# Table Training



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

A soon to be locked thread but here goes...........

Thomas Barriano links us to Steve Leigh's website which trashes a few trainers, breeders etc.. Said link takes us to the Molly Graff page. I read some of that page and something interesting caught my eye.

Steve Leigh quote regarding table work......


"I'm not looking for a fight with you - I have at least 50 hours of Gene on tape - and he IS forceful - there is no question. We ALL have **TOUCHED** a dog's flank / rump / side with an electric to BRING THE DOG'S FOCUS into the fight rather than avoidance. That's a method used by a lot of us INSTEAD of flanking! Think about it - a fraction of a second of high electric stim .... it might happen 2 or 3 times for a brain dead kinda dog ..... The TOUCH lasts less than ONE SECOND, and the collar is NOT attached to the dog's testicles. "

Now, pardon me but, those that advocate table training usually leave this part out when discussing the merits of such training. Someone please explain to me why FORCING (their words are to "bring the dogs focus into the fight....") a dog to fight when it clearly goes into avoidance is not abusive.

A simple clear, concise, devoid of emotion and name calling response is all I want.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Nobody wanna touch this ********?:-o


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

I once knew a trainer that had a excellent source for IPO 3 dogs out of Germany. His demo dog was SUPER. He would sell folks puppies, then hookem for the training. Now when the poor people that kept up their training with this guru started to realize their dog wasnt anywhere close to that Demo Dog the trainer would have to start looking for options. More times than not..that option would be the table. 

Force the dog to bite..and the new owners would be happy.

I am neither approving or disapproving..Just giving an example of why someone would do it.


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

Howard Knauf said:


> A soon to be locked thread but here goes...........
> 
> THIS HAS TO BE THE FUNNIEST QUOTE ALL DAY!!!!!![-X


----------



## Mike Scheiber (Feb 17, 2008)

Howard Knauf said:


> Now, pardon me but, those that advocate table training usually leave this part out when discussing the merits of such training. Someone please explain to me why FORCING (their words are to "bring the dogs focus into the fight....") a dog to fight when it clearly goes into avoidance is not abusive.
> 
> A simple clear, concise, devoid of emotion and name calling response is all I want.


I haven't participated nor witnessed or know any one that uses the table any thing like Steve Leigh describes.
I have heard of tails of this sorts of stuff on and off tables back 25 years ago and have heard still today these methods may be still be used by some of the more backwards thinking PPD hicks.
Nothing like this that I'm aware of in modern table training but its a big world and I supposed it could be going on somewhere I guess.
I'm not sure I answered your question because I'm not clear what your question is.


----------



## Al Curbow (Mar 27, 2006)

Howard,
I could never even get a simple answer on what you can do on the table that you can't do on the ground, LOL


----------



## Chris Michalek (Feb 13, 2008)

Al Curbow said:


> Howard,
> I could never even get a simple answer on what you can do on the table that you can't do on the ground, LOL


You don't have to reach as far to punch the dog.


----------



## Mike Scheiber (Feb 17, 2008)

Al Curbow said:


> Howard,
> I could never even get a simple answer on what you can do on the table that you can't do on the ground, LOL


Every thing that I have see or used the table for can be done on the ground table can make lessons and training move along faster.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Mike Scheiber;168521
I'm not sure I answered your question because I'm not clear what your question is.[/quote said:


> Is using electricity to force a dog to fight abuse? Especially when that dog is clearly exhibiting avoidance behavior and does not wish to be in its' current situation.


----------



## Mike Scheiber (Feb 17, 2008)

Howard Knauf said:


> Is using electricity to force a dog to fight abuse? Especially when that dog is clearly exhibiting avoidance behavior and does not wish to be in its' current situation.


Yes 
I will add with most certainty that this method has been used on a back tie on the ground with a whip way more often than a table with electric both methods are the same. 
This is cave man dog training Ive been training Schutzhund approaching 20 years and this shit was laughed at back when I started.


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

Howard Knauf said:


> A soon to be locked thread but here goes...........
> 
> Thomas Barriano links us to Steve Leigh's website which trashes a few trainers, breeders etc.. Said link takes us to the Molly Graff page. I read some of that page and something interesting caught my eye.
> 
> ...


 
IMO Steve Leigh is a POS. He will tell ya, he and England are the ONLY ones that know how to table train correctly. Yet Steve isn't doing it, hasn't been doing it, for years and who would pay for that shit abuse to their dogs anyway? No wonder he is out of the dog business. He's still stuck in backwoods training 25 yrs ago.

I have never seen a dog get the E for anything other than an out on a table. 

How does anyone advocate anything on his trash website anyway? 

If you argue with the guy publicly, he smears you on his webpage. I went rounds with him, it's a miracle I'm mentioned nowhere. Maybe when he gets wind of this, I'll have my own section.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

You know you want one.


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

Oh yea Jeff, cause I'm the ME ME ME girl, look at me! :^o


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Michelle Kehoe said:


> If you argue with the guy publicly, he smears you on his webpage. I went rounds with him, it's a miracle I'm mentioned nowhere. Maybe when he gets wind of this, I'll have my own section.


Humorous stuff though, even funnier than some of the shit that gets tossed around here. He is another eccentric one for sure....


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> Humorous stuff though, even funnier than some of the shit that gets tossed around here. He is another eccentric one for sure....


Oh sure, I'm sure it's funnny, until it's your ass getting poked. I have a foul mouth, sick sense of humar and rib the crap out of myself publicly but some shit just goes too far. I think making a website to publicly humiliate/degrade people, is going a bit overboard. I say get a hobby.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Michelle Kehoe said:


> Oh sure, I'm sure it's funnny, until it's your ass getting poked. I have a foul mouth, sick sense of humar and rib the crap out of myself publicly but some shit just goes too far. I think making a website to publicly humiliate/degrade people, is going a bit overboard. I say get a hobby.


point taken


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Here is some table training for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yxwc_Y-X-oc&feature=sub


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Nate Harves did an article that explains in plain talk his view of the table. http://www.sportwaffenk9.com/k9.table.training.shtml There's a couple videos and closeups of the equipment used.


----------



## mike suttle (Feb 19, 2008)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Here is some table training for you.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yxwc_Y-X-oc&feature=sub


WOW, I went to your link expecting to see Gene England. 15 minutes later I was still staring at the screen with a little drool on my chin. But I didn't even notice a table in that video.:-D


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Go to Ms zuzanna's website....(my wife told me to check out her workouts.)


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

mike suttle said:


> WOW, I went to your link expecting to see Gene England. 15 minutes later I was still staring at the screen with a little drool on my chin. But I didn't even notice a table in that video.:-D


All I get is a YouTube that won't load but it's titled something about chicken. I'm guessing you aren't drooling over chicken. Wanna see it, can't see it. 

DFrost


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

bodyrock.tv


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Howard Knauf said:


> Nobody wanna touch this ********?:-o


Howard,

I DID reply but it got deleted.
I find it interesting that so many people attack Steve Leigh for being so mean, BUT nobody disputes the veracity of the posts.
You (generic) talk shit on the internet, but you whine like a little bitch when someone like Steve Leighs skewers you with
your own words/posts.

RE: Table Training

It's been discussed to death already. I've had a couple of my dogs on tables with experienced trainers and have been pleased with the results. Your mileage may vary.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

will fernandez said:


> bodyrock.tv


So...... uhh ok, the........ uhhh hmmm.

DFrost


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Need me to call 911--Is the ticker still kicking?


----------



## Al Curbow (Mar 27, 2006)

WOW!!! I thought i was saying "oh my god" in my mind but turns out i was saying it out loud, my bride walked in and asked what i was looking at, so i quickly came up with what i thought was a perfect answer : "i'm really thinking about changing my eating habits" i told her........The lump on my head isn't really that big and it's not really a bruise, more of a discoloration, LOL! She's always on me to lose lbs because i'm fat, i think she should of used this as a motivational tool! Am i wrong? hahahahaha


----------



## Mike Scheiber (Feb 17, 2008)

Howard Knauf said:


> Is using electricity to force a dog to fight abuse? Especially when that dog is clearly exhibiting avoidance behavior and does not wish to be in its' current situation.


There are a bazillion positive proper ways to use a table why is it the old stupid questions and perceptions prevail. Back when all this started there wasn't any youtube just one or 2 videos and a bunch of rumors, second hand info and hearsay.
If you know how to use google and follow some of the links you can find a entire afternoon worth of various table work on video none of which that I've been able to find involves electrocution to force a dog to fight or bite. 
Ive posted several links in the past ware WDF member can get some glimpses of box and table work how about a look see at some of the places this other torture stuff exists any one got a link of something that's not older than 10 years.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Here's my issue.....Why is Steve Leigh publicly posting that he and England, have in the past/or presently, basically abuse dogs? Then, when I ask the question I get attacked for pointing out the obvious. Maybe I don't understand good abuse from bad abuse](*,)

Anyway...I've never been skewered by Leigh. I did however, allow him to join a training forum that I am an administrator of. Maybe I'll just ask the man directly. We can shish kabob all day long. I might even get my own page on his site.

I will say this...I am remaining neutral to the table idea. I don't get it, but still neutral. If it is being used in an abusive way, stick it to the humans abusing dogs. Leigh openly admits to doing things that I see as abusive. If he's changed his attitude about such things then he needs to amend his site so guys like me don't start threads like this.

Amazed it's still unlocked.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

The man is eccentric I'll say that...

Back to Tables...

I once asked if there is a possibility that some people might just like to use tables, even if their dog doesn't NEED the table...

It seems like it's just another tool, seems like it can be good for certain things (from what I have read and the people I have talked to). I've never had my dog on one, but if it helps with the "out" I might consider it....lol

And like everything else a table can be used for bad things.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

I guess I just figured it was more about getting expedient results. Abuse can arise in about any circumstance, table or not, if you think about it. I see it as more appropriate for a dog with high threshold for defense, and lacking sustainability of their defense drives.


----------



## Stephanie P Johnson (Nov 13, 2009)

Mr. Knauf writes:

>>> Leigh openly admits to doing things that *I see as abusive. 
*

Therein lies the controversy re table training discussions. Defense is defense. Fight/flight two sides of the same coin. If the former vs the latter can and is being shaped does it really matter what tool is being used? Also, do I note that you are objecting to the use of stim on the flank vs through a collar??? 

????

Might I suggest some caution re the use of the term "abuse" on a public message board in association with a PROVEN methodology because it offends *your* sensibility.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Stephanie P Johnson said:


> Mr. Knauf writes:
> 
> >>> Leigh openly admits to doing things that *I see as abusive.
> * .... Might I suggest some caution re the use of the term "abuse" on a public message board in association with a PROVEN methodology because it offends *your* sensibility.


??

He said that _he sees_ as abusive. In other words, _in his opinion._


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Howard Knauf said:


> ... I will say this...I am remaining neutral to the table idea. I don't get it, but still neutral. If it is being used in an abusive way, stick it to the humans abusing dogs. Leigh openly admits to doing things that I see as abusive. If he's changed his attitude about such things then he needs to amend his site so guys like me don't start threads like this.
> 
> Amazed it's still unlocked.


This question: _Is using electricity to force a dog to fight abuse?_ seems to get no response.

Seems like a simple enough request for opinions, but mostly what comes back is "there are a million ways to use a table, etc., etc."

OK. But _"Is it abuse to use electricity to force a dog to fight?"
_
I think it is. That's my opinion. Nothing to do with who does what with a table. _This is my opinion of what Howard describes, not of any person or web site._

eta
And yes, I have seen defense-table training, by more than one trainer, in 2007. Less than "a decade ago."  It's still just my _opinion_ about using electricity to force a dog to fight.


----------



## Stephanie P Johnson (Nov 13, 2009)

Connie Sutherland said:


> ??
> 
> He said that _he sees_ as abusive. In other words, _in his opinion._


My point -*his* opinion. Goes to what exactly is "abuse". Is it appropriate to term a training method application abusive because one *sees* it as such,
especially when one is most likely using a different/similar method to achieve the same end?


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Stephanie P Johnson said:


> My point -*his* opinion. Goes to what exactly is "abuse". Is it appropriate to term a training method application abusive because one *sees* it as such,
> especially when one is most likely using a different/similar method to achieve the same end?



I'm not sure what "different/similar" means. 

And he _said_ it was his opinion, his point of view. 

I guess I'm not following. Why can't he say that he considers something abusive if he does?


eta

There are folks who think prong collars and e-collars are abusive. Just because I disagree with them doesn't mean I say that they can't express that opinion on a web board.

QUOTE: _"Goes to what exactly is 'abuse'." _

Well, isn't it a matter of opinion?


----------



## Stephanie P Johnson (Nov 13, 2009)

Connie Sutherland said:


> I'm not sure what "different/similar" means.
> 
> >>>http://www.merriam-webster.com/
> 
> ...


>>>But doyou think it is okay to tell people that the way they train is abusive?

Suggesting that someone use caution throwing around the word "abuse" in a discussion of dog training and telling them that they can't express an opinion are two different things.


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

I'll just say using the E to illicit a fear or pain response is not what the people I know do or how we train. When you flank a dog, he knows it's you, the bad guy causing the pain, he has something to lash out at. What does a SHOCK from God show a dog? Who does he lash out at and where? A good response from a flanking would be the dog turning around to protect his ass, what does a dog shocked with a collar do, piss himself because he doesn't know what the hell just happened or why? The collar is too impersonal I think, to use for this.

I thought the point of the defense table, was to show a dog not all people are nice and he needs to be a little less trusting, watch his back and learn to decern a threat. That is where the slinking around and suspicious looking moves the decoys make, come in. A bark at the weirdo, makes him run off, dog gets praise for running him off and learns the appropriet response. 

How far or abusive someone goes/has to go, to illicit a response from a dog is up to the dog, owner of that dog and the trainer. I've seen toe hitches, ear pulling, twisting of flanks and slapping of the whip on the dogs feet. Thankfully neither of my dogs took more than a pinch or 2 to understand not all people are friends. If they didn't have it in them after a few sessions of that, they wouldn't be anything but somebodies pet. I'm not into making a dog look like something it isn't.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Michelle Kehoe said:


> I'll just say using the E to illicit a fear or pain response is not what the people I know do or how we train. When you flank a dog, he knows it's you, the bad guy causing the pain, he has something to lash out at. What does a SHOCK from God show a dog? Who does he lash out at and where? A good response from a flanking would be the dog turning around to protect his ass, what does a dog shocked with a collar do, piss himself because he doesn't know what the hell just happened or why? The collar is too impersonal I think, to use for this.
> 
> >I would not use an e-collar in this situation either
> 
> ...


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

I've not heard that, Thomas about him calling it a "confidence table" but that makes sense, at least the way I see the table being used. I have also seen it used to teach different things to different dogs like targeting for some dogs, some dogs learn the out on the table, many things but I honestly have never seen it used to make a dog fearful and certainly not in conjunction with electricity to elicit a defensive reaction.


----------



## Stephanie P Johnson (Nov 13, 2009)

Connie Sutherland said:


> I think he said that he saw it as abusive. How do we feel about the folks who say that they consider it abusive to use prong collars to train the dog not to pull? Do we tell them that they need to be cautious about saying that in public?
> 
> I'm not disrespecting your opinion about this. Not at all. I just see it as a matter of opinion. And I'm pretty sure that the only time most of us (including me :lol: ) don't like it when someone else describes a method as "what I see as abusive" is when we _don't_ see it as abusive.
> 
> ...


Yes how very bonding our conversation has been in a non-confrontational facebook kind of way, Ms. Sutherland. And how very magnanimous of you to throw me a hotdog for discoursing in a manner you approve of.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

CS: _I think he said that he saw it as abusive. How do we feel about the folks who say that they consider it abusive to use prong collars to train the dog not to pull? Do we tell them that they need to be cautious about saying that in public?

I'm not disrespecting your opinion about this. Not at all. I just see it as a matter of opinion. And I'm pretty sure that the only time most of us (including me ) don't like it when someone else describes a method as "what I see as abusive" is when we don't see it as abusive._

SJ >>>I don't recall offering an opinion as to whether or not I see the method as abusive. 

CS: _I don't tell the anti-prong folks to be careful in public flinging around the term "abusive" with regard to prong collars -- I've disagreed with them and explained why, but I didn't say "you shouldn't say that in public." 

SJ: _>>>The anti-prong people are usually rank novices or have never owned a non-compliant dog or breed. I am assuming that neither apply to Mr. Knauf. Is it wise for someone whose experience may qualify him as "expert" to start pointing the finger of abuse at another trainer with equal "expert" status? (As I recall, the 2004 WUSV World Championship #2 placing was D. Zappia. Care to hazard a guess as to who one of her helpers was?) Make a long story short - because this thing that we do (breed/train dogs to fight a man) is unnatural, ANYTHING we do can and is being interpretated in a negative way in a wider political arena than this forum. Again I suggest caution re criticism of a methodology. Or maybe we should all just resign ourselves to owning cats.

.......................................................................
CS: _
I don't see a lot of "caution re criticism of a methodology" on dog training boards. I understand your points. We just disagree about this. _


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

CS: _"P.S. I appreciate it that we are discussing this without the posts devolving in any way. I figure it's the name. (My middle name is Stephanie.) :lol: "_


SJ: Yes how very bonding our conversation has been in a non-confrontational facebook kind of way, Ms. Sutherland. And how very magnanimous of you to throw me a hotdog for discoursing in a manner you approve of.

..............................................




Hmm. Based on the board's happenings for the last couple of days, I thought it was a humorous P.S. 

Guess not. :lol:


----------



## Stephanie P Johnson (Nov 13, 2009)

.......................................................................
CS: _
I don't see a lot of "caution re criticism of a methodology" on dog training boards. _[/QUOTE]

Really? Would you please direct me to another Working dog forum (you may omit the one to which the owner contribute regularly to further his agenda) on which members are allowed by the admin to term a methodology abusive because they see it so?


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Stephanie P Johnson said:


> .......................................................................
> CS: _
> I don't see a lot of "caution re criticism of a methodology" on dog training boards. _





Stephanie P Johnson said:


> _Really? Would you please direct me to another Working dog forum (you may omit the one to which the owner contribute regularly to further his agenda) on which members are allowed by the admin to term a methodology abusive because they see it so?_



Kind of a tangent, but are you saying that admin should disallow a training method opinion if it includes "I see it as abusive"? 

I thought it was just one poster to another. You're saying that it should have been moderated?


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen (Mar 29, 2006)

I see no point for moderation. Difference of views/opinions are allowed here, you can discuss those different points of view.

Above discussion is an adult one, thanks for showing me it is possible...


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Well....I see that certain people are so over protective of a certain training style that no-one is allowed to give an opinion.

I'll clarify my OPINION on why I SEE IT as abusive.....

If I have a dog that I would like to train for police or PP or whatever, I would have properly selected such a candidate in advance. Proper selection, I believe, would gain you a dog that doesn't go into avoidance under anything but the most extreme circumstances. Elevated on a table is not extreme. So a properly selected dog would not need to be STIMMED to get it TO FOCUS on a threat after the dog has clearly gone into AVOIDANCE during something as mundane as being placed on a table. Just my opinion of course.

Now....if I have a dog that is not a good candidate for police or PP etc., and I just want a dog that bites, well....go ahead and do what Leigh describes on his site. Not sure if I want to trust such a dog but thats my opinion once again.

But, to give the benefit of the doubt here...lets say that we need to teach a dog to bite when elevated. Do we do the same FOCUS routine on the dog in every circumstance he is uncomfortable with and displays avoidance? I don't really want an answer because I can't be convinced.

The crux of the matter to me is this........I don't like using pain on a dog to get it to fight. It reminds me of dog fighters who force normally non aggressive dogs to fight by letting another dog kick their ass till the abused dog fights for its life. Maybe not a fair comparison, but very similar.

I DON"T FORCE DOGS TO BITE IF THEY HAVE NO PENCHANT TO DO SO NATURALLY. That is why it is my OPINION that this is abuse.

Hope my non- dog- titling opinion can be respected here....just like I respect anyone who uses the table (For whatever reason) but isn't abusive in my OPINION.

Hope that is clear for those that wish to think I am ignorant.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Howard

I agree with you 100 percent.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Careful Will, you stand too close you might get some stink on you:lol:


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Thats alright you know we already smell like bacon.


----------



## Max Orsi (May 22, 2008)

I agree with you Howard.

Nice post.

Happy training

Max


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

I agree too and further ask why would anyone force a dog to bite as opposed to just getting a better dog and one that is naturally inclined?
This question isn't for folks that use tables on a dog that is already bitig well...just to be clear.
T


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

I know I didn't spell it out in my post, but not only have I never seen a table used as described in the original post, if I ever did see it used like that I would not like it one bit, I agree, if you have to do that to get a dog to bite it's not worth it, that's just too extreme for my taste.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

susan tuck said:


> I know I didn't spell it out in my post, but *not only have I never seen a table used as described in the original post*, if I ever did see it used like that I would not like it one bit, I agree, if you have to do that to get a dog to bite it's not worth it, that's just too extreme for my taste.



This is why so many of us try so hard to keep the terms clear on these table threads. They always end up with three or four completely different discussions going on simultaneously.

This is the first one where I've actually seen it go this far here and still be clear about exactly what was under discussion.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Howard Knauf said:


> I DON"T FORCE DOGS TO BITE IF THEY HAVE NO PENCHANT TO DO SO NATURALLY. That is why it is my OPINION that this is abuse.


I agree with you Howard, and a lot of others I know, do too.

If the dog doesn't bring it to the table, why put it on it? Being able to look the decoy in the eye (depending on size of decoy) is supposed to give the dog more self confidence. If the dog needs this security, it's not worth taking it further, let alone breeding from it.

The advantages of being able to face the dog front on without the hindrance of the handler maybe jigging about with the lead can be done on the ground by attaching the lead to a pole.

I still have to hear / read another reason for table training but no one wants to come clean. I'm willing to learn.

I trained with a German decoy and saw a lot of very good dogs pass under his hands but we had no table.


----------



## Stephanie P Johnson (Nov 13, 2009)

Howard Knauf said:


> Well....I see that certain people are so over protective of a certain training style that no-one is allowed to give an opinion.
> 
> >>>For the record, I have never used a table for anything other than grooming or stacking a small breed.
> 
> ...


>>>Mr. Knauf. If I thought you were ignorant and felt compelled to tell you so, all the Nazi speech police moderators threats of banning in the internet universe would not prevent me from saying so to you. I do not think you are ignorant. (And for clarification no mods have threatened me with banning for my input on this thread. At least not yet.)


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

will fernandez said:


> Thats alright you know we already smell like bacon.



That's funny right there!:mrgreen::mrgreen:

I know table training threads always go awry. I don't get involved in them anymore. When I read this I did not start the thread to flame table trainers. I started it to see if there are other people who feel as I do.

Had this very same method been used on a dog in the vegetable section of Walmart, I would still feel the same way. Just sayin'.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Gillian Schuler said:


> If the dog doesn't bring it to the table, why put it on it? Being able to look the decoy in the eye (depending on size of decoy) is supposed to give the dog more self confidence. If the dog needs this security, it's not worth taking it further, let alone breeding from it.
> 
> quote]
> 
> ...


----------



## Stephanie P Johnson (Nov 13, 2009)

Connie Sutherland said:


> Kind of a tangent
> 
> >>>Why yes, it is.
> 
> ...


----------



## Stephanie P Johnson (Nov 13, 2009)

Above discussion is an adult one, thanks for showing me it is possible...[/QUOTE]

>>>GACK! Ms van Leeuwen the mod supply of hot dogs is starting to make me nauseous.


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen (Mar 29, 2006)

Stephanie P Johnson said:


> Selena van Leeuwen said:
> 
> 
> > Above discussion is an adult one, thanks for showing me it is possible...
> ...


Feel free to leave missy...


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

So Stephanie...it appears you disagree with my opinion on what is/is not abuse...correct? Or is it just the fact that I voiced an unfavorable opinion about a person you respect even though i used his own words and admissions.

If you feel it's not abuse, please state your case. This isn't about Steve Leigh, it's about a method. Lets say Santa Claus is doing this. Do you agree with St. Nick, or not. If you do, expound on your decision.

Selena, I'd like an explanation one way or the other before she leaves...if she decides too.


----------



## Stephanie P Johnson (Nov 13, 2009)

Howard Knauf said:


> So Stephanie...it appears you disagree with my opinion on what is/is not abuse...correct? Or is it just the fact that I voiced an unfavorable opinion about a person you respect even though i used his own words and admissions.
> 
> >>>Neither. Please refer to my original post in this thread.
> 
> ...


>>>I'm not going anywhere. It appears Ms. van Leeuwen understands me and is willing to supply a motivator of value to me.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Stephanie P Johnson said:


> Mr. Knauf writes:
> 
> >>> Leigh openly admits to doing things that *I see as abusive.
> *
> ...


 Stephanie,

I have no problem working a dog in defense. If the dog naturally goes defensive, AND will bite without fleeing or avoidance, then by all means continue. I vehemently oppose not giving a dog the option to flee. If the dog wants to flee, why the hell do I want him in the first place?

I oppose using a stim on the flank, neck, groin or anywhere else to get a dog to fight that does not naturally want to even in defense. Again...whats the point?

As far as MY sensibility....dancing bears in certain countries only have a ring through the nose. They are forced to dance, or be hung by the nose if they don't. Those so-called trainers don't see it as abuse, but I do. To me it's the same thing. Teaching bears to dance with that PROVEN methodology does not make it right.

Questions answered.

Now...state your case for the method I oppose.


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen (Mar 29, 2006)

@ stephanie: just out of curiosity, is your breakfast 1 liter of vinegar everyday?


----------



## Steve Strom (May 25, 2008)

Selena van Leeuwen said:


> @ stephanie: just out of curiosity, is your breakfast 1 liter of vinegar everyday?


"T" ouche'. Right from the Eve of Summer.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Steve Strom said:


> "T" ouche'. Right from the Eve of Summer.


That was some funny sh*t


----------



## Stephanie P Johnson (Nov 13, 2009)

Howard Knauf said:


> Stephanie,
> 
> I have no problem working a dog in defense.
> 
> ...


----------



## Stephanie P Johnson (Nov 13, 2009)

Selena van Leeuwen said:


> @ stephanie: just out of curiosity, is your breakfast 1 liter of vinegar everyday?


How did you guess? I prefer the apple cidar variety fresh from the orchard but it's all but impossible to find in Texas.


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen (Mar 29, 2006)

Stephanie P Johnson said:


> How did you guess? I prefer the apple cidar variety fresh from the orchard but it's all but impossible to find in Texas.


 :mrgreen:


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood (Mar 27, 2006)

Stephanie, could you please learn to use the Quote feature of this forum correctly, or not quote at all. It's really difficult to try and follow this thread when I can't figure out who said what.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Stephanie said...."And your training method of preference is..."

Depends on if I start with a pup, juvenile or adult. Either way, it is based in prey. Defense is introduced whenever I feel the dog is ready.

Stephanie said..."
>>>Not to be redundant, but fight/flight are the two sides of the same coin-defense aka fear. I "think" what I am hearing is an assumption on
your part that a dog that initially avoids will always avoid. Fear forward can be a shaped behavior-hence the proliference of flim-flam-I mean ppd trainers."

If I see a dog that initially avoids. it's a shitter and I don't want it....especially if I have to do what Steve wrote. Avoidance is a wide spectrum....if a dog avoids, then recovers and aggresses based in fear...I still dont want him for police work, maybe PP work though.

Stephanie wrote...">>You don't use a lead during initial bite work training?"

Depends on if its an adult or puppy. Bite work is also a wide spectrum. Please be more specific.


Stephanie wrote...."
>>>Again...should one draw a line as to where someone else chooses to 
elicit a behavoir?"

One can do whatever the hell they want. That person has to live with themselves, not me. Of course...if someone were to cross the line in the eyes of the law, that person gets to live with bubba.


Stephanie wrote in response to my dancing bear analogy..."
>>>Not really relevant. The dog will at some point have to be taken off the table to trial. Are you suggesting that all the table trained dogs will follow the un-nosed ringed bears into the woods?"

I never suggested ALL the dogs being worked on a table would do that. I DO suggest that a dog not particularly suited for bite work genetically can become sharp, too highly defensive, low threshold shitters that can be run off the field. JMO of course:lol:


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

The table we use is the lower 18" round table. We will demo this table at the Gathering. 

The table that is being talked about here is the defense table.

My question: A dog that shows a lot of fight and is not afraid to bite, how is he controlled? My point is this, how many people can tell if a dog is in defense or fight drive? Which dog would you put on the D-table?


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Howard Knauf said:


> Is using electricity to force a dog to fight abuse? Especially when that dog is clearly exhibiting avoidance behavior and does not wish to be in its' current situation.




Howard, I've made my argument about table training in the past. I won't bore the posters with it again. I do, however, agree with you completely. It is certainly my opinion training as you described in your question is abusive. I often times think those that are worried about "public perception" of how training is conducted, may indeed have something to hide. 

DFrost


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Jerry Lyda said:


> The table we use is the lower 18" round table. We will demo this table at the Gathering.
> 
> The table that is being talked about here is the defense table.
> 
> My question: A dog that shows a lot of fight and is not afraid to bite, how is he controlled? My point is this, how many people can tell if a dog is in defense or fight drive? Which dog would you put on the D-table?



Hi Jerry,

Not sure what you mean by controlled. Are you talking about command compliance without compulsion?

I wish I could intelligently answer the second part of your question. Being as I don't use a table, deciding on what dog is a candidate for it is beyond my scope of knowledge. Does this question have anything to do with forcing a dog to fight when it goes into avoidance?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

OK, I'm going to make a feeble attempt here. I don't know why you would use a method to teach a sport dog to think there is a threat where he had the good sense/judgment to see there wasn't one, to make him "look" more agressive for points. This goes to the B & H for me. If it were a true hold, the decoy would either make it seem to the dog as if he was going to escape or agress against the dog. One of the questions I've had for awhile was in the LE context, what is the test/selection criteria for the dog. Do you train the dog in defense or set up scenarious to see if he will fold with an attack/defense situation. It seems to me you have to determine if its flight or fight [naturally]. If its fight, he's a keeper. HK seems to be saying that he wants the seek and engage dog instead of the dog given the chance, he will avoid and no amount of senario training is gonna change what the dog is. If its flight, he's either detection or someone's pet???? What does a table serve in terms of what the dog as the final product will be. 



Terrasita


----------



## Randy Allen (Apr 18, 2008)

Can we see an anwser to Howards question Stephanie?
For a review here it is:

Quote,"So Stephanie...it appears you disagree with my opinion on what is/is not abuse...correct? Or is it just the fact that I voiced an unfavorable opinion about a person you respect even though i used his own words and admissions.

If you feel it's not abuse, please state your case. This isn't about Steve Leigh, it's about a method. Lets say Santa Claus is doing this. Do you agree with St. Nick, or not. If you do, expound on your decision.

Selena, I'd like an explanation one way or the other before she leaves...if she decides too." unquote


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

Howard, I'm talking about a dog that someone may think that he is in defense when really this dog loves to fight. So he is in fight drive, and I know some people don't even believe there is a fight drive, this dog will need to have MORE control than a dog in defense. A dog in defense will readly give up the fight if the threat is gone therefore not much conrol needed. A dog in fight drive will continue to want to fight eventhough the threat is gone or leaving.

I would put neither on a defense table, but I would put both on the round table, to get better control.

Just an added comment, I wouldn't want a dog that works in only defense.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

So how does the round table get you more control of the dog that loves a fight for the sake of a fight? I'm not biased one way or the other, except against inflicting pain and to sensitive areas to put a dog in survival mode to get a bite response. I'm just curious how LEs select and train for the dogs they need on the street.


Terrasita


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Hi Jerry,

I get your meaning now. And I agree neither should be on a defense table (I assume I'm right given the name of the table), no need to.

And you are correct, it can be difficult to determine fight from defense unless you've seen and worked a lot of dogs. You have more experience with numbers than I do, I'm sure.

as far as the discussion moving in a slightly different direction....I fear it will be a repeat of previous threads about table training.

You've obviously read the thread. How do you feel about a dog in avoidance being forced to fight via use of e collar? We're not talking about the nuances of defense and fight here...were talking avoidance.


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

NO survival mode on the round table. It's a table for fun. There is less room for error, handler error etc... The dog is rewarded for correct behaviors no punishments for wrong decisions on his part. He simply does it until it's correct


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

I wouldn't of expected any less, Jerry.;-)


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

Then I have a question, If you make the dog fight that is in advoidance will he protect you in real life without the collar on? I don't thnk so. Why even waste your time on this dog. let him stay on the porch. LOL


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

This is what I'm saying. To use pain to force a dog to do something is IMO abuse.

Seems we've come full circle here.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Jerry Lyda said:


> Then I have a question, If you make the dog fight that is in advoidance will he protect you in real life without the collar on? I don't thnk so. Why even waste your time on this dog. let him stay on the porch. LOL


I agree...just throwing one last curve ball..

But what about a happy strong nerved dog that views everyone as his buddy? That has no intial interest in fighting but does not go into avoidance.. gotta find the fight somehow. One that has a high pain tolerance, or pain threshold....I've seen a few where the common methods fall short.

I am more talking about an adult dog, without prior training obviously....NOT talking *abusive* in my mind, but some dogs take a little more to wake up...and some of these dogs can become pretty damn effective. 

I am more talking for personal protection obviously. I know that's not popular around here at all..but still happens all over, not always with bad results. I prefer to do distance, fence work or night work..with a lot of handler help...its much slower but won't damage a dog if done right.

I agree about the avoidance thing totally, the dog has it or doesn't. but sometimes the dog doesn't know he has it, as doesn't learn this as easy as most dogs...


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> I agree...just throwing one last curve ball..
> 
> But what about a happy strong nerved dog that views everyone as his buddy? That has no intial interest in fighting but does not go into avoidance.. gotta find the fight somehow. One that has a high pain tolerance, or pain threshold....I've seen a few where the common methods fall short.
> 
> ...


Joby, I asked the same things, because my dogs fall under this catagory.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

if you have to go deep to find the fight its just not worth it.JMHO


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

I don't consider what was done to my dogs, "going deep" and why wouldn't it be worth it, if the dog works better? Not all dogs are born nasty or sharp. I'd rather give my dogs a wakeup workout and keep the stableness they were born with, than vice versa. It took all of 5 minutes to show the dogs what was expected, be suspicious, watch your ass. 

I agree with you if your talking hours of table work to get a dog to come forward.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

will fernandez said:


> if you have to go deep to find the fight its just not worth it.JMHO


I agree with that too, for me personally. but some people want to find it, and find it they will...one way or another


----------



## Matt Hammond (Apr 11, 2006)

The round table does not find the fight in a dog, it is a tool used to correct positions, (bark and hold, out and guard, correct the out, increase drive) I use the round table just about everyday, the square table I have is used more for grooming now a days. But the idea behind it is a no bite table, just a lot of movement from the decoy to bring out drives in a dog, getting the active aggression and active barking on command. Some take it a step to far but then again some take everything a step to far.


----------



## andreas broqvist (Jun 2, 2009)

I must write a nother side of al this about a good dog and not.
How about a good trainer, Not al dogs are going to get breed. A dog that you have to digg more to get the drives out is mor of a chalnge, It makes you think, make you work.

HEy everyon can train a dog that has it al from the get go, Then just put the OB on the dog and show him waht to do. So what are you a good trainer if you can do that?

If a friend ore somone we train with want to train a dog, Only to say SCH I becaust he want to train with the dog shuld I not help him?
Shuld I say, No your dog is crap shoot him? Hell no. If he wants to train the dog I will trye to find whats in the dog and make the best of it. He just wants to have fun with his dog.

If the dog dosent like it, Thats a nother story. I will not forec a dog to train somthing he does not like just becuas the handel want to.

And no I wuld not train a dog so that somone can breed a shit dog with a tittel.
But al this a dog neads to be perfect is getting old.


----------



## Stephanie P Johnson (Nov 13, 2009)

Mr.Knauf wrote:

"To use pain to force a dog to do something is IMO abuse."

It seems that has become the underlying theme of this thread. And the association of this idea with table training is what usually throws this topic into a screaming hissy fit.

I note you make no objection to Mr. Becker's and Ms. Kehoe's "waking up" a dog. This is a nuance of bringing the defense,is it not? To go back to your original objection, can you see that avoidance itself is a nuance of defense in the dog, the most extreme end of the spectrum yes, but a nuance just the same. If I understand correctly, you are objecting to inducing a behavior with physical stress. But it is stress itself that brings the dog into defense. 
And once again,your personal preferences for type of dog and methodology aside, do you feel comfortable calling what someone else does abuse because it is not the way you would do it?


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

You still don't get it, do you?

I'm not bashing your beloved table training, or those that do it. I've already stated that. 

I've made my opinion perfectly clear...have answered your questions...have been supported by like minded individuals....but have NOT recieved an answer from you in regards to MY question, AND I've tried to keep this thread on topic.

DO YOU FEEL USING PAIN ON A DOG TO GET IT TO FIGHT ONCE ITS" GONE INTO AVOIDANCE IS ABUSE????

Simple yes or no would suffice at this time. Being as you demand answers, but won't answer yourself, a one word reply is all I'm expecting to get from you....if that.

Maybe I can make the question a bit easier to answer......Would you force your Wienerr dog down a badger hole if he clearly did not wish to engage said badger?


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Howard Knauf said:


> You still don't get it, do you?
> 
> I'm not bashing your beloved table training, or those that do it. I've already stated that.
> 
> ...



Howard,

You're not getting the reply you wanted because of the way the question is worded. It's like asking "Do you still beat your wife" answer yes or no !
I'll give you my answer: I don't consider a micro second stim with an ecollar on the flank as being painfull or abusive. Certainly far less painful or abusive then actually flanking the dog. Which I believe was the point that Steve Leigh was making, nine years ago when this conversation originally took place.
I also believe the stim was more to get the dog to focus
on the decoy then to get him to "fight"

Let's get back to the original webpage you took your quote from. What do you think of someone that accuses a well known trainer of abusing dogs, claims to have video proof and then refuses to provide the proof when someone takes them up on their offer?


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Stephanie P Johnson said:


> It seems that has become the underlying theme of this thread. And the association of this idea with table training is what usually throws this topic into a screaming hissy fit.
> 
> I note you make no objection to Mr. Becker's and Ms. Kehoe's "waking up" a dog.


 Abuse is not the underlying theme...it is the theme. Mr. Becker and Ms. Kehoe do not put an Ecollar to their dogs groin, flank, or genitalia to elicit a response to the best of my knowledge. Would either poster wish to confirm, or deny my assumption? They never stated they did this, but let them tell you thierself.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

I'm also curious about why, if someone believed that a method was abusive, they should not feel "comfortable" stating that opinion.

I keep getting from some posts the idea that just because someone else does it and approves of it, another person cannot find it abusive.

Or shouldn't "feel comfortable saying so."


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Howard Knauf said:


> Abuse is not the underlying theme...it is the theme. Mr. Becker and Ms. Kehoe do not put an Ecollar to their dogs groin, flank, or genitalia to elicit a response to the best of my knowledge. Would either poster wish to confirm, or deny my assumption? They never stated they did this, but let them tell you thierself.



NO one put a e collar on their dogs groin or genitalia either !
Bernhard Flinks recommends flanking a dog for the out as a training method on his DVD's. Do you consider him as being
abusive or is it only abuse if done with an e-collar or on a 
table


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Thomas,

THANK YOU for your honest opinion. See Steph, it's not that hard. Nothing to be afraid of. I didn't bite anyone's head off.

Let me pose a question to you Thomas. I don't wish for you to speak for anyone but yourself but....how far are you willing to go to gain this focus? Is a stim of 15 acceptable? 30? 50? 100?. At what point do you believe it is still considered humane? Is it any different than the shocking of humans in the 50s to shape/reduce bad behavior in so called anti social etc people?

Finally...I'm not here to rehash the drama between Molly Graf and Steve Leigh. He has that pretty well covered in his site. You directed us to that drama and I found his admissions concerned me enough to start this thread.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Thomas Barriano said:


> NO one put a e collar on their dogs groin or genitalia either !
> Bernhard Flinks recommends flanking a dog for the out as a training method on his DVD's. Do you consider him as being
> abusive or is it only abuse if done with an e-collar or on a
> table


 Being as I cannot confirm, or deny where the ecollar is put, my statements may be out of line. Then again...how far is someone really willing to go to gain that focus from a dog in avoidance? It's a slippery slope ya know.

In Ref to Flinks...this is not the same thing. I dont flamk for the out but if Bernard want to thats fine with me. Refusal to comply with commands is a different ball of wax.

And I reiterate....I dont care where it's done, Walmart...post office...an airplane, this isn't about the table. I can't be anymore clearer than that. So everyone defending the table can stop. I don't give a flip about the table. You can teach em pole dancing on a table if you want.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Howard Knauf said:


> Thomas,
> 
> THANK YOU for your honest opinion. See Steph, it's not that hard. Nothing to be afraid of. I didn't bite anyone's head off.
> 
> ...


Depends on the dog and the brand of collar. I use a Tri-tronics Pro 200. Both my Dutchie and Dobermann work
on a level 2 (out of 6) My wife's wire haired pointing Griffon works at 3 or 4. A nick (at level 2) to get attention during OB usually works. Sometimes I need to hit continuous during protection to get a response. Gene England said a E-collar
can be used to teach or punish. I prefer to use it to teach. 

There is a BIG difference between the levels used in the
50's for Electro Shock Therapy and even the highest levels of a modern remote trainer. Apples and oranges.

RE: the Molly/Jeff Drama

I referenced the Leigh page when the comment about Molly table training her dogs was made on the "video" on another post. My comment was she didn't "table train" with Gene England and I posted the pointer as "proof".
Sorry but you can't take one paragraph out of context, from
a dedicated page with multiple paragraphs and then state you don't want to rehash the drama


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Thomas,

I read the whole mini series. I did not hand pick a thing. I read something disturbing which was written by Leigh and I started a thread. Again, this has nothing to do with Molly Graf...it has everything to do what Steve Leigh wrote.

I concede to your concerns ref the ecollar brands....I use a Dogtra 1700NCP and that was in my mind when I wrote the last post. My bad for not considering the vast number of different models out there. The gist was though...how far do you go to gain compliance..or "focus"?


----------



## Stephanie P Johnson (Nov 13, 2009)

Mr. Knauf wrote:

"how far are you willing to go to gain this focus?"

That's it in a nutshell. I realize you were speaking to Mr. Barriano, but this is what is important to me in this discussion. I'm not willing to make that call for someone else and I don't want someone else making it for me, be it whether I choose to use a table, a prong, shock collar, or whether or not my weiner dog goes down the hole for the badger. 

Pointing the finger of abuse is just that, attempting to make the call for someone else.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Howard Knauf said:


> Then again...how far is someone really willing to go to gain that focus from a dog in avoidance? It's a slippery slope ya know.
> 
> In Ref to Flinks...this is not the same thing. I dont flamk for the out but if Bernard want to thats fine with me. Refusal to comply with commands is a different ball of wax.


Howard

REREAD the original post, especially this part

"BRING THE DOG'S FOCUS into the fight rather than avoidance."

The stim was used to get focus "into the fight instead of 
avoidance", NOT that the dog was in avoidance and the stim would get him out of avoidance. Flinks doesn't flank a dog
if he doesn't out (comply with a command) He flanks the dog to get him to out. This isn't to slam Flinks this is the
only part of his training technique I have a problem with


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

_"I'm not willing to make that call for someone else and I don't want someone else making it for me, be it whether I choose to use a table, a prong, shock collar, or whether or not my weiner dog goes down the hole for the badger. 

Pointing the finger of abuse is just that, attempting to make the call for someone else."_


Meaning that there is no point at which you call something abuse?

If someone else is doing it, it's not your place to call it abusive? Ever?


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Howard Knauf said:


> I concede to your concerns ref the ecollar brands....I use a Dogtra 1700NCP and that was in my mind when I wrote the last post. My bad for not considering the vast number of different models out there. The gist was though...how far do you go to gain compliance..or "focus"?


My personal opinion, not very far. I use relatively low levels.
If I don't get attention at my dogs regular training level then
I'll look at other solutions/problems. If the dog is about to
run out into traffic I'll zap him, but for training I've never been above a 3 with either of my dogs


----------



## Stephanie P Johnson (Nov 13, 2009)

"Meaning that there is no point at which you call something abuse?

If someone else is doing it, it's not your place to call it abusive? Ever?"

Acknowledged grey area.

For this topic, it is important to note that "working the dog in defense" is bringing stress to the dog. Might not then the whole concept of bringing the dog into defense be subject to the accusation of abuse?


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Double post


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Howard
> 
> REREAD the original post, especially this part
> 
> ...



OK thomas...you say tomato, I say tomotto. Come on. If you believe the dog will possibly go into avoidance, why try to make them fight? Is it because the ecollar is the easiest way to get this reaction? A reaction BTW that I dont want..but thats just me. I don't like highly defensive dogs, on the table or on the ground.

For the record, I don't flank dogs to teach the out either.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Stephanie P Johnson said:


> For this topic, it is important to note that "working the dog in defense" is bringing stress to the dog. Might not then the whole concept of bringing the dog into defense be subject to the accusation of abuse?


 No...Life is full of stress, either enviromental or self inflicted. Hell, just being hungry is stressful.

There is another thread going about PSDs and defense work. I have zero problem doing defense work with a dog. I do have a problem forcing a dog when he isn't willing to do it himself naturally. Restricting the dog from flight and using pain compliance is my issue.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Howard Knauf said:


> OK thomas...you say tomato, I say tomotto. Come on. If you believe the dog will possibly go into avoidance, why try to make them fight? Is it because the ecollar is the easiest way to get this reaction? A reaction BTW that I dont want..but thats just me. I don't like highly defensive dogs, on the table or on the ground.
> 
> For the record, I don't flank dogs to teach the out either.


Howard,

We're going down the slippery slope of semantics.
Every dog in the world has the possibility of going into avoidance in a given situation (if you think your dog wouldn't you haven't been in the "right" situation) If the dog goes into avoidance after being given a stim to get him to focus on the decoy then I would NOT re stim him in an attempt to bring him out of avoidance.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Howard,
> 
> If the dog goes into avoidance after being given a stim to get him to focus on the decoy then I would NOT re stim him in an attempt to bring him out of avoidance.


 Fair enough. Thanks.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Nice answer Howard. I agree, and those dog handlers I work with, would too.

A certain amount of stress is unavoidable in dog training. Even dogs that bring what it takes to the table (excuse the pun!) can experience stress and not be any the worse for it. This is something entirely different from abusing a dog that doesn't have it in him to challenge the decoy.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Ok took too long to type. The above was in answer to your post to Ms Stephanie P Johnson


----------



## Stephanie P Johnson (Nov 13, 2009)

Mr. Knauf wrote:

"No...Life is full of stress, either enviromental or self inflicted. Hell, just being hungry is stressful."

But we are speaking of a very specific kind of stress - that which is human induced.

"There is another thread going about PSDs and defense work. I have zero problem doing defense work with a dog. I do have a problem forcing a dog when he isn't willing to do it himself naturally. Restricting the dog from flight and using pain compliance is my issue."

And that is YOUR issue. Does having this issue give you the right to make it someone else's issue. Another slippery slope.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Stephanie P Johnson said:


> _"Restricting the dog from flight and using pain compliance is my issue."_
> 
> _And that is YOUR issue. Does having this issue give you the right to make it someone else's issue. Another slippery slope._



Isn't this exactly the "acknowledged gray area"?

And don't we all have to make a call about what we see (and say) is abusive in our eyes?

If not, then who does? 

I don't fling the word "abusive" around wildly. But I'm going to use it when I believe that it needs using.

You disagree?


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

_QUOTE: Might I suggest some caution re the use of the term "abuse" on a public message board in association with a PROVEN methodology because it offends *your* sensibility. END
_ from post # 31


This is where I first objected, and still do. "Offends my sensibility" is not the same as "is abusive in my opinion."

Even if the post was made for no reason but to stir up crap, it still bothers me.


----------



## Stephanie P Johnson (Nov 13, 2009)

Ms. Sutherland wrote:

"Isn't this exactly the "acknowledged gray area"?

And don't we all have to make a call about what we see (and say) is abusive in our eyes?

If not, then who does? 

I don't fling the word "abusive" around wildly. But I'm going to use it when I believe that it needs using.

You disagree?"

In this particular instance, I don't believe the poster had enough information to make that call. Mr. Knauf doesn't like it when I don't answer his questions but the fact is he hasn't answered some of mine either, specifically the one re contact with Mr. Leigh and Mr. England.
Also, while he draws his line at causing an animal physical pain in this instance, he has no objections to using it for corrective purposes. 
I object to his insistence that others need to draw the same line as he, or risk being termed abusive.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Stephanie P Johnson said:


> ... I object to his insistence that others need to draw the same line as he, or risk being termed abusive.



Won't that always be the case? Someone who draws the line somewhere else from where you do is going to have a different "abusive" definition?

We all risk being termed abusive if someone else thinks we are.

Seems really straightforward. 

So straightforward that continuing to turn it into circuitous arguments has seemed a little disingenuous for several pages.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Stephanie P Johnson said:


> . Restricting the dog from flight and using pain compliance is my issue."
> 
> And that is YOUR issue. Does having this issue give you the right to make it someone else's issue. Another slippery slope.


 You bellyache about me not answering ALL your questions, but you won't even answer my ONE of mine that is key to this discussion.

Well, you accidentally answered it with your above quote. You apparently have NO ISSUE with what I am saying, so that to me says you think its OK to restrict the dog and use pain compliance.


To Thomas....If I inadvertently took Leigh's comments out of context then that is on me. Wish someone would have come along sooner and explained it. To me, the comments alluded to what I have been talking about. Stephanie wants to ignore a basic question and defend her uber awesome table work and will not answer a simple question. Me thinks because she will be seen as an abuser. She could have said she agrees it's abuse, but instead inadvertantly labeled herself as an abuser (in my eyes anyway) by defending the table, the trainer, and the methods instead of answering a simple question.

If the text of this topic is the truth in how I percieved the written word, and it can be considered general abuse, then not to call it so suggests one is in favor of it. If I have misunderstood the written word, at least you came along and try to set me straight. You have been very clear where you stand and what you will, or will not do. You did not defend anything to the hilt which, in that defense makes you look like you have no problem with abusing a dog.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Howard Knauf said:


> "I'm not looking for a fight with you - I have at least 50 hours of Gene on tape - and he IS forceful - there is no question. We ALL have **TOUCHED** a dog's flank / rump / side with an electric to BRING THE DOG'S FOCUS into the fight rather than avoidance. That's a method used by a lot of us INSTEAD of flanking! Think about it - a fraction of a second of high electric stim .... it might happen 2 or 3 times for a brain dead kinda dog ..... The TOUCH lasts less than ONE SECOND, and the collar is NOT attached to the dog's testicles. "
> .



OK...Thomas has me questioning my command of the english language. I know from reading Steve Leigh's web site that he is a very literal person. He breaks down posts like Lou Castle does so I am sure that when he writes something he is careful in how it is worded.

THIS POST IS NOT A DIG AT STEVE LEIGH!!!! This is about what is written above and what people percieve it to mean.

The fact is, per Steve's comments, that they do not FLANK a dog to bring it to focus instead of going into avoidance. Do they not flank because it's too painful? Or do they not flank because they want the dog to FOCUS on the helper instead of the guy flanking them? Is the ecollar setting so that it gives a similar effect, pain wise, to a flanking?

Also...if in fact a dog is going into avoidance, why the hell do you want to teach him to bite? Still dont get it.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Connie Sutherland said:


> _"If I have misunderstood the written word, at least you came along and try to set me straight. You have been very clear where you stand and what you will, or will not do."_
> 
> 
> He also didn't defend turning a blind eye and being careful about using the "abuse" word "on a public board" about what we perceive as abuse.


 That too.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

He especially didn't defend it as a disingenuous joke.





(Sorry I deleted my post accidentally when trying to add the line above. But there it is, quoted by Howard.)


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Connie Sutherland said:


> He especially didn't defend it as a disingenuous joke.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Connie

A HA Admit that you deleted my posts accidentally and there was never anything wrong with them


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Connie
> 
> A HA Admit that you deleted my posts accidentally and there was never anything wrong with them



Oh, Thomas, I'm so gonna slap you. :lol:

I do appreciate the fact that you and Howard managed to keep Howard's thread about table training on topic. You guys made history here.


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Howard Knauf said:


> OK...Thomas has me questioning my command of the english language. I know from reading Steve Leigh's web site that he is a very literal person. He breaks down posts like Lou Castle does so I am sure that when he writes something he is careful in how it is worded.
> 
> THIS POST IS NOT A DIG AT STEVE LEIGH!!!! This is about what is written above and what people percieve it to mean.
> 
> ...


Man, if Jeff were here maybe he could decipher Steve Leigh's post from his site(which I failed to add here).


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Quote:Also...if in fact a dog is going into avoidance, why the hell do you want to teach him to bite? Still dont get it. Unquote


I think you've answere your own question Howard


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

I've done more listening than anything but it has been fun.


----------



## Dwyras Brown (Nov 21, 2008)

Howard, I think Stephanie has gone into a classic example of avoidance. Maybe she should recieve a stim to get her to answer the question. If she keeps recieving stim, will she then think its abusive?


----------



## Howard Knauf (May 10, 2008)

Somehow I doubt it:-D


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

All these euphemisms are head spinning--stim/shock; stress/threat??? No one has explained WHY said dog isn't "focusing" a/ka/ avoidance on the decoy if he isn't in avoidance. How do you know the dog isn't focusing on the decoy. What is he doing---body position, eye contact??? I presume you are talking about a protection training experienced dog. Why would he associate the stim/shock with the decoy? What is the decoy doing when the stim/shock occurs? 

I realize there are two different discussions here: inflicting pain ain in areas the dog associates with survival to elicit bite/fight with a dog that is in avoidance; i.e. would flee otherwise; and 2) table training as a tool but also utilizing tools stims that aren't painful, but yet stim the dog into fight/bite.


Terrasita


----------

