# Table Training...



## Hunter Allred

I have some questions...

Why is a square table square, and a round table round? Round makes since to me as you've got a consistent distance from the dog no matter what side you come from.. Why aren't both round and one just smaller and higher?


----------



## rick smith

i'll handle the easy parts so we can get to your real questions and mine 
a round table is round and a square table is square :
.... because they are made that way 

- i could be wrong, but u might see more squares because rounds are harder to make 

shape is somewhat moot because :
- the "distance" (radius from the anchor post to the dog) is based on the lead type, length and common sense, not the table shape 

Q's for you :
- do you think the elevation is critical and are you planning to make or use one, and if so, for what ?
- never did find the good table training vids that were posted here a long time ago ... do you have any ?


----------



## Hunter Allred

rick smith said:


> i'll handle the easy parts so we can get to your real questions and mine
> a round table is round and a square table is square :
> .... because they are made that way
> 
> - i could be wrong, but u might see more squares because rounds are harder to make
> 
> shape is somewhat moot because :
> - the "distance" (radius from the anchor post to the dog) is based on the lead type, length and common sense, not the table shape
> 
> Q's for you :
> - do you think the elevation is critical and are you planning to make or use one, and if so, for what ?
> - never did find the good table training vids that were posted here a long time ago ... do you have any ?


Elevation for the square table... Critical? Maybe not critical, but I certainy think it's an important part of the equation. Being at eye level, the additional stress of being up high, etc

Never found any vids


----------



## rick smith

i've never heard it explained or discussed either way, but i would say the "elevation factor" could be looked at a few different ways ...

one, most dogs should be able to handle being a few feet off the ground without getting stressed...if that much elevation stressed them i would see it as a weakness just like a fear they might fall off the edge, etc .... so i would check out how the dog reacts going up and down a few times b4 ever staking it out and working it

also from the perspective of looking UP at a human versus looking straight out at them, i would think a little elevation might be a bit of a confidence booster

i have a table i use every now and then for a few different things ... mostly because it is easier on my back working with smaller dogs 
...sometimes i use a carpet sometimes it's slick
but if they jump up on their own they usually don't seem to sweat the issue being there 

i think a lot of table work is done to build confidence so it would seem logical to me NOT to use one if the dog gets stressed just being there

but all in all just another tool and probably depends on who's using it as to how effective it is

...just my .02


----------



## Hunter Allred

rick smith said:


> i've never heard it explained or discussed either way, but i would say the "elevation factor" could be looked at a few different ways ...
> 
> one, most dogs should be able to handle being a few feet off the ground without getting stressed...if that much elevation stressed them i would see it as a weakness just like a fear they might fall off the edge, etc .... so i would check out how the dog reacts going up and down a few times b4 ever staking it out and working it
> 
> also from the perspective of looking UP at a human versus looking straight out at them, i would think a little elevation might be a bit of a confidence booster
> 
> i have a table i use every now and then for a few different things ... mostly because it is easier on my back working with smaller dogs
> ...sometimes i use a carpet sometimes it's slick
> but if they jump up on their own they usually don't seem to sweat the issue being there
> 
> i think a lot of table work is done to build confidence so it would seem logical to me NOT to use one if the dog gets stressed just being there
> 
> but all in all just another tool and probably depends on who's using it as to how effective it is
> 
> ...just my .02


"Stressed" is relative... Any dog, or person for that matter, is less comfortable on an elevated platform than firmly on the ground. Not talking about stressed to the point you can even directly see it, but i belive it facilitates bringing out aggression bc of of the tiny stress increase... Same concept as working in water, or on slick surfaces... Both also stress inducing


----------



## Melody Greba

There are several threads from the past pertaining to table training. Here it is in a nutshell.
Like any other behavior shaping devices out there, they maximize the outcome by removing options and crutches.
The square table puts a dog at eye level with the helper. In the beginning, you start the dog with just getting him/her acclimated to jumping up and off. This may be 2 or 3 days so the dog puts himself on the table rather than inducing the dog to jump up. When starting the work, the helper becomes the predator in body language and eye contact, until the dog goes forward. The helper backs off and submits, rewarding the dog.
The round table is to shape- clean guarding and desired distance. It also encourages, good barking.


----------



## Hunter Allred

Melody Greba said:


> There are several threads from the past pertaining to table training. Here it is in a nutshell.
> Like any other behavior shaping devices out there, they maximize the outcome by removing options and crutches.
> The square table puts a dog at eye level with the helper. In the beginning, you start the dog with just getting him/her acclimated to jumping up and off. This may be 2 or 3 days so the dog puts himself on the table rather than inducing the dog to jump up. When starting the work, the helper becomes the predator in body language and eye contact, until the dog goes forward. The helper backs off and submits, rewarding the dog.
> The round table is to shape- clean guarding and desired distance. It also encourages, good barking.


I know how it works. I was just curious if there was a reason for the shape lol


----------



## rick smith

Melody
i understood the concept of how to use a table as a behavior shaping device to build confidence when the dog drives off the predator, etc

what i haven't had explained is why a table would do this any better than a stake out on ground level since the decoy actions, movements and reactions can be done in exactly the same way 

you mention that the table height should be comfortable for the dog b4 the helper enters the picture, so the only variable that is different is that the dog is 3-4 ft off the ground

so if the elevation by itself builds some of the confidence by having the dog closer to eye level, why wouldn't an even higher table build it that much quicker ?


----------



## Melody Greba

The square table was meant to put the dog at eye level and not in a less formidable position. The height and size is an element that does not allow the dog to escape. Zero options, is the point. And if done right, 100% successful dog results in a dog that puts himself on the table for the next session to begin. He likes his new found advantage. Black/white


----------



## Kevin Cyr

Melody Greba said:


> There are several threads from the past pertaining to table training. Here it is in a nutshell.
> Like any other behavior shaping devices out there, they maximize the outcome by removing options and crutches.
> The square table puts a dog at eye level with the helper. In the beginning, you start the dog with just getting him/her acclimated to jumping up and off. This may be 2 or 3 days so the dog puts himself on the table rather than inducing the dog to jump up. When starting the work, the helper becomes the predator in body language and eye contact, until the dog goes forward. The helper backs off and submits, rewarding the dog.
> The round table is to shape- clean guarding and desired distance. It also encourages, good barking.


 
Tables were built for the ease of training retriever dogs way back when....you got a lot of dogs to train, and a lot of bending down making the dog hold the object became aching, they made tables with lines and helped considerably....

over time, people modified these to suit there needs and use them for bitework, obedience etc. 

A square table and sometimes a box you get everyones different opinion or vibe of elevating a dog for confidence etc, then you hear fight or flight...

A round one was used primarily for Schutzund trainers, it was lower and round and once the dog got the sleeve, they could circle around a few times before coming to the helper again, same thing you see on the fields today, except now its in a building or backyard. Not much different.

Others use it as a conditioning table of sorts to intro the dog to different things...

Its up to your imagination what they could be used for.....


----------



## Kevin Cyr

Melody Greba said:


> The square table was meant to put the dog at eye level and not in a less formidable position. The height and size is an element that does not allow the dog to escape. Zero options, is the point. And if done right, 100% successful dog results in a dog that puts himself on the table for the next session to begin. He likes his new found advantage. Black/white


 
everything isn't always black and white unfortunately


----------



## James Downey

I have seen a lot of impressive dog training, I have seen impressive dogs....and never once has someone said, It was the table training.... but I have heard people give the clicker those kind of props. 

And another thing. If it takes chaining the dog to a table to prevent it from escaping. Just thinking out loud here. That dog should not be anyones father.


----------



## Melody Greba

Kevin Cyr said:


> everything isn't always black and white unfortunately


The square table when used properly and with knowledge and experience makes things as black & white, as possible with very little grey.


----------



## Melody Greba

James Downey said:


> If it takes chaining the dog to a table to prevent it from escaping. Just thinking out loud here. That dog should not be anyones father.


Shaping is about eliminating avoidance behaviors. Terminology paints a picture. The traditional method in the beginning, was the dog locked onto a post, no chain until the dog graduated to the level. 

Square table training fulfills another facet. Doesn't mean a dog is weak to be put on a table. If the dog's nerves aren't suitable for the work, he should not be put on the table at all. It's just a tool for development and shaping. Just like box training. 

Don't think you'll like it? Don't use it. Interested? Then go in with an open mind and learn all you can before you form an opinion.


----------



## Nicole Stark

I won't comment on traditional table work, at least not in way that that most of us here know it by, but I used a table for my dumbbell hold. No tether, collars or lines were used during the work so the option to leave was always there. Being familiar with the character and drives of the dog I knew that to get what I wanted would be best achieved by having her directly before me rather than down on the ground.

ADDED AFTER POST: Connie, where the heck did your post go? I was responding to that and it has disappeared. My response appears a little out of context. Well, it doesn't when addressing this statement:

_Its up to your imagination what they could be used for....._


----------



## Joby Becker

a dog can go forward off of a table to "escape" the table as well...When I have used a table, the cable/chain has been there for safety of the dog as well as the decoy..not to keep dogs chained to the table because they were scared and wanted to run away...


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Nicole Stark said:


> I won't comment on traditional table work, at least not in way that that most of us here know it by, but I used a table for my dumbbell hold. No tether, collars or lines were used during the work so the option to leave was always there. Being familiar with the character and drives of the dog I knew that to get what I wanted would be best achieved by having her directly before me rather than down on the ground.
> 
> ADDED AFTER POST: Connie, where the heck did your post go? I was responding to that and it has disappeared. My response appears a little out of context.


I deleted it because it seemed confrontational, and because I wanted to be clear that I was talking about the defense table (not what you're talking about).


_
"The height and size is an element that does not allow the dog to escape. Zero options, is the point."_
_
"... they maximize the outcome by removing options and crutches. ... "_


This is exactly the point, exactly the reason, that I have never understood. Why does a dog who is right for the work needs his escape option removed?


----------



## Joby Becker

Connie Sutherland said:


> I deleted it because it seemed confrontational, and because I wanted to be clear that I was talking about the defense table (not what you're talking about).
> 
> 
> _
> "The height and size is an element that does not allow the dog to escape. Zero options, is the point."_
> _
> "... they maximize the outcome by removing options and crutches. ... "_
> 
> 
> This is exactly the point, exactly the reason, that I have never understood. Why does a dog who is right for the work needs his escape option removed?


Connie.

Keeping dog on table does not automatically mean he is chained to a table that he wants to get off of to escape the decoy..he might want to escape the table to bite the decoy as well, or he might fall off of it.

Defense table is done usually without equipment on at times.
Cable or Chain is used to keep dog on the table, to keep him from falling off, or jumping off to go after decoy. 

Defense table is higher and smaller, to add a little more environmental stress to the dog to get a more intense reaction from the dog, without the decoy having to stress the dog too much directly himself..lots of other things can also help a dog get into a more defensive mood, by adding environmental stress.

High bite boxes and bite boxes also remove options, as don low tables and long tables...to keep dog focused on the work intended. Removing options is not always a bad thing, many obedience techniques also remove options.

I knwo some people misuse tables, or put dogs on tables that have no business being on them, and that you have seen bad table work, but I dont think that those examples should be used to judge the table themselves or the work, if done properly..

that is almost like judging the use of the ecollar because you see someone frying a puppy with one...


----------



## Connie Sutherland

I do understand what you are saying.



But I was specifically addressing this:
_
"The height and size is an element that does not allow the dog to escape." _

Not falling off, not jumping off to bite the decoy.


I'm not trying to be confrontational or paint with a broad brush. It's this one point: _"does not allow the dog to escape."_


----------



## Joby Becker

well I do apologize for answering that then. I have seen this type of post from you before though concerning the high table and was responding in a way that explained what the table is used for and why it is designed that way.

I 100% disagree with Melody's assertion that the height and size of the table is the element that does not allow the dog to escape. I think that it coming from someone who does not understand why the table is built the way it is. A dog can jump off of a 4 foot high table just as easily as a 1 foot high table. So she does not speak for most people using high tables if that is her thought process on it.

The height and size is what adds more stress/conflict, environmentally, the cables and chains are what keeps the dog from escaping, jumping off, or falling off as they do with all tables and boxes. All tables prevent escape if dog is tied to them.

A dog can still back around the pole and hide on a high table if he is scared.

Unless she is talking about a high table with a collar attached to the pole, in that case, it does not have to be a high table or a table at all to do that, a clip to a pole or fence on the ground can do that just as well.

If we are going to talk about collars affixed to poles, then I will of course agree, that is limiting the escape of the dog, if the dog wants to escape..wherever it is.


----------



## Bob Scott

A thought and a question. NOT to stir the pot. I just don't see it.

Eye contact creates stress in a dog. That creates a fight or flight.
With the dog on the ground and the helper standing over the dog how does being at eye level creat more stress? Seems the dog would be less stressed without the helper looking down at the dog.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Joby Becker said:


> well I do apologize for answering that then. I have seen this type of post from you before though concerning the high table and was responding in a way that explained what the table is used for and why it is designed that way.
> 
> I 100% disagree with Melody's assertion that the height and size of the table is the element that does not allow the dog to escape. I think that it coming from someone who does not understand why the table is built the way it is. A dog can jump off of a 4 foot high table just as easily as a 1 foot high table. So she does not speak for most people using high tables if that is her thought process on it.
> 
> The height and size is what adds more stress/conflict, environmentally, the cables and chains are what keeps the dog from escaping, jumping off, or falling off as they do with all tables and boxes. All tables prevent escape if dog is tied to them.
> 
> A dog can still back around the pole and hide on a high table if he is scared.
> 
> Unless she is talking about a high table with a collar attached to the pole, in that case, it does not have to be a high table or a table at all to do that, a clip to a pole or fence on the ground can do that just as well.
> 
> If we are going to talk about collars affixed to poles, then I will of course agree, that is limiting the escape of the dog, if the dog wants to escape..wherever it is.



No, no. No apologies. 

Thank you for the explanations, in fact.


----------



## Joby Becker

Bob Scott said:


> A thought and a question. NOT to stir the pot. I just don't see it.
> 
> Eye contact creates stress in a dog. That creates a fight or flight.
> With the dog on the ground and the helper standing over the dog how does being at eye level creat more stress? Seems the dog would be less stressed without the helper looking down at the dog.


I think your question has a few facets to think about.

I think it varies a little depending on the dog, and also the source of elevation.

If a helper is standing in a hole and is at eye level with a dog standing on the ground, that is going to be less stressful on a dog than if he is elevated on a smallish platform. The elevated platform will bring environmental stressors into the mix. Having the guy in a hole could stil bring more conflict to the dog as well though I think.

Eye contact as you say also creates stress in dogs, a dog at eye level is much closer to the eyes, and the face in general, which is where most dogs see a threat fairly easily. The face is what spells out danger to many dogs, the face is closer to the dog on an elevated surface.

The same thing can be accomplished by getting on the ground and putting your face at eye level with the dog. Sometimes some people do this thinking that they are being less threatening to a dog, but if they are using their face and not looking away from the dog, it, in my opinion can be more threatening to a dog than just standing up..the face is where we live, it can be to many dogs a direct expression of threat, closer to eye level with a dog does not always mean less threatening. 

Dogs may feel more threatened if you are on their level, especially if you are trying to threaten them, and using your face to do so, which is a very powerful thing to use on a dog to show intent, I would say more effective in many cases than using your body or posture..so if we are just thinking about the eyes and the face here as the source of the threat, as you put it, it could be that being at eye level certainly can be even more threatening, because it is closer. Add to that other stressors of the height and smaller size of an elevated table, and it seems like a bigger threat for sure to me.

just my thoughts on this...others may think differently of course.


----------



## Bob Scott

Opinion appreciated. Thanks!


----------



## James Downey

Melody Greba said:


> Shaping is about eliminating avoidance behaviors. Terminology paints a picture. The traditional method in the beginning, was the dog locked onto a post, no chain until the dog graduated to the level.
> 
> Square table training fulfills another facet. Doesn't mean a dog is weak to be put on a table. If the dog's nerves aren't suitable for the work, he should not be put on the table at all. It's just a tool for development and shaping. Just like box training.
> 
> Don't think you'll like it? Don't use it. Interested? Then go in with an open mind and learn all you can before you form an opinion.


 While were giving advice. How about not telling me how to live my life. 

And how about not assuming people formed their opinion out of thin frigging air. 

Here I will tell you how I got my Opinion. I was sitting on a dirty ol' couch in a club house in Southwestern Kentucky. This table was infront of me. I had no Idea what it was for. And the trainer came out, through a bunch of sleeves on it. Surrounded the thing. Then grabbed a grown Male Malinois. They hooked the dog to a few inches of chain. I mean right here, I have only heard the term Table training, never knew anything about it. did not know I was about to see the finished product, at the place many consider the birth place of table training. I am about as open minded as you can get. I have no bias. shit I have no Idea what I am looking at. Then another man opens a door about 12 feet from the dog. The dog goes ape shit. I mean it was the most banshee like guarding I have ever seen. The dog did not even so much as peek a sleeve. he had zero interest. I was like holy moly!!!! that's incredible. Then the guy closed the door. Dog shut off. Door open, dog goes wild. The man says, see no stress. I concured no stress. Then when the man moved closer. This dog did something very odd. He tried to take his 70 lbs body and wrap it behind this pole in the table. I said there is some stress. I was told that was Dominace behavior. The dog was literally trying to hide himself behind a piece of 1 inch by 1 inch steel. 

Then I saw them take this great barking into a blind, and smack the dog in the face with stick for biting....It appeared as if the dog had no idea he was suppose to bark. They were very adament that he not be rewarded for the barking with a sleeve. That would ruin it all.... I don't know, if I train something, I hope I am little more secure in it.

This is the experience that formed my Opinion. 

And while we are giving out free dog training Lessons. The Barking, that's an avoidance behavior. The table just shuts all the other avoidance routes off. THe dog still wants to avoid. The barking makes the adversive leave. The dog is not barking to gain pleasure, there fore he is barking to avoid unpleasent. At the bottom of all training those are the only two motivators. Gain pleasure, avoid pain. 

And I for one am not a fan at all of any type of training that has anything to do with teaching the dog that your aggression is rewarded by avoiding the fight. How on earth did this idea ever gain popularity in protection work I will never know. I prefer a dog that wants the fight to come, a dog that picks a fight. A dog that is a little dirty in hopes the man turns it up even more. Not a dog that hopes his behavior makes the fight not happen.


----------



## Joby Becker

James Downey said:


> ...
> Here I will tell you how I got my Opinion. I was sitting on a dirty ol' couch in a club house in Southwestern Kentucky. This table was infront of me. I had no Idea what it was for. And the trainer came out, through a bunch of sleeves on it. Surrounded the thing. Then grabbed a grown Male Malinois. They hooked the dog to a few inches of chain. I mean right here, I have only heard the term Table training, never knew anything about it. did not know I was about to see the finished product, at the place many consider the birth place of table training. I am about as open minded as you can get. I have no bias. shit I have no Idea what I am looking at. Then another man opens a door about 12 feet from the dog. The dog goes ape shit. I mean it was the most banshee like guarding I have ever seen. The dog did not even so much as peek a sleeve. he had zero interest. I was like holy moly!!!! that's incredible. Then the guy closed the door. Dog shut off. Door open, dog goes wild. The man says, see no stress. I concured no stress. Then when the man moved closer. This dog did something very odd. He tried to take his 70 lbs body and wrap it behind this pole in the table. I said there is some stress. I was told that was Dominace behavior. The dog was literally trying to hide himself behind a piece of 1 inch by 1 inch steel.
> 
> Sounds real crappy, not something I ever saw during table work, I also never saw a table with a 1 wide inch pole though either.
> 
> Then I saw them take this great barking into a blind, and smack the dog in the face with stick for biting....It appeared as if the dog had no idea he was suppose to bark. They were very adament that he not be rewarded for the barking with a sleeve. That would ruin it all.... I don't know, if I train something, I hope I am little more secure in it.
> 
> This also makes no sense at all, if they smacked him for biting, and then said never to reward him for barking with a sleeve, what the hell were they trying to get the dog to do? sit there? and if the dog didnt know to bark, that is not the fault of the table, but the trainer.
> 
> This is the experience that formed my Opinion.
> 
> And while we are giving out free dog training Lessons. The Barking, that's an avoidance behavior. The table just shuts all the other avoidance routes off. THe dog still wants to avoid. The barking makes the adversive leave. The dog is not barking to gain pleasure, there fore he is barking to avoid unpleasent. At the bottom of all training those are the only two motivators. Gain pleasure, avoid pain.
> 
> In the case of the dog you described I would agree, but this does not apply to all dogs on tables. To think this would be to also think that having dog on a leash, or a tie out would also be only to avoid the unpleasant
> 
> 
> And I for one am not a fan at all of any type of training that has anything to do with teaching the dog that your aggression is rewarded by avoiding the fight.
> 
> ??? helper shows submission or feigns fear when dog shows aggression just like on the ground, on a leash, or tie out...same thing...not teaching dog to avoid a fight at all....
> 
> How on earth did this idea ever gain popularity in protection work I will never know. I prefer a dog that wants the fight to come, a dog that picks a fight.
> 
> So does almost everyone that uses a table.
> 
> A dog that is a little dirty in hopes the man turns it up even more. Not a dog that hopes his behavior makes the fight not happen.
> 
> what? I assume you are referring to a fearful dog here, otherwise this doesnt make sense...fearful dogs should not get put on a table at all..
> 
> again, your story doesnt make sense to me really, putting dog in blind, barking, hitting him for biting, and then saying not to reward him for barking...that is messed up... either way, looks like you saw some weird shit, that you should not assume represents table work as a whole...


----------



## Joby Becker

Stuka on high table...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8luCUf6_mo

Stuka muzzle on table
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WAA1Q5eh7g

Stuka Bitesuit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeWBseEzJNg

dog was voted 3 times helpers favorite in National Competition, I don't think helpers would pick a dog that is avoiding a fight as their favorite....


----------



## Joby Becker

Quardes von der Staatsmacht

6th in BSP HIGH Protection in BSP. Current stud dog at Staatsmacht Kennels

http://youtu.be/KeveRO38Fec?t=49s


----------



## Joby Becker

good article about high (defense) table by Nate Harves.

http://www.sportwaffenk9.com/k9.table.training.shtml


----------



## James Downey

I can't quote your post, because of how you posted but I will try and address it.

Yes, I agree, it's probably not the only way to skin cat, what I saw on table training. And I watched a good portion of the videos you posted. I did see some precieved fear in some of the dogs. even in some videos that claimed there was no fear. One saw the helper get a little to close and the dog retreated slightly, he did not cower or wanna run. but you could tell the helper stepped into his threshhold...then on subsequent approaches the helper noticed and did not get so close. . It may have been slight. but it was there. and the forced retrieve guys...the dog looked miserable, he says the dog is happy. I say the dog is doing what he's got to do to get through another day of work. I read the dog completely different than the guy did. I don't know, I may have went to a different school to read dog behavior...I dunno. But I think to say the training is devoid of fear is not true. The reason the dogs are barking is because they precieve that it might be dangerous. It may not be cowardly tucked tail fear. but all aggression is rooted in fear. every bit of it. Now when you say fear, people instantly think that of scared...they are different. Fear and scared. Fear is necassary emotion for life. There is a level of it that is useful. And I think that's what we hope for when work aggression. Getting just enough so the dog has a reason to show a aggression. So when I say there is fear, I do not mean that in negative, OMG we are scaring the dogs, call PETA. I mean we have intentionally tried to tap into the dogs nervous system to produce a response. We talked UFC not to long ago. and you were a boxer....You'll get this. I was my most aggressive when I had some fear. I fought my best. I was forward, attacking, and was doing what I had to do so I did not become the victim.I was not terrified. but I was aware the man accross from me was there to hurt me. As I kept taking fights, a lot of my nervous fear subsided. But I was still aware of the danger. I got closer and closer to reducing my level of fear so it was only that level was useful....it helped me, it did not hurt me. So when I say all fear is rooted in fear. I am not saying the dogs feel like they are fighting for their life or they fear dying. But they have enough fear to be aware that their is a threat. It comes down to that flight or fight response. Which is triggered by fear. But we in our ultra macho society almost associate fear with flight. And fight with the absence of fear....and that is not true.

As for the helper submitting feigning and what not.... I still don't get what happens when the helper does not submit and feign. Go with me on this analogy. A guy is at a bar at one end, another guy at the other end. They have a argument over which is better, coke or pepsi. It get's heated. One guy stands up...he's insulted. The other guy is still a safe distance away. And he does not want the first guy to approach. Why? fear. So in effort to avoid the confrontation. he stands up and starts becoming aggro. he takes his shirt off, throws a glass on the floor. His objective is not to fight, but to avoid it. It's the best defense is to have a good offense ( or at least the appearance of one) idea. The first guy realizes that hey maybe loud mouth has got something, and decides to sit down (show submission)...through out the night they have similar arguments....they do the same little dance a couple of times. Now the first guy, the aggressor. Finally has had enough, he's gonna approach. The guy take his shirt off again, another glass. This time he notices these things are no longer working the man is still advancing....what do you think he is now feeling. My guess is fear is building. His prior avoidance techniques are not doing it. Maybe he makes one last try and does something outlandish like smashes a beer bottle on the bar and shows it as a weapon. He's not doing this cause he's a bad ass....he's friggin scared. Now since he sat in the back of the bar, he's blocked in, he cannot leave....his avoidance tactics have failed...ones that used to be successful. So either now he can fight or he try to avoid. I don't think at this point he's going to change his motive of trying to avoid the fight, That's not how the mind works. According to learning theory, the behaviors likely to occur again are the ones that worked in the past. The reinforced behaviors....fighting in this guys brain has not been reinforced....avoidance has. So what does he do. I think he is going to possibly show submission (maybe buying him a beer will calm him down or saying he was just kidding), he's gonna look around to see if his buddies are gonna help. and if he does decide to throw a punch it's not because he's enjoying the fight..it's because he's now scared. Flight has been removed. He's fighting simply because he has no other choice. 

And yeah at first, the guy with no escape made a helluva an aggressive display. but it was all bullshit. as soon the guy no longer responds to his displays, he's gonna shit his pants....and I believe the dogs that don't shit their pants....were that way to begin with, kind of making all the training kind of a waste. If the dog is gonna fight, he's gonna fight. I think a lot of trainers do shit like this, then claim they created all of it when it was inside the dog the whole time.


And that's what I do not get. how being the guy in the corner of the bar is going to make him a tough guy. 

And as for the 1 inch square pole. Really your going to argue the size of the pole. 

I know this sounds hokey, And I thought long on hard with my dog on how I wanted to teach him to fight. And what I did was take a lot from table training and sort of reverse it. 

I am not trying to convince anyone to train like I do. But I cannot do training that does make sense to me. And the dog making boogey man go away does not make sense to me. And the dog being tied to something or on a leash on the ground, I agree if you train the dog to make the boogey man go away. Your doing the same thing. So why not teach the dog to just go get the boogey man.

First, I have said this before, you cannot install something in the dog that is not in his heart. That kind of goes along with the table IMO from what I gather does not make the dog anymore than he genetically can be. And I wonder if that's what guys think they are doing. getting a dog, putting him on a table and installing a lift kit of bad ass. 

Here's what I did.... And I am very happy with my dogs confidence, his guarding and his ability to handle stress. I wanted to teach my dog, that biting and fighting was the object to turn off the stress. Again, I don't think I installed anything in him. I just believe the best way to allow it to grow and flourish was to teach him the win was in the actual fighting. I started there. But I did not want to make him do it. He had to believe he was strong enough to fight, and then strong enough in the fight to win.So, he was free no lines or anything. I gave him a bite pillow. and I got outside his personal space. I would walk back and fourth (and yes I did the work, I believe this is best. I look at this as I am his coach not his adversary...that would come later) That's another issue I have with table training especially on young dog. I think an unknown guy acting all weird can adverse effects on the psyche. So it was important to me that he do this with me, someone he trusted. So walking back and fourth outside the comfort zone, with a stick or whip. I would look at him out of the corner of my eye. If he met eyes with me I would stop and stare at him a little bit. If he did nothing, I would keep walking. if he bit the pillow harder, shook it, barked at me, anything that showed he was connecting to what I was doing. I would react...as if he hurt me. As if he did physical damage. My connection to him was that pillow. quickly these displays in him grew. He then started doing something I did not expect, but I thought was pretty cool. He started standing on the pillow, staring at as if he was daring me to grab it....I would make a slow advance on the toy. If he bit it I would act like he hurt me again. these were subtle not big displays. Sometimes when he would stand on it, I would stop and not turn all the toward him but just stare at him out of the corner of my eye. Someone said eye contact before. That I believe is the first engagement in any confrontation. So, now I wanted to see if he would do more. So I just stared at him out of the corner of my eye. Then he gave me more (these are not all in session, I started this at about 6-7 months old) He started to stand on the pillow barking at me. Again I would try to advance on the pillow. a peculiar thing happened here. You'd think it would become about the toy, but it did the opposite. It became about me. The pillow was just a catalyst. If he got stressed, fustrated or anything else. He beat the shit out of the pillow but it was not about getting the prey item. He already had it. It was starting to be about fighting with me. Where he was comfortable learning. I swear his confidence started to grow. Now he is standing on the toy, barking his head off at me, when I get to close he bites the pillow and beats the hell out of it. I did not actually want to grab the toy. I wanted him to bring to me. Which he started doing. He would picked up and bounce it off of me. Again this over some me of doing this. a bunch of sessions Sometime he would get with in feet of me and veer off. I took this as a little bit of doubt. I was not going to try and grab the pillow and make him stay by me. I kept doing this. mixing in all the little exercises, the barking, the staring, the trying to reach for it. Then the day happened where he picked it up and rammed into me. just pushing and pushing. I still did not grab it. I would slap the pillow and push him off. and he'd comeback and do it again. Now incorporated the stick. I started swinging it at him as he came in. He had no problem with the stick. But what did this did do is: now he saw the stick swing and he would immediatly pick up the pillow and ram it into me. again I still am not grabbing the pillow. I am pusing him away, slapping the pillow, yelling when he's coming in sometimes I would let him drive me back, others I drive him back. Swinging the stick over his head. Then I introduced stick hits and this would make him shove the pillow into me. I finally when I saw no doubt in his head I grabbed the toy and gave him some fight, drives, stick hits...and it was all perfect. And it continued to grow. Now he would stand on the toy and start barking at me. This where I knew was not about the toy so much. He started to leave the toy, barking at me. A few times I thought he was going to bite me. I had to give him the stick. But the pillow was just mere prop that's part of the fight. I can threaten him anywhere toy or no toy and goes right into drive. not looking for the toy, just me and him. He won't bite me...knock on wood. But he come running in barking like a god damn banshee or he might grab whatever is available. and it can be a soda can, or the damn sofa...he will try to bring something to fight with. the sofa, he will bite then jump on it and start guarding it. Is it a game. sure with me it is. but again I am his coach, not his opponent. And I don't think I installed any of that shit. All I think I did was create the relationship, enviorment and the Situations for it flourish in. And it transfered over beautifully to the helper. I did not have the helper do any of that stuff. That's different that's the actual fight. I was just his coach in the gym. He was prepared when finally met the adversary. He knew how to do it all. So instead of focusing on building all this aggression we are able to get right into the meat and potatoes of training the dog. his job concerning the fight is clear....And me doing all the work did not detract one bit from him seeing the helper as somebody else. That too, I think is in the dog. Not something you can train. Just like a dad can show his kid how to fight, his kid when he gets in a real fight won't be dull cause his dad did all the work with him. The kid will know he's not sparring with his dad and that it's the real deal. and one other thing. Outs, I taught the out, and never ever slip the sleeve. The one and only reward for out is bite and fight. or any behavior for that matter. Slips also don't make sense to me. Why give the dog 2 give the dog to pictures in his head as way to win....especially a dog that looks to shut the pressure off. if an out could results in more conflict with another bite , he's gonna hold on and hope the slip comes. Fighting is the reward. And I just think all that barking the helper away puts a picture in my dogs head of what win is, that I don't want. So I don't do that on table, on leash...off a leash on the ground...anywhere. Barking starts a fight not prevents one. And I think one you get a dog obsessed with the fight...And that's all they work for. The more pressure added to the dog, the happier they are. But once again. teaching the dog the object of barking or biting is to turn the pressure off... Just seems counter productive. I think it's kind of outdated idea.


----------



## James Downey

Joby Becker said:


> Stuka on high table...
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8luCUf6_mo
> 
> Stuka muzzle on table
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WAA1Q5eh7g
> 
> Stuka Bitesuit
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeWBseEzJNg
> 
> dog was voted 3 times helpers favorite in National Competition, I don't think helpers would pick a dog that is avoiding a fight as their favorite....


I don't think so either. So why teach it. I mean what do you see happening when the dog barks and the helper leaves. What do you think the dog's preception is?


----------



## Melody Greba

James
One bad example of watching someone using the defense table improperly is unfortunate. Gene England developed the concept for protection dogs in the late 80's and early 90's. So it was close to the area where you saw the improper work. (I am not a friend of Gene's but I know this work and see value in it as an add concept into the bag of tools) Most people have not maintained the original concept of the defense table b/c they did not understand how to proper use it. Became frustrated, out of lack of patience and knowledge and have misused it. I would not use it on my dog without a known decoy that I knew was using it the proper way. And with many men in prot dog sports, few want to go and learn all the details and want to make their own rendition that they've figured out on their own. Reinventing the wheel is not the wiser option, when its already been done and well proven. Because it makes all look bad.


----------



## Melody Greba

And Joby:
Rather than saying that I don't know how the table was used when you base your experience off of someone who made their own rendition rather than comparing the traditional method to the new fangled, this is how you do it of recent. Go and find out the original method yourself, and compare. Then you can judge if I don't know what I'm talking about.


----------



## Joby Becker

Melody Greba said:


> And Joby:
> Rather than saying that I don't know how the table was used when you base your experience off of someone who made their own rendition rather than comparing the traditional method to the new fangled, this is how you do it of recent. Go and find out the original method yourself, and compare. Then you can judge if I don't know what I'm talking about.


Melody, I did not say you do not know what you are talking about.

This is the operative phraseology you used, that I was responding too.

*"The height and size is an element that does not allow the dog to escape."*

Melody, if the collar is removed from the post and the dog is standing freely on the high table, can it escape?

I said that the table constuction, the height and size is NOT an element that prohibits the dog from escaping, that it is the collar/chain/post that prohibits the dog from escaping, the same way a shortish leash or shortish tie out on the ground would.

The size of the platform and height is used as a stressor to create more conflict in the dog. 

If a dog can jump up on the table, he certainly can jump off of the table in my opinion. Dogs can in fact jump off of things that are much higher than they could ever jump up to get on, I saw a video of a dog jumping off of a 50-60 foot cliff once.

Since you are more knowledgable than most probably, and seem to stand by that statement, please explain how a table does not allow escape due to its height and size..seriously interested in the answer.


----------



## Hunter Allred

James Downey said:


> I don't think so either. So why teach it. I mean what do you see happening when the dog barks and the helper leaves. What do you think the dog's preception is?


Dogs perception is that his show of aggression pushed the helper into avoidance


----------



## Melody Greba

Joby:
The defense table concept started with the dog being comfortable getting on and off the table. So much that the dog didn't consider it any thing different than an obstacle. The collaring the dog to the post caused conflict b/c the dog was "cornered" -so to speak. No options. 

Many behaviors come from a dog that is now without options so with the helper stalking the dog in a predatory mode, the dog no longer worries about his situation b/c he has worse things to worry about. This take a man with presence and NOT Hollywood, prey or whip stimulation. It is clear predatory targeting. 
When the dog responds out of forward movement, the predator avoids and backs off. The dog becomes empowered and so full of himself than in a few very SHORT sessions, he loves the new found empowerment and puts himself on the table for the battle. 
Now...you say the chain keeps the dog from escaping. That's added length provides the dog more leniency to come forward and make the fight as far to the edge as he can. 

There is the difference. You are thinking, "keeping" and I am saying, "providing/giving". 
And yes, I come from operative language b/c it is elevating the dog to provide an advantage thus it is a positive. It is removing the dog's options-a negative. Adding empowerment through natural occurring instincts-positive. And the behaviors chain into more depth in his power, and its just one more thing that the dog know his advantage and is successful. 
I obviously, like the tool but know very few helpers anymore that I'd use it with.


----------



## Alex Scott

I don't have any real experience with table training, never worked a dog on a table, never seen a dog being worked on a table so speculating on this topic would just contribute to already over populated land of misinformation in dog training. 

Originally, I thought tables were used to train dogs in protection and improve results by not giving the dog the option to run away, to increase the dogs position of strength by elevation in relation to the decoy and provide an opportunity to practice protection in a different setting in preparation for protection work over vehicles, different environments etc. After reading this thread I have no idea what tables are actually used for, in obedience or protection. It would appear that a dog that would go into avoidance under stress will behave the same regardless of whether the dog is on a table, grass or the street.

Can someone explain the advantages and disadvantages of using a table in protection as appose to training on grass and a lead?

How does a table help improve dog obedience? This really doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## Hunter Allred

Alex Scott said:


> I don't have any real experience with table training, never worked a dog on a table, never seen a dog being worked on a table so speculating on this topic would just contribute to already over populated land of misinformation in dog training.
> 
> Originally, I thought tables were used to train dogs in protection and improve results by not giving the dog the option to run away, to increase the dogs position of strength by elevation in relation to the decoy and provide an opportunity to practice protection in a different setting in preparation for protection work over vehicles, different environments etc. After reading this thread I have no idea what tables are actually used for, in obedience or protection. It would appear that a dog that would go into avoidance under stress will behave the same regardless of whether the dog is on a table, grass or the street.
> 
> Can someone explain the advantages and disadvantages of using a table in protection as appose to training on grass and a lead?
> 
> How does a table help improve dog obedience? This really doesn't make sense to me.


We used tables in the manner described by Melody Greba... we were teaching him his bark and aggression have an effect on the helper, to turn on and show maximum aggression when told to, and turn off all the way when told to. We were also fixing some training errors I made early on... the root of which was getting the sleeve out of the picture.


----------



## Alex Scott

Hunter Allred said:


> ...we were teaching him his bark and aggression have an effect on the helper, to turn on and show maximum aggression when told to, and turn off all the way when told to...


Thank you. Using a table to training a "hard switch" either way is a seriously good idea.


----------



## andreas broqvist

I must ask why use à table for muzzle träning. You remove the abilety for the dog to hit good and to drive the decoy away.
If you just want the dog to bark the decoy away why get him in the table from the beginig? 

I have not workt any dogs on à table so I do not realy get it.


----------



## Mario Fernandez

Short round tables are generally prey tables...first table work I have seen was from the bird dog guys for retrieves in the 80's my uncle was a bird dog guy.....table work can be an effect tool, you need a good agitator to know when to back off.... Sometimes you have to look at what your dog is and see what would be really gained from working on the table, the good and the bad...


----------



## Christopher Smith

Mario Fernandez said:


> Short round tables are generally prey tables...


Mine's a coffee table.


----------



## Nicole Stark

The critical piece that often seems to be missing in these discussions is the perspective/input from people that actually have experience working dogs on tables for different reasons. I don't know if anyone has already done it but I would be interested in seeing a video progression of table work. It would be interesting to see where they started, hear about why they chose to utilize it, how things progressed along the way, and what the final result was. Something like this might help make a greater or more favorable impression upon those that have had negative exposure to the use of tables. 

We often see discussion/input from those that have observed poorly executed table work, or those that don't understand the purpose and thus cannot see the benefit in using them, or even those that have had their dogs worked on a table but rarely do we get dialogue from those that actually work with dogs in this capacity. On some of these more controversial topics I'd rather hear from people that actually do the work than from those projecting views based upon what they think they see or those that have formed opinions by examples of poorly executed work. JMO.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Good table trainers are good trainers first. A table can help a good trainer. It can't help a bad trainer do anything but get worse.


----------



## Melody Greba

Nicole...I worked my dog on the table in 1992 with a couple of friends to the north of me. Both were very good at reading behavior and understood the method. I have old VHS videos, but I wont' share them. After desensitizing the dog to the table, he'd jump on voluntarily. When we bolted him to the table, he was worried and wanted free. However, the helper was much more an issue at hand and this took his attention offgetting free. The helper(s) took a predatory posture, targeting him with their eye contact and body language. When avoidance doesn't work, there is only one option left which is to go forward. Which is why bolting to the bar was the tradition to the concept since it allows zero avoidance. The predator goes passive and leaves on forward behavior. 
The lightbulb goes on in the dog's head as he realizes how powerful, he is. It's very quick. And dogs progress, very quickly. The dog likes his new found game as he'll drag the handler to the table so he can start the action. 
I used it for this dog b/c he loved playing the bite game but it was only a game, he did really nice obedience and tracked reasonably nice. But he needed another dimension in his prot work. I sch titled him. 
The current uses that I've seen floating around on the IPO field have had more prey helper action involved in the use of the table. I think it takes away from the original use. But all the high fight drive, reactive dogs of today, they do well with it using this method too. 
To me the traditional method triggered a primal/guttural response which is instinctual. The dog on the end of a chain is more similar to what is normally done on the ground and I don't see a lot of advantage. And the dog has more options when he has 12" worth of chain which can cause the helper to ab lib in a way that can lead to good or bad work, reactively. Just my experience and opinion.


----------



## James Downey

Hunter Allred said:


> Dogs perception is that his show of aggression pushed the helper into avoidance



I guess it could be seen like that....Women use rape whistles in the same fashion....interesting?


----------



## rick smith

nice to see this being discussed from a few different angles

- call it "taking away options" or flooding ... whatever trips your trigger
BOTH are accurate definitions in my mind

- however, dogs with good genetic civil aggression don't need to be "built up" and less civil dogs might benefit from CAREFUL application of "taking away options" or flooding them; either staked out on the ground, posted by a decent handler, or worked on a table
- but dogs will ALWAYS have "options" and it's mostly decided in their head

- it is a total NO BRAINER that whether it gets "built up" or not, on a table or on the ground, the process is not finished til the dog is allowed to ENGAGE and fight, and enjoy doing so

i see a table as simply one way to "maybe" get results quicker and that is why the "transformation" may seem magical ... but results may be good ones or bad ones, depending on who's doing the work


----------



## susan tuck

Forgive me if this has already been posted, but I don't feel like slogging through all the posts in the millionth message board table debate!

Anyway:
Nate Harves wrote a really good article about table training, published in the March/April 2009 edition of Schutzhund USA magazine. The article is also on his website: 

http://www.sportwaffenk9.com/k9.table.training.shtml

I think tables are a great tool, don't care who doesn't like them, people can choose to use them or not, but I thought some people might find the article informative.


----------



## James Downey

I was being an asshole again


----------



## James Downey

So what's the end game in table training? What are the trainers trying to achieve? I know the trainers are not hoping to create a dog that barks it self to safety. Even though that's what it looks like in some of the videos to me. I did suspect that some videos they were trying to make the dogs guarding more powerful, which on the table that was achieved. but then I looked at some videos of trials that were of the same dog, subsequent to the table training...and it did not transfer. I suspect, that some are hoping that training empowers the dog in some fashion. Which comparing to other dogs that never seen a table their was no apparent benefit. Some of the videos I did see, Just looked like prey work with the dog on a table. Which I am with Rick on there... Why the table?


----------



## James Downey

Nicole Stark said:


> On some of these more controversial topics I'd rather hear from people that actually do the work than from those projecting views based upon what they think they see or those that have formed opinions by examples of poorly executed work. JMO.


Where's the fun in that? Besides if that were the case, 99% of the people on here would have to shut their mouths when theories of positive training are being discussed. 

And just some other information. The training people are accusing of being "poor" was preformed by a guy highly praised as a table training expert. 

And also if this place start to have rules a kin to a church where only the ordained can preach the religion...it's not going to give you the truth, it's going to give you the sales pitch. I think it's valuable to see the perception of what others think. I think actually the critical flaw here (and I am not innocent with this) is that we as whole on the forum our motivations become not to discuss the training but discredit first what other trainers are saying, and if that does not work just discredit them as a trainer all together. Like when I see table training and I someone state something about table training, a good example of this is: The phrase "defeat the helper" used to describe what happens when the helper retreats in response to strong barking by the dog. And I do not agree that's a defeat. Well simply because I have never done table training makes me unqualified to make such a comment? why? I am a dog trainer. I should be able to see the rewards, the punishers, the things that are being conditioned in the dog. Should we not give respect to one another as dog trainers at the basic level. And that their experiences and education should enough to suffice to see what's happening? it's not as if that placing a dog on table changes the science. And so when I see an application of the science that's intended to make the dog believe it has defeated the helper in the sense that is empowering to the dog And I don't believe that the dog feels empowered by what just happened... I should mot have the ability to say, hey...I don't think the dog feels the way the training intended him to feel? I think anyone who has trains dogs should be afforded the basic respect to say so. 

And there is a problem with only the people of advocates of the training being able to speak on such controversial subjects. And I am sure people who voiced their opinions about the effectiveness of only motivational training with agree with me here. Even if they never trained a dog that way. And that is the advocates are always going to "sell" it. They are never going to tell you what the problems are going to be. I have not heard one advocate of table training even come close to admitting or plain out stating any of the baggage they have seen with table training....and there is some. be it the best table training. Every type of training has it's drawbacks. The e-collar crowd will go to great lengths to prove that e-collars can be used and have no negative effect on the dog. Now, I have and will again use an e-collar....But I am not as nieve to believe that it will have zero negative effects. It's going to create something that I did not intend. Some people have actually sited studies that have shown an e-collar can create a reduction in stress, a calming effect. Anyone who has trained a dog with an e-collar for 5 minutes knows that the collar is going to cause some stress. That's what it does. It gives the dog something to be concerned about. And knowing this, trainers have created all kinds of clever ways to try and minimize the stress. Positive dog trainers are always going to sell the points of their training that make it seem superior. They are never going to come out and say that motivational training is going to create a dog that may at some point try to give you behaviors you did not ask for in hopes the get a reward simply cause they can risk it with little to no consequence. My point with all this is that when the other side comes out and says, hey here's a different a view we are actually more informed. Whether the information they present is an accurate assessment or not. What does happen is other dog trainers start thinking about that side of the coin and start looking themselves. And people are always going to focus on the the things that make them feel good. So it's hard for advocates of specific types of training to see it's flaws. It throws a wrench in their world....and who needs that?


----------



## Hunter Allred

The dog does beat the helper through barking. Consider the process of posturing... Eye contact, squared off body and showing maximum size (puffed up chest and shoulda in men, hackles in dogs, flared out ears in elephants, erect fins in fish, etc), then noise, then closing the distance, then mild contact, then an actual fight... At each step the goal being to put the adversary into avoidance and prevent the fight all together. Avoiding the fight isn't "avoidance" per se, but rather the safest most efficient way to decide who is the dominant one of the two participants and the way all social species on this planet do business... Thus why the helper flees when the dog shows the most power he can muster. Normal bite work is focusing on teaching the skills to fight... I see the table as teaching skills at all the steps precluding the fight.

I don't believe it's a case of dogs with good genetic civil aggression don't need to be built up... If you don't build up that dog as well, you fail to reach his potential... We are in the business of maximizing what a dog naturally brings to the table, so why stop at aggression? I could have the most balls to the wall amazing, better than sliced bread, civil demon from hell... I'm still going to try to get more out of him.

I have a dog that will show strong aggression at a threating person when he's on a table, in my car, on a leash, by himself, at a bar, or anywhere else. I still use a table... We can get into the peak of his aggression there more easily. Mind you, we weren't using a table to build aggression as a primary goal, we were fixing problems I created for myself, but I also am always working on keeping him in high aggression as we work.


----------



## jamie lind

James, have you ever worked a dog on a table? Not watched someone work a dog or have your dog worked on a table. Maybe it would be interesting for you to do. Might find out there are some things you like about it, maybe not. Either way you wouldn't lose anything because you would be in control of the session.


----------



## Joby Becker

James Downey said:


> I don't think so either. So why teach it. I mean what do you see happening when the dog barks and the helper leaves. What do you think the dog's preception is?


I think the dogs perception is that the helper was backed off or scared away from the dog barking.


----------



## Joby Becker

Melody Greba said:


> Joby:
> The defense table concept started with the dog being comfortable getting on and off the table. So much that the dog didn't consider it any thing different than an obstacle. The collaring the dog to the post caused conflict b/c the dog was "cornered" -so to speak. No options.
> 
> Many behaviors come from a dog that is now without options so with the helper stalking the dog in a predatory mode, the dog no longer worries about his situation b/c he has worse things to worry about. This take a man with presence and NOT Hollywood, prey or whip stimulation. It is clear predatory targeting.
> When the dog responds out of forward movement, the predator avoids and backs off. The dog becomes empowered and so full of himself than in a few very SHORT sessions, he loves the new found empowerment and puts himself on the table for the battle.
> Now...you say the chain keeps the dog from escaping. That's added length provides the dog more leniency to come forward and make the fight as far to the edge as he can.
> 
> There is the difference. You are thinking, "keeping" and I am saying, "providing/giving".
> And yes, I come from operative language b/c it is elevating the dog to provide an advantage thus it is a positive. It is removing the dog's options-a negative. Adding empowerment through natural occurring instincts-positive. And the behaviors chain into more depth in his power, and its just one more thing that the dog know his advantage and is successful.
> I obviously, like the tool but know very few helpers anymore that I'd use it with.


I know what the hell the tables are used for, and what the theories are, and about the original design with the collar on the post.

People were using collars on posts and clipping dogs to a fence, or on a wall long before the interent, and without ever hearing of Gene England or that tables were being used... First time I saw it was on a loading dock, in the early 80's dogs collar was affixed to concrete wall, helper approched from lower level where trucks would back up into.


----------



## Joby Becker

rick smith said:


> nice to see this being discussed from a few different angles
> 
> - call it "taking away options" or flooding ... whatever trips your trigger
> BOTH are accurate definitions in my mind
> 
> - however, dogs with good genetic civil aggression don't need to be "built up" and less civil dogs might benefit from CAREFUL application of "taking away options" or flooding them; either staked out on the ground, posted by a decent handler, or worked on a table
> - but dogs will ALWAYS have "options" and it's mostly decided in their head
> 
> - it is a total NO BRAINER that whether it gets "built up" or not, on a table or on the ground, the process is not finished til the dog is allowed to ENGAGE and fight, and enjoy doing so
> 
> i see a table as simply one way to "maybe" get results quicker and that is why the "transformation" may seem magical ... but results may be good ones or bad ones, depending on who's doing the work


all dogs get built up in progression of training table or no table..that is called training. And yes if a dog hass holes in it that any type of training "covers up", those holes may appear under the right or wrong circumstances, this is true whether or not a dog ever even sees a training table at training, let alone ever gets on one.
there are quite a few reasons that people use tables.

as with any other training tool, results can be variable depending on the dog and the people working him. 

I cant remember anyone EVER stating anything about a *magical transformation* happening.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

James Downey said:


> Where's the fun in that? Besides if that were the case, 99% of the people on here would have to shut their mouths when theories of positive training are being discussed.
> 
> And just some other information. The training people are accusing of being "poor" was preformed by a guy highly praised as a table training expert.
> 
> And also if this place start to have rules a kin to a church where only the ordained can preach the religion...it's not going to give you the truth, it's going to give you the sales pitch. I think it's valuable to see the perception of what others think. I think actually the critical flaw here (and I am not innocent with this) is that we as whole on the forum our motivations become not to discuss the training but discredit first what other trainers are saying, and if that does not work just discredit them as a trainer all together. Like when I see table training and I someone state something about table training, a good example of this is: The phrase "defeat the helper" used to describe what happens when the helper retreats in response to strong barking by the dog. And I do not agree that's a defeat. Well simply because I have never done table training makes me unqualified to make such a comment? why? I am a dog trainer. I should be able to see the rewards, the punishers, the things that are being conditioned in the dog. Should we not give respect to one another as dog trainers at the basic level. And that their experiences and education should enough to suffice to see what's happening? it's not as if that placing a dog on table changes the science. And so when I see an application of the science that's intended to make the dog believe it has defeated the helper in the sense that is empowering to the dog And I don't believe that the dog feels empowered by what just happened... I should mot have the ability to say, hey...I don't think the dog feels the way the training intended him to feel? I think anyone who has trains dogs should be afforded the basic respect to say so.
> 
> And there is a problem with only the people of advocates of the training being able to speak on such controversial subjects. And I am sure people who voiced their opinions about the effectiveness of only motivational training with agree with me here. Even if they never trained a dog that way. And that is the advocates are always going to "sell" it. They are never going to tell you what the problems are going to be. I have not heard one advocate of table training even come close to admitting or plain out stating any of the baggage they have seen with table training....and there is some. be it the best table training. Every type of training has it's drawbacks. The e-collar crowd will go to great lengths to prove that e-collars can be used and have no negative effect on the dog. Now, I have and will again use an e-collar....But I am not as nieve to believe that it will have zero negative effects. It's going to create something that I did not intend. Some people have actually sited studies that have shown an e-collar can create a reduction in stress, a calming effect. Anyone who has trained a dog with an e-collar for 5 minutes knows that the collar is going to cause some stress. That's what it does. It gives the dog something to be concerned about. And knowing this, trainers have created all kinds of clever ways to try and minimize the stress. Positive dog trainers are always going to sell the points of their training that make it seem superior. They are never going to come out and say that motivational training is going to create a dog that may at some point try to give you behaviors you did not ask for in hopes the get a reward simply cause they can risk it with little to no consequence. My point with all this is that when the other side comes out and says, hey here's a different a view we are actually more informed. Whether the information they present is an accurate assessment or not. What does happen is other dog trainers start thinking about that side of the coin and start looking themselves. And people are always going to focus on the the things that make them feel good. So it's hard for advocates of specific types of training to see it's flaws. It throws a wrench in their world....and who needs that?


Wow, +++++1. . .


----------



## Joby Becker

James Downey said:


> Where's the fun in that? Besides if that were the case, 99% of the people on here would have to shut their mouths when theories of positive training are being discussed.
> 
> And just some other information. The training people are accusing of being "poor" was preformed by a guy highly praised as a table training expert.
> 
> And also if this place start to have rules a kin to a church where only the ordained can preach the religion...it's not going to give you the truth, it's going to give you the sales pitch. I think it's valuable to see the perception of what others think. I think actually the critical flaw here (and I am not innocent with this) is that we as whole on the forum our motivations become not to discuss the training but discredit first what other trainers are saying, and if that does not work just discredit them as a trainer all together. Like when I see table training and I someone state something about table training, a good example of this is: The phrase "defeat the helper" used to describe what happens when the helper retreats in response to strong barking by the dog. And I do not agree that's a defeat. Well simply because I have never done table training makes me unqualified to make such a comment? why? I am a dog trainer. I should be able to see the rewards, the punishers, the things that are being conditioned in the dog. Should we not give respect to one another as dog trainers at the basic level. And that their experiences and education should enough to suffice to see what's happening? it's not as if that placing a dog on table changes the science. And so when I see an application of the science that's intended to make the dog believe it has defeated the helper in the sense that is empowering to the dog And I don't believe that the dog feels empowered by what just happened... I should mot have the ability to say, hey...I don't think the dog feels the way the training intended him to feel? I think anyone who has trains dogs should be afforded the basic respect to say so.
> 
> And there is a problem with only the people of advocates of the training being able to speak on such controversial subjects. And I am sure people who voiced their opinions about the effectiveness of only motivational training with agree with me here. Even if they never trained a dog that way. And that is the advocates are always going to "sell" it. They are never going to tell you what the problems are going to be. I have not heard one advocate of table training even come close to admitting or plain out stating any of the baggage they have seen with table training....and there is some. be it the best table training. Every type of training has it's drawbacks. The e-collar crowd will go to great lengths to prove that e-collars can be used and have no negative effect on the dog. Now, I have and will again use an e-collar....But I am not as nieve to believe that it will have zero negative effects. It's going to create something that I did not intend. Some people have actually sited studies that have shown an e-collar can create a reduction in stress, a calming effect. Anyone who has trained a dog with an e-collar for 5 minutes knows that the collar is going to cause some stress. That's what it does. It gives the dog something to be concerned about. And knowing this, trainers have created all kinds of clever ways to try and minimize the stress. Positive dog trainers are always going to sell the points of their training that make it seem superior. They are never going to come out and say that motivational training is going to create a dog that may at some point try to give you behaviors you did not ask for in hopes the get a reward simply cause they can risk it with little to no consequence. My point with all this is that when the other side comes out and says, hey here's a different a view we are actually more informed. Whether the information they present is an accurate assessment or not. What does happen is other dog trainers start thinking about that side of the coin and start looking themselves. And people are always going to focus on the the things that make them feel good. So it's hard for advocates of specific types of training to see it's flaws. It throws a wrench in their world....and who needs that?


James I have used and come across many tables an boxes in my travels. not one of those people ever implied to me that the table was anything other than a tool they like to use. 

I ran into zero cults of the table, and did not ever hear anyone say the table could not be used in faulty ways. 

Most people I have seen use tables use them sparingly, and for specific reasons, ususally for a short progression or introduction to something, or an occasional session or two later on...I dont know anyone that employs a table for any more than that personally. it is a tool, just like a clicker or an ecollar.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

So you put the dog on the table and give him no options. Really though you prevent the option of flight--or so it seems. A dog can go into mental avoidance without physical flight. So assuming he shows an aggressive display--then the helper retreats and the human perception is that the dog perceives that he has won through his aggressive display. What happens when the dog has the option of flight? Someone recently posted a video, sorta ad of a dog on the table and really the bark just sounds like anxiety and stress and you see retreat in his body posture. Is that dog "built" through the table work. What is the progress from "no options" or ability to flee to where the the dog has the physical ability to flee and chooses aggression forward?

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Hunter Allred said:


> The dog does beat the helper through barking. Consider the process of posturing... Eye contact, squared off body and showing maximum size (puffed up chest and shoulda in men, hackles in dogs, flared out ears in elephants, erect fins in fish, etc), then noise, then closing the distance, then mild contact, then an actual fight... At each step the goal being to put the adversary into avoidance and prevent the fight all together. Avoiding the fight isn't "avoidance" per se, but rather the safest most efficient way to decide who is the dominant one of the two participants and the way all social species on this planet do business... Thus why the helper flees when the dog shows the most power he can muster. Normal bite work is focusing on teaching the skills to fight... I see the table as teaching skills at all the steps precluding the fight.
> 
> I don't believe it's a case of dogs with good genetic civil aggression don't need to be built up... If you don't build up that dog as well, you fail to reach his potential... We are in the business of maximizing what a dog naturally brings to the table, so why stop at aggression? I could have the most balls to the wall amazing, better than sliced bread, civil demon from hell... I'm still going to try to get more out of him.
> 
> I have a dog that will show strong aggression at a threating person when he's on a table, in my car, on a leash, by himself, at a bar, or anywhere else. I still use a table... We can get into the peak of his aggression there more easily. Mind you, we weren't using a table to build aggression as a primary goal, we were fixing problems I created for myself, but I also am always working on keeping him in high aggression as we work.


What problems were you fixing?

T


----------



## Nicole Stark

James Downey said:


> Where's the fun in that? Besides if that were the case, 99% of the people on here would have to shut their mouths when theories of positive training are being discussed.
> 
> And also if this place start to have rules a kin to a church where only the ordained can preach the religion....


A bit of a scabrous concept eh? Perhaps, at times, that very well needs to be the case.

And if that's all you took away from what I said, well then I guess it shouldn't surprise me why you knew about what a rape whistle was and I didn't. :wink:


----------



## Hunter Allred

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> What problems were you fixing?
> 
> T


The short version is shitty handling & training on my part caused a huge amount of conflict with me and manifested itself as just pure rage redirected & dumping out on the helper and shit grips on the sleeve with a total lack of control. The sight of a sleeve sent him into a conflicted mental state. The table allowed higher aggression, lack of a sleeve (and later reintroduction under high levels of aggression), and lots of work on erasing the conflict fixed the issue. He's a dog that is much more focused and clear headed under high aggression and perceived genuine threat.


----------



## rick smith

re: "The short version is shitty handling & training on my part caused a huge amount of conflict with me and manifested itself as just pure rage redirected & dumping out on the helper and shit grips on the sleeve with a total lack of control. The sight of a sleeve sent him into a conflicted mental state. The table allowed higher aggression, lack of a sleeve (and later reintroduction under high levels of aggression), and lots of work on erasing the conflict fixed the issue. He's a dog that is much more focused and clear headed under high aggression and perceived genuine threat."

crystal clear....
and i will say that i'm guessing these problems could also have been corrected by better helper work that wouldn't have had to involve a table

for some reason, many people think you need to slap on a sleeve and grab a clatter stick when you "work a dog" that is being posted by the handler... fuk with the dog than feed em the sleeve and immediately slip it 
i say not necessarily....

lose the sleeve and simply work using EXACTLY the same moves the "great" table trainers use //lol//
- even use a blind if you want 
BUILD UP THE DOG and build up confidence by allowing the dog to move the helper .... vice the other way around, that you see in so many sloppy vids ](*,)

...can't anchor a dog safely to protect your helper ? handler error...so tie it out...problem solved 
- want less wiggle room for the dog and add some "stress" ? shorten the lead; problem solved

btw, i have made NO "pro table" or "anti table" statements in this thread, but i still fail to see whey the table makes a huge amount of difference
- i see it as either a good helper who can read the damn dog or a bad one who can't as to how effective the "tools" are that are being used
- and i also think the issue can never be resolved unless the same dog is shown posted on and off the table, worked exactly the same way and compared...which aint gonna happen of course 

a few years ago someone sent me a great vid of a well known old german trainer but can't remember his name ... he was going down a line of dogs that were all tied out along a fence and evaluating them for the owners.
the first time down the line, he had NO sleeve, NO whip...nothing, just reading the dogs out loud and telling the owners what he was seeing.
- LOTS of very detailed observations about body language, carriage, types of vocalizing, the dogs strengths and weaknesses ...the whole nine yards.....
i'm no expert but it sure seemed like all those owners walked away with a LOT more knowledge about what their dogs had and didn't have, and their dogs "got worked" 

does this have anything to do with table training ? .... maybe not - who knows 
so i'll just use the worn out phrase :
a good dog is a good dog
and a good trainer is a good trainer


----------



## James Downey

Joby Becker said:


> James I have used and come ascross many tables an boxes in my travels. not one of those people ever implied to me that the table was anything other than a tool they like to use.
> 
> *Of course they did. It makes them happy. This it's just a tool is new catch phrase to minimize any judgements others may pass, It is a tool, that's for sure, and some tools can be used inappropriatley. So yes, I am not attacking the table, the piece of wood itself. *
> 
> I ran into zero cults of the table, and did not ever hear anyone say the table could not be used in faulty ways.
> 
> * That's not what I was saying, I was saying all trainers, always stand behind their product. Showcasing the best parts, and almost unintentionally due to the human condition never stating the unwanted effects.... This is not a table training only problem. This is every human being on earth, with everything we do. It was not about admitting that people can do stupid training with the table. It was stating that even the best efforts of the most successful training programs no matter what the Program, whether it be table, clicker, placement, or whatever will not admit there is some ***** in the armor.*
> 
> Most people I have seen use tables use them sparingly, and for specific reasons, ususally for a short progression or introduction to something, or an occasional session or two later on...I dont know anyone that employs a table for any more than that personally. it is a tool, just like a clicker or an ecollar.
> 
> 
> [BI am not judging the piece of wood. but there is a typical application it's used in. Some more extreme than others. What I does not make sense to me is this. The behavior created is boisterous displays, Some say it's aggression, it looks to me like worry that's vailed by crazy barking. The reward a feeling of empowerment upon retreat or submission of the helper. That I don't disagree with. The dog could feel some satisfaction from the helper going away. his worries are relieved. but what I do not get is, what happens when his displays don't work. When a formerly successful behavior is no longer successful. The only thing that makes sense is a feeling failure. Because if retreating is seen by the dog as rewarding, the opposite is true, advancing is seen as unrewarding. Just like a bite is rewarding, not getting one is unrewarding. Even more basic. Gain pleasure/ avoid pain (real or precievied.) so, I understand that the dog is trying to avoid whatever he thinks the helper may be able to do him....so he barks his head off.....It works. I am not sure it matters the length of time it's done for. What matters is that what the dog learned. And if the dog learned it. and the dog starts barking with the same motivation (avoid pain) and it does not work, what does the dog think is going to happen....he's gonna get some pain. Whether or not he does is irrelevant. What matters is the dog thinks that's whats going to happen. and if the dog gets smart I finds out your just full of it....The piece of wood is kind of useless now. If it's true the dog feel empowered by the helper fleeing, it's true then he feels the opposite when the helper advances. You cannot have one without the other. The only thing give success it's power, is the chance of failure. The bigger the risk of failure the bigger the satisfaction of successs, And for me, no thanks. That's just something I don't want my dog to even have the slightest notion of. I don't really care what the progression is after that. I never want my dog to have that Idea ever placed in his head. Especially since it's taught under stress. Pavlov taught us a lot about emotions being paired with stimulus, and how powerful that can be. He showed us we can elicit automated responses by pairingi them with a stimulus, that means the dog is exposed to a stimulus and now has no conscience control over how he feels about it. any training program that pairs negative feelings with a helper advancing just seems like a terrible idea. [/B]


----------



## Hunter Allred

James Downey said:


> I am not judging the piece of wood. but there is a typical application it's used in. Some more extreme than others. What I does not make sense to me is this. The behavior created is boisterous displays, Some say it's aggression, it looks to me like worry that's vailed by crazy barking. The reward a feeling of empowerment upon retreat or submission of the helper. That I don't disagree with. The dog could feel some satisfaction from the helper going away. his worries are relieved. but what I do not get is, what happens when his displays don't work. When a formerly successful behavior is no longer successful.
> 
> *The idea isn't that you show the dog the behavior that did work abruptly fails to work. The dog should be convinced that ultimately his behavior *will* infact succeed. No different than teaching a longer down in OB... the dog knows "so long as I stay down I will ultimately win this game". *
> 
> The only thing that makes sense is a feeling failure. Because if retreating is seen by the dog as rewarding, the opposite is true, advancing is seen as unrewarding. Just like a bite is rewarding, not getting one is unrewarding. Even more basic. Gain pleasure/ avoid pain (real or precievied.) so, I understand that the dog is trying to avoid whatever he thinks the helper may be able to do him....so he barks his head off.....It works. I am not sure it matters the length of time it's done for. What matters is that what the dog learned. And if the dog learned it. and the dog starts barking with the same motivation (avoid pain) and it does not work, what does the dog think is going to happen....he's gonna get some pain. Whether or not he does is irrelevant. What matters is the dog thinks that's whats going to happen. and if the dog gets smart I finds out your just full of it....The piece of wood is kind of useless now. If it's true the dog feel empowered by the helper fleeing, it's true then he feels the opposite when the helper advances. You cannot have one without the other. The only thing give success it's power, is the chance of failure. The bigger the risk of failure the bigger the satisfaction of successs, And for me, no thanks. That's just something I don't want my dog to even have the slightest notion of. I don't really care what the progression is after that. I never want my dog to have that Idea ever placed in his head. Especially since it's taught under stress. Pavlov taught us a lot about emotions being paired with stimulus, and how powerful that can be. He showed us we can elicit automated responses by pairingi them with a stimulus, that means the dog is exposed to a stimulus and now has no conscience control over how he feels about it. any training program that pairs negative feelings with a helper advancing just seems like a terrible idea.


I don't see negative feelings being paired with the helper advancing in any of the table training I have done.


----------



## Guy Williams

It has taken me a long time to read all these posts and there are many valid views expressed. I will keep my post short(ish) and to the point.

Like others on here, i agree the table is a tool. Like any tool, it can be used to good effect or not depending on the skill base of those using the tool.

Table training suffers from bad press by those who have and still do use it as a method to prevent flight and force an aggressive response. This is bad training whether you use a table, have the handler hold the dog on a lead or place them in a crate or other situation where they can't escape the situation. The failure is not the method of restraint but the fact the dog is being pushed to the point where avoidance (including flight) becomes the dogs action of choice.

Foundation training is best done in prey drive and the dog should be well versed in barking, biting and generally engaging with the helper before work is performed in defence drive. 

In law enforcement and for many sport dogs, working solely in prey drive is not enough. The dog may encounter a situation which it percieves to be (and may actually be) in danger of being hurt. It must know how to deal with these situations. Aggressive displays are rewarded by the helper by him removing himself (the threat) from the dog. The dog gains confidence in his ability to win encounters through aggressive displays just as in the bar fight analogy someone posted. 

The table provides just enough environmental stress in some dogs to make it easier to get a defensive reaction. Just as darkness works for others. With some dogs that are well versed at mixing it up with the helper it can be difficult to make them feel threatened and therefore get the aggressive response you require. 

The dog shouldn't however suddenly find himself in a situation where his aggression doesn't work. What he does need to learn is that if aggressive displays don't work then the bitework he learned in earlier prey exercises can be used to win the encounter. The same actions but a different motivation. The level of fight required to win the encounter can then be increased, commensurate with the dogs skill level.

Eventually the dog stops feeling the stress it felt in early defence work. The dogs attitude changes from one of mild fear to what many refer to as fight drive. The dog has the skills, the experience and the ability to win encounters and relishes the chance to put theses skills to the test in combat. The feeling will be familiar to anyone who has undergone fight training such as police, military or martial artists.

In conclusion, I would say that training a dog through defence is a skill that when done well avoids pushing the dog into avoidance. Done well this can be done on a table, under a table or you can just use the table to keep your beer on and a well deserved bowl of water for your dog.

That's my opinion for what it's worth!


----------



## Joby Becker

James Downey said:


> ... It may have been slight. but it was there. and the forced retrieve guys...the dog looked miserable, he says the dog is happy.
> 
> *I dont know what video you are talking about, but force training is force training, the main purpose is not to make a dog happy during training, it is to remove his options and make him perform, it is to make him unhappy for not performing.*
> 
> I say the dog is doing what he's got to do to get through another day of work.
> 
> *Yeah, sometimes that is how it goes. Not all working dogs are super happy or motivated all the time to do everything expected of them, but they still have to work...*
> 
> I read the dog completely different than the guy did. I don't know, I may have went to a different school to read dog behavior...I dunno. But I think to say the training is devoid of fear is not true. The reason the dogs are barking is because they precieve that it might be dangerous. It may not be cowardly tucked tail fear. but *all aggression is rooted in fear. every bit of it*.
> 
> * I never said it is devoid of fear. However, I have to disagree, there are sources for aggression that are not rooted in fear. Prey/Dominance/Social/Frustration/Rage and probably others, but if you are talking about defensive aggression then yes, I can agree it is concern/worry/fear whatever.*
> 
> ...So when I say all fear is rooted in fear. I am not saying the dogs feel like they are fighting for their life or they fear dying. But they have enough fear to be aware that their is a threat. It comes down to that flight or fight response. Which is triggered by fear. But we in our ultra macho society almost associate fear with flight. And fight with the absence of fear....and that is not true.
> 
> *I agree..*
> 
> As for the helper submitting feigning and what not.... I still don't get what happens when the helper does not submit and feign.
> 
> *The helper does not always submit or feign, the dogs are allowed to engage in most cases, as with anything there is a progression.*
> 
> Go with me on this analogy. A guy is at a bar at one end, another guy at the other end. They have a argument over which is better, coke or pepsi. It get's heated. One guy stands up...he's insulted. The other guy is still a safe distance away. And he does not want the first guy to approach. Why? fear. So in effort to avoid the confrontation. he stands up and starts becoming aggro. he takes his shirt off, throws a glass on the floor. His objective is not to fight, but to avoid it. It's the best defense is to have a good offense ( or at least the appearance of one) idea. The first guy realizes that hey maybe loud mouth has got something, and decides to sit down (show submission)...through out the night they have similar arguments....they do the same little dance a couple of times. Now the first guy, the aggressor. Finally has had enough, he's gonna approach. The guy take his shirt off again, another glass. This time he notices these things are no longer working the man is still advancing....what do you think he is now feeling. My guess is fear is building. His prior avoidance techniques are not doing it. Maybe he makes one last try and does something outlandish like smashes a beer bottle on the bar and shows it as a weapon. He's not doing this cause he's a bad ass....he's friggin scared. Now since he sat in the back of the bar, he's blocked in, he cannot leave....his avoidance tactics have failed...ones that used to be successful. So either now he can fight or he try to avoid. I don't think at this point he's going to change his motive of trying to avoid the fight, That's not how the mind works.
> 
> *I see this as a valid example in some cases for sure, but there can be quite afew other reasons why a guy might not want to fight a dude at a bar besides fear of the dude. And there are also plenty of dudes that may get aggro in a bar, and want to fight a guy accross the room, or get aggro elsewhere and want to fight.*
> 
> According to learning theory, the behaviors likely to occur again are the ones that worked in the past. The reinforced behaviors....fighting in this guys brain has not been reinforced....avoidance has.
> 
> *In your example sure, but that is not all encompassing, he might just be a prick that likes to get aggro and fight.*
> 
> So what does he do. I think he is going to possibly show submission (maybe buying him a beer will calm him down or saying he was just kidding), he's gonna look around to see if his buddies are gonna help. and if he does decide to throw a punch it's not because he's enjoying the fight..it's because he's now scared. Flight has been removed. He's fighting simply because he has no other choice.
> 
> *Again in your example sure, I have known people that love to get into bar/street figths, or so it seems, and act likes dicks, close up or far away. *
> 
> And yeah at first, the guy with no escape made a helluva an aggressive display. but it was all bullshit. as soon the guy no longer responds to his displays, he's gonna shit his pants....
> 
> *some sure, others no. I have seen fights instigated for the want of fighting.*
> 
> and I believe the dogs that don't shit their pants....were that way to begin with, kind of making all the training kind of a waste. If the dog is gonna fight, he's gonna fight. I think a lot of trainers do shit like this, then claim they created all of it when it was inside the dog the whole time.
> 
> *I can agree with this.*
> 
> And that's what I do not get. how being the guy in the corner of the bar is going to make him a tough guy.
> 
> *tough guys are where they are, in the corner, or out of the corner.*
> 
> And as for the 1 inch square pole. Really your going to argue the size of the pole.
> 
> *No, just read what you wrote, along with the description of the dirty couch, to set the stage....LOL..
> *


----------



## Joby Becker

James Downey said:


> I know this sounds hokey, And I thought long on hard with my dog on how I wanted to teach him to fight. And what I did was take a lot from table training and sort of reverse it.
> 
> I am not trying to convince anyone to train like I do. But I cannot do training that does make sense to me. And the dog making boogey man go away does not make sense to me. And the dog being tied to something or on a leash on the ground, I agree if you train the dog to make the boogey man go away. Your doing the same thing. So why not teach the dog to just go get the boogey man.
> 
> *The guy does not have to be the bogeyman, and if the dog views him as the bogeyman, that is not a good thing. The dog should be looking at the guy like he is a normal human, not the bogeyman. *
> 
> First, I have said this before, you cannot install something in the dog that is not in his heart. That kind of goes along with the table IMO from what I gather does not make the dog anymore than he genetically can be. And I wonder if that's what guys think they are doing. getting a dog, putting him on a table and installing a lift kit of bad ass.
> 
> *The reasons for table use have been laid out, if you choose not to see them as valid, that is your choice, I do not know anyone that uses them that thinks they are "installing a lift kit of badass".*
> 
> Here's what I did.... And I am very happy with my dogs confidence, his guarding and his ability to handle stress. I wanted to teach my dog, that biting and fighting was the object to turn off the stress. Again, I don't think I installed anything in him. I just believe the best way to allow it to grow and flourish was to teach him the win was in the actual fighting.
> 
> *Sure I agree...*
> 
> I started there. But I did not want to make him do it. He had to believe he was strong enough to fight, and then strong enough in the fight to win.
> 
> *yes that is the goal..*
> 
> So, he was free no lines or anything. I gave him a bite pillow. and I got outside his personal space. I would walk back and fourth (and yes I did the work, I believe this is best. I look at this as I am his coach not his adversary...that would come later) That's another issue I have with table training especially on young dog. I think an unknown guy acting all weird can adverse effects on the psyche.
> 
> *Sure it can. *
> 
> So it was important to me that he do this with me, someone he trusted. So walking back and fourth outside the comfort zone, with a stick or whip. I would look at him out of the corner of my eye. If he met eyes with me I would stop and stare at him a little bit. If he did nothing, I would keep walking. if he bit the pillow harder, shook it, barked at me, anything that showed he was connecting to what I was doing. I would react...as if he hurt me. As if he did physical damage. My connection to him was that pillow. quickly these displays in him grew. He then started doing something I did not expect, but I thought was pretty cool. He started standing on the pillow, staring at as if he was daring me to grab it....I would make a slow advance on the toy. If he bit it I would act like he hurt me again. these were subtle not big displays. Sometimes when he would stand on it, I would stop and not turn all the toward him but just stare at him out of the corner of my eye. Someone said eye contact before. That I believe is the first engagement in any confrontation. So, now I wanted to see if he would do more. So I just stared at him out of the corner of my eye. Then he gave me more (these are not all in session, I started this at about 6-7 months old) He started to stand on the pillow barking at me. Again I would try to advance on the pillow. a peculiar thing happened here. You'd think it would become about the toy, but it did the opposite. It became about me. The pillow was just a catalyst. If he got stressed, fustrated or anything else. He beat the shit out of the pillow but it was not about getting the prey item. He already had it. It was starting to be about fighting with me. Where he was comfortable learning. I swear his confidence started to grow. Now he is standing on the toy, barking his head off at me, when I get to close he bites the pillow and beats the hell out of it. I did not actually want to grab the toy. I wanted him to bring to me. Which he started doing. He would picked up and bounce it off of me. Again this over some me of doing this. a bunch of sessions Sometime he would get with in feet of me and veer off. I took this as a little bit of doubt. I was not going to try and grab the pillow and make him stay by me. I kept doing this. mixing in all the little exercises, the barking, the staring, the trying to reach for it. Then the day happened where he picked it up and rammed into me. just pushing and pushing. I still did not grab it. I would slap the pillow and push him off. and he'd comeback and do it again. Now incorporated the stick. I started swinging it at him as he came in. He had no problem with the stick. But what did this did do is: now he saw the stick swing and he would immediatly pick up the pillow and ram it into me. again I still am not grabbing the pillow. I am pusing him away, slapping the pillow, yelling when he's coming in sometimes I would let him drive me back, others I drive him back. Swinging the stick over his head. Then I introduced stick hits and this would make him shove the pillow into me. I finally when I saw no doubt in his head I grabbed the toy and gave him some fight, drives, stick hits...and it was all perfect. And it continued to grow. Now he would stand on the toy and start barking at me. This where I knew was not about the toy so much. He started to leave the toy, barking at me. A few times I thought he was going to bite me. I had to give him the stick. But the pillow was just mere prop that's part of the fight. I can threaten him anywhere toy or no toy and goes right into drive. not looking for the toy, just me and him. He won't bite me...knock on wood.
> *Yes the progression you are talking about I agree with, especially the prey guarding portions of the story and it will help a high prey dog with some possession bring his focus to the man more. Is this your own dog? I have done simliar things with my dog, but my dog would bite me for sure if I am stupid and cross the line.*
> 
> But he come running in barking like a god damn banshee or he might grab whatever is available. and it can be a soda can, or the damn sofa...he will try to bring something to fight with. the sofa, he will bite then jump on it and start guarding it. Is it a game. sure with me it is. but again I am his coach, not his opponent. And I don't think I installed any of that shit. All I think I did was create the relationship, enviorment and the Situations for it flourish in. And it transfered over beautifully to the helper. I did not have the helper do any of that stuff. That's different that's the actual fight. I was just his coach in the gym. He was prepared when finally met the adversary. He knew how to do it all. So instead of focusing on building all this aggression we are able to get right into the meat and potatoes of training the dog. his job concerning the fight is clear....And me doing all the work did not detract one bit from him seeing the helper as somebody else.
> 
> *I agree with you on this, but with YOU it was obviously more about the toy, since your dog is not biting or figthing you as a person, he is showing displays of aggression..*
> 
> That too, I think is in the dog. Not something you can train. Just like a dad can show his kid how to fight, his kid when he gets in a real fight won't be dull cause his dad did all the work with him. The kid will know he's not sparring with his dad and that it's the real deal. and one other thing. Outs, I taught the out, and never ever slip the sleeve. The one and only reward for out is bite and fight. or any behavior for that matter. Slips also don't make sense to me. Why give the dog 2 give the dog to pictures in his head as way to win....especially a dog that looks to shut the pressure off. if an out could results in more conflict with another bite , he's gonna hold on and hope the slip comes. Fighting is the reward. And I just think all that barking the helper away puts a picture in my dogs head of what win is, that I don't want. So I don't do that on table, on leash...off a leash on the ground...anywhere. Barking starts a fight not prevents one. And I think one you get a dog obsessed with the fight...And that's all they work for. The more pressure added to the dog, the happier they are. But once again. teaching the dog the object of barking or biting is to turn the pressure off... Just seems counter productive. I think it's kind of outdated idea.
> 
> *Some dogs are much higher is desire to fight than others, this does not mean to say that we cannot build a desire to fight, some dogs need more work in areas that others dont, dogs are all different, you taught your dog to show aggression towards you, that instigated a fight with the toy, which transferred over to the helper. All of your foundation was not as you put it in the beginning as described, you did not teach him and allow it to grow and flourish by teaching him the win was in the actual fighting, since the dog was not actually fighting you, the man. He was fighting you for possession of the toy, and looking to engage you in a game to fight for the toy. You taught him how to win the game. I am not saying this is bad at all, just saying how I see it.
> 
> I think your post has to deal with a lot more than the use of tables, moreso about using defensive techniques in general. You threatening the toy brings a defensive mood into the dog, just as having a dog up on a table does for some dogs.*


----------



## Joby Becker

Guy Williams said:


> It has taken me a long time to read all these posts and there are many valid views expressed. I will keep my post short(ish) and to the point.
> 
> Like others on here, i agree the table is a tool. Like any tool, it can be used to good effect or not depending on the skill base of those using the tool.
> 
> Table training suffers from bad press by those who have and still do use it as a method to prevent flight and force an aggressive response. This is bad training whether you use a table, have the handler hold the dog on a lead or place them in a crate or other situation where they can't escape the situation. The failure is not the method of restraint but the fact the dog is being pushed to the point where avoidance (including flight) becomes the dogs action of choice.
> 
> Foundation training is best done in prey drive and the dog should be well versed in barking, biting and generally engaging with the helper before work is performed in defence drive.
> 
> In law enforcement and for many sport dogs, working solely in prey drive is not enough. The dog may encounter a situation which it percieves to be (and may actually be) in danger of being hurt. It must know how to deal with these situations. Aggressive displays are rewarded by the helper by him removing himself (the threat) from the dog. The dog gains confidence in his ability to win encounters through aggressive displays just as in the bar fight analogy someone posted.
> 
> The table provides just enough environmental stress in some dogs to make it easier to get a defensive reaction. Just as darkness works for others. With some dogs that are well versed at mixing it up with the helper it can be difficult to make them feel threatened and therefore get the aggressive response you require.
> 
> The dog shouldn't however suddenly find himself in a situation where his aggression doesn't work. What he does need to learn is that if aggressive displays don't work then the bitework he learned in earlier prey exercises can be used to win the encounter. The same actions but a different motivation. The level of fight required to win the encounter can then be increased, commensurate with the dogs skill level.
> 
> Eventually the dog stops feeling the stress it felt in early defence work. The dogs attitude changes from one of mild fear to what many refer to as fight drive. The dog has the skills, the experience and the ability to win encounters and relishes the chance to put theses skills to the test in combat. The feeling will be familiar to anyone who has undergone fight training such as police, military or martial artists.
> 
> In conclusion, I would say that training a dog through defence is a skill that when done well avoids pushing the dog into avoidance. Done well this can be done on a table, under a table or you can just use the table to keep your beer on and a well deserved bowl of water for your dog.
> 
> That's my opinion for what it's worth!


+1


----------



## Tony Hahn

I don't see where anyone has answered the original question, which was-

Why is the low table commonly shaped differently from the high one?


----------



## Tony Hahn

Other than adding an environmental stressor, I’m not getting how using a table without collaring the dog to a pole is accomplishing anything more than a tie-out.

I’ve used a fence to accomplish the same purpose that I was taught a table was for; namely to eliminate the option of backing away from the decoy. 

The way I’ve always understood using a fence or table to “eliminating the option of retreat” is as a psychological tool. Dogs aren’t totally stupid; a dog doesn’t have to be cowering against a fence to know that it’s back there blocking his egress. If the dog is actually trying to run away but the fence is stopping him you’ve either got the wrong dog or you have put too much pressure on a green dog. 

I’m sure that some folks have used fences (or tables) as a means of forcing a dog into biting when he’s actively trying to run away, but that doesn’t mean they used the tool correctly. 

Eliminating the options with a fence or table is no different from walking beside a fence to teach heeling or using barriers to keep a dog from going around a jump rather than over it. 

Using the jump as an example, there are multiple ways to teach the dog he has to go over rather than around. A dog that’s capable of jumping but lacks some confidence when you raise the height may need encouragement to go over. Eliminating the options by using barriers and a leash to guide the dog over is one set of tools. No doubt someone at some time used a leash to drag a dog over the jump, but that doesn’t mean they used the tool properly.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Tony Hahn said:


> Other than adding an environmental stressor, I’m not getting how using a table without collaring the dog to a pole is accomplishing anything more than a tie-out.
> 
> I’ve used a fence to accomplish the same purpose that I was taught a table was for; namely to eliminate the option of backing away from the decoy.
> 
> The way I’ve always understood using a fence or table to “eliminating the option of retreat” is as a psychological tool. Dogs aren’t totally stupid; a dog doesn’t have to be cowering against a fence to know that it’s back there blocking his egress. If the dog is actually trying to run away but the fence is stopping him you’ve either got the wrong dog or you have put too much pressure on a green dog.
> 
> I’m sure that some folks have used fences (or tables) as a means of forcing a dog into biting when he’s actively trying to run away, but that doesn’t mean they used the tool correctly.
> 
> Eliminating the options with a fence or table is no different from walking beside a fence to teach heeling or using barriers to keep a dog from going around a jump rather than over it.
> 
> 
> Using the jump as an example, there are multiple ways to teach the dog he has to go over rather than around. A dog that’s capable of jumping but lacks some confidence when you raise the height may need encouragement to go over. Eliminating the options by using barriers and a leash to guide the dog over is one set of tools. No doubt someone at some time used a leash to drag a dog over the jump, but that doesn’t mean they used the tool properly.


I don't think I will ever see the need of the table for biting or whatever.

It seems to have become popular when the dogs needed to be coaxed into biting. Need I say more?


----------



## susan tuck

Gillian Schuler said:


> I don't think I will ever see the need of the table for biting or whatever.
> 
> It seems to have become popular when the dogs needed to be coaxed into biting. Need I say more?


Who do you know that uses it to "coax" a dog into biting? The dogs that I know who have been put on the table were more than happy to bite, both before table work and after.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Hi Sue,

Then why the table?

Gill


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Maybe the word "coaxed" was wrong. I have however seen many a dog trained to bite well without the table. Where there's a will, there's a way.


----------



## Tony Hahn

Gillian Schuler said:


> .................................snip...........
> 
> It seems to have become popular when the dogs needed to be coaxed into biting............


Yes, when I first learned of table training that was how it was explained to me. 

Europe seems to have a different dog culture than the USA. Think back 40-50 years ago in the US and there were relatively few dogs being conditioned from puppies for bitework. Adult dogs with no conditioning were donated to Police departments or trained to be guard dogs. 

Even as recently as 15-16 years ago it was not uncommon to see dogs that were raised as the family pet trying to do Schutzhund or learn protection work. 

Sometimes dogs needed to be coaxed into biting, or they just needed to be taught it was OK to engage the decoy. It might be due to the wrong genetics or simply a lifetime of being told "NO BITE!".

With the quality of dogs and knowledge available today, I don't see a need for collaring a dog to a pole anymore. 

On the other hand, ANY tool can be used intelligently to enhance training. As long as people are not being abusive to the animal, I say it's fine to use tables, fences or any other tool that is getting results.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Tony, I agree with you, why not use it?

However, a dog that wants to bite, will bite - a dog that wants to track, will track with or without food in each footstep.

Many handlers do not test their pup's potential - they use aids on them that might not even be necessary.


----------



## susan tuck

Gillian Schuler said:


> Maybe the word "coaxed" was wrong. I have however seen many a dog trained to bite well without the table. Where there's a will, there's a way.


I agree, and I think most people would agree that table training is not a requirement in order to train dogs to do a good job, it's simply another tool, like leashes, fur savers, flat collars, ecollars and pinch collars are tools, but to assume the table is only for dogs who are weak and need to be stressed in order to grip, or who have bite inhibition issues would be a mistake.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Sue, can you explain to me in few words the assets of table training?


----------



## susan tuck

As has been stated here previously, it gives the dog a different perspective, he is at eye level with the helper. A dog who has conflict with his handler can be worked primarily by the helper, with the handler quietly praising. A strong dog can be taken to a new level in the fight. It's also great for targeting and for working "outs", and it's not all defense, helpers can work prey drive on the table, a good helper can use the table to move the dog back and forth in his drives.

Here's the thing: Like any other tool, it can be used incorrectly. What's important is to have a helper who knows how to use the table.


----------



## Joby Becker

Tony Hahn said:


> I don't see where anyone has answered the original question, which was-
> 
> Why is the low table commonly shaped differently from the high one?


You would have to ask the people that originally designed the specific tables what the thinking process was in the design. 

now there are all kinds of variations of tables.

I will give my thoughts on it though, just an opinion, a guess if you will. 

round table is shorter in height, bigger in surface area. 6-6.5 feet in diameter or so... Its design is not to attempt to add to the picture in ways of stressing the dog much, if at all. it is lower, round and alot bigger surface area to allow the dog to easily move around on the table top, to be secure in his footing. It allows the dog to be easily worked from all angles as well.

higher tables are small and square, usually in the 40 inch range or so. Higher height, less surface area, and a shape that adds a more stress to the dog, allows the dog to see much less of the surface area, and can see the dropoffs of the sides from his peripheral vision, and be more aware that he is higher up, and on a much smaller platform and not nearly as secure in the amount of good footing available to him.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

So, if a an unwanted person entered my home I could put the dog on the coffee table and expect him to do his best :lol:

Sorry Joby, couldn't resist it.


----------



## Tony Hahn

Joby, that may or may not have been the origional thoughts of the designers but it makes a lot of sense! Thanks for offering your opinion.


----------



## Joby Becker

Gillian Schuler said:


> Sue, can you explain to me in few words the assets of table training?


The table is almost its own environment. Options are limited..mistakes can be limited..some people use tables to teach and do lots of various things, becuase they feel it is easier and often better. nothing less nothing more.

here is article written by Steve Leigh I just dug up, it gives one mans perspective on the use of the table, and some thoughts on training in general. Lots of people dont like Steve or what he has to say, he is sort of controversial and opinionated for sure, but here it is..

http://www.sl-prokeys.com/wffcw/sl_thoughts.htm

another on table design
http://www.sl-prokeys.com/wffcw/sl_table.htm


----------



## Joby Becker

Gillian Schuler said:


> So, if a an unwanted person entered my home I could put the dog on the coffee table and expect him to do his best :lol:
> 
> Sorry Joby, couldn't resist it.


Gillian...I have used tables. I suggest refitting all the doors on your house, have them open outward, and then install tables on the inside of the home, one in front of each door and window, with a dog staked to them.


----------



## Bob Scott

gillian schuler said:


> so, if a an unwanted person entered my home i could put the dog on the coffee table and expect him to do his best :lol:
> 
> Sorry joby, couldn't resist it.




  
I think I have a fair understanding of many training tools but the table will forever baffle me.


----------



## Hunter Allred

That's the sort of answer I was looking


----------



## Stefan Schaub

Why use a e color,why use a pinch color,why use at all a leash.why use a ball , why use a toy and why do you drive a car and not walk.

it is that some people turn in a circle,if you or you or you not understand the use of the table,than you should maybe ask yourself if you know something about dogs.maybe you should take the time and watch some dogs playing or fighting.

i wonder that some people still listen to other people that can not proof anything.


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Stefan Schaub said:


> *Why use a e color,why use a pinch color,why use at all a leash.why use a ball , why use a toy and why do you drive a car and not walk.*
> 
> it is that some people turn in a circle,if you or you or you not understand the use of the table,than you should maybe ask yourself if you know something about dogs.maybe you should take the time and watch some dogs playing or fighting.
> 
> i wonder that some people still listen to other people that can not proof anything.



Going to go out on a limb here and say that all the above mentioned are used because they make sense in their use and how they are applied

The table? Still trying to figure it out its sense and or use, and thats after reading all the views on the thing! I'll just stick with putting my laptop or coffeemug on it, it seems the only real sensible use to begin with.


----------



## Stefan Schaub

Alice Bezemer said:


> Going to go out on a limb here and say that all the above mentioned are used because they make sense in their use and how they are applied
> 
> The table? Still trying to figure it out its sense and or use, and thats after reading all the views on the thing! I'll just stick with putting my laptop or coffeemug on it, it seems the only real sensible use to begin with.


Pretty easy answer. People who talk about it can post a movie how they do it and we all can see how it works and not. And the people who talk against that can post a movie how they do it with out. I feel sometimes like we sit on a lake and everyone talks how big his fish was that he catched. Show me


----------



## Sarah Platts

Stefan Schaub said:


> it is that some people turn in a circle,if you or you or you not understand the use of the table,than you should maybe ask yourself if you know something about dogs.maybe you should take the time and watch some dogs playing or fighting.


I will freely admit I don't do protection work but I don't get what the table is suppose to teach. I went through the posts on this string but couldn't find any posts from you on what the positive aspects of table training are and what it teaches. From the way you post, it appears that you use or have used a table. Stefan, could you please explain to me what you think the table does for you and your training methodology?


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Stefan Schaub said:


> Pretty easy answer. People who talk about it can post a movie how they do it and we all can see how it works and not. And the people who talk against that can post a movie how they do it with out. I feel sometimes like we sit on a lake and everyone talks how big his fish was that he catched. Show me


Not an easy answer, Stefan... a simple one based on what I have read on this topic and on your response to it in the end. 

Explain to me, in your view and words, what you think the use of table achieves and how it works? I am yet to make sense of the entire way of thinking behind tablework. There is no clear logic to it as far as the dog is concerned as the opinions on this topic vary to much in view to even get a clear idea on how it is supposed to work! All the things I have seen dragged out about how the table is supposed to work are things I have my dogs do, during training, in less time, with much less effort. So you tell me what this table training is and what it brings to the table, tool wise. 

I will give you my view right now. 

Table training is an overcomplicated and elaborate way to make your dog do things that it would do just as well, if not better, with good training.


----------



## Stefan Schaub

Alice Bezemer said:


> Not an easy answer, Stefan... a simple one based on what I have read on this topic and on your response to it in the end.
> 
> Explain to me, in your view and words, what you think the use of table achieves and how it works? I am yet to make sense of the entire way of thinking behind tablework. There is no clear logic to it as far as the dog is concerned as the opinions on this topic vary to much in view to even get a clear idea on how it is supposed to work! All the things I have seen dragged out about how the table is supposed to work are things I have my dogs do, during training, in less time, with much less effort. So you tell me what this table training is and what it brings to the table, tool wise.
> 
> I will give you my view right now.
> 
> Table training is an overcomplicated and elaborate way to make your dog do things that it would do just as well, if not better, with good training.


you are more than welcome to visit me and i show you with different dogs that it is easier on a table than on the ground. special you with the backround KNPV should know what it means to put the dog in one place.or did they change now so much in trainings behavior in KNPV. i remember that many dogs have get put on short chains on a pole and have hang out there.from time to time the pakwerker comes over and does some stuff.but the other thing is 20 dogs hang out here,one dog get picked up and get trained,what does it to the other dogs???right it brings frustrations,frustrations are easy to transfer into aggressions. think about your self,first you are frustrated with someone and than you get aggressive about all what he is doing.same thing on a table,same place all the time,small area to move, the prey is most time not on the table and not to reach. so it brings frustrations with the right actor. some dogs start to show a show aggression(not real,because provocated) in that moment we must reward!!if not it sucks and we get that what no one want.


leon staatsmacht for example,basic training on table and than every few weeks back on the table to keep his "aggression" up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ogykuYuvrM

and than go on working dog eu and watch how he looks with out that after i left germany

but you are part right with your last statement, WITH GOOD TRAINING.


----------



## Guy Williams

As the debate is still going I thought I would elaborate on my previous post. It may answer some of the questions that still seem to be unanswered.

Many of the dogs I train with have a long history of training in prey drive and are confident around the helper. Being stared at, shouted at or waving sticks around will not make them alter into defence.

When I say defence drive or work through defence I am talking about the point where the dogs motivation changes from being motivated to chase/bite/bark at things which stimulate its prey drive, to dealing with something the dog actually perceives as a real threat.

At this point the dog has two choices. Aggression or avoidance. Avoidance can be physically removing its self from the situation or if not able to then displacement of some sort. The aim is never to push the dog into avoidance but to get an aggressive response. This response is then rewarded by the helper removing himself or feigning fear himself.

In prey exercises it is desireable for the dog to bark for action and to make it happen. In defence work it is the complete opposite. In prey drive barking is rewarded by giving a bite/chase etc and in defence the barking (and mental attitude that goes with it) is rewarded by the removal of the threat. It is straightforward operant conditioning. It is the mental state of the dog that is fundamentally different.

So, in order to get that mental state you need to do something different. Prey blocks defence so the helper, any equipment and even many environments will produce prey drive arousal and make a confident dog even less likely to percieve a real threat.

This is where the table comes in. Environmental stressors can be enough to add just enough stress to enable that mental transition. Being staked out alone, away from the handler may be enough for some dogs. But for others the agitator will stimulate them in prey. I know a good agitator could probably bring any dog to defence but they are few and far between. Darkness is a good environmental stressor and you often get a very different reaction to some everyday things merely by doing them at night.

The table is a potential environmental stressor for some dogs. It may be a novel situation which combined with being tied out (even just being on a lead denies dogs the ability to flee) may be enough to allow the helper to get the dog in the right frame of mind. I would not use this method to force weak dogs as it would be unnecessary as getting a defensive reaction from weak dogs is easy (although pointless as he will always be a weak dog).

The dogs aggressive reaction can be (clasically) conditioned with a verbal cue and then used to get the reaction away from the table. After winning numerous encounters the fear factor fades until the dog has learned it can deal with any threat by use of aggression (barking/biting). A combination of foundation work in prey and working through defence leads to what many refer to as fight drive. The dog no longer percieves the adversary as a threat and relishes putting his skills to the test.

Like most tools a table can be a great tool or a waste of time. It is the trainer not the tools that make good or bad training. It can be a valuable tool for anyone that needs a dog that will really stand its ground no matter what. In my experience such dogs are born only with the potential. Realising that potential is where good training comes in.


----------



## patricia powers

stefan---"and than go on working dog eu and watch how he looks with out that after i left germany"

the difference that i see is the difference in training a dog to his potential, to make him work for it & be all he can be as opposed to a dog trained to trial, trained for points & correctness. i'm not bashing dog sports, but a lot of dogs could achieve much much more and better if they were given the challenge. i believe you brought out the best in the dog, whereas dirk appears to be training "for" a trial.
pjp


----------



## Stefan Schaub

patricia powers said:


> stefan---"and than go on working dog eu and watch how he looks with out that after i left germany"
> 
> the difference that i see is the difference in training a dog to his potential, to make him work for it & be all he can be as opposed to a dog trained to trial, trained for points & correctness. i'm not bashing dog sports, but a lot of dogs could achieve much much more and better if they were given the challenge. i believe you brought out the best in the dog, whereas dirk appears to be training "for" a trial.
> pjp


the first impression from the judge is running the blinds and bark and hold.do you want tell me that the bark and hold after i was away,was more for points. no pressure to the helper and no intensity.


----------



## Erik Berg

By stefans description it sounds like the table is a tool for dogs who lacks some natural genetic ability, a way to more easily make the dog look/act more aggresive and "badass" than it really is, or I´m missing something?


----------



## Joby Becker

Erik Berg said:


> By stefans description it sounds like the table is a tool for dogs who lacks some natural genetic ability, a way to more easily make the dog look/act more aggresive and "badass" than it really is, or I´m missing something?


that is not what I think, I guess you could look at it that way if you think using frustration, or adding stress are used only in dogs that lack in genetic ability...which is what is done with all dogs, table or no table.


----------



## Stefan Schaub

Erik Berg said:


> By stefans description it sounds like the table is a tool for dogs who lacks some natural genetic ability, a way to more easily make the dog look/act more aggresive and "badass" than it really is, or I´m missing something?


i can do it with every dog. Leon for example was never a great barker.that is also the reason that we have shut him off outside in guarding.i have try to build his barking up the whole winter and first time on open field he have show that it was only enough for the blind,so i have decided to make him a quit guarding.on my youtube account is a movie with leon on the table during the winter time and first time out on helper.


----------



## jamie lind

Erik Berg said:


> By stefans description it sounds like the table is a tool for dogs who lacks some natural genetic ability, a way to more easily make the dog look/act more aggresive and "badass" than it really is, or I´m missing something?


If you want to understand what he is saying. Read what he says not what you think he says.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Erik Berg said:


> By stefans description it sounds like the table is a tool for dogs who lacks some natural genetic ability, a way to more easily make the dog look/act more aggresive and "badass" than it really is, or I´m missing something?


I think you hit the nail on the head.

All dogs lack the natural ability to be IPO, PSA, french ring titled, etc. without training. You can have the same genetics in an untrained dog as a trained one. The talent lies in working the one in front of you most easily to recognize the genetic potential. IE an untrained dog may not guard like a badass until he learns how but he isnt weak, but untrained. For some, the table is a means to train behaviors.


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Stefan Schaub said:


> you are more than welcome to visit me and i show you with different dogs that it is easier on a table than on the ground. special you with the backround KNPV should know what it means to put the dog in one place.or did they change now so much in trainings behavior in KNPV. i remember that many dogs have get put on short chains on a pole and have hang out there.from time to time the pakwerker comes over and does some stuff.but the other thing is 20 dogs hang out here,one dog get picked up and get trained,what does it to the other dogs???right it brings frustrations,frustrations are easy to transfer into aggressions. think about your self,first you are frustrated with someone and than you get aggressive about all what he is doing.same thing on a table,same place all the time,small area to move, the prey is most time not on the table and not to reach. so it brings frustrations with the right actor. some dogs start to show a show aggression(not real,because provocated) in that moment we must reward!!if not it sucks and we get that what no one want.
> 
> 
> leon staatsmacht for example,basic training on table and than every few weeks back on the table to keep his "aggression" up.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ogykuYuvrM
> 
> and than go on working dog eu and watch how he looks with out that after i left germany
> 
> but you are part right with your last statement, WITH GOOD TRAINING.



So let me see if I get this right. You put them on a short chain or leash on a table with little room to move around or get away and build their frustration into agression which you have to repeat every few weeks in order to keep up this agression where as I keep them on the end of my leash and have them look at the field, the decoy, the decoy work with other dogs, and I praise and build up the dog in confidence to ensure that the dog doesn't need this build up in agression every few weeks. 

All I see, and forgive me if I am stubborn about this Stefan, is a way to build up agression that doesn't last but it looks good on trials and video and I keep questioning the fact that if you put real pressure on the table trained dog, how will it react? It has learned to respond in a certain way to a certain stimulus that needs to be repeated to keep up agression. Not something I would put much faith in when I take my dog to the street. A show of agression might be pleasing to the eye but also becomes useless when it isn't built up out of selfconfidence. 

Btw, I hardly tie out my dogs. I might do so as a small puppy when the weather is nice so they can frolic around in the sun but I don't tie them out for training purposes. They stay in the car until I work them. I like my dogs allert when I work them, tying them out on the field all day and then working them only makes them tired and by the time it is their turn they have nothing left in energy to soak up all the things I want them to learn.


----------



## Melissa Leistikow

Alice Bezemer said:


> They stay in the car until I work them. I like my dogs allert when I work them, tying them out on the field all day and then working them only makes them tired and by the time it is their turn they have nothing left in energy to soak up all the things I want them to learn.


No one said anything about tying them out on a field all day long.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Ouch!!

I'm in agreement with Alice on this. In obedience, the dogs are kennelled in between each exercise, allowing them to come out "as fresh as a daisy" for the next exercise. This is especially important if the foregoing exercise had to be repeated until the dog did it correctly. 

As for protection work, my dogs are always in the car until I see that the handler before me is nearly finished. Then I take him out. Especially in Winter (don't want to let the helper freeze while waiting).

Most dogs that need tying out, need motivation.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Alice Bezemer said:


> All I see, and forgive me if I am stubborn about this Stefan, is a way to build up agression that doesn't last but it looks good on trials...


This is where you should have ended, because even though I think you're reasoning is faulty, I think you figured out what's important. IPO a sport and the object of the sport is points. And at the end of the day if you get those points you are obviously a good trainer and know what you are doing. Stefan gets the points.


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Melissa Leistikow said:


> No one said anything about tying them out on a field all day long.


They don't need to be tied out for an entire day to lose all the energy they have.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Gillian Schuler said:


> Ouch!!
> 
> I'm in agreement with Alice on this. In obedience, the dogs are kennelled in between each exercise, allowing them to come out "as fresh as a daisy" for the next exercise. This is especially important if the foregoing exercise had to be repeated until the dog did it correctly.
> 
> As for protection work, my dogs are always in the car until I see that the handler before me is nearly finished. Then I take him out. Especially in Winter (don't want to let the helper freeze while waiting).
> 
> Most dogs that need tying out, need motivation.




Is not about need; it's about want. And if Stefan want's to use the table and he gets good scores, what's the problem? Is it that be doesn't train like you that's the real problem? Are your results better than his?

If you guys wonder why so few experienced people post on these types of forums you need to go back and read this thread. You have a top trainer here that is willing to tell you what be does and then people that don't do the same sport or do it at the most rudimentary levels come on to tell him that he's wrong? What is his motivation to continue? If you like what Stefan and other experienced people are saying and want to continue seeing their post, please start posting some support for what they are saying either on the threads or by PM.


----------



## Joby Becker

The point that I am interested in getting accross about tables and boxes is that people keep stating that they "have" to be used. 

They do not "hav"e to be used. Almost everything that can be done on a table can be done on the ground. 

That vast majority of people using tables use the tables/box becuase they find it easier to do certain things with, just like any other dog training tool.

The vast majority of dogs that are put on tables or in boxes do not NEED to be put on tables or in boxes, they just are...

It is similar to how people say "you have to use an ecollar"...it is ignorant statement.

No dog needs a leash either, but they make things easier sometimes for some people


----------



## Gillian Schuler

If I'm talking to the cheese, i.e. Melissa Leistikow, I object when the grub joins in.

What on earth are you chunnering on about. I never mentioned SS. If he wants to use the table so be it. Many of us over here in Europe don't use it and don't see the need for it. I wouldn't waste my time discussing the use or not. 

We train on the field and not on the forum although I enjoy many a discussion on here.

Lastly, don't tell me what I have to respect or not. Many experienced handlers don't have time to needle other members on here. If the cap fits, wear it.


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Christopher Smith said:


> Is not about need; it's about want. And if Stefan want's to use the table and he gets good scores, what's the problem? Is it that be doesn't train like you that's the real problem? Are your results better than his?
> 
> If you guys wonder why so few experienced people post on these types of forums you need to go back and read this thread. You have a top trainer here that is willing to tell you what be does and then people that don't do the same sport or do it at the most rudimentary levels come on to tell him that he's wrong? What is his motivation to continue? If you like what Stefan and other experienced people are saying and want to continue seeing their post, please start posting some support for what they are saying either on the threads or by PM.



And If I disagree or see things differently then what is the problem with that? So, in your eyes, people should just stop replying to anything because the great trainers might stop posting? Seriously? If this type of conversation is enough to take away his motivation to continue I am sure he can tell for himself, Christopher. I am pretty sure that Stefan does not need you to take up for him as he is a fully grown man who can handle himself quite well in a conversation...One that did NOT include you btw...


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Christopher Smith said:


> ... If you guys wonder why so few experienced people post on these types of forums you need to go back and read this thread. You have a top trainer here that is willing to tell you what be does and then people that don't do the same sport or do it at the most rudimentary levels come on to tell him that he's wrong? What is his motivation to continue? If you like what Stefan and other experienced people are saying and want to continue seeing their post, please start posting some support for what they are saying either on the threads or by PM.


But isn't it by verbal sparring, for want of a better term, that minds might gradually be opened or even changed?

I know I want to keep seeing experienced posts, and that I also hope to see the posts that disagree as well as those that agree .... if we're respectful (and I think therein may lie a problem, sometimes), then that's really what such a board is about. 

I think.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Good on ya Connie - long live democracy


----------



## Joby Becker

Gillian Schuler said:


> I wouldn't waste my time discussing the use or not.


then why are you?


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Joby Becker said:


> then why are you?


Actually, you need a new set of reading glasses right along with Christopher! She was replying to the tying out statement I made and not the table training...


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Let's go back to the thread. 

A long thread, many diverse opinions .... and it's about dog training!  

Of all things!


----------



## Christopher Smith

Connie Sutherland said:


> But isn't it by verbal sparring, for want of a better term, that minds might gradually be opened or even changed?
> 
> I know I want to keep seeing experienced posts, and that I also hope to see the posts that disagree as well as those that agree .... if we're respectful (and I think therein may lie a problem, sometimes), then that's really what such a board is about.
> 
> I think.


There is a point where it becomes badgering. Stephan has given multiple reasons why he likes the table. But it's never going to be enough until he says that he agrees with them. They are not being genuine. 

But to keep it on topic...I don't find table training useful in my program. I tried it for a while and didn't find that I needed it to get the results that I wanted. One negative thing that I saw pretty consistently was a change in the helpers. Something about the table gave helpers an extra dose of courage and many helpers would stop reacting to the dogs power. Those same helpers were forced to respect the dog more when he was on the ground and they gave into them more. I think that the small constant reinforcement of aggression is better than the big reinforcement done by most on with the table.

But anyway I see that many people use it and have good results. As long as long as it's used humanely, I think it's a good tool in some people's program.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

This is interesting:

_ One negative thing that I saw pretty consistently was a change in the helpers. Something about the table gave helpers an extra dose of courage and many helpers would stop reacting to the dogs power. Those same helpers were forced to respect the dog more when he was on the ground ... _


----------



## Erik Berg

I think all realize a dog doesn´t train itself and you have to adapt the training to each dog. It´s the fact some dogs are breed mostly for speed,prey and grip to such extent that it´s hard to get them more focused on the man if we don´t use different tools to create a picture of some "man-focus" thru tools and stimulation of different kind I´m questioning, especially if this aggresion is more comming from a bit of insecurity and not a true confident strong dog. I guess if points in IPO is the main focus then this is not so important, but for me I`m more impressed with the powerfull but still clearheaded dog compared to the highly frustrated/winded up dog by different tools and stimulation.

I think also stefan prefer terror over leon even if he may choose to work them both on the table


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Christopher Smith said:


> *There is a point where it becomes badgering. Stephan has given multiple reasons why he likes the table. But it's never going to be enough until he says that he agrees with them. They are not being genuine. *
> 
> But to keep it on topic...I don't find table training useful in my program. I tried it for a while and didn't find that I needed it to get the results that I wanted. One negative thing that I saw pretty consistently was a change in the helpers. Something about the table gave helpers an extra dose of courage and many helpers would stop reacting to the dogs power. Those same helpers were forced to respect the dog more when he was on the ground and they gave into them more. I think that the small constant reinforcement of aggression is better than the big reinforcement done by most on with the table.
> 
> But anyway I see that many people use it and have good results. As long as long as it's used humanely, I think it's a good tool in some people's program.


I see no badgering going on in any of the conversations on this topic, appart from you maybe? I really do not see a problem here. If I wish to stick to my conversation with Stefan I am free to do so, or not. He is free to respond, or not. How this has become your concern tho, I have no idea. I have my views, so does he, somewhere in the middle we will meet, we do not need your expert opinion on anything and should we need it, we will ask for it. 

BTW, what do you consider to be not genuine? BTW, that was me asking for your opinion, now I consider it okay for you to reply since I actually asked you for some input....


----------



## Stefan Schaub

Alice Bezemer said:


> So let me see if I get this right. You put them on a short chain or leash on a table with little room to move around or get away and build their frustration into agression which you have to repeat every few weeks in order to keep up this agression where as I keep them on the end of my leash and have them look at the field, the decoy, the decoy work with other dogs, and I praise and build up the dog in confidence to ensure that the dog doesn't need this build up in agression every few weeks.
> 
> All I see, and forgive me if I am stubborn about this Stefan, is a way to build up agression that doesn't last but it looks good on trials and video and I keep questioning the fact that if you put real pressure on the table trained dog, how will it react? It has learned to respond in a certain way to a certain stimulus that needs to be repeated to keep up agression. Not something I would put much faith in when I take my dog to the street. A show of agression might be pleasing to the eye but also becomes useless when it isn't built up out of selfconfidence.
> 
> Btw, I hardly tie out my dogs. I might do so as a small puppy when the weather is nice so they can frolic around in the sun but I don't tie them out for training purposes. They stay in the car until I work them. I like my dogs allert when I work them, tying them out on the field all day and then working them only makes them tired and by the time it is their turn they have nothing left in energy to soak up all the things I want them to learn.


for sure we do it for trials that it looks good.that is the same what you all do in knpv. you train to get certified,and best with high points. nothing else,my experience in knpv is for sure way smaller than yours but each club i have ever visit, minimum 15 dogs have tied up there,but maybe it have change in the last 2.5 years. 

it is all about points and sport,here in the US and in europe.

@Gillian
maybe your dog was not in the car at your last trial and he was only to tired to run behind the helper.
still like you!!!


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Stefan Schaub said:


> for sure we do it for trials that it looks good.that is the same what you all do in knpv. you train to get certified,and best with high points. nothing else,my experience in knpv is for sure way smaller than yours but each club i have ever visit, minimum 15 dogs have tied up there,but maybe it have change in the last 2.5 years.
> 
> it is all about points and sport,here in the US and in europe.
> 
> @Gillian
> maybe your dog was not in the car at your last trial and he was only to tired to run behind the helper.
> still like you!!!


I think things have changed some, Stefan. There are hardly any clubs with 15 dogs left these days. I have to agree with you tho... I always tend to think from a street working persepective and that might be my error here. For what I train the table would seem quite useless where as for your way of training and the view you have for your dogs it would probably work very well. Personally I like a dog that scores high in KNPV but its not something that is extremely important to me. High points are nice but a solid working dog who might score lower on the pointscale will always have my preference.


----------



## Joby Becker

Alice Bezemer said:


> Actually, you need a new set of reading glasses right along with Christopher! She was replying to the tying out statement I made and not the table training...





Gillian Schuler said:


> If I'm talking to the cheese, i.e. Melissa Leistikow, I object when the grub joins in.
> 
> *What on earth are you chunnering on about. I never mentioned SS. If he wants to use the table so be it. Many of us over here in Europe don't use it and don't see the need for it. I wouldn't waste my time discussing the use or not. *
> 
> We train on the field and not on the forum although I enjoy many a discussion on here.
> 
> Lastly, don't tell me what I have to respect or not. Many experienced handlers don't have time to needle other members on here. If the cap fits, wear it.


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Stop nitpicking :lol: she made a comment, not anything to do with the topic perse and you know it.

(Is this reply okay Melissa Leistikow? Or are you going to send me more messages about how I should conduct myself on this forum and how I should reply?)


----------



## Melissa Leistikow

Alice Bezemer said:


> Stop nitpicking :lol: she made a comment, not anything to do with the topic perse and you know it.
> 
> (Is this reply okay Melissa Leistikow? Or are you going to send me more messages about how I should conduct myself on this forum and how I should reply?)


Alice, I was trying to be a grown up by sending you a PM rather than say everything publicly.


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Melissa Leistikow said:


> Alice, I was trying to be a grown up by sending you a PM rather than say everything publicly.


Looks like you failed since I do not take being lectured to in private messages very well..... Specially by people whom I have never spoken to before in my life. Have something to say, say it here, not in private messages. My PM's are reserved for friends and people I respect only, I consider you to fall in neither group.


----------



## Joby Becker

Alice Bezemer said:


> Stop nitpicking :lol: she made a comment, not anything to do with the topic perse and you know it.
> 
> (Is this reply okay Melissa Leistikow? Or are you going to send me more messages about how I should conduct myself on this forum and how I should reply?)


no I merely asked her why she is discussing the use of a table, when she clearly stated she would not waste her time doing so.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

The first time I saw table work was at a Gene England Seminar ~ 15 years ago. He called the tall square table the confidence table and the shorter round table the prey table. That's all I have


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Let's return to the actual topic. 

And let's leave PMs in PMs.

Please!

Thank you!


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Thomas Barriano said:


> The first time I saw table work was at a Gene England Seminar ~ 15 years ago. He called the tall square table the confidence table and the shorter round table the prey table. That's all I have



Excellent contribution. Thank you, Thomas.

:lol: :lol:


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Connie Sutherland said:


> Excellent contribution. Thank you, Thomas.
> 
> :lol: :lol:



As often as table training has been discussed here and elsewhere. As far as I'm concerned, table training begins and ends with Gene England.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Thomas Barriano said:


> .. As far as I'm concerned, table training begins and ends with Gene England.


Why?


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Connie Sutherland said:


> Why?


Gene explained it in simple terms. The square table was to build confidence in a dog NOT to put pressure or to work in defense or anything like other people seemed to try to do. He did TOTO (turn on turn off). He'd put a blind in front of the table and peek out from behind it. When the dog turned on (activated) he was rewarded by chasing the man away. Eventually by a bite.
The turn off was done by a line on a prong collar. He stopped agitating, started stroking the dog and the dog turned off. 
Of course it was more complicated in person, but basically it came down to Gene just knows how to read dogs.
Some other people get good results and if they do? I don't see much sense in discussing theory ad infinitum.
Been there, done that


----------



## Joby Becker

Thomas Barriano said:


> Gene explained it in simple terms. The square table was to build confidence in a dog NOT to put pressure or to work in defense or anything like other people seemed to try to do. He did TOTO (turn on turn off). He'd put a blind in front of the table and peek out from behind it. When the dog turned on (activated) he was rewarded by chasing the man away. Eventually by a bite.
> The turn off was done by a line on a prong collar. He stopped agitating, started stroking the dog and the dog turned off.
> Of course it was more complicated in person, but basically it came down to Gene just knows how to read dogs.
> Some other people get good results and if they do? I don't see much sense in discussing theory ad infinitum.
> Been there, done that


Thomas that confidence is gained by the getting through the minor added insecurity and stress of being on the high table and putting into a more intense aggressive response towards agitation.. Even Gene will tell you that..why do you think that he threatens the dog? he may say promoting more fight, others will say defensive agitation. same thing in this instance.


----------



## lynn oliver

Doesn't the same table just become part of the routine?


----------



## Joby Becker

lynn oliver said:


> Doesn't the same table just become part of the routine?


ABSOLUTELY. If used enough sure.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Joby Becker said:


> Thomas that confidence is gained by the getting through the minor added insecurity and stress of being on the high table and putting into a more intense aggressive response towards agitation.. Even Gene will tell you that..why do you think that he threatens the dog? he may say promoting more fight, others will say defensive agitation. same thing in this instance.


That's not the way Gene explained how the confidence table worked at either of the seminars I attended. My dogs and most of the rest were pulling the handlers to get up on the table by the end of the seminar. No insecurity or stress.


----------



## Hunter Allred

Thomas Barriano said:


> That's not the way Gene explained how the confidence table worked at either of the seminars I attended. My dogs and most of the rest were pulling the handlers to get up on the table by the end of the seminar. No insecurity or stress.


the presence of stress doesn't mean they won't enjoy the exercise. A dog can show full bore aggression at a true threat and still enjoy the encounter. A MMA fighter enjoys the fight, although it is stressful and does hurt. Skydiving is a lot of fun, and I assure that it is extremely stressful. Stress/intentionally induced insecurity does not mean its not still fulfilling or desirable. The presence of stress and overcoming that stress anyway is where the confidence is achieved... a dose of self-confidence is a powerfully addictive drug, as is a dose of epinephrine (adrenaline)

From wikipedia
"An adrenaline junkie is somebody who appears to be addicted to endogenous epinephrine. The "high" is caused by self-inducing a fight-or-flight response by intentionally engaging in stressful or risky behavior, which causes a release of epinephrine by the adrenal gland. Adrenaline junkies appear to favor stressful activities for the release of epinephrine as a stress response. Whether or not the positive response is caused specifically by epinephrine is difficult to determine, as endorphins are also released during the fight-or-flight response to such activities."

You can call that fight drive, or label it however you want, but per that definition I want my dogs to be adrenaline junkies.


----------



## Joby Becker

Thomas Barriano said:


> That's not the way Gene explained how the confidence table worked at either of the seminars I attended. My dogs and most of the rest were pulling the handlers to get up on the table by the end of the seminar. No insecurity or stress.


Thomas, the seminars you went to, were the round tables there as well? Just curious.

I never went to a Gene England seminar or trained with Gene. 
Quite a few years ago I was corresponding with Steve Leigh, through email and phone about the table work.

I also, at the time contacted Gene through email with a few brief questions, which he answered and we had a short back and forth to iron it out in my head, the theories of the table, and TOTO.

I mainly contacted Gene to find out if Steve's assessment of what Gene was doing and Steve's interpretation and descriptions of the use of the tables was accurate. At the time Gene said that what Steve had told me was accurate. Which is how I have described it here, especially for the high table..So unless Gene has changed his opinion about the "confidence table", what I said is also Gene's opinion on it. 

Confidence table is surely a name for the table that fits well. I dont care what you call it, high table, defense table, confidence table, the use is the same. When I was corresponding with him, he called it the high table...it is quite possible that the name has evloved, due to all of the negativity and misunderstanding that seems to be prevalent whenever the topic of tables comes up.

You can call it confidence work, civil work, defensive agitation, whatever you want...it is the same thing..

As told to me by Gene and Steve.

Long table is obedience table

Round table is for bitework mostly (prey and or defense) and also barking and TOTO as well.

High Table/Confidence/Defense table is used to promote "fight", intensity and aggression through the use of mostly civil agitation, the dog is put into a more defensive mood by the actions of the agitator, and the environmental influences of the high/confidence table. Both the agitation and the table create stress in the dog, which is what causes them to react in more serious, aggressive, stronger and focused responses.

It all boils down to getting the focus on the agitator, and having the dog respond with intensity that comes from a slightly more defensive mindset. The principles are the same as any of the other situations you can use to help with that goal.

If you work with enough dogs you will come across dogs that are not developed in certain areas. One situation that can occur is with strong dogs that are never really put into conflict or stressed very much throughout their training. Dogs like this sometimes will not show very aggressive behavior, they will not present the picture that people often want the dogs to present. This is very common with strong nerved GSD especially. They are very confident often, but almost too confident to show real serious signs of intent, or may be lacking in the "intensity" area, because the dog was never "cracked into" opened up, or exposed to certain things, and often are too highly equipment focused. 

The use of the high table can help a dog get into the mindset that is desired by the people training him. It aids by adding environmental stress, same as tapping into possession and working prey guarding can with some dogs, as well as other things like staking dogs out in strange areas alone, or working them at night time in unfamiliar areas, having them defend their owners from "bad guys" or working them in their homes, whatever, among other things. The added "stressors" of the situations and methods add something to the picture that allows the agitator to do less with or to the dog than he would have to otherwise, making it more personal, without making it REAL personal, thereby keeping the range of the curve wider, to help avoid making critical errors or pushing a dog too far, while working with a dog that is operating in that state of mind. Working more defensive techniques can be dicey as we all know, the margins for error are often very slim with some dogs, the table and other environmental things widen those margins some.

Example..
Take a nice strong GSD SCH III dog that has never been worked in that zone, which seems to be fairly common in various clubs..agitate him with no sleeve around., he may show little to no real response to the agitation, he is very confident and sees no threat at all really in his mind, he also sees no sleeve to defend, he might give some prey barks or not do very much in the way of being intense or showing active response or whatever, or he might just sit there, he might even be in prey mode.

how do you get into that dogs head if normal agitation/threat is not working very well? how do you get dog to explode with an aggressive response directed at the guy?

if that is desired your agitator/helper whatever may have to resort to putting pain on the dog or doing other things to get there, which always has a greater potential for bad things to happen. With some dogs, slapping them in the face or letting them feel the whip or flanking or whatever can work wonders, other times it can ruin dogs.

Take that same dog and put him on a high table, or do other things with the environment, his insecurity level and stress level is naturally elevated which will aid greatly in getting what you want out of the dog without the "bad guy" having to do more intense "bad guy" stuff to the dog.

same way as doing progressive "defense" work, with a young dog, posturing, eye contact, presence, starting at long distances, or at night or whatever. Except done on a table.

I am not sure if you are just trying to be as PC as possible and ignoring it, or you truly dont get it.. I find it hard to swallow that you truly dont understand it, you have been around working dogs a long time.

The techniques used to do certain things with certain dogs may or may not be used by everyone, some people dont want their dogs in that state, to give good aggressive displays or work with more serious intent in fighting behaviors, and other dogs offer those things much more easily. 
Some people dont want an aggressive civil edge or side to their dogs, others do, and some dogs need more work in certain things to get that out of them.

Some dogs minds are more closed off, to tap into those harder to reach places various techniques are used. The confidence/high table is one of them. It teaches them to be confident in their aggressiveness, by adding stressors to the picture.

I will say that many dogs will operate in the above manners if desired with less work, some malis, dobies, rottweilers, some dogs just bring more defensive tendencies, civil edge, and intensity into the complete picture of their "fighting behaviors". 

Some dogs get mad easier, some dogs want to fight more...some dogs recognize threats or serious "challenges" to them easier or whatever...

Their are reasons that certain people want better displays and stronger active responses in their dogs. More points, more intensity, more serious active fighting, more civil focus, better "pass aufs" or whatever else.

Some dogs need more work in those areas, especially if they are super confident and have been playing bitework games well into maturity with bite equipment, with no real focus on any of those things or other actual "protection" type stuff..biting equipment does not always translate into a dog showing good "protection" behaviors, which are often not needed or desired by the dogs owners. Some people couldn't care less about much of the things I have mentioned, and others care more than some.

And no it is not only super confident dogs that have not been exposed to certain things that can benefit from some of the things I've mentioned, less confident or more reserved dogs also can benefit from them. 

hell most dobermans that I have come across are very easy to put in that frame of mind, but sadly most are not operating with the confidence level that I like personally, and the range is narrow between fight and flight. Working in shallow unsure aggression is not a great thing, often commitment suffers greatly.

After all that is a huge part of confidence building with some dogs/trainers, getting the dog to be confident and free in his mind to do what we want them to. 

Some people call it getting dog to be more actively aggressive, some call it fight development, some call it civil or defensive exposure or whatever, but it all re-enforces stronger, more confident behaviors in the face of escalating challenges or threats...just like the "confidence" (high) table does.

Sometimes dogs dont get exposed to many things that other dogs do, it is not always a stronger or weaker dog, just a lack of exposure for what we want to see out of them.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

The first Gene England seminar was in Albuquerque at the Rocky Mountain/Great Plains Regional Meeting and included the square and round tables. The next one was in Denver and added the retrieve/such platz table and some additional Square and round table work. I've worked with a couple of other people since then and discussed theory with Steve but Gene is the Table Man hands down.


----------



## Hunter Allred

Thomas Barriano said:


> The first Gene England seminar was in Albuquerque at the Rocky Mountain/Great Plains Regional Meeting and included the square and round tables. The next one was in Denver and added the retrieve/*such platz table *and some additional Square and round table work. I've worked with a couple of other people since then and discussed theory with Steve but Gene is the Table Man hands down.


 Could you elaborate?


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Hunter Allred said:


> Could you elaborate?


Not really, I liked what I saw but that's my impression. Anyone who thinks their dog would benefit from being worked on the table should find someone that has recent experience actually doing it.


----------



## Joby Becker

Thomas Barriano said:


> Not really, I liked what I saw but that's my impression. Anyone who thinks their dog would benefit from being worked on the table should find someone that has recent experience actually doing it.


I concur


----------



## Joby Becker

Thomas Barriano said:


> The first Gene England seminar was in Albuquerque at the Rocky Mountain/Great Plains Regional Meeting and included the square and round tables. The next one was in Denver and added the retrieve/such platz table and some additional Square and round table work. I've worked with a couple of other people since then and discussed theory with Steve but Gene is the Table Man hands down.


cool thanks..

There is nothing really mysterious about the table. It is just another tool.
Hoepfully one day I can watch the man work the tables, until then I'll just keep doing what I am doing.


----------



## Joby Becker

Hunter Allred said:


> Could you elaborate?



Obedience/Such/Platz/Retrieve table example.









OMG :-o here is Dog on OB/Such/Platz/Hold/Retrieve table with a version of those nasty shackles on it,Gene sometimes puts shackles on the high/defense/confidence table, these are nylon not metal..
from Dobbs.

_*Velcro hobbles prevent the dog from pawing at your gloved hand. The dog needs to concentrate on the task at hand instead of putting its energy into fighting your efforts.*_

Holy shit how will the dog cope with being hobbled like James Caan in "MISERY"..


----------



## Hunter Allred

Thomas Barriano said:


> Not really, I liked what I saw but that's my impression. Anyone who thinks their dog would benefit from being worked on the table should find someone that has recent experience actually doing it.


I just meant the "such" piece. How do you use a table for searching? 

I have a guy that I trust for tablework


----------



## Gregory Doud

Just to clarify, Gene England does not "puts shackles on the high/defense/confidence table". Wow. This is how misinformation gets spread about someone's training or how equipment that is used like tables or remote collars is considered by some to be abusive. - Greg






Joby Becker said:


> Obedience/Such/Platz/Retrieve table example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG :-o here is Dog on OB/Such/Platz/Hold/Retrieve table with a version of those nasty shackles on it,Gene sometimes puts shackles on the high/defense/confidence table, these are nylon not metal..
> from Dobbs.
> 
> _*Velcro hobbles prevent the dog from pawing at your gloved hand. The dog needs to concentrate on the task at hand instead of putting its energy into fighting your efforts.*_
> 
> Holy shit how will the dog cope with being hobbled like James Caan in "MISERY"..


----------



## Joby Becker

Gregory Doud said:


> Just to clarify, Gene England does not "puts shackles on the high/defense/confidence table". Wow. This is how misinformation gets spread about someone's training or how equipment that is used like tables or remote collars is considered by some to be abusive. - Greg


Greg, 
I apologize for that, that was actually a mischaracterization made in poor taste, kind of a joke that went really wrong. I can see it plainly this morning that you are correct both in your information and your take on the comment...

No shackles have been used on high tables in years and years and years by anyone that I have heard of..I am sure any use of shackles on tables for that are long gone and a thing of the past.

I am sure the dog on the OB table is just fine, nothing wrong with using those, that was a joke gone wrong....

I can see that my sense of homor was way way off of base on this one, and I apologize..


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Hunter Allred said:


> I just meant the "such" piece. How do you use a table for searching?
> 
> I have a guy that I trust for tablework


Got ya. The such platz table is like the picture that Joby posted. The dog's leash is hooked to the overhead cable ( to keep the dog from jumping or falling off the table). He's put in a platz and the article is put between his legs. You put pressure on either side/back of the skull and force the head down on the article., then stroke, calm and stabilize. Then you move the article a couple of feet in front and the dog moves to it. You can have an e collar set on top of the head and have low level stim take the place of the manual pressure from the hands. When the dog is solid on the table you move that article to the ground/track


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Gregory Doud said:


> Just to clarify, Gene England does not "puts shackles on the high/defense/confidence table". Wow. This is how misinformation gets spread about someone's training or how equipment that is used like tables or remote collars is considered by some to be abusive. - Greg



The only time I saw Gene use hobbles was on the such platz/ retrieve table while teaching the DB hold. The dog collar is attached to the vertical pole on the end to limit movement and then some kind of force fetch variation can be done


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Thomas Barriano said:


> Got ya. The such platz table is like the picture that Joby posted. The dog's leash is hooked to the overhead cable ( to keep the dog from jumping or falling off the table). He's put in a platz and the article is put between his legs. You put pressure on either side/back of the skull and force the head down on the article., then stroke, calm and stabilize. Then you move the article a couple of feet in front and the dog moves to it. You can have an e collar set on top of the head and have low level stim take the place of the manual pressure from the hands. When the dog is solid on the table you move that article to the ground/track


Any clues on what happens when the dog protests the pressure on the head? Or any kind of pressure for that matter? How does that get solved? I am trying to visualize this picture but for the life of me I just can not see how this works when a dog goes into conflict with the handler?

Is there a timeframe in which this provides good results? Say like maybe 5 session or 10? 

(No, I am not trying to be a smartass about this. Am seriously interested in how this works and what the vision behind it is.)


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Alice Bezemer said:


> Any clues on what happens when the dog protests the pressure on the head? Or any kind of pressure for that matter? How does that get solved? I am trying to visualize this picture but for the life of me I just can not see how this works when a dog goes into conflict with the handler?
> 
> Is there a timeframe in which this provides good results? Say like maybe 5 session or 10?
> 
> (No, I am not trying to be a smartass about this. Am seriously interested in how this works and what the vision behind it is.)


The dog is out of his element on the elevated table to start. If he protests/squirms too much he falls (is pushed) off. The line/leash is only long enough so he can reach the ground with his back feet only so it's not comfortable. The table and the such platz position is a safe zone. When the dog is in the position he is stroked and petted. When he stops resisting the finger pressure (thumb and index ) on the back of the neck the pressure is relieved.


----------

