFORE the situation. And they passed the dog anyway!

Since most of these folks are more interested in keeping peace that I am, they were conciliatory when you responded. I was here at first too. But when you got your back up, your ego over–involved and denied the reality of this situation; I decided that being up front was more important. I'm more concerned with the truth, reality and keeping cops safe; than peace keeping.

NOWHERE in that earlier discussion did I see you write that the dog bit the suspect. AGAIN leading me to believe that you're playing games with the word "engage." But I'll not mention it again in this post – perhaps I'm wrong and there's just so much crow one can eat at a sitting. Lol



Jim Nash said:


> Thanks for clarifying you are fitting my statement more and more . Or is it because you didn't actually train that many so your odds improved . How many K9s are we talking about ?


Not that many Jim. My department is medium size. Probably only about 15 or so. But I soon earned a reputation as a problem solver and worked with most of the local agency's dogs in fixing their issues. I've worked with well over 4,000 dogs in problem solving of one kind or another. I've done 43 seminars and have two scheduled for next year. Odd how you keep insinuating that I have no knowledge but others seem to disagree.

But it's a given with some that when the facts are not on their side they'll attack the person. Another clever debate technique that you probably weren't aware of.

But this still is not about me Jim. It's about the rather complete failure of a dog that you trained and fielded and that you're now spending great amounts of time in defending. Well, actually it's your ego that you're defending. Some people just can't admit a mistake. It makes no difference if I've never trained a single dog. Stop trying to shift the discussion to me. It's a clever diversion but it just makes you look worse.



Jim Nash said:


> Funny thing is you stated yourself you operated a K9 that would NOT apprehend a fleeing suspect . It failed to engage.


That incident happened when I had about a month on. I'd been to a two week school and it was my first deployment of that nature. I had no idea that dogs needed to be trained to bite when equipment wasn't present. I was the victim of bad training too.



Jim Nash said:


> You also stated you had a K9 on your unit that would run from gunfire . You also admitted you were unable to convince your admin to wash that dog and you kept it in service KNOWING THIS !


Jim, at that time I was just another handler. I hadn't yet learned anything but basic handling skills. Keeping the dog in service was not my decision. I did everything in my power, even going all the way up to the Chief of Police, in trying to get rid of him. Later, after I became the trainer I got rid of two dogs that had been selected when I wasn't there and one handler who wasn't working out. But at that time I made suggestions, not decisions and there was no reason (other than the truth) for them to listen to me. I had no experience and little knowledge. I had just gotten my start in K-9's. That was 30 years ago. I've learned a bit since then. But that WAS a nice try. ROFL. 

You've told us


> So far our adminstration has taken our training staff's requests to wash dogs . I think it's a testament to how valueable they think our opinions and abilities are .


So it appears that YOU DID HAVE the power to get rid of the dog. You chose not to. 



Jim Nash said:


> Like I've said before you know all the tricks to debating and use them better then anyone else . Not suprised you would know this . LOL .


You used the technique probably without even knowing it's name; but the fact remains, that YOU still used it. lol

Earlier I wrote,


> The dogs that I trained have either passed away or retired. Feel free to call my department. I'll be happy to supply you a list of handlers that I trained and you can ask them yourself.





Jim Nash said:


> Lou I knew the answer .
> 
> I have seen you make this same statement OVER and OVER again in many discussions . I just get a kick out of seeing you say it because *it is very telling .*


I'm curious Jim, what does it tell you other than that I was in K-9's when you were still worrying about who to ask to the Jr. Prom? There's plenty of evidence out there to support me. You're just too lazy and invested in your own ego to make a few phone calls. There's a reason that when checking someone's background we ask for references. 

Earlier I wrote,


> I'm sorry that I don't have any video to show you but the era of YouTube didn't exist when I was working .





Jim Nash said:


> I'm sure you are very sorry .


Yep I am. There's nothing I'd like better than to show you what I'm talking about. You'd have to shut up and admit that AGAIN you're wrong. 
But STILL this isn't about me Jim, no matter how hared you try and twist it. This is STILL about you fielding a dog that failed to do his job and got a handler injured.



Jim Nash said:


> Once again NOWHERE did I state YOU said you were a witness for the defense .
> 
> I stated you were being a witness for the defense since you publickly put out there something YOU felt would harm us if we went to trail .


It would harm you Jim. Too bad you can't see it. Your ego is REALLY getting in your way now. 



Jim Nash said:


> If you indeed hoped a plaintiff's attorney didn't read my comments you wouldn't have pointed them out or you would have sent your "concerns" via PM . But you didn't . It is *obvious what you intended but I know you will never admit it .


I only admit the truth. Not your attempts to twist my words. YOU wrote those comments. Me pointing them out was to show you the error of your writing. If you wanted to you could have an administrator remove them. But you don't even see the problems that YOUR WRITING may have caused.



Jim Nash said:


> Sounds to me like you are auditioning for a role as a defense witness with the information you were happy to supply .


I've been asked to testify and/or consult for plaintiff's many times. I've always refused. I don't play for that team.



Jim Nash said:


> You pull a snakey move like that and have the nerve to call me a LIAR !


Yep when someone tells a lie about me, I call them on it.


----------



## Lou Castle

Jim Nash said:


> I hope you guys don't think I was ever pushing this method as the only one for every dog . For me it's just another tool in the toolbox .


I've rejected it from mine. I've replaced it with something that has always given great results and has none of the risks that sometimes come with this method. 



Jim Nash said:


> I just wanted to point out the benefits of it at times . It then got spun out of control in Lou's zeal to make his point .


YOU are the only thing that _"got spun out of control"_ Jim. Your personal attacks and rude comments are ample proof of that. Notice that I didn't return any of it. It's disappointing that you are unable to stay polite and professional just because someone disagrees with you. And now you talk about it in the abstract, pretending that you had no hand in it.


----------



## Lou Castle

Matthew Grubb said:


> Glad you got to meet the hellion in person. He outs when you pop him hard enough on the pinch collar.


Many if not most dogs respond to a hard leash pop on a correction collar. They're fairly easy to get to release. 



Matthew Grubb said:


> When I look at dogs that have out issues you have to determine why the dog isn’t outing… the why dictates what avenue you are going to have to take to rehabilitate the dog. There is no cookie cutter way to fix the out because there are so many reasons why the dog may have an issue here.


Perhaps I don't understand the way that the term _"cookie cutter"_ is used To me it means that every dog gets the exact same treatment. I certainly don't do this. Do you folks means something different than I've used the term? 



Matthew Grubb said:


> Was the dog abused earlier in it’s training during the teaching or enforcement of the out? We had a dog once at my PD where he was taught to out (in the Czech Republic) by someone jamming a thumb down in his ear. Needless to say…. Any time the handler came anywhere near the dog he would lock up in expectation of someone jamming a thumb in his ear. The issue with the out has to dictate the method.


My method would work great on this dog. The handler needn't approach the dog at all! Later, after the dog is outing cleanly I'd have the handler move in and out until the dog tolerated him assisting with the apprehension. That stimulates what often happens so the dog must learn to accept it. 



Matthew Grubb said:


> There are out issues caused by obedience…. Those are easy fixes and are 99% issues with the handler and not the dog.


My method completely avoids conflict between the dog and handler no matter where it comes from. 



Matthew Grubb said:


> Then there are the out issues based on trust and the worry (on the dogs part) of not getting the reward (suspect/decoy) back if he outs.


I've already said that my system does not have the bite being a reward. The reward is that the dog gets to satisfy his drive. But with my method, even if you subscribe to the _"bite is a reward"_ theory, there's one on every out at first. 



Matthew Grubb said:


> These are the finesse cases where a good trainer and an open mind make all the differences. I worked with a KNPV trained Mal for the past two years (IKE) who wouldn’t out at all…was totally uncomfortable on the bite… and had conflict with the handler. We took IKE all the way back to basics teaching him to out for toys and working around the suit where he wouldn’t get bites at all… all the time teaching Ike that to get the reward of play with the handler and ultimately fight with the decoy he had to out. The out brought the fight again. We did it all with toys… We taught the dog that outing off the decoy COULD get you another bit but that it also brought a ton of play time and attention from his favorite person…his handler.


Great work Matt. How long did this take? I usually get the out in about 25 minutes. That also includes the dog learning tactical OB, such things as being sent to bite while the handler is prone, kneeling and behind cover, doing several call offs (being stopped after being sent to bite), being redirected to the other decoy after being sent on one of them and that all of this leads to a search, that leads to a find. 

My hardest case took 45 minutes. Working the training a few more times over the next several day, each time lasting far less than the first time, really brings it home. 



Matthew Grubb said:


> I’m sure many of you could find issue with how we addressed Ike’s issue….but it worked.


If it gave results and was humane (not an issue here, obviously) I'm for it. 

My only concern might be the amount of time spent doing it. We're always pressed for time. With my method we're talking about a couple of hours spread over the course of a few days. Repeating the work during regular maintenance training keeps it working.


----------



## Lou Castle

Phil Dodson said:


> I must inject something into this, not to refuel the fire, but I have used a ball or toy on more than one occasion during my career to get a dog to out in lieu of having to use a more forceful means.
> 
> My life was saved by K-9 Kanto one night when he came off the bite and while returning to check on me turned around and reengaged the bad guy intent on getting up and coming towards me without any commands yet again while I was still lying on the ground shaking the cobwebs loose from hitting the back of my head on the pavement during an altercation with a perp drunk and high on dope as well..
> He was my partner for 6 years and yes I used the ball method in place of any other aid, pinch collar, E collar or the yank as well.
> * Makes you want to go Hmmmmmmmmmm!! * [Emphasis added]


Not me Phil. I've never said that this method of getting the out by using a ball will results in problems. I *have said *that problems can arise and sometimes they can be life threatening. 

Anecdotes where problems do not arise really aren't telling. There are people who brush their teeth only once a week, never clean their guns and never change the oil in their cars. That hardly means that we should follow their lead. 

Once you put the wrong idea in to the dog's head there's no way of predicting when it will arise again, no matter how much counter training you do.


----------



## Jim Nash

Lou stated ; 

"Jim I use the word "engage" in place of the word bite. I did not see him BITE the suspect. Are you saying that he did? Or are you playing games with the word "engage?" If you are telling us that he did bite the suspect please support your statement with evidence."

Nope no games . He did bite the suspect just not well . Evidence . Watch the video I have many times . 


Lou asked ; 

"Mike had his gun in his hands and the badguys hands were empty so he couldn't shot him . 

What's up?"

"Please tell us how this dog was a benefit to this handler."



You saw the video . The guy was a suspect in a shooting . Mike(Ernie) came around the corner with his gun drawn because of that . Guy came at him and he saw he wasn't armed didn't shot him because of that and made a split second descision to try and take him down that way . Talking to MIKE he would have approached the same way if he would have descided to not deploy the dog . This is a situation he may have faced as a Patrol Officer and one Patrol Officers can find themselves in without a K9 .

He felt the dog kept the guy from making it over the fence because he(badguy) probably knew the dog would get him before he made it over . He felt the dog at least slowed the suspect down from hitting him (Mike) any harder and also assisted in splitting the suspect's attention between the 2 (Mike and his dog) . Keeping the suspect from totally focusing his attention on Mike . 

You play the could of would of so I will too . The guy COULD have hit Mike harder knocking him back and possibly unconscious . The dog did slow the suspect down just not as well as others may have . Without the dog he COULD have then focused on Mike entirely and taken Mike's gun away . Either being successful or forcing Mike to shot the suspect . 


I have talked to Mike about this . You have not .

What made you think you could speak for him and what he was thinking when all you've done is see it on TV ?


Lou stated;

"Actually there are quite a few people who have thoughts similar to mine. As you suggested, I read the previous thread on this situation. Here are some comment from others. Emphasis here is mine."

Yes Lou they are similar with the exception that I have not seen any of them say the dog was a COMPLETE failure . Like you have. If they have stated complete failure I would disagree .

I agree with all of their critiques to a point . Yours I do not . Because you are spinning and exaggerating this in an attempt to discredit me and my views in order to prove your point on a simple "out" technique . 

It's all part of your educated way in debating . You have proven you know many of the tricks in debating and use them all to prove your point . 

Lou stated ; 

"Not that many Jim. My department is medium size. Probably only about 15 or so. But I soon earned a reputation as a problem solver and worked with most of the local agency's dogs in fixing their issues. I've worked with well over 4,000 dogs in problem solving of one kind or another. I've done 43 seminars and have two scheduled for next year. Odd how you keep insinuating that I have no knowledge but others seem to disagree."


Yes you have earned a reputation . Gee Lou , me insinuating things . You sure don't . 


Lou stated; 

"But this still is not about me Jim. It's about the rather complete failure of a dog that you trained and fielded and that you're now spending great amounts of time in defending. Well, actually it's your ego that you're defending. Some people just can't admit a mistake. It makes no difference if I've never trained a single dog. Stop trying to shift the discussion to me. It's a clever diversion but it just makes you look worse."


The hypocrisy . You sure have focussed alot on me to prove your point and you do it with most who disagree with you . You know alot about alot of things and you sure know alot about ego . Lou this is all about you . What you would do , what your dogs do (did) . I've never had this problem . All of my dogs have been have been this or that . 


Lou stated ; 

"But it's a given with some that when the facts are not on their side they'll attack the person. Another clever debate technique that you probably weren't aware of.

But this still is not about me Jim. It's about the rather complete failure of a dog that you trained and fielded and that you're now spending great amounts of time in defending. Well, actually it's your ego that you're defending. Some people just can't admit a mistake. It makes no difference if I've never trained a single dog. Stop trying to shift the discussion to me. It's a clever diversion but it just makes you look worse." 


Lou , I am only using the same techniques you use in a debate AND YOU DON"T LIKE IT . As a matter of fact , you state later you find me rude . LOL ! I don't think YOU are aware of that . 

Yes , you have me defending myself trying to unspin what your spinning . It's a clever technique used in a debate to make the other look weaker because of it . Unfortunately it's a hard trap not to fall into . I offset that by putting you on the defesive also . Again these are all techniques I've learned from you .

This part of your reply is a good example of this ;

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Nash 
Funny thing is you stated yourself you operated a K9 that would NOT apprehend a fleeing suspect . It failed to engage. 

That incident happened when I had about a month on. I'd been to a two week school and it was my first deployment of that nature. I had no idea that dogs needed to be trained to bite when equipment wasn't present. I was the victim of bad training too.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Nash 
You also stated you had a K9 on your unit that would run from gunfire . You also admitted you were unable to convince your admin to wash that dog and you kept it in service KNOWING THIS ! 

Jim, at that time I was just another handler. I hadn't yet learned anything but basic handling skills. Keeping the dog in service was not my decision. I did everything in my power, even going all the way up to the Chief of Police, in trying to get rid of him. Later, after I became the trainer I got rid of two dogs that had been selected when I wasn't there and one handler who wasn't working out. But at that time I made suggestions, not decisions and there was no reason (other than the truth) for them to listen to me. I had no experience and little knowledge. I had just gotten my start in K-9's. That was 30 years ago. I've learned a bit since then. But that WAS a nice try. ROFL. "


I've heard all these excuses before . " Not my fault , didn't know better" . It's just fun knowing what I'm going to get out of you and seeing you dance around and get all defensive . LMAO .


----------



## Jim Nash

Lou stated; 

" You used the technique probably without even knowing it's name; but the fact remains, that YOU still used it. lol. " 

Another guy on here has defined it in another discussion before . I'm not the one with the education in debating . That's you . Didn't think about it much was just mirroring the techniques I have seen you use .

Lou stated; 

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Nash 
Lou I knew the answer .

I have seen you make this same statement OVER and OVER again in many discussions . I just get a kick out of seeing you say it because it is very telling . 

I'm curious Jim, what does it tell you other than that I was in K-9's when you were still worrying about who to ask to the Jr. Prom? There's plenty of evidence out there to support me. You're just too lazy and invested in your own ego to make a few phone calls. There's a reason that when checking someone's background we ask for references. 

It tells me you are willing to involve you poor past handlers in your internet debate . It's all about LOU . Poor folks have to put up with stangers calling them about some internet debate 

Lazy ? Yeah Lou your not rude . Always a victim . Actually Lou I don't call because I believe you .

Lou stated;

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Nash 
If you indeed hoped a plaintiff's attorney didn't read my comments you wouldn't have pointed them out or you would have sent your "concerns" via PM . But you didn't . It is *obvious what you intended but I know you will never admit it . 

I only admit the truth. Not your attempts to twist my words. YOU wrote those comments. Me pointing them out was to show you the error of your writing. If you wanted to you could have an administrator remove them. But you don't even see the problems that YOUR WRITING may have caused."

Again Lou you are the king of twisting . Like I said it's a pathetic arguement . 

I would rather all this stay on here to show the legths YOU will go . You aren't fooling me . 


Lou stated ; 

" Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Nash 
Sounds to me like you are auditioning for a role as a defense witness with the information you were happy to supply . 

I've been asked to testify and/or consult for plaintiff's many times. I've always refused. I don't play for that team.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Nash 
You pull a snakey move like that and have the nerve to call me a LIAR ! 

Yep when someone tells a lie about me, I call them on it. "


In a way I think this subject truely upsets you and don't want other to think bad of you ( TRYING helping the defense against an officer ) . There maybe hope for you yet . 

Because of this strong reaction , maybe deep down you feel you went a bit too far but you just don't have the guts to admit it . 


Lou stated ; 

"YOU are the only thing that "got spun out of control" Jim. Your personal attacks and rude comments are ample proof of that. Notice that I didn't return any of it. It's disappointing that you are unable to stay polite and professional just because someone disagrees with you. And now you talk about it in the abstract, pretending that you had no hand in it. 
Today 07:29 PM "


Lou . I've only responded to you in kind . Using the same style you use to debate . I've done it because I've found it to be a very effective way too debate . 

I will agree it comes off very rude once one gets further into these debates . But it's very effective if you have the time and energy .

Funny how you can find me rude and unprofessionnal when I respond to you in the same way and you can't see you are guilty of the same thing . Even with how MANY "discussions" you get involved in end up getting locked because of how heated things get . You just always claim to be the victim . 

I'll be big enough to admit my ego got involved and it's clear to see yours has to . You just never will admit it . 


Lou stated ; 

"But there's more than just the criminals that need to be overcome to get that job done. Trainers who get ego involved and won't listen to new (to them) methods. " 

" ANYONE who thinks that he's got all the answers. And more … " 

Do you actually read what you're writting ? Look in the mirror .


----------



## Jim Nash

Lou , I'm sure you are going to have alot more to say on this .. 

BUT , No matter how much you type , how much you quote and spin , our dogs will still be out there being VERY successful like they have for many years and will continue to be and improve . 

This is even though we don't train like you . That's a fact you can try as you like to change from behind a keyboard but it's one easily proven wrong by us out here actually doing it protecting the Officers and Citizens we serve . 


Lou asked ; 

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Colborn 
I had a great response typed out and due to my lack of proficiency as an internet trainer 

I don't know what an Internet Trainer is. Can you tell us? "


Lou , that's you . You should embrace it . You explain your training techniques better then anyone else on the net . Even though you might not believe it I feel the techniques you prefer are good tools for anyone to have in their toolbox . JUST NOT THE ONLY WAY OR BEST WAY TO DO IT IN DIFFERENT SITUATIONS .

The other articles you have written are good too . 

It's your involvement with training techniques other then yours and close mindedness to them that is the problem .


----------



## David Frost

So David, what was it you were saying about dog trainers? Oh wait, I remember; the only thing two trainers can agree upon is, the third one is wrong. 

Believe it or not, minus the occasional barbs and zings, this is a pretty good discussion. It's out of the realm of sport and all their little point deductions. It's real stuff, on the street, down and dirty. Admittedly, I only act like I know it all, I really don't. What I do know is; we (PSD) trainers trial our dogs every day. Unlike the world competition of sports, we'll trial today, then trial again tomorrow. Total failure can be a real dammit. In the end, coming home safe is first place. For the most part the K9 programs I've seen, considering they get the top of the bottom of the barrel in dogs (as has been discussed several times on this forum). Trained by egocentric trainers, using old outdated methods, we ( I like to include myself in that catagory) don't do a half bad job. If my dog has a weakness, I'll work with that. It's why it's called a "dog team".

DFrost


----------



## Matthew Grubb

Lou... It took about over a year to fix Ike. That's once a week IF the handler showed for training and about 20 mins of time each week. Was a long process. 

That dang Bob Scott got me into motivational training.... dang you! :grin:


----------



## Dave Colborn

*OK.*

*Thanks Mr. Frost for lightening things up!!! Lou. Sorry I was being petty. I mean really, David Frost pointed out that this is a good discussion, and he's right. You are a good debater and I am going to have fun with it and do what I can to get my point accross.*

*Lou. I think you are flawed in your arguments in several spots, and yes I think your way of thinking is dangerous. I am less angry about it than I was earlier, because I didn't give the individuals reading this enough credit. I am sure they can keep themselves safe, and take everything they read with a grain of salt.*

*I did a agree with you on a few points, and I think we are closer to agreeing on a few more than I thought.*

*Here goes*
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Dave Colborn*  
_I had a great response typed out and due to my lack of proficiency as an internet trainer_

Lou Said I don't know what an Internet Trainer is. Can you tell us? 

Dave says, Lou. It is someone who sits at their computer and tells anyone that listens what they know about a subject. This person may be dangerous, as they may not know squat. Don't know if you are one of these or not, but that was my take on you as it doesn't look like you have actively worked a dog since 84, and only did it for five years when you were at it. Is that actually the case, Yes or no answer please. Not that time on time on a job indicates proficiency, it only indicates time on a job. But that is a good start for here I think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Dave Colborn*  
_Cheap shotting on an out and sit isn't what I am correcting for. I am correcting for the sit._

Lou said The dog is sitting in front of the decoy and he's nipping at him, trying to get him to move so he can bite him again. If you correct the dog, since he's already sitting, you ARE correcting the cheap shotting.

Lou, I wouldn't correct the nipping so much, as I would withhold the reward. If your dog is on a backtie the decoy should be able to avoid the nips, and or make them less than rewarding to the dog, thus extincting the behavior.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Dave Colborn*  
_Not taking him out of drive at all if you reward with a bite when you get the sit._

Lou said, If you are correcting you're drawing the dog's attention to you with the correction and putting him into pack drive. The bite is not a reward in my system.

dave Says. Lou. I would have the decoy do the correction. I know this may not be popular, but I have seen it work, personally with my own dog. I had a bad guy fighting my dog, on the ground, pulling on his collar. My dog was pushing him around in a circle, getting deeper and deeper in the bite because the dog had been conditioned to bite harder when oppostion was applied and counter when it was released. It worked for me here, no problem.

What is your definition of pack drive? I believe in prey drive and defense drive, with social behaviors. I think most dog behavior can be put into one of these three. Again, what is your definition of pack drive.

the bite may not be a reward in your system, Lou, but it is in the dogs. that is why they try to do it. IE the cheap shotting you were talking about. Because they like it. Because it is a reward, and reinforces the behavior, in this case, the out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Dave Colborn*  
_You progress to the point of out, sit, decoy back up, cuff, search, walk back in, re-bite, no bite, etc._

Lou said, Sounds like pattern training to me. Not something I EVER want to do with a police dog.

dave says. Not so much Lou. Re-read what I posted up there. You progress to the point of out, sit, decoy back up, cuff, search, walk back in, re-bite, no bite, etc. You don't pattern train it, that's the idea. sometimes there is a bite (re-bite) some times there is no bite (no bite)


----------



## Dave Colborn

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Dave Colborn*  
_If you tell me what certification you are training for I can help._

Lou said. I don't train for a certification. I train for the street. Doing that will enable the handler to pass just about any certification.

I agree with you on this one. I thought you had a different belief on this, thanks for clearing that up for me. Moving on....


Quote:
Originally Posted by *Dave Colborn*  
_If it is for officer safety and real life, then you definitely want the dog focused on the bad guy(s). Period._

Lou said, Actually the focus should be split between the suspect and the handler's commands. 


I think we have reached common ground on this one too. I want the dogs attention focused on the bad guy, and listening to me. That isn't what I said, but what I meant. Fair enough? Bad guy moves aggressively gets bit, etc. Dog listens to commands from me as well. Moving on....

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Dave Colborn*  
_Lee, Once you put it into the dogs head, he could revert back to it." So I guess you only train on live decoys with no equipment._

Lou said, Missed the point completely. What you've put into the dog's head with a two decoy reward method is that _" when he outs he'll get to rebite."_ 

Dave says, okay Lou. You can take the low or the high road here, I am going the other way. I assumed the statement was blanket, which I still think you might mean. Once you put it into the dogs head, he could revert back to it. If you train on a sleeve ever, he could revert to it and not bite a bad guy without equipment.

Also seperating us here is the dogs desire to rebite. That is how I am controlling his behaviors, Lou. By controlling his reward in training. You can think a bite a reward or not, doesn't matter, the dogs agree with me. Positive reinforcement by getting another bite will increase the likely hood of the behavior. How do you train the out??

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Dave Colborn*  
_Otherwise, they may revert to needing equipment to bite on the street, IE Sleeve, suit, muzzle._

Lou says, The muzzle teaches the dog that he does not need a sleeve or suit. And mixing up training where the decoy does not have any equipment on at first, teaches the dog that equipment isn't necessary as well. In any case, I desensitize the muzzle completely so that it does not mean _"bitework"_ to the dog. Then the most realistic training can be done.

Dave says, right, but.. desensitized or not, the muzzle is there. Sorry, but by your definition of doing it in training may cause him to revert to it in real life, it may cause the dog not to bite without the muzzle on. I will also say, that I am not willing to proof dogs on my bare arms. I have used this method as well as a hidden sleeve, stalking, and civil aggression, as well as other "man orientation" drills. They work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Dave Colborn*  
_Also in your world, there must never be two bad guys. No "where there is one bad guy, expect at least two" rule. One bad guy behind you is definitely NEVER happening. Get real, it happens, train for it. Just like back up will be there sometimes, train for that too._

No need for me to respond in kind to your unprofessional and rude attitude, but I will point it out. ROFL. 

Lou says, My method of teaching the out uses two decoys to start. Later I will use as many as five or six, as many as I can get. So the dog comes to expect that there may be more than one. But he does not get to automatically bite the next one. 

Ok lou. so which one of the two decoys or the six aren't your backup that you talked about not getting bitten earlier. You just agreed with me that two decoys is okay after you said that the dog could revert to that and bite the back up. In my training progression, I did mention that there were pauses between bites, just like you are mentioning here. Where do you stand on this one?


Quote:
Originally Posted by *Dave Colborn*  
_thanks for asking. By the way admitting you don't know how to do it is the first step in finding a solution._

Lou said, I already have a solution that's worked on every dog that's I've applied it to. That includes dogs that have not responded to EVERY OTHER METHOD that's been tried with them. I'm just looking to hear your method.

Dave says, you said in your previous post that you didn't know how it was done and that you'd love to learn. 
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Dave Colborn*  
_2. Teach the out on the back tie. …_

_3. Set your two decoys about 40 feet apart with handler and dog in the middle. Send the dog on one decoy. …decoy works him moderately, freezes up, grabs out line in case he needs it. … so the dog stays on the bite, corrective action, correct the dog …_

Sorry to have wasted your time Dave. I already know about this technique. I don't like decoys giving my dogs corrections. I never want a decoy correcting a dog. I never want my dog to think _"out"_ if the suspect grabs his collar and I think that's what could easily be the result of this sort of training. But thanks for taking the time anyway.

No waste of time. I used to type really fast, and this is bringing some of the skills back. Also, I respect your opinion on this making a dog susceptible to a bad guy outing him. If the bad guy outs him and the dog outs and sits, then when the bad guy moves guess what. We'll assume that all the training that went on still works. Bad guy moves, gets bit again, or, you come up and help your PARTNER with the apprehension, as the bad guy is standing still. Compliance.


Quote:
Originally Posted by *Dave Colborn*  
_The dog turns, hopefully misses the handler and bites #2._

_"[H]opefully misses the handler??????"_ Have you had handlers bitten during this training? I've never had a handler bitten by his own dog during training. 

Dave says, Ever? You have to be kidding, or you have dogs with blank adapters in their mouth. I mean your training would have to be amazing to never have an accidental bite, with dogs and new handlers. Really.

Also, i never have had a handler get bit using this method, just come close in the beginning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Dave Colborn*  
_Repeat on one. End the session with a slip_

Lou says. A slip is something else I never do except with a very young beginning dog. Again, I think it puts a bad idea in the dog's head. That is, if he takes something from the decoy, the fight is over and he's won something. This easily can result in the dog taking a piece of outer clothing, such as a jacket off a crook, and ending his fight.

Dave says. Lou, in your first sentence, you contradict yourself. A slip is something I NEVER do (very final that word never) except with a young beginning dog. I think it puts a bad idea in the dogs head too. So instead of hoping for the best, a finished dog does some man orientation work. Decoy with a sleeve, a suit and a hidden sleeve on. Feed the sleeve, out the dog, rebite on the suit, slip the suit top, out the dog, and rebite on the hidden sleeve. Go to ground with the dog, very rewarding fight and win for the dog. Not avoiding the winter coat in the dogs mouth, but training for it. I say again Lou, now we're dog training here!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Dave Colborn*  
_I am making fun of you to prove a point._

Lou said, Were you making fun of me?

dave says, yes I was. i also said I was sorry and i really meant it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Dave Colborn*  
_The point is to stay open-minded._

Lou says, I'm always open-minded Dave. That's why I asked for your method in detail; I was hoping to learn something new. Turns out that I've already learned, tried and rejected your method for reasons already stated.


Dave says. Without any voodoo, Lou, tell us what that method is for the out.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Originally Posted by *Dave Colborn* 
_The training method above is valid as are several others, but you'll never try it because, I am sure, you are not open-minded._

Lou says. I don't know what the term _"valid"_ means in this context. It gives results but can create another issue that is far more dangerous than the issue it solves. I've seen lots of dogs trained with this method slow down or stop their efforts to subdue a decoy who grabbed their collar. He's expecting a correction and so anticipates the out.


If you don't train it, how do you see it?? You haven't brought up anything dangerous with the way I train it, only the way you trained it and didn't like it. Here I have to say again, how do you train it. "initially with a young dog, slips""initially with a young dog use two decoys"
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Dave Colborn* 
_I know your name is Lou, just like mine is spelled Colborn, not Colburn._

Lou said,, Oh that's what the childishness was about. Sorry for having misspelled your name. I had an officer who worked for me named "Colburn" and I unconsciously reverted to that spelling. Did you think it was intentional? I'm not that petty.

Dave says, I said I am sorry, gosh and golly, I am!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Dave Colborn* 
_I think your closed mindedness will get people killed …_

Lou said. Still not closed minded Dave. I asked for your method didn't I? If I was _"closed minded"_ I'd not have asked.

As to _"get[ting] people killed"_ all I can say is that nothing even close to that ever happened. The dogs that I trained would out in the middle of a fight with their handlers as far away as their voices could be heard. It doesn't get much safer than that.

Dave says. Nothing happened yet. Which means it won't, or people you've trained are due. Let's hope the former!!!


Quote:
Originally Posted by *Dave Colborn* 
_I am tired of seeing guys like you think so highly of yourself and put yourself in a postion to influence a young handler to do the wrong thing out of ignorance or on purpose._

Lou says. I've never said that I'm anything special. If you've gotten that it's something you've inferred, not anything I've implied.

Dave says, Good point!! Well said, well spoken.


Quote:
Originally Posted by *Dave Colborn* 
_realize the common enemy, the "bad guys" and help the training get to a higher level to address it._

Lou, says That is what this discussion is ALL about. Not fielding dogs that won't do the job. Getting the dogs to out cleanly from a distance to keep handlers safe. Giving a handler a dog that will do the job he's expected to do.

But there's more than just the criminals that need to be overcome to get that job done. Trainers who get ego involved and won't listen to new (to them) methods. Administrators who won't admit that they purchased the wrong dog from the wrong vendor. Handlers who believe that their dog will do something when it's clear that he won't. ANYONE who thinks that he's got all the answers. And more … 

Dave says, I agree about wrong dogs, and administrators. Kennel blind handlers. And crappy closed minded trainers and know it alls. Moving on...

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Dave Colborn* 
_Your discussions on here don't do that most of the time._

Thanks for the review. But the responses I get from those with the open minds (while you keep talking about it, it's clear that it's just lip service from you) tell another story.

Your pettiness about my inadvertent misspelling of your name is a great example of the nonsense that interferes with communication. 

Dave says, good point. Sorry to dirty the waters with pettiness. I am open minded no matter what you think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Dave Colborn* 
_You and those like you just irk me to the point of not keeping my mouth shut and just helping out in training or selling equipment, because people need to know how dangerous only having one method can be._

ROFLMAO. Except that this method has never failed me. 

I could tell you of one department that was all set to buy the K-9's handler a "doohickey" to wear on his belt so that he could carry a hot stick on searches to apply to the dog's testicles so that he could be outed off real bites. Nothing else had worked with that dog and even that was starting to give erratic results. 

This dog was my hardest case ever. It took me 45 minutes to get a clean verbal out. But he's now a model citizen and one of the most responsive dogs in his department. I'll happy to put you in touch with the handler so you can get the details yourself if you like.

Dave says, Lou, what method has never failed you? Please put me in touch with the handler.



Quote:
Originally Posted by *Dave Colborn* 
_How not training for the unexpected can get you killed._

Lou said, Not sure how this pertains. I always train for the worst while hoping for the best. YOU are the one who mentioned _"training for a certification,"_ not me. 

Dave says, right again lou.


Quote:
Originally Posted by *Dave Colborn* 
_Training can be easier if they seek out help, not to be brow beaten over not knowing, on the internet._

Please show me some of this _"brow beating"_ you allege I'm doing. I'll point out that I've asked you for the specific of your method. Please show us where you've asked for the details of mine. I'll point out that you immaturely used what you knew to be another name. I'll point out that several times you were quite rude, and that I didn't return it. Tell me again, which one of us is doing the browbeating? 

Dave Says. I didn't alledge that you were brow beating. It was general statment at the end of my post. feeling guilty? And now, you are right, I would like to hear your method, and embrace it with all my heart, and have it work perfectly. Because I haven't found one method to do this yet... Thanks for not being rude and I really tried to be better on this one.. Thanks for the debate, big fella, I'll be snuggled up with my sweet boxer waiting on your reply!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Bob Scott

Matthew Grubb said:


> Lou... It took about over a year to fix Ike. That's once a week IF the handler showed for training and about 20 mins of time each week. Was a long process.
> 
> That dang Bob Scott got me into motivational training.... dang you! :grin:


And it's now working for herding training! :grin::wink:
I've NEVER seen a decoy/helper that could fire up my dog like livestock does! 
I'm guessing it's a lot closer to "real" work to the dog and stock both.


----------



## Lou Castle

Jim Nash said:


> Nope no games . He did bite the suspect just not well . Evidence . Watch the video I have many times .


I've seen the video many times too and I don't see him biting the crook. I see him twice put his mouth on the suspect but I don't see him bite down. Doing this may result in bruises or scratches but I'd not consider those to be "bites." They do require medical treatment for liability purposes, but no right–thinking doctor would properly describe them as bites. 



Jim Nash said:


> You saw the video . The guy was a suspect in a shooting . Mike(Ernie)


Just tryin' to find out why you call him by two names in the two threads.



Jim Nash said:


> Talking to MIKE he would have approached the same way if he would have descided to not deploy the dog .


I don't know how those guys walk. They've got balls the size of watermelons! They do things that are tactically unsound, but very brave, lots of the time.

I'd HOPE that without the dog he would have stayed back at the corner of the house, behind cover and concealment and ordered the suspect down to the ground. If he ran past that point, he could have covered the suspect and moved back to it, staying there until back up arrived.

But since he had a dog and expected him to do a job, he followed the dog into the walkway area between the houses. *The fact that he had a dog drew him into a more dangerous situation!*

I think it's possible that the suspect was about to surrender when he was confronted by the dog. But when he was met head-on by him, he had no choice other than fight or flight! If he had been still trying to flee he had plenty of time to make it over the next door fence before either the officer or the K-9 entered the side yard. When we first see him, he's not running. It's possible he stopped to fight the dog but then discovered the dog wasn't going to bite him. Then he HAD to run BEFORE the dog DID bite him. The most visible way out is over the officer. 

After the incident Mike-Ernie says,


> the guy turned to fight, rather the dog hit [not bit] him. Came off right away. He came towards me. I went to punch him, kick him whatever. [There was no effort or attempt made _"to punch"_ the suspect] He's comin' towards me. When we collided I went back. Put my hand back to support my fall. That's when I knew my wrist broke. And I just remember sayin' to Buzz [the dog] "get him, get him, get him" keepin' Buzz on track as far as what we were tryin' to do there.


 There is a bit more talk but it's not related K-9. NOWHERE does anyone mention a dog bite. So you and I have a difference of opinion. IF there was a bite I'd think that it would have been mentioned. In other places on the show they are careful to say that bitten suspects are treated medically for their bites. There was nothing like that on this show.

It's very easy to prove Jim. If there was any kind of a bite there'd be a record of medical treatment that talked about one. Simply show us a copy of that medical record or the report that mentions one and we can be done with this. As I said, I'm happy to say that I was mistaken if you'll show me that I am.



Jim Nash said:


> He felt the dog kept the guy from making it over the fence because he(badguy) probably knew the dog would get him before he made it over .


I doubt it. The suspect is only about half way down the walk to the rear fence. He's not running when we first see him. He may have been when Mike–Ernie first saw him, the camera gets to the scene a moment after Mike–Ernie does. I'd consider that he (as mentioned above) many have been trying to surrender or that he stopped to fight the dog, rather than be taken from behind by him and then he discovered that there wasn't any fight in the dog. When the armed officer appeared he was stuck. It's a stretch to call that _"a benefit"_ to Mike–Ernie.



Jim Nash said:


> He felt the dog at least slowed the suspect down from hitting him (Mike) any harder


How so? He's not making contact and didn't he interfere w/ the suspect's travel at all. When we see the suspect start running towards the officer, the dog is behind him.



Jim Nash said:


> and also assisted in splitting the suspect's attention between the 2 (Mike and his dog) . Keeping the suspect from totally focusing his attention on Mike .


Another stretch.


Jim Nash said:


> What made you think you could speak for him and what he was thinking when all you've done is see it on TV ?


I've never spoken for him. Since you've made this claim, please show us the post where you claim I've done this. I'll show you where you're wrong. 



Jim Nash said:


> Yes Lou they are similar with the exception that I have not seen any of them say the dog was a COMPLETE failure . Like you have. If they have stated complete failure I would disagree .


If it makes you happy I'll retract the _"complete"_ part of my statement. The dog's deployment was a failure. Happy now? He failed to stop the suspect at any time during the deployment. He may have provided a distraction. Is that why we have police dogs, to provide distractions? I think not.



Jim Nash said:


> I agree with all of their critiques to a point . Yours I do not . Because you are spinning and exaggerating this in an attempt to discredit me and my views in order to prove your point on a simple "out" technique .


Jim it's gone FAR beyond "the out discussion" now. Now it's gone to the place that you knew that this dog in your own words _"I quite frankly think it is a courage and confidence issue."_ You fielded a dog that you knew lacked what your own handlers and other trainers have said, many times on the show, is very important.



Jim Nash said:


> It's all part of your educated way in debating . You have proven you know many of the tricks in debating and use them all to prove your point .


Jim YOU are the one who's tried diversion (several times) and a straw man argument. I've just point out when you've used the fallacious arguments. If you think I've done any of these, feel free to point them out. The posts are there for all to see.



Jim Nash said:


> Yes you have earned a reputation .


Yes, I know that's why people keep calling me for seminars and training even though I don't advertise except for a few words on my site.



Jim Nash said:


> The hypocrisy .


The personal attacks.



Jim Nash said:


> You sure have focussed alot on me to prove your point


OF COURSE! You are the one who said that the dog lacked courage and confidence and yet you still fielded him.



Jim Nash said:


> Lou , I am only using the same techniques you use in a debate AND YOU DON"T LIKE IT .


Please show me a straw man argument that I've used Jim. Please show me an example of diverting. Until you do, this is so much nonsense on your part. Easy to make the claim, so much harder to show proof. Like the proof of a bite, just show us.



Jim Nash said:


> I offset that by putting you on the defesive also . Again these are all techniques I've learned from you .
> 
> This part of your reply is a good example of this ;
> 
> "Quote:
> Originally Posted by Jim Nash
> Funny thing is you stated yourself you operated a K9 that would NOT apprehend a fleeing suspect . It failed to engage.
> 
> That incident happened when I had about a month on. I'd been to a two week school and it was my first deployment of that nature. I had no idea that dogs needed to be trained to bite when equipment wasn't present. I was the victim of bad training too.


Do you think that put me on the defensive? LOL. All it did was cut you off at the knees. You insinuated that you had a big _"gotcha"_ to the readers because my dog didn't bite when deployed. But when the full story came out you deserved the embarrassment, not me for bringing it up. ESPECIALLY since you tell us that you knew the truth of the incident. I didn't train that dog. I'd only handled him for a short time and since I'd just gotten started, I had no idea that dogs needed to be trained to bite people that were not wearing equipment. There are trainers working for years who haven't found that out. The same thing can be said about your attempt to discredit me with _"the gun shy dog"_ story. AGAIN you should have been embarassed. It's happening again now that you've brought them up again. ROFL.



Jim Nash said:


> I've heard all these excuses before .


Obviously you don't know the difference between an excuse and an explanation. An excuse is used when something needs to be forgiven. Since I did nothing wrong in either situation, no excuse is needed. An explanation is sufficient. BUT AGAIN you try to divert attention away from your INEXCUSABLE act of fielding a dog that you knew lacked courage and confidence.



Jim Nash said:


> " Not my fault , didn't know better" .


Oh look. AGAIN tries a diversion and to put words into my mouth. This time Jim is trying to get people to believe that I used either of these phrases in my explanations for these incidents. The truth is that I use neither of them.



Jim Nash said:


> It's just fun knowing what I'm going to get out of you and seeing you dance around and get all defensive . LMAO .


ROFL. The fact that you think this part of our discussion makes me "defensive" is hilarious.



Jim Nash said:


> Except that you come out looking foolish. The REALLY funny part is that you don't even realize it.


No, Jim. You've been made to look the fool several times over. And you've just done it again. My explanations for both of those incidents are completely reasonable. In BOTH of them I did EVERYTHING in my power (in one of them irritating the admin and going to the Chief of Police) to do the right thing.


----------



## Lou Castle

Jim Nash said:


> Another guy on here has defined it in another discussion before . I'm not the one with the education in debating . That's you . Didn't think about it much was just mirroring the techniques I have seen you use .


Yep, thanks for the admission of the obvious. YOU used those techniques. LOL. 

Earlier I wrote,


> I'm curious Jim, what does it tell you other than that I was in K-9's when you were still worrying about who to ask to the Jr. Prom? There's plenty of evidence out there to support me. You're just too lazy and invested in your own ego to make a few phone calls. There's a reason that when checking someone's background we ask for references.





Jim Nash said:


> It tells me you are willing to involve you poor past handlers in your internet debate .


Jim I love it when you make these sorts of assumptions. They show your true colors. One of the stories involves ME not one of my _"poor past handlers."_ And the other story, the one about the gun shy dog was BEFORE I was the department trainer! He wasn't one of _"[my] poor past handlers;"_ he was a peer. And since he was complicit in keeping that dog in the field, he's at least in part, responsible for it and deserves to have the story told about him. Of course he's not really identified since I didn't give his name. 



Jim Nash said:


> Poor folks have to put up with stangers calling them about some internet debate


_"Poor folks."_ ROFLMAO. Odd Jim but just about every one of the handlers that I trained has given permission for me to give out their information *just for this purpose. * Perhaps the folks that you trained would think that it was a bother but my former handlers are happy to support me! 



Jim Nash said:


> Lazy ? Yeah Lou your not rude . Always a victim . Actually Lou I don't call because I believe you .


So this means that your accusations about my lack of training skills or about the quality of the dogs that I've trained are just so much hot air and diversion? MORE clever debate technique UNTIL, that is I point out what you're doing. LOL. 

Earlier Jim wrote,


> If you indeed hoped a plaintiff's attorney didn't read my comments you wouldn't have pointed them out or * you would have sent your "concerns" via PM . *But you didn't . It is *obvious what you intended but I know you will never admit it . [Emphasis added]


And I responded


> I only admit the truth. Not your attempts to twist my words. YOU wrote those comments. Me pointing them out was to show you the error of your writing. If you wanted to you could have an administrator remove them. But you don't even see the problems that YOUR WRITING may have caused."


Jim YOU are the one who suggested that I might have sent my concerns via PM as can be seen from your quotation just above. But now you say this. Looks like someone wants to have his cake AND eat it too. 



Jim Nash said:


> Again Lou you are the king of twisting .


Show us the post Jim. ANOTHER accusation without support! 



Jim Nash said:


> Like I said it's a pathetic arguement .


I hope when the time comes, that the jury agrees with you. But they may not. There are lots of cases where the jury's perception is that the LEO caused the shooting because he escalated the danger of the situation. Examples of such cases include situations where an officer left cover (as many of your officers do) and then the suspect was shot because of the heightened danger that the officer felt. THE OFFICER is the one, in such cases who created the heightened danger! A jury might perceive that sending a dog that a handler knew would not control the suspect, was just such a situation. 



Jim Nash said:


> In a way I think this subject truely upsets you and don't want other to think bad of you ( TRYING helping the defense against an officer ) . There maybe hope for you yet .


I've got some former friends who are now testifying against LE. To me they're dead. And so when you accuse me of doing the same, it does get under my skin. About the only thing lower, is someone who deliberately and with knowledge aforethought, puts a cop's life at risk, as you've done. 



Jim Nash said:


> Because of this strong reaction , maybe deep down you feel you went a bit too far but you just don't have the guts to admit it .


I don't think I went too far except that I've retracted from calling this deployment _"a COMPLETE failure."_ Now I'll just call it _"a failure"_. 



Jim Nash said:


> Lou . I've only responded to you in kind . Using the same style you use to debate . I've done it because I've found it to be a very effective way too debate .


Still waiting for you to show such a thing happening. Notice that I show your words when I make the call about your underhanded method of debating. BUT you have yet to provide an example of me doing it, even though you've been asked several times. The accusation without the proof is ANOTHER clever debate technique. But without the proof, and me showing just what you're doing, you just look bad AGAIN. 



Jim Nash said:


> Funny how you can find me rude and unprofessionnal when I respond to you in the same way and you can't see you are guilty of the same thing .


You've made several personal attacks on me. I've shown them when you've done it. I, however have argued against your ideas EXCEPT when you tried to one-up me, failed and made yourself look silly.



Jim Nash said:


> Even with how MANY "discussions" you get involved in end up getting locked because of how heated things get . You just always claim to be the victim .


You, like a few others are either unwilling or unable to stop the personal attacks. It's a shame that you're incapable of seeing the difference between an attack on a person and an attack on an idea. 



Jim Nash said:


> I'll be big enough to admit my ego got involved and it's clear to see yours has to . You just never will admit it .


Only when you go to the personal attacks. 

Earlier I wrote,


> But there's more than just the criminals that need to be overcome to get that job done. *Trainers who *get ego involved and *won't listen to new (to them) methods. * ANYONE who thinks that he's got all the answers. And more … [Emphasis added]





Jim Nash said:


> Do you actually read what you're writting ? Look in the mirror .


Do YOU actually read what I write? I'd say that you don't. So far in this discussion there have been two methods proposed (other than from me). CLEARLY in the paragraph that you quoted I say that one of the problems is _"Trainers who … won't listen to new *(to them) *methods."_ BOTH of the methods that others have brought up, "the–ball–or–toy for the out" and "the decoy–giving–the–corrections" are OLD methods to me. NEITHER are new. I've tried them both. Rejected them both and have moved on to something that's far better.


----------



## Lou Castle

Jim Nash said:


> BUT , No matter how much you type , how much you quote and spin , our dogs will still be out there being VERY successful like they have for many years and will continue to be and improve .


I'm sure that's the case Jim. I wish you and the rest of the unit much success. I hope that you never again field a dog that lacks confidence and courage just because his search work is good. I hope that you see the big picture and realize that bitework is qualifying or DISqualifying, not just something that some dogs do better than others. But since the TV show is probably over, we'll never know. If it wasn't for that show we'd probably not have ever had this phase of the discussion. You'll know better than to bring up something of this nature again. 

My hope for all these discussion is that people learn from them. I usually pick up something, I hope others do too. 



Jim Nash said:


> This is even though we don't train like you .


Yes we know. lol. 



Jim Nash said:


> That's a fact you can try as you like to change from behind a keyboard but it's one easily proven wrong by us out here actually doing it protecting the Officers and Citizens we serve .


WOW the humanity almost bring tears to my eyes. If you don't want to learn new (to you) methods of training that's fine with me. Change is difficult for some people, and I understand. Your ego is too large for you to learn anything from me as I've embarrassed you repeatedly here. I had little hope of you learning anything in this discussion I've said as much before. 

I do know that some others HAVE learned though. I've gotten half a dozen requests for details of my method. I've gotten one response back from someone whose said that his dog had serious difficulty in releasing the bite and who had already bitten him twice when he tried to use force to get it. That dog is now outing cleanly while the handler stands out of sight of the dog as the fight is still going on. This after only a couple of days of work! 

Earlier I wrote,


> I don't know what an Internet Trainer is. Can you tell us?





Jim Nash said:


> Lou , that's you . You should embrace it . You explain your training techniques better then anyone else on the net . Even though you might not believe it I feel the techniques you prefer are good tools for anyone to have in their toolbox . JUST NOT THE ONLY WAY OR BEST WAY TO DO IT IN DIFFERENT SITUATIONS .
> 
> The other articles you have written are good too .


Thanks very much for the kind words. I appreciate them. 



Jim Nash said:


> It's your involvement with training techniques other then yours and close mindedness to them that is the problem .


Jim I'll take this as an opportunity to try and calm this down. I'm at a loss as to why people say that I'm closed–minded. When Dave Colborn (got it right that time) mentioned another method that he used, in my response to him I asked for details of it. It seems to me that if I was closed–minded I wouldn't have done that. It seems to me that shows that I'm NOT closed–minded. How can you perceive it any other way? 

I ONLY rejected his method when I discovered that I'd seen it done and saw with my own eyes the poor results that it gave. They might not happen every time but I don't think it's wise to take the chance of doing something that might be difficult to fix. 

To this day, ANYTIME someone says they've got something new, I'm all over it. If that person is in front of me I bug them until I get every last detail possible. If I see something that a dog does that I think is valuable, that I don't know how to get I'll ask "How did you do that?" until I think I've got enough info to duplicate it. If he's willing I'd bring out my own dog and see if it would work with him. 

If it's on the net, as with Dave, I ask for specific details. If it's not clear, I keep asking questions until it is. 

Does that sound "closed–minded" to you? Honest question.


----------



## Lou Castle

Matthew Grubb said:


> Lou... It took about *over a year *to fix Ike. That's once a week IF the handler showed for training and about 20 mins of time each week. Was a long process. [Emphasis added]


Matt that's about 50 weeks longer than I'm willing to spend. I'm all for motivational training but not at that cost. 

I can already hear rumbling of "quick fix" from some. I think that a "quick fix" is something like _"duct tape on a radiator hose."_ It gives very fast results but does not last. My method is anything but that. While I get very fast results they do last.


----------



## Lou Castle

Dave Colborn said:


> Lou. Sorry I was being petty. I mean really, David Frost pointed out that this is a good discussion, and he's right. You are a good debater and I am going to have fun with it and do what I can to get my point accross.


Apology accepted Dave. Thanks. And thanks for the kind words. 



Dave Colborn said:


> Lou. I think you are flawed in your arguments in several spots, and yes I think your way of thinking is dangerous.


What is _"my way of thinking"_ and why is it _"dangerous?"_ 



Dave Colborn said:


> I did a agree with you on a few points, and I think we are closer to agreeing on a few more than I thought.


Agreement is great. But I rarely learn much from people that I agree with. But when I disagree with people I usually learn lots. 

Earlier I wrote,


> I don't know what an Internet Trainer is. Can you tell us?





Dave Colborn said:


> Lou. It is someone who sits at their computer and tells anyone that listens what they know about a subject. This person may be dangerous, as they may not know squat. Don't know if you are one of these or not, but that was my take on you as it doesn't look like you have actively worked a dog since 84, and only did it for five years when you were at it. Is that actually the case, Yes or no answer please.


My dog retired in 1985 and that's when my duties as a K-9 handler stopped. I continued on as the department K-9 trainer. I worked several other assignments after my dog retired but on K-9 training nights, no matter where I was assigned, I'd go out and run the training. I was the guy that when someone called with a question about K-9's they got referred to. I filled that position, except on those rare occasions when I'd pissed off a certain Lt. until I was injured and knocked out of it. For quite some time I was going out and running training while on crutches when I was supposed to be IOD, (Injured on Duty) when I was supposed to be recuperating at home. Until the Captain found out and stopped me. That was the first time in the department's history that they hired an outside trainer to do the maintenance training. At one point, the Chief cancelled the unit, he said due to budget concerns, and obviously I wasn't the trainer then. But the residents and the City Council soon got the unit reinstated and I re–assumed the trainer position. 

My specialty was and is problem solving. Just before I retired people started asking me to do seminars on various subjects. Some of them for pets but mostly for LE and SAR. I've since done 43 of them across the US and abroad. 

So while I only handled one dog, my training history is fairly extensive and varied. 

Earlier I wrote,


> The dog is sitting in front of the decoy and he's nipping at him, trying to get him to move so he can bite him again. If you correct the dog, since he's already sitting, you ARE correcting the cheap shotting.





Dave Colborn said:


> Lou, I wouldn't correct the nipping so much, as I would withhold the reward. If your dog is on a backtie the decoy should be able to avoid the nips, and or make them less than rewarding to the dog, thus extincting the behavior.


Extinction does not work if the behavior is self rewarding. For most dogs nipping, even though the decoy can't be reached (as in a backtie) and even though he doesn't respond with a flinch, it will still be rewarding. It's not AS rewarding as making the decoy move and then biting, but it's still rewarding. 

I missed that you had the dog on the backtie during this. That will probably stop the nipping or at least slow it down. But I think as soon as the back tie comes off, it will return. 


Earlier I wrote,


> If you are correcting you're drawing the dog's attention to you with the correction and putting him into pack drive. The bite is not a reward in my system.





Dave Colborn said:


> Lou. I would have the decoy do the correction. I know this may not be popular, but I have seen it work, personally with my own dog.


That's great Dave. I think that you participate in the sport of PSA, not LE and so things are a bit different. In competition the concern is for what the dog is doing, basically what he _"looks like"_, not as much as what he's thinking, as it should be in LE. The fact that it may give the desired results still may not make it suitable for LE. As you say _"this may not be popular"_ and this is because it can result in bad things happening, such as a dog releasing a bit mid–fight, if a real crook reaches for or grabs his collar. He may anticipate a correction coming, just as it did in training and in anticipation of the correction, may release the bite. 

I'm sure that this doesn't happen with all dogs, from your post it didn't with yours, but since the possibility is there, AND I've seen this happen on real situations, I don't want to risk the possibility that it may happen with the dog that I'm working with. I won't know if it's going to happen until it does and then it's too late! 



Dave Colborn said:


> What is your definition of pack drive? I believe in prey drive and defense drive, with social behaviors. I think most dog behavior can be put into one of these three. Again, what is your definition of pack drive.


Pack drive is what makes a dog desire to be part of a group. Some consider that it has him striving to achieve a certain level of a hierarchy within that group. 

I disagree that there are only three drives. I know that there are at least three drives just dealing with combat; prey, defense and fight. I've shown them to doubters many times over. 

I know a trainer who had two single–spaced, pages of drives. He considers that ball drive is different from stick drive is different from tug drive is different from Frisbee drive. Listing them separately allows him to be specific in his rewards and he thinks makes for better training. Since he is the head of LE K-9 training for POST for the state of Utah, I think he may have something to say. 



Dave Colborn said:


> the bite may not be a reward in your system, Lou, but it is in the dogs. that is why they try to do it.


I don't think so. And I know that thinking that way sets up a lawyer to slam you with that statement in court. I think dogs bite because their drives make them. It's not a conscious thought such as, _"I like this so I'm going to try and do it!"_ I think it's a subconscious automatic response to a situation. 



Dave Colborn said:


> IE the cheap shotting you were talking about. Because they like it. Because it is a reward, and reinforces the behavior, in this case, the out.


I don't think that cheap shotting _"reinforces … the out."_ I think it weakens it. 

Earlier Dave wrote,


> You progress to the point of out, sit, decoy back up, cuff, search, walk back in, re-bite, no bite, etc.


And I responded


> Sounds like pattern training to me. Not something I EVER want to do with a police dog.





Dave Colborn said:


> Not so much Lou. Re-read what I posted up there. You progress to the point of out, sit, decoy back up, cuff, search, walk back in, re-bite, no bite, etc. You don't pattern train it, that's the idea. sometimes there is a bite (re-bite) some times there is no bite (no bite)


Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. It looks like _"out, sit, decoy back up, cuff, search, walk back in"_ is a pattern. The only thing that's not a pattern in what you wrote is the bite or rebite. And since in the real world rarely do I want this pattern, I don't even want the dog to begin to think that's what's going to happen. Sometimes I cuff with the dog still attached. Sometimes the dog is in a down, not a sit. Sometimes I recall him. Sometimes I search first, before cuffing. Sometimes I run in, rather than walk in. 

But as I said, perhaps I misunderstood something in your description.


----------



## Lou Castle

Dave Colborn said:


> How do you train the out??


I posted a short version of it (short by my standards, it's over 3,500 words) on the Protection UK forum in January. HERE'S a link to the post. 

I'm working on a more complete description of it for my website. So far it's over 2,500 words longer that that post and is still growing. When it's complete I'll put the link in this thread. 

Meanwhile, if the article on the UK website raises any questions or you need something clarified please ask. 

Earlier Dave wrote,


> Otherwise, they may revert to needing equipment to bite on the street, IE Sleeve, suit, muzzle.


And I responded


> The muzzle teaches the dog that he does not need a sleeve or suit. And mixing up training where the decoy does not have any equipment on at first, teaches the dog that equipment isn't necessary as well. In any case, I desensitize the muzzle completely so that it does not mean _"bitework"_ to the dog. Then the most realistic training can be done.





Dave Colborn said:


> right, but.. desensitized or not, the muzzle is there. Sorry, but by your definition of doing it in training may cause him to revert to it in real life, it may cause the dog not to bite without the muzzle on.


It all I did was use sleeve, suit and muzzle I'd agree. But it's not all I do. 



Dave Colborn said:


> I will also say, that I am not willing to proof dogs on my bare arms.


I do a thing that I call substitution drills. Basically I present a "naked" (meaning no protective gear) decoy to the dog. He agitates and then flees. The dog is released. As the decoy rounds a corner either someone in a suit substitutes for him or he may pick up a sleeve and take the dog himself. The dog does not realize, until he's committed to the bite that he's biting either another decoy (in the suit) or that the old decoy (the one who just fled) is now wearing protective gear. The dog sees nothing about gear until he's mid air. He's already committed himself to biting real flesh. That, very realistically simulates real situations. The only thing that I can't duplicate is the taste and feel of the dog biting into real flesh. I'm not dedicated enough to do that! lol. 



Dave Colborn said:


> I have used this method as well as a hidden sleeve,


I'm not a fan of the hidden sleeve. You can't safely do realistic training. At some point you have to present the sleeve. I don't think that many dogs, if any, are fooled by the "fat" arm. It looks different and the dogs know it's there. If the decoy presents it as the dog draws near, again, the dog knows it's there. And, because with a hard dog it hurts to get bit many decoys won't fight as hard (so they don't get hurt as much) and that weakens the training. 



Dave Colborn said:


> stalking, and civil aggression, as well as other "man orientation" drills. They work.


I'm not familiar with your use of the terms "stalking" or "man orientation" drills. Can you please explain? 



Dave Colborn said:


> Ok lou. so which one of the two decoys or the six aren't your backup that you talked about not getting bitten earlier.


Dave the "biting the second decoy" doesn't happen enough that it becomes a habit, and, as I said, it's not the reward for releasing the bite. It only lasts for a few back and forths between the decoy, then things are changed up. 



Dave Colborn said:


> No waste of time. I used to type really fast, and this is bringing some of the skills back. Also, I respect your opinion on this making a dog susceptible to a bad guy outing him. If the bad guy outs him and the dog outs and sits, then when the bad guy moves guess what. We'll assume that all the training that went on still works. Bad guy moves, gets bit again, or, you come up and help your PARTNER with the apprehension, as the bad guy is standing still. Compliance.


I'm sorry Dave I can't decipher your question here. Can you reword it please? 

Earlier I wrote,


> [H]opefully misses the handler??????"[/I] Have you had handlers bitten during this training? I've never had a handler bitten by his own dog during training.





Dave Colborn said:


> Ever? You have to be kidding, or you have dogs with blank adapters in their mouth. I mean your training would have to be amazing to never have an accidental bite, with dogs and new handlers. Really.


Yes really. Thirty years of training dogs that bite and never had a handler bitten by his own dog during training. Knock wood. I eliminate as much conflict as possible in my work and so the dogs are not in such a mood. 



Dave Colborn said:


> Also, i never have had a handler get bit using this method, just come close in the beginning.


Thanks for clearing that up. 

Earlier I wrote,


> A slip is something else I never do except with a very young beginning dog. Again, I think it puts a bad idea in the dog's head. That is, if he takes something from the decoy, the fight is over and he's won something. This easily can result in the dog taking a piece of outer clothing, such as a jacket off a crook, and ending his fight.





Dave Colborn said:


> Lou, in your first sentence, you contradict yourself. A slip is something I NEVER do (very final that word never) except with a young beginning dog.


No contradiction if the entire sentence is read as it was written. Unless I'm working with a young, beginning dog, I NEVER slip the sleeve. 



Dave Colborn said:


> I think it puts a bad idea in the dogs head too. So instead of hoping for the best, a finished dog does some man orientation work. Decoy with a sleeve, a suit and a hidden sleeve on. Feed the sleeve, out the dog, rebite on the suit, slip the suit top, out the dog, and rebite on the hidden sleeve. Go to ground with the dog, very rewarding fight and win for the dog. Not avoiding the winter coat in the dogs mouth, but training for it. I say again Lou, now we're dog training here!!!


You can do all the counter conditioning you want with suits, sleeves and hidden sleeves. I think that the dog still has the thought in his head that if he takes the sleeve from the decoy the fight is over. I've seen too many deployments where a dog happily brings a jacket back to his handler as the suspect goes over ANOTHER fence.


----------



## Lou Castle

Earlier Dave wrote,


> The training method above is valid as are several others, but you'll never try it because, I am sure, you are not open-minded.


Earlier I wrote,


> I don't know what the term _"valid"_ means in this context. It gives results but can create another issue that is far more dangerous than the issue it solves. I've seen lots of dogs trained with this method slow down or stop their efforts to subdue a decoy who grabbed their collar. He's expecting a correction and so anticipates the out.





Dave Colborn said:


> If you don't train it, how do you see it??


I watched as another, very experienced, trainer did it. I saw several of the dogs he's trained with that method do as described. 



Dave Colborn said:


> You haven't brought up anything dangerous with the way I train it, only the way you trained it and didn't like it.


I never trained using that method. I saw it done and saw adverse results. I didn't say there was anything dangerous "with the way [you] train it" only that there is a possibility that what I described can happen. 

Earlier Dave wrote,


> I know your name is Lou, just like mine is spelled Colborn, not Colburn.


And I responded


> Oh that's what the childishness was about. Sorry for having misspelled your name. I had an officer who worked for me named "Colburn" and I unconsciously reverted to that spelling. Did you think it was intentional? I'm not that petty.





Dave Colborn said:


> I said I am sorry, gosh and golly, I am!!!


Accepted again and still. Thanks again. 

Earlier Dave wrote,


> I think your closed mindedness will get people killed …


And I responded


> Still not closed minded Dave. I asked for your method didn't I? If I was _"closed minded"_ I'd not have asked.
> 
> As to _"get[ting] people killed"_ all I can say is that nothing even close to that ever happened. The dogs that I trained would out in the middle of a fight with their handlers as far away as their voices could be heard. It doesn't get much safer than that.





Dave Colborn said:


> Nothing happened yet. Which means it won't, or people you've trained are due. Let's hope the former!!!


Since I'm retied and all the dogs I trained have either passed or retired, the chance of it happening have passed as well. Nowadays most of my work is in problem solving when methods tried by other trainers have failed. 



Dave Colborn said:


> I agree about wrong dogs, and administrators. Kennel blind handlers. And crappy closed minded trainers and know it alls. Moving on...


Must be something wrong Dave. You're getting much too agreeable. Seriously tho, glad things have settled down 



Dave Colborn said:


> Lou, what method has never failed you?


Linked to above. 



Dave Colborn said:


> Please put me in touch with the handler.


The number I have for him isn't working. I've got a call in to his department. I'll get back to you as soon as I get it. 



Dave Colborn said:


> I didn't alledge that you were brow beating. It was general statment at the end of my post. feeling guilty?


No guilty conscience here, but due to the general tone of the your post it looked as if you were aiming this at me. Now I know better.


----------



## Jim Nash

Lou , you've out done yourself in your attempt to put me on the defensive with your spinning and twisting of things here . No way I'm falling for that . Like I said before that's a clever technique you've learned to make those you are debating look weak . Nice try though . LMAO , ROTFL . 

Your spinning and twisting skills haven't changed with age that's for sure . You've perfected them in you retirement . LOL. 

It was fun though seeing you spin , twist , feel insulted , and play the victim . All things you do in almost every lengthy debate you have ever been in . It was even funnier seeing you get mad because the same techniques you used were being used against you .

The more you type the more of an internet sensation you become . No PSD's out there to show that you can do or had what you say . Just alot of words typed out on a computer screen about how good you are/were . Guys got to have his fantacies I guess . ROTFLMAO .

5 1/2 years as a K9 handler with a K9 that wouldn't bite . Then the rest as a trainer then you were replaced as a trainer . Sounds like they had alot of faith in you . I'm not sure how you could be as good as you say and then they just have you replaced like that . You said trained 15 PSD's in that time . Isn't that a 3-5 dog K9 unit you trained . That's alot of K9's in that period . What's up with that ? Seems like luck wasn't on your side in the K9 career department . Karma maybe . 

I'm going to steal a line from someone else that described you . Missed it by that much !

Now knowing your techniques I expect alot of baiting . I'm sure you will call it something else ( typical spin manuver of yours ) .

I'll end with this again because it sums everything up nicely . 



Lou , I'm sure you are going to have alot more to say on this .. 

BUT , No matter how much you type , how much you quote and spin , our dogs will still be out there being VERY successful like they have for many years and will continue to be and improve . 

This is even though we don't train like you . That's a fact you can try as you like to change from behind a keyboard but it's one easily proven wrong by us out here actually doing it protecting the Officers and Citizens we serve .


----------



## Guest

This thread is getting better and better!


----------



## David Frost

I'll step in only to say; there is still good information. It's also, except for the occasional little zinger here and there, refrained from getting too personal. I think it shows good discussions, even heated ones, can go on for quite awhile. Personally, I think some of the discussion is pretty redundant, but hey that's not always a bad thing. Enjoy.

DFrost


----------



## Dave Colborn

Lou. Good times, good times. You are a heck of a debater. Here is my problem though. I am having trouble going through all the posts that you put on here to find all the inconsistencies cutting and pasting them together. Could we go down to bullet comments? One question at a time? Something like that? Maybe we could start our own thread, since this one is hi-jacked and off point? Until then, I am going to answer a few of these and head home and snuggle my boxer. I feel as if I am talking to my uncle now....My uncle Lou!!!Now we're training!!! 

Also, I am going to make the assumption (me and umption) that this is about the end of this thread as it is way off point, and not answer your other posts in regards to this..Moderators, any ideas here, comments. Should I go on answering/asking or has this been enough? Should we start it again elsewhere? Is there any value to this?? Moderators can you weigh in before I keep typing?

Lou Said, What is _"my way of thinking"_ and why is it _"dangerous?"_ 

What is your way of thinking? It appears to be what suits you in a given post. You talked about the dog self rewarding with a bite, after you clearly stated a few posts back that there are no reward bites in "your" training method. SOOOO, which is it. Is the dog self rewarding, by nipping (a form of biting), thereby nullifying your argument about there not being rewards in your system?? Because if you said the dog is biting and it is a reward, and in your system he bites, then somewhere we have another flaw with your way of thinking!!!

I was unable to log in to the forum with your extensive post on "your" method. Is it so sneaky and secretive that no one in the US will post it? You don't have a link to it on your own website that we can look at? Lou, come on. Do you spend time on the internet to try and get the next unknowing training group to have you out for your 44th seminar in 24 years? Am I a part of a big marketing ploy that I am unaware of? If you have the 2500 word post, why don't you put it on here so we can read your method?

Dave says, Dangerous, Lou, because you have a lot of "I did this and that," a lot of "I tried that method or saw it tried, and it didn't work" Back in 85, with an admitted lack of knowledge that you mention here, in other posts. No mention of your method.

I saw a few of your pet dog clients who were pleased. This actually speaks more to me about how well you are doing as a trainer than any of your posts, except it is pet dog folks and the discussion is about police dogs. Doggone it, I think I just gave your business a plug!!!

Lou said, My dog retired in 1985 "several words deleted due to size" I re–assumed the trainer position. 

Dave says, when were you injured and knocked out of the trainer spot? 1986? And were you really the "trainer" if you weren't assigned there and just showed up, or a wanna be K9 guy? If I show up to a sky diving event, does that make me a sky diver or a spectator?

My specialty was and is problem solving. Just before I retired people started asking me to do seminars on various subjects. Some of them for pets but mostly for LE and SAR. I've since done 43 of them across the US and abroad. 

So while I only handled one dog, my training history is fairly extensive and varied. 

Lou. Got any comments from those seminars any feedback you can post? 43 seminars over 24 years you should have something. Lets go with 5 day seminars, that is hmmmm 215 days of training. Plus your five years working. Now I gotta say here, Lou, A year of doing something, means a year of doing it. Period. It doesn't mean you are good, it means you did it. Conversely, you could have a great wealth of experience that surpasses a lot of folks, with one year. Or five years and 215 days (counting pet seminars). Your and my resume means nothing but what we've done in the past. That was what we did yesterday. What can you do today???

Also, 43 seminars in LE and SAR is vague and, well....weird. Have you ever trained a SAR dog, or just talked about it??

Earlier Lou wrote, 

Extinction does not work if the behavior is self rewarding. For most dogs nipping, even though the decoy can't be reached (as in a backtie) and even though he doesn't respond with a flinch, it will still be rewarding. It's not AS rewarding as making the decoy move and then biting, but it's still rewarding. 

I missed that you had the dog on the backtie during this. That will probably stop the nipping or at least slow it down. But I think as soon as the back tie comes off, it will return. 

Dave Says, Back-ties and long lines are great. They give you access to a correction at whatever phase of training you are in, Lou. OH, and now you are calling biting a rewarding behavior. This is what I mentioned above. Is it a rewarding behavior? In "your" system that doesn't use bites as a reward?

Lou Also said," That's great Dave. I think that you participate in the sport of PSA, not*took out words due to size* releasing a bite mid–fight, if a real crook reaches for or grabs his collar. He may anticipate a correction coming, just as it did in training and in anticipation of the correction, may release the bite. 

Dave says"???". Lou, so in LE, you don't care what the dog is doing? but you do care what he is thinking? I haven't spoken to mine since this morning, and he was thinking of eating, drinking, peeing, pooping, licking himself, and maybe performing some behaviors that are trained conditioned responses, for some type of benefit to him (he doesn't call it a reward, but that is how I describe it when he barks it).

All I can say about a dog releasing mid fight is that I have never had it happen, but I believe it could and does. For me, it was through some luck, training, and a real strong dog... but, if he would have released, I would have been there to back him up. Dogs are not a be all end all, and you still have to think on your feet. Personal protection, LE, showing in sport. Handler is in control. Dog is a tool.

As far as not being popular, Lou, Pinch collars, E-collars, attention heels, and all kinds of "previously unpopular stuff" are popping up in LE. You know why? Because they work in some instances. I asked for your method, you gonna post it? Go ahead and say a dog in LE can't have an attention heel, and then I'll tell you why, for a high drive dog, it isn't a bad idea.

Lou. With drives, you hear people mention lots of them. I group them into Prey drive, Defense , and Social behaviors. I don't disagree that dogs have a desire to do other things, they just fit pretty neatly under those three areas, and I am not smart enough to keep track of dirty sock drive, towel drive, etc.. 

As far as combat drive, does that describe a dog in a helmet with a rifle with willingness to go into battle, or am I missing the point on that one?

Lou says, I know a trainer who had two single–spaced, pages of drives. He considers that ball drive is different from stick drive is different from tug drive is different from Frisbee drive. Listing them separately allows him to be specific in his rewards and he thinks makes for better training. Since he is the head of LE K-9 training for POST for the state of Utah, I think he may have something to say. 

If you can't hold up your end of the debate, Lou, you lose. No tagging someone else in!!! Dirty debating, you gotta agree. 

Lou says, I don't think that cheap shotting _"reinforces … the out."_ I think it weakens it. 

Dave says, I don't thjnk that either. I think re-biting placed on a variable reward schedule reinforces the out, I also believe it takes some correction occasionally. We really don't know what you think. What do you think?

Earlier Dave wrote, 

And I responded 

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. It looks like _"out, sit, decoy back up, cuff, search, walk back in"_ is a pattern. The only thing that's not a pattern in what you wrote is the bite or rebite. And since in the real world rarely do I want this pattern, I don't even want the dog to begin to think that's what's going to happen. Sometimes I cuff with the dog still attached. Sometimes the dog is in a down, not a sit. Sometimes I recall him. Sometimes I search first, before cuffing. Sometimes I run in, rather than walk in. 

Dave says. This thread is about OUTS not the likelyhood you will use a tactical lift off. Lou, everything starts as a pattern with the dog. That is how he figures out how to manipulate the situation to get a reward, or do the right thing and not get corrected. I didn't spell out well, that in what I listed above is a way to put the bite on a variable reward. Out, sit, decoy back up, (here it changes and I assumed badly that you would get this) step in rebite. Next iteration, out, sit, decoy back up, search, cuff, escort. Next iteration something different. Variable reward, write that down!!!

Driving home, Lou, Me and the boxer enroute to snuggle. Shoot me some feedback if they haven't cancelled your show.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Lou Castle wrote:

"My dog retired in 1985 and that's when my duties as a K-9 handler stopped. I continued on as the department K-9 trainer. I worked several other assignments after my dog retired but on K-9 training nights, no matter where I was assigned, I'd go out and run the training. I was the guy that when someone called with a question about K-9's they got referred to. I filled that position, except on those rare occasions when I'd pissed off a certain Lt. until I was injured and knocked out of it. For quite some time I was going out and running training while on crutches when I was supposed to be IOD, (Injured on Duty) when I was supposed to be recuperating at home. Until the Captain found out and stopped me. That was the first time in the department's history that they hired an outside trainer to do the maintenance training. At one point, the Chief cancelled the unit, he said due to budget concerns, and obviously I wasn't the trainer then. But the residents and the City Council soon got the unit reinstated and I re–assumed the trainer position.

My specialty was and is problem solving. Just before I retired people started asking me to do seminars on various subjects. Some of them for pets but mostly for LE and SAR. I've since done 43 of them across the US and abroad.

So while I only handled one dog, my training history is fairly extensive and varied."


Lou,

Can you please clarify for me. The first, last and only K9 you handled retired in 1985 and (assuming for the sake of this discussion that the
Culver City PD had a "head trainer") you became the head trainer based on your training experience with ONE dog? Was this "head trainer" position something the Chief knew about or did you designate yourself as head trainer since you came out and "ran the training" ? How does handling ONE K9 25 years ago qualify anyone to give training advise on Police K9's much less E-collar training, SAR, Protection Sports and everything else. I know you attended a couple of Fred Hassens seminars but have you had any other education in any dog venue or been the primary trainer for any other K9 or sport handler?


----------



## Dave Colborn

Moderators haven't stopped us, so on I go!!!.

Lou says,
I do a thing that I call substitution drills. Basically I present a "naked" (meaning no protective gear) decoy to the dog. He agitates and then flees. The dog is released. As the decoy rounds a corner either someone in a suit substitutes for him or he may pick up a sleeve and take the dog himself. The dog does not realize, until he's committed to the bite that he's biting either another decoy (in the suit) or that the old decoy (the one who just fled) is now wearing protective gear. The dog sees nothing about gear until he's mid air. He's already committed himself to biting real flesh. That, very realistically simulates real situations. The only thing that I can't duplicate is the taste and feel of the dog biting into real flesh. I'm not dedicated enough to do that! lol. 

Dave says, So your dog is conditioned to bite something that looks like a decoy. He agitates and then runs. That is what a decoy does. What else do you do to get the dog focused on the man? Also, teaching a dog to run around the corner and bite someone else seems flawed...unless its a young dog as I am sure you will back pedal (allude) to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Dave Colborn*  
_I have used this method as well as a hidden sleeve,_

I'm not a fan of the hidden sleeve. You can't safely do realistic training. At some point you have to present the sleeve. I don't think that many dogs, if any, are fooled by the "fat" arm. It looks different and the dogs know it's there. If the decoy presents it as the dog draws near, again, the dog knows it's there. And, because with a hard dog it hurts to get bit many decoys won't fight as hard (so they don't get hurt as much) and that weakens the training. 

Dave says, What is your method again? I am getting a lot of "escape training" here in your posts. I want a reward based discussion where you talk more about what you do, not what not to do. I have seen these methods work, don't need your validation. Another way to put it is, don't tell me what not to do, tell me what TO do. what methods you use. Also, if your decoys are sub par and can't take some pain to make it more realistic for the dog, then they need to think twice about decoying. I am sure your next statement is that I wouldn't catch a police dog you train on a hidden sleeve. They bite too hard. Then I'll say, yes I would and I would set up thoughtful training to do it in, so that the decoy wouldn't get bit off the sleeve (here is where the long line comes in handy again, slick floors too!!) So, let's skip that side bar, and get to "your" method.



Quote:
Originally Posted by *Dave Colborn*  
_stalking, and civil aggression, as well as other "man orientation" drills. They work._

I'm not familiar with your use of the terms "stalking" or "man orientation" drills. Can you please explain? 

OK. All of this is off the thread, but here goes. Once I start explaining it, I am sure you will have done it or seen it. Or, you will back pedal and say you have done it, and don't like it. 

Stalking: Civilly, meaning no equipment. Being very un-decoy like, almost passive, in a dark building, slowly moving toward a dog from a great distance away. Letting the dog meet my threat with barking and backing me down, slowly, after I come almost to him. Letting the dog chase me into a room. Barking at that door, chasing me further, finally getting to a point where the dog gets a bite on a hidden sleeve I slip on, after barking and coming through another closed door. Difference between your method of running away flailing like a decoy is that real bad guys don't flail so much, or so I hear. This one step, supports non-decoy like bad guys.

Man orientation is simple. I described this previously, but will again: Pre requisite to start is the dog having an out comfortable biting many surfaces. Dog on a back tie. Have a decoy with a sleeve, bite jacket and hidden sleeve (you can even have a snuggly coat if you want) Feed an item to the dog, drop it. Out the dog if he needs it, and get him back on the man again, slip the next piece, repeat until the hidden sleeve. Once you get to the hidden sleeve, have the decoy get on the ground with the dog, fight him hard, no matter how much it hurts the decoy...Tactical lift off. repeat. Condition this until the dog outs dropped items quickly. At that point, Lou, you aren't finished. Now you need to condition this behavior until it generalizes to any area the dog goes into. I don't know what the dog is thinking, but what I want is a dog that outs the equipment and goes for the man. You can train a building search, area search, etc, and end with a decoy doing this, on a long line or leash after this is conditioned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Dave Colborn*  
_Ok lou. so which one of the two decoys or the six aren't your backup that you talked about not getting bitten earlier._

Dave the "biting the second decoy" doesn't happen enough that it becomes a habit, and, as I said, it's not the reward for releasing the bite. It only lasts for a few back and forths between the decoy, then things are changed up. 

Lou, you are back pedaling again. You said you didn't use two decoys, and further along in the thread you do. The rest of us pick up methods the same way as you are right now, we just don't start with "I never do _____ with my dog" then adopt it two sentences later in a thread as a training method that we've had for years.


Earlier I wrote, Quote:
[H]opefully misses the handler??????"[/i] Have you had handlers bitten during this training? I've never had a handler bitten by his own dog during training. 
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Dave Colborn*  
_Ever? You have to be kidding, or you have dogs with blank adapters in their mouth. I mean your training would have to be amazing to never have an accidental bite, with dogs and new handlers. Really._

Yes really. Thirty years of training dogs that bite and never had a handler bitten by his own dog during training. Knock wood. I eliminate as much conflict as possible in my work and so the dogs are not in such a mood. 

Dave says, sounds like you have dogs with low drive, without seeing them. I have gotten bit training and had people gotten bit when I was teaching. Not proud of it, don't actually like it, it just happens when you train with a dog that bites.

Lou says, You can do all the counter conditioning you want with suits, sleeves and hidden sleeves. I think that the dog still has the thought in his head that if he takes the sleeve from the decoy the fight is over. I've seen too many deployments where a dog happily brings a jacket back to his handler as the suspect goes over ANOTHER fence.

Dave says, what part of that is counter conditioning. I am conditioning them to bite the man, not the equipment. I agree with you on one part, that the fight is over when the decoy drops the sleeve. Dogs tend to like the bite (back to that crazy theory that a bite rewards a strong dog cause he likes it) and if it is CONDITIONED properly, the dog will drop the dead item and get back on the bite. 

Hope all this adds to material you use in your 44th seminar...Take care.


----------



## Matt Hammond

I train the out on a table.....:-$ (that was for you David)


----------



## David Frost

Matt Hammond said:


> I train the out on a table.....:-$ (that was for you David)



<---------- See David ignoring that comment.. ha ha


----------



## Lou Castle

Looks like Jim didn't read all of my responses to him. Otherwise he'd have noticed that I'd followed his lead and tried to calm things down. Instead he continues the nonsense. Too bad, when he gets personal, as he's done again, there's really not much that anyone is going to learn. 



Jim Nash said:


> Lou , you've out done yourself in your attempt to put me on the defensive with your spinning and twisting of things here . No way I'm falling for that . Like I said before that's a clever technique you've learned to make those you are debating look weak . Nice try though . LMAO , ROTFL .
> 
> Your spinning and twisting skills haven't changed with age that's for sure . You've perfected them in you retirement . LOL.


I'm sure Jim that people have noticed that YOU are the one spinning and twisting. I'm sure that they're also noticed that you have failed to provide EVEN ONE instance of me doing so in spite of being asked repeatedly for an example of it. When I make the claim, I show your words. When you claim I've done it you show nothing. Just the accusation without the evidence! 



Jim Nash said:


> It was fun though seeing you spin , twist , feel insulted , and play the victim .


In the instance of my dog failing to bite _I was the victim. _ I wasn't playing one. Just as Mike–Ernie was your victim! In my case, poor training gave me a dog that had would not bite someone who was not wearing equipment. Just as poor selection had Mike–Ernie working with a dog that would not control a suspect. The difference? I was a brand new handler and others had trained my dog. While you were supposed to be _"the experienced trainer"_ putting out sound dogs. But we can see that you failed and as an indirect result, an officer was seriously injured. 



Jim Nash said:


> All things you do in almost every lengthy debate you have ever been in . It was even funnier seeing you get mad because the same techniques you used were being used against you .


ROFL. Jim if you think that I _"got mad?"_ You greatly overestimate your importance and your effectiveness. 



Jim Nash said:


> The more you type the more of an internet sensation you become . No PSD's out there to show that you can do or had what you say .


Yep. I was training police dogs for my department probably about the time you were in high school and so most of them are gone now . Only an idiot would think there's something untoward about that. 

I can supply many references to handlers whose dogs are still working that I've worked with. Wondering if can you do the same outside your own department? My influence has spread to 33 cities in 18 states, and three foreign countries (Canada, The UK and Spain). That's how many places I've done seminars and workshops. How about you Jim? 



Jim Nash said:


> Just alot of words typed out on a computer screen about how good you are/were .


Another lie. I've talked about my results. If people think they're good, that's up to them. There are plenty of people who have written what they think about my methods. Some of their letters are on my website. 

We've seen the quality of your work. A dog that failed to stop a suspect and that failure got a handler a serious injury! 



Jim Nash said:


> Guys got to have his fantacies I guess . ROTFLMAO .


You mentioned that you'd done a few seminars. How many have you done? How many seminars have you been asked to come back and teach again the next year they were given? Thirteen of my 43 seminars have been repeats, done for the same seminar sponsor. If I was only a trainer on the Net how would these be possible? I'm sure that you'll have some excuse. ROFL. 



Jim Nash said:


> 5 1/2 years as a K9 handler with a K9 that wouldn't bite .


Here's ANOTHER example of your attempt to twist the truth. The reality is _"5 1/2 years with a K-9 that wouldn't bite"_* ONLY on his first deployment. * That's a bit different than the lie you just told. But AGAIN, nice try. AGAIN you're caught in a lie. 



Jim Nash said:


> Then the rest as a trainer then you were replaced as a trainer


This time you're caught in a lie by omission. I was ONLY replaced as the trainer when I was injured and could no longer do that work. The hits they just keep a coming. 



Jim Nash said:


> . Sounds like they had alot of faith in you .


They sure did. Just about EVERY other agency in this area contracted with their vendor to do their maintenance training. My department didn't do that for about twenty years that I was the trainer. 



Jim Nash said:


> I'm not sure how you could be as good as you say and then they just have you replaced like that .


How stupid are you? I sustained an injury such that I was on crutches and could no longer take bites. But even then I was going out to training and running it until the captain found out and ordered me not to. I was supposed to be going to physical therapy and recuperating at home. I can supply his phone number if you'd like to verify! I was off for quite a while with a string of injuries. They'd have been stupid not to do maintainence training while I was recuperating. 



Jim Nash said:


> You said trained 15 PSD's in that time . Isn't that a 3-5 dog K9 unit you trained . That's alot of K9's in that period . What's up with that ?


_"What's up"_ is that the Chief didn't let anyone stay in K-9's longer than about five years before he rotated them out. K-9 was the longest assignment on the department. Most of them were only three years. Only one handler stayed longer than me and that was only by a few months. 



Jim Nash said:


> Seems like luck wasn't on your side in the K9 career department . Karma maybe .


Are you crazy? I had a loooooong run as K-9 trainer for my department. I'd probably still be there if not for the injuries. 



Jim Nash said:


> I'm going to steal a line from someone else that described you . Missed it by that much !


Didn't miss it at all Jim. I was right on target for about two decades! 



Jim Nash said:


> Lou , I'm sure you are going to have alot more to say on this ..


Jim I'll respond every time you write. Especially when it's a BS personal attack, like this. 



Jim Nash said:


> BUT , No matter how much you type , how much you quote and spin , our dogs will still be out there being VERY successful like they have for many years and will continue to be and improve .


As I wrote before, I'm sure that you're right. Also as I said before, I wish you every success. I just hope that you've learned something from our exchange and will not in the future field weak dogs who lack confidence and courage. But this is doubtful since you seem to think that you did everything correctly. Trouble is, anyone who watches the video of this dog's performance knows better. Many forum members have already told you so, but you were so busy trying to CYA you didn't even notice. 



Jim Nash said:


> This is even though we don't train like you .


Neither you, nor anyone else is required to as I've several times now. Best of luck with your methods. You might want to take a look at my article on the selection of dogs for police work. It's obvious that you need some help there. I'd have rejected that dog long before he even entered training, saving much time that could be devoted to dogs that ARE suited for LE work. 



Jim Nash said:


> That's a fact you can try as you like to change from behind a keyboard but it's one easily proven wrong by us out here actually doing it protecting the Officers and Citizens we serve .


I'd suggest that you keep up the good work and eliminate, the weak work. Why you think that I'm trying to change something at your agency is a mystery. I've given up on you learning anything. It's crystal clear that YOU are the one with the closed mind in this discussion. 

I'm sure that most have noticed, but for those who have not, I'll point out that I've asked you many questions that you've evaded and avoided. You know that answering questions that I pose will show you to be weak and so you hide from them. Just like the avoidance that a weak dog sometimes shows by pretending that an opponent isn't there! 

Those questions are still out there Jim. Still waiting to be answered. Only the weak hide from questions. Notice that I've answered every one of yours and Dave's. You OTOH, hide from mine, EVEN FURTHER weakening yourself and your argument.


----------



## Lou Castle

Jody Butler said:


> This thread is getting better and better!


Like a car crash, it's hard to look away.


----------



## Lou Castle

Dave Colborn said:


> I am having trouble going through all the posts that you put on here to find all the inconsistencies


You're welcome to look all you like Dave. You won't find anything of significance. 



Dave Colborn said:


> Now we're training!!!


Not really Dave. You're searching for comments to try and discredit me. It's been tried before. Doubters abound. 
Earlier I wrote,


> What is "my way of thinking" and why is it "dangerous?"





Dave Colborn said:


> What is your way of thinking? It appears to be what suits you in a given post. You talked about the dog self rewarding with a bite, after you clearly stated a few posts back that there are no reward bites in "your" training method. SOOOO, which is it. Is the dog self rewarding, by nipping (a form of biting), thereby nullifying your argument about there not being rewards in your system??


Dave YOU were talking about YOUR method of training. And so for the sake of the argument I assumed YOUR theory of how it works. I don't agree with it. I used your language and theory to illustrate the problem with your method. 



Dave Colborn said:


> I was unable to log in to the forum with your extensive post on "your" method.


You may have to log in or register to read it. 



Dave Colborn said:


> Is it so sneaky and secretive that no one in the US will post it?


ROFL. It's not come up anywhere that I recall except on that forum when I was interested enough to write it up. Interesting how you characterize it as _"sneaky and secretive."_ LOTS of forums require that people sign in to read the posts. 

I've discussed it at length with people on the phone and it may have been posted elsewhere but I don't recall. I did recall that one. Do or don't register on that forum as you see fit. Otherwise you'll have to wait till I get it done and put up on my site. 



Dave Colborn said:


> You don't have a link to it on your own website that we can look at?


It's not completed yet. When it is, I'll put up a link in this thread. 



Dave Colborn said:


> Lou, come on. Do you spend time on the internet to try and get the next unknowing training group …


Most people have read my training advice either on forums or on my website, for quite some time before they ask for a seminar. Many of them do quite a bit of background checking on me, including calling references that I send them if they ask. They're hardly _"unknowing"_ as you pretend. 



Dave Colborn said:


> … to have you out for your 44th seminar in 24 years?


My first seminar was in 1996. That would be 43 seminars in *13 *years, not 24 years as you've stated. LOL. *Love *the way your attempts to diminish me keep backfiring! You'd be best to go back to talking about training instead of wasting our time with this nonsense. But keep it up if you like, it's just bringing me more business. I got an email asking about a seminar as a direct result of this conversation two days ago . Thanks! 

BTW are you the Dave Colborn who works for/with Jerry Bradshaw? 

I wonder why you folks simply can't stick to training topics, instead of the consistent personal attacks. Oh well … 



Dave Colborn said:


> Am I a part of a big marketing ploy that I am unaware of? If you have the 2500 word post, why don't you put it on here so we can read your method?


No need to duplicate things Dave, especially since that's the short version. If you can't wait for me to finish it, I suggest that you register for that forum and read it there. Time spent in answering seemingly endless questions about my history and correcting your false assumptions mean that I'm not working on the article for you to read. 



Dave Colborn said:


> Dangerous, Lou, because you have a lot of "I did this and that," a lot of "I tried that method or saw it tried, and it didn't work" Back in 85, with an admitted lack of knowledge that you mention here, in other posts.


My K-9 education and experience, the _"I did this and that"_ is spread out over 30 years of working dogs Dave, not just what happened in 1985. I'd have thought that you'd be aware of that. Seems like common sense to me. 



Dave Colborn said:


> I saw a few of your pet dog clients who were pleased.


You _"saw"_ them? Where did you see them? 

If you visit the testimonial page on my website [CLICK HERE] you'll see quite a few letters from people who like my methods. One is from the head of a pretty large LE K-9 team. Mostly they're from pet owners who have found the website and used the articles to train their dogs to their satisfaction. Some are from SAR people who have been to one of my seminars and seen the work for themselves. They've seen how well the methods work on their own dogs! Which is really the best test of how good a method is. 



Dave Colborn said:


> This actually speaks more to me about how well you are doing as a trainer than any of your posts, except it is pet dog folks and the discussion is about police dogs. Doggone it, I think I just gave your business a plug!!!


Why would you say _"Doggone it"_ Dave? If you think that the work is good why would you not want to give me a plug? 

Earlier I wrote,


> My dog retired in 1985 … I re–assumed the trainer position.





Dave Colborn said:


> when were you injured and knocked out of the trainer spot? 1986?


About 1997. ROFL. 



Dave Colborn said:


> And were you really the "trainer" if you weren't assigned there and just showed up, or a wanna be K9 guy?


I'll first suggest that you read what I've written. Then if you have difficulty in believing it call the department and ask. I'll be happy to give you the names of the people who would know. 



Dave Colborn said:


> Got any comments from those seminars any feedback you can post? 43 seminars over 24 years you should have something.


They occurred, as I said, over 13 years, not 24. There are some comments from seminar goers on my website. I gave the link a few graphs back. The fact that 13 of those seminars have been repeats, one of them three times (and I've been invited back for a fourth time) should tell you something, just by itself. 




Dave Colborn said:


> Also, 43 seminars in LE and SAR is vague and, well....weird.


How is it _"vague and … weird?"_ And just to straighten you out that's 43 seminars total, not as you've said _"43 … in LE and SAR."_ Twenty five of those seminars have involved SAR people at one level of another. Thirty–two of them involved LE at some level. But neither group found anything _"vague [or] weird"_ about them. 



Dave Colborn said:


> Have you ever trained a SAR dog, or just talked about it??


Never trained one start to finish. Never claimed to either. As I've said quite a few times, I do problem solving. I was a police K-9 handler and trainer not a SAR volunteer. But since the training and the problems are similar, I started working with those dogs too. Do you think that there's some difference between SAR dogs and LE dogs besides what the dog is supposed to do as an alert? If so, please let us know.


----------



## Lou Castle

Dave Colborn said:


> so in LE, you don't care what the dog is doing? but you do care what he is thinking?


Conveniently you edited out the pertinent comment. I'll show it to you again, highlighting the pertinent part. 

Earlier I wrote,


> In competition the concern is for what the dog is doing, basically what he _"looks like"_, *not as much *as what he's thinking, as it should be in LE.


Can you show me where it says in that statement that we're NOT concerned in LE for what the dog is doing? It's clear that we're concerned with BOTH in LE. While in the sports the focus is on what the dog is doing, just about exclusively. 



Dave Colborn said:


> I haven't spoken to mine since this morning


Very cute Dave. It sounds as if you're pretending that trainers can't read a dog. Perhaps some can't. I'm told that I'm pretty good at it. There's a letter about my abilities along these lines on my website. 



Dave Colborn said:


> All I can say about a dog releasing mid fight is that I have never had it happen, but I believe it could and does.


I've seen it. And the fact that you admit _"it could and does"_ happen, seems to me to be plenty of reason why those in LE should not use this method. It's a completely acceptable technique for some sports since the decoy is not going to touch the dog's collar. In some sports they may. But once the dog gets it into his head it may be hard to get out. I don't see any reason to use a method that might cause problems that then have to be fixed. Seems like a waste of time to me. If it works you're gold. But if the problem arises you might be poop. A handler might be placed in danger because the issue might not come up in training. It might show up during a real deployment. The dog might release the bite prematurely, before the handler wanted him to, placing everyone at the scene, including the suspect, at risk. 



Dave Colborn said:


> As far as not being popular, Lou, Pinch collars, E-collars, attention heels, and all kinds of "previously unpopular stuff" are popping up in LE. You know why? Because they work in some instances.


None of those things, except the attention heeling are unpopular with me. Never have been. 



Dave Colborn said:


> I asked for your method, you gonna post it?


Already have, on another forum. You gonna register? 



Dave Colborn said:


> Go ahead and say a dog in LE can't have an attention heel, and then I'll tell you why, for a high drive dog, it isn't a bad idea.


I'd never say that he _"can't."_ Just that I think it's a bad idea. 



Dave Colborn said:


> As far as combat drive, does that describe a dog in a helmet with a rifle with willingness to go into battle, or am I missing the point on that one?


Yep, you are. Lol. 

Earlier I wrote,


> I know a trainer who had two single–spaced, pages of drives. He considers that ball drive is different from stick drive is different from tug drive is different from Frisbee drive. Listing them separately allows him to be specific in his rewards and he thinks makes for better training. Since he is the head of LE K-9 training for POST for the state of Utah, I think he may have something to say.





Dave Colborn said:


> If you can't hold up your end of the debate, Lou, you lose. No tagging someone else in!!! Dirty debating, *you gotta agree. * [Emphasis added]


No agreement. You were saying that you only use a relatively small number of drives. I merely said that others use a lot more and manage to do very well. That trainer isn't debating for me. I do just fine by myself, thanks. 

Earlier I wrote,


> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. It looks like _"out, sit, decoy back up, cuff, search, walk back in"_ is a pattern. The only thing that's not a pattern in what you wrote is the bite or rebite. And since in the real world rarely do I want this pattern, I don't even want the dog to begin to think that's what's going to happen. Sometimes I cuff with the dog still attached. Sometimes the dog is in a down, not a sit. Sometimes I recall him. Sometimes I search first, before cuffing. Sometimes I run in, rather than walk in.


Dave seems to have missed the first sentence in that paragraph and he managed to leave this out.


> But as I said, perhaps I misunderstood something in your description.





Dave Colborn said:


> This thread is about OUTS not the likelyhood you will use a *tactical lift off. *Lou, everything starts as a pattern with the dog. [Emphasis added]


What you described was not _"starting"_ work. 

Not sure why you mentioned _"tactical lift offs"_ but as an aside, I find it hilarious that people refer to taking the dog off a bite by using his collar to lift him, depriving him of air so that he releases the bite as _"tactical." _ There's nothing tactical about it. In fact it requires the handler to leave cover and concealment go to where the bite is occurring and use at least one hand, to grab the dog's collar. This happens BEFORE the suspect has been searched. It's a JOKE that people call this _"tactical."_ I first heard this described as "taking the dog off strong" or "… off hard." I think those terms are much more appropriate and descriptive.


----------



## Lou Castle

Thomas Barriano said:


> Can you please clarify for me. The first, last and only K9 you handled retired in 1985 and (assuming for the sake of this described that the Culver City PD had a "head trainer")


The term _"head trainer"_ implies that there was more than one trainer at work for the department. There wasn't. There was just me. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> you became the head trainer based on your training experience with ONE dog?


No Thomas. I became _"the trainer"_ based on having maintained three, and at times four, dogs for quite a few years and doing much problem solving with the dogs of other departments. I spent lots of my own time in training with other agencies, particularly LAPD who had at that time, a trainer who is still one of the best LE K-9 trainers around. I spend hundreds of hours with him. Watching him train, having him watch me and picking his brain. I also spent lots of time with many other trainers as well. I also read lots of books, went to lots of seminars and lots of trainings put on by other departments and made lots of phone calls asking questions and learning various ways of getting things done. The dogs that the kennels gave us were not very highly trained (as can be seen from the experiences I've already discussed) and the only support we got from the kennels was a four hour ridealong with one of our handlers. And so I made it my mission to bring the dogs up to speed. 

Handling three or four dogs in succession does not make one into a trainer. That person is still a handler. Unless he's interested in going further and becoming a trainer (few handlers are) he only learns enough to work his own dogs. He's likely to know more than someone who's only handled one dog, all other things being equal, but that still doesn’t make him a trainer. 

That transition from handler to trainer takes desire, application, studying under other trainers, learning and understanding learning theory, reading and attending seminars. It's relatively easy to become a handler. Things are "fed" to you at school. Becoming a trainer means that the individual has to go out and learn a lot more than just handling. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> Was this "head trainer" position something the Chief knew about or did you designate yourself as head trainer since you came out and "ran the training" ?


I've NEVER said that I was _"the Head Trainer."_ I see that you've mastered the art of the Straw Man argument. ROFL. 

Since the Chief often called me in to ask about the K-9 program, I'll have to say that that he knew. He didn't call the other handlers in to query them. Since I wrote him internal memos every week describing the work that we'd done at K-9 training, I'd bet that he read at least, some of them. The headings on those memos read "TO: Chief of Police." And "FROM: Lou Castle, *K-9 trainer." *

And since another Chief of Police, the one who wrote my official retirement letter, said, in that letter,


> Sergeant Castle has worked a myriad of assignments within the department including that of K-9 Handler *and Trainer, *Range Master, and Personnel and Training … [Emphasis added]


 I'll have to say that he knew as well. 

That would be TWO Chiefs of Police who knew that I was the department trainer. How many do you think I need? 



Thomas Barriano said:


> How does handling ONE K9 25 years ago qualify anyone to give training advise on Police K9's much less E-collar training, SAR, Protection Sports and everything else.


It doesn’t. You'd like people to believe that all I did was to _"handle one K-9"_. The truth is that I started down the road to learning to train dogs in my first week of being a handler when I discovered that one of our dogs was gun shy. He ran from a shooting incident. I was on the phone to the kennel the next day asking about it. Asking how to determine if it was an isolated incident or it was part of his makeup. I asked if it could be fixed and if so, how to accomplish it. But I didn't stop there, I queried many trainers with the same questions. At that time I had no family to worry about it, so was just me and the dogs. I spent lots of my own time on it. I've been on that road for about 30 years now. Training dogs for LE is something I consider to be a sacred trust. The thought of someone getting hurt because I screwed something up is not something I want on my conscience. 

BTW I rarely give advice in the sports unless it's something that I specifically know about. I don't compete in any of them. They never appealed to me. Not knocking them, They just hold no interest for me. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> I know you attended a couple of Fred Hassens seminars


No, Thomas you're WRONG AGAIN. ROFL. I attended ONE of his seminars. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> but have you had any other education in any dog venue or been the primary trainer for any other K9 or sport handler?


Is anyone else around here required to submit their resume before they're allowed to give advice? I don't think so. I see no need to either. In any case, I've been to lots of schools and lots of seminars and spent lots of time learning from experienced trainers. But none of that really makes any difference. The only thing that counts is what I can do with the dogs that I work with today and the ones that will come along tomorrow. I offer my private clients a money back guarantee if, for any reason, they're not satisfied. I've never been asked for a refund. How many trainer do you know that do that? 

I think I've been more than accommodating in answering questions about my work history, my training history, my personal history, my experience, and just about anything else that people have asked about, whether it was on topic or not. I haven't seen anyone else being questioned about this sort of thing at this length or depth. If anyone wants to talk training, I'm more than happy to. But I'm pretty much through with discussing this kinda stuff unless someone can show me why it's pertinent to the discussion.


----------



## Lou Castle

Dave Colborn said:


> So your dog is conditioned to bite something that looks like a decoy.


What does it mean for someone to "look like a decoy?" I want my decoys to look like "everyman." I don't want a dog keying on someone because of "how he looks." I want attention based on "what he does." But maybe this is just a difference in jargon. 



Dave Colborn said:


> What else do you do to get the dog focused on the man?


Lots of muzzle work after the dog is desensitized to it. 



Dave Colborn said:


> Also, teaching a dog to run around the corner and bite someone else seems flawed... unless its a young dog as I am sure you will back pedal (allude) to.


Nope no backpedaling. How does it "seem flawed?" Don't crooks in your neck of the woods ever run around corners? And this is rarely done with _"young dogs."_ I consider it to be advanced work. 

Earlier I wrote,


> I'm not a fan of the hidden sleeve. You can't safely do realistic training. At some point you have to present the sleeve. I don't think that many dogs, if any, are fooled by the "fat" arm. It looks different and the dogs know it's there. If the decoy presents it as the dog draws near, again, the dog knows it's there. And, because with a hard dog it hurts to get bit many decoys won't fight as hard (so they don't get hurt as much) and that weakens the training.





Dave Colborn said:


> What is your method again?


Are you talking about my method of getting the out? If so, you know where it's posted. I've sent you the link. You can either register on that forum and read it or wait until I'm done writing it up. Now you're just nagging and I resist that. 



Dave Colborn said:


> I am getting a lot of "escape training" here in your posts.


Escape training in general terms is where a dog does something to escape discomfort. . In Ecollar work it's specific to stopping a stim. I have yet to see escape training being discussed here. 



Dave Colborn said:


> I want a reward based discussion where you talk more about what you do, not what not to do.


Knowing what NOT to do is just as important as knowing what to do. 



Dave Colborn said:


> I have seen these methods work, don't need your validation.


I've seen them fail and what's worse cause problems that are difficult to fix. I don't need your validation either. 



Dave Colborn said:


> Another way to put it is, don't tell me what not to do, tell me what TO do. what methods you use.


Already showed you where to find the article on my method of getting the out. 



Dave Colborn said:


> Also, if your decoys are sub par and can't take some pain to make it more realistic for the dog, then they need to think twice about decoying.


No need for them to. Decoys are hard enough to come by without hurting them. Especially when the tool has little useful purpose anyway. Are you dogs so blind, so stupid that they don't recognize when someone is wearing a hidden sleeve? Since they can plainly see the sleeve, isn't calling it _"hidden"_ a misnomer? 



Dave Colborn said:


> I am sure your next statement is that I wouldn't catch a police dog you train on a hidden sleeve. They bite too hard. Then I'll say, yes I would and I would set up thoughtful training to do it in, so that the decoy wouldn't get bit off the sleeve (here is where the long line comes in handy again, slick floors too!!) So, let's skip that side bar, and get to "your" method.


I'd never say anything of the sort. So much for your anticipation. LOL. 

As to my method. Since you keep asking for it I'll say AGAIN that you know how to get to it. 

Earlier I wrote,


> I'm not familiar with your use of the terms "stalking" or "man orientation" drills. Can you please explain?





Dave Colborn said:


> OK. All of this is off the thread,


You brought up the terms, not me. 



Dave Colborn said:


> but here goes. Once I start explaining it, I am sure you will have done it or seen it.


Perhaps. 



Dave Colborn said:


> Or, you will back pedal and say you have done it, and don't like it.


Perhaps. You seem to be fond of forgetting that I've been training dogs for 30 years. Anyone else would realize that since I've been across the country training and learning that I've used most techniques or at least seen them done. The only things that's significantly different is the terminology that's used by various trainers. They frequently vary from trainer to trainer and from region to region. 



Dave Colborn said:


> Stalking: Civilly, meaning no equipment. Being very un-decoy like, almost passive, in a dark building, slowly moving toward a dog from a great distance away. Letting the dog meet my threat with barking and backing me down, slowly, after I come almost to him. Letting the dog chase me into a room. Barking at that door, chasing me further, finally getting to a point where the dog gets a bite on a hidden sleeve I slip on, after barking and coming through another closed door.


You were right. Done that. I don't call it "stalking." I call it "civil work." 



Dave Colborn said:


> Difference between your method of running away flailing like a decoy


Where did you ever get the idea that these decoys _"run away flailing?"_ 



Dave Colborn said:


> is that real bad guys don't flail so much, or so I hear.


Yes I know. That's why I only use that technique with beginning dogs. I can't imagine why you'd say such a thing. Looks like another of your false assumptions. 



Dave Colborn said:


> Man orientation is simple. I described this previously, but will again: Pre requisite to start is the dog having an out comfortable biting many surfaces. Dog on a back tie. Have a decoy with a sleeve, bite jacket and hidden sleeve (you can even have a snuggly coat if you want) Feed an item to the dog, drop it. Out the dog if he needs it, and get him back on the man again,


I have no need of this because I don't slip equipment except in very rare circumstances. I don't have to refocus the dog on the man because I don't focus him on dropped or slipped equipment in the first place. 



Dave Colborn said:


> Lou, you are back pedaling again. You said you didn't use two decoys, and further along in the thread you do.


No Dave, you're wrong. I said that I don't use *the two decoy reward system. * NOT that I didn't use two decoys. IN FACT I clearly said that my method uses two decoys. I'm sorry that you're missing the details in what I write but that's where the devil is, in the details. Your attempts to discredit me just aren't working. YOU are missing the details of what I'm saying. It's NOT that I'm contradicting myself. 



Dave Colborn said:


> sounds like you have dogs with low drive, without seeing them.


Another false assumption. I've never cared for low drive dogs. For patrol I like dogs that are high in fight drive, medium or low in prey and low or absent in defense. 

But even if you thought I had low drive dogs, it's silly to think that ALL of the dogs of the 145 domestic LE agencies that I've worked with were _"low drive."_ Low drive dogs rarely have issues outing, one of the most common problems that I'm called in on. 

Earlier I wrote,


> You can do all the counter conditioning you want with suits, sleeves and hidden sleeves. I think that the dog still has the thought in his head that if he takes the sleeve from the decoy the fight is over. I've seen too many deployments where a dog happily brings a jacket back to his handler as the suspect goes over ANOTHER fence.





Dave Colborn said:


> what part of that is counter conditioning.


When you slip sleeves or other equipment the dog learns that he's biting equipment not the man. The counter conditioning comes when you must refocus the dog on the man. 



Dave Colborn said:


> I am conditioning them to bite the man, not the equipment.


I don't think so if you're slipping equipment regularly. Since dogs rarely rip extremities off humans during real situations, when they take off a piece of equipment they've got a win as far as they're concerned. Have you never seen a dog proudly carrying a sleeve around that a decoy has slipped, all the while ignoring the decoy? 



Dave Colborn said:


> Hope all this adds to material you use in your 44th seminar...Take care.


Nothing useful yet. But I'm still hopeful.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Holy shit Lou, you sure can type. LOL


----------



## Candy Eggert

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Holy shit Lou, you sure can type. LOL


I've been timed out of this forum reading this thread  More than once!


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Holy shit Lou, you sure can type. LOL



Damn skippy Jeff. I give myself a headache just trying to read all the replies. Forget about keeping track of all the sub threads and nit picking little details. Can you imagine what a major cluster fuk this list would be if everyone was this anal?


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Candy Eggert said:


> I've been timed out of this forum reading this thread  More than once!


HI Candy, 
That's what happens when someone insists on writing
paragraphs to answer questions that only require a simple yes or no or dissects a post into single sentences and then writes multi paragraph responses. I can't keep up with the nonsense, so I'm not even going to try anymore. I'll just train and title
my dogs and listen to the people that do likewise.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Lou says, "BTW are you the Dave Colborn who works for/with Jerry Bradshaw? "

I've never been called "the Dave Colborn" before!!! It's got a ring. 

Dave, just Dave, sometimes late for dinner.........but,.. I digress...

Cut and paste your 2500 word method, Lou. You seem good at the cutting and the pasting. Or are you trying to get readers on this forum to join that other website?

Lou. I have a lot of questions from that last post as well as the other posts, but there really is only one way to finish this thread this as I see it, between you and I, since you refuse to post your "method". 


*Anyone have two dogs with real out problems and a moderator to report Lou's and my results??? I'll take the time off, Lou. I'm calling you out. High noon, no hits below the belt, no shenanigans or tom foolery.*

Oh, and Lou. The dogs have to still bite when they are done. Otherwise it doesn't count.

Thank you all for viewing the my small part of this thread, or as I like to think of it, "The jackass and the trainer: Which one is which?" 

By the way, Lou, I am not calling you a jackass there (I am concerned as I apparently have an impact on you personally{taking time away from your new article to answer my questions} that I don't want to turn into hurt feelings), I was making a funny, sort of at both of our expenses. Just want to clarify ahead of time. That is why I said which one is which, and not Lou and Dave. Sorry if I offend, but I am OUT unless you wanna step up to the plate!!

(I am sorry for pulling any attention away from real training issues with MY shenanigans, but I gotta say, I really was looking forward to Lou's replies for a while)


----------



## Lou Castle

Thomas Barriano said:


> Damn skippy Jeff. I give myself a headache just trying to read all the replies. Can you imagine what a major cluster fuk this list would be if everyone was this anal?


It's called attention to detail Thomas. You night not realize it but it's necessary to good training. Try some aspirin for those headaches. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> HI Candy,
> That's what happens when someone insists on writing
> paragraphs to answer questions that only require a simple yes or no


Thomas would prefer that I answer his questions "yes" or "no" because doing so answers his question but does not explain the truth of the situation. He doesn’t want the truth to come out because he knows that it proves that I have an extensive background and history in dog training. I've embarrassed him so often in discussions of dog training that he rarely engages in them with me any more. Instead he prefers the personal attacks as we can see from his recent posts. NOT ONE WORD about the topic. All about me! 



Thomas Barriano said:


> or dissects a post into single sentences and then writes multi paragraph responses.


Yep. I love showing the truth, even though it might take more than a few words. As always Thomas you're not required to read my posts and I believe that several times you've said that you weren't going to any more. But we know that you're not a man of your word so I expect quite a bit more nonsense like this from you. 



Thomas Barriano said:


> I can't keep up with the nonsense, so I'm not even going to try anymore. I'll just train and title my dogs and listen to the people that do likewise.


ONCE AGAIN Thomas tells us that he's not going to participate in a thread with me. We'll see. ROFLMAO. I wish you much success in titling your dogs.


----------



## Dave Colborn

*Re: OUT*

Lou says, "BTW are you the Dave Colborn who works for/with Jerry Bradshaw? "

I've never been called "the Dave Colborn" before!!! It's got a ring. 

Dave, just Dave, sometimes late for dinner.........but,.. I digress...

Cut and paste your 2500 word method, Lou. You seem good at the cutting and the pasting. Or are you trying to get readers on this forum to join that other website?

Lou. I have a lot of questions from that last post as well as the other posts, but there really is only one way to finish this thread this as I see it, between you and I, since you refuse to post your "method". 


*Anyone have two dogs with real out problems and a moderator to report Lou's and my results??? I'll take the time off, Lou. I'm calling you out. High noon, no hits below the belt, no shenanigans or tom foolery.*

Oh, and Lou. The dogs have to still bite when they are done. Otherwise it doesn't count.

Thank you all for viewing the my small part of this thread, or as I like to think of it, "The jackass and the trainer: Which one is which?" 

By the way, Lou, I am not calling you a jackass there (I am concerned as I apparently have an impact on you personally{taking time away from your new article to answer my questions} that I don't want to turn into hurt feelings), I was making a funny, sort of at both of our expenses. Just want to clarify ahead of time. That is why I said which one is which, and not Lou and Dave. Sorry if I offend, but I am OUT unless you wanna step up to the plate!!

(I am sorry for pulling any attention away from real training issues with MY shenanigans, but I gotta say, I really was looking forward to Lou's replies for a while)


----------



## Steve Strom

It's not 2500 words, but Mr. Castle gave a little insight to his method in this post:


> *Re: training out without losing interest*
> I don't train an out! I do train a recall. When the dog recalls, he bring his teeth along with him.
> 
> I think the method used matters as to whether it's applied to a police dog or a sport dog. A PPD should be trained the same way as the police dog. I'm not a fan of using a toy, treats or some other reward for this as it takes the dog out of combat drive. I prefer that he stay in combat the whole time he's working.
> 
> I'm also not a fan of the "rebite method" where the philosophy is to give the dog another bite as a reward for releasing the one he's on. That can result in a dangerous situation for other police officers on the scene as the dog can come off the bite looking for another bite and it's a target–rich–environment.
> 
> I’m also not a fan of methods that wait until the dog gets tired of biting and then stops because of boredom or the pain that a very long bite can bring.
> 
> This method keeps the dog in a combat drive, rather than having him shift into pack drive (as would be the case if this recall was an OB command). It's moderately involved and the description is a fairly long read, I'll probably have to split it into several posts, but if anyone is interested I'll go into it.
> __________________
> Regards,
> 
> Lou Castle, Los Angeles, CA


It's post 26 from this thread:
http://www.workingdogforum.com/vBulletin/f11/training-out-without-losing-interest-10245/index3.html


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Thomas Barriano said:


> .... Can you imagine what a major cluster fuk this list would be if everyone was this anal?




Can you imagine what a thread it would be if it was actually about the topic?

What IS IT with the constant personal attacks?! Boring, and stupid, and pre-adolescent, and totally predictable ..... Did we mention boring?

How about everyone who just can't reply to someone else putting that person on your "ignore" list.


Love and hugs, 
All of us on the Mod Squad


----------

