# Defence of Koehler



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

So everything iread ABOUT Koehler was bad, bad and bad. Actually started reading his ppd training, seems like a solid humane system WTF????


----------



## Jim Engel (Nov 14, 2007)

Two entire sections on Koehler here:

http://www.angelplace.net/Book/Ch4.pdf

I got to know the man a little bit over dinner a couple of
times and at various seminars as the original obedience
club we worked in.

Very calm, even handed, deliberate trainer.

Mr. Koehler was very helpful when I was in the process
of publishing my Bouvier book.


----------



## Gerald Guay (Jun 15, 2010)

I agree. When done properly. Dogs worked for me then, not for a ball or a tug. Dogs were not as flashy but much more reliable off the sports field.

Today, a good mix of the "old" and the "new" is probably the way to go.

JMHO


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

sure, i think every serious trainer should do the read if for nothing other than historical reason. 

Would bet at the core of every modern system is some Koehler.

The inhumane tag is an internet meme.

Have not read obed manual.

His knowledge of application and type/temprement is the best i ever read. He mocks some methods and is not sophisticated in obscure language which i think makes some people feel they are superior.....lol


----------



## brad robert (Nov 26, 2008)

yep interesting reads.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Gerald
shouldn't a dog who works for "you" only, rather than a ball, tug, sleeve, food, or bite, or just plain avoiding that slap across the muzzle or tingling feeling, also then love you, and maybe even lay down their life for you when it's on the line ?
...i've often wondered about that, and the longer i live the more i think they work for THEMSELVES not for "me" 
.... //lol//


----------



## brad robert (Nov 26, 2008)

rick smith said:


> Gerald
> shouldn't a dog who works for "you" only, rather than a ball, tug, sleeve, food, or bite, or just plain avoiding that slap across the muzzle or tingling feeling, also then love you, and maybe even lay down their life for you when it's on the line ?
> ...i've often wondered about that, and the longer i live the more i think they work for THEMSELVES not for "me"
> .... //lol//


Is that even a serious question Rick or are you joking? sorry its hard to tell.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Koehler was one of the big guns when I started training and I used his methods a lot. Still have a couple of his books I bought new in the 60s. 
I agree with Gerald about a "good Mix of the old and the new" even though I will lean heavily on the new.


----------



## Timothy Saunders (Mar 12, 2009)

The sad part for me is that the types of dogs he used are hard to find. For so many dogs you need a ball, tug or something. the methods in his books work. bottom line


----------



## brad robert (Nov 26, 2008)

of course it works but who wants to drive a vw? i use to train like that too and the results were nothing like today and the level of training. Agree also a mix is best.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

I checked out one of the books from the local library when I was about 12 years old or so in order to train my first dog, a Brittany named Barney. I remember being really excited that I was finally going to teach my dog to heel so I could go on walks with him without him pulling and I had my dad buy me a choke chain and everything. I remember trying to go through the method with Barney and thinking that if this was dog training, it was not fun and I didn't really want any part of it. Didn't even try any dog training again for another decade.


----------



## brad robert (Nov 26, 2008)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> I checked out one of the books from the local library when I was about 12 years old or so in order to train my first dog, a Brittany named Barney. I remember being really excited that I was finally going to teach my dog to heel so I could go on walks with him without him pulling and I had my dad buy me a choke chain and everything. I remember trying to go through the method with Barney and thinking that if this was dog training, it was not fun and I didn't really want any part of it. Didn't even try any dog training again for another decade.


Serious? i just kept at it because i loved training and i was 14.Also did the protection in the koehler vein with that dog too was A LOT of defense.But man that dog would take anyone on.Stuff knows what my parents were thinking letting me do that with a dog at age 14 or what they would start guess there is a lot more unhealthy past times :-k


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Befoer Koehler became popular it was Blanche Saunders. She got AKC obedience rolling back in the 30s and her methods were pretty much like Koehler. 
Conrad Most was probably the beginning of dog training by book in the modern age. Aside from that the Romans have a lot of written word on dog training.
The ruins of Pompeii have a mosaic floor tile with a black and white dog and the saying "Cave Canim"(Beware of Dog) on it.
http://simplethinking.com/home/italy/pompeii.shtml


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

brad robert said:


> Serious? i just kept at it because i loved training and i was 14.Also did the protection in the koehler vein with that dog too was A LOT of defense.But man that dog would take anyone on.Stuff knows what my parents were thinking letting me do that with a dog at age 14 or what they would start guess there is a lot more unhealthy past times :-k


Yeah, absolutely. I loved anything to do with dogs back then. Still do, of course. :wink: My parents bought this book for me when it came out during that same time when I was a kid and it was like my Bible. I'd spend hours reading the breed descriptions and looking at the illustrations. I still credit it for allowing me to name most any breed of dog as a vet:

http://www.amazon.com/Illustrated-Book-Editors-Readers-Digest/dp/0888502052

So I don't think it was the lack of wanting to do it. And I'm not at all a soft or "purely positive" trainer nowadays, so I don't even think it was the compulsion. Way too many reps, way too much time, and my dog didn't really care that much about praise. It seemed to take forever! About 15 years later, I put a CGC on my old Rottweiler in a total of 3 days using marker training with short multiple sessions per day and she only knew sit before I started. If I recall correctly, I think I only had her for less than a month at that point too. I had a look at koehlerdogtraining.com and they state:



> Plan on 45 to 75 minutes per day for dog training, depending on what week you are working on. At the beginning the sessions will be on the shorter side. But as you progress through the middle weeks they will be on the longer side. Toward the end the work sessions will be short, but relaxation time with the dog will be delightfully longer.
> 
> The pre-training regimen (as explained in the book) can be handled by a family member, but the training itself needs to be one person on the dog through the course. The course is 10 weeks when done with the support of a class instructor, or with the aid of the Companion Dog Planners (mentioned below), and about 13 weeks when done out of the book.


http://www.koehlerdogtraining.com/firsttimeusersofthemethod.html

45-75 minutes a day and 10-13 weeks of work for real basic obedience? No thanks...


----------



## Chris Keister (Jun 28, 2008)

I got "started" in "bite work" by reading Koehler's book, wrapping a towel around my arm, and having my Boxer bite me. That was 22 years ago. I still have that book.


----------



## brad robert (Nov 26, 2008)

LMAO 45-75 mins a day for 10-13 weeks poor freaking dog LOL


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

brad robert said:


> LMAO 45-75 mins a day for 10-13 weeks poor freaking dog LOL


From what i gather koehler did not get picks of the litter of dogs bred with specific nuances over generations to excel in a highly technical sport, quiet the oppossite he took on a lot of dogs with baggage straight from death row with great success.........context.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

The dog I got a canine good citizen on in 3 days in a training facility she had never been to was a 9 year old Rottweiler I got from the local shelter. :-\"


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Thats great but yr point is??


----------



## Gerald Guay (Jun 15, 2010)

Hey Rick.

I never had to slap a dog in the face. Read the book. We just showed the dog what we wanted and he got a "good boy" verbal marker and a pat on the head. Most of us back then were human beings who loved dogs. Today I use modern methods of training (in drive) because the dogs have more fun but they are not as reliable when the situation goes beyond their temperaments. I agree with another poster that training some of today's dogs with the Koehler would be difficult.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> Thats great but yr point is??


That using market training is faster? Which for shelter dogs is usually a matter of life or death.


----------



## Kristi Siggers (May 27, 2009)

I am no trainer but I seen this debate several times and one thing that has always stood out to me is that marker trainer is faster but Koehler trains a more reliable dog. Anyone else see that pattern in these debates?


----------



## brad robert (Nov 26, 2008)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> Thats great but yr point is??


And whats yours???

Context??

You think it takes that much time to train a dog even with baggage??


Marker training is much faster and much more fun i dont give a f how long things take as long as i and the dog enjoy ourselves its suppose to be fun for u and the dog.


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Dog training today is better than it was in the 40's. Evolution does not work backwards. And Bill Koehler believe reliability was the most important piece of training, and you could argue that he it seems he thought it was the only thing that mattered. 

And this Dog working for the handler bullshit...look dogs work for 2 reasons, get pleasure, avoid pain. They never have worked for us...it's alway been about a recipirocal relationship....The disney dog. He does not exist. 

Koehlers method on how to teach behavior has not exactly survived the test of time. But what has: is Koehler was one of the first trainers to encourage relationship between the dog and handler.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Kristi Siggers said:


> I am no trainer but I seen this debate several times and one thing that has always stood out to me is that marker trainer is faster but Koehler trains a more reliable dog. Anyone else see that pattern in these debates?


I would like to see actual proof that Koehler is supposedly more reliable. Reward based training is incredibly powerful. I like praise from a boss, sure, but praise doesn't pay the bills and put food on the table. People who are opposed to or bothered by using food, toys, or other higher value items seem to have a fixation on the value of themselves as reward to the dog, which is actually pretty egotistical if you think about it. I agree with James and others that while the bond is important, a dog is working for themselves.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> I would like to see actual proof that Koehler is supposedly more reliable. Reward based training is incredibly powerful. I like praise from a boss, sure, but praise doesn't pay the bills and put food on the table. People who are opposed to or bothered by using food, toys, or other higher value items seem to have a fixation on the value of themselves as reward to the dog, which is actually pretty egotistical if you think about it. I agree with James and others that while the bond is important, a dog is working for themselves.


I can come up with one area...

dog aggression in strong form. desire to engage and fight dogs while onleash. not everyone wants to have to perform obedience excercises every time they just want to walk or hang with their dog, not everyone carries toys or treats with them just to walk their dog.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

For certain dogs with heavy duty problems, the owner must understand they need to make concessions. If the human is motivated to solve or manage the problem, it's not that difficult. If you can grab a leash to walk your dog, you can grab some treats too.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> For certain dogs with heavy duty problems, the owner must understand they need to make concessions. If the human is motivated to solve or manage the problem, it's not that difficult. If you can grab a leash to walk your dog, you can grab some treats too.


that does not fix the problem.

Koehler methods could have gone a long way to saving lots of dogs that were put down do to dog aggression over the years...

owners with those types of dogs need to understand to curb the desire to fight with some dogs, methods that are not very pretty or fun, are often required to be reliable.


----------



## Skip Morgart (Dec 19, 2008)

I have his books too. I remember thinking the constant "flanking" to turn "any dog" (even a soft dog) into a guard dog seemed dumb and cruel. I'm sure there were some valid ideas in the book...any book has a few. I also thought his method of teaching a dog how to heal was a bit harsh..(constant 180 degree turns when the dog moves ahead of the handler, but do it quick and hard when the dog hits the end of the leash...so that the dog has his whole body flip around).


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

I agree with the jist of what people are saying in regards to training dogs for competition for the most part.

I also agree that Koehler methods can be very effective especially where extinguishing certain behaviors are concerned, and more reliable than some other, more modern, more accepted methods.


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> I can come up with one area...
> 
> dog aggression in strong form. desire to engage and fight dogs while onleash. not everyone wants to have to perform obedience excercises every time they just want to walk or hang with their dog, not everyone carries toys or treats with them just to walk their dog.


So Laziness is a good enough excuse to right the science off? BTW I have only scence punishment make leash aggression worse or make the dog turn on the handler. If a pinch collar can change it...I am not sure I would call it strong aggression. It's actually pretty weak.


----------



## Skip Morgart (Dec 19, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> I agree with the jist of what people are saying in regards to training dogs for competition for the most part.
> 
> I also agree that Koehler methods can be very effective especially where extinguishing certain behaviors are concerned, and more reliable than some other, more modern, more accepted methods.


"extinguishing certain behaviors", yes...but you don't have to throw a whole big bucket of water on a match to distinguish it. But maybe the "certain behaviors" need to be stated. For last ditch efforts for some really serious cases, then serious measures could absolutely be needed...but Koehler was using some serious shit for some very basic simple problems.


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> I agree with the jist of what people are saying in regards to training dogs for competition for the most part.
> 
> I also agree that Koehler methods can be very effective especially where extinguishing certain behaviors are concerned, and more reliable than some other, more modern, more accepted methods.


 
The Science does not change according to enviorment.


----------



## Jim Leon (Jan 21, 2010)

Currently I'm working my female through the Koehler Method by the book, with a choke collar.
Concurrently, when doing bitework and when taking walks, she wears a prong.
I've trained other dogs with straight Koehler and gotten great results. But they were'nt high drive dogs, like my female is. 
I'm using Koehler to teach her the exercise and reinforce its proper execution. I'm using the prong to reinforce the training during situations that bring her drive to a high intensity.Like when shes in front of a decoy, the choke collar is ineffective, the prong is very effective. Same thing when we're walking and she wants to aggress at bicycles, other dogs, etc.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Skip Morgart said:


> "extinguishing certain behaviors", yes...but you don't have to throw a whole big bucket of water on a match to distinguish it. But maybe the "certain behaviors" need to be stated. For last ditch efforts for some really serious cases, then serious measures could absolutely be needed...but Koehler was using some serious shit for some very basic simple problems.


This.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

James Downey said:


> So Laziness is a good enough excuse to right the science off? BTW I have only scence punishment make leash aggression worse or make the dog turn on the handler. If a pinch collar can change it...I am not sure I would call it strong aggression. It's actually pretty weak.


who said anything about a pinch collar.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Skip Morgart said:


> "extinguishing certain behaviors", yes...but you don't have to throw a whole big bucket of water on a match to distinguish it. But maybe the "certain behaviors" need to be stated. For last ditch efforts for some really serious cases, then serious measures could absolutely be needed...but Koehler was using some serious shit for some very basic simple problems.


I can agree with this as well...

I am not a koehler trainer. I use very few of his methods, usually when reliability is of utmost importance.

The methods I have used pretty consistently when the need arises are poison proofing, fence jumping, and dog fighting. And often with older dogs that have been allowed to become liabilities.

Not a Koehler method, but.....

I get a lot of flack for talking about punching an older pushy puppy in the face or elbowing them for biting. I am not talking about screaming at the dog , or taking a huge telegraphed swing at a dog trying to punish the dog for biting, it is more a technique of short strike, to have his face meet something that is unpleasant to him, and might even cause him a little pain I suppose, depending on the dog. Sure a couple of them got a little pissed off, but it does not take more than once or twice usually for the dog to "teach itself" that biting is not fun...

Has worked every time for me, and has never created any fear or hand-shyness in any pup I have had.


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Two questions:

1) Can't there be "levels" of Koehler-style training? Joby knows the people I've learned the dog handler stuff from, so maybe he can comment, however what I have grown up with seems like pretty much Koehler style training. However, I do not think it's like you're yanking the dog around all the time. Sure, it's corrections and praise, but the dogs generally seem pretty happy. Granted, I've also seen value in external rewards, especially for getting flashier or just more excited behaviors so I pretty much use whatever's available that works. Still, the picture I get when I think of Koehler is much less negative than most people on the Internet portray it as.

2) Is it more necessary on some types of dogs? This has kind of been brought up before, probably lots, however some of the more old school types of dogs are reportedly less driven by food, toys, or the like, and can be very resilient to corrections. This was brought up in the earlier Cd'H thread. With a dog like that, do you try and find (a/o build) some sort of drive for said reward, or just do Koehler training? I get the feeling that some of the dogs out there might respond better with one style of training than the other. I'd be curious how some of the more old school do under more modern types of training.

I also buy more into the bond and respect than some of you. I think there is something to working with a dog, making them do it and providing a reward (praise, bite, toy, filet mignon, whatever), and the whole process of being a part of them working or training and the self-esteem boost or enjoyment they get out of it. Maybe I'm just full of it. I still think it all matters, the bond, positively reinforcing what you want the dog to do and negatively reinforcing what you do not with whatever works. While I do kind of agree with James that there is science and that dog training (and everything else) evolves, I still think there is value to some of the old school stuff (and the new school stuff as well for that matter).

That said, feel free to tell me if I'm wrong.

-Cheers


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

I never read the obed book so i cant participate in my own thread. Anyone want to start a thread on koehler obed or should i start another one on the ppd training???

Skip i missed the bit where it says you must constantly flank a dog, where is that written??? Sounds like a sch. out thing.

Thanks everyone for discussing a book i never read.


----------



## Timothy Saunders (Mar 12, 2009)

James Downey said:


> The Science does not change according to enviorment.


of course it does. once you change a part on an equation(environment) the answer (science ) changes. ex when he trained an area guard dog, he had to teach the dog to say away from the fence. Its almost like teaching the dog an object guard of a whole area. You can''t do that with a clicker.

When you use his method you don't have to worry about how to make sure the dog doesn't get collar or trial wise. At the end of the day he is right reliability is the most important thing, no matter what you are training for


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

David Ruby said:


> Two questions:
> 
> 1) Can't there be "levels" of Koehler-style training? Joby knows the people I've learned the dog handler stuff from, so maybe he can comment, however what I have grown up with seems like pretty much Koehler style training. However, I do not think it's like you're yanking the dog around all the time. Sure, it's corrections and praise, but the dogs generally seem pretty happy. Granted, I've also seen value in external rewards, especially for getting flashier or just more excited behaviors so I pretty much use whatever's available that works. Still, the picture I get when I think of Koehler is much less negative than most people on the Internet portray it as.
> 
> ...


I think that people can use Koehler methods some times for some things, but the truth is this. 

Koehler made books about the Koehler methods, it is described as his method of doing things, there are many types of things that he developed a method for and put it in print, and they are usually very specific on how to perform his methods, there is little in the way of using "options" or trying different things. It is black and white Koehler.

From what I see in most people, like the people we know, the OB is usually more functional, and very reliable, often doesnt look super animated and may not be super precise, but dog knows commands, and does them. Dog is given options do or dont do, dog learns doing is better than not doing, of course rewards and verbal praise are given as well, and so are corrections. 

Koehler methods are not really designed for what people want to see in sport work I do not think these days.
I see the methods used in other types of training very often...


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

i've heard it mentioned a lot about how Koehler saved dogs from death row, but from what i have researched about him, that was only a small part of his training accomplishments. But for some reason people seem to emphasize that part a lot

for those of you who like statistics, consider this excerpt taken from an online version of his book i had archived :

According to War Department Credentials, Mr. Koehler served as a dog 
trainer at the Pomona Ordnance Base, and was transferred from that Base 
to the War Dog Reception and Training Center, San Carlos, California, 
where he served as a Principal Trainer. Further evidence establishes, 
that in addition to instructing officers and enlisted men, Mr. Koehler 
did training of a specialized nature. 

From July 1946 through this date, Mr. Koehler has served as Chief 
Trainer for the obedience program of the Orange Empire Dog Club, the 
largest open membership dog club in the United States. Statistics show 
that during this period more than 14,000 dogs participated in the 
obedience classes sponsored by the above organization. He also 
conducted classes in tracking and specialized training for that club. 

From 1946 through 1957 Mr. Koehler served as Class Instructor for 
obedience classes sponsored by the Boxer Club of Southern California. 
Club records show that during that period more than 1100 dogs 
participated in these classes. 

Mr. Koehler served as Instructor for obedience classes sponsored by the 
Doberman Pinscher Club of Southern California. During the period of his 
instruction, 90 dogs participated in these classes. 

From 1954 through 1960, Mr. Koehler served as Instructor for the Field 
Dog Classes sponsored by the Irish Setter Club of Southern California, 
which are open to all pointing breeds. Records show that 140 dogs have 
received instruction in this specialized training program. 

Additional classes, for which the number of participants has been 
substantiated, bring the total number of dogs trained in Mr. Koehler's 
classes to well over 15,700. 
.....................
i also believe he did a fair mount of dog training for the movie people, since after all, he was a SoCal guy 
...but can't be sure on that one


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

David Ruby said:


> Two questions:
> 
> 1) Can't there be "levels" of Koehler-style training? Joby knows the people I've learned the dog handler stuff from, so maybe he can comment, however what I have grown up with seems like pretty much Koehler style training. However, I do not think it's like you're yanking the dog around all the time. Sure, it's corrections and praise, but the dogs generally seem pretty happy. Granted, I've also seen value in external rewards, especially for getting flashier or just more excited behaviors so I pretty much use whatever's available that works. Still, the picture I get when I think of Koehler is much less negative than most people on the Internet portray it as.
> 
> ...


Those are interesting thoughts, David. Part of my issue seems to come from the "it's all about me" approach. Like all dogs must find your attention and praise intrinsically rewarding enough to do anything and food and toys are just for silly tricks, which is a very ego stroking idea to the handler, no doubt. But in reality, praise is fine, but it's not *that* rewarding to many dogs. 

In addition, there's the idea that the dog "corrects himself" by going to the end of the leash. Is this really true or does it only makes the handler feel better? Would a dog chose to put a choke collar on themselves and chose to correct themselves in such a manner? I doubt it. We are initiating that correction by putting the collar on the dog and letting them hit the end of the line hard when we turn sharply or even just hold still, not the dog. Phrasing it otherwise just makes us feel less guilty when the happy go lucky dog who is used to pulling like a freight train hits the end of the leash and yelps in pain. Have I used this technique on an unruly foster? Sure, on a prong, but I don't delude myself into thinking that the dog chose to correct himself. I also don't like seeing choke collars being used on the trachea period. The prong is better for this for sure. 

Also don't forget that what you are describing as negative reinforcement is actually positive punishment.


----------



## Skip Morgart (Dec 19, 2008)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> I never read the obed book so i cant participate in my own thread. Anyone want to start a thread on koehler obed or should i start another one on the ppd training???
> 
> Skip i missed the bit where it says you must constantly flank a dog, where is that written??? Sounds like a sch. out thing.
> 
> Thanks everyone for discussing a book i never read.


I'll have to go dig the book out...I think it was in the "Koehler Method of Guard Dog Training"? It had nothing to do with SchH, and it had nothing to do with "outing". It was a method of continually flanking (to me) a weak dog until the dog showed some aggressiveness to the person doing the flanking.


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

IF we were to stay in one place, the model T Ford would look great. The very reason there's an evolution in all things, including dog training!!! \\/


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> Those are interesting thoughts, David. Part of my issue seems to come from the "it's all about me" approach. Like all dogs must find your attention and praise intrinsically rewarding enough to do anything and food and toys are just for silly tricks, which is a very ego stroking idea to the handler, no doubt. But in reality, praise is fine, but it's not *that* rewarding to many dogs.


Part of it probably is (or can be) selfish. Face it, most of us want the dog to do it because we say, not because we will give it a toy/food/etc. Not saying that is always realistic. I think a lot of dogs can find attention, praise, sometimes even the act of working and getting it in training rewarding. That said, I try to be a realist. When I starting going to Mondio for a while (it's since dried up around here, at least for the time being), my mentality was largely praise-and-compulsion based, and I still see nothing inherently wrong with it. However, when my dog worked MUCH better with food as the positive reinforcement I figured why fight the breeze?



> In addition, there's the idea that the dog "corrects himself" by going to the end of the leash. Is this really true or does it only makes the handler feel better? Would a dog chose to put a choke collar on themselves and chose to correct themselves in such a manner? I doubt it. We are initiating that correction by putting the collar on the dog and letting them hit the end of the line hard when we turn sharply or even just hold still, not the dog. Phrasing it otherwise just makes us feel less guilty when the happy go lucky dog who is used to pulling like a freight train hits the end of the leash and yelps in pain. Have I used this technique on an unruly foster? Sure, on a prong, but I don't delude myself into thinking that the dog chose to correct himself. I also don't like seeing choke collars being used on the trachea period. The prong is better for this for sure.


I think that is just a matter of pretty naturally occurring consequences. It is not about the dog's choice, it's simply a matter of learning if you run 5' away (or whatever) on walks, or stop paying attention to the handler and they turned the corner, you'll hit the end of your leash. It kind of takes the handler out of the equation since all they did was walk and the dog is the one who _sort of_ did it to themselves. I never got off on my dog yelping from a correction, and I tend to be pretty light on corrections in terms of force because they have been generally pretty compliant (again, for some of the really hard cases you'd have to be a bit heavier handed). I strove to only be as hard as I need to be. (Insert joke here.)

Also, I was trained to use chokes as an intermediate to transition from prong to off-lead/collarless training. My dog's pretty good so I use the choke more as a light pop more as a "reminder" for most stuff. I can go back and forth depending on what we're doing. Ideally, eventually you would not really _need_ any sort of correction collar, although they're handy to have around.



> Also don't forget that what you are describing as negative reinforcement is actually positive punishment.


Yeah, you're right, I'm probably using the wrong term. Sorry, I learned and internalized that stuff quite a while ago. It's clear what I'm doing in my head. The important thing is it makes sense to my dog. :razz:

-Cheers


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Howard Gaines III said:


> IF we were to stay in one place, the model T Ford would look great. The very reason there's an evolution in all things, including dog training!!! \\/


Yeah, but not all progress is good progress. I'll take a '69 Charger over the 2012 edition any day, even if I can acknowledge power steering and anti-lock brakes on the newer models are nice advancements. Hence, for the sake of the analogy, I like to draw on old and new stuff and pick what works best for me.

-Cheers


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Howard, corporations love yr attitude, cos you equate new to better, newest to best.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

David Ruby said:


> Part of it probably is (or can be) selfish. Face it, most of us want the dog to do it because we say, not because we will give it a toy/food/etc. Not saying that is always realistic. I think a lot of dogs can find attention, praise, sometimes even the act of working and getting it in training rewarding. That said, I try to be a realist. When I starting going to Mondio for a while (it's since dried up around here, at least for the time being), my mentality was largely praise-and-compulsion based, and I still see nothing inherently wrong with it. However, when my dog worked MUCH better with food as the positive reinforcement I figured why fight the breeze?


Exactly...doesn't mean you can't use any compulsion either. You know how some feel that "purely positive" people sound really holier than thou because they are intentionally or unintentionally making themselves out to be better than those who use no corrections? It likewise grates the same way with those who are like "oh, I don't do any of that gimmicky food or toy training. That's only good for tricks. My dog does it cause they have to" or because of their bond is superior or their dog is not one of those weak motivationally trained dogs or whatever other they say.



> I think that is just a matter of pretty naturally occurring consequences. It is not about the dog's choice, it's simply a matter of learning if you run 5' away (or whatever) on walks, or stop paying attention to the handler and they turned the corner, you'll hit the end of your leash. It kind of takes the handler out of the equation since all they did was walk and the dog is the one who _sort of_ did it to themselves. I never got off on my dog yelping from a correction, and I tend to be pretty light on corrections in terms of force because they have been generally pretty compliant (again, for some of the really hard cases you'd have to be a bit heavier handed). I strove to only be as hard as I need to be. (Insert joke here.)


Well, just the way it is phrased seems to act like the handler is completely out of the equation, which is not so. When you have an inexperienced overly exuberant dog on the lunge line and they run towards the end of the line and you brace yourself because you know the dog is about to check themselves hard, why does it matter whether you yourself pulled the line back six inches right when they hit the end of it or they do it 100% "themselves?" It's quite uncomfortable to the dog either way. Why phrase it that way? Just to assuage any guilt because hey, the dog did it to himself? :-k



> Also, I was trained to use chokes as an intermediate to transition from prong to off-lead/collarless training. My dog's pretty good so I use the choke more as a light pop more as a "reminder" for most stuff. I can go back and forth depending on what we're doing. Ideally, eventually you would not really _need_ any sort of correction collar, although they're handy to have around.


I kind of more mean that I don't like the choking or pulling method on the trachea to damage it. And yes, ideally not needing any collar would be great too.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> Exactly...doesn't mean you can't use any compulsion either. You know how some feel that "purely positive" people sound really holier than thou because they are intentionally or unintentionally making themselves out to be better than those who use no corrections? It likewise grates the same way with those who are like "oh, I don't do any of that gimmicky food or toy training. That's only good for tricks. My dog does it cause they have to" or because of their bond is superior or their dog is not one of those weak motivationally trained dogs or whatever other they say.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


most people do not say that to assuage guilt, or to make them "feel better", or "less guilty"

To assuage guilt, you have to feel guilty first, to try to feel better, you have to feel bad to begin with.

If you have an emotional makeup that makes you feel guilty, that is fine, many people do not get emotional when dealing with animals while training them, or are not very emotional to begin with. 

I do not like you explanation of using that term personally, I use it because that is how I view it, not to assuage guilt in any way, or as a cop out in describing it.

I feel in many instances dogs bear a responsibility in how they conduct themselves, and that negative consequences can and will occur at times, I dont have feelings of guilt about it either way, whether I administer those consequences outright, or if the dog takes a larger role in it. 

I personally would never feel even a tiny bit of guilt if a dog hits the end of leash cause it was acting like an idiot if I turned around, if I chose to do that.... I would consider that a "shaping" excercise in where the dog teaches itself to pay attention to what I am doing, and teach itself the boundaries of what it can and cant do while walking on a leash. In my mind "shaping" theory goes both ways, for wanted behaviors, and unwanted behaviors in some cases.


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> who said anything about a pinch collar.


or your e-collar or your choke.... ad infinitium...

The science does not change according to equipment.


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Timothy Saunders said:


> of course it does. once you change a part on an equation(environment) the answer (science ) changes. ex when he trained an area guard dog, he had to teach the dog to say away from the fence. Its almost like teaching the dog an object guard of a whole area. You can''t do that with a clicker.
> 
> When you use his method you don't have to worry about how to make sure the dog doesn't get collar or trial wise. At the end of the day he is right reliability is the most important thing, no matter what you are training for


Nope, no it does not. Learning theory stays the same. Just new variables to work with.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

James Downey said:


> or your e-collar or your choke.... ad infinitium...
> 
> The science does not change according to equipment.


.

James do you know what the Koehler method for stopping hardcore fighters is? the science does not change much you are right, if you used the method he recommends for that, it would most likely work in stopping most behaviors...

ADDITION,

You are surely not implying that there is only one "learning theory" I hope, or that any one "theory" has been proven to be THE CORRECT theory, theories are theories, and there are lots of them....


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> most people do not say that to assuage guilt, or to make them "feel better", or "less guilty"
> 
> To assuage guilt, you have to feel guilty first, to try to feel better, you have to feel bad to begin with.
> 
> ...


I don't like animals to be in pain. A dog that runs to the end of a line and yelps when they hit the end hard is going to hurt. Pure and simple. I don't like having to cause pain to get them to do something that I want that goes against their nature, even if it is for their (or mostly our) benefit. There are simply better ways now that we know of. Have I done that maneuver to dogs before? Sure, I have and probably most people have, even if they have never heard of Koehler. Even the "be a tree" method where you don't walk forward until they stop pulling that is billed as less compulsion is a version of this. But I don't put up some window dressing about how the dog is choosing that as a natural consequence or self correction. If I'm working the dog, I set them up for it and I am the one correcting the dog one way or the other.



> feel in many instances dogs bear a responsibility in how they conduct themselves, and that negative consequences can and will occur at times, I dont have feelings of guilt about it either way, whether I administer those consequences outright, or if the dog takes a larger role in it.
> 
> I personally would never feel even a tiny bit of guilt if a dog hits the end of leash cause it was acting like an idiot if I turned around, if I chose to do that.... I would consider that a "shaping" excercise in where the dog teaches itself to pay attention to what I am doing, and teach itself the boundaries of what it can and cant do while walking on a leash. In my mind "shaping" theory goes both ways, for wanted behaviors, and unwanted behaviors in some cases.


But the dog is only acting in their framework for what they know. They are only "acting like an idiot" to us, not to them. They don't "know" how to walk on leash nicely coming out of the whelping pen. It's not a natural behavior to do so. Why would you hold an animal responsible for that?


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> Exactly...doesn't mean you can't use any compulsion either. You know how some feel that "purely positive" people sound really holier than thou because they are intentionally or unintentionally making themselves out to be better than those who use no corrections? It likewise grates the same way with those who are like "oh, I don't do any of that gimmicky food or toy training. That's only good for tricks. My dog does it cause they have to" or because of their bond is superior or their dog is not one of those weak motivationally trained dogs or whatever other they say.


Yeah, I've heard that stuff. I don't really care about that, just if it works or not, and if it's shaping how the dog works or views me. I'm not opposed to using food or toys or whatnot. I _am_ opposed to it being used as a bribe or if the dog will ONLY do something if there is a reward in sight. I realize it is not all like that, but ideally you want the dog to do (or not do) something because you tell them to. Kind of like kids. If you tell them to clean their room or help you carry a couch into your house, eventually you would like a nice relationship where they'll just do it and not make you cough up a $5 bill, threaten to ground them, or smack them in the head. Sure, if you abuse that they stop coming around, and you still want to reinforce good behavior and punish or negatively reinforce poor behavior.

In short, I can see value to either. Just pick what works better.



> Well, just the way it is phrased seems to act like the handler is completely out of the equation, which is not so. When you have an inexperienced overly exuberant dog on the lunge line and they run towards the end of the line and you brace yourself because you know the dog is about to check themselves hard, why does it matter whether you yourself pulled the line back six inches right when they hit the end of it or they do it 100% "themselves?" It's quite uncomfortable to the dog either way. Why phrase it that way? Just to assuage any guilt because hey, the dog did it to himself? :-k


With that, the handler is largely a constant or limited variable in the equation. We're just there to hold the leash and walk. It's just phrased that way as far as I'm concerned to just denote you as a handler are pretty much passive (relative to what comes later). I have no problem if my dog corrects itself by just darting to the end of the leash. On the other hand, I'm also not out to hurt my dog and not out to set them up for massive failure by being a prick to my dog about it. It's just matter of fact that you're going to walk, if the dog pays attention to you bad things _don't_ happen to it and good things _do_. Namely praise, but throw food, toys, a bite on a tuggy, whatever in the equation. I don't see why it would not work more or less the same in some regards.



> I kind of more mean that I don't like the choking or pulling method on the trachea to damage it. And yes, ideally not needing any collar would be great too.


Yeah, but I think there are degrees there. Just speaking for myself, I switched to the choke because I'm not choking/yanking, just the occasional slight pop and working toward largely off-lead where I do not really need the collar. If/when I ever do trialing I _can't_ have a choke, so it's something I'd be working toward. But if I had a puller, I can see going with a prong to save the trachea. A light choke collar correction is almost like a pretty gentle reminder as much as a very light punishment.

-Cheers


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> .
> 
> James do you know what the Koehler method for stopping hardcore fighters is? the science does not change much you are right, if you used the method he recommends for that, it would most likely work in stopping most behaviors...
> 
> ...


 

I surely am. And your using the word theory wrong. A theory is not a made up thought or guess... A theory is supported hypothesis with no diputing evdience. So as long as thier is not disputing evidence A theory is true...And so far the theory of operant conditioning and classical condition are considered the "Atom" of all learning theory. 

Most people know the "Laws of learning" They know they should reward behaviors they like, and punish ones they don't....but they have no Idea "why".


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

James Downey said:


> I surely am. And your using the word theory wrong. A theory is not a made up thought or guess... A theory is supported hypothesis with no diputing evdience. So as long as thier is not disputing evidence A theory is true...And so far the theory of operant conditioning and classical condition are considered the "Atom" of all learning theory.


Well, in science technically you can never prove a theory, you can only disprove it. :razz: That's part of the scientific method and why Stephen Hawking was able to throw out some seemingly crazy and wildly unpopular theory some time ago and pretty much threw the gauntlet down for the rest of the scientific community to disprove. Things are presumed true until something comes along and disproves them. Even then, they might not be entirely wrong. That might be mincing words, still I think that is technically true (in theory?).

Plus, there are all sorts of theories about everything. In how we learn, and other things.

Most people know the "Laws of learning" They know they should reward behaviors they like, and punish ones they don't....but they have no Idea "why".[/QUOTE]

Serious question; is there some specific learning theory or "laws of learning" you're referring to? It might help us know where you're coming from.

-Cheers


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Yeah but James even the atom model changes with every new set of data, how you define it depends totally on the experimental technique. Peoples that study that shit just accept thats how it is, absolutism just makes you look stooopid.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> ...*There are simply better ways now that we know of.* Have I done that maneuver to dogs before? Sure, I have and probably most people have, even if they have never heard of Koehler. Even the "be a tree" method where you don't walk forward until they stop pulling that is billed as less compulsion is a version of this. But I don't put up some window dressing about how the dog is choosing that as a natural consequence or self correction. If I'm working the dog, I set them up for it and I am the one correcting the dog one way or the other.
> 
> But the dog is only acting in their framework for what they know. They are only "acting like an idiot" to us, not to them. They don't "know" how to walk on leash nicely coming out of the whelping pen. It's not a natural behavior to do so. Why would you hold an animal responsible for that?


You are assuming that the dogs are in pain, which may or may not be true. If I choose to train like that, in most, almost all cases, there is no pain involved at least not any that the dog expresses.

"Better ways" according to some people, not better ways according to others. To say it is better, there are factors to consider, that will make you draw a conclusion...

Is it better because it is more effective?
Is it better because it is faster?
Is it better because it takes less effort?
Is it better because it makes you feel better?


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Good point.




Joby Becker said:


> You are assuming that the dogs are in pain, which may or may not be true. If I choose to train like that, in most, almost all cases, there is no pain involved at least not any that the dog expresses.
> 
> "Better ways" according to some people, not better ways according to others. To say it is better, there are factors to consider, that will make you draw a conclusion...
> 
> ...


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

James Downey said:


> I surely am. And your using the word theory wrong. A theory is not a made up thought or guess... A theory is supported hypothesis with no diputing evdience. So as long as thier is not disputing evidence A theory is true...And so far the theory of operant conditioning and classical condition are considered the "Atom" of all learning theory.
> 
> Most people know the "Laws of learning" They know they should reward behaviors they like, and punish ones they don't....but they have no Idea "why".


are you saying Koehler method does not use "operant" conditioning? I am having trouble figuring out what your point is here...

I know what a theory is...it is an educated guess, used to explain things that are not necessarily provable. Theories and even LAWS end up being disproved all the time in science..


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> I don't like animals to be in pain. A dog that runs to the end of a line and yelps when they hit the end hard is going to hurt. Pure and simple. I don't like having to cause pain to get them to do something that I want that goes against their nature, even if it is for their (or mostly our) benefit. There are simply better ways now that we know of. Have I done that maneuver to dogs before? Sure, I have and probably most people have, even if they have never heard of Koehler. Even the "be a tree" method where you don't walk forward until they stop pulling that is billed as less compulsion is a version of this. But I don't put up some window dressing about how the dog is choosing that as a natural consequence or self correction. If I'm working the dog, I set them up for it and I am the one correcting the dog one way or the other.


I don't like animals to be in pain either. However, in that case it's preferable that the dog gets a correction rather than gets loose and possibly hurt or killed out of my control. Are there gentler methods? Sure. I don't see that as all that big a deal either way. I mean if a dog ever takes off when you have them on a prong it's going to hurt, however it's almost never going to be a good idea to let them just run loose. You can also probably find gentler ways to start off a dog that you know is a mad dasher so they don't hit the end of the leash at warp speed (e.g. start in a smaller enclosed area or something). I still think it teaches it where the correction is a natural consequence of their actions. In a sense, the dog DOES correct itself since it is in charge of the correction. Yes, I am the handler and I'm in charge of the correction, but in that particular instance the dog has a very immediate and clear impact on what happens, just like if you tie your dog to a tree or dog house with a correction collar.



> But the dog is only acting in their framework for what they know. They are only "acting like an idiot" to us, not to them. They don't "know" how to walk on leash nicely coming out of the whelping pen. It's not a natural behavior to do so. Why would you hold an animal responsible for that?


Well, you're teaching them to be responsible for it. In this case, I'm fine with Koehler techniques. You can start slow, and not ever dog ends up running like mad straight away from you and getting a huge correction the first time you heel. And you can probably try to soften the blow a bit (I would). I think it can be much less harsh than you are describing and much more fair. If it's still not for you, or if somebody just wanted to use some other training to teach the dog the positions first I'm pretty alright with that as well. As long as the rules are clear and fair, and the system works, I really don't have a problem with whatever training method people are using. 

-Cheers


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

David Ruby said:


> *I think a lot of dogs can find attention, praise, sometimes even the act of working and getting it in training rewarding. *
> 
> 
> I think that is just a matter of pretty naturally occurring consequences. It is not about the dog's choice, it's simply a matter of learning if you run 5' away (or whatever) on walks, or stop paying attention to the handler and they turned the corner, you'll hit the end of your leash. It kind of takes the handler out of the equation since all they did was walk and the dog is the one who _sort of_ did it to themselves.dog. :razz:
> ...


There is a type of dog that will work for praise and/or the work itself. I've had them and the work was both instinctual and non-instinctual. I don't know how much breeding/selecting we have for that type of dog. I too got the Koehler books as a kid and tossed them aside except for the one exercise mentioned above. I still do this with my puppies on a flat nylon collar. Have someone doing it with an adult dog that i train in herding. I call it random walking and turning. I have made it a game for trying to lose the dog. Works like a charm with the dog trying to find and orient to left leg movement and attention for that matter. These days when they hit heel position and maintain it, I mark/reward.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> There is a type of dog that will work for praise and/or the work itself. I've had them and the work was both instinctual and non-instinctual. I don't know how much breeding/selecting we have for that type of dog. I too got the Koehler books as a kid and tossed them aside except for the one exercise mentioned above. I still do this with my puppies on a flat nylon collar. Have someone doing it with an adult dog that i train in herding. I call it random walking and turning. I have made it a game for trying to lose the dog. Works like a charm with the dog trying to find and orient to left leg movement and attention for that matter. These days when they hit heel position and maintain it, I mark/reward.


exactly...


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

The edition of the Koehler book that I have talked about external rewards and he wrote a preface to response to "positive" trainers. I don't recall Koehler working with markers or conditioned secondary reinforcers. Back in the day, you did not train with food and toys because of some fear the dog would only work with those present. There was no discussion of "operant" and varariable reinforcers and how ultimately the secondary reinforcer has the same effect as the primary reinforcer. I don't recall any discussion of the 4 quadrants of operant training in Koehler's work. It still comes down to how you LIKE to train and that's personal. I don't think Koehler needs defending. If you believe that the end justifys the means, there's no debate he got results. It really comes down to how you choose to relate to your animals. Reward based training without conditioning the reinforcers and working with a variable reinforcement schedule, will most likely get you a for the cookie only dog. Operant with conditioned reinforcers and variable/intermittent reinforcement schedules get you an entirely different effect. 

T


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> The edition of the Koehler book that I have talked about external rewards and he wrote a preface to response to "positive" trainers. I don't recall Koehler working with markers or conditioned secondary reinforcers. Back in the day, you did not train with food and toys because of some fear the dog would only work with those present. There was no discussion of "operant" and varariable reinforcers and how ultimately the secondary reinforcer has the same effect as the primary reinforcer. I don't recall any discussion of the 4 quadrants of operant training in Koehler's work. It still comes down to how you LIKE to train and that's personal. I don't think Koehler needs defending. If you believe that the end justifys the means, there's no debate he got results. It really comes down to how you choose to relate to your animals. Reward based training without conditioning the reinforcers and working with a variable reinforcement schedule, will most likely get you a for the cookie only dog. Operant with conditioned reinforcers and variable/intermittent reinforcement schedules get you an entirely different effect.
> 
> T


I can agree with that, and can also state that there are literally 10's of thousands of reward only trainers that think they are also using "operant methods.". 

Koehler methods do use rewards and even "markers" when you get right down to the meat of the matter. Whether he discussed the methods or not in his writings. One thing it was not, was "drive based". I would say in m


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

David Ruby said:


> I don't like animals to be in pain either. However, in that case it's preferable that the dog gets a correction rather than gets loose and possibly hurt or killed out of my control. Are there gentler methods? Sure. I don't see that as all that big a deal either way. I mean if a dog ever takes off when you have them on a prong it's going to hurt, however it's almost never going to be a good idea to let them just run loose. You can also probably find gentler ways to start off a dog that you know is a mad dasher so they don't hit the end of the leash at warp speed (e.g. start in a smaller enclosed area or something). I still think it teaches it where the correction is a natural consequence of their actions. In a sense, the dog DOES correct itself since it is in charge of the correction. Yes, I am the handler and I'm in charge of the correction, but in that particular instance the dog has a very immediate and clear impact on what happens, just like if you tie your dog to a tree or dog house with a correction collar.


Again, don't mistake that I am against corrections. I will use a prong and an e-collar and try to do so judiciously. This is not really a punishment versus rewards discussion. This is a Koehler versus everything else discussion.

At either rate, why start out with a painful correction to start the whole "learning" process out? What would you think if your boss said something in Swahili that you were supposed to comply with and you had no idea what that meant? Then they repeated it, but did not explain. Then they repeated it again, just their voice got louder. Then not only did they not teach you what they meant, but they set you up to fail AND punished you for not getting it right away? Then when you finally somehow got it right, they only praised you but you didn't get paid, because really, shouldn't praise be enough? Not sure you'd feel real great towards your boss.

Compare that to a boss who teaches what is expected in a new task and pays you for a job well done. In addition, maybe they reward you with a little bonus or gift certificate to a nice restaurant or some other reward for going above and beyond with extra effort. However, if you have done the task reliably in multiple situations for a length of time and you no longer do it correctly, your boss may start to correct you. This would be fair.



> Well, you're teaching them to be responsible for it. In this case, I'm fine with Koehler techniques. You can start slow, and not ever dog ends up running like mad straight away from you and getting a huge correction the first time you heel. And you can probably try to soften the blow a bit (I would). I think it can be much less harsh than you are describing and much more fair. If it's still not for you, or if somebody just wanted to use some other training to teach the dog the positions first I'm pretty alright with that as well. As long as the rules are clear and fair, and the system works, I really don't have a problem with whatever training method people are using.
> 
> -Cheers


In my opinion, the most fair is to actually teach them what is expected BEFORE you do any kind of corrections at all, active or passive. Then and only then do you introduce corrections. Like I said, I am not at all against fair corrections, but starting off with them like what seems to be the backbone of the Koehler method seems like a less than ideal way to do things either for sport, pet dog obedience, or behavior cases.


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> Again, don't mistake that I am against corrections. I will use a prong and an e-collar and try to do so judiciously. This is not really a punishment versus rewards discussion. This is a Koehler versus everything else discussion.


Sure, I get that. Let me try again in response to your analogy.



> At either rate, why start out with a painful correction to start the whole "learning" process out? What would you think if your boss said something in Swahili that you were supposed to comply with and you had no idea what that meant? Then they repeated it, but did not explain. Then they repeated it again, just their voice got louder. Then not only did they not teach you what they meant, but they set you up to fail AND punished you for not getting it right away? Then when you finally somehow got it right, they only praised you but you didn't get paid, because really, shouldn't praise be enough? Not sure you'd feel real great towards your boss.


Well, I would argue it's not particularly painful, just startling. You're starting a pup or dog on a flat collar. First off, at least how I've been taught, you praise the dog for paying attention to you. Second, unless they're doing a 5' spring they're just getting a little bit of a jolt at the end of the leash. If they do dash the full length of the leash and pop themselves, they learn pretty quick. So it's more like learning not to touch a hot pan, or a boss who says something, if you do not comply they guide you. Again, these initial corrections are just pops or directing the dog to do something. I also think generally speaking you just repeat the command without getting louder or harsher. It's just the same level of correction.

So, honestly, it sounds like a firm-but-fair boss at that stage who is demanding, sure, but really just showing you the rules and when you get it right they praise the hell out of you. In the case of the dogs I've seen, they do get a rise out of you getting excited, praising them, affectionately slapping them on the side, and generally making a big deal about it. So to use your analogy, in this case your boss is being a firm-yet-fun parent and you're a kid who is not worried about getting paid because everything you know in life comes through said boss. Your food, your play, your corrections, your rewards, everything. So it's not like going to work with an overly dominating control freak for free. It's more familial in some sense, only with the obvious realization that dogs do not think like humans.



> Compare that to a boss who teaches what is expected in a new task and pays you for a job well done. In addition, maybe they reward you with a little bonus or gift certificate to a nice restaurant or some other reward for going above and beyond with extra effort. However, if you have done the task reliably in multiple situations for a length of time and you no longer do it correctly, your boss may start to correct you. This would be fair.


Sure, I think that works great. However, I have worked for people that I respected and loved for no payment other than the joy of their company and the reward of their appreciation, spoken or otherwise. Not saying dogs work the same way, just that I think either way can work and be just fine.



> In my opinion, the most fair is to actually teach them what is expected BEFORE you do any kind of corrections at all, active or passive. Then and only then do you introduce corrections. Like I said, I am not at all against fair corrections, but starting off with them like what seems to be the backbone of the Koehler method seems like a less than ideal way to do things either for sport, pet dog obedience, or behavior cases.


I don't know. Koehler seems to work pretty well. I think the strength of Koehler, from my understanding (others can speak more to this) it that it is black & white. It becomes very clear early on what the rules are and the consequences for the dog. Despite the earlier timelines, I believe dogs generally get it pretty fast, the rest is just ingraining the behavior. I tend to gravitate more toward Michael Ellis' style of training, for lack of any better way to say it. I like teaching the dog what's up then introducing punishment or negative reinforcement. Still, I think Koehler is very no-nonsense and even if you make some adjustments to it that basic style seems to work pretty well. I have grown more inclined to a more positive or reward style of training, yet think Koehler DOES work and seems very fair since everything is black and white for the dog. Of course, I think Michael Ellis' style works very well because the dog gets a chance to screw up without being immediately trounced for being wrong. So honestly, that's more where I am gravitating toward at this point. However, I think Koehler is fine as a training style, even if I can see how for competition or certain outcomes (e.g. a more outgoing or flashier dog in training) it is not the best.

In short, they both seem to work if done right. That seems to be all that matters in the end. The rest is largely preference, or training for the job.

-Cheers


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

rick smith said:


> i've heard it mentioned a lot about how Koehler saved dogs from death row, but from what i have researched about him, that was only a small part of his training accomplishments. But for some reason people seem to emphasize that part a lot
> 
> for those of you who like statistics, consider this excerpt taken from an online version of his book i had archived :
> 
> ...



The movie work was what put him in the limelight more then his training history before that.
He did quite a few movies with Disney. Swiss Family Robinson comes to mind because that was one of my favs. 
Much of his training worked!
My problem is when he claims to cure a dog of diging by filling the hole with water then hold the dog's head in the hole.
How does the dog connect the dots on that one? By the time you fill the hole with water the dog has no clue why your trying to drown him in it. that's just like beating a dog for trash all over the house when he knocked it over when you left 2 hours ago. The dog sure as hell knows he's gonna get his butt whipped because of the trash all over the floor but connecting it to actually knocking over the can...No way!


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

rick smith said:


> i also believe he did a fair mount of dog training for the movie people, since after all, he was a SoCal guy
> ...but can't be sure on that one


He did a lot of movies and he didn't just work with dogs, he trained all kinds of animals. He even used the clicker. :-$


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

this thread just reminded me of something funny...
when I was living in Guam a good buddy of mine used to piss me off cause he could speak Japanese so well and never had a problem picking up the Ja tourist babes 

I knew him for a few years before he finally spilled his guts .... he had always said he knew Japanese cause he studied the language a "lot" .... turned out that a "lot" meant five years in the slammer in Fuchuu, Japan 
- all "commands" were given to inmates in Japanese ... wasn't a "bilingual" prison, and strict well timed corrections were delivered for non compliance


----------



## Melissa Thom (Jun 21, 2011)

Bob Scott said:


> My problem is when he claims to cure a dog of diging by filling the hole with water then hold the dog's head in the hole.
> How does the dog connect the dots on that one? By the time you fill the hole with water the dog has no clue why your trying to drown him in it. that's just like beating a dog for trash all over the house when he knocked it over when you left 2 hours ago. The dog sure as hell knows he's gonna get his butt whipped because of the trash all over the floor but connecting it to actually knocking over the can...No way!


I can't say I recall that part of his books. Where did that come from?


----------



## brad robert (Nov 26, 2008)

Melissa Thom said:


> I can't say I recall that part of his books. Where did that come from?


Its definately in there cant remember if it was the ob book or the gaurd book but he wrote it.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Guard Dog Book... Has 2 solutions for digging.. Dunking and staking out.

Bob forgot the part about doing it for 5-6 consecutive days, and THEN digging a hole yourself while the dog watches, and having him watch you fill it with water too.  Personally I would think that would make most dogs want to avoid holes period, and certainly impart to most dogs that digging a hole is not the greatest idea. 

_*HOLE DIGGING*
After a dog has dug a few ruinous holes in a lawn or flower bed, it is
almost certain his master has shown him he disapproves, and the dog has not been particularly impressed by the disapproval. Generally, the first action of the master is to focus the dog's attention on the hole that's
been dug and spank him. Sometimes this procedure accomplishes the
purpose, but there are other ways that seem more effective.

If you come home and find your dog has dug a hole, fill the hole brimful
of water. With the training collar and leash, bring the dog to the hole
and shove his nose into the water; hold him there until he is sure he's
drowning. If your dog is of any size, you may get all of the action of
a cowboy bull-dogging a steer. Stay with it. I've had elderly ladies
who'd had their fill of ruined flower beds dunk some mighty big dogs. A
great many dogs will associate this horrible experience with the hole
they dug. 

However, to make sure of a permanent impression, fill the
hole with water and repeat the experience the next day, whether the dog
digs any more or not. On the third day, let him watch you dig a hole
and prepare it for a dunking. Class surveys have shown that more than
seventy percent of the dogs who experience this correction for as many
as six consecutive days swear off hole digging. 

If the master takes the first sign of repentance as a permanent change, and stops the dunking after only a couple of days, failure is generally the result.

Another correction, found to be very effective and easier to administer,
is the policy of putting a screw-in stake in the ground adjacent to the
hole, tying the dog to it on about two feet of chain, and leaving him to
meditate for an hour or so. If this is the inevitable result of each
excavation, the dog will eventually turn his energy to other channels.
It is not necessary to "catch the dog in the act" in any of the above
instances of correction. Be consistent in your corrections and your dog
will come to find the smell of freshly dug earth quite repugnant._


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Joby Becker said:


> Guard Dog Book... Has 2 solutions for digging.. Dunking and staking out.
> 
> Bob forgot the part about doing it for 5-6 consecutive days, and THEN digging a hole yourself while the dog watches, and having him watch you fill it with water too.  Personally I would think that would make most dogs want to avoid holes period, and certainly impart to most dogs that digging a hole is not the greatest idea.


The difference there seems to be that it is not entirely fair. Granted, you can say that about not showing the dog what to do before correcting it. However generally speaking, the dog does something and immediately either gets a reward or punishment. It's black and white. Here, you half-drown the dog for a full business week and not necessarily giving this feedback anywhere near the time the infraction occurred. I also have to wonder how that would effect your bond with the dog. A system based on fair corrections, praise, and working together? Sure. A system where the dog screws up and you physically dominate and drown the thing for the better part of a week? That seems pretty hard to justify.

-Cheers


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

David Ruby said:


> The difference there seems to be that it is not entirely fair. Granted, you can say that about not showing the dog what to do before correcting it. However generally speaking, the dog does something and immediately either gets a reward or punishment. It's black and white. Here, you half-drown the dog for a full business week and not necessarily giving this feedback anywhere near the time the infraction occurred. I also have to wonder how that would effect your bond with the dog. A system based on fair corrections, praise, and working together? Sure. A system where the dog screws up and you physically dominate and drown the thing for the better part of a week? That seems pretty hard to justify.
> 
> -Cheers


It makes no sense to me either. Like rubbing a dog's nose in hours-old crap.

And to add to the makes-no-sense, the part about "repeat the experience the next day, whether the dog digs any more or not."

Also, for chewing: Put a piece of the chewed material well back in his mouth, across the tongue, and "Use a strip of adhesive tape to wrap the muzzle securely in front of the chewed material, so that no amount of gagging and clawing can force it from his mouth. Perhaps you are wondering if these frantic efforts to rid himself of the material will cause the dog to scratch himself painfully. Yup. They surely will."

The book I'm quoting from is _The Koehler Method of Dog Training_ by William Koehler.

There is of course some good stuff here. There is something in almost all the training books I have. And then there are things like the drowning-hole method.


----------



## Jim Leon (Jan 21, 2010)

I used this method to cure my Standard Schnauzer from chewing up shoes. I took the inner sole from a chewed shoe, stuck it back in his mouth, tied up his mouth around it with a pair of panty hose and left him like that. He tried to get it out, then he just gave up on it. An hour later I untied his mouth. He never chewed another shoe or any article of clothing or furniture again.
The dog experienced no pain. He liked my putting the sole in his mouth. He didn't mind at all that I was tying it shut. The whole operation was done gingerly and quickly with no malice on my part.

That's waht people misperceive about Koehler. As the trainer, you're not this mean unyeilding entity that the dog comes to dread. In fact, the dog should perceive you as a guy who might go the other way with little or no notice.His job is to pay attention. He can do that best by keeping himself in "Pleasant Haven", or proper heel position at the left knee. That's the whole point of the method.

When the dog gets a correction he doesn't see a handler horsearming him on the leash. What he should see at a corrective turn is the handlers back, moving away from him. Other than the sit and down corrections, there are no leash corrections that require physically pulling the leash with your arms. I'm not including the correction for the forced retrieve, that's an ear pinch.

As a foundation for OB, Koehler is superlative. I see no adversity or conflict in training a dog, a PP or sport dog, with Koehler for a OB foundation, then overlaying other types of trained tasks for flash or whatever is desired. Just train your food or toy driven tasks with a different verbal command.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Indeed...and that's the thing about his methodology in general that you are not supposed to pick and choose. You are supposed to do it EXACTLY like it is outlined in the book. Days 1-5 of this with 25 repetitions, days 6-10 of that with 25 more repetitions, and on and on. That's also why I found it exceptionally boring as a pre-teen. ;-)

I think using a balanced training approach of moderate to high level reward (i.e.-more than just praise) and judicious use of corrections is the MOST black and white because it really motivates and shows the dog that your way is the most rewarding, but if they do know the exercise and choose not comply, there are also consequences to that as well. Not just to avoid punishment and get some praise.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

David, I wasnt defending it or recommending it .. Just posting it so people can see it, and stating it would probably work. 

I would most certainly try the stake out method, if I had a problem digger, most likely, no questions asked... I dont think staking them out by it would mess up the bond that much, by staking him out for an hour, that also doesn't seem too over the top to try...I'd probably go ahead and make it more effective though, by playing some counrty music when he was tied there....

I might try to other method :-o but only if I was scheduled to have my backyard shot for "Better Homes and Gardens" magazine, and I somehow HAD to leave the dog out there, and he was digging up my prized exotic $1,000,000 Orchid plot, and the Black Rose Garden, something like that I might try it.. if you get my drift here...


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Jim Leon said:


> I used this method to cure my Standard Schnauzer from chewing up shoes. I took the inner sole from a chewed shoe, stuck it back in his mouth, tied up his mouth around it with a pair of panty hose and left him like that. He tried to get it out, then he just gave up on it. An hour later I untied his mouth. He never chewed another shoe or any article of clothing or furniture again.
> The dog experienced no pain. He liked my putting the sole in his mouth. He didn't mind at all that I was tying it shut. The whole operation was done gingerly and quickly with no malice on my part.
> 
> That's waht people misperceive about Koehler. As the trainer, you're not this mean unyeilding entity that the dog comes to dread. In fact, the dog should perceive you as a guy who might go the other way with little or no notice.His job is to pay attention. He can do that best by keeping himself in "Pleasant Haven", or proper heel position at the left knee. That's the whole point of the method.
> ...


Sounds like it worked but was it better?

1. Was it better?
2. Was it faster?
3. Was it easier?
4. What emotions did you experience when doing it ?


----------



## Jim Delbridge (Jan 27, 2010)

I think where Koehler went down the tubes was when he suggested solutions such as the water or dog poo in the dug hole. If you went with his philosophy of survival then new solutions came to mind. I've cured dogs of digging holes by filling the holes with something painful to dig in. I also learned it's easier to just give a dog a great place to dig and to convince the dog that that one area is simply for digging. Most dogs that dig do so out of boredom or prey drive (moles/gophers), but primarily the former.

I learned a lot about the canine behavior by tying out one lab that was digging out of a fenced area. Once the dog learns it can dig it, this can become self-rewarding. So, I tied her out and laid concrete blocks under the fence to give her something hard to deal with. After three weeks, I took her off the tie. The tie-out stopped her one foot from the fence. After three weeks and off-lead, she automatically stopped one foot prior to the fence as she'd learned it was a pain to go farther. I had to literally get on the ground and push her bodily past the tie-out line to teach her that her environment had changed. The concrete blocks stopped the digging out for walk-about.
On the same line, I have a dog that can currently jump six feet straight up and pull himself over my six-foot wire "unclimbable fencing." He only did this to be with me. My solution was to run a hot wire at the six foot line and connect the ground to the fence itself. The hot wire was not needed after one week for 3 years. I had to recently hook it back up after he went bonkers after a skunk and learned the wire was no longer hot.
All of these solutions can be attributed to Koehler as they are all forcing the dogs' behavior to change to survive versus a percieved negative stimulus. His exact solutions often sucked, but his philosophy was sound.


Jim


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Joby Becker said:


> David, I wasnt defending it or recommending it .. Just posting it so people can see it, and stating it would probably work.


No, I did not think you were. I was just musing about it as a technique. If you try it with your dog, you will probably need before and after pics as it sounds like you might lose an arm in the process.



> I would most certainly try the stake out method, if I had a problem digger, most likely, no questions asked... I dont think staking them out by it would mess up the bond that much, by staking him out for an hour, that also doesn't seem too over the top to try...I'd probably go ahead and make it more effective though, by playing some counrty music when he was tied there....


Yeah, I thought the semi-drowning was harsh. Staking them out next to country music? :-o[-X



> I might try to other method :-o but only if I was scheduled to have my backyard shot for "Better Homes and Gardens" magazine, and I somehow HAD to leave the dog out there, and he was digging up my prized exotic $1,000,000 Orchid plot, and the Black Rose Garden, something like that I might try it.. if you get my drift here...


Yeah, I think if you did that these days, you'd have to make sure nobody saw you or else that $1,000,000 might get eaten up in legal fees. :-o I guess what I've learned made sense to me and I can do it in a manner I think is non-malicious and fair. If I have problems understanding, justifying, or feeling like a decent human being after using it to train my dog, chances are I'm not using it.

-Cheers


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

The digging cure is in both the Guard dog Training and the Dog Training book. Page 201 in both books. Those are the two that I have. the Guard Dog Training book is pretty much a carbon copy of the Dog Training book with the additions of the guard training.
I will say that I have used the poo in the hole method with some success. They generally wont dig in that spot again but just move on to another area of the yard. 
I've also lightly buried mouse traps in the holes. I considered rat traps because the dog doing the damage was a 130 lb GSDxDane. The problem with that was I also had a 9lb terrierxpoodle at the same time. :-o#-o
The Dane x would just dig till he snapped a mouse trap on his foot then just pull it off with his mouth and continue digging. ](*,)


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

David Ruby said:


> No, I did not think you were. I was just musing about it as a technique. If you try it with your dog, you will probably need before and after pics as it sounds like you might lose an arm in the process.
> 
> -Cheers


I have a weird bond with this dog for sure by most peoples standards, based on mutual respect, I walk a fine line. Dog is not scared of me in the least, and I like to let her show some aggression and push me around a little. She loves opposing me when I let her. One thing I do is start walking around in weird patterns until the dog just starts heeling with me by herself. Then I usually say, "you can't do it" or something like that and either push her off, and/or just try to run or otherwise mess her up.. and she goes bonkers to try to get back to position. gets all growly and snappy some times.  another thing I do is OB, while she already has the reward..she will get all growly and try to get me to take it, or tug with it, pushes me into rewarding her. Or I like to start walking around the small island in the kitchen, and she will start to follow me, so I go faster, until she is on the other side, and try to play like kids do, chasing eachother around a car...really irritates the hell out of her, bit me in the ass the other day.. I think if I slapped the 13 yr old kid here around, the dog would bite ME for sure. she loves that kid, more than she loves me 

I would NOT try to dunk her head in muddy hole personally, unless she was muzzled and/or hogtied.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Jim, one of my GSDs tried to go over my 6ft privacy fence. I was working one dog out side the yard. The younger dog ,7months old at the time, decided to join us. Lucky for me he made the effort to come over right where I was standing. He was balanced on the top and was ready to launch. He never made it to the ground and never tried it again. :twisted:
Timing is everything in dog training no matter what the method! :lol:


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

I have used the hotwire on the fence, and also for poison proofing.

and the garden hose piece across the muzzle for breaking fighting dogs that want to fight. That one, you whack him, then immediately walk towards the other dog, and whack again if he starts showing signs, and then walk him closer..repeat if necessary.

does not take long, dog usually will not even look at other dogs by the time you are done, almost certainly will try to avoid other dogs while walking, but that is far better than having him want to kill them in my book, and having to be put down..


----------



## Jim Leon (Jan 21, 2010)

You all are overemphasizing the problem solving chapters. If you train the whole OB method 99% of those problems will go away. Iin the case of dog aggression if you use the throw chain on the dogs rear end as he's moving out of position and then go right into a corrective turn, the dog will soon get the message; 
Aggressing towards another dog=getting hit in the ass by magical chain from the sky and I get caught outside Pleasant Heaven.

Please don't discount the effectiveness of the throw chain. It can build very reliable recalls and heeling.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Jim Leon said:


> You all are overemphasizing the problem solving chapters. If you train the whole OB method 99% of those problems will go away. Iin the case of dog aggression if you use the throw chain on the dogs rear end as he's moving out of position and then go right into a corrective turn, the dog will soon get the message;
> Aggressing towards another dog=getting hit in the ass by magical chain from the sky and I get caught outside Pleasant Heaven.
> 
> Please don't discount the effectiveness of the throw chain. It can build very reliable recalls and heeling.


That works too I am sure..


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Jim Leon said:


> You all are overemphasizing the problem solving chapters. If you train the whole OB method 99% of those problems will go away. Iin the case of dog aggression if you use the throw chain on the dogs rear end as he's moving out of position and then go right into a corrective turn, the dog will soon get the message;
> Aggressing towards another dog=getting hit in the ass by magical chain from the sky and I get caught outside Pleasant Heaven.
> 
> Please don't discount the effectiveness of the throw chain. It can build very reliable recalls and heeling.


I agree 100% about training to avoid problems. That applies to any method of training but it still has a lot to do with leadership skills. All the training in the world means nothing without that. 
I used the throw chain many time in my early training days. Great to get a dogs attention. Often time it's just hearing the chain rattle a bit and that gets it back under control. It still can be a very effective tool if needed.


----------



## Jim Delbridge (Jan 27, 2010)

Bob Scott said:


> The digging cure is in both the Guard dog Training and the Dog Training book. Page 201 in both books. Those are the two that I have. the Guard Dog Training book is pretty much a carbon copy of the Dog Training book with the additions of the guard training.
> I will say that I have used the poo in the hole method with some success. They generally wont dig in that spot again but just move on to another area of the yard.
> I've also lightly buried mouse traps in the holes. I considered rat traps because the dog doing the damage was a 130 lb GSDxDane. The problem with that was I also had a 9lb terrierxpoodle at the same time. :-o#-o
> The Dane x would just dig till he snapped a mouse trap on his foot then just pull it off with his mouth and continue digging. ](*,)


 
I have to say that I tried the dog poo in the dug hole with several dogs and the end result would be dog poo flung out in a radial pattern by the dog re-digging the hole. I didn't have the heart to put a dog's head in the hole full of water. I couldn't see the association. If the dog digging the hole caused it to fill with water due to a high water table, then I could see doing it while the dog was digging.

I have used mouse and rat traps in lots of training scenarios and have had a lot of success with setting them upside-down (yes an acquired touch) on counters to eliminate counter surfing for food. 
I have just as much success though with putting a tasty treat out on a table edge and slapping the dogs nose at just the right time before it can snag the treat. Timing is everything.

Jim


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

"I have just as much success though with putting a tasty treat out on a table edge and slapping the dogs nose at just the right time before it can snag the treat.

Being there when it happens helps just a bit. :grin::wink:

One of my present dogs would probably be a poo flinger. He will walk all over and trample it in the ground if I don't clean immediately. The other dog avoids it like a coiled rattlesnake.:lol:


----------

