# Which method is best?



## Reinier Geel

Compulsion training vs. food and reward training.

How are they different  apart from the blatantly obvious? This should be a required field of study, call it the methodology of dog training, or just call it the doctrine on dog training.

So when deciding on what type of dog you which to train, and for what purpose, also decide on the training method that you would like to use. Why am I playing this up  its your time, and money, so dont be disappointed if you have a very good experience during training but somehow the outcome you desired stays elusive.

In general I have found that, people just sign up at any local club, and fall in with its training program: there motivation is mostly financial  or follow by referral  which is not a bad thing either, as success breeds referral. Therefore, it stands to reason that someone somewhere is doing something right. The question now, will he / or she be doing right by you.... In this regard, I say, and am of the opinion that every type of dog training, and doctrine, has its place and purpose, but you have to find the right type of training to get the desired results, the results you want, they are not going to appear out of the blue.

I am neither for nor against any type of training. I am just highlighting the principle around which these diverse training philosophy originated. On many boards, you see new comers that are disappointed in the outcome, but thrilled with the training provided. 

For these people, people who want and contemplate having a serious working dog, the likes of a personal protection dogs, I would like to say this, in my opinion compulsion is the only way to do it right, and get it right doing it. ( I am referring to the Koehler method here) 

Compulsion has at its core, the philosophy of military training, a process called flooding, - simply put, a generalisation of fear levels, or rather, threat levels, by introducing stress at the relevant importunate time. A battle principle, the dog is conditioned that all threat is equal to zero pain. Therefore, he no longer hesitates to go over to attack. Something that is hard to achieve with reward and food training, it lacks this required attribute.

Conflict creates anxiety in the dogs mind and so does the fight; we use compulsion to get the dog use to conflict originating in a fight, or in a threat situation, through training. So the aim is not to confuse the dog with bad stimulus during training, or to get the dogs hurt, it is always positive-positive; every training session ends this way  with the dog winning.

The dogs motivation is queued here and heightened to engage on command; we understand that dogs are motivated by hunger, sex, thirst, attachment, need to claim territory and social status, and last but not the least fight, call it the dogs pyramid of needs, his Maslow pyramid if you may. Therefore, dogs with low trainability and pray drive can be trained with compulsion to act and behave aggressive in a controlled environment. 

Even small dogs, like the Jack Russell, and Fox Terrier that can only stand one helping of food reward, so food wont cut it, as well as dogs with low reactivity to ball or pray drive like the Alaskan Malamute and Great Dane, they needs to be trained via other methods like compulsion training.

To understand compulsion training then  is to understand the old ways, the  Classical training doctrine . It can be les dramatic  by virtue of inconsistent behaviour by the handler  inconsistency in training is to blame for bad results. So with compulsion  the underlying attribute to success is consistency and reputation, this is what makes or breaks it with this method. People have created the wrong perception about compulsion; it is not beating, or kicking or cruel and inhuman training in any way. We seldom make use of prong collars, tie outs or even the favourite; the electrical collars, its mainly all body and voice, that controls the dogs behaviour. With a choke chain and a lead.

Another factor is the handlers state of mind, we have found that if he or she is very emotional the dog tends to show more anxiety, so yes the right balance needs to be stricked here with a lot of understanding of dog / human interaction.

So in conclusion I think the same can be said of most types of training today because the components are relatively the same. No one I know can say they train in one pure aspect, I see a lot of mixing it up today. Yet, the question is which one will deliver the desired results.

To me, I firmly believe in starting off with, socialisation, imprinting and then compulsion on all dogs, and then rounding off with reward and food training when we specialise into nark, explosives and tracking, or whatever, to cement the foundation with a nice smoother finish. This recipe renders the best results with protection training dogs.

Lets have some views on this - :wink:


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Reinier Geel said:


> Compulsion training vs. food and reward training.
> 
> How are they different  apart from the blatantly obvious? This should be a required field of study, call it the methodology of dog training, or just call it the doctrine on dog training.
> 
> So when deciding on what type of dog you which to train, and for what purpose, also decide on the training method that you would like to use. Why am I playing this up  its your time, and money, so dont be disappointed if you have a very good experience during training but somehow the outcome you desired stays elusive.
> 
> In general I have found that, people just sign up at any local club, and fall in with its training program: there motivation is mostly financial  or follow by referral  which is not a bad thing either, as success breeds referral. Therefore, it stands to reason that someone somewhere is doing something right. The question now, will he / or she be doing right by you.... In this regard, I say, and am of the opinion that every type of dog training, and doctrine, has its place and purpose, but you have to find the right type of training to get the desired results, the results you want, they are not going to appear out of the blue.
> 
> I am neither for nor against any type of training. I am just highlighting the principle around which these diverse training philosophy originated. On many boards, you see new comers that are disappointed in the outcome, but thrilled with the training provided.
> 
> For these people, people who want and contemplate having a serious working dog, the likes of a personal protection dogs, I would like to say this, in my opinion compulsion is the only way to do it right, and get it right doing it. ( I am referring to the Koehler method here)
> 
> Compulsion has at its core, the philosophy of military training, a process called flooding, - simply put, a generalisation of fear levels, or rather, threat levels, by introducing stress at the relevant importunate time. A battle principle, the dog is conditioned that all threat is equal to zero pain. Therefore, he no longer hesitates to go over to attack. Something that is hard to achieve with reward and food training, it lacks this required attribute.
> 
> Conflict creates anxiety in the dogs mind and so does the fight; we use compulsion to get the dog use to conflict originating in a fight, or in a threat situation, through training. So the aim is not to confuse the dog with bad stimulus during training, or to get the dogs hurt, it is always positive-positive; every training session ends this way  with the dog winning.
> 
> The dogs motivation is queued here and heightened to engage on command; we understand that dogs are motivated by hunger, sex, thirst, attachment, need to claim territory and social status, and last but not the least fight, call it the dogs pyramid of needs, his Maslow pyramid if you may. Therefore, dogs with low trainability and pray drive can be trained with compulsion to act and behave aggressive in a controlled environment.
> 
> Even small dogs, like the Jack Russell, and Fox Terrier that can only stand one helping of food reward, so food wont cut it, as well as dogs with low reactivity to ball or pray drive like the Alaskan Malamute and Great Dane, they needs to be trained via other methods like compulsion training.
> 
> To understand compulsion training then  is to understand the old ways, the  Classical training doctrine . It can be les dramatic  by virtue of inconsistent behaviour by the handler  inconsistency in training is to blame for bad results. So with compulsion  the underlying attribute to success is consistency and reputation, this is what makes or breaks it with this method. People have created the wrong perception about compulsion; it is not beating, or kicking or cruel and inhuman training in any way. We seldom make use of prong collars, tie outs or even the favourite; the electrical collars, its mainly all body and voice, that controls the dogs behaviour. With a choke chain and a lead.
> 
> Another factor is the handlers state of mind, we have found that if he or she is very emotional the dog tends to show more anxiety, so yes the right balance needs to be stricked here with a lot of understanding of dog / human interaction.
> 
> So in conclusion I think the same can be said of most types of training today because the components are relatively the same. No one I know can say they train in one pure aspect, I see a lot of mixing it up today. Yet, the question is which one will deliver the desired results.
> 
> To me, I firmly believe in starting off with, socialisation, imprinting and then compulsion on all dogs, and then rounding off with reward and food training when we specialise into nark, explosives and tracking, or whatever, to cement the foundation with a nice smoother finish. This recipe renders the best results with protection training dogs.
> 
> Lets have some views on this - :wink:


I didn't realize that compulsion training would be followed by food-and-reward training in the specialization phase. 

Can't offer views because I'm unqualified, but I appreciate the well-thought-out and -articulated piece.


----------



## Tim Martens

Reinier Geel said:


> No one I know can say they train in one pure aspect, I see a lot of mixing it up today.


i think this is the truest statement in your post. another thing i would add is that NO ONE way works for EVERY dog in EVERY task. i look at the out this way now. NO amount of compulsion would get my dog to out consistently (including the remote collar strapped around his belly on it's maximum setting). my other two dogs? compulsion worked just fine. a few tugs on the prong, a few zaps and bingo they'd be clean as a whistle. my current dog? the only thing that brought consistency to the out, was the switch to motivation. giving him a bite on the other end of the out. doing this OVER and OVER finally made things click, that letting go wasn't this horrible let down. he was motivated by the reward at the back end.

i would still say that my first option would be compulsion because i've seen good results with it. it just didn't work with my dog in this ONE area. it works for him in other areas. so i would be hesitant to say there is ONE right way to do anything...


----------



## Bob Scott

Excellent post Reinier. 
I was a hard core Koehler fan going back to the early sixties when I first became aware of his methods.
I dabbled in the motivational for a few years before I found a group ww.rwdc.org that truely understands what it's all about. We have all ranges of dogs from a nice Dobe that will never "get it" when it comes to bite work, all the way to fully titled, serious dog. Some that came with big problems. 
I had a hard time getting through totally motivational initially, because I didn't totally commit to it. 
As I've mentioned in the past, my GSD is very stronged nerved, social, but has a serious civil side when needed. At 30 months old, he's never had anything other then a flat collar or a fur saver on the dead ring, as do ALL our club dogs. He's also never had to have a leash correction on the training field. That doesn't mean he wont be corrected for bad manners, but not for training. His corrections usually amount to only a verbal, or at best, a leash pop.

We've had dogs come in from other local clubs and they could hardly be aproached by anyone without a sleeve. Poor training? Of course, but all of them are now reliably working in bite work without feeling the world is going to colapse if they don't bite anything/everything that gets close to them. 
I'll never critisize any method of training that works AND keeps the dogs attiude high. 
You will see only one dog on our web site that is wearing a pinch. This is a dog that has receintly came from another club with TONS of issues. Within a week of starting, these issues are bieng addressed and corrected with motivational methods only.
It DOES work! :wink:


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Quoting Bob:

I'll never critisize any method of training that works AND keeps the dogs attitude high. END


That says it all, Bob. You have a well-trained, confident dog? Then I salute your training method(s).


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

Rainier, what do you mean by compulsion? Is is a training method were dogs are trained with the sole use of compulsion for obedience and direction, or does it simply mean yanking the dog to correct it? In my training, compulsion has limited use, working with the dog's genetics is more like it. Is Koehler method all about compulsion?

Darn, I hope my terminologies are correct here, but I do hope you get my point. 

Best regards...


----------



## Bob Scott

Jose, not trying to answer for Rainier her, but yes. Koehler is all about compulsion. Still popular with some groups. Still effective with the right dog (as is the case with any type of training). My biggest complaint with his methods are a limited amount of praise for the dog. 
Bill Koehler got his start doing Military dog training during and after WWII. He was responsable for the dog training on many of the early Walt Disney movies. The couple of books I have of his are from the early 1960s. I don't know when he first started becomming "popular". I suspect the Disney movies had a lot to do with it.


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

Bob Scott said:


> Jose, not trying to answer for Rainier her, but yes. Koehler is all about compulsion. Still popular with some groups. Still effective with the right dog (as is the case with any type of training). My biggest complaint with his methods are a limited amount of praise for the dog.
> Bill Koehler got his start doing Military dog training during and after WWII. He was responsable for the dog training on many of the early Walt Disney movies. The couple of books I have of his are from the early 1960s. I don't know when he first started becomming "popular". I suspect the Disney movies had a lot to do with it.


Thank you, Bob.

Compulsion has a place in training, it's non-debatable. When all methods fail, one resorts to it and mostly for tough nuts. So I''m not surprised of its use for military and PP dogs. 

But in your definition, If I put a pup on an obstacle he's never been and he begins to feel uneasy, does that mean the pup is "corrected" thru compulsion?


----------



## Bob Scott

In my opinion I would NEVER correct a pup that is uncomfortable in training. Even before I became a big believer in all motivational, it just never made sense to use compulsion in the training phase of a puppy. That explains a lot of the reasons why, when I started training in the late 50s, early 60s, dog training never began before a dog was a year old. We at least had the good sense to realize compulsion on a pup wasn't productive. Now, pups can be doing sits, downs, recalls etc by the time they are 12-14 weeks old. Happily, I might add!


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

Bob Scott said:


> In my opinion I would NEVER correct a pup that is uncomfortable in training. Even before I became a big believer in all motivational, it just never made sense to use compulsion in the training phase of a puppy. That explains a lot of the reasons why, when I started training in the late 50s, early 60s, dog training never began before a dog was a year old. We at least had the good sense to realize compulsion on a pup wasn't productive. Now, pups can be doing sits, downs, recalls etc by the time they are 12-14 weeks old. Happily, I might add!



Bob, don't get me wrong, it's just a question on the Koehler method which I may not have worded properly. Sorry about that.

Yes, nor can you force a pup into an exercise. There's a way to do it, even in correcting a pup. Pups can achieve good obedience at 10 weeks of age, as well as tracking, agility and to some pups, a little of defense work. Goes to show that pups, unlike humans, were not born helpless. Hence, I develop pups early in preparation for future service work similar to that in the olden days when young pups were brought out to the herding fields to learn from the adults. I can be very patient and will not pass rush judgement but If I see they can't handle it, then they're not strong enough for work in the way I know and do it, and I will not tolerate nor cover up any weaknesses in breeding.

Just my preferences....


----------



## Reinier Geel

Hi, Bob you nailed it with good understanding; and please feel free, no experts here that will jump on you as an authoritarian if you give an opinion:  I can see that we both have progressed from the good old days of Koehler; by mixing it up. By saying this, I am implying that Koehler still has its place in training dogs today.

Koehler is and was my favorite doctrine and focal point, and I have trained many a dog this way. However, since then I have mixed it up my self, I have introduced praise, reward, food and play reward  mainly because it works and you get better results - if you find a good balance with motivational and compulsion training imo.

With compulsion, you break a dog down to the point where he conforms every time, first, and then build him up to where he just wants more, by just using the command, and slight corrections if it is not up to scratch. (You will either see the dogs trained this way, looking at the handler many times, or crouch his body posture if he gets a verbal command of correction, or pull down his ears down.)

With motivational training, it takes more time and patients, in my opinion. The luxury of which police and military do not have, so we dont train purely in motivational style. 

By saying this, I am implying  Jose  that all pups are guided along, we do not use any correction, and we bond and play, and socialize them into extinction  as much as possible  and start introducing the commands. 

It is Only from around six months old do I start getting tough with them, with some correction  we dont yank the hell out of it, as is commonly believed, it achieves nothingand says a lot about you training knowledge, or rather the lack of it.

Hanging a dog, or chocking him out  only happens in dogfights, where the aggressor will not let go.

Modern PP and patrol dog training is a mix, of both, to get the better result I believe. 
:wink:


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

Reinier Geel said:


> Hi, Bob you nailed it with good understanding; and please feel free, no experts here that will jump on you as an authoritarian if you give an opinion:  I can see that we both have progressed from the good old days of Koehler; by mixing it up. By saying this, I am implying that Koehler still has its place in training dogs today.
> 
> Koehler is and was my favorite doctrine and focal point, and I have trained many a dog this way. However, since then I have mixed it up my self, I have introduced praise, reward, food and play reward  mainly because it works and you get better results - if you find a good balance with motivational and compulsion training imo.
> 
> With compulsion, you break a dog down to the point where he conforms every time, first, and then build him up to where he just wants more, by just using the command, and slight corrections if it is not up to scratch. (You will either see the dogs trained this way, looking at the handler many times, or crouch his body posture if he gets a verbal command of correction, or pull down his ears down.)
> 
> With motivational training, it takes more time and patients, in my opinion. The luxury of which police and military do not have, so we dont train purely in motivational style.
> 
> By saying this, I am implying  Jose  that all pups are guided along, we do not use any correction, and we bond and play, and socialize them into extinction  as much as possible  and start introducing the commands.
> 
> It is Only from around six months old do I start getting tough with them, with some correction  we dont yank the hell out of it, as is commonly believed, it achieves nothingand says a lot about you training knowledge, or rather the lack of it.
> 
> Hanging a dog, or chocking him out  only happens in dogfights, where the aggressor will not let go.
> 
> Modern PP and patrol dog training is a mix, of both, to get the better result I believe.
> :wink:


Thank you, Reinier for your clarifications. I think you overemphasize it with your triple posting. :lol: :lol: :lol: 

I don't know Koehler to even try it. In fact I feel something "negative" about it, if it's indeed pure yanking as what I get from you. I don't have the heart to yank a pup that I often hug and kiss unless of course, as you said, for unnecessary aggression towards other animals and humans (especially children). Discipline, in my opinion must start early as well as part of good and solid foundation, but corrections must be made to be understood and never can be done out of anger, frustation, disappointment or vengeance. If you start feeling any of these, stop the training. It's not the pup's fault, it's yours. 

So does that conclude that Khoeler training includes yanking a pup in training, or does it also have a motivational side in it, considering that it does yield some good results after all?

Best regards...


----------



## David Frost

I just like to throw my 2 lira in a find subject like this. Once, when speaking to an all positive reinforcement group of trainers, I was in fact defending myself because, in my words, I use a bit of the physical when needed. What I told them was, you may be surprised that well over 90% of the training I do in police work is postive reinforcment. The difference between you and I, as I see it, positive reinforcement is even more powerful when the dog understands there is a consequence to improper behavior. Keeping with the discussion, I believe none of us believe there is a "single" way of training all dogs.

DFrost


----------



## Bob Scott

I think were all on the same page here. Just different % of motivational to compulsion levels. As David said "well over 90% of training is posative reinforement". 
I have absolutey no hesitation to correct for something a dog absolutely understands. I just feel the correction level needed is much lower with a motivationaly trained dog.


----------



## Guest

You all make good points, but Al brought up something I'd been meaning to ask: what, exactly, do you call compulsion? I am guilty of the no treats thing, but I would NEVER do some of the things to my dog that I've seen done and called compulsion. I think compulsion is becoming a "catch-all" for any means that the diehard motivational trainers don't agree with at that time. 

Do I correct, physically? Sure. Do I torture? Never. I won't "punish" a dog unless I am sure he knows what he's supposed to do. Maybe I'm just lucky w/my dog, but he really seems to enjoy doing difficult tasks, just for the sake of doing them (the first times he was doing these obstacles I got him to do it by doing it myself and calling him to me). He looks at me and waits for me to tell him what's next. He's never had a treat for following a command in his entire life. He's also never been harshly corrected w/a prong, ecollar, or similar means for not doing something he didn't know how to do. However, I have often had to force him into a platz. If he was unfairly uncomfortable doing this, I think he might've gone down faster :lol: . This was a dominance thing that we got over fairly quickly :wink: You can force a dog to do just about anything, but somehow the reward is so much greater when he does it himself because he wants to, because I asked him to :wink: . 

Call me whatever you want, but I guess I have more respect for my dog as a friend than to force him to do something by causing him pain if he doesn't or bribe him to do something by offering him food once he's done it. Dogs aren't humans in need of a paycheck; my dog doesn't work FOR me; he works WITH me. I don't bribe or beat my friends.


----------



## Greg Long

Jenni must have meant to say that she doesnt beat or bribe her "dog" friends!   

Other than that I agree.If you look at the dog as a partner,over time the dog will be much more responsive and cooperative.Remember that there is no "I" in TEAM.

Greg


----------



## Connie Sutherland

As made so clear in the article posted by Bob S. a few days ago, rewards and bribes are not the same thing. They're not to me, at least.

Timing may not be 100% of the difference (and in fact, isn't, IMO), but it sure is a big part.

I love to reward for a job well done. Yes, s/he did it because I asked -- and once the instruction phase of whatever training I'm doing is past, there's no consistent tangible treat, toy, etc., for obeying a command.

But I love showing my dog my pleasure in his/her eagerness and striving, with praise, with a stroke, with a game, or with a treat.

I guess "intent" plays a part here. 

I don't know.......... maybe here, as elsewhere, semantics can be a stumbling-block. :? 

But again, if your dog is well-trained and confident, then I'm definitely not gonna find fault with your training philosophy. 8)


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Compulsion as I see it, and have had others tell me, is the amount of force needed to interrupt the incorrect behavior. Koehler used it exactly like that. If a dog got yanked, that was what was needed that time. Many people got the crappy "distilled" version. Yet they flock to C. Milan, and guess who he reminds me of EXACTLY????????

Yeah, I bribe my dog, but if he doesn't want to take my bribe, I don't feed him for a couple of days. They figure it out.

I always feel bad when people have really crappy timing. I try and teach them to see what the dog is doing, and get the positive timing correct. It really doesn't matter what method you use, it is the timing of it. I have seen some yankers with perfect timing. They also never got mad or frustrated. With the perfect timing, the dogs were outstanding.


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> I always feel bad when people have really crappy timing. I try and teach them to see what the dog is doing, and get the positive timing correct. It really doesn't matter what method you use, it is the timing of it. I have seen some yankers with perfect timing. They also never got mad or frustrated. With the perfect timing, the dogs were outstanding.


That I agree, Jeff. *TIMING IS EVERYTHING*. Best for me is when you see the pup about to do mischief, then a "reminder" is effected, better than waiting for it to happen then the correction may become a punishment. Maybe a stern vocal or a pop or both, then back to work.

PS. Don't forget to praise the dog once he obeys what he's being corrected for, to mark the correct behaviour you want from him. Praise, like corrections, must be properly timed as well. 

JMHO...


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> ......I always feel bad when people have really crappy timing. I try and teach them to see what the dog is doing, and get the positive timing correct. It really doesn't matter what method you use, it is the timing of it. I have seen some yankers with perfect timing. They also never got mad or frustrated. With the perfect timing, the dogs were outstanding.


Timing is really the line, isn't it, between good training and not-so-good training.......timing of markers, timing of corrections.......

Are you able to help when would-be trainers have terrible timing? So far, I've had less-than-stellar results trying to help them. I can make them UNDERSTAND it, usually, but still not DO it without that fatal pause.......


P.S. Cesar Millan intervenes in cases where training has gone badly awry; he's not a trainer in the sense that Koehler was. (He says he is not a trainer, and I don't see him as a "trainer" myself. JMHO!)


----------



## Phil Dodson

I have been and will always be a Koehler fan.  His methods work! just look at the amount of titles his students have put on their dogs over the years. I have completely toned down the severity of the corrections though. My students are not allowed to correct harshly unless a K-9 wants to fight another dog or in the event he should for some reason climb the leash. They are required to praise verbally and physically when the K-9 performs any exercise correctly. Failure to do so or not enough praise is given, a throw chain is released and then as in MWD training they get to catch the other dog teams for most of the training session. All sessions end with a toy.


----------



## Reinier Geel

I like what I am seeing here, and now I know I am not the only one seeing and getting good results. By combination of both the doctrines on dog training  Koehler and motivational training. 

Well for once, I am convinced that a new form of training has emerged  can we coin it ? millennium training? (an imagined future utopian period of joy, peace, and justice, especially one created through revolution). 

Because, it cannot be denied anymore, like on other boards grrrr, more people are seeing the light.

Rightly observed: it is a question of percentages, and preferences in methods that have become the personal favorites, to train with... :lol:


----------



## Greg Long

I dont like the word compulsion at all because it has become a negative term.Actually compulsion isnt negative at all,its the handler that ultimately has either a positive or negative effect on the dog no matter what type of training is used.
A correction shouldnt be negative all the time either.Many times it is just a reminder which keeps the communication flowing.

Greg


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

Greg Long said:


> I dont like the word compulsion at all because it has become a negative term.Actually compulsion isnt negative at all,its the handler that ultimately has either a positive or negative effect on the dog no matter what type of training is used.
> A correction shouldnt be negative all the time either.Many times it is just a reminder which *keeps the communication flowing*.
> 
> Greg


Indeed... I'd rather dig more into the ancient trainings. Allows me to understand better what a founder named Max Von Stephanitz says about the herding dogs specifically his German Shepherds Dog. Simply beautiful. To borrow a phrase that I never will forget: 

"There was a time not long ago when man and dog walked side by side, Communicating at the same level and both acting out of need"

Best regards...


----------



## Greg Long

Jose Alberto Reanto said:


> Greg Long said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont like the word compulsion at all because it has become a negative term.Actually compulsion isnt negative at all,its the handler that ultimately has either a positive or negative effect on the dog no matter what type of training is used.
> A correction shouldnt be negative all the time either.Many times it is just a reminder which *keeps the communication flowing*.
> 
> Greg
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed... I'd rather dig more into the ancient trainings. Allows me to understand better what a founder named Max Von Stephanitz says about the herding dogs specifically his German Shepherds Dog. Simply beautiful. To borrow a phrase that I never will forget:
> 
> "There was a time not long ago when man and dog walked side by side, Communicating at the same level and both acting out of need"
> 
> Best regards...
Click to expand...


Hmmm...now where have I heard that before ..LOL.

Very true Al and it just makes good sense.

Greg


----------



## Guest

I don't like either "compulsion" or "motivational" used to describe training methods. I know we have to call them something, but I think people who train motivationally are missing a key point in this by focusing on balls, tugs, treats, etc. How 'bout the motivation to DO THE WORK? Why does my dog like doing this stuff, like climbing strange things, tracking, etc.? He's certainly never been punished for not doing it. I think there's a huge amount of motivation that comes from a bond. I personally think that treats, tugs, balls, etc. just get in the way. Of course, it depends on the dog. I firmly believe that they get enjoyment out of establishing a higher level of bond w/the handler. My dog will do these things whether told to or not. If I tell him "free," he's just as likely to go climb up some bales of hay onto the roof of a barn as he is to go lie down. He just likes to do it. I'd call that motivated. Or he just has a compulsion to continually climb to the highest point :lol: , over and over again. Hmmm.

Connie, something you said caught my attention; you mentioned "stroke." I don't consider petting a dog a distraction in the same way as a toy or treat. A "stroke" for a "job well done", IMO, is just a simple kindness extended to a friend (*dog* friend-otherwise, that can get complicated  )


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Jenni Williams said:


> .....Connie, something you said caught my attention; you mentioned "stroke." I don't consider petting a dog a distraction in the same way as a toy or treat. A "stroke" for a "job well done", IMO, is just a simple kindness extended to a friend (*dog* friend-otherwise, that can get complicated  )


Why not? I'm just extending this discussion here, as opposed to disagreeing....but why isn't a pat/rub the same kind of reward as a treat? Why aren't they both simple kindnesses or rewards for a job well-done?


----------



## Guest

I don't like giving treats for following a command. I don't think it's the same as something special at the end of a LONG DAY of training, and I don't see it as the same as a pat. I often pat my dog along with marking/praise as well, ie: Watch, good watch, pat. Telling a dog to sit, then giving it a treat and a pet is different, IMO. It really is all in timing, I guess. I guess I don't reward my friends w/material goods, but I might give them a hug after a hard day. A pat is not something *external distracting from communication between dog and handler*; a pat is something that *enforces an existing bond between the two*. The focus is always on the handler, not on what's in his/her pocket. Am I making sense? I don't expect people to agree w/me; this is just how I feel about it.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Once again, I am in the wrong thread, and I apologize. I don't train PPDs.


----------



## Tim Martens

Jenni Williams said:


> I guess I don't reward my friends w/material goods, but I might give them a hug after a hard day.


then you are truly unique. making dinner for a loved one at the end of a tough day of work? the boss taking the team out for lunch because they worked hard and just closed a big deal? buying your buddy a beer because he helped you fix the car? the company giving you a bonus because you had a good year? those are just a few examples for those that buy into this anthropomorphism....


----------



## Guest

Tim, you missed my point. Or did you? I really don't see where what you posted had to do with my post. Did you read the whole thing? I was trying to show how antropomorphizing DOESN'T apply. People want to compare dogs to humans, talking about rewards/paychecks, and dogs don't think the same way. That was my point. People think you need to reward a dog for doing something good because *people* like to be rewarded. I feel that one can express everything one needs to express to a dog without material goods. Your examples aren't really different than what I meant, sorry to disappoint you  . You're talking about rewards for human beings who work on a totally different level. I hope to never have the same type of relationship with my dog that most people have with their boss. I think this is the poorest of analogies. I hope my dog and I have more respect for each other. You don't have a bond with your boss that makes you want to work for him just to work for him. If so, then YOU are truly unique :wink: . 

Why can't people just accept the canine/human bond as the unique relationship that it is, without overanalyzing and trying to pigeon-hole it into something that feeble minds can understand? :? I think working dog people, for the most part, are much closer to this than pet people, but I still think we should accept and appreciate what we may never fully understand, although it's easier said than done. 

And if I'm anything, then it is truly unique :wink: :lol: .


----------



## Tim Martens

Jenni Williams said:


> You don't have a bond with your boss that makes you want to work for him just to work for him. If so, then YOU are truly unique :wink: .


haha. touche'. i ain't that unique...



Jenni Williams said:


> People want to compare dogs to humans, talking about rewards/paychecks, and dogs don't think the same way. That was my point.


then i must have misinterpreted your post. when you said:



Jenni Williams said:


> I don't like giving treats for following a command. I don't think it's the same as something special at the end of a LONG DAY of training, and I don't see it as the same as a pat. I often pat my dog along with marking/praise as well, ie: Watch, good watch, pat. Telling a dog to sit, then giving it a treat and a pet is different, IMO. It really is all in timing, I guess.


and then the very next sentence was:



Jenni Williams said:


> I guess I don't reward my friends w/material goods, but I might give them a hug after a hard day.


i took that to mean that you were saying that dogs and people's motivations were the same, thus you treated them the same.

i guess i just subscribe more to the dutch way of training where a dog is a dog and this touchy feely stuff is a bit foreign to me...


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

The use of dogs in the ancient times:

http://www.geocities.com/ericsquire/articles/dogshist.htm


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Jenni Williams said:


> ...........Why can't people just accept the canine/human bond as the unique relationship that it is, without overanalyzing and trying to pigeon-hole it into something that feeble minds can understand? :? I think working dog people, for the most part, are much closer to this than pet people, but I still think we should accept and appreciate what we may never fully understand........


You might be interested in Caroline Knapp's book, Pack of Two, which (IMO) also reflects the idea that the human-canine bond is unique and not within the ken of humans.


----------



## Woody Taylor

Jose Alberto Reanto said:


> The use of dogs in the ancient times:
> 
> http://www.geocities.com/ericsquire/articles/dogshist.htm


Pretty brutal and disturbing history there.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Woody Taylor said:


> Jose Alberto Reanto said:
> 
> 
> 
> The use of dogs in the ancient times:
> 
> http://www.geocities.com/ericsquire/articles/dogshist.htm
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty brutal and disturbing history there.
Click to expand...

Yes -- like much of history.


----------



## Woody Taylor

Connie Sutherland said:


> Woody Taylor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jose Alberto Reanto said:
> 
> 
> 
> The use of dogs in the ancient times:
> 
> http://www.geocities.com/ericsquire/articles/dogshist.htm
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty brutal and disturbing history there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes -- like much of history.
Click to expand...

I guess in a dark way it begs the question of why we'd wonder about changing temperments in dogs (for the "worse" and/or weaker and debate about things like "fight drive") when the context for their training and application used to be so different.


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

I didn't mean to sway from the topic of this thread by posting that link. I only wish to show that powerfull ancient trainings existed even before recorded history, bringing to light the unique relationship between dog and man. Though I presented something negative, there are of course positve dog utilization available in the web or elsewhere. 

Best regards...


----------



## Reinier Geel

What is implied by compulsion in dog training, - even we as humans are compelled, compelled to stop at traffic lights, compelled to pay bills, compelled to eat, sleep, drink and eatwhat is negative about that? It is a natural law: please read these two threads for a personal overview of Koehlers work and philosophy.

http://www.koehlerdogtraining.com/

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


 :twisted: :wink: [/url]


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote:I don't like giving treats for following a command.

WTF????? This is something I need to discuss. I have trained dogs to extremely high levels using food. Not wanting to reward with food is silly at many levels. I have been there, and it is not the way to go. A pat on the head ain't got shit on food. Sorry, patting just doesn't cut it. I have seen way to many dogs trained that way, and they do not come close to conditioning a response with food.

Then, as an added bonus, what the hell is gonna get that dog to leave the decoy and come back to the handler? Force?

If you can't tell, it drives me nuts to hear this. You can talk all the ancient crap you want, my dog is gonna smoke your dogs bags all day long, simply because you couldn't figure out to condition a response using food. 

If I didn't do this, I would have to choke my dog off the bite, something I have never done, and as a matter of fact, I have never had a problem with the out. NEVER. I would not EVER be able to get this dog to come to me away from the decoy. EVER. But I conditioned a response, and even then, I had a bit of problems with him returning to me. A long line and mostly minor corrections and one MAJOR correction got me to where he will come back to me. Without the FOOD rewards conditioning the response, I guarentee you that Buko would fight you about coming off, and away from the decoy. It would make him crazy, and there would be no titleing him.

In case it sounds like I am picking on one person here, I have seen this crazy statement here too many times.

My standards for quality of work are extremely high. Buko is the first dog with the crazy high drives I have managed to work to the ring three exersizes (he knows them all) with very few corrections, and without getting bitten. ( he does look at me funny an aweful lot )

Food in obedience is where the foundation work for all exersizes is built. It is a calmer drive, so you don't get tension in the work, ie slow sits downs ect. It just goes so much better. If you do the whistle recall with your dog while someone is holding his leash, and you do it until you are ready to whisle the dog back to you from the decoy WITH FOOD AS A REWARD EVERYTIME you will not be fighting so much with the dog. Of course if you don't have to fight with your dog to recall him from the decoy................ :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: JUUUUUUUNNNNK


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote:I don't like giving treats for following a command.

WTF????? This is something I need to discuss. I have trained dogs to extremely high levels using food. Not wanting to reward with food is silly at many levels. I have been there, and it is not the way to go. A pat on the head ain't got shit on food. Sorry, patting just doesn't cut it. I have seen way to many dogs trained that way, and they do not come close to conditioning a response with food.

Then, as an added bonus, what the hell is gonna get that dog to leave the decoy and come back to the handler? Force?

If you can't tell, it drives me nuts to hear this. You can talk all the ancient crap you want, my dog is gonna smoke your dogs bags all day long, simply because you couldn't figure out to condition a response using food. 

If I didn't do this, I would have to choke my dog off the bite, something I have never done, and as a matter of fact, I have never had a problem with the out. NEVER. I would not EVER be able to get this dog to come to me away from the decoy. EVER. But I conditioned a response, and even then, I had a bit of problems with him returning to me. A long line and mostly minor corrections and one MAJOR correction got me to where he will come back to me. Without the FOOD rewards conditioning the response, I guarentee you that Buko would fight you about coming off, and away from the decoy. It would make him crazy, and there would be no titleing him.

In case it sounds like I am picking on one person here, I have seen this crazy statement here too many times.

My standards for quality of work are extremely high. Buko is the first dog with the crazy high drives I have managed to work to the ring three exersizes (he knows them all) with very few corrections, and without getting bitten. ( he does look at me funny an aweful lot )

Food in obedience is where the foundation work for all exersizes is built. It is a calmer drive, so you don't get tension in the work, ie slow sits downs ect. It just goes so much better. If you do the whistle recall with your dog while someone is holding his leash, and you do it until you are ready to whisle the dog back to you from the decoy WITH FOOD AS A REWARD EVERYTIME you will not be fighting so much with the dog. Of course if you don't have to fight with your dog to recall him from the decoy................ :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: JUUUUUUUNNNNK


----------



## Al Curbow

I don't understand why people use only ONE way either, all dogs are different and respond to different things. Don't you guys think one way for all dogs is limiting? ,
AL


----------



## Kristen Cabe

OK. I have a question for those that do not use food/balls/tugs/etc. as a reward, and only use a "good boy" and a pat. 

How does the dog know that "good boy" means he's done something right? Dogs do not speak english, or german, or whatever language you train in, so how do you condition the dog to understand that "good boy" means he's pleased you, without also pairing the "good boy" with something the dog REALLY looks forward to? I mean, I know there is inflection of the voice, but come on! Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see some of you guys out there baby talking to your dogs in a high pitched tone of voice when you praise them. I see you saying the command, the dog complying (or not, and getting a correction first), and then you telling him "Goooood boy" in a normal speaking tone of voice, and thumping his sides with your hand. Again, maybe I'm wrong, but without using food or a toy or whatever the dog really likes/wants, how is he supposed to understand what "good boy" means. How do you get the dog to show enthusiasm for the work, if you are only using verbal praise with a pat on the head?

Not trying to cause more of an arguement here; just wondering.


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

Kristen Cabe said:


> Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see some of you guys out there baby talking to your dogs in a high pitched tone of voice when you praise them.


Well, actually that's exactly what I do, I look like a complete fool out in front of my house talking to my dogs   :lol: But I do use food.


----------



## Greg Long

Actually using a high pitched tone will bring them out of the work at hand and too harsh of tone will be viewed as a correction.A very low keyed "good sit" or "phooee" works best for me.

The dog really looks forward to working with the handler.Its a working bond.They look to the handler sort of the same way they look to the ball.The key is to peak the dog's interest in the work and that has a lot to do with how the handler approaches the task.

It is not required that the dog look enthusiastic in the work although many df course Im not talking about sport.

Greg


----------



## Connie Sutherland

OK, This comment falls well within my own daily dog work:

<<< Food in obedience is where the foundation work for all exersizes is built. It is a calmer drive, so you don't get tension in the work, ie slow sits downs ect. It just goes so much better. >>>>>

YES, JEFF, I AGREE 100%. (Yikes! :lol: )

Years and numbers behind me, I can say that markers and food in the instructional phase are hands-down everything that Jeff says.

And now I will bow back out because I don't train PPDs.


----------



## David Frost

Something I learned years ago, that I think is relative to the discussion is; If you control the reward, you can control the behavior. Meaning, regardless of the type of reinforcement a trainer prefers, if it is not something that will the dog places value on as a reward, then it's not going to work. In short, a good trainer does not limit themselve to "one" thing. They use whatever it takes to gain behavior control over a dog. Whether it's verbal/physical praise, ball/tug etc or a combination it can all have a place in dog training.

DFrost


----------



## Tim Martens

David Frost said:


> Something I learned years ago, that I think is relative to the discussion is; If you control the reward, you can control the behavior. Meaning, regardless of the type of reinforcement a trainer prefers, if it is not something that will the dog places value on as a reward, then it's not going to work. In short, a good trainer does not limit themselve to "one" thing. They use whatever it takes to gain behavior control over a dog. Whether it's verbal/physical praise, ball/tug etc or a combination it can all have a place in dog training.
> 
> DFrost


AMEN!


----------



## Kristen Cabe

> A very low keyed "good sit" or "phooee" works best for me.


So you use the same tone of voice to both praise and correct? That doesn't sound right to me. Again, how does the dog know the difference?

David, I completely agree with your comment: _"...regardless of the type of reinforcement a trainer prefers, if it is not something that will the dog places value on as a reward, then it's not going to work."_ That's what I was getting at in my post.




> It is not required that the dog look enthusiastic in the work


I worded my question wrong; I didn't mean how do you get the dog to "look" enthusiastic. I meant why should the dog _be_ enthusiastic/look forward to/be excited to/want to do what you're wanting him to do if all he's getting is a "good dog" and a pat on the head?


----------



## Guest

Jeffy, darling, I think you missed the part where I said "Of course, it depends on the dog." :roll: I don't mind being picked on; I love to argue :lol: :twisted: . Dead game, someone once said... :wink: 

Continuing to pick on Jeff: you're talking about s-p-o-r-t-s. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, by "conditioning" you're meaning getting flashy obedience. I don't give a rat's ass about flash. Although, I must say, my dog isn't bad. I couldn't care less if his platz is straight; my dog does what I tell him, the first time. Does he look like a jack russel on crack, begging for a treat? No, but he doesn't look like he's unhappy about it either. Maybe he's just a freak (what was that about dogs/handlers :? ?), but he genuinely seems to enjoy waiting/watching me for the next command. I only whip him occasionally, and put the cattle prod away when he was 12 weeks old. BTW, I can out him fairly well off-leash. I am not a big fan of leashes except in very early obedience. I don't see the point of awesome on leash obedience if they suck off leash. 80-90% of the time I spend w/my dog is off-leash. As far as outing: I think the dogs you're talking about are more likely to get "locked in prey." I can see a prey monster needing a hard correction to come off a sleeve. A serious, well-trained PPD shouldn't, IMO, be so locked. This dog needs to focus attention on the handler at all times, awaiting direction, or it's not a PPD; it's just a dangerous dog. 

It's not about "not being able to figure out to use food for conditioning"; I understand the concept; I just don't like it. If you have a dog that ignores you and is food driven, fine. Just for fun, I tried using food to go through some OB routines one day. He acted like he was annoyed that he was supposed to be eating while trying to do something else :| . Again, maybe he's just strange, (I'm beggining to lean that direction  ) but don't we all have to do what works for our particular dog? I am apparently luckily to have one dog who is in tune w/me enough so that the slightest jerk or shake of my head suffices to get him to come to me, and I can likewise halt him with a stern look. It's the same as hand signals, really, just more subtle, and requires (again) a bond, and the desire to communicate. I admit, I've seen few dogs so devoted or focused. Sad, really; I'm his whole world  :lol: .

Whoever asked about dogs speaking English: It's not words, (although I'm sure they understand "good" as well as they understand "sitz"), it's tone of voice. If you consistently mark a desired behavior w/"good ____", I have no doubt that they understand they're doing a good job. I also think that people waaaay overthink some of this stuff. I am all for cuddly, cooing praise when they're little and just learing something, but once it's established reliably, why treat and praise? The same people encourage a toddler to climb stairs in the beginning; do you continue to praise your teenager for using them? I really hate equating humans with dogs, but I think that's the main obstacle for people who can't see that there are dogs who just like to work alongside their handler.

Ok, now that I've perpetuated the theory that I am totally and completely certifiable, I'll quit. :lol:


----------



## Scott Dunmore

I think something that is often overlooked is that using praise as a training tool is a skill that needs to be practised if it is to be effective. 
In the same way that a tug or food reward becomes much more valuable to a dog when delivered by a skillful trainer, I think trainers who really focus on their verbal praise are able to use it as an effective tool. I've never seen it replace food, tug or ball rewards, but it definitely helps the overall relationship between dog and handler.


----------



## Guest

Scott: excellent point. Consistency and timing are key, too.

Another thing I thought of that I forgot to post (obviously, I remembered most of it :lol:-hey, SOMEONE has to pick up Lou's slack) is that the overall relationship between dog and handler is key. I think to produce a dog that will work for nothing but the will to work takes a handler who is fair at all times. Trust is a necessity. Maybe it doesn't replace food, tug or ball rewards, but I'd maintain that we're not discussing the same type of dog in this case.


----------



## Greg Long

Ok,I dont usually post at length but here it goes.

I just got back in from working Sharky(my Mal).I put a prong on him and let him drag a 15 ft line.I only had to pick the line up once.
First I directed him to climb a 15 ft ladder almost straight up onto the roof of an old trailer.He climbed and waited and I directed him to climb down which he did slowly headfirst.
Then we walked with him in heel position about 1/4 mile or more into the field where I directed him to climb a tree that was about 150 yds from where we were.He obeyed instantly and climbed the tree and then waited.I recalled him which he again performed flawlessly.
Then I directed him to climb up on an old truck which was about 60 yds away.He went to it and climbed it.I told him sit and he did.I recalled him and came to me.We then crossed the field and crossed a fence where I directed him to climb a bunch of old logs and wait.He did from about 50yds away.I recalled him and again proceeded with him in heel position to a pond where I swim the dogs sometimes.
I directed him to swim to the other side of the pond.He obeyed instantly.I had to pick up the line for the first time to give him a little direction so that he was swimming in the correct direction.He swam to the other side and climbed onto the bank where I told him to wait.He did then I told him to shake the water off and he did,.I told him to sit and he did.I recalled him and he swam back to me instantly.
We started back home and went a little different route but in the same field.I decided to see how far I could send him to climb up on the old truck.We were about 250 yds out in the field from the truck.I told him to "go climb up" and he responded.He went directly to the truck and climbed up onto it and I told him to platz from that distance and he did.I then recalled him and he came to me instantly.
I tried the tree from about 150 yds.He did it and the recall perfectly.
we went on to the house where we finished by sending him over a walkover obstacle and put him up.

My point is that I never raised my voice the whole time or used excited praise.I only picked up the longline once and that was just for direction.I didnt use food or a ball or toy or tug to train this dog.Its not always this trouble free but we are still progressing.Im not trying to argue this way is the only way or even a better way.I am saying that this way is best for me and my personality.
I used food and balls and tugs in the past.Im not saying I will never use them.I dont do sports and am not a pro trainer.Just thought Id share a little.

Greg


----------



## Connie Sutherland

I'm glad you *did* share.

There is nothing I like better than reading about (and seeing video clips of) successful training.

Thanks, Greg!


----------



## Kristen Cabe

> He acted like he was annoyed that he was supposed to be eating while trying to do something else


Well no wonder he was annoyed! He shouldn't have been trying to eat while doing something else. The treat should come with the verbal praise, AFTER the dog has done whatever you've told him to do, and before you give another command. :wink: 


Greg, your dog already _knows_ the commands you gave him; you weren't teaching him the exercises for the first time. Isn't that what this thread was started about - the initial teaching phase? 


Gypsy, my pet dog, is 4 years old, and I do not give her treats for following a command anymore, but I still verbally praise her every single time she does something I ask her to. With Jak, I'm still using treats because he's still learning, but I use lots of verbal praise along WITH the treat, too.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Kristen Cabe said:


> .....Isn't that what this thread was started about - the initial teaching phase? .....Gypsy, my pet dog, is 4 years old, and I do not give her treats for following a command anymore, but I still verbally praise her every single time she does something I ask her to. With Jak, I'm still using treats because he's still learning, but I use lots of verbal praise along WITH the treat, too.


For me, treats are for the instruction phase. That's when I have a treat bag hooked to my jeans! After that phase, it's praise (in a different tone from the instruction OR the "no" tone) and sometimes a pat.

I strap the treat bag back on, though, for the instruction phase of any new training we might do.


----------



## Greg Long

Greg, your dog already _knows_ the commands you gave him; you weren't teaching him the exercises for the first time. Isn't that what this thread was started about - the initial teaching phase?



Sharky is 18 months and I started teaching him the commands using basically the same exercises.I started small and built up.I got him at around 5 months and he knew absolutely nothing.I only told about todays training because he had been taught the commands or rather the directions without food or any reward besides praise.

Praise and vocal corrections are just markers.

JMO 

Greg


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Greg Long said:


> ........ Praise and vocal corrections are just markers.
> 
> JMO
> 
> Greg


Yes, that rings true........ positive and negative markers.

I would say that you are very successful, Greg, with your dog's training!


----------



## Guest

Kristen, allow me to assure you that I'm not as stupid as you're insinuating; when the dog is focused on you, he *always* seems to be in the middle of something. The problem comes in, IMO, when you view every little thing as a separate entity. What I mean is that telling a dog to sit, then giving a treat when he complies is not, IMO, an "exercise." It totally breaks any momentum you may have established. Treats are for free time, play time, relaxing, whatever. They're not for interjecting into perfectly effective communication. There is always more coming, and the dog knows this. He's anticipating what he's going to get to do next, and therefore may not be interested in the treat. To give a dog food as a treat when the dog is handler focused is just a distraction, IMO. If you want an effective PPD, the dog needs to know certain routines, not just one command at a time, anticipating a treat after each. I'm not willing to approach an attacker to give my dog a treat for a really good bite. "Hang on a minute-don't move; I need to reward my dog." I know no one is advocating anything this ridiculous, but IMO, treats are a distraction at best, a detriment to the relationship at worst. Perhaps it's because he's never had treats, even as a tiny pup. Whatever the reason, he'd much rather not have anything get in the way or distract him from watching/waiting for his next direction. The day I tried this (during a tree-hugger clicker training OB class), he caught the treat, then shot it out about 6 feet and kept watching me. Funny, yeah, but he got his point across. He may eat something like that later during the ride home, but he'll quit eating in the middle of his meal to follow me somewhere. Like I've said before, it depends on the dog, and I certainly wouldn't expect to have this experience with a dog I was not bonded to.

Curious: how do you use treats to get a dog to climb a tree or a ladder? Why not just do it yourself and then call the dog?

Also gotta say, Sharky is quite enthusiastic. Annoyingly enthusiastic. Maybe he's just stupid, since he's never gotten a reward and continues to exuberantly excel at these exercises. :?


----------



## Kristen Cabe

Jenni I'm sorry. I was trying to be humorous; not insinuate that you or anyone else was stupid. And again, I was under the assumption that this thread was about using tangible rewards during the teaching phase. Certainly if a dog's already trained, and was not trained using tangible reward, and then one day you just up and offered him one, of course he isn't going to understand what the heck is going on.


----------



## Guest

I reread the original post and I didn't see that it was only for instructional phases. I guess I could try to condition my dog to like treats during work, but why needlessly and pointlessly complicate things? I wasn't running through anything he already knew the time I'm talking about. He was kind of enthused to be doing something new. :wink: It's not that he won't eat treats; he just only eats them during "downtime." Treats are not something so foreign to my dogs that they're confused by them; they just would rather finish whatever they're doing COMPLETELY, and then hit the drive-thru for some burgers 8) .


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Kristen Cabe said:


> ...... And again, I was under the assumption that this thread was about using tangible rewards during the teaching phase. .......


"During the teaching phase" -- yes!

For me, at the very beginning (the instruction phase), each step IS a separate step. There is no flow. Every command is broken down into the smallest steps possible. 

By the time the dog "needs to know certain routines, not just one command at a time," the instructional phase (and the treats) are long past.


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

Many of us are quick to say that dogs are intelligent creatures. That it knows in a glance the state of his handler's soul. We know the importance of not correcting a dog out of frustation, anger, vengeance or disappointment. We have heard of some dog's uncanny ability of even detecting illnesses in a patient, like cancer or epilepsy about to happen. That it's a creature that will leave its own kind to join humans. That it has been with us since time immemorial. Yet how many of us utilize these facts and properties in working our dogs, properties even the ancients knew, utilized and documented? Or are these properties bred out in present dogs, replaced by drives, drives, drives? 

So is this what its'all about? Fast and clean outs as the measure of "good training"? Meanwhile, dogs that can ward off multiple attackers, track for long hours, can identify and engage even a lone perp in a crowd and do other forms of extraction work, locate an article then locate its owner, just to name a few and all without treats are nothing if they can't out clean and fast? Is this where we place more value than exploring the capabilities of our dogs? 

If this is where we're headed, I'd rather step miles back and dig up more of these "ancient crap"....

Best regards...


----------



## Connie Sutherland

<<< So is this what its'all about? Fast and clean outs as the measure of "good training"? >>>>

I hope not, Al!

Thoughtful post; thank you.


----------



## Guest

Wow. Good point, Al. I totally agree, especially about the drives, drives, drives part :wink: . Now, how come I can't say anything that concise and hard-hitting :? ? This is what I've been trying to say all day! :x Trust a man to say it in fewer words. :lol: 

I think 90% of people would be absolutely stunned at their dogs' capabilities if they were only cultivated and nurtured properly.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote:So is this what its'all about? Fast and clean outs as the measure of "good training"? Meanwhile, dogs that can ward off multiple attackers, track for long hours, can identify and engage even a lone perp in a crowd and do other forms of extraction work, locate an article then locate its owner, just to name a few and all without treats are nothing if they can't out clean and fast?

Any good dog can do all of that. It isn't even impressive to train without food. Sorry, big deal. I guess I progressed further.  How about fast clean EVERYTHING. Most of what you mentioned is pretty basic stuff, but impresses the noobs. Not me, just like the "stays" that were always off the ground. wow. :roll: Still love ya though, like some of the stuff you do.

Quote: As far as outing: I think the dogs you're talking about are more likely to get "locked in prey." I can see a prey monster needing a hard correction to come off a sleeve. A serious, well-trained PPD shouldn't, IMO, be so locked.


JENNI JENNI JENNI JENNI     So cute, so far off.  :lol: 
Another thing, this whole "locked in prey" crap. Anytime you want to take a bite from a dog that is locked in prey, feel free. Any dog that is easy to out, without prior conditioning, refer to my earlier statement of junk. If you really want the truth, those easy to out dogs are also easy to keep from biting. They won't stick. You can tell me any training scenario you want, but it is just that.

WTF is it with the food? Do you really think that my dog doesn't work for me because I use food? I use food because I get a better performance. This PP dog crap..... really doesn't fly with the whole I don't NEED good performance. I have seen what people turn out, and just shake my head. So many times the dog could be a really outstanding dog, but the owner is too lazy, and has that pathetic mindset about food. Either way, you are dismissing a valuable tool over your goofy insecurities about WHO the dog is working for.

So like, everytime your dog does something good and you food reward him, what, he thinks it comes from me???? Time to step up to the year 2006 people. I'm waiting.


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Any good dog can do all of that. It isn't even impressive to train without food. Sorry, big deal. I guess I progressed further.  How about fast clean EVERYTHING. Most of what you mentioned is pretty basic stuff, but impresses the noobs. Not me, just like the "stays" that were always off the ground. wow. :roll: Still love ya though, like some of the stuff you do.



Jeff, the right phrase is: "ANY GOOD DOG SHOULD DO ALL THAT". I expect that from you and any trainer here of long standing who engage in service training. So that wasn't a post to impress you nor anyone. Nor was the post made to engage in a pissing contest with you or anyone. It's just to state that whatever training requirement we do can be done fast and clean with no food rewards. That's it, that's all. :wink: 

I have nothing againts people who would reward his dog with anything aside from pats and praises. Competition is in the nature of men. For me, I just find it more beneficial and advantageous that I can do work to address my personal needs in the way I want it done; Anytime, Anywhere, First-time, No Routines, No Drills. That way, I learn to respect these creatures. I hope you have nothing againts people who don't use gadgets and food for rewards, too.

By the way, thanks for loving some stuff I do. Those are my tame and basic stuffs good for websites without causing controversies. :lol: :lol: 

Best regards...


----------



## David Frost

Having spent considerable time in a research facility, all the dogs and the other animals used in experiments, at the facility I was employed, were food reward. It's easily controlled, all dogs eat. The proficiency level was equal to any other type of training. Actually, in my experience, there wasn't any difference between the food reward dogs and those rewarded with balls, tugs, physical and verbal praise. Among police trainers specifically, there has always been a bias against food reward trainers. It's grounded mostly in superstitious behavior, but none the less the bias exists. 

DFrost


----------



## Scott Dunmore

David,
That interesting; I would definately have guessed that a dog rewarded with play (tug toy or ball) would have shown a more driven response. I suppose more enthusiam could easily lead to errors. How did you decide which dogs would be food reward and which with ball? 
Jeff, do you think that you're able to reward an out with food because of groundwork you've done when the dog was young? While my dogs have decent food drive in obedience work, none of them are interested in food reward during protection sessions. I haven't had much trouble with the out (maybe 'junk' dogs...), but reward with another bite. Interested to hear how you're using food for that.


----------



## David Frost

Scott, in the research part of the work, there was no decision, they were all summarily placed on food reward. Personally, I think a lot of people have the wrong idea of "drive" while working. It does not have to be measured by observing dogs bouncing off the walls. In my opinion, it's measured by the intensity that a dog performs the task. While the outward appearance may appear to be less enthusiastic than some are used to, the intensity in which a dog completes that job is the true measurement. Take two patrol dogs for example. One is sitting in the heel anticipating the bite, the whole body is trembling, watching the dog reminds you of a coiled spring waitning to uncoil. The other dog is sitting in the heel, intently focused, yet displaying none of the outward physical signs the first dog is showing. Just my guess, but you show those two dogs to a prospective police dog handler, he'll chose the first the majority of time. Which is right and which is wrong is strictly a matter of personal choice and again with my thoughts of superstitious behavior on the handler and trainers part. Use of food is predominate in most animal training, other than dogs and is very effective. Having said that, I prefer not to use it, and select dogs that can be reinforced with a ball, tug, etc. I do have a couple of working dogs on food reward, so it's not a matter of not using, but like many trainers, I also have my preference.

DFrost


----------



## Guest

Jeff, for the second time today, I'll ask you WTF are you talking about????  

The quotes you chose to "dispute" are not anywhere near the crux of what I was trying to say, nor Al, if I understand him right. Apples, oranges...and... tires :wink: . Who are you trying to "impress" w/your flashy OB? HUMANS! Dogs don't care about being impressive. A really fancy, bouncy "out" and "platz" is for humans. It's *show* and *sport* stuff. I thought this was the PPD forum. :? Furthermore, if I sic my dog on someone, they deserve to be dead, or I wouldn't do it in the first place. Outing is a bonus, but part of me will hope he won't :twisted: ! <kidding>

But, thanks for calling me cute.

David, good point about drive. I think many dogs are dismissed as not having enough drive b/c they're *not* bouncing off the walls, and are still cabable of thought. Drive=intensity for the work is a MUCH better way to see it, IMO.


----------



## Tim Martens

Jenni Williams said:


> A really fancy, bouncy "out" and "platz" is for humans. It's *show* and *sport* stuff. I thought this was the PPD forum. :? Furthermore, if I sic my dog on someone, they deserve to be dead, or I wouldn't do it in the first place. Outing is a bonus, but part of me will hope he won't :twisted: ! <kidding>


interesting. while i could start a whole new thread on this, lemme just offer this tidbit. control is MORE important for the PPD, PSD people than it is for the sport people. if a sport dog is slow to out, it only costs the handler points. if a PPD dog is slow to out, it costs the handler money and potentially incarceration. i would hope that a MAJOR portion of any PPD trainer's curiculum includes legal advice to all handler's. things like what they can use their dogs for and the problems that can occur from misuse and a lack of training/control and the importance of documenting your training. 

flashy? not a necessity. immediate? well, that's the goal for a sport dog, a PPD and a PSD.

as far as food, tug, praise....well, whatever works. i think they all have their pros and cons.


----------



## Greg Long

Total control is an absolute neccessity.Noone ever said it wasnt.

I could care less what anyone else uses for training their dog.Use food or a pink stuffed elephant for all I care.All Ill say is that those props arent nesseccary to train ANY dog.Thats right ANY dog can be trained without food or balls.

As for PPD,I dont even like the term.For myself it is just a good dog that can and will do all I ask or need.You cannot count on any dog to save your life just like you cant count on a gun to save your life.
To all you PSD trainers out there,you have my total respect.To all you PPD trainers,good luck.To all you sport people,have fun,well I think Jeff has too much fun.

Everyone thinks automatically that if you dont use food or toy rewards then you must be forcing the dog.If in fact you try to force the dog,it will not work and will deny you it's natural ability.

Fast outs are also possible as are speedy recalls and send aways non of which require anything more than the desire to communicate.

So everyone use what works best for you but if you say something isnt possible then................ :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :roll: :roll: :roll: 

Greg


----------



## Bob Scott

Greg Long said:


> Total control is an absolute neccessity.Noone ever said it wasnt.
> 
> I could care less what anyone else uses for training their dog.Use food or a pink stuffed elephant for all I care.All Ill say is that those props arent nesseccary to train ANY dog.Thats right ANY dog can be trained without food or balls.
> 
> As for PPD,I dont even like the term.For myself it is just a good dog that can and will do all I ask or need.You cannot count on any dog to save your life just like you cant count on a gun to save your life.
> To all you PSD trainers out there,you have my total respect.To all you PPD trainers,good luck.To all you sport people,have fun,well I think Jeff has too much fun.
> 
> Everyone thinks automatically that if you dont use food or toy rewards then you must be forcing the dog.If in fact you try to force the dog,it will not work and will deny you it's natural ability.
> 
> Fast outs are also possible as are speedy recalls and send aways non of which require anything more than the desire to communicate.
> 
> So everyone use what works best for you but if you say something isnt possible then................ :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :roll: :roll: :roll:
> 
> Greg


Gregs Last comment pretty much says it all.


----------



## Phil Dodson

" I'll second that Bob" 8)


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

Greg Long said:


> Everyone thinks automatically that if you dont use food or toy rewards then you must be forcing the dog.If in fact you try to force the dog,it will not work and will deny you it's natural ability.


A very important note you made, Greg. Can't force a dog unless I want it to avoid me like a plague everytime it sees me... :lol:


----------



## Tim Martens

Jose Alberto Reanto said:


> Greg Long said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone thinks automatically that if you dont use food or toy rewards then you must be forcing the dog.If in fact you try to force the dog,it will not work and will deny you it's natural ability.
> 
> 
> 
> A very important note you made, Greg. Can't force a dog unless I want it to avoid me like a plague everytime it sees me... :lol:
Click to expand...

actually, some very successful SchH dogs have been trained the "forced retrieve". obviously it's not the first choice in teaching the retrieve but it can be done...


----------



## Guest

Tim, I think you must've missed my "kidding" part :wink: . 

We're talking about *flash*, not *control*. Two very different things. The whole premise for this type of training (what I'm attempting, anyway) has it's veryfoundation in control, IMO, thus all the communication building from a young age. Work the dog through stress using obedience, yada yada yada. The dog needs to do what you want it to do the first time, every time. Who gives a damn if he lies down a little crookedly :? ? I do find it amusing that all you naysayers really are hanging on the thread that we who don't use food must have dogs that are out of control! :twisted: :lol:! To each his own!

I've seen dogs trained using no food-ie force, and can see where people get this idea of reluctant, almost pathetic dogs going through the motions....it's ugly, and is precisely what I'm trying to avoid, and I think several others are too. Sure, the dogs perform, and sometimes very well (even Sch), but off the field, there quite flat and not a little leery of their handlers  . The only dogs in question here that I can vouch for personally are Grouchy Greg's, outside of my own. His dogs are all quite enthusiastic and extremely willing, if not excited, to do whatever he asks. It's like they don't even realize that he's a grump. To them, he's the whole world :lol:!

In summary: whatever works for you and your dog is best, so how 'bout giving that same consideration to others who are of a totally different school of thought, instead of deeming their way impossible? It's only impossible if you say so :wink: . If you say so, you'll always be right.


----------



## Tim Martens

Jenni Williams said:


> Tim, I think you must've missed my "kidding" part :wink: .


i saw the kidding part. my grandmother used to say that even when you're kidding, there's always a little bit of truth behind it. doesn't really matter tho. as long as you put as much focus on control work as you say you do, you should be OK.



Jenni Williams said:


> I do find it amusing that all you naysayers really are hanging on the thread that we who don't use food must have dogs that are out of control! :twisted: :lol:! To each his own!


i hope you're not referring to me. i've said several times now, whatever works for you is alright with me.



Jenni Williams said:


> In summary: whatever works for you and your dog is best, so how 'bout giving that same consideration to others who are of a totally different school of thought, instead of deeming their way impossible? It's only impossible if you say so :wink: . If you say so, you'll always be right.


once again, i'm sure you're not referring to me...


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote:Jeff, do you think that you're able to reward an out with food because of groundwork you've done when the dog was young?

I was talking about the recall off the decoy. I don't like to use corrections on this, it shows that I didn't do the groundwork properly. The best way to describe what I have always done to teach the out is Ivan Balabanov's style. Very similar. I have had dogs that were drivey enough that after the out I rewarded with food, but they are in the minority. Because every dog is different, I try and be flexible enough to do different things. Doing ANYTHING from the beginning is why it works. I try to have a plan based on what I see in the dog, and then a plan "B". 
I used food on dogs that were a bit nutty on the out to interrupt that craziness. They had good food drive or it would have failed. I did like how it settled them and they were not as crazy as I had envisioned them to be with the out. THANK GOD!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: 

One of the problems with compulsion is the conflict it can cause. If you have a strong dog, and are using compulsion a lot, all you get is a dog that will work against you. I really try to get the pieces of an exersize stuck in the dogs head before I go to the bitework. I DO NOT want to be out on the field argueing with my dog for a recall, or an out down, or anything. Using food beforehand, and conditioning a response is a necessity to accomplish this. The less conflict, the better the performance.

A good example of not so good training is my video I posted of Buko working. I was trying to "shape" the heeling, and quite frankly, "F"ed up. I thought I would have more time to do this, and instead, stuck it in Buko's head that heel is having his butt next to my leg. Now when you correct him, he has no idea of why this is occuring, and it causes conflict. So I am having to do backflips thru my bunghole to fix this. Off the bitefield, he is correct. I should have gotten on this sooner, but at the time I was happy that the dang dog wasn't ripping the leash out of my hand to go and bite the decoy. My fault for sure. A good example of too much drive screwing the handlers training up  :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 

Quote:Having spent considerable time in a research facility, all the dogs and the other animals used in experiments, at the facility I was employed, were food reward. It's easily controlled, all dogs eat. The proficiency level was equal to any other type of training. Actually, in my experience, there wasn't any difference between the food reward dogs and those rewarded with balls, tugs, physical and verbal praise.

Seriously, who were the trainers??? This is what makes a difference. Without knowledge of what you are doing, then maybe this is so, but I have always seen a difference.

Here is another thought. How much of an art form is compulsion/inducive methods???? If anything, if training was easy, we wouldn't have forums like this to figure stuff out right?

Your welcome Jenni.

I can deal with a PP dog that doesn't out.

I guess when I look at a dog and how he is trained I see the trainer behind the dog. Sloppy anything shows a certain disregard for the dog. I have seen some good biting dogs that were kinda sad in the OB, but they are the rare exception. Choosing to do bad work in anything tells me what you really think of a dog, and Oh, he didn't get it, shows that it didn't go the way you wanted it to, so it isn't right. Basically it's a copout. I do flashy stuff because I want my dog to look good. He doesn't care, but I am doing it for him.

Quote:It's *show* and *sport* stuff. I thought this was the PPD forum

"Sport" PP people use this term as if it is an insult. If you had any experience at all, you would see that "sport" and "PP" dogs are pretty much all in trouble if your life is threatned.

Another question for you stinky PP people. If "sport" dogs are "sport" dogs and silly, why is it that you are choosing dogs from these lines?? There are people out there that breed PP dogs and do no sport, yet again, there is the pedigree full of "sport" dogs. Why don't you get the puppy from the PP lines???? HMMMMMMMMMMMM??


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote:The quotes you chose to "dispute" are not anywhere near the crux of what I was trying to say,

Not picking on you, many times you have a piece in your reply that I see generalizes what many have said that I disagree, or don't get.

It wasn't like Jenni you stinky bitch or anything like that. Sorry, my typing sucks, or I would have pointed the fact out.

I figure with your personality, you won't get all crazy about it either, and I was right. Other people get so sensitive on the internet.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote:It's grounded mostly in superstitious behavior, but none the less the bias exists. 

Maybe there should be a different topic for this, but how many people know exactly WHY they don't use food, and are willing to share it here on this forum so I can tear it to the ground and laugh as I stomp all over your theory??? :lol: :lol: :lol: JK

Seriously though, anyone care to answer?

And yes Greg, I do have fun. That is why I train dogs. I don't need a gun, or a dog, or to use food, or to use pinch collars. I can do all that mystical stuff, like get my dog to cross a lake :roll:   I just choose to try to IMO advance in training. That is why I don't do PP anymore. That is why I don't do Sch anymore. That is why I am doing ring. It is completely new. I don't feel I was put on this earth to stagnate anywhere, and using the same method, to me, is just that. 

How can I tell anyone that they are right or wrong or indifferent, if I have not done what they are asking???? Unfortunately, I am getting old. I need more time to learn more stuff. 8) 8) 8)


----------



## Guest

Tim, I honestly wasn't referring to you in either of my quoted posts. I was just responding/venting about widespread perception of a "different way." 

About kidding; I really was kidding. The control comes in in every day life w/kids, neighbors, etc. I would never advocate having a dog, ANY dog, that won't out. I was, however, serious about not sending a dog to bite someone unless they deserve whatever possible outcome may be. I think that no matter how well-trained or controlled your dog is, you can't count on anything, and better be prepared for any consequences if you send your dog to attack someone. JMO.


----------



## Tim Martens

Jenni Williams said:


> I think that no matter how well-trained or controlled your dog is, you can't count on anything, and better be prepared for any consequences if you send your dog to attack someone. JMO.


very, very true. that is where the rubber meets the road. when all of the training pays off. if you have the nerve to send the dog. easier said than done. PSD handlers have to think twice and we have the city's deep pockets backing us. i don't know that i'd have the nerve to do it from a PPD standpoint. then again, if it's life or death, it's a pretty easy decision...


----------



## Guest

Geez, Jeff. You've been a busy little typist.  

I wasn't using "sport" as an insult; it has it's place. I would, however, definitely buy a pup from untitled parents, if they had good civil tendencies. It just so happens that the pup I bought, as a PET GIFT for someone else, has a pedigree chock full of sports titles. He is what he is, and maybe I'll never be able to get him where I want protection-wise, but he's my dog for life, so I figure why sell him short? I'll do the best I can with him, and he's proving to be very responsive. Who knows how far we can go? 

I said before, but no one seems to remember this when they're jumping on me: This is not something I'm saying will work with a dog that you're not deeply bonded with. Not saying it can't; just saying it might not. I can see where it would be extremely difficult to accomplish some of these things with 'outside' dogs. 

"He doesn't care, but I'm doing it for him." HMMMM. WHAT?  What do you mean, doing it for him? Wanting him to look good is for YOU. C'mon. You're killin' me. How can that possibly be for him? Unless you beat him if he doesn't look good?  Then, I'd say it's good for him to look good. I guess I just think if my dog IS good, then he probably will look good too, so I don't need the emphasis on the aesthetic.

Tim, in the situation I had in my head when I made my little "no out" joke, I would have no problem. I already know what will happen if I don't send the dog. Really, I just want the dog to distract him for a few seconds. Anything beyond that is a bonus. I would have a hard time sending a dog on a petty thief, or someone like that, where the worst case scenario is unknown. I think making the decision to send a PSD would be extremely difficult also, unless you're a total jackhole.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote:WHAT? What do you mean, doing it for him?

It is his score that goes on his record books. Making him look as good as he can is so that if someone doesn't know my dog, they can judge him fairly by his score. Of course, it makes my life interesting sometimes. :lol:


----------



## Greg Long

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> And yes Greg, I do have fun. That is why I train dogs. I don't need a gun, or a dog, or to use food, or to use pinch collars. I can do all that mystical stuff, like get my dog to cross a lake :roll:   I just choose to try to IMO advance in training. That is why I don't do PP anymore. That is why I don't do Sch anymore. That is why I am doing ring. It is completely new. I don't feel I was put on this earth to stagnate anywhere, and using the same method, to me, is just that.


 Well, I applaud your effort for self improvement.I can do all that stuff with food too if I like.I choose not to because I have found that just by not using food or a prop of any kind then I am advancing in training by leaps and bounds.
The crossing a lake is just foundation work for a lifetime of advancing.There is nothing mystical about it and I didnt post to impress,just to show some people out there that arent fixated on rewards yet that there is a different way.
I dont need a gun or a PPD either,Im just trying to build all of my dog's talents and try to become a better handler in the process.

You are very right about the sport lines.They should stick to sport,many may melt if they were really needed.

Greg


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote:You are very right about the sport lines.They should stick to sport,many may melt if they were really needed. 

This should read You are right about dogs, many may melt if needed.

Twenty years ago, I would have offered to drive to your house and show you how ineffective your dogs would be, or I would offer to go to where ever you train and run your dogs off the field. I am that guy. I never failed to run a dog off the field. Unfortunatly, I am old now. I used to take a lot of peoples money. 

On a different topic [mod edit], could you post some pedigrees so we can see where your "non melting" dogs come from???? I would love to know, or are you going to tell me some training difference fairy tale?

Then again, maybe I am not too old to go out and embarrass the crap out of someone that thinks his dogs can't be run. What can a 70 lb badly trained dog do to someone my size? Here is your answer. nothing. 

I will say this though, I am not swimming after him.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Here is another question that I am dying to find out the answer for.

How many people on this thread have even trained a dog to some level? I am curious, a lot of the answers are so NOOB I cannot believe you have the balls to answer the way you are. I have trained PP dogs for somewhere around 120 people. It is not the amount I am necessarily looking for, just have you done this.

I think this is a good board and the people here are happy to disagree and go on, and don't seem to harbor bad feelings. I just don't want NOOB conjecture floating around to be snatched up as fact. Lets face it, more and more people shop for opinions now days. I don't think it is responsible to not have a clue, and post that you do. Not trying to get anyone not to post, but you really do bust yourself out, so might as well tell us you know JS.

LOVE AND PEACE TO ALL :twisted: :twisted:


----------



## David Frost

Since I've not trained any personal protection dogs, my answer would have to be zero. However, I have trained in the neighborhood of 1200 to 1500 (it's truly hard to keep track) patrol dogs, through the years. They certainly offered personal protection. Having been in this business (police type dogs) more years than I care to remember, I'd say I've seen many dogs that you wouldn't "run off". You might kill them, disable them, but you wouldn't run them off. Since, in my opinion, selection is behavior specific, I could care less about pedigrees and lineage. I select a dog because of what it can do for me, rather than from where it came.

DFrost


----------



## Connie Sutherland

I try to stay out of PPD threads because I have no experience there. I do state that regularly. I'm learning, though!

But I do have experience as a professional (if paid means professional) trainer, with a couple or three dozen dogs and years behind me.


----------



## Greg Long

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote:You are very right about the sport lines.They should stick to sport,many may melt if they were really needed.
> 
> This should read You are right about dogs, many may melt if needed.
> 
> Twenty years ago, I would have offered to drive to your house and show you how ineffective your dogs would be, or I would offer to go to where ever you train and run your dogs off the field. I am that guy. I never failed to run a dog off the field. Unfortunatly, I am old now. I used to take a lot of peoples money.
> 
> On a different topic [mod edit], could you post some pedigrees so we can see where your "non melting" dogs come from???? I would love to know, or are you going to tell me some training difference fairy tale?
> 
> Then again, maybe I am not too old to go out and embarrass the crap out of someone that thinks his dogs can't be run. What can a 70 lb badly trained dog do to someone my size? Here is your answer. nothing.
> 
> I will say this though, I am not swimming after him.


 Jeff,
I have said many times Im not a professional trainer.My dog's are from "sport" lines.I never said they werent.I have seen some dogs bred for work other than sport and they are far nicer than mine.I try to do the best with what I have.I feel like some of my dogs are pretty nice.I have never projected my dogs or the training I do as so far above anyone else.Its the philosophy that is better for me personally.
I would say you probably can run my dogs off.In fact, yes you can run every dog I have off and cause it to have a nervous breakdown. :lol: Did I ever say otherwise?I do know of some dogs trained in the same fashion that would have better odds.
I really dont even know what you are talking about.I never said I trained PPDs.Although I do some protection excersises.

In fact I dont care if anyone trains this way at all.I was just trying to show that it is possible to do all these things without any reward,thats it.Im not forcing anything on anyone.Just offering an opinion.This is a DISCUSSION board.Are people too stupid to see for themselves that they should take all info on the net with a grain of salt?if anyone really wants to learn how to train,then they should go to a trainer.This discussion is just food for thought.Why are you so paranoid about people considering an alternative to the methods you use?All methods should be considered and learned about and then everyone can decide for themselves.Im not afraid of people learning how to train their dogs with treats.By all means,go ahead.

Greg


----------



## Greg Long

How many dogs have I trained?Very very few.How many dogs have I titled?zeroHow many people have I trained?zeroHow many dogs have I trained for other people?zero

Any questions?


Greg


----------



## Connie Sutherland

QUOTE: Well, I applaud your effort for self improvement.....END

So do I. I applaud all the people on the forum who are going into areas of training where they haven't been. I personally have a little lack of confidence to overcome so I can get my toe into the advanced training you guys are doing. It's so easy to stick where I am and where I have been for so long.  

I have envy in my heart for the courage to try something brand new.


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

Connie Sutherland said:


> QUOTE: Well, I applaud your effort for self improvement.....END
> 
> So do I. I applaud all the people on the forum who are going into areas of training where they haven't been. I personally have a little lack of confidence to overcome so I can get my toe into the advanced training you guys are doing. *It's so easy to stick where I am and where I have been for so long.  *
> 
> I have envy in my heart for the courage to try something brand new.



And that "admission" will get you somewhere, Connie, if you act on it. It's actually the first step in improving yourself, considering that no dog can go beyond the level of its handler. Many would rather argue, feel threathend, ridicule, downplay innovations others do and behave like a hooting hyena, but the truth of the matter is that they're afraid, or incapable of moving on. Considering the state of our working dogs today, sometimes going backwards is actually moving forward. Use your best judgement for the sake of the dogs.

I've always welcomed anyone who wants to work my dogs. There had been some, foreign and local. Unfortunately, a few I sent for medical treatments. If I should see failures in my dogs, I'm not afraid. They rather fail now than fail in the streets. Failures give me the opportunity to know where I have failed my dogs, and where to work them. 

Best regards...


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Jose Alberto Reanto said:


> .......Many would rather argue, feel threathend, ridicule, downplay innovations others do and behave like a hooting hyena, but the truth of the matter is that they're afraid, or incapable of moving on........


Oh, I have empathy for people who won't see a different viewpoint. If someone has based much of their sense of self on a viewpoint or a philosophy (in ANYthing), it can be threatening on a very deep level to consider possible flaws in it......... even to acknowledge that there are equally valid alternatives.

As for me, I've become comfortable in my abilities on a certain level, and now I need to get out of that comfort zone and try something (I think SchH) where I'll be a newbie. I have to go from being the knowledgeable one to being the beginner.......


----------



## Tim Martens

Jose Alberto Reanto said:


> And that "admission" will get you somewhere, Connie, if you act on it. It's actually the first step in improving yourself, considering that no dog can go beyond the level of its handler. Many would rather argue, feel threathend, ridicule, downplay *innovations* others do and behave like a hooting hyena, but the truth of the matter is that they're afraid, or incapable of *moving on*. Considering the state of our working dogs today, sometimes going backwards is actually moving forward. Use your best judgement for the sake of the dogs.


the bolded words are where i think you run into trouble. when you use words like "innovation" and "moving on" (so as to imply leaving the "old" methods behind) it gives the appearance of superiority. yes, it is different, but what makes it superior? what makes it an "innovation"? because you say so and have had success with it? koehler's methods have worked for many, many years as has food reward and ball reward. 

different doesn't always mean better. that may not be what you're trying to say, but that's the way it comes across.

greg has been quick to point out that he doesn't claim his way is any better, just that he prefers it and it works well for him. enough said. can't argue with that.


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

Tim Martens said:


> Jose Alberto Reanto said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that "admission" will get you somewhere, Connie, if you act on it. It's actually the first step in improving yourself, considering that no dog can go beyond the level of its handler. Many would rather argue, feel threathend, ridicule, downplay *innovations* others do and behave like a hooting hyena, but the truth of the matter is that they're afraid, or incapable of *moving on*. Considering the state of our working dogs today, sometimes going backwards is actually moving forward. Use your best judgement for the sake of the dogs.
> 
> 
> 
> the bolded words are where i think you run into trouble. when you use words like "innovation" and "moving on" (so as to imply leaving the "old" methods behind) it gives the appearance of superiority. yes, it is different, but what makes it superior? what makes it an "innovation"? because you say so and have had success with it? koehler's methods have worked for many, many years as has food reward and ball reward.
> 
> different doesn't always mean better. that may not be what you're trying to say, but that's the way it comes across.
> 
> greg has been quick to point out that he doesn't claim his way is any better, just that he prefers it and it works well for him. enough said. can't argue with that.
Click to expand...

You may be right, Tim. Thanks for the notice.


----------



## Tim Martens

Jose Alberto Reanto said:


> Tim Martens said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jose Alberto Reanto said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that "admission" will get you somewhere, Connie, if you act on it. It's actually the first step in improving yourself, considering that no dog can go beyond the level of its handler. Many would rather argue, feel threathend, ridicule, downplay *innovations* others do and behave like a hooting hyena, but the truth of the matter is that they're afraid, or incapable of *moving on*. Considering the state of our working dogs today, sometimes going backwards is actually moving forward. Use your best judgement for the sake of the dogs.
> 
> 
> 
> the bolded words are where i think you run into trouble. when you use words like "innovation" and "moving on" (so as to imply leaving the "old" methods behind) it gives the appearance of superiority. yes, it is different, but what makes it superior? what makes it an "innovation"? because you say so and have had success with it? koehler's methods have worked for many, many years as has food reward and ball reward.
> 
> different doesn't always mean better. that may not be what you're trying to say, but that's the way it comes across.
> 
> greg has been quick to point out that he doesn't claim his way is any better, just that he prefers it and it works well for him. enough said. can't argue with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You may be right, Tim. Thanks for the notice.
Click to expand...

my god i wish i could do that. i'd like to say that it will come with maturity, but at 33, i think i'm past that point. 

you are truly a gentleman al...


----------



## Connie Sutherland

QUOTE: my god i wish i could do that. END QUOTE

You just did.


----------



## Guest

Al truly is a gentleman. 

Tim, you're making me nervous... :wink: 

Jeff is um...truly...unique :lol: ! (Still love ya, though :wink: )But I have to say that even though I'm just an idiot (and female no less!  ) with no experience being paid to train someone else's dogs, that I think even Super Scary Jeff would have a hard time running off SOME of your dogs, Greg. I have only seen a few that don't want more, more, more. You sell yourself and your dogs short (but only on the internet :twisted: )! I can at least vouch for the dog that lived with me for a couple months, who is by no means your strongest dog :wink: . You and I both know (as well as the SPORT trainer that worked him) that he only gets more fired up the harder a decoy is on him. He might be run off, but I really don't think he'd be in the majority of your dogs. Now, if they could read Jeff's posts, then MAYBE they'd run away! :lol:


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Jenni Williams said:


> ..... no experience being paid to train someone else's dogs............


I don't think Jeff asked anyone whether or not they trained other people's dogs, or were professionals at all. All he said was:

QUOTE: How many people on this thread have even trained a dog to some level? END QUOTE

I'm pretty sure no one here draws that "pro" line at all....... I was wrong when I brought up "paid professionals," because that was clearly not the question.


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

I just run around getting bit by other peoples dogs, and my own on occasion


----------



## Guest

Connie, yes, he said the line you quoted. But, he also said:



> I have trained PP dogs for somewhere around 120 people.


To me, this sounds like something he's being paid to do. Unless Jeff is generous enough to train 120+ dogs for free. If so, it could explain why he still bartends  :lol: 



> It's not the amount I'm necessarily looking for. Just have you done this.


This would imply that he's asking if anyone has done this, "this" meaning trained PP dogs for people.

I commend Jeff for his heartfelt desire to save the internet training world from ruin by requesting that everyone who's name doesn't start with J-E-F-F posts that they know "JS" :lol: . C'mon, Jeff :roll:, you're being a bit dramatic, even for you. No one (besides you :wink: ) has said or implied that they possess the only "right way" to train dogs, PP or otherwise. Al regularly states this, Connie's quick to say she has zero experience w/PPDs, Greg has said straight out that he only trains his own dogs, and downplayed their levels and abilities, Tim has admitted that he never had a dog before PSDs and openly states that "different" just means different, David has answered your question thoroughly, Mike is totally open w/exactly where he stands in training, and so am I. Point me to the place where I (or anyone else, for that matter) alleged I was a professional PPD trainer and I'll edit it ASAP :wink: . 

It's only *you*who is slinging insults at anyone and everyone. It's only *you* who is saying to people you've never met that their dogs (who you also have never met) are "JUNK" and that if you weren't so old (41 til July? Or 40 til July?  puhleeze-NOT OLD!) that you'd come prove it :roll: . Want to have a beer chugging contest afterward  :roll: ? How is that allegation/hypothetical challenge (which can be backed by zip, nothing, nada) any different than what you're accusing everyone who you disagree with of doing? Making ridiculous claims? Seems the same to me (but then, I know JS :wink: ). 

You believe strongly in your way, everyone else in theirs, and yet YOU feel the need to keep howling and yapping and doing a turkey strut about something that no one will ever know who was "right" about. Both convenient and safe-very tricky. We will never know because THERE IS NO ONE RIGHT WAY TO TRAIN A DOG. Yes, I know nothing about anything and my mental capacity cannot come close to competing with yours, O Great Hyena, but I am confident that truer words have never been spoken. Luckily, I don't think anyone takes you seriously! :wink: 

I woke up fiesty this morning  :lol: Actually, Connie's post made me go back and reread, and well, all the stuff I was too tired of typing to post yesterday came spewing out today.  :lol:


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Wow.

Well, THAT blew up in my face.

I really thought he was asking (in the middle of the usual bombast we all expect from Jeff) if everyone on the thread had actually trained a dog.


----------



## Guest

Well, he was.  But then he asked those other questions, too. And only THEN did we get


> the usual bombast we all expect from Jeff


 :lol:


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Don't worry Jenni, I thought it was funny. Someday, you will train a dog. When this happens, go back and look at what was written here and then you will know what I am talking about. 

I just know that there isn't a lot of training experience here, and I was trying to bring you up to date on things.

Especially about dogs. 

I don't charge a lot of money to train a dog. I am an idiot when it comes to money. Hard for me to take someones hard earned money to do stuff I like. I have trained a lot of dogs for lunches and breakfast, stuff like that.

Quote:THERE IS NO ONE RIGHT WAY TO TRAIN A DOG.

This is brilliant your oh high stinkiness, but we are getting closer to one way than you think. I don't know any high level trainers pro or otherwise that would think that a pat on the head is an acceptable reward for doing an exersize right, 'cept maybe at a trial, cause thats all you get.

You are training your dog to save your life. Excuse me if I know a better way. You are talking about your life Jenni. I do not want you to get muckled or Greg, or Tim, or Al, or anyone for any reason, especially cause you (Jenni) have no experience, or little experience, and are training in a method you can barely explain.

Sure I am the great Wizard of Oz. Just look behind the curtain, there I am. I can give you your heart Jenni, it was there all the time. But I will give you a cool little medal anyway.


----------



## Guest

:lol: Thanks, Jeff. There's nothing you could've done to to more effectively drive my point home than make that last post. :wink: :twisted:


----------



## Lyn Chen

This is a really interesting topic and one I've had run-ins before in the past with various people online. 

I train some things with food, some with not. I don't participate in dog sports but I train my dogs the obedience Schutzhund routine for my own sake. For this food makes the teaching process a heck of a lot easier and faster. Maybe 5 minutes you have the puppy sitting and eager. Food I also teach in order to 'marker' train the puppy, again very useful later on when I'm trying to teach a complicated exercise and marking the dog's behaviour in the distance with 'good!', and seeing him stop and look at me as if to say, "Okay gotcha!", really brings warm feelings to my heart with this type of training. :wink:

In the past I haven't done this sort of thing and used training as outlined in various older dog training books I've read, which isn't really compulsion but again uses no food. It works, but it takes a while and with _certain types of dogs_ you go through frustrating periods of 'trying to tell them what you want to happen and them not caring at all'. As well, while a dog will often understand certain body language if you're good at doing that kind of thing, even cats really, I don't like having to exaggerate or even to move any part of my body at all when I give a command. Thus, food and toys make it possible for me to yell "Platz!" and have the dog drop in the distance with his back turned to me, etcetera. The flashy heel of Schutzhund I've also found useful in turning my dog's head away from distractions. It's not practical in most cases, but it has its uses. Let's also not forget that food is a good way of relieving stress-inducing forms of obedience like the dumbbell retrieve (the way I train it anyway :| ).

On the other hand I don't use food at all with stuff like getting my dog up or over obstacles or basic communication with them. It's easy enough to get them to do those kind of things, especially with willing-to-please type dogs. If you're not interested in flashy obedience and your dog is sensitive enough so that stress doesn't cause him to shut down, then this is a sufficient way to go. I don't necessary call it 'compulsion'. 

I think like most people here have said, and which I'm just repeating, it's not really a good idea to 'close' your mind off to other forms of training, both sides of the game. The way I see it, there's no point trying to bring one method down or the other or even trying to make it better by saying you want to be 'innovative' etc. My philosophy is, if there's a tool, and you can see a need for the tool, then USE IT! They both have their purposes. Nothing annoys me more than to have people tell me stuff like, "Prey training creates monsters that chase after kids" or that food training my dog means he'll never respond without food.* It's not what you train but how you train it that matters. *If you train with food, then take certain pains not to 'bribe' the dog by making him smell or see the food when you ask him to do something, and if you train with prey drive then you have to use some training later on so he's focused on you and not all over the place. And if your dog isn't responding without any of these 'training aids' then again it's your fault, not the training method you're using (in general anyway). The only exception perhaps is you can't get an uber flashy fuss for 30 minutes without food or toys, but that's beyond the point. Because even with my prey and food-trained dogs, I can go wherever and still communicate with them without food, and I can easily turn their heads away from food or fast-moving objects (just the other day we were doing down stays in a field where kids were having soccer practices). It's ridiculous to think otherwise.

Just my two cents. :roll:


----------



## Mike Kitchen

I am new here but don't mind if I put my opinion in. A police or protection dog is a working dog that needs the right drives in order to work efficiently. I give praise when the dog does it right and a correction when the dog gives an undesirable action. I only use tugs in learning something new or to start bite work. Food I will use for puppies.I don't work alot of pups therefore I go right into working in obedience first to gain control and then the bitework. I only use the reward system for young dogs or pups. I don't agree with the khoeler methods or food, I am kind of in the middle. but these methods do work for other people and all the power to them. If I need to reward other then a bite then I have the wrong dog. All of my dogs bite for real and will hurt you. At the same time very social. If I have two clients that need protection dogs but one client has a real threat. I still supply them both with a dog that will work. Anyone who has a ppd or psd needs to understand to liability and responsibility of owning a working dog. Protection dogs in a sport is just for fun. there are no points on the street and lives are at stake and should be taken seriously.


----------



## Liz Monty

I feel there is the need for SOME compulsion in each dog, at different age levels and for different reasons. But mostly the reward factor is what I use when ever possible. One female puppy, Czech lines, showed a very dominant and possessive side to her by 7 weeks old. She is the only puppy I ever had to use compulsion on at about 12 weeks of age, maybe 11. It was when nail trimming time came. She was not shying from it but rather saying "I'm dominant over what you can do to me" and growled and bit harshly at any approach to her nails. When restrained lightly she became more angry. Only in this situation did she ever show any aggression to me at all, and never continued to show aggression to me or other people in adult hood. I used compulsion to make her accept getting her nails trimmed. It worked after a few sessions.


----------



## Howard Gaines III

*Compulsion vs Other Rewards*...As a professional educator, I would answer it this way. If you were to each students a new task, do you have the students' focus by yelling and using threats, verbal jerking of the chain or through the use of positive rewards (marks)? Kids will shutdown on the first approach and so do animals. I'm in favor of using food or verbals as the main mode of teaching. We all work for a paycheck.

Compulsion says it WILL be done and the old style of "yank and crank"... aka Koehler satyle, is used by folks who have no vision of lesson break down and simplification. Teach anything in small steps and follow it with verbal rewards, most any "student" will take that hook! It's like fishing for bass, set the hook easy and reel them in.

Beating the new task into the K9 skull is a training JOKE! Trainers who beat, use electric, and man handle animals do it because they have the physical power and are mental retards... Be bigger than the problem and the problem, any problem, can be conquered in a reasonable amount of time!


----------



## jay lyda

I think I am beginning to like the way you think Howard.


----------



## Howard Gaines III

:wink: Thanks!


----------

