# Kmodt



## David Baker (Aug 31, 2013)

Anyone use the Koehler Method of Dog Training? 

If so, how do you like the results?

Reason i ask is b/c someone i know has challenged me to read it and see what i think. Says i should implement it in my training and not look back.

Trains to not "bribe" your dog to obey with treats or toys. Thats its basis.

I ordered my copy of the book tonight. I'll read it with an open mind to see what i think.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

You might also want to search (click on "search" and then "advanced search"), and check out prior threads on the 
topic. 


You'll get replies, I know ... just saying that you'll also find a lot on the topic via _search,_ as well.


----------



## David Baker (Aug 31, 2013)

I guess im looking for more up to date replies.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

KMODT is obsolete. There are lots of other methods that are more effective. Yes you can train a dog with it but it's like building a house with a claw hammer instead of a nail gun


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

David Baker said:


> I guess im looking for more up to date replies.


But they will be pretty much the same.

T


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

i would suggest reading the book b4 drawing any conclusions up front. i was only able to get the online version, and it is incomplete.

i have a bunch of drafted posts regarding what i got from Koehler but have never gotten around to smoothing em out and posting

there's usually some take aways you can get from any training style; whether it's what to do or what not to do


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I was doing Koehler back in the 50s-60s. Does it work? Yes! 
There are many methods to train a dog so there is no reason not to read it, even use some of it. 
In the past 10 yrs I've gone to marker training "almost" exclusively now. 
Listen to everyone then decide what works for you and your dog.


----------



## Elaine Matthys (May 18, 2008)

Koehler was the method I first learned way back in the stone age, but I no longer do it. Marker training is so much faster and gets much better results. I will say that the very low drive dog, basic pet couch potato dog, still does better with a combo of Koehler/marker training as they have very little motivation and you end up making them do the exercises and then praising them. The high drive dog will offer behaviors as they are extremely motivated for their reward.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

SO is the challenge to read the books?

or is it to implement and use the training and follow the books and the Koehler methods exclusively?

There are several areas in which some of Koehlers methods have proven to be very valuable to me and many other people I know.

It certainly cannot hurt anything for you to read the books, just remember as with anything else, your interpretations of the written words, and your application of methods based on reading the books, may bear little resemblance to the methods and manner of use by the author.

Koehler obviously was much better at using his methods than many people that have read his books are.

I personally use some of the methods discussed in a few of his books in conjunction with things I have picked up from others as well. Like I said there are some real nuggets in his writings, at least I think so.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Elaine Matthys said:


> Koehler was the method I first learned way back in the stone age, but I no longer do it. Marker training is so much faster and gets much better results. I will say that the very low drive dog, basic pet couch potato dog, still does better with a combo of Koehler/marker training as they have very little motivation and you end up making them do the exercises and then praising them. The high drive dog will offer behaviors as they are extremely motivated for their reward.


Hhhhhmmmm, I do my fair share of working with lower drive dogs as well as dogs that have been inhibited by incorrectly applied compulsion training. Marker training is highly effective with those type of dogs. I don't see how the decision of whether to apply marker or Koehler methods as one based on drive levels, at all. 

T


----------



## Jim Leon (Jan 21, 2010)

Contrary to what Mr. Barriano believes, KMODT is far from obsolete. It is in fact very relevant in both application and results. Its goal is off leash reliability. That, you will get if you adhere to the method within the proscribed 10 weeks.
I took my high drive Mal through the 10 week method before I did anything else. There were no e-collars, prongs, toys or tugs or treats or bites. Just the leash, the choke collar, the dog and me with my praise. We got to off-leash in ten weeks with a solid recall with distractions.
After that I started incorporating all the other training aids mentioned above, and began bite work. 
You will get reliable gross aspect obedience with kmodt. If your dog is for PP, like mine is, its just what you need. You can certainly train with other methods after laying in the KMODT foundation.
You will not get that kind of tight attention heeling with KMODT. That's probably why Mr Barriano deems it obsolete, he must have some kind of sport dogs. And he likes them to have that prancy google eyed look, when he takes them out of their pens, to train them, or to trial them, or to show them to people he's trying to sell them to. Is that right Mr. Barriano?


----------



## David Baker (Aug 31, 2013)

^ Daaaaaayyyyyyuuuummmm


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Jim Leon said:


> You will not get that kind of tight attention heeling with KMODT. That's probably why Mr Barriano deems it obsolete, he must have some kind of sport dogs. And he likes them to have that prancy google eyed look, when he takes them out of their pens, to train them, or to trial them, or to show them to people he's trying to sell them to. Is that right Mr. Barriano?


Most of the people on the WDF compete with their dogs and want attention heeling. If your goals are just PP then KMODT is sufficient for those minimal standards. FYI My dogs aren't for sale


----------



## Jim Leon (Jan 21, 2010)

Thank you for clarifying your position on KMODT Mr. Barriano.
Just to summarize; for PP dogs, or on the job police dogs, or military dogs that are searching for bombs, KMODT is a suitable way to train basic obedience. Because, for dogs in those professions attention heeling is not necessary.
But, for your sporting dogs, which probably spend at the most 100 hours out of their entire lifetime in actual competitive circumstances, KMODT is not a valid training method.
And, Mr.Barriano, based on your need for attention heeling and other types of sport OB like precision sitting, downing, etc. you take every opportunity to malign KMODT whenever its mentioned.
The OP's interest is in PP, he asked about KMODT, I would think if his goals and yours are not the same it would have been prudent to withhold your opinion.
Mr. Barriano, I can only hope that if the Queen of England ever visits Colorado, you and your dogs are called upon to protect her from any rudeness or improprieties she may encounter. Such a task could never be entrusted to any lowly PP or military dog. Isn't that right Mr. Barriano?


----------



## angelo sintubin (Jul 21, 2013)

Wtf.. It's like comparing a bodybuilder with a Olympic powerlifter.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

i guess you all know that the vast majority of dogs trained by Koehler were NOT PP's/PSD's/MWD's .....

imo the two things that Koehler, Cesar Millan, Michael Ellis and all dog trainers have in common is ... their good points and their bad points 

and imo good points and bad points are kinda like beauty...

looking fwd to a report after reading ... please let us know if it was a life changing experience and you won't need to look at any other training method again //lol//


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

and when you start reading you will probably get a good chuckle from some of his evaluations of the many different breeds you might want to consider for guarding/protection work ... it definitely dates the book 

but no matter what you think of his system, it should still be a fun read ... he has a good style of writing imo


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Jim Leon said:


> Thank you for clarifying your position on KMODT Mr. Barriano.
> 
> >You're welcome
> 
> ...


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Wow!
_
"I would think if his goals and yours are not the same it would have been prudent to withhold your opinion."_


Huh? The O.P. asked if others had used the Koehler method and what they thought. Nothing about "and don't answer me unless you're training PP." :lol:


Like a whole lot of people of a certain age, I started with Koehler. There was finally a book, and it was clear. And it produced results.

As some others are saying, different protocols have come along in the many years since, and while I learned from Koehler, I've changed my methods. 


BTW, to the O.P., "bribing" is a good way to describe marker training done wrong. 


All JMO, just as the other posts are people's opinions .... and that's what was requested.






rick smith said:


> ... there's usually some take aways you can get from any training style; whether it's what to do or what not to do ...


 I'll drink to that.


----------



## Peta Het (Feb 13, 2011)

Connie Sutherland said:


> Wow!
> 
> 
> Like a whole lot of people of a certain age, I started with Koehler. There was finally a book, and it was clear. And it produced results.
> ...


Me too exactly. 
Connie, I didn't think you were that old! :-$


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Peta Het said:


> Me too exactly.
> Connie, I didn't think you were that old! :-$



Well, uh ..... actually, just "mature." Yeah, that's it. 

I'm a spring chicken. A mature one.


----------



## jamie lind (Feb 19, 2009)

Jim Leon said:


> Contrary to what Mr. Barriano believes, KMODT is far from obsolete. It is in fact very relevant in both application and results. Its goal is off leash reliability. That, you will get if you adhere to the method within the proscribed 10 weeks.
> I took my high drive Mal through the 10 week method before I did anything else. There were no e-collars, prongs, toys or tugs or treats or bites. Just the leash, the choke collar, the dog and me with my praise. We got to off-leash in ten weeks with a solid recall with distractions.
> After that I started incorporating all the other training aids mentioned above, and began bite work.
> You will get reliable gross aspect obedience with kmodt. If your dog is for PP, like mine is, its just what you need. You can certainly train with other methods after laying in the KMODT foundation.
> You will not get that kind of tight attention heeling with KMODT. That's probably why Mr Barriano deems it obsolete, he must have some kind of sport dogs. And he likes them to have that prancy google eyed look, when he takes them out of their pens, to train them, or to trial them, or to show them to people he's trying to sell them to. Is that right Mr. Barriano?


So what was taught during this time? You say gross aspect ob, what does. That mean to you. What is 10 weeks in sessions? Once a week? 3 times a day?


----------



## Jennifer Andress (Sep 4, 2013)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Hhhhhmmmm, I do my fair share of working with lower drive dogs as well as dogs that have been inhibited by incorrectly applied compulsion training. Marker training is highly effective with those type of dogs. I don't see how the decision of whether to apply marker or Koehler methods as one based on drive levels, at all.
> 
> T


+1 to that.

I actually don't know that I've _ever_ had a truly "high drive" dog, since I'm still pretty new to the whole working/sport dog world and am competing with a fearful pound puppy special (my very first dog! boy has it been a steep learning curve).

Anyway I've experimented with a variety of different approaches and my experience is that marker training is by far the most successful for me with the broad variety of pet/soft/low drive foster dogs I've had. It gets them really excited and happy to learn, and I have had pretty good success with it on those types of dogs.

If anything, what I often hear is that clicker training _only_ works with "soft" or "low drive" dogs, not the reverse. Whether or not this is true is not something I would know, personally, since (again) I don't think I've ever worked with a "hard" or "high drive" dog. But that's a thing people often tell me.

My suspicion is that what works best for you is determined mostly by _you_ and not so much by the dog(s). Marker training appeals to me on a philosophical level, so I've been motivated to learn as much as I can about it and I've tried hard to apply it correctly to my dogs. When I'm not as confident about whether I _want_ to use a different approach (like Koehler), I don't work as hard to master it and I give up pretty quickly in trying it, which is why those approaches don't work for me but probably work just fine for people more comfortable using them.


----------



## Haz Othman (Mar 25, 2013)

Imo low drive dogs require more compulsion to achieve reliable obedience under distraction. If the dog has less motivation to have what you have what do you think will happen to the reliability when you run into competing motivators? Thats been my experience anyways. 
Perhaps like anything else Koehler works well with certain types of dog and not so well with others?


----------



## Ted Summers (May 14, 2012)

Jennifer Andress said:


> If anything, what I often hear is that clicker training _only_ works with "soft" or "low drive" dogs, not the reverse. Whether or not this is true is not something I would know, personally, since (again) I don't think I've ever worked with a "hard" or "high drive" dog. But that's a thing people often tell me.



uh.... someone lied to you. I own 'hard' and 'high drive' dogs and use clickers/markers. You'll talk to 3 trainers and get 5 different opinions on which way is correct :lol:. If clicker training appeals to you... do that.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Connie Sutherland said:


> Well, uh ..... actually, just "mature." Yeah, that's it.
> 
> I'm a spring chicken. A mature one.


 
Well with maturity comes brains and you sure make some of the spring chickens on here sound like embryos :lol:


----------



## Jennifer Andress (Sep 4, 2013)

Ted Summers said:


> uh.... someone lied to you. I own 'hard' and 'high drive' dogs and use clickers/markers. You'll talk to 3 trainers and get 5 different opinions on which way is correct :lol:. If clicker training appeals to you... do that.


That's kind of the feeling I get, but since I've never done it, I don't actually KNOW, and therefore I think it's more prudent for me to be cautious about saying so. ;-)


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

My older GSD Thunder
Cadaver trained land and water, Trained in article search, Sch III, CDX, HT, TT, CGC. ALL trained with markers and no physical corrections.
:lol: Why I get into these discussions in beyond me. Those that don't want to believe, wont. Simple as that!;-)


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Connie Sutherland said:


> Well, uh ..... actually, just "mature." Yeah, that's it.
> 
> I'm a spring chicken. A mature one.




:grin::grin::grin::grin::grin: :-\" ;-)
Well....I DO have a few yrs on Connie.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Haz Othman said:


> Imo low drive dogs require more compulsion to achieve reliable obedience under distraction. If the dog has less motivation to have what you have what do you think will happen to the reliability when you run into competing motivators? Thats been my experience anyways.
> Perhaps like anything else Koehler works well with certain types of dog and not so well with others?


And high drive dogs don't run into competing motivators or distractions? Do you all really think you need a prey slave to be able to train reliability? Regardless of drives, rewards or motivators should be something the dog really desires. I work with all sorts of so called drive levels and with any of them the trick is to find what motivates them to perform the work. An important part of this is the dog's relationship with the handler.

T


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

re: "the dog's relationship with the handler....."

i like that phrase ... too bad it's never discussed on here and just taken for granted ](*,)

funny but it's the FIRST think i notice with any customer who is having problems with their dog
...and i sure as hell don't think it applies only to "pet owners", and it isn't necessarily tied to the training system being used

if i ever write a dog book, that will be the subject
....bonding
how to measure it
how to build it up
how to repair a bad bond
why it's taken for granted
...and why a week or two of "down time" with a lot of feeding and watering with no training or no plan is NOT the best way to bond ...imo of course 
...will be many chapters //lol//


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

i doubt many people have trained a "guard dog" by following the Koehler method of guard dog training unless they were training with him in a class.

why did i say this ? 
because i have talked to a few people on a face to face basis who claimed to have used the Koehler method. NONE of them could put it in words and go back through the steps they used in the conversation. Koehler, whether you like him or not, presents his "system" in a very precise, step by step manner. few other trainers have written with the same attention to detail. if they have books out, i've never read them. now that everything is on dvd's that will probably become even rarer.

i guess all that means to me is that people pick and choose stuff and then they do it "their" way, whether they give credit to other trainers or not. 

in fact i doubt if many people even use his selection testing for choosing their dog in the first place.
....and i also have my doubts that people still use throw chains in the way Koehler requires to train their dog

still a good read imo


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

I would also hazard a guess that Koehler himself did not use the exact same methods all the time for everything, in many of his books he does offer multiple ways for various things, and probably in those cases he put down into words a couple few of the ones that worked more often for what the goals are.

I also think many of the philosophies are pretty good on premise, and that overall the man made a huge contribution to dog training in general. I have met many people with dogs that I thought in my head while looking at them, "if they tried a few of the Koehler options for that, it'd probably be an easy fix..."

there are several things he suggests that can work with only 1-2-3 repetitions


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

I would even go so far as to say that one could make the argument in certain cases, that the Koehler method could be looked at as a marker training system.


----------



## Lisa Brazeau (May 6, 2010)

Koehler dog training works. The aesthetic is not very good. But done correctly, you can achieve reliable behaviors. Koehler is strictly a pressure avoidance and positive punishment system. I don't know where the 'marker' comment is coming from.

Efficacy is not enough, to me. If it can be trained through positive reinforcement, then I feel a moral obligation to do so. I try to use compulsion only where my R+ training has failed. That's my moral compass in dog training, but everyone is different.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

people i've met who said they used Koehler's methods have been oldies and it was for past dogs .... their memories of the specifics was also old 

maybe some of those who like it will actually discuss how they are doing it today and even post some vids of their koehler training methods....
- how to get an out comes to mind....specifically using a (Koehler-spec) hose on those "hard" dogs, and simple chain tosses for those not so hard canines //lol//

if it was so good i would think lots of ppd dog owners and psd trainers would still be using koehler techniques ... then again, there aren't many K9 LEOS that walk a beat on today's streets, and a lot of his training was geared for that type LEO 
... but i do think the ppd people could/should step up and come out of the closet if they are koehler training and actually show others how good it is; otherwise it will just be online chat stuff

maybe some youtube searchers can find some modern day koehler clips


----------



## Peter Cho (Apr 21, 2010)

There are parts of the kmodt training method that is absolutely applicable. But it is not which method is good or not. All methods, at its core is a modulation and application of operant conditioning, Pavlovian connection, and situational learning, together with threshold theory. 
A book cannot hope to elaborate fully any person's method. As with much of dog training, you have to see it, do it, and make mistakes to see consequences. 
That is why there are handling skill differences. 

To be frank, this book was written before the advent of e collars, and marker training. So, I would consider it rudimentary. It's like working with a horse and buggy when there are cars around. Does it get you to point a to b? Yes. But the ones using the newest cars will leave you in the dust.

The other aspect of this is CONNECTION. I don't want to correct my dog. That is, I don't ever want my dog to think a correction comes from me. I want him to think its his BEHAVIOUR that controls the correction and speed of reward. This has NOTHING to do with training for PP or sport. It's good training. Period. It builds reliability and connection. Critical in BOTH PP and sport.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Lisa Brazeau said:


> Koehler dog training works. The aesthetic is not very good. But done correctly, you can achieve reliable behaviors. Koehler is strictly a pressure avoidance and positive punishment system. I don't know where the 'marker' comment is coming from.
> 
> Efficacy is not enough, to me. If it can be trained through positive reinforcement, then I feel a moral obligation to do so. I try to use compulsion only where my R+ training has failed. That's my moral compass in dog training, but everyone is different.


I think people used to "praise" their dogs in training, when they did something well, many times that praise was also associated with some sort of reward, and also physical release as well. I also think people used to use verbal or physical "signals" that were used to relay to the dog that he is not doing things correctly, in place of, or prior to some form of correction. Long before "marker training" was a popular term. I think many dog trainers use many methods that are common knowledge to the community, and few label something as their own method, or system.

I think Koehler's methodology is in some ways pretty much marker training if you think about it. (Especially if people had those dogs with "genetic obedience" and high biddibility 

Or maybe I am looking at marker training in a very different way or something.

Just out of curiosity (side note) honest question for all.

Is there an official Marker Training system?

I think of it as a philosophy that can be applied to many areas of training, not an actual specific system. I do see the obvious differences in certain phases of training, like teaching.

Are there not corrections used in marker training systems?

Who innovated the "marker training system"?


----------



## Jennifer Andress (Sep 4, 2013)

Joby Becker said:


> Is there an official Marker Training system?
> 
> I think of it as a philosophy that can be applied to many areas of training, not an actual specific system. I do see the obvious differences in certain phases of training, like teaching.
> 
> ...


I'll take a stab at this for the sake of discussion, but please note (again) that I'm a relative newbie and will of course defer to those with more experience and better accomplishments.

So, _to the best of my knowledge_:

-- There are individuals (and some schools) who have established "official" systems for training particular sports or exercises, sure, but in the universal sense of a system that all marker/clicker trainers adhere to? I don't think so.

The only universal part of marker training is that a marker signal (for simplicity I'll say a "click" but of course the exact marker can vary, and many trainers use both marker words and clicks depending on what is being taught) is given at the moment that the dog is doing something correctly, and then that click is followed by some form of positive reinforcement (usually but not always a treat or toy).

Beyond that, specifics can and do vary widely.

-- It depends how you define "correction." Some trainers use both clicks and physical punishment (prongs, e-collars, etc.); it doesn't mean they aren't using marker systems. Some trainers use "no reward markers" to signal when the dog has done something wrong, and then reset the exercise or, depending on the situation, possibly impose some form of non-forcible punishment (like a time-out). Some trainers don't use anything and just ignore unwanted behaviors (Emily Larlham comes to mind, and I think Susan Garrett does this too? but I'm not as familiar with her approaches); in that scenario the only "correction" is that the dog does not get a reward.

I would consider all of the above to be using some form of marker training to at least some degree. There's nothing about clicker training that is inherently incompatible with the use of either corrections (including verbal corrections/no reward markers) or physical punishments, although in practice most people who call themselves "clicker trainers" don't use the latter and sometimes also avoid the former.

-- I don't believe any single person can be given credit for inventing marker training. People refine it and add new innovations and improved techniques all the time, but the underlying concept of signal-reward (or, I guess, signal-punishment) is something that people have probably been doing in one form or another as long as they've had dogs.

I feel like all of this is surely stuff you must already have heard before, as training discussions are doubtlessly old hat on this board, but like I said: for the sake of discussion, there are my thoughts.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

We never had Koehler over here in Europe as far as I know. Most was on sale, so I bought it. The one I bought was published in 1975, a while before I started dog training.


http://www.dogwise.com/ItemDetails.cfm?ID=dgt223

Maybe their methods were "harsh" from the today's point of view but maybe far less "cruel" than some of today's trainers' methods which very often leave a dog in a grey zone and confused.

I know, we "know more" about the canine. Do we? Or are we projecting our new found information about the canine on to an unsuspecting victim?


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Jennifer Andress said:


> I'll take a stab at this for the sake of discussion, but please note (again) that I'm a relative newbie and will of course defer to those with more experience and better accomplishments.
> 
> So, _to the best of my knowledge_:
> 
> ...


good answer, thank you


----------



## Haz Othman (Mar 25, 2013)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> And high drive dogs don't run into competing motivators or distractions? Do you all really think you need a prey slave to be able to train reliability? Regardless of drives, rewards or motivators should be something the dog really desires. I work with all sorts of so called drive levels and with any of them the trick is to find what motivates them to perform the work. An important part of this is the dog's relationship with the handler.
> 
> T


Sure they do but their desire to have what you have is higher and most likely developed since puppyhood ex: ball on string or the food vacume type. The higher value they place on what you have makes it easier to overcome the competing motivators.

What do you do when you run into the dog that has mediocre or low desire for the food or toy you have? Yes they will do some work for it but when a bunny or other running dogs are in the environment those motivators may be higher then whatever you have. 
Maybe Im just cynical, I have seen so many pet quality dogs (Im not talking sport or work quality) that are products of positive only training systems that just dont care enough under distraction to be relaible. These issues are usually easily remedied with some positive punishment. Then you hear about how it was all done wrong and if only this or that system was followed it would all have been different. I guess seeing is believing...I hear a lot about it online but when it comes to real life whether its pet training or even on the club field theres a lot of evidence to the contrary. 

If you want to talk about biddability I have had some dogs that have a very strong desire to please the handler where creating reliability was easier..and others that are more stubborn and independent. Regardless of what you may say about relationships I have found that there are some dogs that just have more desire to work with you then others no matter what is done. Maybe its just me but I have also noted the weaker softer dogs have more desire to please you then ones I would charecterise as stronger but thats just my personal experience.


----------



## Jennifer Andress (Sep 4, 2013)

Haz Othman said:


> Maybe Im just cynical, I have seen so many pet quality dogs (Im not talking sport or work quality) that are products of positive only training systems that just dont care enough under distraction to be relaible. These issues are usually easily remedied with some positive punishment.


Man, I cannot think of a single dog I've had (again, these are all soft/pet dogs) where positive punishment would have made any of my issues easier.

With my main dog (this is Pongu -- if you're who I think you are, we're both on the GSD Forum and I have a whole thread about my misadventures with crazypants dog there), using any form of positive punishment would just have destroyed him. He was already so terrified of the ring environment that I genuinely don't believe I would ever have gotten my insane fearful dog to compete in _anything_ if I hadn't gone 100% supportive and encouraging all the time always. Even when he was NQ'ing every run and making me weep softly (or not so softly) on the inside with the nonstop disasterations.

Pongu is admittedly a special (by which I mean "especially terrible") case, but I don't think I've had unusual problems with proofing and developing off-leash reliability in the other dogs. It does take time and work, and some dogs are always easier than others, but it's just a matter of practice.

edit: I should clarify that when I say it wouldn't have made any of my issues easier, I am referring only to formal obedience-type behaviors. I'm pretty okay with yelling at them for counter-surfing and that sort of thing.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Jennifer Andress said:


> Man, I cannot think of a single dog I've had (again, these are all soft/pet dogs) where positive punishment would have made any of my issues easier.
> 
> With my main dog (this is Pongu -- if you're who I think you are, we're both on the GSD Forum and I have a whole thread about my misadventures with crazypants dog there), using any form of positive punishment would just have destroyed him. He was already so terrified of the ring environment that I genuinely don't believe I would ever have gotten my insane fearful dog to compete in _anything_ if I hadn't gone 100% supportive and encouraging all the time always. Even when he was NQ'ing every run and making me weep softly (or not so softly) on the inside with the nonstop disasterations.
> 
> ...


does the yelling for countersurfing work?


----------



## Jennifer Andress (Sep 4, 2013)

Sure does! One yell and no more countersurfing.

But I dunno how to get a retrieve over high jump by yelling, whereas I do know how to get it with a clicker. :wink:


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Jennifer Andress said:


> Sure does! One yell and no more countersurfing.
> 
> But I dunno how to get a retrieve over high jump by yelling, whereas I do know how to get it with a clicker. :wink:


so you had to yell one time, and the countersurfing was gone forever?


----------



## Jennifer Andress (Sep 4, 2013)

For a limited value of "forever," yep.

I did that twice and both of the dogs involved were foster mutts, so they were adopted out within 2-3 weeks after getting busted for counter surfing. They didn't try it again in my house, but the world will never know whether they might have been tempted to take a second shot if I'd had them longer.

I _suspect_ they would not have tried it again. Most of my fosters were "yard dogs" in their previous lives and don't know anything about how to live inside houses when I get them, so once they learn the rules of indoor living it's like "oh okay" and that's that. So I think they would probably have been fine after the first incident, and their adopters have never mentioned any counter-surfing problems to me.

But I'll never actually know.


----------



## Haz Othman (Mar 25, 2013)

Jennifer Andress said:


> Man, I cannot think of a single dog I've had (again, these are all soft/pet dogs) where positive punishment would have made any of my issues easier.
> 
> With my main dog (this is Pongu -- if you're who I think you are, we're both on the GSD Forum and I have a whole thread about my misadventures with crazypants dog there), using any form of positive punishment would just have destroyed him. He was already so terrified of the ring environment that I genuinely don't believe I would ever have gotten my insane fearful dog to compete in _anything_ if I hadn't gone 100% supportive and encouraging all the time always. Even when he was NQ'ing every run and making me weep softly (or not so softly) on the inside with the nonstop disasterations.
> 
> ...


I think I recognize your dogs name but didnt read the thread. Anyways you know your dog better then I do but I do not completely agree with you.

call me a cynic.. but another thing that I hear all the time, my dog cant handle +P it will shut him/her down... She wont do anything if I correct her. Yet I have seen and trained (pet OB not Sport) some super soft dogs and created reliability with a little +P. Sure you have to watch your level of pressure but it doesnt change the outcome. 

My mind recently goes to a mutt that was on anti anxiety meds and had very poor nerves that was also DA. Now a lot of his issues were handler related but a little +P and the handler taking a more firm stance on misbehavior did wonders. 
There are more but thats the most recent one that comes to mind.

Im not saying this is the case 100% of the time but I think that many handlers who hold that view would be surprised that their dog can infact handle some +P and their supposed shutdowns are more handler created / enabled then reality. Is it always the best option? I think thats up to the trainer on scene.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

I am pretty sure that often +P is not so much of the issue as is confusion,unclear roles and expectations coupled with the use of +P


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Haz Othman said:


> Sure they do but their desire to have what you have is higher and most likely developed since puppyhood ex: ball on string or the food vacume type. The higher value they place on what you have makes it easier to overcome the competing motivators.
> 
> What do you do when you run into the dog that has mediocre or low desire for the food or toy you have? Yes they will do some work for it but when a bunny or other running dogs are in the environment those motivators may be higher then whatever you have.
> Maybe Im just cynical, I have seen so many pet quality dogs (Im not talking sport or work quality) that are products of positive only training systems that just dont care enough under distraction to be relaible. These issues are usually easily remedied with some positive punishment. Then you hear about how it was all done wrong and if only this or that system was followed it would all have been different. I guess seeing is believing...I hear a lot about it online but when it comes to real life whether its pet training or even on the club field theres a lot of evidence to the contrary.
> ...


1. Control the environment. We found a BC on the streets with a leg broken in two places. He couldn't focus on anything and didn't seem to care about food or toys. . ANY motion in the environment was a distraction. I moved his crate into the bathroom and closed the door. I sat in a chair and shaped a down. Once he was solid, I got it in other places and finally outside when cars going by, leaves blowing, alllll those competing motivators. Then came livestock.
2. Patience
3. Make sure the reward is something the dog realllllllllllllllly values. 
4. Keep in mind that you are building drive for the work as well as compliance. Too often you want to just focus on compliance. Quit with the dog in drive.
5. NILIF for the independent types and a strict schedule of it. 
6. Negative Punishment

A low drive dog can be just as easy to motivate as a high drive dog. I own a dog that is mostly in it for herself. I wouldn't call her biddable at all. Yet, its marker training and positive reinforcement that made her a trial dog. Two of the strongest dogs I've ever owned, had superb pack drive. You can have dogs that have ultimate nerve strength, confidence, correction hard and biddability. Can I use a correction to stop an undesired behavior? Sure, and do. But its the marker/positive reinforcement that builds behaviors and reliability in my dogs. I've only had one dog that would care about a bunny running around and none that care about other dogs. As Bob says, these are things that you train from puppyhood. For my dogs, that's a long line and marker training. You raise the dog that you are more important than anything in the environment. 

I use the same system for dogs that I start as adults and it works. Just got a new dog delivered today. He's two years old. Compared the my dogs, he's best described as medium--low drive. He will never need compulsion to establish reliable behaviors. 

T


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Jody said:

_Some trainers use both clicks and physical punishment (prongs, e-collars, etc.); it doesn't mean they aren't using marker systems. .... *There's nothing about clicker training that is inherently incompatible with the use of ... corrections* (including verbal corrections/no reward markers) or physical punishments, although in practice most people who call themselves "clicker trainers" don't use the latter and sometimes also avoid the former._

Correct! (I have to protest the term "most people," because I know so many people who use markers who have no intention of writing off corrections. But otherwise, right!)


You can add additional qualifiers that _do_ make it correction-free, but marker training in and of itself does not mean "no corrections."


Marker training is a simple system for communicating to the dog _the exact moment_ when s/he performed an action for which she/he is being rewarded.

IOW, it conveys a snapshot in time of what s/he did to earn a forthcoming reward.

Yes, there is lots more to it (if you want), but the basic idea is to "mark" exactly what the dog did good.


So we load a marker (clicker, word, whatever) to associate it with a reward. 


Now we mark _what we want_. We mark it _immediately _... far more quickly and precisely than we could haul out and give a previously hidden reward. (Simple example: the instant that butt hits the ground in a sit, we mark it.)

This is the rock-bottom basis.

There's nothing in Koehler (unless I have really become senile and lost entire chunks of text) that is similar to marker training. This is not a judgment or a criticism .... most training protocols, unless they incorporate the basics of markers, are not "like marker training." 

Even all-positive-reward methods, unless they incorporate markers, don't have the instant-timing aspect that marker training has. 

Yes, there is (or can be) much more to it, but its bare bones is a means of conveying instant snapshots of wanted behaviors (or tiny pieces of wanted behaviors) to the dog. 

I know that other marker trainers will (correctly) want to add more. I'm just trying to describe the very basic gist. 


JMO, of course!

I'd add that IMO, the use of markers has nothing to do with and is in no way dependent upon any level of drive .... low or high.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

connie sutherland said:


> jody said:
> 
> _some trainers use both clicks and physical punishment (prongs, e-collars, etc.); it doesn't mean they aren't using marker systems. .... *there's nothing about clicker training that is inherently incompatible with the use of ... Corrections* (including verbal corrections/no reward markers) or physical punishments, although in practice most people who call themselves "clicker trainers" don't use the latter and sometimes also avoid the former._
> 
> ...


+1

t


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

your not going senile Connie, I was just way out on a limb, trying to shake the tree a little


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

It worked, too. I fell out. :lol:


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Connie Sutherland said:


> Jody said:
> 
> _Some trainers use both clicks and physical punishment (prongs, e-collars, etc.); it doesn't mean they aren't using marker systems. .... *There's nothing about clicker training that is inherently incompatible with the use of ... corrections* (including verbal corrections/no reward markers) or physical punishments, although in practice most people who call themselves "clicker trainers" don't use the latter and sometimes also avoid the former._
> 
> ...




+2
I also believe the trainer's ability and his/her connection with the dog have as much to do with success as the method.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Bob Scott said:


> +2
> I also believe the trainer's ability and his/her connection with the dog have as much to do with success as the method.


Having worked with a dog that wouldn't load to a marker until I bonded with him, I'd say bond/connection/relationship first and then pick your poison as far as method is concerned.

T


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Agree! :wink:


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

i'm glad other perspectives are being discussed since i doubt we will see Koehler method vids being posted 

another perspective is that markers allow for a more hands OFF approach compared to using physical compulsion which is a big part of the koehler methods.

and i know it has been pointed out how a "hands ON" approach is so effective

but imo you shouldn't limit your training perspective to just dogs, even if you only work with dogs

marker training has been proven for decades to be effective with a number of different species....many of which would be way too dangerous to train using physical compulsion...to the point of being just plain stupid or suicidal 
... big cats and marine mammals are just a couple of examples

dogs are just more compliant so we often get physical, cause we can .... in most cases, but not all 

many roads to choose, but less physical compulsion with markers does give an animal more opportunity to make their decisions rather than be immediately forced to comply. and if that seems like a waste of time, fine. i still believe a proficient trainer can easily manipulate a dog into thinking the human's choice was the dog's choice and reward appropriately and still get solid trained behaviors even if there is an added delay to give the dog more time to decide on its own

and all this has NOTHING to do with corrections


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

just another guess, but i think a lot of people who use a lot of physical compulsion don't really care how a dog learns and what is going on in a dog's head because that is irrelevant to them ... they are results oriented only and only talk "dog psychology" when it suits them
- i can handle that too

for me physical compulsion is very close to what i call a correction, and i use it a lot, but apply it later in the training stages than others .... also "because i can", and i rarely have a timeframe i have to adhere to and it works for me


----------



## Mircea Hemu-Ha (Nov 24, 2009)

I haven't read Koehler, but i have read Konrad Most's book from 1910.

It's one of the best books on dog training i have read, even if it's dated. He used a form of negative-positive-positive as his baseline training, defined his own terms of classical and operant conditioning, before Pavlov and Skinner "invented" them.

He also used marker training (voice), but he never could get to where we are today without shaping and rewards. These are the only 2 (huge !) things missing from the book, IMO.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Most's book is a great book to have in any ref library....too bad he was German (military) and didn't train dogs for movies like Koehler, but i would still imagine a lot of Germans are familiar with him


----------



## Jennifer Andress (Sep 4, 2013)

Haz Othman said:


> My mind recently goes to a mutt that was on anti anxiety meds and had very poor nerves that was also DA. Now a lot of his issues were handler related but a little +P and the handler taking a more firm stance on misbehavior did wonders.
> There are more but thats the most recent one that comes to mind.
> 
> Im not saying this is the case 100% of the time but I think that many handlers who hold that view would be surprised that their dog can infact handle some +P and their supposed shutdowns are more handler created / enabled then reality. Is it always the best option? I think thats up to the trainer on scene.


I don't doubt this happens. I think that's independent of willingness to use +P to some extent, though. Most pet dogs are in the hands of pet owners, because most working/sport people switch to higher-octane dogs once they get seriously into that world. And a lot of pet owners are pretty clueless about reading or managing dogs. They're not only wrong about how best to handle problems, a lot of the time they're wrong about what the problem even _is._

With regard to Pongu specifically, though, I am dead certain that +P (of _any_ level, even the verbal "No!" that I'm willing to hand out) would have been counterproductive to my goals with my dog.

I don't know if you've ever tried to compete with a severely, genetically fearful dog in anything, but I'm gonna guess the answer is probably "no" because it suuuuuuccks and for any sane person the answer has to be "no." A fearful dog is a whole level of hell beyond "soft." The only explanation I have for why I do this is that Pongu was my first dog and I didn't know what I was getting into and by the time I figured it out, welp, he was My Dog and that's that, once he's My Dog then I am just going to have to do whatever I can with him, because there's no returning a defective pound puppy to the breeder.

Like 90% of our training is just teaching Pongu such Important Life Lessons as: the bar jump is not a monster (he ran and hid in another room for 40 minutes the first time I unpacked our new practice jump) and the competition ring is not a death trap for unwary dogs and no actually good stuff happens in there, really, I promise!!

For this dog, with whom I am boneheadedly determined to compete because I'm an idiot, clicker training (in the broader usage of "all clicks and cookies all the time, no worse consequence than a NRM and reset for failure") has been an absolute godsend. It has built up his confidence to where he can actually function in the ring more often than not. It has taught him to go in there eager and smiling, and to not only tolerate a stranger looking at him (which he couldn't do for years) but to accept a Stand for Exam with an unfamiliar judge in an unfamiliar trial venue and pull out Novice scores in the 190s. Today, if he scores below 205 in a Rally run, that was a bad run. 14 months ago when we started, if he didn't NQ from total meltdown disaster, that was a _good_ run.

Would I do it again? Oh hell no. I love him more than anything in the world, but when Pongu retires I'm getting a dog that doesn't suck. But since I _am_ currently trying to do things with a super fearful crazy pound mutt, well... as I said up thread, it's been a pretty steep learning curve. But at this point I feel reasonably confident that I know how to trial with a fearful dog (which is almost as useful as knowing how to dig a gold mine with a grapefruit spoon!), and I do feel pretty confident saying that +P is not tremendously useful for achieving reliability, or anything else, in that narrow situation.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

re: Pongu
sounds like an interesting and frustrating case

since i work with a lot customers dogs, i usually don't have an option of telling them their dog is a nerve bag they should dump, so i would be interested in any specific techniques that you have used to reduce fearfulness; whether successful or not 
- not generalities, i've been there, but any specific confidence building training sessions
- i doubt the hard corps working crowd would ever want to admit their dog had fear issues, but even good working dogs can still use confidence building...there could be benefits for them too, that sort of session would never hurt them 

- but if you don't want to start a new thread and share, feel free to PM me.
TIA


*This fearfulness topic is now at* http://www.workingdogforum.com/vBulletin/f9/reactive-fearful-dogs-33481/#post500217


----------



## Ted Summers (May 14, 2012)

rick smith said:


> marker training has been proven for decades to be effective with a number of different species....many of which would be way too dangerous to train using physical compulsion...to the point of being just plain stupid or suicidal
> ... big cats and marine mammals are just a couple of examples


I was just thinking this same thing after watching the _Black Fish_ thing on CNN about the Orcas.

I use 'marker' training with my guys. I start with a clicker and then move to 'yes.' I'll still use the clicker for very fine motor skill things. Teaching front (I want his feet on my feet), teaching the retrieve anything I throw I used the clicker to get him to pick up random stuff. 

I also mark negative stuff. When I _KNOW_ the dog knows a behavior (in context) and he _KNOWS_ I know he knows and he doesn't do it. He'll get a "no" and get about 1/2 a second to perform the behavior before he gets a correction. I've 'loaded' his "no" with correction. When we're doing things out of context (motion exercises, bigger jumps, position changes in a pool, searching a new room, etc etc) I'll give the "try again" while shaking my head. It means "you sorta did what I want but not really, do it again." Not really a correction, not a reward, but a mark non-the-less. They'll offer behaviors (without fear of correction) until they do it right, BIG reward. Reset do it again times 100. Then when his dumbass doesn't do, and he has 100 times correctly................. correction.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

re: Black Fish ... saw the promo on CNN but not the final product. was it responsible reporting or the usual CNN spin ??
.... PM is fine

btw, i still know a few guys who work dolphin experiences at some resorts. they have told me the hotels get very sensitive about downplaying any "flipper" aggression towards the guests ... like some demo dogs, they are specially "primed" for their public appearances //lol//


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

rick smith said:


> re: Black Fish ... saw the promo on CNN but not the final product. was it responsible reporting or the usual CNN spin ??
> .... PM is fine
> 
> btw, i still know a few guys who work dolphin experiences at some resorts. they have told me the hotels get very sensitive about downplaying any "flipper" aggression towards the guests ... like some demo dogs, they are specially "primed" for their public appearances //lol//


like almost ALL demo dogs


----------



## Ted Summers (May 14, 2012)

Uh.... it was a little.... it made Sea World look bad. They _did_ try and get them to respond so they attempted to have them tell their side.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

rick smith said:


> but if you don't want to start a new thread and share, feel free to PM me.
> TIA


yeah um Rick...clear out your PM's some and maybe some people can send you a message


----------



## Jennifer Andress (Sep 4, 2013)

There is a whole thread about Pongu on the GSD Forum. I don't know if I'm allowed to link it here but it's called "The Long Road with a Fearful Dog" and it's in their Obedience & Rally subforum. You can see videos of Pongu's craptastic performances and be thoroughly unimpressed! 

More seriously, I don't know if there's anything I can tell you that you don't already know. I wrote out this incredibly long boring post (it must be like 1500 words) and then I realized, wait, none of this actually helps if you're working with client dogs and not your own dog. Ultimately all you can do in that situation is try not to set the dog back and tell the owner what _they_ need to do -- because theirs is the relationship that's being carried into the ring, and that's what is going to make or break a fearful dog.


----------



## Max Orsi (May 22, 2008)

I would like to give my 2 cents too!

I have read the book and seen it used for many years, like all the otherestablished methods of training, it works, results are as good or as bad as the person using it.

Same with reward based systems (marker, clicker or whatever you want to call it) If you don't get results it is your fault, stop giving excuses!!!

As far as soft, hard, driven or low driven dogs, all systems works, is the trainer inability to communicate with the dog that causes all the problems, always.

Notice that I am talking about the control/obedience part. 

The system one chooses to work their dog with should be based more on the type of relationship u want to have with your dog.
In today's world the khoeler (sp?) method is obsolete but is still the simplest method for the "new" dog trainers.

Dog training and dog performances have advanced so much!! 

Happy training

Max


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Max Orsi said:


> All systems work, it is the trainer's inability to communicate with the dog that causes all the problems, always.
> 
> Max


good quote right there...(slight editing)


----------



## Max Orsi (May 22, 2008)

Very good post Connie!!

Thanks Joby, long time...


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

rick smith said:


> re: Pongu
> sounds like an interesting and frustrating case
> 
> since i work with a lot customers dogs, i usually don't have an option of telling them their dog is a nerve bag they should dump, so i would be interested in any specific techniques that you have used to reduce fearfulness; whether successful or not
> ...


Heyyyyyy, share the wealth. 

There are others that venture in the land of "other peoples fearful dogs."

T


*
Moved this fearfulness topic to *http://www.workingdogforum.com/vBulletin/f9/reactive-fearful-dogs-33481/#post500217


----------



## Cameron banks (Jan 5, 2022)

rick smith said:


> i doubt many people have trained a "guard dog" by following the Koehler method of guard dog training unless they were training with him in a class.
> 
> why did i say this ?
> because i have talked to a few people on a face to face basis who claimed to have used the Koehler method. NONE of them could put it in words and go back through the steps they used in the conversation. Koehler, whether you like him or not, presents his "system" in a very precise, step by step manner. few other trainers have written with the same attention to detail. if they have books out, i've never read them. now that everything is on dvd's that will probably become even rarer.
> ...



I can't comment on the guard dog side of things but I still train pet dogs through the KMODT novice program 

I use throw chains as he prescribes I'n the novice system

Here is a GSD just starting week 7


----------

