# Who Really Teaches the Dog the OUT



## Jerry Cudahy

There is not one handler/trainer who teaches the out.

The whole recent thread of method and the mess that ensued.

The decoy teaches it. That person is the one being bitten.

This is why the whole thread was a joke. A shamefull joke that came about from a non decoy.

The handler only directs the timing.

But make no mistake about it.


Your decoy does it and then it takes a decoy who understands the complicated why the decoy dictates when the dog releases.



Best regards to the complete board.


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen

:-? hell no, that a decoy teaches my dog to out. I'll do it (or Dick).


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Jerry Cudahy said:


> There is not one handler/trainer who teaches the out.
> 
> The whole recent thread of method and the mess that ensued.
> 
> The decoy teaches it. That person is the one being bitten.
> 
> This is why the whole thread was a joke. A shamefull joke that came about from a non decoy.
> 
> The handler only directs the timing.
> 
> But make no mistake about it.
> 
> 
> Your decoy does it and then it takes a decoy who understands the complicated why the decoy dictates when the dog releases.
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards to the complete board.


thanks for the laugh ! I needed that Jerry...now keep on dreaming 

only one person teaching the out and trust me when I say it sure as **** aint the decoy !

only job for the decoy is to stand there and look pretty.....


:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Darryl Richey

100% wrong there Jerry. I teach every facet of the out myself. It eventually gets proofed off other decoys, but I do the ALL the teaching.

Darryl


----------



## Jerry Cudahy

Not talking about outing a tug. Talking about outing a bite on a decoy. There is a difference.

Everyone teaches the tug out themselves.

Talking about the fight. Handlers are not fighting their own dog. 

There is a place for both handler and decoy but the decoy is who in training has a very big part.

Dick was mentioned. Why would you pick Dick. Just a question, as you mentioned him as your alternative to yourself.

Would Dick be acting as a decoy or handler ?


----------



## Jerry Cudahy

Darryl Richey said:


> 100% wrong there Jerry. I teach every facet of the out myself. It eventually gets proofed off other decoys, but I do the ALL the teaching.
> 
> Darryl


Begs the question from me. Why then do you proof ?

Also do you suit for outing the dog?


----------



## Jerry Cudahy

Handlers can also switch roles to decoy their own dog. Important to my point in this thread.

But they performing dual roles are seperate jobs, not one.


----------



## Geoff Empey

Jerry Cudahy said:


> Why would you pick Dick. Just a question?


To get the underwear lint out, ya silly goose! :lol:


----------



## Adam Rawlings

Jerry,

Are we talking ring sports or all aspects of teaching the out?


----------



## Alice Bezemer

explain how the decoy teaches and directs the out ? Now I know for a fact that in KNPV you will not find that happening...the last thing you would want is a decoy training your dog to out in any shape way or form but maybe its different in all the other sports venues ?

it doesnt make a whole lot of sence to me tho...it also makes me wonder who does the actual training with the dog...i have seen somany topics now about how the decoy does this and the decoy does that and how the decoy says how its sposed to work...im amazed theres still people working dogs out there since apparantly when you have a decoy you dont have to do any actualy training yourself...why would you ? you have a decoy right ?


----------



## Jerry Cudahy

Alice Bezemer said:


> explain how the decoy teaches and directs the out ? Now I know for a fact that in KNPV you will not find that happening...the last thing you would want is a decoy training your dog to out in any shape way or form but maybe its different in all the other sports venues ?
> 
> it doesnt make a whole lot of sence to me tho...it also makes me wonder who does the actual training with the dog...i have seen somany topics now about how the decoy does this and the decoy does that and how the decoy says how its sposed to work...im amazed theres still people working dogs out there since apparantly when you have a decoy you dont have to do any actualy training yourself...why would you ? you have a decoy right ?


 Good thread is now happening. I am looking to get this topic going and thanks for the input


----------



## Jerry Cudahy

Geoff Empey said:


> To get the underwear lint out, ya silly goose! :lol:


 Forgot the lint part, thanks Geoff


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen

Jerry Cudahy said:


> Dick was mentioned. Why would you pick Dick. Just a question, as you mentioned him as your alternative to yourself.
> 
> Would Dick be acting as a decoy or handler ?


handler when teaches the out.
If he decoys for me it sure as hell is my problem to out the dog.
Out is an ob excercise, learned in a lower drive, but when a dogs understands it, he has to do it.


----------



## Brian Anderson

I will train the out ..... I appreciate a good decoy for sure....but the out will be solid before the dog knows what a decoy is 9 times out of ten. To each his own


----------



## Shane Woodlief

Jerry are you being serious? 

I am not a ring guy so I cannot speak from ring experience but your wrong on the decoy teaching the out. I teach the out as an ob exercise but no I sure as heck don't want the decoy outing my dog. I am the teacher and my dogs only handler.

I am fortunate to have a great decoy in our club who has trialed dogs at the national level but no freaking way is he outing the dogs.


----------



## Frank Hutto

I can't get behind the helper "teaching" the out either. Though what the helper is or isn't doing _may_ play a factor in how the dog initially reacts to the command when you first start to out off the helper. 

For example, say you're about to out your dog off the decoy for the first time and the helper gets the dog all fired up for the bite and fights with the dog like a maniac on the sleeve/suit. If you say out and the helper keeps fighting the dog, there is a good chance your dog won't have a successful out. Now lets say your helper keeps the stimulation rather low and freezes up before the command, you definitely increase your chances of success. It's really no different than when I teach my dog to out on a tug off me. I don't swing the dog around on the tug saying out. I get the command under lower stimulation levels and work up from there. So no the helper doesn't teach the out, but does "help" the handler achieve success by their actions. 

I say "help" because I find it to be much easier if the dog will already out for the handler on a tug before trying to out on a decoy. So there is no teaching an out command here, merely requiring the dog to perform something it already knows, just under different circumstances. At least that's how I prefer to do it.


----------



## Jerry Cudahy

Tug and Decoy, two different bites. Tugs cannot fight back.

Tug is an ob out yes but the fight part is a different kettle


----------



## susan tuck

Selena van Leeuwen said:


> handler when teaches the out.
> If he decoys for me it sure as hell is my problem to out the dog.
> Out is an ob excercise, learned in a lower drive, but when a dogs understands it, he has to do it.


 
Exactly for us in schutzhund too, not just on a tug or toy, when the dog moves to the sleeve, same thing, handler teaches/ reinforces the out. 

Maybe this is one of those trick questions like "where do you bury the survivors".


----------



## Gerry Grimwood

Jerry, did you spend some time in Delaware approx 40 yrs ago ??


----------



## will fernandez

When we have new handlers train with us, the out is usually in need of cleaning up. I will often assist the handler to minimize the conflict and out the dog. So in actuality there will be three people teaching the out. (handler will be in front of decoy with the dog and I will be either behind the handler or behind the decoy)


----------



## Darryl Richey

Yes, Jerry in most cases I will be the decoy. I still teach the out. From when to let go, yes in drive, to what position is expected after the out and everything in between. 
You ask why then do I proof?......Because every command must be proofed. You should have known that from your years of training.

Darryl


----------



## Lou Castle

Jerry Cudahy said:


> There is not one handler/trainer who teaches the out.
> The whole recent thread of method and the mess that ensued.
> The decoy teaches it. That person is the one being bitten.


As a read of my article "Training the Out for Police Service Dogs" shows, there is more than one theory on this. To say that it can ONLY be done by the decoy is to be wrong. 



Jerry Cudahy said:


> This is why the whole thread was a joke. A shamefull joke that came about from a non decoy.


It was only a joke because some people who think they have all the answers when it comes to training a dog turned it into personal attacks. Rather than discuss the article there was about ten pages of personal attacks and ONE question about the method that I use. As to me being a "non−decoy" I'm sure that since I'm not certified as a French Ring decoy at least one member will think that I'm incapable of catching a dog and training him from that side. He'd be wrong, but that's never slowed him down. 



Jerry Cudahy said:


> The handler only directs the timing.


As can be seen from my article, the decoys play a minimal part. Because most police decoys are other K−9 handlers or other police officers, NOT highly skilled decoys, this method works very well with them. 

The directions in my method are very simple.


> ... They're to stand passively, avoiding eye contact until the handler gives the dog a command to bite. Then they confirm the command by agitating and giving the dog a bite. It's best if they can get the dog to bite on the upper arm, chest, triceps, etc. ... The fight lasts only five seconds. The first two seconds are intense but then the decoy gradually slows down the fight so that at the end of the five seconds he's motionless. If the dog needs a slight bit of agitation so that he stays on the bite, the decoy gives it ... If the dog drops off ... the decoy draws the bite again and this time keeps up enough movement to keep the dog on the bite.


Later on one of them hides. That's about the extent of their involvement. In order to work this protocol they don't have to be highly trained. Mostly they need to be able to stand still and to follow simple directions. 

The decoy CAN train the out for sport work, but it's a bad idea for LE. There the decoy is the suspect that the dog is biting. If he were to simulate something that the decoy did on the training field, the dog might, recognize the resemblance to the work there and release the bite. A police dog should stay on the bite until his handler gives him a command to release. He should not release when the decoy/suspect does something.


----------



## Lou Castle

Jerry Cudahy said:


> Handlers can also switch roles to decoy their own dog. Important to my point in this thread.
> 
> But they performing dual roles are seperate jobs, not one.


This is also something that's common in sport work, having the handler take bites from his own dog. But I advocate that this should never be done with a PSD. Often an LEO will find himself on the ground, fighting with a suspect. If the dog comes upon this scene he'll see a familiar decoy (his handler) fighting with someone he's never seen. There might be a strong tendency for him to bite the familiar decoy.


----------



## Gerry Grimwood

Any variation of Ring training vids always have the decoy directing and correcting the dog to be in the correct position which is understandable for this sport/s

So, it's true that the decoy probably teaches the out in Ringsports.

So what :lol:


----------



## David Frost

Jerry Cudahy said:


> There is not one handler/trainer who teaches the out.
> 
> The whole recent thread of method and the mess that ensued.
> 
> The decoy teaches it. That person is the one being bitten.
> 
> This is why the whole thread was a joke. A shamefull joke that came about from a non decoy.
> 
> The handler only directs the timing.
> 
> But make no mistake about it.
> 
> 
> Your decoy does it and then it takes a decoy who understands the complicated why the decoy dictates when the dog releases.
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards to the complete board.


 We practice recalls with the "decoy" still running away. We practice "outs" with the decoy still fighting. Only one person in my current class of six has ever had experience "decoying". I've caught each dog twice, only to show them I'd paid my dues. the dog releases because I instructed the handler how it is done and, when necessary, with the help of Ben Franklin's discovery. 

I won't get involved in the discussion. Your lack of experience is clearly evident. Your "reason" for posting this drivel is also clearly evident.

DFrost


----------



## Esther Chai

I do not agree with your statement Jerry Cudahy that the helper teaches the OUT. 

Because: The dog should see the helper/ decoy (in sch) as an adversary. Any obedient exercise in protection must come from the handler. Never the helper especially when the dog is in defence mode.


----------



## Joby Becker

Jerry,

Can you explain the reasons why you feel that the decoy is the one that teaches the out? 

I am interested in hearing the explanation, cause right now it is not making a whole lot of sense, and people are asking you to give your reasons for saying it, but you have only gave very short general answers stating the difference between a toy and decoy.

thanks


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

In Schutzhund, is the helper *really* the adversary though? Not to mention from my understanding that you can get to a high level in Schutzhund with seeing very little if any real defensive pressure. Seen a couple Schutzhund helpers giving reward bites, saying "good..." or the like to a dog when working on a revier or guard, correcting the dog's position on a bark and hold in the blind with a tap of the stick (or more...). Maybe in PPD work, but not in my (limited) experience with Schutzhund. :-k The handler can't see the dog's facial expression and the decoy is in a better position to give immediate feedback to the dog. I haven't seen too many helpers in Schutzhund (or decoys in PSA?) act like tackling dummies.


----------



## Gerry Grimwood

I go back to Jeff, he has always said he wants the dog to learn the exercise..he doesn't seem to give a shit about how people perceive what is going on.

No matter what you're doing with any given dog, doesn't that make some sense to you ??


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

So, when I taught my dog to out, and he outs on the decoy, the decoy gets the credit for teaching the out ? Ok, as long as the dog outs.  :


----------



## Gerry Grimwood

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> So, when I taught my dog to out, and he outs on the decoy, the decoy gets the credit for teaching the out ? Ok, as long as the dog outs.  :


See, it's not an issue.

Next...


----------



## Mike Scheiber

David Frost said:


> We practice recalls with the "decoy" still running away. We practice "outs" with the decoy still fighting. Only one person in my current class of six has ever had experience "decoying". I've caught each dog twice, only to show them I'd paid my dues. the dog release because I instructed the handler how it is done and, when necessary, with the help of Ben Franklin's discovery.
> 
> I won't get involved in the discussion. You lack of experience is clearly evident. Your "reason" for posting this drivel is also clearly evident.
> 
> DFrost


Its goofy shit like this that keeps me coming back I only wish I new why.


David Frost said:


> I won't get involved in the discussion. You lack of experience is clearly evident. Your "reason" for posting this drivel is also clearly evident.
> 
> DFrost


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Until this thread, I had never heard anyone say "the decoy is the one who teaches the dog the out."

I wish the O.P. would answer the question about why he says/thinks this.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Lou Castle said:


> This is also something that's common in sport work, having the handler take bites from his own dog.


Where have you seen that? I rarely see people working their own dogs (sleeves or suit not tugs) in any protection sport. Maybe 10%? Personal protection probably higher. *mod edit*


----------



## Howard Knauf

Hijack....

Quick, lock it before it hits the ground.

No, wait...don't lock it. I wanna hear Jerry explain first.


----------



## Daniel Lybbert

> I rarely see people working their own dogs (sleeves or suit not tugs) in any protection sport.


I did for quite some time. I know a few others that do to.
And quit hijacking threads.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Howard Knauf;256911\
No said:


> You're waiting for an explanation? I'm waiting for a video. Let's see which happens first


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Daniel Lybbert said:


> I did for quite some time. I know a few others that do to.
> And quit hijacking threads.


It's not hijacking a thread to ask Uncle Lou to explain a statement HE made on the thread. Butt out junior.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Howard Knauf said:


> Hijack....
> 
> Quick, lock it before it hits the ground.
> 
> No, wait...don't lock it. I wanna hear Jerry explain first.


I questioned this too: _"This is also something that's common in sport work, having the handler take bites from his own dog,"_ saying "That's common? Really?"

But I edited my post both because I am not experienced enough to say it's uncommon, and so I wouldn't hijack the thread. :lol:

Jerry, what does _"the decoy is the one who teaches the dog the out" _mean? I really am puzzled about it. Does it mean what Jeff said, that he taught the dog to out but the decoy gets credit because (as Jeff said) _"I taught my dog to out, and he outs on the decoy, the decoy gets the credit for teaching the out ?"_


----------



## Dave Colborn

Used properly a decoy can condition the out, he gives the re-bite and controls the timing of the reward when the dog is initially learning. A re-bite increases the liklihood of the out behavior to repeat itself as the re bite is the reward with a dog that actually likes biting.

Are there other ways to do it, sure.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

MOD EDIT for asking to see one video of one dog trained using an out method that's dominated three topics?? REALLY David?


----------



## Howard Knauf

Thomas Barriano said:


> You're waiting for an explanation? I'm waiting for a video. Let's see which happens first


Lets not compare apples and oranges here. You got your explanation. Now you want video?
And if we have to wait to see what happens first then we know why this thread was started. Besides, it's not even your thread.[-X


----------



## Gerry Grimwood

Thomas Barriano said:


> It's not hijacking a thread to ask Uncle Lou to explain a statement HE made on the thread. Butt out junior.


Thomas, are you passing a kidney stone or what ??


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Howard Knauf said:


> Lets not compare apples and oranges here. You got your explanation. Now you want video?
> And if we have to wait to see what happens first then we know why this thread was started. Besides, it's not even your thread.[-X


HUH? you make some seizures recently and some fell off the back of the squad car? You love the all original Castle out method? I'd like to see a video, since it's soooo popular lol


----------



## Lou Castle

Connie Sutherland said:


> I questioned this too: _"This is also something that's common in sport work, having the handler take bites from his own dog,"_ saying "That's common? Really?"


This is also something that's _sometimes done _in sport work, having the handler take bites from his own dog. But I advocate that this should never be done with a PSD. If an LEO finds himself on the ground, fighting with a suspect and the dog comes upon this scene, he'll see a familiar decoy (his handler) fighting with someone he's never seen. There might be a strong tendency for him to bite the familiar decoy.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Thomas Barriano said:


> You love the all original Castle out method? I'd like to see a video, since it's soooo popular lol



Fine. PM Lou. Start a new thread. Knock yourself out. :lol:

I would love to see one thread stay more or less on topic. Just one! [-o<


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Gerry Grimwood said:


> Thomas, are you passing a kidney stone or what ??


Lou made a statement that it was common for sport decoys to work their own dogs. In my 20+ years of sport club experience
that is an untrue statement. My urinary tract is stone free thanks


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Thomas Barriano said:


> Lou made a statement that it was common for sport decoys to work their own dogs. In my 20+ years of sport club experience
> that is an untrue statement. My urinary tract is stone free thanks


And he edited it to "sometimes."


----------



## Howard Knauf

Thomas Barriano said:


> HUH? you make some seizures recently and some fell off the back of the squad car? You love the all original Castle out method? I'd like to see a video, since it's soooo popular lol


 I use a lot of out methods. I use what works for each dog. I use the least intrusive methods I can for each individual dog until I am forced to do otherwise. I've used Lou's method a grand total of one time just to learn it because I, like most trainers want to have a large battery of methods so that I am not one dimensional. My issue is with people being a-holes just because they can. It's counter productive and not a reason why I'm on this board.

Still waiting to hear from Jerry why he made his statement and his line of thought on the matter. You don't see me telling him he's full of sh!t without hearing what he has to say. If he can make a sound argument for his claim then good for him cause I might, might learn something even from a guy who wants to be an a-hole just because he can.

If he started this thread just to bust balls then he's just an a-hole without a message. Got no use for a guy like that.


----------



## Dave Colborn

David Frost said:


> *We practice recalls with the "decoy" still running away. We practice "outs" with the decoy still fighting.* Only one person in my current class of six has ever had experience "decoying". I've caught each dog twice, only to show them I'd paid my dues
> 
> I won't get involved in the discussion. Your lack of experience is clearly evident. Your "reason" for posting this drivel is also clearly evident.
> 
> DFrost


Apples and oranges. You are not teaching the dog to out. You are proofing a behavior under more distraction



> the dog releases because I instructed the handler how it is done


Has nothing to do with the dog anticipating a correction or a reward, but because you told the handler how to do it. How arrogant. The David Frost learning model for all dogs.

And by the way, Mod, you got involved in the discussion when you posted. Your reason for posting your drivel is not clearly evident, but it is clear you have some motive, or you wouldn't have posted.

Who mods the mods?


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Connie Sutherland said:


> And he edited it to "sometimes."


Nope, he changed the statement in a subsequent post, but the original post (23) still says 
"This is also something that's COMMON (emphasis added) in sport work, having the handler take bites from his own dog. "
If Lou would like to retract or correct his original statement?


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Dave Colborn said:


> ... Who mods the mods?


If you have a problem, Dave, please bring it up with admin.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Connie Sutherland said:


> If you have a problem, Dave, please bring it up with admin.



Roger that!!


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Thomas Barriano said:


> Nope, he changed the statement in a subsequent post, but the original post (23) still says
> "This is also something that's COMMON (emphasis added) in sport work, having the handler take bites from his own dog. "
> If Lou would like to retract or correct his original statement?



He corrected it as much as he is able, being timed out, Thomas, and this is not news to you. 

This BS is boring and tedious.


----------



## Jim Nash

Just so the question doesn't get lost amongst all this other stuff , I too would like to know why Jerry feels the decoy teaches the out .

I also hope Thomas starts another thread about Lou possibly posting a video of him teaching the out .


----------



## Howard Knauf

Dave Colborn said:


> Apples and oranges. You are not teaching the dog to out. You are proofing a behavior under more distraction
> 
> Has nothing to do with the dog anticipating a correction or a reward, but because you told the handler how to do it. How arrogant. The David Frost learning model for all dogs.
> 
> And by the way, Mod, you got involved in the discussion when you posted. Your reason for posting your drivel is not clearly evident, but it is clear you have some motive, or you wouldn't have posted.
> 
> Who mods the mods?


 Dave,

In your first post you made quite a bit of sense on how a decoy can ASSIST in training the out. Do you believe the decoy is the ONLY person teaching the out like this topic alludes to?


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Howard Knauf said:


> I use a lot of out methods. I use what works for each dog. I use the least intrusive methods I can for each individual dog until I am forced to do otherwise.
> .


We're in total agreement there. I use as many different out methods as I have dogs. That's one of the reasons I get so amused when someone goes all ga ga over a written protocol they've never seen or tried in person


----------



## Jerry Cudahy

Jim Nash said:


> Just so the question doesn't get lost amongst all this other stuff , I too would like to know why Jerry feels the decoy teaches the out .
> 
> I also hope Thomas starts another thread about Lou possibly posting a video of him teaching the out .


 Jim, I have been busy all night and have only just caught this last post and will respond but I have a ton of dogs to piss out and then to bed.

Why I want a training decoy do the out training will have to wait. Shit I missed a lot, so will need to read the book here.

nite


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Connie Sutherland said:


> He corrected it as much as he is able, being timed out, Thomas, and this is not news to you.
> 
> This BS is boring and tedious.


The original statement I replied to and quoted in my recent reply still says COMMON. Am I supposed to check every subsequent reply to see if his statement has been changed? That's BS (inappropriate use of )


----------



## Howard Knauf

Thomas Barriano said:


> We're in total agreement there. I use as many different out methods as I have dogs. That's one of the reasons I get so amused when someone goes all ga ga over a written protocol they've never seen or tried in person


 Not speaking for Lou, only myself here....I used Lou's method as a problem solving activity on one specific dog only that was being a PITA. Once finished, I continued with business as usual. To me it was another tool at my disposal that I took advantage of. Now I know if I ever run into the same problem I can do the drill successfully if need be. Just another tool to fix a problem for me, not on every dog I train.


Now I see Jerry is back but I'll have to wait I guess.


----------



## Mike Scheiber

Dave Colborn said:


> Used properly a decoy can condition the out, he gives the re-bite and controls the timing of the reward when the dog is initially learning. A re-bite increases the liklihood of the out behavior to repeat itself as the re bite is the reward with a dog that actually likes biting.
> 
> Are there other ways to do it, sure.


I wouldn't say this is the helper training the out, the dog dose and he gets. 
I see ring decoys correcting dogs with tethers and pinch might be a ring thing haven't herd many ring trainers replying.
Ive seen some in Schutzhund but there's been a big cluster **** happening long before things have to go in this direction.
It can be done through the helpers legs by a assistant, the lesson is correcting the dog forward into the sleeve rather than correcting from the the rear pulling. If done by the helper the tab is under the dogs chin the corrections are done under the sleeve again correcting the dog into sleeve.
Like I said things are all ****ed up if your doing this shit last step before shelving the dog


----------



## Howard Knauf

Mike, I agree. Dave says the decoy can CONDITION the out. I agree with that as well. Teaching the out via decoy only has me skeptical but we'll have to wait till Jerry gets caught up.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Howard Knauf said:


> Dave,
> 
> In your first post you made quite a bit of sense on how a decoy can ASSIST in training the out. Do you believe the decoy is the ONLY person teaching the out like this topic alludes to?


Howard. I mentioned in the last line of that post that there are other methods. The handler assists way less than the decoy, as the decoy can correct for non compliance and reward for compliance. The dog is responding to avoid correction, or to get another reward. Which is a stronger method for teaching most dogs? Reward, in my opinion. Thus, the decoy helps more than the handler. I agree with handler timing for the out, here is where it may get hazy as we actually walk away from the out to keep it strong.

When you get to variable reward bites and recalls, how often and what circumstances the dog gets another bite play a huge role in the behavior being conditioned properly. As in, bite out bite out etc. to bite out, heel away, reward bite for heeling. The handler paying attention helps greatly, but the reward is the decoy, hence the stronger learning mechanism for the dog. This is why properly trained decoys are a bigger deal than some here care to admit. 

I don't believe in any one way, but like you mention, what works. I have seen the decoy initially rewarding the dog one for one for outs, and putting the re biting on a variable reward to work much better than correction with no reward. 

I too want to see Jerry's idea behind the post. This is my spin. 

I really want to see a vid of Lou's method. I am through with the out debate with him. I got sore fingers the last time I tried to keep up with him typing, but am a visual learner. If you think you could recreate it in a video, that would be great. Not being a dick here, I think you mentioned trying it once. I just want to see a vid from someone that believes in it, so they put all they can into the video to pass on a clear message of what it really looks like.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

I really like the video from the recent Jimmy V seminar where he has the Mal on two lines on both rings of the prong and corrects and centers him between the legs at the same time? It's something we're going to try with my Dober girl Arya


----------



## Dave Colborn

Mike Scheiber said:


> I wouldn't say this is the helper training the out, the dog dose and he gets.
> I see ring decoys correcting dogs with tethers and pinch might be a ring thing haven't herd many ring trainers replying.
> Ive seen some in Schutzhund but there's been a big cluster **** happening long before things have to go in this direction.
> It can be done through the helpers legs by a assistant, the lesson is correcting the dog forward into the sleeve rather than correcting from the the rear pulling. If done by the helper the tab is under the dogs chin the corrections are done under the sleeve again correcting the dog into sleeve.
> Like I said things are all ****ed up if your doing this shit last step before shelving the dog


Mike.

Dog does and he gets. He outs and helper rewards with a bite initially. A helper with good timing is a must. Helper trains the out in my opinion


----------



## Lou Castle

Mike Scheiber said:


> It can be done through the helpers legs by a assistant, the lesson is correcting the dog forward into the sleeve rather than correcting from the the rear pulling. If done by the helper the tab is under the dogs chin the corrections are done under the sleeve again correcting the dog into sleeve.


I've seen this done with the decoy correcting the dog and also, as you mention, by an assistant behind the decoy, doing the correcting with a line between the decoy's legs. 

This dog was aggressive towards the handler for correcting him off the bite and this kept the dog from returning to him to bite him. Instead the dog rebit the decoy over and over. The trainer put another line on the dog, this one held by the handler to prevent this rebiting on the decoy. But the handler's timing wasn't good enough to keep the dog from rebiting the decoy, so the trainer had to take over the second long line. It wound up needing three fairly skilled people, the decoy, the assistant and the trainer, all coordinated with their timing to get it right. Some people have said that it's difficult to get the two decoys that are needed for my method, but getting THREE people that are fairly skilled is much harder for many. Especially since the decoys for my method just need to be a couple of steps above "tackling dummies." 

I worked with the same dog team and using two "significantly less than highly skilled" decoys got a clean verbal out in about 20 minutes. The handler could easily replicate this after I left but he could not find three skilled people to work the other method. It's difficult for the average PSD handler to regularly find highly skilled people to work with.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Lou Castle said:


> It's difficult for the average PSD handler to regularly find highly skilled people to work with.



Therefore you shouldn't try and educate decoys and make them more skilled, but dumb down the method? Maybe we should be worrying more about teaching good decoy skills and handler skills, then outs just won't be a problem. You should be teaching the guys to fish, instead of just feeding them one and leaving.

Teach guys to use back ties until the behavior is conditioned, then move the back tie. Then use a third party. Then proof it.

Lou. I don't want to get in a typing war with you. I really don't. Can we just do bullet statements?


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Does any of this matter ? Does it really matter who or what taught the out ? I am just curious. I have seen the decoy teach the out. I have seen the handler teach the out. Who gives a **** as long as the dog outs ?

Jeez Lou, you are a glutton for punishment. LOL I guess the fact that I had to decoy for my own dogs many times means that I for SURE, taught the out to my dogs. Now, if I used a tug, does that mean that I am not the decoy at that moment ? Maybe if I wore those sissy tights I see decoys wearing I would be considered a decoy when using a tug ?


----------



## Howard Knauf

Dave Colborn said:


> Howard.
> I really want to see a vid of Lou's method. I am through with the out debate with him. I got sore fingers the last time I tried to keep up with him typing, but am a visual learner. If you think you could recreate it in a video, that would be great. Not being a dick here, I think you mentioned trying it once. I just want to see a vid from someone that believes in it, so they put all they can into the video to pass on a clear message of what it really looks like.


 Dave,

I'm working up a dutchie that will likely get this treatment. He's a PP dog in training but isn't quite ready yet for this drill because I'm still working the commitment on his bite. When that's good, and if my other efforts fail me then I'm going to do it.

Currently, my department frowns upon posting training vids of our police dogs on the web. Also, going through the motions may give you the visual but without using a real hard case it doesn't quite have the affect your looking for results-wise. 

It's been 3 years since I did it so I'm sure I'd need some rehearsal. I'll try to get with another friend and his dog and see if I can just run it through the paces. My current personal GSD doesn't/has never needed anything but a flat collar mostly and all those decoys would probably freak him out because I don't train that way with him.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Does any of this matter ? Does it really matter who or what taught the out ? I am just curious. I have seen the decoy teach the out. I have seen the handler teach the out. Who gives a **** as long as the dog outs ?
> 
> Jeez Lou, you are a glutton for punishment. LOL I guess the fact that I had to decoy for my own dogs many times means that I for SURE, taught the out to my dogs. Now, if I used a tug, does that mean that I am not the decoy at that moment ? Maybe if I wore those sissy tights I see decoys wearing I would be considered a decoy when using a tug ?



It doesn't matter Jeff, to those that can get the behavior. But for the guys that can't get it, it's a big deal. 

Please don't wear tights and post a picture, definitely not "using a tug".


----------



## Howard Knauf

Dave Colborn said:


> Please don't wear tights and post a picture, definitely not "using a tug".


 Just don't send a pic with a tug in your tights.=D>


----------



## Mike Scheiber

Dave Colborn said:


> Mike.
> 
> Dog does and he gets. He outs and helper rewards with a bite initially. A helper with good timing is a must. Helper trains the out in my opinion


Not sure I can recall a dog ever releasing there first out with out a correction prolly closer to the 10th. After correction out gets to bite.
Guess if you look at it this way than could hot dogs train the dog obedience. 
To make things even stranger Fritz Biehler mad a pulley operated mannequin with a sleeve and placed it in a blind he pulled the string mannequin popped the sleeve for a bite who gets the credit for the result


----------



## Lou Castle

Dave Colborn said:


> Therefore you shouldn't try and educate decoys and make them more skilled, but dumb down the method? Maybe we should be worrying more about teaching good decoy skills and handler skills, then outs just won't be a problem. You should be teaching the guys to fish, instead of just feeding them one and leaving.


The fact is that on the vast majority of K−9 units in the US there are only a couple of handlers and they often don't stay around long. I spent 20 years educating decoys only to have them rotate to other assignments, lose interest, get tired of getting beat up or just drift away. They're cops, not dog people. And so it's a fact of life that the vast majority of PSD handlers are not going to have highly skilled decoys to work with. You can hope that one will come along or you can adapt to the reality of the situation. 



Dave Colborn said:


> Teach guys to use back ties until the behavior is conditioned, then move the back tie. Then use a third party. Then proof it.


A back tie won't work with the situation that I addressed in my last post. It took a skilled decoy or at least a skilled trainer working with a line standing behind him and another skilled trainer with another long line in front of the decoy. Since few handlers have access to this, it's just not workable for the average PSD handler. It's something that he can do at a large session with his trainer present, but it's virtually impossible for him to maintain the training with daily work. Those large training sessions typically only come along once or twice a month and the PSD has to be clean all the time. It's not like the date of his next "competition" can be put on a calendar.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Mike Scheiber said:


> Not sure I can recall a dog ever releasing there first out with out a correction prolly closer to the 10th. After correction out gets to bite.
> Guess if you look at it this way than could hot dogs train the dog obedience.
> To make things even stranger Fritz Biehler mad a pulley operated mannequin with a sleeve and placed it in a blind he pulled the string mannequin popped the sleeve for a bite who gets the credit for the result



Mike. You said. Dog does and dog gets. That is absolutely right. I agree. Dog does and dog gets. Operates his environment. Gets conditioned. I agree on needing some help on the first ones. But how does he get conditioned more strongly. The correction or the reward?


----------



## will fernandez

Any body ever use the retriever table for forced outs?


----------



## Howard Knauf

Thomas Barriano said:


> I really like the video from the recent Jimmy V seminar where he has the Mal on two lines on both rings of the prong and corrects and centers him between the legs at the same time? It's something we're going to try with my Dober girl Arya


 I've done something very similar. Not my cup of tea but then again, it wasn't my field nor was I the trainer. It was my dog though. A Mal. I will say, the thing worked immediately...for a while. I no longer train with the guy because I don't like being overly heavy handed. But good luck with your girl.


----------



## Dave Colborn

> A back tie won't work with the situation that I addressed in my last post. It took a skilled decoy or at least a skilled trainer working with a line standing behind him and another skilled trainer with another long line in front of the decoy. Since few handlers have access to this, it's just not workable for the average PSD handler. It's something that he can do at a large session with his trainer present, but it's virtually impossible for him to maintain the training with daily work. Those large training sessions typically only come along once or twice a month and the PSD has to be clean all the time. It's not like the date of his next "competition" can be put on a calendar.


A back tie is a third set of hands. Just because it wouldn't work for you doesn't mean it won't work. You need the decoy. You need the handler. Two people, which you need anyway. Teach them to fish, cause they need to be ready all the time. They need to be ready every day, Lou. You shouldn't be thinking of a "competition" when we are talking about police dogs. Two separate things. 

You can do all kinds of neat police shit on a back tie. Search, Interview, Handcuffing, etc.. Never have to worry about the dog breaking for his reward until you are ready to pull them off and proof it. You can also work the dogs grip, bark n hold for those depts forced to use it, etc.. You can even do a building search for a bite with a dog that has an out problem, and work him to a pre set back tie and work his out. Third set of hands. Minimizing. More safety for the inexperienced decoys.


----------



## Howard Knauf

Dave,

This back tie method you're talking about....is it something similar to what Thomas is talking about in the Jimmy V. video? Pain compliance to force the out, bite reward, out, reward?


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: Not sure I can recall a dog ever releasing there first out with out a correction prolly closer to the 10th.

Got it first time with damn near every dog. I have had 3 month old pups recalling to the whistle. Maybe it is that "building" thing that is ****ing you guys. 

Howard. Put the dog on a bungee. No commitment and the dog goes bye bye and you can put him away. However, I am not sure what you mean by commitment. How old is he ?


----------



## Mike Scheiber

Dave Colborn said:


> Mike. You said. Dog does and dog gets. That is absolutely right. I agree. Dog does and dog gets. Operates his environment. Gets conditioned. I agree on needing some help on the first ones. But how does he get conditioned more strongly. The correction or the reward?


Im playing/goofing you said something earlier about helpers. Most her have no clue how valuable a training helper is. Or worse what the title training helper means.


----------



## Howard Knauf

14 months or so. He's being hectic and loses his mind on the equipment. I have a bungee so I guess I should dust it off eh? I'm also going to try and get him to push into the bite instead of pulling.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Howard Knauf said:


> Dave,
> 
> This back tie method you're talking about....is it something similar to what Thomas is talking about in the Jimmy V. video? Pain compliance to force the out, bite reward, out, reward?



Can you link the video?


----------



## Howard Knauf

Dave Colborn said:


> Can you link the video?


 It was the one Thomas talked about a few posts ago. I haven't seen it..it was only described by Thomas how it's done. Sorry.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

The bungee does not encourage pulling that I know of. I hate hectic. However, if he gets stupid with a bungee on him, he is gone. Might make him figure it out, might make him worse with the frustration. Depends on his foundation, if he is stupid, you know, all that stuff. 

I am going out and getting some tights for you guys. HA HA


----------



## Joby Becker

Jerry Cudahy said:


> Why I want a training decoy do the out training will have to wait.


Jerry, you saying why you want a decoy to do the out training is a vastly different statement that the one in the post that started this thread...

which basically said the decoy is the ONLY one that teaches the out.



Jerry Cudahy said:


> *There is not one handler/trainer who teaches the out.*....
> 
> *The decoy teaches it. That person is the one being bitten.*
> 
> The handler only directs the timing. *But make no mistake about it.*
> 
> *Your decoy does it and then it takes a decoy who understands the complicated why the decoy dictates when the dog releases.*


I hope your response will also address the original post, as well as stating why you prefer that the decoy teaches it.


----------



## Bob Scott

"I am going out and getting some tights for you guys. HA HA"


Jeff, just remember the tug goes in the FRONT of the tights. The opportunity for dates drop off reeeeal fast if you put it in the back!


----------



## Howard Knauf

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> The bungee does not encourage pulling that I know of. I hate hectic. However, if he gets stupid with a bungee on him, he is gone. Might make him figure it out, might make him worse with the frustration. Depends on his foundation, if he is stupid, you know, all that stuff.
> 
> I am going out and getting some tights for you guys. HA HA


 Well, we both know how lazy dogs are. I've used the bungee on a few dogs and most of them pull because the bungee gives them that false superman strength if the decoy is not strong and easily physically manipulated. I like the bungee because they drive harder to get the bite and they better commit or lose it.

I think you're right. Bungee first. Pushing later. Hectic sucks.

Oh...and if you're gonna wear tights, go whole hog and get pink ones with nice turquoise racing stripes.


----------



## Jim Nash

Why are you guys encouraging Jeff to wear tights ? That's just not right .


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

I think my bungee is 1/2 inch. It is strong enough towards the end, but you should be able to hold your ground. If not, tie the decoy off to a tree, or car or something. Then have the decoy try to give him a shitty bite so he has to push in.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

I thought the tug goes in the back. What do I know about tights ? Bob, let me borrow your pink tights, you know you have some.


----------



## Bob Scott

I don't think they'd fit your big ass. :-# ..............:grin::wink:


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Look on the tag, one size fits all.


----------



## Bob Scott

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Look on the tag, one size fits all.




Have you ever seen some of those Walmart pics where some of the more...errrr....robust ladies have tried to squeeze into those one size fits all?!! Damn near turn them into mesh nylons. There should be laws! :lol:


----------



## Lou Castle

Dave Colborn said:


> A back tie is a third set of hands. Just because it wouldn't work for you doesn't mean it won't work.


A backtie would not work anyone for the situation in Post #66. That handler, who had an out issue, used the described method and needed two skilled people working two separate leashes, both of them applying corrections when the decoy stopped moving and when the handler gave the out command. One of them outed the dog and prevented the dog from going to the handler to bite him and the other corrected the dog to keep him from rebiting. Good timing and coordination were necessary from the four people involved. 



Dave Colborn said:


> You need the decoy. You need the handler. Two people, which you need anyway.


No Dave, the handler was not skilled enough to keep the dog from rebiting the decoy. He needed three people, one on each of two leashes and the decoy. That's FOUR people in total, tied up on training. Since most training is done on duty it's going to be VERY difficult for a supervisor to spare the K−9 team and three other officers for it. And since the handler is probably not going to have three skilled people, the decoy and the two people on the two leashes, it's academic anyway. 



Dave Colborn said:


> You shouldn't be thinking of a "competition" when we are talking about police dogs. Two separate things.


When I said "competition" I wasn't referring to the next K−9 trials. I was referring to the next suspect he finds on a search. Remember how my protocol starts off,


> Before you get into this ... If your idea of good police work is bringing home a trophy from the police K-9 games; don't waste your time reading any further ...


 I don't give a hoot for police K−9 competitions, I'm only concerned with working the street. 



Dave Colborn said:


> You can do all kinds of neat police shit on a back tie. Search, Interview, Handcuffing, etc.. Never have to worry about the dog breaking for his reward until you are ready to pull them off and proof it.


A back tie can't give corrections when the dog breaks his stay on these. It only gives restraint. Backties are good for lots of things, most of them just basic work. But this thread is about the out.


----------



## Jerry Cudahy

The short answer to why the training decoy is who teaches the dog to out.

That person does not allow the dog to out. The decoy is supposed to be fighting not being a quiter.

Can anyone figure it out from here or do you still want more info.

So now I will let you all yada it all out and I will come back later and see how many get it yet.

Yes it is a Ringsport method that works100% of the time for any type of attack dog based training.


----------



## David Frost

Dave Colborn said:


> You are not teaching the dog to out. You are proofing a behavior under more distraction
> 
> Has nothing to do with the dog anticipating a correction or a reward, but because you told the handler how to do it. How arrogant. The David Frost learning model for all dogs.
> 
> Who mods the mods?


In order to proof a behavior, the behavior would have to exist. Both apples in my book. Arrogant? Of course, I've never denied that. I don't put a name to it. The board owner does. 

DFrost


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Jerry Cudahy said:


> The short answer to why the training decoy is who teaches the dog to out.
> 
> That person does not allow the dog to out. The decoy is supposed to be fighting not being a quiter.
> 
> Can anyone figure it out from here or do you still want more info.
> 
> So now I will let you all yada it all out and I will come back later and see how many get it yet.
> 
> Yes it is a Ringsport method that works100% of the time for any type of attack dog based training.



Great answer! now if only it made **** all sence huh Jerry....Im going to ask the mods if the can change your forum status from "dominance arrising" to " Bullshit artist" so much more fitting and quite true when thinking about your posts...ahwell I have atleast learned one thing from you Jerry.....not to go to deep into your topics and actualy give them any creedence since they are nonexistant when it comes to information, answers or actual sence.


----------



## Dave Colborn

David Frost said:


> In order to proof a behavior, the behavior would have to exist. Both apples in my book. Arrogant? Of course, I've never denied that. I don't put a name to it. The board owner does.
> 
> DFrost


I won't get involved in the discussion with you. Your lack of experience is clearly evident. Your "reason" for posting this drivel is not evident.

Years doing something do not equal experience.


----------



## David Frost

chuckle, chuckle.

DFrost


----------



## Dave Colborn

Lou Castle said:


> A backtie would not work anyone for the situation in Post #66. That handler, who had an out issue, used the described method and needed two skilled people working two separate leashes, both of them applying corrections when the decoy stopped moving and when the handler gave the out command. One of them outed the dog and prevented the dog from going to the handler to bite him and the other corrected the dog to keep him from rebiting. Good timing and coordination were necessary from the four people involved.


Asinine. A backtie keeps the dog from the decoy better than any handler can do it. Not that some handlers don't do a good job cause they do. Post don't move though, Lou. 



> No Dave, the handler was not skilled enough to keep the dog from rebiting the decoy. He needed three people, one on each of two leashes and the decoy. That's FOUR people in total, tied up on training. Since most training is done on duty it's going to be VERY difficult for a supervisor to spare the K−9 team and three other officers for it. And since the handler is probably not going to have three skilled people, the decoy and the two people on the two leashes, it's academic anyway.


Post don't move. Restated. Can't re bite with a post and a good decoy. Two people lou, which you need anyway. Handler and decoy. Teach the handler to handle if he's that unskilled. It's not academic, because I explain it done with two people.




> When I said "competition" I wasn't referring to the next K−9 trials. I was referring to the next suspect he finds on a search. Remember how my protocol starts off, I don't give a hoot for police K−9 competitions, I'm only concerned with working the street.


Stick to facts of the issue. Less clouding. Bullet points. You say "competition", I believe you mean "competition". 




> A back tie can't give corrections when the dog breaks his stay on these. It only gives restraint. Backties are good for lots of things, most of them just basic work. But this thread is about the out.


Lou. Backtie doesn't move. It's a post or a tree, or, well, a fixed object strong enough to hold the pulling dog on question. Good lead tied to it with a good bolt snap. Also of a good quality, with a good strong knot.

A backtie gives instant feedback if a dog breaks, lou. If my dog is tied to a backtie on his prong, will he correct himself when he breaks towards the decoy. yes! We know that he will correct himself when he breaks. Second line can even be run to the handler working with the decoy if need be.


----------



## Esther Chai

Jerry, first of, I do not agree in helper correction when the dog does not OUT in protection work be that in shutzhund, PSD etc. Perhaps its acceptable in ring type sport. 


Various members gave examples using the tie-back, 2 individuals, 3 individuals but neither involves the helper for correcting the dog for not OUTING. My reasoning is: an obedience command suppresses drives but it can also cap drives if done properly. The helper in this situation should diffuse the tension of the fight to help the dog (yes) but not to correct the dog. If the dog learns that it can be corrected by the helper, you will not see any seriousness in the fight in high trials.


As the dog gets stronger and understands the OUT in the learning process, the dog can withstand any helper with presence without fear. If I am not mistaken, something I may have heard recently, the judge in higher trials would prefer to see the dog with full grip still on the helper who has lock-up until the OUT is given. So if the dog anticipates an OUT there will be point deduction.


So it is important that a training helper helps the dog to perform an exercise with some conditioning but that is all. The last thing anyone wants to see is a dog that is run off.


----------



## Dave Colborn

David Frost said:


> chuckle, chuckle.
> 
> DFrost



Sounds like the chuckle, chuckle of a man hearing the unbelievable story of a new fangled device called a chain saw after cutting down trees with an axe all day.


the young kids would say LOL.


----------



## Howard Gaines III

I view the decoy as a training tool. The decoy works for me! I direct the recall, bite and the "out" command. 
Jerry reminds me of someone who was cut from this forum...now I can't remember his name.:-k


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: Jerry, first of, I do not agree in helper correction when the dog does not OUT in protection work be that in shutzhund, PSD etc. Perhaps its acceptable in ring type sport. 

Precious Sch pony might break and then who's hair will you have to brush ?? LOL Give us your theory on why the decoy cannot correct. 

I love this shit. Jerry is got everyone pissed, Colburn has lost his mind and uses a backtie for ****s sake, and then accuses Frost of having no idea of what he is doing, and I have not read one word of the other post. I would guess there is some carry over ??


----------



## Lou Castle

Jerry Cudahy said:


> The short answer to why the training decoy is who teaches the dog to out.
> That person does not allow the dog to out. The decoy is supposed to be fighting not being a quiter.
> Can anyone figure it out from here or do you still want more info.
> So now I will let you all yada it all out and I will come back later and see how many get it yet.
> Yes it is a Ringsport method that works100% of the time for any type of attack dog based training.


Luke, use the force!


----------



## Lou Castle

Dave Colborn said:


> Asinine.


Charming. 



Dave Colborn said:


> A backtie keeps the dog from the decoy better than any handler can do it. Not that some handlers don't do a good job cause they do. Post don't move though, Lou.


The non−moving post can't give the dog a correction to get him to release the bite Dave. It can only restrain him before the bite or after he's been outed by some other method. 



Dave Colborn said:


> Post don't move. Restated. Can't re bite with a post and *a good decoy. *


As stated several times; few PSD handlers have access to good decoys most of the time. Most have access to them only a couple of times a month. The stupidest dog will quickly figure out that when he's at the trainer's facility or there are skilled people involved, he has to perform; and that when he's presented with a "tackling dummy" back in his town, he does not have to. 

And in any case the post can't correct the dog off the bite in the first place! How is it that you're not seeing this? 



Dave Colborn said:


> Teach the handler to handle if he's that unskilled.


That takes time Dave. And a police dog has to be clean all the time. He can't be kept in the kennel or on the training field, as can a sport dog, until he's ready for the trial field. It can come on his first day out. 



Dave Colborn said:


> It's not academic, because I explain it done with two people.


You can't do it with a handler who can't give a good correction and has poor timing. You can't do it with a decoy whose only skill is to "stand over there and stick your arm out." 



Dave Colborn said:


> Stick to facts of the issue. Less clouding. Bullet points. You say "competition", I believe you mean "competition".


Now that it's been clarified there's really no reason to go into it again. But you do! LOL. And since you did ... There are more meanings to the word "competition" than _to compete with a dog in a sport. _ I was referring to the "competition" between a cop and a crook. That's why I put the word in quote marks, to differentiate it from what most refer to when they talk about a dog handler competing in a sport. Based on results, this subtlety was too much for you. 



Dave Colborn said:


> Lou. Backtie doesn't move. It's a post or a tree, or, well, a fixed object strong enough to hold the pulling dog on question. Good lead tied to it with a good bolt snap. Also of a good quality, with a good strong knot.


Gee, thanks Dave, I didn't know what a back tie was until this explanation. In any case please explain how this post gives the dog a correction when he's on the bite, especially when both the handler and the decoy are as green as grass and the dog has learned that he does not have to let go. 



Dave Colborn said:


> A backtie gives instant feedback if a dog breaks, lou. If my dog is tied to a backtie on his prong, will he correct himself when he breaks towards the decoy. yes! We know that he will correct himself when he breaks. Second line can even be run to the handler working with the decoy if need be.


Imagine a backtied dog on a down whose handler is simulating handcuffing a suspect. The dog stands up. He's just broken his down, yet the post hasn't corrected him. Are you gettin' it yet?


----------



## Mike Scheiber

Alice Bezemer said:


> Great answer! now if only it made **** all sence huh Jerry....Im going to ask the mods if the can change your forum status from "dominance arrising" to " Bullshit artist" so much more fitting and quite true when thinking about your posts...ahwell I have atleast learned one thing from you Jerry.....not to go to deep into your topics and actualy give them any creedence since they are nonexistant when it comes to information, answers or actual sence.


I gave it all I had to de-rail but nada :lol:


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Howard Knauf said:


> Not speaking for Lou, only myself here....I used Lou's method as a problem solving activity on one specific dog only that was being a PITA. Once finished, I continued with business as usual. To me it was another tool at my disposal that I took advantage of. Now I know if I ever run into the same problem I can do the drill successfully if need be. Just another tool to fix a problem for me, not on every dog I train.
> 
> 
> Now I see Jerry is back but I'll have to wait I guess.


Howard,

I think we're in agreement again? 
Like I said before, most of the stuff on Lou's website is valuable information, including the out method. It's a great tool for any tool box. BUT it isn't the ONLY tool and it doesn't work all the time on every dog. Which is what Lou tends to suggest on any of his protocols. What happened to vigorous debate on the WDF? Now all you get is warnings from the mods if you disagree with their friends :-(


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Mike Scheiber said:


> To make things even stranger Fritz Biehler mad a pulley operated mannequin with a sleeve and placed it in a blind he pulled the string mannequin popped the sleeve for a bite who gets the credit for the result


The DUMMY gets the credit


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Howard Knauf said:


> I've done something very similar. Not my cup of tea but then again, it wasn't my field nor was I the trainer. It was my dog though. A Mal. I will say, the thing worked immediately...for a while. I no longer train with the guy because I don't like being overly heavy handed. But good luck with your girl.



With Arya the two lines would be more to keep her centered and focused on the decoy. She outs and downs pretty quick, but gets easily distracted (she is a Dobermann, after all ) We're doing more sends and me staying out of the picture and letting the decoy "train" her. Then he brings her back to me I grab the harness line and he slips the jambiere. We'll probably go back on the suit pants soon.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

will fernandez said:


> Any body ever use the retriever table for forced outs?


I've seen a few outs done on the square and round table but not the retrieve table. Most of the retrieve table work has been retrieves and tracking article indication. The outs on the other tables have been more modifications of choke offs then "forced"
outs.


----------



## Howard Knauf

Thomas Barriano said:


> Howard,
> 
> I think we're in agreement again?
> Like I said before, most of the stuff on Lou's website is valuable information, including the out method. It's a great tool for any tool box. BUT it isn't the ONLY tool and it doesn't work all the time on every dog. Which is what Lou tends to suggest on any of his protocols. What happened to vigorous debate on the WDF? Now all you get is warnings from the mods if you disagree with their friends :-(



I've read Lou's site a couple times in the last 10 years or so to get information when I need it. I'm not going back to it to confirm, or deny what you say is true. It just doesn't mean that much to me. What does mean something to me right now is that I'd like Jerry to sh!t or get off the pot regarding this thread he started instead of him playing marker training with the members here on this topic of his. Not too much to ask I think.

This topic is about Jerry's claim, not Lou's method so until Jerry drops another minute turd of information I'll just sit and read everyone elses' posts who are trying to guess what information Jerry is going to mark next.

Carry on.


----------



## Lou Castle

Thomas Barriano said:


> BUT it isn't the ONLY tool and it doesn't work all the time on every dog. Which is what Lou tends to suggest on any of his protocols.


I have said that my protocols have always WORKED FOR ME and those who have applied them per my instructions. Feel free to go looking on the Net for comments from someone who's tried them and had them fail. 

But Jerry takes it to a whole 'nother level.


Jerry Cudahy said:


> Yes it is a Ringsport method *that works100% of the time for any type of attack dog based training. * [Emphasis Added]


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Howard Knauf said:


> Dave,
> 
> This back tie method you're talking about....is it something similar to what Thomas is talking about in the Jimmy V. video? Pain compliance to force the out, bite reward, out, reward?



Howard,

Not to answer for Dave, but I looked at the Jimmy V video as using the two lines more for guidance and placement then for pain compliance.


----------



## Howard Knauf

Thomas Barriano said:


> With Arya the two lines would be more to keep her centered and focused on the decoy. She outs and downs pretty quick, but gets easily distracted (she is a Dobermann, after all ) We're doing more sends and me staying out of the picture and letting the decoy "train" her. Then he brings her back to me I grab the harness line and he slips the jambiere. We'll probably go back on the suit pants soon.



OK. You're primarily doing focus work and not out work. I can see this as being beneficial. Thanks for the clarification. I had visions of your dobe's neck ending up in a decidely "Z" formation.:wink:

When I spoke of my previous experience with this it was with a trainer using pain. It worked but it was only a quick fix. Dog went through too much for my taste so I never went back.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

*Re: Vanhove video*



Howard Knauf said:


> It was the one Thomas talked about a few posts ago. I haven't seen it..it was only described by Thomas how it's done. Sorry.



This is the video I'm talking about
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOYvMh1yGLg
first starting at 1:38 and then at about 2:40 again


----------



## Howard Knauf

*Re: Vanhove video*



Thomas Barriano said:


> This is the video I'm talking about
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOYvMh1yGLg
> first starting at 1:38 and then at about 2:40 again


 Thanks for the link. For some reason I thought the dog was posted as well. I can tell you one thing, my PSDs would have none of that, nor would I allow it or expect them to.

Was at a seminar that Will Fernandez hosted a few years ago with a Dutch trainer. The trainer was taking liberties with my dog and got bit. I told him he probably shouldn't do that with my dog but he did. Good trainer though. I sorta felt bad for him.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Lou Castle said:


> I have said that my protocols have always WORKED FOR ME and those who have applied them per my instructions. Feel free to go looking on the Net for comments from someone who's tried them and had them fail.
> 
> But Jerry takes it to a whole 'nother level.


Thanks for the clarification. If on the rare occasion that one of your protocols don't work, then it's because the handler wasn't properly following your instructions? Despite my best efforts I can't help admiring your explanation


----------



## Lou Castle

Thomas Barriano said:


> Thanks for the clarification. If on the rare occasion that one of your protocols don't work, then it's because the handler wasn't properly following your instructions? Despite my best efforts I can't help admiring your explanation


Still waiting for you to link us to someone saying that my method didn't work for them; whether they'll admit to using my protocols correctly or not. But HERE'S a link to quite a few people who have tried my protocols and had success. 

Not gonna hold my breath on you finding someone like that. You'd think that in the decade or more that I've been posting on the net that you could find *AT LEAST ONE. * But you've never even done that!


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: Thanks for the link. For some reason I thought the dog was posted as well. I can tell you one thing, my PSDs would have none of that, nor would I allow it or expect them to.

Why not ? Melt under the pressure of actually being made to be correct ? LOL I can tell you that they figure it out pretty quickly, and will have all of that. 

If not, then usually they melt like butter in the sun, and the bite gets all pussy, and then people get mad because their "police" dog is showing his true colors. 

Lou, you are still the mad typist. Amazing.


----------



## David Frost

Dave Colborn said:


> Sounds like the chuckle, chuckle of a man hearing the unbelievable story of a new fangled device called a chain saw after cutting down trees with an axe all day.
> 
> 
> the young kids would say LOL.


I bought my second car selling firewood. Cut with a chainsaw, but split by hand. Very familiar with a chainsaw. We burnt coal and wood until well after I left home. 

Actually, it's more of an inward laugh. One of amusement. Usually accompanied by a slight shake of the head. Kind of like when watching the farting preacher. He was full of himself as well.

Edited to add: I've never been a great speller, but it could be worse. I'm a little loopy with the drugs after my knee surgery yesterday. Pretty good stuff. Now if I could only get glaucoma and live in CA. I'd sure like a fatty.

DFrost


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Jerry is got everyone pissed, Colburn has lost his mind and uses a backtie for ****s sake, and then accuses Frost of having no idea of what he is doing, and I have not read one word of the other post. *I would guess there is some carry over *??


Ya think? :-o

:lol: :lol:


----------



## Howard Knauf

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote: Thanks for the link. For some reason I thought the dog was posted as well. I can tell you one thing, my PSDs would have none of that, nor would I allow it or expect them to.
> 
> Why not ? Melt under the pressure of actually being made to be correct ? LOL I can tell you that they figure it out pretty quickly, and will have all of that.
> 
> If not, then usually they melt like butter in the sun, and the bite gets all pussy, and then people get mad because their "police" dog is showing his true colors.
> 
> Lou, you are still the mad typist. Amazing.



I refuse to let a decoy correct a PSD. You can get a correct position without their help. Besides, the only real position I want them on a bad guy is whatever position they can get. PSDs aren't there to look pretty. You of all people should know that in combat the rule book goes out the window. Most rules anyway. You abide by those rules that keep you safe and that's it.

If you want the decoy to correct your sport dog have at it. I'm not judging you there. I know some PSDs melt under pressure. We've been over the reasons why ad nauseum so no need to get into it. So do some sport dogs. What's your point?

Last time I checked I was only responsible for my dog and half a dozen others. Those were the only ones I cared about. I can't save the whole PSD world. Someone else will have to step up to handle their own business. If a PSD handler wants to allow decoy corrections then I wouldn't be his backup, nor would I suggest any other officer to. JMO of course.


----------



## Grant Cusworth

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote: Thanks for the link. For some reason I thought the dog was posted as well. I can tell you one thing, my PSDs would have none of that, nor would I allow it or expect them to.
> 
> Why not ? Melt under the pressure of actually being made to be correct ? LOL I can tell you that they figure it out pretty quickly, and will have all of that.
> 
> If not, then usually they melt like butter in the sun, and the bite gets all pussy, and then people get mad because their "police" dog is showing his true colors.
> 
> Lou, you are still the mad typist. Amazing.


I agree... that wasn't a tough correction by any stretch of the imagination. And if something like that makes your dog upset... 

We use the two leashes when teaching the dog to stay centered, or for a dog who wants to cycle around back for the guard rather than just let go and drop into position up front. It's a good method for controlling the dog. (oh, and if the dog gets nasty with the correction two leashes allows the decoy to control the dog's head and NOT get bit)

Grant


----------



## Jim Nash

Jerry Cudahy said:


> The short answer to why the training decoy is who teaches the dog to out.
> 
> That person does not allow the dog to out. The decoy is supposed to be fighting not being a quiter.
> 
> Can anyone figure it out from here or do you still want more info.
> 
> So now I will let you all yada it all out and I will come back later and see how many get it yet.
> 
> Yes it is a Ringsport method that works100% of the time for any type of attack dog based training.


I don't get it . 

So far all I've gotten from you so far Jerry is you feel the decoy teaches the out by not allowing the out and not being a quitter . Too deep for me . Could you explain it a little better so I can understand it too ?


----------



## Howard Knauf

Jim Nash said:


> I don't get it .
> 
> So far all I've gotten from you so far Jerry is you feel the decoy teaches the out by not allowing the out and not being a quitter . Too deep for me . Could you explain it a little better so I can understand it too ?



Jim, keep up. You haven't given the desired answer that Jerry wants to mark.:-D


----------



## Dave Colborn

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Dave Colborn*  
_ A backtie gives instant feedback if a dog breaks, lou. If my dog is tied to a backtie on his prong, will he correct himself when he breaks towards the decoy. yes! We know that he will correct himself when he breaks. Second line can even be run to the handler working with the decoy if need be._

Imagine a backtied dog on a down whose handler is simulating handcuffing a suspect. The dog stands up. He's just broken his down, yet the post hasn't corrected him. Are you gettin' it yet?

Second line Lou. To the handler. To correct if need be. And yes, the dog can be corrected if he stands and hits the end of the line going to the decoy, the reward that the dog is seeking. Are you gettin it yet?


----------



## Dave Colborn

Howard.

That video was not what I was trying to describe for the out. Seemed to be getting done what they want to get done though. 

Dog on a flat collar to the backtie. Pinch to the handler or decoy if you are okay with decoy corrections. Handler or decoy correcting into the decoy to enforce the out. That is a snapshot of what i was talking about.


----------



## Dave Colborn

David Frost said:


> I bought my second car selling firewood. Cut with a chainsaw, but split by hand. Very familiar with a chainsaw. We burnt coal and wood until well after I left home.
> 
> Actually, it's more of an inward laugh. One of amusement. Usually accompanied by a slight shake of the head. Kind of like when watching the farting preacher. He was full of himself as well.
> 
> Edited to add: I've never been a great speller, but it could be worse. I'm a little loopy with the drugs after my knee surgery yesterday. Pretty good stuff. Now if I could only get glaucoma and live in CA. I'd sure like a fatty.
> 
> DFrost



You had to bring a personal attack about my IBS and religion into this. Damn. Now the mods will lock it. 

HAHAHA

PS when you laugh inward, no one can hear the tree fall in the woods?


----------



## Jake Brandyberry

I was at the Jimmy seminar so I will shed a little light on the video. The two tabs were hooked to the prong, one on live ring one on dead ring. We were working on speeding up the outs because the dog was a little sticky on the out, which in ring will get you killed point wise. Upon the command from the handle, the dog got an automatic correction and then if you notice Jimmy praised once in command. After the out the tabs were used for position and to keep the dog silent. She comes from a sch background so whenever she was guarding she wouldn't shut up. Jimmy preaches that the dogs should respect and like the decoy. Therefore if you watch any correction, which are always fair, is always followed by praise from the decoy.


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen

Jake Brandyberry said:


> I was at the Jimmy seminar so I will shed a little light on the video. The two tabs were hooked to the prong, one on live ring one on dead ring. We were working on speeding up the outs because the dog was a little sticky on the out, which in ring will get you killed point wise. Upon the command from the handle, the dog got an automatic correction and then if you notice Jimmy praised once in command. After the out the tabs were used for position and to keep the dog silent. She comes from a sch background so whenever she was guarding she wouldn't shut up. Jimmy preaches that the dogs should respect and like the decoy. Therefore if you watch any correction, which are always fair, is always followed by praise from the decoy.


We sometimes (if necessary) use a 3rd person for that, not the decoy. For mydogs (and all the other dogs in the club) it will be Dick, for Dick's own dog himself or me- if I'm able to, did it with Spike and Robbie 2, not with Wibo-.


----------



## Howard Knauf

Dave Colborn said:


> Howard.
> 
> That video was not what I was trying to describe for the out. Seemed to be getting done what they want to get done though.
> 
> Dog on a flat collar to the backtie. Pinch to the handler or decoy if you are okay with decoy corrections. Handler or decoy correcting into the decoy to enforce the out. That is a snapshot of what i was talking about.


 Yes. It is different from what I imagined as well. What you are describing is what was done with my Mal.

The training in the linked video is obviously working well, can't argue with that. Were I to be training a sport dog I'd probably put that tool in my box as well. And of course I'd give Jimmy the credit if he's the inventor.


----------



## Jim Nash

Howard Knauf said:


> Jim, keep up. You haven't given the desired answer that Jerry wants to mark.:-D


Guess I'm just slow . I hope others don't answer Jerry's question for him. I'd much rather hear it from the source . I think we could all get much more from it that way . The same goes for Lou's out method . I would much rather see a video of Lou actually training it then a video from someone who thinks they are using his method .


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Jim Nash said:


> Guess I'm just slow ._* I hope others don't answer Jerry's question for him. I'd much rather hear it from the source . I think we could all get much more from it that way*_ . The same goes for Lou's out method . I would much rather see a video of Lou actually training it then a video from someone who thinks they are using his method .



Now i have been here a few months, you a few years so ehmmmm you should know even better then me that waiting for Jerry to come up with answers is like waiting for ....let me find a fitting quote...hold on....ok found it....its like waiting for Jerry to give answers! We all know its not going to happen yet still we all get fooled into thinking he will!

Somehow hes actualy clever like that which is kinda really scary if you think about it to much :lol:


----------



## David Frost

Dave Colborn said:


> You had to bring a personal attack about my IBS and religion into this. Damn. Now the mods will lock it.
> 
> HAHAHA
> 
> PS when you laugh inward, no one can hear the tree fall in the woods?


has to be the drugs. I have absolutely no idea what that means. Wasn't attacking anyones religion, said it was funny. Preachers do fart, I saw a video of it.

true about the tree. The light in the fridge does go out though.

DFrost


----------



## Howard Knauf

Jim Nash said:


> Guess I'm just slow . I hope others don't answer Jerry's question for him. I'd much rather hear it from the source . I think we could all get much more from it that way . The same goes for Lou's out method . I would much rather see a video of Lou actually training it then a video from someone who thinks they are using his method .


 I would rather hear Jerry's theory as well instead of waiting for people to guess so that he can mark what he thinks is important. Personally I believe Jerry is just playing with people here. I guess if good info comes out just because he dropped a tidbit of bait then it's not a total waste of time. I just hope this isn't one of those 40 page threads.

As far as Lou's video. I wouldn't mind seeing it done first hand myself if just to see how much different I did it following the instructions. I like to think I can comprehend the protocol but everyone sees things in print differently.


----------



## David Frost

Howard Knauf said:


> I refuse to let a decoy correct a PSD. You can get a correct position without their help. Besides, the only real position I want them on a bad guy is whatever position they can get. PSDs aren't there to look pretty. You of all people should know that in combat the rule book goes out the window. Most rules anyway. You abide by those rules that keep you safe and that's it.
> 
> .


Agree. When you find yourself losing a fight, your tactics suck. A comment referencing; "Imagine a backtied dog on a down whose handler is simulating handcuffing a suspect. The dog stands up. He's just broken his down, yet the post hasn't corrected him"

The dog isn't permitted to bite, I don't care if he stands-up. No harm, no foul. I might work on it in training, if I don't have a more pressing problem, but it's no big deal. Unless of course the handler is a competition whore, then I guess it's a big deal. 

DFrost


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: You of all people should know that in combat the rule book goes out the window

The dog should never do a bark and hold, and I would shoot the ****er if at all possible. Crime would drop drastically, and runners would be shot outright to improve the gene pool.


----------



## David Frost

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> The dog should never do a bark and hold, and I would shoot the ****er if at all possible. Crime would drop drastically, and runners would be shot outright to improve the gene pool.


I won't comment about shooting the ****er etc, etc. However, my stance on the b/h is as well known as my stance on pseudo drugs and the ORT. 

DFrost


----------



## Jim Nash

Alice Bezemer said:


> Now i have been here a few months, you a few years so ehmmmm you should know even better then me that waiting for Jerry to come up with answers is like waiting for ....let me find a fitting quote...hold on....ok found it....its like waiting for Jerry to give answers! We all know its not going to happen yet still we all get fooled into thinking he will!
> 
> Somehow hes actualy clever like that which is kinda really scary if you think about it to much :lol:


Not fooled about anything just not giving up .I live by the motto "Never Give Up!" actually and I deal with non answers all day long . I've found I can usually get those answers one way or another . Ask the question enough and you might actaully get a straight answer . Or the non answer itself can clarify either that the person is lieing or just talking out of their ass .


----------



## Howard Knauf

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> The dog should never do a bark and hold, and I would shoot the ****er if at all possible. Crime would drop drastically, and runners would be shot outright to improve the gene pool.


 Hard to disagree with you there but I have to stay um, you know, neutral and PC.


----------



## David Frost

Jim Nash said:


> . Or the non answer itself can clarify either that the person is lieing or just talking out of their ass .


The short course on interdiction; Anything but no means yes. ha ha.

DFrost


----------



## Jim Nash

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote: You of all people should know that in combat the rule book goes out the window
> 
> The dog should never do a bark and hold, and I would shoot the ****er if at all possible. Crime would drop drastically, and runners would be shot outright to improve the gene pool.


Jeff you were born about 30 years too late . My brother inlaw was a paramedic back when the police could shoot any fleeing felon . He likes to tell the story of the rapist who got shot in the butt by numerous cops as he ran . When all was said and done he lived but lost an important tool in his crime of choice .


----------



## Jim Nash

David Frost said:


> The short course on interdiction; Anything but no means yes. ha ha.
> 
> DFrost


Last week had a purse snatcher running around the neighborhood . Asked for clarification ." Robbery or just a theft ?" . Pretty simple question I thought. Got song and dance from dispatcher meaning she had no clue . Got pretty blunt on the air but got answer and then got badguy . But also got complaint coming down the line from Comm Center . Just answer the ****in question !


----------



## Howard Knauf

Jim Nash said:


> Last week had a purse snatcher running around the neighborhood . Asked for clarification ." Robbery or just a theft ?" . Pretty simple question I thought. Got song and dance from dispatcher meaning she had no clue . Got pretty blunt on the air but got answer and then got badguy . But also got complaint coming down the line from Comm Center . Just answer the ****in question !


 Hells yes! Wish we had an LEO deciding what call to dispatch to we don't have to waste so much time on BS. I love the one where the house gets robbed. LOL

Back to topic.....


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Lou Castle said:


> Still waiting for you to link us to someone saying that my method didn't work for them; whether they'll admit to using my protocols correctly or not. But HERE'S a link to quite a few people who have tried my protocols and had success.
> 
> Not gonna hold my breath on you finding someone like that. You'd think that in the decade or more that I've been posting on the net that you could find *AT LEAST ONE. * But you've never even done that!


Lou,

This is the WORKING Dog Forum. The posting of self serving testimonials from pet dog owners is irrelevant. I don't know why you're "still waiting"? I never offered to find anyone that stated any of your protocols didn't work. So you post a protocol and unless someone tries it and states it didn't work we're supposed to ASSume your protocol is 100 % reliable? Oh god let me get out the old hip waders, it's getting deep around here


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: Jeff you were born about 30 years too late

You forgot a 0. You should be able to shoot fleeing felons, or anyone that runs when you say don't move. I like the rubber shotgun rounds idea. Hell, I like the idea of multiple dogs and with no out commands at all.


----------



## Lou Castle

Earlier Dave wrote,


> A backtie gives instant feedback if a dog breaks, lou. If my dog is tied to a backtie on his prong, will he correct himself when he breaks towards the decoy. yes! We know that he will correct himself when he breaks. Second line can even be run to the handler working with the decoy if need be.


And I responded,


> Imagine a backtied dog on a down whose handler is simulating handcuffing a suspect. The dog stands up. He's just broken his down, yet the post hasn't corrected him. Are you gettin' it yet?





Dave Colborn said:


> Second line Lou. To the handler.


Interesting that NOW you mention this "second line." Before it was JUST the backtie. Now you're moving the goalposts and injecting another line. LOL. Anyway the handler is busy with the handcuffing. If you have him watching the dog, the dog will realize he's being watched and probably won't break his stay. If the handler turns his head away, and then the dog breaks the down, the handler is not going to see it and the timing will be off. If his correction is weak, as most of them are when the handler is new, he'll be nagging, not correcting. 

A backtie while useful for some applications is not of much use for this, particularly for a new handler. It's especially useless for teaching the out to a dog that already has a problem. 



Dave Colborn said:


> And yes, the dog can be corrected *if he stands and hits the end of the line *going to the decoy, the reward that the dog is seeking.


Way to move those goalposts Dave. LOL. In the situation I described the dog IS NOT hitting the end of the line. He's only broken the down. And since that is the first stage of breaking the stay, it's too late if he hits the end of the line. The best time to correct for breaking a down is as soon as the dog starts to move to stand up. By the time the line corrects the dog at the lunge, he's already shifted his weight to stand up (when the correction SHOULD come), then he's stood up and then he's lunged. By the time correction comes for the lunge is waaaaay behind the curve. And with many dogs ignoring medium or light correction it may well be completely ineffective.


----------



## Lou Castle

Dave Colborn said:


> Dog on a flat collar to the backtie. Pinch to the handler or decoy if you are okay with decoy corrections. Handler or decoy correcting into the decoy to enforce the out. That is a snapshot of what i was talking about.


Many police decoys are at the "stand over there and hold out our arm" stage or only slightly above that. Expecting that they are capable of the timing necessary to out a dog or keeping him off the bite is absurd. It's takes time to train them and then they rarely stick around. AGAIN they're cops not dog people. 

Far better to use a method of getting and keeping the out that accepts the actual situation, not "what can be" and does not rely on their expertise, which is minimal. I believe in giving the decoys as much training as they can handle but also accept the reality that most of them are going to be "only adequate" at taking bites.


----------



## Lou Castle

David Frost said:


> A comment referencing; "Imagine a backtied dog on a down whose handler is simulating handcuffing a suspect. The dog stands up. He's just broken his down, yet the post hasn't corrected him"
> 
> The dog isn't permitted to bite, I don't care if he stands-up. No harm, no foul. I might work on it in training, if I don't have a more pressing problem, but it's no big deal. Unless of course the handler is a competition whore, then I guess it's a big deal.


David, how is it that you're able to disagree without being disagreeable? (Probably the drugs mellowing you out). lol

I think that when the dog breaks the down, it's the first step towards completely breaking the stay and lunging. By the time he gets the correction from the post, he's already well into the lunge. I think that the first sign of standing up, a weight shift that makes it possible, is what should be corrected. If he's been given a down, he should be corrected for breaking the down.


----------



## Lou Castle

Thomas Barriano said:


> This is the WORKING Dog Forum. The posting of self serving testimonials *from pet dog owners * is irrelevant.


Thomas do you ever get tired of being wrong? Many of those testimonials are from SAR dog and PSD handlers. Are those "working dogs?" Or do you have yet another distorted definition for us (like your definition of what a trainer is)?


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: I think that when the dog breaks the down, it's the first step towards completely breaking the stay and lunging. By the time he gets the correction from the post, he's already well into the lunge.

Or from previous "building" decides that he is being aggitated with a back tie.

Most of the problems you see come from crap foundation work. If you are having most of these problems and have to come up with all these solutions, better look at what you are doing in the foundation work....... you built your house on sand and are now spending valuable training time shoring up your crap foundation.

I am not Mr super active trainer. I make a strong foundation and work from there. There are always mistakes, like telling a guy to hold his arm out and take a bite. When he faceplants because you taught him all ****ed up, of course he will not stay. Not that teaching him correctly will ensure that he will stay either, trust me, I know that first hand, but again, it is the quickie way, and of course here comes the myriad of solutions to problems that should never have been there in the first place.

Many times this comes from "building" a dog, encouraging "possession". Then, after doing all this teaching that the dog needs to bite and stay there ( and if he is a good dog you are wasting time) then you want him to out (give it away). Makes no sense to me, and obviously with all these different training methods to "fix" things, I would be looking long and hard at my training. I really doubt that all these dogs are stronger than many many dogs that are out there releasing instantly. I think you all need to look at your training very seriously.

I can out my dog while the decoy is still running. I already told you I am a lazy trainer. My dog is not weak, so give some serious consideration to teaching the out right away. Look at what you could be working on, and instead, are working on a weak ass foundation exercise that should not be troubling you with backties and double pinches and other silly shit.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Thomas Barriano said:


> ... This is the WORKING Dog Forum. The posting of self serving testimonials from pet dog owners is irrelevant.


This thread about the decoy being the "real teacher of the out " ... are we actually having a discussion on it about what constitutes a testimonial? 

It IS getting deep around here.





Lou Castle said:


> Thomas do you ever get tired of being wrong? Many of those testimonials are from SAR dog and PSD handlers. Are those "working dogs?" *Or do you have yet another distorted definition for us (like your definition of what a trainer is)*?


Don't know, don't care .... don't ask!


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote: I think that when the dog breaks the down, it's the first step towards completely breaking the stay and lunging. By the time he gets the correction from the post, he's already well into the lunge.
> 
> Or from previous "building" decides that he is being aggitated with a back tie.
> 
> Most of the problems you see come from crap foundation work. If you are having most of these problems and have to come up with all these solutions, better look at what you are doing in the foundation work....... you built your house on sand and are now spending valuable training time shoring up your crap foundation.
> 
> I am not Mr super active trainer. I make a strong foundation and work from there. There are always mistakes, like telling a guy to hold his arm out and take a bite. When he faceplants because you taught him all ****ed up, of course he will not stay. Not that teaching him correctly will ensure that he will stay either, trust me, I know that first hand, but again, it is the quickie way, and of course here comes the myriad of solutions to problems that should never have been there in the first place.
> 
> Many times this comes from "building" a dog, encouraging "possession". Then, after doing all this teaching that the dog needs to bite and stay there ( and if he is a good dog you are wasting time) then you want him to out (give it away). Makes no sense to me, and obviously with all these different training methods to "fix" things, I would be looking long and hard at my training. I really doubt that all these dogs are stronger than many many dogs that are out there releasing instantly. I think you all need to look at your training very seriously.
> 
> I can out my dog while the decoy is still running. I already told you I am a lazy trainer. My dog is not weak, so give some serious consideration to teaching the out right away. Look at what you could be working on, and instead, are working on a weak ass foundation exercise that should not be troubling you with backties and double pinches and other silly shit.


_"Most of the problems you see come from crap foundation work."

"Here comes the myriad of solutions to problems that should never have been there in the first place."

"Look at what you could be working on, and instead, are working on a weak ass foundation exercise"
_


So you would agree with this, then?


Brian Anderson said:


> I will train the out ..... I appreciate a good decoy for sure....but the out will be solid before the dog knows what a decoy is 9 times out of ten.


(This is an interesting thread ---- from the folks who are actually posting about who teaches the out!  )


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Connie Sutherland said:


> This thread about the decoy being the "real teacher of the out " ... are we actually having a discussion on it about what constitutes a testimonial?
> 
> It IS getting deep around here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know, don't care .... don't ask!


That is what the thread was about, but Lou posted a link to some self serving testimonials (he said they were testimonials, I said they were self serving) and I don't believe any of the testimonials were even about his out protocol, much less the actual topic of "who really teaches the dog the OUT" ?


----------



## Lou Castle

Thomas Barriano said:


> That is what the thread was about, but Lou posted a link to some self serving testimonials (he said they were testimonials, I said they were self serving) and I don't believe any of the testimonials were even about his out protocol, much less the actual topic of "who really teaches the dog the OUT" ?


Thomas in this discussion EVERY ONE of our off topic trips has started with an off topic comment, usually a personal attack from, you that I was defending myself against. WRONG AGAIN. ROFL.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Lou Castle said:


> Thomas do you ever get tired of being wrong? Many of those testimonials are from SAR dog and PSD handlers. Are those "working dogs?" Or do you have yet another distorted definition for us (like your definition of what a trainer is)?


Lou,

I'm wrong about as often as you're right 
I'll edit my statement for you "self serving testimonials from mainly pet dog trainers with an occasional PSD or SAR trainer
thrown in" I did a check scan of ALL your posted testimonials 
http://www.loucastle.com/testimonials.htm
and they are MAINLY pet dog people with one or two PSD or SAR trainers.

Are you still planning to come to Denver April 23rd and 24th?
I know Dave didn't get much positive response from the Colorado Dog Trainers Network (that had more to do with anti E-collar sentiments) but I wasn't sure if he'd planned on trying to
open it to the general public or had dropped the idea?


----------



## Lou Castle

Thomas Barriano said:


> Lou,
> 
> I'm wrong about as often as you're right


No Thomas you're WRONG AGAIN. ROFLMFAO 

And AGAIN you're off topic. You can take this trip by yourself.


----------



## Guest

Somebody "Tap Out" already!!!


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Lou Castle said:


> Thomas in this discussion EVERY ONE of our off topic trips has started with an off topic comment, usually a personal attack from, you that I was defending myself against. WRONG AGAIN. ROFL.


NONSENSE Lou

MY first reply to this topic was on page four (reply 34) to your statement 

"This is also something that's common in sport work, having the handler take bites from his own dog."

Where have you seen that? I rarely see people working their own dogs (sleeves or suit not tugs) in any protection sport. Maybe 10%? Personal protection probably higher. *mod edit

I replied to YOUR (marginally) off topic statement which you later changed in a subsequent post. If you keep constantly whining that "you're protecting yourself from my personal attacks" when that is TOTALLY inaccurate. The moderators might start to believe you? ..................opps too late


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Jody Butler said:


> Somebody "Tap Out" already!!!


As soon as the rules are enforced uniformly. Lou makes off topic statements and if anyone replies to them they're the ones that get grief???????


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

It is not that Thomas. Lou could post about his pet dog fluffy getting groomed and you would go after him like he was ****ing your wife, daughter and mother with household garden tools.

Just let him have a thread now and then where you are not turtling up his ass.


----------



## Mike Scheiber

Jody Butler said:


> Somebody "Tap Out" already!!!


It wont stop On the other hand aint much going on here any way that watching the pecker woods sword fight


----------

