# Extreme Puppy Agility



## Jose Alberto Reanto

A 10-month old female pup learning to work on handler's signals.



Enjoy!!!


----------



## Andres Martin

You guys do such good work! Thanks a million for sharing.


----------



## Lacey Vessell

Great job! I definitely like the fact that the handler was willing to give verbal reassurance to the pup right before the turn around to come back. The handler might not have been verbal, but while watching it I found myself saying " easy...easy..."


----------



## Greg Long

Al,

Good work! :lol: 

Do you continue to refine the handler's signals making them more and more subtle?


----------



## Andy Andrews

Simply breathtaking. 




Andy.


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

Thanks, guys...

Yes, Greg. It's more subtle now. In that workout the handler was being guided on body movements and signals the pup will clearly understand. The team must act as one and he was having difficulties with that at first. We may have to incorporate article searches in that workout very soon.

Best regards...


----------



## Mike Burke

Very nice....Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Daniel Cox

*very impressive*

I think that is very impressive. I do not want this to sound wrong but what is the purpose of this exercise? I know the ablilty to climb and cross boards would be nice. The video looks to be very dangerous for the dog. One wrong slip and the dog could break his back or something else. I know we all try to train for real world situations but I see no real world situation that a dog needs the ability to to climb around in a roof/celing. This is just my opinion. In my opinion a working dog can be taught to do just about anything but I like to limit the risk to the dog. Good dogs are very hard to come by and I do not like to put mine in a situation that would injure him.


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

*Re: very impressive*



Daniel Cox said:


> I think that is very impressive. I do not want this to sound wrong but what is the purpose of this exercise? I know the ablilty to climb and cross boards would be nice. The video looks to be very dangerous for the dog. One wrong slip and the dog could break his back or something else. I know we all try to train for real world situations but I see no real world situation that a dog needs the ability to to climb around in a roof/celing. This is just my opinion. In my opinion a working dog can be taught to do just about anything but I like to limit the risk to the dog. Good dogs are very hard to come by and I do not like to put mine in a situation that would injure him.


Hello Daniel, there are several threads here where these kind of exercises were discussed. Let me help you with the links:

http://www.workingdogforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=1947

http://www.workingdogforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=2375

Hope it helps...

Best regards...


----------



## Connie Sutherland

*Re: very impressive*



Jose Alberto Reanto said:


> links:
> http://www.workingdogforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=2375
> ......


That thread, at least the way I understood it, addresses situations in which the dog and handler are going through such exercises together. 

QUOTE from the referenced thread: 
QUOTE: I believe Greg's basic point is that training should be a shared experience, where the handler feels the "rough" spots as well as the dog, and they eventually understand each other better. END


----------



## Lyn Chen

But...how would you deal with a situation where a dog slips and falls off?


----------



## Tim Martens

Lyn Chen said:


> But...how would you deal with a situation where a dog slips and falls off?


easy. you stop the camera, back up the tape, and start recording again with a different dog...


----------



## Lyn Chen

More than some people ( :lol: ), I know the benefits of these exercises, but not to the extent that you could potentially put a dog in danger. Even teaching my dog to climb a ladder I have to watch that I'm there for him to fall on. I have seen some puppy obedience of this nature where the puppy is being taught to walk across the cement railing of a highway bridge (if he fell the other way, he'd be dead and ran over as soon as he touches the ground); wouldn't a park bench in a busy street suffice? 

I understand these dogs, started early, are light on their feet...but the question remains, in the case of an accident, will this be the kind of accident that could *really* hurt a dog? (Even cats fall off rooftops!) My other fear is that because this kind of training likes to point out the 'reality' aspect, that it may attract certain kinds of people who will then ask their dogs to do feats that are pointless other than to brag about. Maybe we could at least see the dogs with a harness on. :twisted:


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Lyn Chen said:


> .... Maybe we could at least see the dogs with a harness on. :twisted:


Or something else I have seen: a net underneath.


----------



## Tim Martens

Connie Sutherland said:


> Lyn Chen said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... Maybe we could at least see the dogs with a harness on. :twisted:
> 
> 
> 
> Or something else I have seen: a net underneath.
Click to expand...

that would defeat the purpose of the exercize. it would not add the proper stress to the handler if he/she knew there was no possibility of their dog getting injured...


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

*Re: very impressive*



Connie Sutherland said:


> Jose Alberto Reanto said:
> 
> 
> 
> links:
> http://www.workingdogforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=2375
> ......
> 
> 
> 
> That thread, at least the way I understood it, addresses situations in which the dog and handler are going through such exercises together.
> 
> QUOTE from the referenced thread:
> QUOTE: I believe Greg's basic point is that training should be a shared experience, where the handler feels the "rough" spots as well as the dog, and they eventually understand each other better. END
Click to expand...


That is true. Connie, you did the ladders too, didn't you? How far did you or can you go? So does sharing mean you have to be physically up there all the time even if you knew that your dog is more than agile and strong enough to handle the ladder exercise? It will defeat the purpose too, right? In fact, you will defeat your very own purpose, if you have one. So the aim will be to allow the dog to do it confidently like its second nature to him with minimum supervision from you. 

I believe Greg said ladder work is a 5-minute job. That's true and may even be less, but I was about to add that it will depend on the handler's attitude. You know why? Well, you better IM Greg why. You may prefer to rather take it from him. Then you'll know what "sharing the rough spots" will actually mean. 

Best regards...


----------



## Connie Sutherland

*Re: very impressive*



Jose Alberto Reanto said:


> That is true. Connie, you did the ladders too, didn't you? How far did you or can you go? ..


Only vertical, and I was behind my dog with my arms to either side of him the first few time. I also physically placed his back feet a couple of times. And it was slow. :lol: 

But then Pomfret was able to do it himself, with my gradual backing off.

I didn't ask him to climb up high or cross rafters, etc., because I am unable to do that with him and because I don't have a harness or a net for height.

However, I liked the ladder exercise very much. I admit that for me it was not a five-minute job. I imagine that the slowness was indeed a reflection of me and not my dog. 

Also, the reality for my dogs is that they are not likely to run across any roof, rafter, or cliff work.  

I have watched PSDs traim for situations that I cannot manage, and have seen nets and harnesses used.


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

Tim Martens said:


> Lyn Chen said:
> 
> 
> 
> But...how would you deal with a situation where a dog slips and falls off?
> 
> 
> 
> easy. you stop the camera, back up the tape, and start recording again with a different dog...
Click to expand...


Yeeeeaaaah.... why not? :idea: You just gave me a very good idea, Tim. Thanks a lot, pal.

Unfortunately, that guy was the first to arrive and warmed-up his pup. My pup was already up there, if you noticed.  

But I'll keep that good cheating in mind. You know, sometimes honesty is not always the best training aid....

Best regards...


----------



## Connie Sutherland

*Re: very impressive*



Jose Alberto Reanto said:


> I believe Greg said ladder work is a 5-minute job. That's true and may even be less, but I was about to add that it will depend on the handler's attitude. You know why? Well, you better IM Greg why. You may prefer to rather take it from him. Then you'll know what "sharing the rough spots" will actually mean.
> 
> Best regards...


That sounds pretty secretive.  

I am still curious about this: QUOTE: So the aim will be to allow the dog to do it confidently like its second nature to him with minimum supervision from you. END

Does this preclude (and why?) using nets, harnesses, or other safety equipment? I guess I can understand wanting to eliminate a harness in certain situations, but a net doesn't seem to be something that the dog would understand, right? So it wouldn't detract from the reality of the exercise.... ? At least, for the dog.


----------



## Tim Martens

Jose Alberto Reanto said:


> Tim Martens said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lyn Chen said:
> 
> 
> 
> But...how would you deal with a situation where a dog slips and falls off?
> 
> 
> 
> easy. you stop the camera, back up the tape, and start recording again with a different dog...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeeeeaaaah.... why not? :idea: You just gave me a very good idea, Tim. Thanks a lot, pal.
> 
> Unfortunately, that guy was the first to arrive and warmed-up his pup. My pup was already up there, if you noticed.
> 
> But I'll keep that good cheating in mind. You know, sometimes honesty is not always the best training aid....
> 
> Best regards...
Click to expand...

i hope you know i only made these last two posts in jest...


----------



## Greg Long

The most practical application I can think of for these types of excersises would be disaster SAR.In a rubble pile the dog must negotiate such obstacles and try not to dislodge anything that might come down and injure dog or handler or victim.

How do you not injure a dog in this type of training??You have to use some common sense.Start small and work your way up.Slowly build the dogs confidence as well as yours.Then youll know what the dog can handle and what it cant.this is part of the building of the handler.The handler must make decisions and often those decisions determine whether the excersise is effective or not.To not put your dog in a position that he cannot handle is one such decision.To have absolute confidence in the dogs ability to handle another situation is also a decision.These things have to be worked through to know what the team's limitations are.

Ive said this a couple times already but....its not important that you get the dog to climb the ladder.It IS important that you have enough desire to go out and try these excersises.If you take a dog to the ladder and your goal is for him to climb on his own but he is afraid even before you get him all the way up to it then just to get him to sit calmly beside the ladder is an accomplishment.I would consider that a very successful excersise.Then tommorow you try to build on that.
Many many times the reason the dog is so stressed is because of the handler.Calm the handler..calm the dog.Take control of yourself before you try to take control of your dog.
Often I do climb with the dog.I climb trees with the dog or over the obstacle or up the ladder.Sometimes I send the dog on its own.At first it is better to go with the dog.Later you can send the dog on its own.I always find that I need more work than the dog.
If you are so afraid for the dog in these excersises then you should not attempt them for they are destined to fail and the dog may very well be injured.Again, you must use common sense.

As far as the 5 minute remark...I was just saying that it takes 5 minute to begin to work on the excersise.See there again...I didnt mean 5 minutes to get he dog all the way up or across.5 minutes to get much accomplished which means you communicated to the dog and he understood and tried for you.Even if the dog only put one paw up on the first rung of the ladder, you indeed accomplished much.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Greg Long said:


> Many many times the reason the dog is so stressed is because of the handler.Calm the handler..calm the dog.Take control of yourself before you try to take control of your dog.


Absolute agreement here.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Greg Long said:


> If you are so afraid for the dog in these excersises then you should not attempt them for they are destined to fail and the dog may very well be injured.Again, you must use common sense..


With respect, I don't think I would be "so afraid for the dog." I guess my idea of what constitutes unnecessary risk is just different. 

If safety measures like nets don't detract from an exercise, and I don't see how they would, then I think I'd use 'em.

Watching training exercises where nets and/or harnesses and/or mattresses, etc., are used, is very inspiring and also very interesting to me. Watching the rafter exercises and the ceiling pups videos, for me, inspired very similar feelings to the ones Lyn expressed at
http://www.workingdogforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=2355&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Greg Long said:


> Even if the dog only put one paw up on the first rung of the ladder, you indeed accomplished much.


Again complete agreement.


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

*Re: very impressive*



Connie Sutherland said:


> That sounds pretty secretive.


No intention, Connie. It's just that you referred to a thread started by Greg. Besides, Greg and most especially Reinier could discuss with you more eloquently than I ever could, hence the videoclips. 

Just remember the ladder workout is not the main objective of the exercise though it appears to be, nor is it a standard exercise in any way. It's just a means to achieve a deeper meaning.



Connie Sutherland said:


> I am still curious about this: QUOTE: So the aim will be to allow the dog to do it confidently like its second nature to him with minimum supervision from you. END
> 
> Does this preclude (and why?) using nets, harnesses, or other safety equipment? I guess I can understand wanting to eliminate a harness in certain situations, but a net doesn't seem to be something that the dog would understand, right? So it wouldn't detract from the reality of the exercise.... ? At least, for the dog.


If putting a net or attaching a harness will remove your worries, then so be it. I also use a leash in starting exercises, when I have to be up with the dog. I'm just confident that the dog has worked those more than enough to become an issue, like those so used in working the A-frames or vertical walls in sports. 

Best regards...


----------



## Lyn Chen

I think the issue really isn't the dog's confidence, but the fact is--if you can train these situations in a 'safer' way, using nets, harnesses, or lower to the ground, why risk it at all? After all, your dog is your best friend and partner. I understand using obedience as release from stress, and dog communication, but how far are you going to go before you say, okay, I don't want to tempt fate, and I love my dog too much to put him in a situation where he could get hurt?

I mean, yes, your dog is agile, confident, catlike, etc. etc. etc., but dogs get sprains, wood rots, and your dog may make the wrong step at the wrong time. Shit happens. And then what?


----------



## Konnie Hein

Lyn Chen said:


> I think the issue really isn't the dog's confidence, but the fact is--if you can train these situations in a 'safer' way, using nets, harnesses, or lower to the ground, why risk it at all? After all, your dog is your best friend and partner. I understand using obedience as release from stress, and dog communication, but how far are you going to go before you say, okay, I don't want to tempt fate, and I love my dog too much to put him in a situation where he could get hurt?


I can't speak for Jose here, but I can speak for myself as a trainer for disaster SAR dogs. We train in similar scenarios. We always thoroughly check the area for safety issues and try to place ourselves strategically in order to hopefully catch a dog should it fall. We would never knowingly put our dogs in a situation where the likely outcome is severe injury or death. Because of this, our dogs have very few training and deployment accidents. I'll bet Jose can say the same. I'll bet there are very few accidents during his training that result in injury to the dog. 




> I mean, yes, your dog is agile, confident, catlike, etc. etc. etc., but dogs get sprains, wood rots, and your dog may make the wrong step at the wrong time. s*** happens. And then what?



And yes, sh** happens, but it also happens everyday and everywhere potentially to anybody. The very worst injury my dog sustained occured right here at home in our garage. 

In the unlikely event that this should happen to my dog, I would feel like a huge jerk (understatement). However, the reality is that I would learn from the error, get another dog and continue to do my job. Its not about "love," its about training the best tool for a difficult yet important job. You have to be realistic when your dog's job is dangerous, and you have to train for (and expect) reality.


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

Lyn Chen said:


> I think the issue really isn't the dog's confidence, but the fact is--if you can train these situations in a 'safer' way, using nets, harnesses, or lower to the ground, why risk it at all? After all, your dog is your best friend and partner. I understand using obedience as release from stress, and dog communication, but how far are you going to go before you say, okay, I don't want to tempt fate, and I love my dog too much to put him in a situation where he could get hurt?
> 
> I mean, yes, your dog is agile, confident, catlike, etc. etc. etc., but dogs get sprains, wood rots, and your dog may make the wrong step at the wrong time. s*** happens. And then what?



You may train your dog in the ways that you expressed, moreso if your intention is to build confidence, communication and learning how to stabilize your dog at high stress. That will be really beautiful once achieved and it can stop there.

I will never know what my dog can handle unless I push it, specially if I'm developing a dog that I find SAR-capable. It is only when the dog cannot do the exercise for any reason, that work need to be done. Otherwise, there's no work but simply warm-ups for the dog and handler and nothing gained for the day. 

Don't get me wrong, I advocate safety-first policy. If you need a net, then so be it. If one realizes that all these safety devices may not be always available due to lack of resources in an actual engagement, then he must learn to adopt other measures to ensure the safety of his dog and himself. I myself must first inspect the path or paths my dog may have to walk thru and that my dog can handle it easy. Anything I see that will jeopardize safety, it's a no-go. 

If you work your dog frequently, you will observe how they learn fast to recover from near-falls, even with two hindlegs dangling in mid-air, in time for you to assist. You can observe them "paw" to test new surfaces and determine for themselves to slow down at that point and soft-paw their way thru. It's a sight to see. 

Best regards....


----------



## Kristen Cabe

So, and if this has already been addressed, please point me to the place, because I was unable to find it; how do you all begin teaching the ladder? Do you have it horizontally on the ground, or raised up just slightly so the dog must put his feet on the rungs to keep from falling through, and then gradually raise it as the dog becomes proficient in walking the rungs, or do you start out with it raised?


----------



## Lyn Chen

Again...it's not necessarily being sentimental, but rather whether the risk you're putting the dog in is necessary. The problem being I have seen some people's exercises that could easily have been done in a safer place, but weren't, for bragging purposes.


----------



## Andres Martin

I've read a bunch about the risks involved, etc. and I would like to say that they are negligible...tiny.

There's much more risk involved in taking a dog hunting.

This is a WORKING DOG FORUM.

By the time you finish buying, placing, testing nets, mattresses (which by the way you'll have to store, keep clean, and so on) YOU WILL NEVER TRAIN!!!!

Beware of "pussy-fying" further. We are already too far along, and we need to apply brakes and start (what's the opposite of "pussy-fying"?)...

PUUUUUU...LEEEZE!!!!


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

So if your boy falls off a wall n breaks his back, what are you gonna tell Johan? 

Cujo's done stupid shit like that before, he jumped off the side of a kids playground thing before I could grab him because he's an idiot. I look over the side n he's lying on his back trying to get up, then he was walking around happily. He landed on rubber playground flooring, had it been concrete I woulda probably been paying AVS even more money on broken bones  "Shit happens", but there has to be a limit, right?


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Andres Martin said:


> I've read a bunch about the risks involved, etc. and I would like to say that they are negligible...tiny.
> 
> There's much more risk involved in taking a dog hunting.
> 
> This is a WORKING DOG FORUM.
> 
> By the time you finish buying, placing, testing nets, mattresses (which by the way you'll have to store, keep clean, and so on) YOU WILL NEVER TRAIN!!!!
> 
> Beware of "pussy-fying" further. We are already too far along, and we need to apply brakes and start (what's the opposite of "pussy-fying"?)...
> 
> PUUUUUU...LEEEZE!!!!


Well, I think there are somewhat differing opinions.

I have not seen a lot of time invested in the PSD exercises I mentioned in "buying, storing, setting up, testing, placing, and cleaning" any harnesses or nets.

Of course there is risk in real life (like hunting, as mentioned). The discussion has been about not creating additional unnecessary risk in practice exercises, or in mitigating it when it's not only possible, but easy, to do so.

PUUUUUU...LEEEZE!!!!


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Kristen Cabe said:


> So, and if this has already been addressed, please point me to the place, because I was unable to find it; how do you all begin teaching the ladder? Do you have it horizontally on the ground, or raised up just slightly so the dog must put his feet on the rungs to keep from falling through, and then gradually raise it as the dog becomes proficient in walking the rungs, or do you start out with it raised?


I started right in with a ladder propped up against a building.

AFTER that, I heard about how smarter people do it, getting the dog accustomed to the ladder lying flat first. :lol:


----------



## Lacey Vessell

Jose how young do you start working these pups? Realizing that for any age dog what you have accomplished in the film is amazing - I'm curious as to how you got there. Is there a specific age that you begin working this obvious bond and trust between handler and dog? If you begin training at a younger age - do you have any video's that you can post of some of the exercises you do with them?


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

Lacey Vessell said:


> Jose how young do you start working these pups? Realizing that for any age dog what you have accomplished in the film is amazing - I'm curious as to how you got there. Is there a specific age that you begin working this obvious bond and trust between handler and dog? If you begin training at a younger age - do you have any video's that you can post of some of the exercises you do with them?


I begin working pups starting 6 weeks of age, initially groundwork (terrains) doing inclines, declines and agility on whatever obstacles (logs, tall grass, shallow body of water, etc) we encounter on the way. I am not particular about age except that 6 weeks that I have to start working them. If a handler is resourceful enough, he can introduce many things to a pup in their every walk, all leading to the discipline he intends to do with his pup. By 10 weeks of age or even younger, most pups will have a good degree of obedience and good agility in him, at the least. 

Yes, I do have videos of 9-week old pups that already do good agility, tracking, and aggression work on command. I have to dig them up though.

Best regards...


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

Lyn Chen said:


> Again...it's not necessarily being sentimental, but rather whether the risk you're putting the dog in is necessary.
> The problem being I have seen some people's exercises that could easily have been done in a safer place, but weren't, for bragging purposes.


It depends on how real you want to go. I hope Konnie made you understand something with her post. Now if you have too much love for your dog, don't put him at any risk. Even the exercises you say you do can hurt your dog, before you can even learn to handle him. 

Yes, there will always be some who will do it for bragging purposes. They don't really understand the whole essence of the exercizes nor do they care. They only want something to show. If I see that in members while doing let's say ladder work, I'll take out one step in that ladder and see how that dog will perform, or set up explosions nearby to see if that dog gets rattled, or smoke to fill the whole area. In fact, anything that will let them go back to the ground and let them realize the pup or dog has still a long way to go and that bragging is absolutely a no-way to achieve it. 

Best regards...


----------



## Woody Taylor

Jose Alberto Reanto said:


> It depends on how real you want to go. I hope Konnie made you understand something with her post. Now if you have too much love for your dog, don't put him at any risk. .


Sorry, I think this macho BS about "realistic training" justifying "putting your dog at risk consistently" is a bunch of nonsense, whether or not Konnie rationalizes it relative to her SAR work.

You're lashing 2x6s with rope in a metal shack in a near-equatorial tropical environment. There is no room for the handler up there. It is a dangerous exercise, if you are qualified to conduct it, fine. But let's be clear to any of the people reading this thread...it's a very good way to screw up a dog.

incidentally, Jose...so these intense bonding sessions...when something does go wrong (does something ever go wrong?) with a 10 mo pup...it falls clumsily into a handler's arms, dislocates an elbow, blows out some ligaments, whatever...by the nature of what you are attempting to accomplish, aren't you at risk of drastically messing up the dog? In the head? For good? The dog has put his implicit trust in you for a training exercise, in a great deal of stress, and the dog gets hurt badly. What does it think about handler after one of those incidents?


----------



## Al Curbow

Al, help me to understand something here, in "normal" life a dog will go around an obstacle cause they always take the easy way out, doing agility is cool but i just don't understand the whole how "real" you want to get, dogs aren't built for climbing ladders (unless they have opposable dewclaws :lol: ) and where do you end it? I have a dog that if i threw his ball off a cliff he'd go for it, does that mean he's brave?, or that he trust me?


----------



## Konnie Hein

> Sorry, I think this macho BS about "realistic training" justifying "putting your dog at risk consistently" is a bunch of nonsense, whether or not Konnie rationalizes it relative to her SAR work.


Woody - I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. Until you've experienced a real disaster deployment with your dog, you have no business commenting on whether this type of training is nonsense or not.

For example, my husband and his dog were deployed to the WTC disaster on 9/11 with FEMA's MATF-1. His dog was required to climb down (yep, headfirst!) and back up a fireman's ladder to gain access to search areas. At the time, there was no other way to get the dog down into these areas to search. The dog was also required to walk across spans of metal beams with next to zero handler assistance. There were no nets, no mattresses, nothing but deep pits underneath that sometimes contained hot burning material. This is what our dogs DO. Look at the photos of Ground Zero. Our FEMA dogs were all over that site. None of the FEMA dogs were seriously injured. My husband and his dog were there for over a week. According to him, his dog showed no signs of stress and performed just as well on the last day as he did on the first. The reason for that is because of our training. We are part of a small group of handlers who push our dogs and our training to be as realistic as possible. If you investigate the dogs who were seriously injured at that site, you'll find that the majority of them had no such agility/disaster training. 

Dogs who are not trained for those situations will fail - whether its due to an injury or stress. Its not macho BS. Its a matter of training the best canine tool for the job. I will NEVER deploy with a dog that HASN'T been subjected to this type of stress in training. You will never know if your dog will perform in real life without subjecting it to this type of stress. That's a risk I'm not willing to take.


----------



## Woody Taylor

Konnie Hein said:


> Woody - I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. Until you've experienced a real disaster deployment with your dog, you have no business commenting on whether this type of training is nonsense or not.


Sorry,Konnie, I'm commenting.

So how did you recreate the WTC disaster for your dogs? Did you need to, consistently, put them in jeapordy in training? Did you tip over ladders, did you push out toxic pollutants in their faces, etc.? Did you introduce asbestos into their lungs at eight weeks to true them up?

I am not talking about APPLICATION. I am talking about basic training, in this case with puppies. I admire the abilities you articulate but I do not think, for one second, that a dog and its handler need to be put in mortal jeapordy in practice. At 10 mos. Do you? 

Is your dog smart enough to act differently when the floor 10' beneath him/her is either white mattresses, thin netting, or tile? Smart dog. To make the scenario complete, how do you stress yourself? Because I would think a dog that smart could also discern whether its handler was truly upset and stressed.

I'm not attacking you, Konnie, promise. But I am commenting on what this thread is trying to rationalize.


----------



## Konnie Hein

Al Curbow said:


> Al, help me to understand something here, in "normal" life a dog will go around an obstacle cause they always take the easy way out, doing agility is cool but i just don't understand the whole how "real" you want to get, dogs aren't built for climbing ladders (unless they have opposable dewclaws :lol: ) and where do you end it? I have a dog that if i threw his ball off a cliff he'd go for it, does that mean he's brave?, or that he trust me?


Al - you have to come over sometime to see our dogs climbing ladders. Its one of the most simple agility exercises we're required to teach them for FEMA certification. After watching our little labs climb around on them, you'll re-think your statement that "dogs aren't built for climbing ladders!"
:lol:


----------



## Konnie Hein

> So how did you recreate the WTC disaster for your dogs? Did you need to, consistently, put them in jeapordy in training? Did you tip over ladders, did you push out toxic pollutants in their faces, etc.? Did you introduce asbestos into their lungs at eight weeks to true them up?
> 
> I am not talking about APPLICATION. I am talking about basic training, in this case with puppies. I admire the abilities you articulate but I do not think, for one second, that a dog and its handler need to be put in mortal jeapordy in practice. At 10 mos. Do you?
> 
> Is your dog smart enough to act differently when the floor 10' beneath him/her is either white mattresses, thin netting, or tile? Smart dog. To make the scenario complete, how do you stress yourself? Because I would think a dog that smart could also discern whether its handler was truly upset and stressed.


Nobody subjects their puppy to asbestos on purpose because its a known toxin. However, we have used non-toxic "smoke" at training sites. The smoke is perfectly safe, as are the agility exercises we conduct. I have never tipped over a ladder with a dog on it, but I have bounced it around a bit to create some instability to see what my dog would do. In real-life deployments, ladders sometimes move. I can't have my dog bailing off a ladder in a deployment just because it moves. The only way to know what he's going to do when that happens is to try to re-create it in training.

Your interpretation of what qualifies as "putting a dog in mortal jeopardy" isn't the same as mine, I guess. None of what I see in Jose's videos qualifies as such if the handlers are experienced in what they're doing. You don't just throw a 10 month old dog onto an elevated plank and hope for the best. You start the dog at a very young age on a low plank. They learn to control their movement to prevent a fall. Nervy or reckless dogs can't do this type of work. Jose's dogs are very careful and controlled in their movements. There's no need for a net. I think you are not giving enough credit to the dogs and trainers who do this type of work.

Personally, I don't use agility exercises to purposefully stress myself or other handlers in preparation for deployment. Our dogs certainly do know when we are stressed. Some dogs react to it, others ignore it. I see bizarre reactions from dogs due to handler stress at certification evaluations. If these handlers can't control their stress level, or more importantly if the dogs are that sensitive, then they (either the dog or handler or possibly both) have no business doing disaster SAR.

And, in case anybody is wondering, our 9/11 deployed dog shows no signs of illness from his deployment (he's now 11 years of age and still acting like a puppy). Guess all that asbestos and toxic pollutant desensitizing paid off! :lol:


----------



## Woody Taylor

Konnie Hein said:


> Nobody subjects their puppy to asbestos on purpose because its a known toxin. However, we have used *non-toxic "smoke"* at training sites. *The smoke is perfectly safe, as are the agility exercises we conduct.* I have never tipped over a ladder with a dog on it, but *I have bounced it around a bit to create some instability to see what my dog would do.* In real-life deployments, ladders sometimes move. I can't have my dog bailing off a ladder in a deployment just because it moves. The only way to know what he's going to do when that happens is to try to re-create it in training.


I bolded your statements. That is my point, Connie.



> YI think you are not giving enough credit to the dogs and trainers who do this type of work.


What they're doing reflects a great deal of work and conditioning between dog and handler. That is not my point. My primary point for this thread is that I would like to make it loud and clear to anyone reading this that this is not a simple exercise and it does have questionable value _relative to the risk introduced into the exercise_ for someone to just go try in the garage. I do not believe that this is as safe an exersize as it's depicted, and I would like to see the tape of the pups buidling up to this, the various pups who burn out of this, and what happens to many of these dogs once they're mature. And yes, I do sincerely question the need to do this for pups as young as 10 mos. But that is not a comment on Jose's abilities to train dogs.




> And, in case anybody is wondering, our 9/11 deployed dog shows no signs of illness from his deployment (he's now 11 years of age and still acting like a puppy). Guess all that asbestos and toxic pollutant desensitizing paid off! :lol:


I am glad to hear that, sorry if that was a low blow. You know I love ya, and that tshirt you got in the mail today is a used one from me so you all can look for me when my wife kicks me to the curb.


----------



## susan tuck

If one of the boards broke, or if one of the PUPS fell from the heights depicted in the video, there would be a good chance of serious injury - that is unless the dogs are also learning how to land on their feet like a cat. :roll: Common sense dictates if someone actually had a pup get seriously injured, during a training exercise they would wish there had been safety precautions in place, and would feel pretty foolish for not having seen to it. What's the old saying, "An ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure".


----------



## Konnie Hein

Woody Taylor said:


> I bolded your statements. That is my point, Connie.


If you call me "Connie" again, your wife won't be the only one kicking you! Its Konnie with a "K!" (no disrespect meant to Connie with a C!) 

*[mod edit...sorry about that. If it is any consolation, people have a lot more sick fun with my name! --WT]*



> I am glad to hear that, sorry if that was a low blow. You know I love ya, and that tshirt you got in the mail today is a used one from me so you all can look for me when my wife kicks me to the curb.


No harm done. You'll have to be much more insulting if you want to have a negative effect on me. I'm tough as nails  . I love a good debate!


----------



## Konnie Hein

Woody Taylor said:


> I would like to see the tape of the pups buidling up to this


Me too!

Here's a photo of my latest "project" going through her paces on the low plank. She was around 3.5 months of age at this point, I think. Pretty harmless stuff! Note the lack of a net or any other safety measure here (that was a joke - its only around 18 inches off the ground).


----------



## Leo Pui

On this subject, I am sharing some cut and paste pictures over what our pup doing their "exercise" ... peace 8) 










And *HERE* is one short video clip showing an eleven weeks old male pup doing his exercises.

Cheer!!!


----------



## Konnie Hein

Nice job, Leo!

Question (for Leo and Jose): A lot of people I know who work German Shepherds won't do this type of work with them at a young age. They feel it puts too much stress on their bodies and can cause skeletal/structural problems later on. What do you think of this?


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

Konnie Hein said:


> Nice job, Leo!
> 
> Question (for Leo and Jose): A lot of people I know who work German Shepherds won't do this type of work with them at a young age. They feel it puts too much stress on their bodies and can cause skeletal/structural problems later on. What do you think of this?



It makes sense, Konnie, and the more I work the pup early to check on skeletal/structural problems. It might have been there to begin with. But tell me, do you think the pups in the pics and videos were really stressed? It seems to me the readers rather gets stressed viewing it. :lol: Remember, you don't force exercises to pups, it will surely stress them with you as stress-provider instead of a reliever. It will be by their own pace with a lot of rest at that...

Best regards...


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

Woody Taylor said:


> Sorry, I think this macho BS about "realistic training" justifying "putting your dog at risk consistently" is a bunch of nonsense, whether or not Konnie rationalizes it relative to her SAR work.
> 
> You're lashing 2x6s with rope in a metal shack in a near-equatorial tropical environment. There is no room for the handler up there. It is a dangerous exercise, if you are qualified to conduct it, fine. But let's be clear to any of the people reading this thread...it's a very good way to screw up a dog.


That's according to you, and what are you? A self-proclaimed newbie, isn't it? ....and a moderator at that? My goodness!!! DO I need to reply to you when other people you obviously respect already did, with some showing their own versions with supporting videos and pics? Now will you be decent and man enough to admit that you made your posts to attack me. Surely you can talk your way out of it, but your posts very well betrayed you. 



Woody Taylor said:


> incidentally, Jose...so these intense bonding sessions...when something does go wrong (does something ever go wrong?) with a 10 mo pup...it falls clumsily into a handler's arms, dislocates an elbow, blows out some ligaments, whatever...by the nature of what you are attempting to accomplish, aren't you at risk of drastically messing up the dog? In the head? For good? The dog has put his implicit trust in you for a training exercise, in a great deal of stress, and the dog gets hurt badly. What does it think about handler after one of those incidents?


Woody, why don't you just grab the leash and work it? Just 2 feet high if youre really that scared. Climbing and jumping off a vertical wall would even be more scary, isnt it? Give yourself a chance. Other people already did and felt good. The work will answer most if not all your questions. Come on, Woody, I have faith in you. :roll: :roll: Just be carefull or your dog might watch you fall off instead. :lol: :lol: 

Best regards...


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen

Al, Woody wasn´t attacking you. Keep it civil.

He, and all the mods, don´t think well of this trainingmethods. Our reasons are explained here and in other threads.

The reason why we keep letting you post this, ´cause it is a way of training some people follow. Every trainer have to decide for his self which method he want to follow, whether we´re with you or not.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Jose Alberto Reanto said:


> why don't you just grab the leash and work it? Just 2 feet high if youre really that scared. ..


If you were working puppies two feet high (or even doing the "equal-stress partnership" exercises we have read about rather than dog-on-ceiling-handler-safe-on-floor videos we see) the "discussion" wouldn't exist.

I know you don't really think anyone who is protesting gratuitous danger in an exercise is "scared." 

And as far as I know, everyone on this board does indeed "grab the leash and work it." That doesn't preclude avoiding unnecessary accidents..... 

And I say this with respect to everyone involved.


----------



## Konnie Hein

Selena van Leeuwen said:


> Al, Woody wasn´t attacking you. Keep it civil.
> 
> He, and all the mods, don´t think well of this trainingmethods. Our reasons are explained here and in other threads.
> 
> The only reason why we keep letting you post this, ´cause it is away of training some people follow. Every trainer have to decide for his self which method he want to follow, whether we´re with you or not.


Just to make myself clear, my posts are intended to explain the necessity of training a dog to control its body and movement in preparation for real-life work. USAR handlers/trainers do this through difficult agility exercises. These exercises incidentally reveal to us the dog's temperament and suitability for a real-life deployment. They also contribute to the process of the handler and dog developing into a useful, effective team. In a nutshell, these exercises are critical to the creation of a USAR dog and they are safe if conducted properly.

And, Jose and I differ greatly in our training methods. I use positive motivation to train a dog to perform these agility exercises. We start with food and graduate to tugs, and then finally take away all rewards (other than verbal praise). Although, a lot of our puppies will "explore" the agility sites without any prompting.

One of my biggest beefs about any web forum is that people with zero experience jump at the chance to express their uneducated opinions, usually in a very negative or detrimental way. People who criticize or give advice on something that they know nothing about contribute to the creation of a forum that nobody wants to post to or read. I appreciate a good debate, and I also have a lot of respect for people (of all experience levels) who question things in an attempt to achieve clarity. However, I question the motivation of people who _criticize_ regardless of my explanations (which are based on real-life experience, and knowledge obtained from the best of the best in my profession). My purpose of visiting this forum is to learn more about other folks training methods and hopefully to share my experience and knowlege. I hope that others here can share this same motivation.


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

Selena van Leeuwen said:


> Al, Woody wasn´t attacking you. Keep it civil.
> 
> He, and all the mods, don´t think well of this trainingmethods. Our reasons are explained here and in other threads.
> 
> The reason why we keep letting you post this, ´cause it is a way of training some people follow. Every trainer have to decide for his self which method he want to follow, whether we´re with you or not.


Very well, Selena. If you ask me training objectives and what I intend to achieve, I will reply to the best of my ability. I don't really care whether you all agree with my methods or not. I expected that already. The pups in my video and other videos as well have spoken anyway. In the end we've learned to accept and RESPECT each other's differences. 

But if you begin your line of questioning with insults calling my adopted training method as BULLSHIT, MACHO CRAP only to ask me questions to enlighten you, then you just gave me EVERY RIGHT to call you IGNORANT AND STUPID before I reply. 

So I will have to request you moderators to be tactful and civil, that attitude is very unbecoming for a position like yours...

Best regards...


----------



## Andres Martin

> So if your boy falls off a wall n breaks his back, what are you gonna tell Johan?


I would tell Johan, "My DOG (I have three BOYS and two GIRLS. My DOGS aren't human) fell while training for the real world and broke his back. Please choose a new puppy for me."

Connie (with a "C") ... you're not seeing the shared rough spots, because that's one of the first steps. The objective is for the dog to take direction confidently...and ALONE...in and around adverse environments. By grabbing the leash, I didn't infer, "grab the leash and do what you always do". I inferred, "grab the leash and get your dog to do some of THOSE circus tricks exercises. You and your dog will learn more than you bargain for".

I use food to start out, but phase it out very quickly (like in the 2nd or 3rd session, depending)...because it causes some anxiety. The dog concentrates on the food more than on the obstacle. I don't train on wierd obstacles for SAR work, but for the obedience, trust, stability, patience, handler awareness, concentration, it develops in a dog.

To Konnie...I would hate be an earthquake victim here (El Salvador), and for my rescuer's dogs to have trained in "safe" environments. Dogs must know how to deal with instability, sharp objects, wires, pieces of iron rebar, drops and cavities, gas, etc. Congrats to you for the work you do. If something happens to me in the US - that needs a dog - I'll try to have a laptop handy and let you know. :lol:

The safety issue being discussed here is much ado about nothing.


----------



## Leo Pui

Konnie Hein said:


> Nice job, Leo!


Thank you, the pup proved themselves well :wink: 



Konnie Hein said:


> Question (for Leo and Jose): A lot of people I know who work German Shepherds won't do this type of work with them at a young age. They feel it puts too much stress on their bodies and can cause skeletal/structural problems later on. What do you think of this?


To me, my very own answer is ... that's all excuesses :wink: 

The pup does cost me a lot if anything happened to them ... but since I am into security K9 services that when my client engaged our services with confident ... I dont think I can hide any weaknesses over my personnel and the so-called trained security dog. Both of them gotta prove themselves well and to have the assignment done accordingly. 

I have came across a few peoples to learn from but it seem that, I can still have issues coming out along the way. With god grace and blessing, I met my "mentor" who shared and thought us about the current training and work-out exercises that we have being doing since year 2003. I see nothing but great improvement over our current security dogs especically those we have them since pup  

Many peoples have negative comment about the use of Choke-Chain, many also commented the same to Prong-Collar, to me .. it is all individual "preferences". Use it wisely and proved with result ... it become positive comments :wink: Learn ... learns, and keeping learning!!!

Bytheway, I would like to introduce our mentor that who have actually show us the proven way to work our pup/dog ... he is not other than our forum member - Jose Alberto Reanto!!! 

Sorry Al, if I did not get your prior permission to do this announcement. I am to just provide my "testimonial" <smiles>

Peace to all and cheer!!!


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen

Jose Alberto Reanto said:


> Very well, Selena. If you ask me training objectives and what I intend to achieve, I will reply to the best of my ability. I don't really care whether you all agree with my methods or not. I expected that already. The pups in my video and other videos as well have spoken anyway. In the end we've learned to accept and RESPECT each other's differences.


That´s the reason it is allowed, there enough boards threads like this one will be locked or not discussed about.



Jose Alberto Reanto said:


> But if you begin your line of questioning with insults calling my adopted training method as s***, MACHO CRAP only to ask me questions to enlighten you, then you just gave me EVERY RIGHT to call you IGNORANT AND STUPID before I reply.
> 
> So I will have to request you moderators to be tactful and civil, that attitude is very unbecoming for a position like yours...
> 
> Best regards...


Mods here are also members and allowed to ventilate their own view on things. So don´t come with "position" if something is clearly placed as an own opinion.

This and other topics were and still are under discussion between the mods, also because we receive a lot of reactions from members, we still choose for freedom of speech/trainingmethods. Please consider that in your replies to us.

This and my last post is posted as a mod.


----------



## Lyn Chen

> It makes sense, Konnie, and the more I work the pup early to check on skeletal/structural problems. It might have been there to begin with.


It might also be caused by too much stress on the joints, since a pup's skeleton is softer...most sources cite HD being 50% genetic and 50% environmental.


----------



## Woody Taylor

Actually, the macho BS was posted towards Andres' response about the "wussification" of Western civilization. Which disappointed me personally., because I think a lot of Andres' perspectives, whether or not I agree with them, and he's usually more enlightened than that. 

This (your response) is an example of why people don't challenge the methods, Al. Any disagreement or perceived slight results in a blanket condemnation of anyone else. Yet another PM to me said "I'm not gonna respond to this line of discussion because it's like trying to talk to a post." You've told Selena (Selena, mind you) she's not fit for your dogs, others sharing your philosophy have told the owner of this forum that he knows nothing about dogs, and of course, I'm ignorant for questioning your methods. 

Somehow all this Baden-ish stuff always deteriorates down to respective world views of the tough guys and the sheep (the rest of us) whom they feel they must protect. Grudgingly. Which is interesting to me for other reasons outside of the dog training world. There has NEVER been any direct or indirect discussion of Baden methodology in this forum which has not, at some point in time, had some nonsense about how much one can bench press being a standard of "getting it" or not. Again, fascinating (I say this sincerely) to me that there appears to be such an intimate tie between these training methods and masculinity. But another subject.

Bottom line is you're posting vids in a forum modded by folks (and visited by informed folks) who do not--by your admission and theirs--subscribe to your methods. What makes you surprised by differing opinions? Or are you just posting to indulge the weak? To show off? Quite frankly, I have no idea whether I agree with your training methodology as a whole or not because _you don't talk about it even when you're asked directly._ "Let the dogs speak for themselves" gets so old and is a weak rhetorical strategy when some of us are just trying to figure out what you're doing.

If it's any consolation, I have been a lot more aware of my dog and myself as a result of reading what little you all offer up in the way of actual training information. Whether or not I agree with some of the specifics, I know I am much more aware of how I am communicating with my dog and what state I'm in. So thanks for that, seriously.

And I really wish you'd respond to some of the specific questions asked of you in this thread:


> incidentally, Jose...so these intense bonding sessions...when something does go wrong (does something ever go wrong?) with a 10 mo pup...it falls clumsily into a handler's arms, dislocates an elbow, blows out some ligaments, whatever...by the nature of what you are attempting to accomplish, aren't you at risk of drastically messing up the dog? In the head? For good? The dog has put his implicit trust in you for a training exercise, in a great deal of stress, and the dog gets hurt badly. What does it think about handler after one of those incidents?


I'd encourage you to answer this assuming I buy 100% into your training philosophy based on the 3% you've shared. Because I think it's relevant to consider if the bonding experience is as deep and intense as you articulate.


----------



## Andres Martin

2 posts


----------



## Andres Martin

> Actually, the macho BS was posted towards Andres' response about the "wussification" of Western civilization. Which disappointed me personally., because I think a lot of Andres' perspectives, whether or not I agree with them, and he's usually more enlightened than that.


 :lol: :lol: :lol: Fuuuuuuuunny! Thanks, BTW.

Lighten up, people!

I (my dog and those I help train) have never had an accident beyond a cut or a scrape. No one in their right mind will demand more from a dog than it can give...even if the dog does not know how much it can give. :wink: All exposure is PROGRESSIVE and slow...but it starts young. Honestly, dogs think NOTHING of it...if they have been brought up correctly and have the right genetics. Those same dogs - THOSE SAME DOGS - if brought up in a sport environment will be serious prey monsters, full of drive and hard to control. Stress and obstacles teach a dog to slow down...WAY OPPOSITE to a sport philosophy, right?...where everything is "DRIVE", drive, drive.



> If it's any consolation, I have been a lot more aware of my dog and myself as a result of reading what little you all offer up in the way of actual training information.


Dick and Selena, David Frost, them dang Lyda boys, Gregg Tawney, Lou Castle, the gentleman that partners with Armin Winkler (I forget his name), etc., etc., have been concrete, and have given A BUNCH of great training advice. Al HAS GIVEN US VIDEOS and pics. We have all "offered up" enormous amounts of knowledge, fun, controversy, insults, even some innuendo and flirting. It's like a family. Lighten up.  

QUESTIONS: What do you think happens to the AVERAGE sport dog when he gets placed on a simple obstacle like a flexible 2x4? Or when he's commanded to go through a tight tube? Or when "asked" ( :lol: ) to go down steep steps? MY ANSWER: They become anxious, hectic, dangerously fast...or avoid the issues altogether. Those responses are undesirable...for ANY dog.

Don't ask what your dog can do for you; ask what you can do for your dog. Try the "circus tricks".


----------



## Konnie Hein

Lyn Chen said:


> It might also be caused by too much stress on the joints, since a pup's skeleton is softer...most sources cite HD being 50% genetic and 50% environmental.


Right. That's the reason I'm given by the GSD-trainers I was referring to in my post. Its something I don't really worry about too much with my Labs or Malis as pups, although I certainly don't let them jump from tall heights or do anything really bone-jarring. The puppy work involves mostly climbing and crawling. What I do at these young ages doesn't seem to be much more stressful on their skeleton than an energetic wrestling match with another puppy.

I'm just wondering, since I see a lot of GSDs in Jose's and Leo's videos/photos, what the percentage of skeletal problems is in those dogs. I think it would be interesting to get the statistics on that and be able to compare them to people who keep their GSD pups in a bubble until their skeleton is more mature.


----------



## michele martin

Correct me if I'm confused here...but are these dogs any more likely to fall off any of these obstacles than their human handlers/partners? I don't believe (and I've spent a ton of time just reading and not posting a damn thing) that these gentlemen under attack are advocating sending a 4yr old couch potato up a ladder or up a tree where he could (gasp!) fall. These are exercises building upon other exercises that these little ones have been doing for months. Baby steps, if you will. I liken it to watching the Olympics; I would break my back for sure if I tried to do any of the gymnastics I see...of course, I haven't been doing it since I was 2 years old, either. :wink: I can't dismiss the Olympic gymnastics as "too dangerous" or not worth the risk, because the comparison between me doing it an a highly-trained gymnast is positively laughable...likewise the comparison between an average pussified pet and one of these dogs.

This "safety" issue seems rather insignificant, especially considering the amount of training being done in increments. It sounds more like a half-hearted attempt to downplay something potentially great that someone just doesn't feel the drive to try themselves. Konnie provided the best "real" justification for the authenticity of this type of training...how can we argue with disaster rescue? Try telling someone whose loved one is buried under rubble that they're s.o.l. because the guy or girl who has the dog to find them is just NOT going to put Poochie at risk for a sprained ankle. It simply wouldn't be responsible! Just a different perspective... :|


----------



## Tim Martens

Konnie Hein said:


> Just to make myself clear, my posts are intended to explain the necessity of training a dog to control its body and movement in preparation for real-life work. USAR handlers/trainers do this through difficult agility exercises. These exercises incidentally reveal to us the dog's temperament and suitability for a real-life deployment. They also contribute to the process of the handler and dog developing into a useful, effective team. In a nutshell, these exercises are critical to the creation of a USAR dog and they are safe if conducted properly.
> 
> And, Jose and I differ greatly in our training methods. I use positive motivation to train a dog to perform these agility exercises. We start with food and graduate to tugs, and then finally take away all rewards (other than verbal praise). Although, a lot of our puppies will "explore" the agility sites without any prompting.


this is absolute gold right here konnie and it underscores the fundamental contradiction present in greg's (maybe not jose's) reasoning. more of that in a minute. back to konnie's post. konnie, i don't think anyone here would object to what you are doing and why you are doing it. the environment that your dogs must be prepared to work in are more terrible than the mind can imagine. by all means, you have to know if your dog is going to be up to the task before it's first deployment. the part when you say it "reveal(s) to us the dog's temperament and suitability for a real-life deployment." that sounds more like testing to me than what greg is talking about. if the dog is hesitant and never really shines, he is abandonded. 

greg makes it sound like it's inherent in all dogs. ah, but wait, he throws in the caveat of "the dog must have good genetics" to start with. and what exactly are "good genetics" when talking about a dog who wants to bond with you, do whatever you ask with no thought of itself, and be able to chase a squirrel up a tree with no training? that's some pretty complicated genetics right there.

that is the contradiction. if it's inherent in all dogs, "genetics" would have nothing to do with it. that is the problem that people have with this stuff. dogs that i look for have readily indentifiable drives. i pick a dog with certain amounts of the various drives i look for. these can be tested for and they reveal themselves very quickly. greg often boasts that he prefers dogs that have been cast off by others for not having enough "drive". where are these dogs genetics? there are more to genetics than physical attributes.

i think in all fairness, this question must be answered by greg: what do you mean by "sound genetics"? just that it's PHYSICALLY capable of the agility you require, e.g. no hip, spine, elbow, knee problems? because if that is the only criteria you are talking about, then you should have no problem getting a greyhound to search for, chase down, apprehend, and hold a man. it's all a matter of communication right?

my point in all this is that you criticize people for not being able to communicate with their dog the way you do. you toss out genetics as if in the event something didn't go right with your teachings, you can fall back on "the dog wasn't genetically sound". we put our dogs through a lot of testing before we select them. sure, sometimes a quirk arises and we have to scrap the dog, but for the most part, once we select a dog, we know it can do the job because we've sufficiently tested it. you talk about taking other people's rejects and turning them into lassie. if you could always do this and it always worked, the cavaet of "genetics" would never come into play and if you can't always do it, you can always fall back on genetics. 

ugh. this is horrible. having a hard time stringing together coherant thoughts. graveyard shift sucks. i'm going to sleep....


----------



## Lyn Chen

> I'm just wondering, since I see a lot of GSDs in Jose's and Leo's videos/photos, what the percentage of skeletal problems is in those dogs.


I'd be too, in terms of xrays. Remember that a dog may not show signs of HD but actually have it.


----------



## Andres Martin

Dogs have a useful life.

I know I do... :lol: 

I'm 42, and my joints are fairly banged up; I can proudly say that I sport 28 fractures from different types of high adrenaline activities. I'm paying the price for all that fun now...at my old age...if you get the point.

If a dog tests well at 12 months, and does not show any negative effects for 6 - 7 years after that, the dog and the owner should be happy.

If you're worried THAT MUCH about a dog, best to get a...a...parrot? a turtle?

This is a WORKING DOG FORUM.

WORKING DOGS...and sport dogs...live a life replete with activity. Joints, teeth and toungue, muscles, feet and pads, etc. SUFFER.

Also...I firmly believe that working dogs have FAR less accidents than pets.


----------



## Al Curbow

Ok, today i was up on a 40' ladder and i thought of this post. Have you guys sent your dogs up that high? If not, why? Also part of my problem with this entire thread is i know a lot about fall statistics, i take 50 hours of fall protection minimum a year for work, and 6' to 10' is major damage, 80% of our work is in the air and i've seen a few falls, not good. On the other hand if you like to do extreme agility with your dogs who cares? They're your dogs, it's a free country, have fun! Oh yeah, how did an agility thread turn into a SAR thread? LOL


----------



## susan tuck

Yeah, when did this turn into a SAR thread??


----------



## michele martin

If 8' high equals major damage, what difference does it make if it's 40ft high? Open casket or closed, perhaps. :wink: 

"Use it or lose it" applies to the b.s. joint issue, I think. This type of agility is not what puts undue stress on joints. This is steady, slow work-not "weekend warrior" stunts likely to damage those not accustomed to it. As for xrays, that same thing could be said for every pet in this country. I don't believe that these pups are under any more strain than a wolf pup maneuvering through nature. I can here Momma wolf now "Oh NO! Baby wolf, do NOT climb up that rock! It will ruin your hips!" :roll: Puhleeeze! Not to be terribly cold, but hey, natural selection plays a role in this argument as well.

Jumping off high things REPEATEDLY, being disgustingly fat, poor diet, vaccinations, etc.-these are, IMO, much more of a concern than "maybe" falling. 

Sorry to begin my contribution with these tedious threads, but this stuff is really frustrating to read over and over again.


----------



## susan tuck

Just what this thread needs, more angry sarcasm. :roll:


----------



## Andy Andrews

I know I'm but a lowly "newb" so my opinions carry very little weight here. But, in all sincerity, it seems to me that if this board is truly comprised of the mature, intelligent, professional, and well-intentioned people that I think it is. Then it stands to reason that if a particular training methodology is not your cup of tea, you'd just avoid reading and contributing to threads which touch on those topics. Lord knows there's LOTS of topics here which I neither know anything about or have interest in. I simply don't click on those threads...problem solved! 


To Leo Pui: Your photos and videos are OUTSTANDING!!! Thanks so much for sharing them with us. Please keep up the hard work(and the sharing part too! :wink: ).


My $.02


Andy.


----------



## Woody Taylor

Welcome to the forum, Michele. Please head over to the members section and introduce yourself when you get a chance. We always like knowing about our new posters. Thanks!


----------



## Leo Pui

Andy Andrews said:


> I know I'm but a lowly "newb" so my opinions carry very little weight here. But, in all sincerity, it seems to me that if this board is truly comprised of the mature, intelligent, professional, and well-intentioned people that I think it is. Then it stands to reason that if a particular training methodology is not your cup of tea, you'd just avoid reading and contributing to threads which touch on those topics. Lord knows there's LOTS of topics here which I neither know anything about or have interest in. I simply don't click on those threads...problem solved!


Very true ... it should work this way 8) 



Andy Andrews said:


> To Leo Pui: Your photos and videos are OUTSTANDING!!! Thanks so much for sharing them with us. Please keep up the hard work(and the sharing part too! :wink: ).
> 
> My $.02
> 
> Andy.


Thank you Andy. I can only do that much since English is not my mother langagues. As on the training and exercises, dogs from myself and some friends can at anytime proven themselves well in handling all that, the best part is that ... dog gain confident and perform much better when situation occure.


----------



## Lyn Chen

> Then it stands to reason that if a particular training methodology is not your cup of tea, you'd just avoid reading and contributing to threads which touch on those topics.


It's not that some of us aren't interested. A good number of us *are*. But we often have questions that are usually not addressed properly, resulting in...well, stuff like this thread.


----------



## michele martin

Re: Lyn's post-

Yes, that's what makes mud-slinging really irritating to read when you're genuinely trying to see someone else's ideas or point of view. Why should people avoid a certain thread in fear of it becoming nasty, when if everyone would just cool their jets, it could be downright interesting and informative?

Just seems to someone on the "outside looking in" that there are those who lie in wait for specific others to say the 'wrong' thing, and while some ask legit questions, others merely belittle or try to diminish another member's methods. :?


----------



## Andy Andrews

To Leo Pui: I don't think much gets lost to translation in the videos. The dogs do great!  



To Lyn Chen: If it genuinely comes down to people not understanding someone else's point of view, then I'm sure there are more effective ways of eliciting information. Do people *really* need to revert to name calling and mud slinging to get their point(and or questions) across? What's that old saying...something to do about flies and honey? :wink: 

And for the record, I have never had a question go unanswered on this board...by Al or anyone else for that matter. When I happen upon a thread that is beyond my understanding(yes, there are LOTS of them), I'll just keep asking questions until it makes sense to me. Doesn't anyone else do this, too?


Andy.


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

Woody Taylor said:


> Actually, the macho BS was posted towards Andres' response about the "wussification" of Western civilization. Which disappointed me personally., because I think a lot of Andres' perspectives, whether or not I agree with them, and he's usually more enlightened than that.


You see, that's the problem Woody. you post your acidic remarks on someone else's post seemingly making him likewise a target of your fury. You sound as if 99.5% of the dogworld trains the way we do and we oppress the "minority" with our posts that you have to stand up for them like a knight in shining armor. On the contrary, most of the post I make sounds like a crime to most and subjected to sarcasms by individuals sometimes backed up by supporters behaving like a pack of hooting hyenas. Yet I haven't PMed you nor anyone to perform your duty as a moderator and stand up for me. All that because I am different from the majority here. 



> This (your response) is an example of why people don't challenge the methods, Al. Any disagreement or perceived slight results in a blanket condemnation of anyone else. Yet another PM to me said "I'm not gonna respond to this line of discussion because it's like trying to talk to a post." You've told Selena (Selena, mind you) she's not fit for your dogs, others sharing your philosophy have told the owner of this forum that he knows nothing about dogs, and of course, I'm ignorant for questioning your methods.


Wrong, Woody, and it seems like you are even better in twisting facts. I have always responded with respect to the best of my ability though I have informed you fully well that most of what I do are best felt than said. It's only when you or someone start acting up with intent to ridicule that I give you the same dose of your own medicine.



> Somehow all this Baden-ish stuff always deteriorates down to respective world views of the tough guys and the sheep (the rest of us) whom they feel they must protect. Grudgingly. Which is interesting to me for other reasons outside of the dog training world. There has NEVER been any direct or indirect discussion of Baden methodology in this forum which has not, at some point in time, had some nonsense about how much one can bench press being a standard of "getting it" or not. Again, fascinating (I say this sincerely) to me that there appears to be such an intimate tie between these training methods and masculinity. But another subject.


Again, that's your opinionated opinion. Honestly and with no offense, you sound so immature with that post. If you felt that way after only READING Baden stuff, then that's your problem and certainly not all will share your views. By the way, is that why you post funny acronyms of Baden under disguise of fun or jokes? 

I saved like never before and made trips halfway around the world to see these people train. With all these time, money and effort which aren't easy for me at all considering the economic issues that plague our country, I better see what I came there for or I'd be the first to criticize it at my very best and make a gallant effort to keep other people from being victimized. But then, I will always strain to exhaustively try it, before I even utter a word. That, for your information, Woody, is called fairness and decency.



> Bottom line is you're posting vids in a forum modded by folks (and visited by informed folks) who do not--by your admission and theirs--subscribe to your methods.


Bottom line is this is a forum where everyone can freely discuss varying training methods. Whether it's acceptable to others or not, is to be expected and accepted as a reality and freely discussed with to keep the forum going, with you moderators making sure for everyone's benefit that it is discussed intelligently, civil and with no animosity. 



> What makes you surprised by differing opinions? Or are you just posting to indulge the weak? To show off?


No on those three, Woody. I know where I am. Differing opinions I always expect and am always interested in. At least, there is some interest in what I do. I may no longer feel alone. It's also to know what other people do to incorporate and further improve my trainings. My lament are people with obviously zero interest (or background knowledge) with a ton of arrogance that will twist facts to make me look miserable, unwanted and a criminal for doing the things I do. 




> Quite frankly, I have no idea whether I agree with your training methodology as a whole or not because _you don't talk about it even when you're asked directly._ "Let the dogs speak for themselves" gets so old and is a weak rhetorical strategy when some of us are just trying to figure out what you're doing.


Quite frankly too, Woody. I don't think anything I say will sink in with you with that attitude. It's just like in our training, you have an ounce of hesitation and you failed your dog. 




> If it's any consolation, I have been a lot more aware of my dog and myself as a result of reading what little you all offer up in the way of actual training information. Whether or not I agree with some of the specifics, I know I am much more aware of how I am communicating with my dog and what state I'm in. So thanks for that, seriously.


Thank you very much, Woody.



> And I really wish you'd respond to some of the specific questions asked of you in this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> incidentally, Jose...so these intense bonding sessions...when something does go wrong (does something ever go wrong?) with a 10 mo pup...it falls clumsily into a handler's arms, dislocates an elbow, blows out some ligaments, whatever...by the nature of what you are attempting to accomplish, aren't you at risk of drastically messing up the dog? In the head? For good? The dog has put his implicit trust in you for a training exercise, in a great deal of stress, and the dog gets hurt badly. What does it think about handler after one of those incidents?
> 
> 
> 
> I'd encourage you to answer this assuming I buy 100% into your training philosophy based on the 3% you've shared. Because I think it's relevant to consider if the bonding experience is as deep and intense as you articulate.
Click to expand...

With that request so well-put, I'm obliged to answer but in a way that will provide reasons for the importance of this training for the benefit of the other posters who made related comments and questions. 

First and foremost, I love SAR. These SAR folks I consider silent heroes who unselfishly give themselves exposed to countless and sometimes unforeseen dangers so that others may live. I will always consider as a shining moment to have more of my dogs used for that purpose. With my age, I could still do them a favor of developing SAR-capable dogs that will address the real demands of the work, so that the dog with its handler may likewise live.

What I sadly realize in this forum is that most will be fast to judge only by what they see and relate it in connection with what they or most do. The considerations why these things MUST be done is often dismissed. What most fail to realize is that this kind of work requires passion to carry the training to the extreme, all to make sure the dogs have not only better, but the best chances of survival, ensure calmness, stability, a high degree of safety and confidence as it carries out its task of saving lives with its handler under dynamically deteriorating working conditions. As Konnie herself has observed in actual deployments, it only results to poorly-trained dogs that actually fall victims to what is the most feared accident as expressed in this thread, the fear of falling. Actually, this training addresses this very fear, with handling and stabilization techniques tested and re-tested for this kind of work under more challenging realistic scenarios to vastly reduce, if not eliminate, chances of messing the dog up for good. 

Best regards...


----------



## Woody Taylor

Are you going to respond to the question re: the impact of injury in this type of training? I cannot tell if you have or have not.


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

Woody Taylor said:


> Are you going to respond to the question re: the impact of injury in this type of training? I cannot tell if you have or have not.


Didn't I suggest that techniques are tested and re-tested to vastly reduce, if not eliminate, messing up the dogs for good? I've seen pups fall, they rise and do it all over again that very minute. I guess that has something to do with starting them young, knowing the use of every joint in their body and being comfortable and well-adjusted to it as they mature and grow heavier. On the other hand, I see more of the handlers fall off, with their dogs watching above them.


----------



## Woody Taylor

Let's assume a dog is injured during the bonding exercise, also assuming that the bonding experience based on trust and communication is as tight as your belief system says it is, I'm still asking...



> ...by the nature of what you are attempting to accomplish, aren't you at risk of drastically messing up the dog? In the head? For good? The dog has put his implicit trust in you for a training exercise, in a great deal of stress, and the dog gets hurt badly. What does it think about handler after one of those incidents?


Or have you not been in a situation where a dog has been seriously injured in a stress exercise?


----------



## Al Curbow

Ahhh, the baden connection, now it all makes sense to me...... LOL


----------



## Woody Taylor

---


----------



## Andres Martin

Woody...
Your supercilious and sardonic posts and signatures have driven me away. I suggest you avoid being a gadfly if you want to preserve people like me. If not, keep it up. Your great lack of knowledge precludes you from questioning like you're the "lawyer from hell". Amongst the moderators, you have taken it upon yourself (I suppose) to "stir" the discussion. THAT you have certainly accomplished. I have not found your comments amusing nor intelligent.
I could have simply disappeared, and not posted anymore...but in all honesty, I think YOU should know where - I think - your weaknesses are, and where - IMO - they are affecting this forum....for your consideration.
See ya.


----------



## Tim Martens

Andres Martin said:


> Woody...
> Your supercilious and sardonic posts and signatures have driven me away. I suggest you avoid being a gadfly if you want to preserve people like me. If not, keep it up. Your great lack of knowledge precludes you from questioning like you're the "lawyer from hell". Amongst the moderators, you have taken it upon yourself (I suppose) to "stir" the discussion. THAT you have certainly accomplished. I have not found your comments amusing nor intelligent.
> I could have simply disappeared, and not posted anymore...but in all honesty, I think YOU should know where - I think - your weaknesses are, and where - IMO - they are affecting this forum....for your consideration.
> See ya.


you'll beeeee baaaa-aaaaaacccckkk....


----------



## susan tuck

I don't get it..why couldn't he just answer the question?


----------



## Woody Taylor

And the thread gets better.

Andres, you might want to check your pms if you haven't already left us, I think you missed the (small) joke I was making at doug's expense...not yours.

If you could pm me your response, that would be great. In all seriousness, you missed the joke.


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

Woody Taylor said:


> Let's assume a dog is injured during the bonding exercise, also assuming that the bonding experience based on trust and communication is as tight as your belief system says it is, I'm still asking...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...by the nature of what you are attempting to accomplish, aren't you at risk of drastically messing up the dog? In the head? For good? The dog has put his implicit trust in you for a training exercise, in a great deal of stress, and the dog gets hurt badly. What does it think about handler after one of those incidents?
> 
> 
> 
> Or have you not been in a situation where a dog has been seriously injured in a stress exercise?
Click to expand...

Woody,

Bonding need not only happen while the dog negotiates ladders or on elevated planks. It happens anywhere that you're with your dog. Those exercises are done more to achieve a purpose where you will use that bond and trust to effect it. A young pup need not do those immediately. I may initially just walk with my pup thru various surfaces with various obstacles along the way with the mindset that I walk these paths frequently, so just tag along. Doing introductory mantracking with pups is a great way to see pup's potential. Theré may be a lot more to see in a pup doing trackwork than the usual bitework. You're able to see how much of a dog is your dog. But all these activities contribute well to good bonding. 

Risk is everywhere, and as a handler you'd do well to calculate the risk before you and your dog engage. Think before you move. Before you put your pup up there, think of how you could go up there yourself if you're needed. Handling is a lot more and varies depending on the work you'll do. To work pups on elevated obstacles, you have to be convinced that a pup has good balance, a good degree of agility done on many other obstacles and good scenting skills that you need to work these kind of workouts with him. 

To give you answers to your questions, I would go hypothetical. I can only speak of what I experienced. We haven't experienced any injuries that could mess up a pup for good. None at all. What we sometimes think as too much for a pup, he could handle well. In a fall where a pup easilly recovers, we already think of where our judgement and handling failures are that caused that fall, then we reverse it. We do see some nicks or scratches on our pups after workouts, but nothing to be concerned about at all.

Best regards...


----------



## Lacey Vessell

Ya know I honestly hope we don't lose people from this forum - especially those that think outside the box. I might not agree with everything that a particular trainer does, but there has been very few times that I walk away from seeing a different method of training without learning something and wanting to at least try something different, that of course I feel comfortable and safe doing, with my dogs.


----------



## Chris McDonald

Hooolllly Cow what kind of forum/website did I stumble upon you guys are crazy


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Chris McDonald said:


> Hooolllly Cow what kind of forum/website did I stumble upon you guys are crazy


Many of the forum members who are still with us had similar reactions to this thread, Chris. As you see by the posts.


----------



## maggie fraser

Hi,

Have just stumbled across this thread and having read it in it's entirety, have found it quite fascinating! Think I've learned a bit just by reading here .... if I have anything to add from a complete outsiders point of view it is this ... I think everyone that has posted has made a valid point - great points for discussion - the pros and cons for the use of safety equipment, the question of approach and attitude .... what would be nice for a keen learner like myself, would be a little more forthcoming answers to questions asked, thereby giving greater clarity on the training involved and exercises leading up to those in the video - as without doubt the vid is very impressive and has captured my imagination! 

Cheers

Maggie


----------



## Connie Sutherland

The likes of us commonfolk can't plumb the depths of the mystical connections between some handlers and their dogs.

Sigh.

So there's no point in giving straightforward answers to us......


----------



## Chris McDonald

Connie Sutherland said:


> Many of the forum members who are still with us had similar reactions to this thread, Chris. As you see by the posts.


it does make for great reading


----------



## maggie fraser

Hey Jose,

Is your methodology, no climbing - no food? That's what I heard tell how they do things over your way.... is this true?

Maggie


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

This thread was how many years ago? ? ? ? ??


----------



## maggie fraser

Hiya Jeff,

Do you deem the interest or not of a thread by it's age?  

Maggie


----------



## Ian Forbes

Maggie.

You may be waiting a long time for an answer from Jose - he has not been on this site for a long time.


----------



## maggie fraser

Yep, appreciate that, that's the trouble I suppose when one is new to a site - don't always check the date of the posts!

Maggie


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

Yep, Maggie. I'm still around but we just have had typhoons and another is brewing up as I write. I have been travelling likewise. Also, I have quite a number of dogs from clients for training. I'm sorry I couldn't be that active as before.

I appreciate your interest though, and true, I train with no food, tugs toys or whatever. I read a man's quote written about a century ago that the eyes, voice and gestures are the chief means of influencing a dog. You see, he may be right. 

Best regards.


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

> written about a century ago


And therein lies the problem.


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

Absolutely no problem... absolutely beautiful... absolutely frank and honest... the wisdom of the ages...


----------

