# Koehler method of guard dog training



## Matt Vandart

I recently dud out a copy of this book and started re-reading it after having not read it in years and years.
I couldn't help but laugh at some bits and cringe at others and agree with some.

What are peoples opinions on this book in reference to modern developments in behavioural modification and training in general?
Do you think this book still has something to say these days?
Do you think it ever had something to say?

I particularly cringed at the bit about dragging your puppy out with a lightline shaking the shit out of it then whacking it with a belt.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

I have never read Köhler but I have a book written by the legendary Konrad Most.

What I would have to say is in "defence" of these handlers is:

they knew exactly what sort of dogs they were handling and could apply the appropriate methods which would probably not be as "brutal" as they are often made out to be today, given that they knew how much "pressure" each dog could take.

How many handlers today can assess how much pressure, what sort of correction measures their dogs can take?

If I think of the wolf who "educated" his brood - he went from "scaring the life out of them" when they attempted to approach the bone he had laid out, to merely "lifting his eyebrows" and this sufficed.

One thing we should never forget is that that "furry little bundle" is one day going to take you out for sure if you don't know how to "read" it.

It sounds hard, but one too tough correction is better than one too soft "correction". A good pup will swallow the first but a good pup will on the other hand never let you forget the second.


----------



## Timothy Saunders

I would agree with Gillian, the dogs are different. I recently did an eval on a doberman . When I told the client that the dog might not be suitable for protection he was shocked. The last time he owned a doberman was in the early 70's when 99 percent were great protection dogs. No matter what yr it is the dog dictates the method. If you have a Koehler type dog use that method.. Clicker type and so on


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Hi Timothy

I actually was referring to the handlers not the dogs.


----------



## Brian Anderson

Prior to the advances in understanding of behavior its the way we trained all the dogs. A lot of the posi only trainers never miss an opportunity to trash this style of training ..which in my opinion is ignorant. Use any and all tools available ... the fact is that many many dogs have been trained successfully through compulsion and the methods described in the book. I have a clicker laying right beside my old beat up kohler book as a reminder to myself ... the world of dog training just doesn't fit in neat little boxes like a lot of people want to believe. JMO..
when I was apprenticing in the early 80's we didn't know or understand marker training or positive reinforcement and how to use it to our advantage. Or at least my little group did not.


----------



## Jim Engel

I comment on Koehler and Most extensively here:

http://www.angelplace.net/Book/Ch3.pdf


----------



## Joby Becker

Jim Engel said:


> I comment on Koehler and Most extensively here:
> 
> http://www.angelplace.net/Book/Ch3.pdf


Jim I have used the rubber hose a few times over the last 20 years myself. Have also used the fence charger for poison proofing a few times.

If you NEED to poison proof your dog, you dont have time to play around, use what works.


----------



## Alice Bezemer

I've actually just started reading W.Koehler's book "Method of guard dog training" Gots me a sneaky suspicion that I am going to like what this man has to say!


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Brian Anderson said:


> A lot of the posi only trainers never miss an opportunity to trash this style of training ..... I have a clicker laying right beside my old beat up kohler book as a reminder to myself ... the world of dog training just doesn't fit in neat little boxes like a lot of people want to believe.


But you're not equating marker training with "posi only," right?

I hope (and believe) that we have moved beyond equating marker training with no-corrections training. 

Yes, some no-corrections trainer are marker trainers (and the inverse as well), but no, marker training is not synonymous with "no correction" training.

_
"... when I was apprenticing in the early 80's we didn't know or understand marker training or positive reinforcement and how to use it to our advantage."_

Well, I have to go back a decade or more before the 80s, but yes, I sure didn't understand or know what a tremendous tool marker training was. It was monumental for me. Sometimes I'm just amazed that it took me (and many) so long to see something so simple and so effective.


----------



## Brian Anderson

Connie Sutherland said:


> But you're not equating marker training with "posi only," right?
> 
> I hope (and believe) that we have moved beyond equating marker training with no-corrections training.
> 
> Yes, some no-corrections trainer are marker trainers (and the inverse as well), but no, marker training is not synonymous with "no correction" training.
> 
> _
> "... when I was apprenticing in the early 80's we didn't know or understand marker training or positive reinforcement and how to use it to our advantage."_
> 
> Well, I have to go back a decade or more before the 80s, but yes, I sure didn't understand or know what a tremendous tool marker training was. It was monumental for me. Sometimes I'm just amazed that it took me (and many) so long to see something so simple and so effective.


Oh no! I didn't mean to equate the two by any means! I am referring to wrong thinking posi nazi's whom I have come to detest on many levels .. my bad for assuming folks would know what was in my little mind lol. 

Even after I heard of clicker training and positive reinforcement I was a non believer for a long time. I even mocked the marker trainers and thought that because they were big bad police dogs none of that fluffy stuff could possibly apply to them. In a *monumental display of ignorance* I was dragged kicking and screaming to marker training and positive reinforcement methods. Once I understood the concept and saw it in action I felt like a total dumbass and I still have a bit of embarassment when I admit it. The part that was the hardest for me to realize was the separation between the different phases of the training ie: teaching, correction, proofing etc. I still learn new things constantly and its more fun for me AND the dog .. but ultimately there is a nice balance of all the above that works best...


----------



## Brian Anderson

I make no admissions prior to 1980 ...thats my story and I am sticking to it LOL :roll:


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Brian Anderson said:


> Oh no! I didn't mean to equate the two by any means! I am referring to wrong thinking posi nazi's whom I have come to detest on many levels .. my bad for assuming folks would know what was in my little mind lol.
> 
> Even after I heard of clicker training and positive reinforcement I was a non believer for a long time. I even mocked the marker trainers and thought that because they were big bad police dogs none of that fluffy stuff could possibly apply to them. In a *monumental display of ignorance* I was dragged kicking and screaming to marker training and positive reinforcement methods. Once I understood the concept and saw it in action I felt like a total dumbass and I still have a bit of embarassment when I admit it. The part that was the hardest for me to realize was the separation between the different phases of the training ie: teaching, correction, proofing etc. I still learn new things constantly and its more fun for me AND the dog .. but ultimately there is a nice balance of all the above that works best...




Oh, I gotcha! 

Yes, I too snickered at "clicker trainers" and was dragged kicking and screaming to marker training. "How can it be 'all that' when we haven't been doing it all these decades?" I was a jerk.





_
"my bad for assuming folks would know what was in my little mind"_

No, it was my mistake.


----------



## Matt Vandart

One of the bits I chuckled at was 'under absolutely no circumstances play ball with your dog' 

I read some more today, it's fascinating really how much stuff has been turned on its head.


----------



## Matt Vandart

Timothy Saunders said:


> I would agree with Gillian, the dogs are different. I recently did an eval on a doberman . When I told the client that the dog might not be suitable for protection he was shocked. The last time he owned a doberman was in the early 70's when 99 percent were great protection dogs. No matter what yr it is the dog dictates the method. If you have a Koehler type dog use that method.. Clicker type and so on


Oh I agree with this and I think the purely positive people that think it applies to all dogs may cause a problem.
Just today my Mal pup which is a very dominant whore was kicking off at a jack russell so I attempted to do a bit of LAT and she wasnt having it so I gave her a leash pop which just made her worse to the point where I had to attempt to physically restrain/control her and she redirected at my hand so I reflexively gave her a slap in the chops, not a pimp hand, just a slap to check her and these two women were giving me the right evils. So I said what are you gawking at? you want to sort it out and held the lead out to them, Needless to say they didn't want any of it.
They probably think I made the dog that way not that her genetics dictate her reaction, despite the fact that my staff is also there rolling all over the floor wiggling and giggling all over the floor like a teenager on MDMA
Yet these same two do gooders probably watch Ceasar Millan and say oh my he is very clever.

I think the very fact that in this country anyway it is getting increasingly taboo to reprimand your dog in anyway physically in the eyes of the public and people are scared to do it in case the AC or RSPCA get called. Alot of these type of dogs are getting out of control as a result.


----------



## James Downey

I myself started off with similar methods of Koehlers via the Monks of New Skete. I myself am not a pure positive guy. I see venom being spit from both sides. The traditional trainers, and the positive people. I have since run the gammit of training. Purely positive to the monks. I have to say there is something to seeing what you can do without corrections. It will make you a better trainer. Will you get the dog to where you want to be? another story. Some say it has been done. Some say that's a myth. My experience is that People who have never jumped the fence to the other side...are speaking from what they "Think" and not of it is based in anything tangible. They think this or that about it whether it be pure positive or the use of corrections. It's nothing more than belief. And belief is different than knowing. If I have a problem with my car, and someone says take it to John he will fix it for a fair price. So I take my car their on belief....I don't know what John will do. Just like Columbus believed the world was round. But I get my car back and it's fixed for a fair price. Next time I take my car to John, I know he will fix it for a fair price. Just like when Columbus embarked on his second voyage, he knew he would not sail off the end of the earth. But I bet you on his first voyage he put a special lookout on the bow and said, "if you see the end of this sucker, come get me so we can turn this bad boy around." That saying....just like the others I approached Positive training skeptical. but I believed, and one thing that made me ready to believe was a little honest thinking that what I was doing was not working. The second was seeing a dog that I believed could not be trained without a collar, because he was to high drive...and then seeing him trained to a high level with no collar. I approached it with caution but it forever changed everything I do. I have since employed some aversive methods. With more intelligent and thought out approach that has yielded some very good results, with very little if any wear on the dog (one of the things I noticed with my prior training). 

For me seeing people spit venom about either training is kind of like people who spit venom about religions. Instead of being quick to see what's wrong with the training, be quick to see what's right....and make use of what they offer. 

Right now. I am studying a certain trainers methods....why? because when I saw what they were saying it provoked disdain in my head. I thought what a bunch of bullshit. So, I take with a grain of salt what my first reaction is. Because it's usually quick to see where they are wrong. So I try to see where they are right and make use of it. And by right, I mean do they have results. 

My training has grown leaps and bounds by doing this. 

There was a video of a guy tracking a young puppy with hoops on the ground....it was posted here. The first comments all were about how the hoops were bullshit. I still have not figured there use. I have theorized what they could be for. But my first reaction was intrigue and still is. I have thought about just experimenting with some hoops and see what the results are to see if I could figure out what he was trying to achieve with them.


----------



## Joby Becker

James Downey said:


> I myself started off with similar methods of Koehlers via the Monks of New Skete. I myself am not a pure positive guy. I see venom being spit from both sides. The traditional trainers, and the positive people. I have since run the gammit of training. Purely positive to the monks. I have to say there is something to seeing what you can do without corrections. It will make you a better trainer. Will you get the dog to where you want to be? another story. Some say it has been done. Some say that's a myth. My experience is that People who have never jumped the fence to the other side...are speaking from what they "Think" and not of it is based in anything tangible. They think this or that about it whether it be pure positive or the use of corrections. It's nothing more than belief. And belief is different than knowing. If I have a problem with my car, and someone says take it to John he will fix it for a fair price. So I take my car their on belief....I don't know what John will do. Just like Columbus believed the world was round. But I get my car back and it's fixed for a fair price. Next time I take my car to John, I know he will fix it for a fair price. Just like when Columbus embarked on his second voyage, he knew he would not sail off the end of the earth. But I bet you on his first voyage he put a special lookout on the bow and said, "if you see the end of this sucker, come get me so we can turn this bad boy around." That saying....just like the others I approached Positive training skeptical. but I believed, and one thing that made me ready to believe was a little honest thinking that what I was doing was not working. The second was seeing a dog that I believed could not be trained without a collar, because he was to high drive...and then seeing him trained to a high level with no collar. I approached it with caution but it forever changed everything I do. I have since employed some aversive methods. With more intelligent and thought out approach that has yielded some very good results, with very little if any wear on the dog (one of the things I noticed with my prior training).
> 
> For me seeing people spit venom about either training is kind of like people who spit venom about religions. Instead of being quick to see what's wrong with the training, be quick to see what's right....and make use of what they offer.
> 
> Right now. I am studying a certain trainers methods....why? because when I saw what they were saying it provoked disdain in my head. I thought what a bunch of bullshit. So, I take with a grain of salt what my first reaction is. Because it's usually quick to see where they are wrong. So I try to see where they are right and make use of it. And by right, I mean do they have results.
> 
> My training has grown leaps and bounds by doing this.
> 
> There was a video of a guy tracking a young puppy with hoops on the ground....it was posted here. The first comments all were about how the hoops were bullshit. I still have not figured there use. I have theorized what they could be for. But my first reaction was intrigue and still is. I have thought about just experimenting with some hoops and see what the results are to see if I could figure out what he was trying to achieve with them.


James I posted that video with the hoops.

The guy that was using those hoops, in 2012, took 1st in the Regional Trial, and 1st Place in the IPO3 AWMA National Championship, and his dog scored 100 pt tracks in both the IPO1 and IPO2 level, a 97 at the championship in the III's.

I have no clue if he used those hoops with that particular dog...but he was using them, and I would say he knows what he is doing.


----------



## Nicole Stark

Joby didn't you say that you sent him a message asking about the purpose of the hoops? I don't actually recall if you did or whether or not you got an answer.


----------



## James Downey

Joby Becker said:


> James I posted that video with the hoops.
> 
> The guy that was using those hoops, in 2012, took 1st in the Regional Trial, and 1st Place in the IPO3 AWMA National Championship, and his dog scored 100 pt tracks in both the IPO1 and IPO2 level, a 97 at the championship in the III's.
> 
> I have no clue if he used those hoops with that particular dog...but he was using them, and I would say he knows what he is doing.


I did not even put 2 and 2 together that was Fabian. I saw you were one of the people intrigued by the hoops. My guess...and just a guess. Is he made scent pads inside hula hoops to begin with. Not all the way to the hula hoop, just inside of it....so the dog still had to search. but the dog learns to stay inside the hoop. Then he goes to the small hoops with single foot steps in each hoop....the purpose of the hoop. To keep the dog from wandering off the track....by doing this, the dog learns byproxy to stay close to the scent. That going away from the scent is never going to produce anything....the hoops are a cue that reward is possible inside the hoop. then the hoop gets paired with scent, making scent the cue that reward is possible. then the hoops become a secodary reinforcer...shortly followed by the scent as the secondary reinforcer. 

So the hoops do not tell the dog exactly where the footstep is....just kind of where it is. It's the motivational equivelant to a check on the collar for going off the scent. Then the dog relies on the scent to pin point the reward. 

It's actually quite brilliant


----------



## Joby Becker

James Downey said:


> I did not even put 2 and 2 together that was Fabian. I saw you were one of the people intrigued by the hoops. My guess...and just a guess. Is he made scent pads inside hula hoops to begin with. Not all the way to the hula hoop, just inside of it....so the dog still had to search. but the dog learns to stay inside the hoop. Then he goes to the small hoops with single foot steps in each hoop....the purpose of the hoop. To keep the dog from wandering off the track....by doing this, the dog learns byproxy to stay close to the scent. That going away from the scent is never going to produce anything....the hoops are a cue that reward is possible inside the hoop. then the hoop gets paired with scent, making scent the cue that reward is possible. then the hoops become a secodary reinforcer...shortly followed by the scent as the secondary reinforcer.
> 
> So the hoops do not tell the dog exactly where the footstep is....just kind of where it is. It's the motivational equivelant to a check on the collar for going off the scent. Then the dog relies on the scent to pin point the reward.
> 
> It's actually quite brilliant


fukk if I know..all I know is he guy got 2 100pt tracks and won the regionla and National events


----------



## Joby Becker

Nicole Stark said:


> Joby didn't you say that you sent him a message asking about the purpose of the hoops? I don't actually recall if you did or whether or not you got an answer.


I checked but I have deleted all my personal emails, so could not see the responses..


----------



## Zakia Days

Joby Becker said:


> I checked but I have deleted all my personal emails, so could not see the responses..


Aaw thanks, Joby! ](*,) j/k LOL


----------



## Matt Vandart

do you have link to the hoola hoop thing please?


----------



## Nicole Stark

The link to the original thread is a start. The original video is gone (removed) but some perusing might yield what you are after.

http://www.workingdogforum.com/vBulletin/f14/tools-used-tracking-23962/

Imagine a scent pad inside the perimeter of a hula hoop. That should suffice for a basic description but it may help to know that there were several of them on the ground.


----------



## rick smith

evolution of dog training methods has always been an interest of mine ...

i think one of the mains problems stem from a misunderstanding of operant conditioning, that many of the early "clicker training gurus" made worse by only stressing the "positive" aspect ... they actually morphed the meaning of how positives and negatives were used ... positive and negative, plus and minus .... changed to "good and bad"

also, when it was starting to become fashionable and prfitable, the clicker trainers were mostly training pet dogs to do cute tricks. they used the clicker method of marking to show how easy it was to teach simple behaviors. it caught on
- they also tended to be anti-bite sport types (all biting is aggression and bad, etc)

operant conditioning was too clinical and sounded boring, so all the trendy new labels sprouted up :-(
all four OC quadrants were not used and it often became "positive" only :-(
...more morphing of OC ensued and more anti-aggression types jumped on the band wagon
.... the slippery slope //lol//

eventually some people, who were were not afraid to apply the long established and proven principles of OC to the working dog field, saw the light, but still hated the "clicker" connotations and the "positive only" labels 
- they also traditionally turned their nose up with using food, since that approach was also only for "sissy pet trick training", and "real" dogs don't need no stinking "food treats" ... they only needed respect for their pack leader, where a pat on the rump was a sufficient reward marker //lol//

at least they DID realize that high value "treats" like balls and tugs could be used in a similar manner to food treats 

so Ivan and other gurus would rarely say the "OC" word even tho he was applying OC 

people like Ellis took it one step further and were not afraid to call a spade a spade 

when OC became successful in sport training, more bite sport trainers started using it

eventually even PSD types realized the value of OC

it has been around a LOOONG time for animal trainers ... especially for training powerful animals that would not easily accept the "pack leader" and harsh compulsion techniques
.... but even those trainers realized the value of talking soft but carrying a big stick, because that is also a part of OC 

it's way more complex than this but that's how i simplify it in my simple mind and try and explain it .... and it "works for me" //lol//
...going from dolphins and other marine mammals to dogs was not a big jump at all cause it's the same system ..... maybe in the same way that horse trainers find dog training easy ?


----------



## Joby Becker

rick smith said:


> evolution of dog training methods has always been an interest of mine ...
> 
> i think one of the mains problems stem from a misunderstanding of operant conditioning, that many of the early "clicker training gurus" made worse by only stressing the "positive" aspect ... they actually morphed the meaning of how positives and negatives were used ... positive and negative, plus and minus .... changed to "good and bad"
> 
> also, when it was starting to become fashionable and prfitable, the clicker trainers were mostly training pet dogs to do cute tricks. they used the clicker method of marking to show how easy it was to teach simple behaviors. it caught on
> - they also tended to be anti-bite sport types (all biting is aggression and bad, etc)
> 
> operant conditioning was too clinical and sounded boring, so all the trendy new labels sprouted up :-(
> all four OC quadrants were not used and it often became "positive" only :-(
> ...more morphing of OC ensued and more anti-aggression types jumped on the band wagon
> .... the slippery slope //lol//
> 
> eventually some people, who were were not afraid to apply the long established and proven principles of OC to the working dog field, saw the light, but still hated the "clicker" connotations and the "positive only" labels
> - they also traditionally turned their nose up with using food, since that approach was also only for "sissy pet trick training", and "real" dogs don't need no stinking "food treats" ... they only needed respect for their pack leader, where a pat on the rump was a sufficient reward marker //lol//
> 
> at least they DID realize that high value "treats" like balls and tugs could be used in a similar manner to food treats
> 
> so Ivan and other gurus would rarely say the "OC" word even tho he was applying OC
> 
> people like Ellis took it one step further and were not afraid to call a spade a spade
> 
> when OC became successful in sport training, more bite sport trainers started using it
> 
> eventually even PSD types realized the value of OC
> 
> it has been around a LOOONG time for animal trainers ... especially for training powerful animals that would not easily accept the "pack leader" and harsh compulsion techniques
> .... but even those trainers realized the value of talking soft but carrying a big stick, because that is also a part of OC
> 
> it's way more complex than this but that's how i simplify it in my simple mind and try and explain it .... and it "works for me" //lol//
> ...going from dolphins and other marine mammals to dogs was not a big jump at all cause it's the same system ..... maybe in the same way that horse trainers find dog training easy ?


there is that slippery slope again...

firnt no ecollars,...then no pinch collars...next it is illegal to even own the koehler books, then the leash itself....


----------



## rick smith

actually in terms of a slippery slope....i don't feel dog training is sliding downhill
some things stay the same even tho styles evolve

- imo corrections will always be needed for most every dog...i know some have said they are not necessary, but in over a couple hundred dogs i've worked with, all of them needed corrections 

i think the "traditional" vs "whatever" is just a matter of either starting out by assuming the dog knows nothing and needs to be "corrected" thru different levels of compulsion until it gets it right, or showing the dog that it is always right and conditioning that fact thru motivation, and then applying the corrections later when it makes the "wrong decision" and fails to follow the command given 

koehler methods have been discussed here a few times and i know his history of success in many areas....he definitely wasn't pursuing a system that didn't work 

balancing the best blend of techniques based on the individual dog and you probably won't go wrong with any system as long as you don't have a whacked out idea of canine genetics to start with (the anthropomorphic approach)


----------



## Ariel Peldunas

rick smith said:


> evolution of dog training methods has always been an interest of mine ...
> 
> i think one of the mains problems stem from a misunderstanding of operant conditioning, that many of the early "clicker training gurus" made worse by only stressing the "positive" aspect ... they actually morphed the meaning of how positives and negatives were used ... positive and negative, plus and minus .... changed to "good and bad"
> 
> also, when it was starting to become fashionable and prfitable, the clicker trainers were mostly training pet dogs to do cute tricks. they used the clicker method of marking to show how easy it was to teach simple behaviors. it caught on
> - they also tended to be anti-bite sport types (all biting is aggression and bad, etc)
> 
> operant conditioning was too clinical and sounded boring, so all the trendy new labels sprouted up :-(
> all four OC quadrants were not used and it often became "positive" only :-(
> ...more morphing of OC ensued and more anti-aggression types jumped on the band wagon
> .... the slippery slope //lol//
> 
> eventually some people, who were were not afraid to apply the long established and proven principles of OC to the working dog field, saw the light, but still hated the "clicker" connotations and the "positive only" labels
> - they also traditionally turned their nose up with using food, since that approach was also only for "sissy pet trick training", and "real" dogs don't need no stinking "food treats" ... they only needed respect for their pack leader, where a pat on the rump was a sufficient reward marker //lol//
> 
> at least they DID realize that high value "treats" like balls and tugs could be used in a similar manner to food treats
> 
> so Ivan and other gurus would rarely say the "OC" word even tho he was applying OC
> 
> people like Ellis took it one step further and were not afraid to call a spade a spade
> 
> when OC became successful in sport training, more bite sport trainers started using it
> 
> eventually even PSD types realized the value of OC
> 
> it has been around a LOOONG time for animal trainers ... especially for training powerful animals that would not easily accept the "pack leader" and harsh compulsion techniques
> .... but even those trainers realized the value of talking soft but carrying a big stick, because that is also a part of OC
> 
> it's way more complex than this but that's how i simplify it in my simple mind and try and explain it .... and it "works for me" //lol//
> ...going from dolphins and other marine mammals to dogs was not a big jump at all cause it's the same system ..... maybe in the same way that horse trainers find dog training easy ?


I think it's worth mentioning, that even though the term "operant conditioning" is being equated with a more positive approach to training dogs, by definition, most training (of any method) is operant conditioning.

In reading your post, Rick, it would seem that you're implying Koehler and Most did not use OC and that OC started as a "purely positive" approach and was gradually accepted by working dog trainers. Really, any training that punishes or reinforces voluntary behavior is operant conditioning. Marker/clicker training actually uses principles of Classical Conditioning to "load" the clicker ...causing a conditioned stimulus (clicker) to produce a conditioned (reflexive) response. I've not read Koehler or Most's books cover to cover, but it would seem they are still applying OC in their approach to training dogs ...although they may only be using two quadrants (positive punishment/negative reinforcement).

I know that doesn't really have much impact on this thread, but I thought it was important to address the terminology that I often see defined incorrectly.


----------



## Joby Becker

Rick,

verbal praise and physical contact can be a +R, and not only a marker can it not?


----------



## Matt Vandart

Indeed it is true


----------



## Matt Vandart

Its even more complex/contrived than that.

For example it depends on the perspective of the action. For example if you use a choke chain/prong to correct a dog for pulling on a lead you are:

Postive- check on the lead
Punnishment- to discourage the pulling behaviour

you are also:
Positive- check on the lead
Reinforcement- encouraging the dog to walk closer

also at the same time you are:
negative- release of the lead pressure (as dog comes closer)
reinforcement- encouraging the dog to walk closer

and even more contrived;
negative- romoving freedom of movement
punishment- to discourage the dog from pulling on the lead.

Edit: also the marker is a bridge reinforcer


----------



## rick smith

for me, just because +R is used doesn't mean someone is training "operantly"
..... i could give examples if needed, but like i said; it's a bit more complex and for me it doesn't become a "system" until you can think it and use it when you are actually training
..... for me OC is a total SYSTEM of training and completely dependent on how and when it is paired with behaviors, and if it is being used with a specific goal in mind ... NOT just because a part of it is being used
- maybe that is hard to understand ... but it's clear to me 

one example : MANY times when i'm working with someone they apply a reinforcer or punishment without realizing what they are punishing or reinforcing and it is completely unintentional ... those kind of handlers are not yet training "operantly" ...imo 

btw, i certainly didn't mean to imply that OC STARTED with the "purely positive" movement. i stated it was around for LOOOONG time 
- actually i was trying to point out how the "purely positive" movement was NOT OC ... but rather a morph of OC, that left out important quadrants, and then went on to explain why i think it was not accepted by a lot of serious dog trainers
- but i also wouldn't go so far as to say all training is operant ... it isn't for me, even tho bits and pieces of OC can be seen in many different training styles 
- just because you have a clicker in your hand and you click it doesn't mean you are training operantly either //lol//

my post was simply a reflection on how i have seen training evolve over time ... thru my eyes 

anyway ... back to koehler ...
last time the thread came up i said i wasn't gonna comment on him til i found his book, which i never did ... probably lent it out and never got it back ... now i'm looking online to see if it's been uploaded somewhere ... so far; no joy :-(


----------



## Matt Vandart

rick are you familiar with the 'SMAF' concept?


----------



## rick smith

Matt...maybe ... are you referring to Roger Abrantes ?


----------



## Ariel Peldunas

Rick, the term and process of operant conditioning has already been defined. Different trainers may have different opinions on how best to apply operant conditioning to suit their purpose, but to say something isn't OC because it doesn't fit into your vision of how training should happen is incorrect.

My understanding is that the main difference between operant and classical conditioning is that operant conditioning uses reinforcement and punishment to increase or decrease the frequency of *voluntary* behaviors whereas classical conditioning causes the animal to have an *involuntary* response to a conditioned stimulus. In OC, the animal is actually learning and participating. In CC, the animal isn't consciously performing behaviors.

Certainly, incorrect timing and/or using ineffective reinforcers or punishers can encourage incorrect behaviors, but if the animal learns (or unlearns) something, I believe OC is still taking place.

Just my two cents on the matter ...back on topic now ...


----------



## Joby Becker

rick smith said:


> ..... for me OC is a total SYSTEM of training and completely dependent on how and when it is paired with behaviors, and if it is being used with a specific goal in mind ... NOT just because a part of it is being used
> - maybe that is hard to understand ... but it's clear to me


is -R used in your total system?


----------



## Ariel Peldunas

Matt Vandart said:


> Its even more complex/contrived than that.
> 
> For example it depends on the perspective of the action. For example if you use a choke chain/prong to correct a dog for pulling on a lead you are:
> 
> Postive- check on the lead
> Punnishment- to discourage the pulling behaviour
> 
> you are also:
> Positive- check on the lead
> Reinforcement- encouraging the dog to walk closer
> 
> also at the same time you are:
> negative- release of the lead pressure (as dog comes closer)
> reinforcement- encouraging the dog to walk closer
> 
> and even more contrived;
> negative- romoving freedom of movement
> punishment- to discourage the dog from pulling on the lead.
> 
> Edit: also the marker is a bridge reinforcer


Not to keep harping on this topic, but I have to disagree with some of what you said.

*"you are also:*
*Positive- check on the lead*
*Reinforcement- encouraging the dog to walk closer"*

This is incorrect. Positive=applying a consequence following a behavior. Reinforcement=consequence that increases the frequency of the response. So, a positive reinforcer would be something desirable (praise, treat, toy) that is given to the dog after it walks closer (in your example) thus making the dog more likely to keep walking closer so it can get more reinforcement.

I also think this one is a stretch:

*"and even more contrived;*
*negative- romoving freedom of movement*
*punishment- to discourage the dog from pulling on the lead."*

Mostly, I disagree with this example because it doesn't make sense given that you said you were using a choke or prong to correct the dog pulling on the lead. If you stopped walking when the dog pulled, I think that would be a better example of negative punishment. You take away forward movement to punish pulling.


----------



## jack van strien

I have read Koehler and found some good things in it that are still true today and always will be.
The problem with his system is allmost all dogs are treated equally,so no room for individuality.
It was also set in a time when there where almost no clubs for dogssports in the US and Canada and therefore people just bought the book and started training.He did not advocate sport anyway.
Almost the same as learning to fly an airplane from a book.Not easy!
His style was very much the dog has to adapt to the training system,these days we adjust the training system to the dog and even breed dogs that fit into our frame of mind better.
I believe in Europe hardly any one has heard of him but in KNPV his style of training was being used widely before he ever wrote the book(s)
Now we have a lot of training aids and a lot more knowledge floating around,just this forum is a world full of information on dog training.
I may be old school but i always kind of shiver when people ask about how much drive a dog has.
Some dogs or rather some excercises can not be trained using cookies.I was first exposed to clicker training in Canada but that was some 25 tears ago,never did much of that myself.


----------



## Joby Becker

jack van strien said:


> He did not advocate sport anyway.


He did write this one that does deal with the elements of competitive Obedience, retrieving, and hurdles and a couple other things.. and was the head trainer at the largest AKC training club in the country at the time.

Also included competitive field retrieve work...

not biting sport I know, but still competitive dogstuff...


----------



## Ariel Peldunas

jack van strien said:


> I have read Koehler and found some good things in it that are still true today and always will be.
> The problem with his system is allmost all dogs are treated equally,so no room for individuality.
> It was also set in a time when there where almost no clubs for dogssports in the US and Canada and therefore people just bought the book and started training.He did not advocate sport anyway.
> Almost the same as learning to fly an airplane from a book.Not easy!
> His style was very much the dog has to adapt to the training system,these days we adjust the training system to the dog and even breed dogs that fit into our frame of mind better.
> I believe in Europe hardly any one has heard of him but in KNPV his style of training was being used widely before he ever wrote the book(s)
> Now we have a lot of training aids and a lot more knowledge floating around,just this forum is a world full of information on dog training.
> I may be old school but i always kind of shiver when people ask about how much drive a dog has.
> Some dogs or rather some excercises can not be trained using cookies.I was first exposed to clicker training in Canada but that was some 25 tears ago,never did much of that myself.


Out of curiosity, what exercises would you include as those that can not be trained using positive reinforcement? Hopefully, I assumed correctly that "cookies" includes other means of positive reinforcement in addition to treats.


----------



## Dave Colborn

jack van strien said:


> I have read Koehler and found some good things in it that are still true today and always will be.
> The problem with his system is allmost all dogs are treated equally,so no room for individuality.


He also had pretty specific things he would test for in a a dog, if I remember correctly. I think that is why his system appears so narrow. He'd find a dog suited for what he wanted to do, the way he wanted to train it. I don't disagree with that a bit. Test and select based on what you want and how you train.


----------



## jack van strien

Dave,you are so right!,but many people have to do the things the dog is (in)capable of.
Ariel i was thinking of an exercise like teaching a dog to swim across a canal or something like that.


----------



## rick smith

think i found it printed online, but he has written a few different books 

this is the one being discussed, right ?

(Red Cover paperback)
"The Koehler Method of Guard Dog Training"
...by the "former instructor for the US Army K-9 Corps, and Walt Disney", etc etc


----------



## Matt Vandart

Ariel Peldunas said:


> Not to keep harping on this topic, but I have to disagree with some of what you said.
> 
> *"you are also:*
> *Positive- check on the lead*
> *Reinforcement- encouraging the dog to walk closer"*
> 
> This is incorrect. Positive=applying a consequence following a behavior. Reinforcement=consequence that increases the frequency of the response. So, a positive reinforcer would be something desirable (praise, treat, toy) that is given to the dog after it walks closer (in your example) thus making the dog more likely to keep walking closer so it can get more reinforcement.
> 
> *Then by your own definition it is correct. The 'positive consequence' is the check on the lead. The desired increase in response is the dog moving closer (over time) This is after all about learning which happens in time sequences not instants in time. I am talking from perspectives here.
> In our head:
> dog pulls on lead, we pop the lead, doesnt pull on the lead in the future.
> 
> In dogs head (who is actually doing the learning)
> dog pulls on lead, receives pain, moves closer.
> 
> The outcome is the dog has learned to move closer, not learned to stop pulling on the lead. You can observe this by the big loop you can end up with in the lead when the dog is 'heeling'. If what the dog had learned was to not pull on the lead, that big loop would not exist. The dog would walk ahead but on a slightly loose lead. The dog has learned the lead has **** all to do with it, it's his position in space relative to you.
> 
> so again in dogs head with subtitles:
> Dog pulls on lead,
> Receives pain- "What the ****!?! ah if I move closer that pain goes away. I'll move closer, there is no pain added when I am closer"
> 
> Now taking into consideration learning 'heel' as a position in space relative to another object 'you' in terms of treats and toys
> Dog pulls on lead,(moves ahead)
> You encourage him back with lures of treats and candy
> "If I go there then I shall receive those treats and candy. I think I will hang out there.
> 
> The actual lead in the dogs head is neither here nor there in terms of OC in either situation.*
> 
> I also think this one is a stretch:
> 
> *"and even more contrived;*
> *negative- romoving freedom of movement*
> *punishment- to discourage the dog from pulling on the lead."*
> 
> Mostly, I disagree with this example because it doesn't make sense given that you said you were using a choke or prong to correct the dog pulling on the lead. If you stopped walking when the dog pulled, I think that would be a better example of negative punishment. You take away forward movement to punish pulling.
> 
> 
> 
> * I am however happy enough with your perspective on the subject and as such not looking to start an argument.*


Rick- yes that's the book and yes Roger Abrantes


----------



## Ariel Peldunas

This is incorrect. Positive=applying a consequence following a behavior. Reinforcement=consequence that increases the frequency of the response. So, a positive reinforcer would be something desirable (praise, treat, toy) that is given to the dog after it walks closer (in your example) thus making the dog more likely to keep walking closer so it can get more reinforcement.

*Then by your own definition it is correct. The 'positive consequence' is the check on the lead. The desired increase in response is the dog moving closer (over time) This is after all about learning which happens in time sequences not instants in time. I am talking from perspectives here.
In our head: 
dog pulls on lead, we pop the lead, doesnt pull on the lead in the future.
*
No ...I guess I didn't explain myself clearly enough.

Positive reinforcement is rewarding good behavior in order to increase how frequently that behavior occurs. The behavior happens first, then the positive reinforcement. You're looking at it backwards. If the check on the lead was positive reinforcement, then it would increase how frequently the dog pulls on the lead (the preceding behavior). You can reward the dog moving closer with something the dog find desirable ...positive reinforcement for moving closer to the handler. But a sharp check on the lead is only positive punishment ...applying an undesirable stimulus to lower the frequency of the preceding behavior (pulling on the lead). It can't be both positive punishment and positive reinforcement ...the dog either likes the check on the lead or doesn't (and our goal is to make sure he doesn't) ...and the check on the lead either makes the behavior that happened right before the check increase or decrease in frequency.

I hope that makes better sense now.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Can I add something?

When I first started training my Briard, I learned that a slight "tug" on the lead attached to the all so ominous sharpened prong, made him attentive and in the same second I verbally rewarded him.

I learned afterwards about positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, etc. at a seminar and was confused until a police colleague explained to me: Gill, it's what you've always done - don't be confused by the terms.

I agree, the "tug" on the line is and was never meant to be positive - it was meant to gain the dog's attention.


----------



## Dave Colborn

This is where terms are so important. No one on this forum invented the terminology for operant conditioning any more than the science of operant conditioning. We are only left to be able to figure out how to apply it to a particular dog in a particular set of circumstances to influence the dogs future behavior. Because we know what a dog will do given positive punishment, negative punishment, postive reinforcement and negative reinforcement, we can determine what to apply, when and where.

And the slight tug is positive, Gillian. Positive punishment (decreased the liklihood of looking away). Then attention and a verbal reward is postive reinforcement (increased the liklihood of being attentive.

Some people can train, some people can teach others to train and some can do both. Not knowing the terms doesn't hurt your training if you timing and training are good anyway. You are only hurt by not being able to teach others.



Gillian Schuler said:


> Can I add something?
> 
> When I first started training my Briard, I learned that a slight "tug" on the lead attached to the all so ominous sharpened prong, made him attentive and in the same second I verbally rewarded him.
> 
> I learned afterwards about positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, etc. at a seminar and was confused until a police colleague explained to me: Gill, it's what you've always done - don't be confused by the terms.
> 
> I agree, the "tug" on the line is and was never meant to be positive - it was meant to gain the dog's attention.


----------



## Ariel Peldunas

Dave Colborn said:


> This is where terms are so important. No one on this forum invented the terminology for operant conditioning any more than the science of operant conditioning. We are only left to be able to figure out how to apply it to a particular dog in a particular set of circumstances to influence the dogs future behavior. Because we know what a dog will do given positive punishment, negative punishment, postive reinforcement and negative reinforcement, we can determine what to apply, when and where.
> 
> And the slight tug is positive, Gillian. Positive punishment (decreased the liklihood of looking away). Then attention and a verbal reward is postive reinforcement (increased the liklihood of being attentive.
> 
> Some people can train, some people can teach others to train and some can do both. Not knowing the terms doesn't hurt your training if you timing and training are good anyway. You are only hurt by not being able to teach others.


Dave ...you're much better at putting what I'm trying to say into fewer, more digestible words.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

I guess I should dig out my seminar papers. I guess that you are right?

However I was, am and will always be an "hands on" dog trainer. I once had to learn this P+ R- and must admit it eventually sank into my mind but having learned to read the dog and know what positive or negative reactions were necessary, I will keep to "hands on".

I am by no means illiterate but I find that knowing the above does not help me to understand and read the dog.

I teach Swiss / German citizens to learn English. Here, I find the necessity to increase my knowledge by reading how to motivate, make certain that they are really "learning" to use the language to its advantage is a "must".

The best trainers I had, never knew anything about P+ R-, etc. They knew far more, instinctively, how to handle their dogs and could relate, show, etc. this to us.

I am not knocking what you are saying by any means - I wish only I could keep this in my head when training my dogs. Most of what is being said is what we do naturally?


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Maybe "Zuckerbot und Peitsche"?


----------



## Dave Colborn

I don't want you to misunderstand what I am saying Gillian. I am saying you can train a dog and teach me to train a dog. The problem comes when two diverse groups come together and can't talk about things within the scientific format that they actually can be reflected acurately. 

It's like me trying to speak english to a macedonian guard that doesn't understand english to perform security duties. We could get a lot more done more quickly, with both of us of us speaking english or macedonian. We are both soldiers, and understand security to a degree. A common language makes communication easier. 


Operant conditioning is the babelfish of dog training.







Gillian Schuler said:


> I guess I should dig out my seminar papers. I guess that you are right?
> 
> However I was, am and will always be an "hands on" dog trainer. I once had to learn this P+ R- and must admit it eventually sank into my mind but having learned to read the dog and know what positive or negative reactions were necessary, I will keep to "hands on".
> 
> I am by no means illiterate but I find that knowing the above does not help me to understand and read the dog.
> 
> I teach Swiss / German citizens to learn English. Here, I find the necessity to increase my knowledge by reading how to motivate, make certain that they are really "learning" to use the language to its advantage is a "must".
> 
> The best trainers I had, never knew anything about P+ R-, etc. They knew far more, instinctively, how to handle their dogs and could relate, show, etc. this to us.
> 
> I am not knocking what you are saying by any means - I wish only I could keep this in my head when training my dogs. Most of what is being said is what we do naturally?


----------



## Raegan Walter

Brian Anderson said:


> when I was apprenticing in the early 80's we didn't know or understand marker training or positive reinforcement and how to use it to our advantage. Or at least my little group did not.


Koehler at least was well aware of clicker training and the animals being trained with it. In one of the editions of his Novice book he name drops "Burrhus Skinner" and The Wonderful World of Disney Animals contains numerous digs and jabs at "laboratory trainers." At the same time Koehler was active, the Brelands and Bailey were training animals from shows, exhibits, and commercials. It is impossible the two groups were not aware of each other.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Dave Colborn said:


> I don't want you to misunderstand what I am saying Gillian. I am saying you can train a dog and teach me to train a dog. The problem comes when two diverse groups come together and can't talk about things within the scientific format that they actually can be reflected acurately.
> 
> It's like me trying to speak english to a macedonian guard that doesn't understand english to perform security duties. We could get a lot more done more quickly, with both of us of us speaking english or macedonian. We are both soldiers, and understand security to a degree. A common language makes communication easier.
> 
> 
> Operant conditioning is the babelfish of dog training.


Luckily my trainers and I and colleagues always spoke the same language. Internet training is / was unknown to us.

Very often, I would hear "s/he is an internet trainer lol, derogatively spoken. I agree there has to be both but am often frustrated by the "talk the talk".

The Internet is a fantastic thing, I am not trying to negate it but it will never outrate the training on the field for the simple reason that dogs cannot tell you what they are feeling - you can only read them!


----------



## Ariel Peldunas

Gillian Schuler said:


> Most of what is being said is what we do naturally?


I agree. Typically, during obedience and control exercises, I don't typically consider the theory behind what I'm doing before I do it. But if I'm problem solving ...trying to figure out why a dog chooses one behavior over another or has been conditioned to do innappropriate behaviors ...or training more advanced tasks, I will often try to evaluate why the dog is doing what he's doing, what's motivating him and how best to reinforce or punish behaviors to get the results I want. 

I grew up learning how to read dogs by watching and listening to my mother. She is a very accomplished competition obedience trainer, but I'm sure even after more than 40 years of training dogs, she couldn't define operant conditioning or tell you which quadrant she was working in. On our bookshelf, there were a number of dog breed books and two Koehler books ...the red one and the orange one (in my memory) which I now know to be The Koehler Method of Guard Dog Training and The Koehler Method of Dog Training. It's been years since I've look at those books, but I remember skimming through when I was too young to really absorb or understand what I was reading. I do remember thinking the little, scruffy dog on the cover, backed as far as he can away from the driver's side, showing his teeth and cowering sure did make a silly looking guard dog. I do have to admit, a lot of what I learned to do with dogs when I was younger was very Koehler-esque.

Personally, I like being able to take the more direct approach I grew up with and keep it in my tool box for the dogs who need it. But I prefer to think about potentially better ways to train things in order to make the dog want to comply and try that first or at least teach that way before resulting to force and pressure. My mother found, to be competitive in AKC/UKC obedience, the dog's attitude matters. Her approach changed drastically from how she tended to train basic, functional obedience. With her most recent dog who is much more driven and motivated than the others, I've introduced her to marker training and tried to help her not immediately resort to P+ or R- when she isn't getting results. With a dog that tends to get stimulated by pain and frustration, I think she's started to see what other approaches make sense. Sure, she didn't need a class on OC and positive and negative punishment and reinforcement, but sometimes I think sitting down and drawing up a training plan showing various routes to achieve the same end goal can help us better achieve the results we want. 

For my own dogs, I try to introduce force and pressure later in the training process ...once the dog completely understands what is being asked or when the dog leaves me with no other options. When I'm training pet dogs (not puppies), I typically am quicker to use force and pressure (fairly) ...typically because these dogs have already learned and been reinforced for doing inappropriate behaviors and because I just don't have the time or means to completely retrain the dog. If I have an owner who is willing and capable, I will encourage teaching with positive methods and then proofing with P+ or R- ...but that rarely happens. There's a reason they send the dogs to me. So, I do my best to be fair and let the dog learn in a positive state of mind but also set boundaries quickly. 

I'm not sure how that falls into Koehler's method. Maybe I should actually read the book cover to cover to have a more educated opinon.


----------



## Alice Bezemer

I look at how this post has evolved and it scares me a bit... it started out with a book and ended up with terminology flung left and right...the book seems to be a bit forgotten and terminology has taken over....Pretty much like it seems to do within dogsports for some people? They have a dog on their leash that wants to work for them but they are to busy picking out the correct words to use for its behaviour and training, thereby forgetting why they are actually on the field to begin with!


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Alice, my trainer once told me " dog training is easy". I think we made it more complicated by writing about it.


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Gillian Schuler said:


> Alice, my trainer once told me " dog training is easy". I think we made it more complicated by writing about it.


Couldn't agree more with your trainer...

while people are looking for the correct label to paste on their dogs ass when it comes to its behaviour within a certain timeframe, they lose their moment to correct or reward the behaviour to begin with, leaving the dog in the dust and not learning anything ](*,)

Look at your dog instead of a dictionairy!


----------



## Connie Sutherland

OTOH, it's pretty hard to explain something to someone who isn't right in front of you without agreed-upon terminology.


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Connie Sutherland said:


> OTOH, it's pretty hard to explain something to someone who isn't right in front of you without agreed-upon terminology.


ehmmm *grins* OTOH tho...said terminology could take a lot less time and be a lot more effective if it wasn't outdrawn to outrageous levels like it is today?

Per example, bad behaviour gets punished and good behaviour gets rewarded? 

Let me be a meanie and say what I think....terminology of training or working with dogs does not a dogtrainer make! Its just a whole lot of talk about dogs and their training and which label to slap onto waht behaviour... The actual training with the dog part suffers for this kind of talk..instead get hands on and get to know the dog and work with what you see, not what you have a book tell you is right or wrong. Trust me, looking at the dog is always the biggest advantage you have to work with, use that instead of large words and trying to explain every minute detail into fance ass words?


----------



## Ariel Peldunas

Alice Bezemer said:


> I look at how this post has evolved and it scares me a bit... it started out with a book and ended up with terminology flung left and right...the book seems to be a bit forgotten and terminology has taken over....Pretty much like it seems to do within dogsports for some people? They have a dog on their leash that wants to work for them but they are to busy picking out the correct words to use for its behaviour and training, thereby forgetting why they are actually on the field to begin with!


I don't know what's scary about wanting to understand why what I'm doing works. It's not just about the terminology ...it's about understanding the process. When I'm working my dog, that's what I'm focused on. But during the other 23 hours of the day, I have plenty of time to plan or reflect and understand why the dog is motivated or not. 

Personally, I think it's scary that so many trainers don't seem to consider what's going on in the dog's brain. It's all about the human's perception of what's happening or of what they think they are seeing in the dog. I've met many trainers who are sure they understand what the dog is thinking or are confident they can read their dog and it's just not the case. The human believes the dog should understand, but the dog is confused because it doesn't make sense in the dog's world. The human never considers that and just forces or punishes the dog until, in spite of the human's efforts, the dog finally figures out what the human wants. It saddens me to see this in action. Something as simple as understanding where to put the correction, reinforcement or command in the chain of events is lost to some trainers. If they could understand the process, the dog would be better off. 

I've watched a trainer trying to teach their dog an object guard with an e-collar using what he thought was negative reinforcement ...except he would burn the dog with the collar to get the dog on the object, then burn the dog off the object to bite the decoy, then burn him back on the object once the decoy moved away. When the dog finally got confused and ran to the handler's side, he stopped burning him long enough to lead him back to the object and then couldn't understand why the dog kept running back to his side. Bad training ...sure. Maybe all the understanding of OC in the world wouldn't have helped him and the dog ...but I do believe just sitting down and thinking about what was happening and why would have helped. 

Guessing and learning from our mistakes on the fly isn't really fair to the dogs. If we can avoid that as much as possible and preplan, reflect and make changes based on observations rather than on a whim, I think it makes learning easier for the dog. I think people should be trained in the same manner their dogs are trained ...then maybe the science behind what's happening would be more important. 

Back to the book ...like I said ...I've not read it cover to cover, but just unearthed a copy I have here and will do so. However, I've met a number of Koehler-method trainers and have yet to be impressed with their results. But then again, I like to see a dog enjoying what it's doing. Strict obedience is great and if I only had a dog as a pet, I probably wouldn't care quite so much about attitude (maybe I would, hard to say because I want all my dogs to work). But I just don't think it's fair to take an animal and pressure it into submission just to suit my goals. If the dog is doing work that is vital to my or someone else's survival, I would prefer it want to be doing that job. I'm not opposed to correcting fairly for disobedience, but what I've seen in the Koehler trainers I've met is a failure to make sure the dog understands what it's supposed to be doing or at least give the dog the opportunity to learn without compulsion before adding excessive force or pressure. To paraphrase what Pat Nolan, a retriever trainer who is one of the smartest trainers I've met (who also uses e-collar pressure to teach), once told me: teach when the dog is confused and correct when the dog is disobedient ...but be sure you've done your job to make sure you can tell the difference.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Alice Bezemer said:


> Per example, bad behaviour gets punished and good behaviour gets rewarded?


First, I get it that you are oversimplifying to make a point. 


Still .....

You can't think of any "bad behavior" that punishment would exacerbate? 

Or "bad behavior" that it's useless (or worse) to punish?


And what exactly does "punish" mean to you? What does "reward" mean to you?

Are there levels of each? 

Is there timing involved? 


Is normal puppy behavior that is annoying or painful to me "bad behavior"? 


I would need more coffee to type all the questions I'd have if I had just acquired my first dog and read the training instruction "bad behaviour gets punished and good behaviour gets rewarded" ....


:lol:



But I get it about the "outrageous levels" ..... and the time spent on it, too.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

I agree:
_
"It's not just about the terminology ...it's about understanding the process. When I'm working my dog, that's what I'm focused on. But during the other 23 hours of the day, I have plenty of time to plan or reflect and understand why the dog is motivated or not."_


And yes, I want to _"consider what's going on in the dog's brain."_


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Ariel Peldunas said:


> I don't know what's scary about wanting to understand why what I'm doing works. It's not just about the terminology ...it's about understanding the process. When I'm working my dog, that's what I'm focused on. But during the other 23 hours of the day, I have plenty of time to plan or reflect and understand why the dog is motivated or not.
> 
> Personally, I think it's scary that so many trainers don't seem to consider what's going on in the dog's brain. It's all about the human's perception of what's happening or of what they think they are seeing in the dog. I've met many trainers who are sure they understand what the dog is thinking or are confident they can read their dog and it's just not the case. The human believes the dog should understand, but the dog is confused because it doesn't make sense in the dog's world. The human never considers that and just forces or punishes the dog until, in spite of the human's efforts, the dog finally figures out what the human wants. It saddens me to see this in action. Something as simple as understanding where to put the correction, reinforcement or command in the chain of events is lost to some trainers. If they could understand the process, the dog would be better off.
> 
> I've watched a trainer trying to teach their dog an object guard with an e-collar using what he thought was negative reinforcement ...except he would burn the dog with the collar to get the dog on the object, then burn the dog off the object to bite the decoy, then burn him back on the object once the decoy moved away. When the dog finally got confused and ran to the handler's side, he stopped burning him long enough to lead him back to the object and then couldn't understand why the dog kept running back to his side. Bad training ...sure. Maybe all the understanding of OC in the world wouldn't have helped him and the dog ...but I do believe just sitting down and thinking about what was happening and why would have helped.
> 
> Guessing and learning from our mistakes on the fly isn't really fair to the dogs. If we can avoid that as much as possible and preplan, reflect and make changes based on observations rather than on a whim, I think it makes learning easier for the dog. I think people should be trained in the same manner their dogs are trained ...then maybe the science behind what's happening would be more important.
> 
> Back to the book ...like I said ...I've not read it cover to cover, but just unearthed a copy I have here and will do so. However, I've met a number of Koehler-method trainers and have yet to be impressed with their results. But then again, I like to see a dog enjoying what it's doing. Strict obedience is great and if I only had a dog as a pet, I probably wouldn't care quite so much about attitude (maybe I would, hard to say because I want all my dogs to work). But I just don't think it's fair to take an animal and pressure it into submission just to suit my goals. If the dog is doing work that is vital to my or someone else's survival, I would prefer it want to be doing that job. I'm not opposed to correcting fairly for disobedience, but what I've seen in the Koehler trainers I've met is a failure to make sure the dog understands what it's supposed to be doing or at least give the dog the opportunity to learn without compulsion before adding excessive force or pressure. To paraphrase what Pat Nolan, a retriever trainer who is one of the smartest trainers I've met (who also uses e-collar pressure to teach), once told me: teach when the dog is confused and correct when the dog is disobedient ...but be sure you've done your job to make sure you can tell the difference.



See? Thats the thing...I don't subscribe to the whole terminology thing and am a hands on person myself. I look at my dog and find out what works for him and what his triggers are and I use them to my advantage in the training he gets. Just because people don't subscribe to the terminology doesn't mean they don't think about what works best for their dogs! The whole thing with terminology is that there seems to be this overwhelming will in people using aforementioned terminology to tell other people what they are doing wrong by not using terminology to begin with! (wonder if I am still making sense to everyone!) 

Terminology is a waste of time in my book, it makes things harder instead of easier, its explaining things to me that I have been using for almost 25 years that never needed a label to begin with! Now I see new people walking on our training field with their heads filled with big words that they fling at others left and right and the dog lays there not learning anything at all....people are to busy learning words, not what makes their dog tick! JMHO.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

_" .... Now I see new people walking on our training field with their heads filled with big words that they fling at others left and right and the dog lays there not learning anything at all....people are to busy learning words, not what makes their dog tick! JMHO."
_


Heck yeah. 

Terminology is worse than useless unless everyone involved has the same definitions.

But without it, no one can describe to anyone else how to do much of anything.


----------



## Ariel Peldunas

Alice Bezemer said:


> ehmmm *grins* OTOH tho...said terminology could take a lot less time and be a lot more effective if it wasn't outdrawn to outrageous levels like it is today?
> 
> Per example, bad behaviour gets punished and good behaviour gets rewarded?
> 
> Let me be a meanie and say what I think....terminology of training or working with dogs does not a dogtrainer make! Its just a whole lot of talk about dogs and their training and which label to slap onto waht behaviour... The actual training with the dog part suffers for this kind of talk..instead get hands on and get to know the dog and work with what you see, not what you have a book tell you is right or wrong. Trust me, looking at the dog is always the biggest advantage you have to work with, use that instead of large words and trying to explain every minute detail into fance ass words?


I'm not sure why people assume understanding the process and being able to put it into words precludes being able to effectively train a dog. Some of the best trainers I've met can do both ...they have mastered both the art and the science.

*"Per example, bad behaviour gets punished and good behaviour gets rewarded?"*

This is where terminology could come in handy. Some people may read this, apply their definitions of bad behavior and punishment and believe any time the dog is incorrect, it should receive positive punishment. If the dog was confused, this could easily lead to learned helplessness. If the OC definitions of punishment/reinforcement were understood, along with the ability to read the dog and determine if it was being disobedient or confused, I think the trainer would be better off.

Not all trainers have suitable mentors to watch and learn from nor do they have the ability to observe training in many different venues. But, couple a basic understanding of dog behavior and how to read and communicate with dogs with a basic understanding of the principles of OC and I think you've given a person the tools to excel in dog training ...not all will get it, but those who do will find it much easier than just telling them, "This is how it's done and don't ask why."


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Connie Sutherland said:


> First, I get it that you are oversimplifying to make a point.
> 
> 
> Still .....
> 
> You can't think of any "bad behavior" that punishment would exacerbate?
> 
> Or "bad behavior" that it's useless (or worse) to punish?
> 
> 
> And what exactly does "punish" mean to you? What does "reward" mean to you?
> 
> Are there levels of each?
> 
> Is there timing involved?
> 
> 
> Is normal puppy behavior that is annoying or painful to me "bad behavior"?
> 
> 
> I would need more coffee to type all the questions I'd have if I had just acquired my first dog and read the training instruction "bad behaviour gets punished and good behaviour gets rewarded" ....
> 
> 
> :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> But I get it about the "outrageous levels" ..... and the time spent on it, too.



I totally get what your saying...there are levels in punishement and in rewards, the punishment fits the crime and so does the reward... the thing is all the terminology in the world is not going to help you with your dog if you don't look at your dog! See what you have on the end of the leash and go from there.... every dog needs a different approach and that often seems to be forgotten, no amount of terminology will fix or prepare you for that. With each new dog I learned a lot and when it left I knew I would not make the mistakes I made with that dog with the new dog I had gotten, nope with him I opened a whole new can of worms to deal with and you deal with that hands on, without big words or ideas, just by looking at the animal in question and by seeing what makes him tick... but thats just my opinion... and we all know that im a bit willfully challenged


----------



## Connie Sutherland

_"we all know that im a bit willfully challenged"_


 

No. I CAN'T and WON'T believe that.


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Connie Sutherland said:


> _"we all know that im a bit willfully challenged"_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. I CAN'T and WON'T believe that.


Challenge accepted! :twisted:


----------



## Dave Colborn

2012 posts you've made. All of them use terminology. When you go on the field, your helper, decoy or trainers tell you what to do your you tell them what to do. Terminology. 

What makes a dog tick, without using any words, Alice? Go. 

Dog training isn't magic. It's science and art in the right hands. 






Alice Bezemer said:


> Terminology is a waste of time in my book, it makes things harder instead of easier, its explaining things to me that I have been using for almost 25 years that never needed a label to begin with! Now I see new people walking on our training field with their heads filled with big words that they fling at others left and right and the dog lays there not learning anything at all....people are to busy learning words, not what makes their dog tick! JMHO.


----------



## Ariel Peldunas

Alice Bezemer said:


> See? Thats the thing...I don't subscribe to the whole terminology thing and am a hands on person myself. I look at my dog and find out what works for him and what his triggers are and I use them to my advantage in the training he gets. Just because people don't subscribe to the terminology doesn't mean they don't think about what works best for their dogs! The whole thing with terminology is that there seems to be this overwhelming will in people using aforementioned terminology to tell other people what they are doing wrong by not using terminology to begin with! (wonder if I am still making sense to everyone!)
> 
> Terminology is a waste of time in my book, it makes things harder instead of easier, its explaining things to me that I have been using for almost 25 years that never needed a label to begin with! Now I see new people walking on our training field with their heads filled with big words that they fling at others left and right and the dog lays there not learning anything at all....people are to busy learning words, not what makes their dog tick! JMHO.


Perhaps I worry about it more than others because I spend a lot of time teaching other humans in addition to dogs. If I was just working my own dogs, I probably wouldn't try to have such a thorough understanding of the science part of things. But when I am teaching people who are new to dog training or who want to understand how to better communicate with their dogs, I find it useful to help them understand the terms and process. There are some people who are visual learners ...who can watch me or another trainer do something and mimic it. Others are more conceptual learners ...they can read something, think about it and figure out how to make it work. I try to help people combine the two. 

Pat Nolan also told me, there are mechanics and there are engineers. The mechanics know how to put something together, fix it when it breaks and keep it running smoothly. The engineers are the designers. They create, understand the inner workings of their creation and continue to strive to make their creation better. I know which I would prefer to be and I think understanding why things happen as they do helps me in my goal of achieving that.

Also, this discussion came about because I noticed people applying terms incorrectly. I think it's important that if we use these terms, we understand how they have been defined for decades. Like I said, I wasn't intending to derail the thread and tried to start another to avoid that ...but then again, I think the point of forums is to elicit in depth discussions that sometimes follow various paths.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Alice Bezemer said:


> ehmmm *grins* OTOH tho...said terminology could take a lot less time and be a lot more effective if it wasn't outdrawn to outrageous levels like it is today?
> 
> Per example, bad behaviour gets punished and good behaviour gets rewarded?
> 
> Let me be a meanie and say what I think....terminology of training or working with dogs does not a dogtrainer make! Its just a whole lot of talk about dogs and their training and which label to slap onto waht behaviour... The actual training with the dog part suffers for this kind of talk..instead get hands on and get to know the dog and work with what you see, not what you have a book tell you is right or wrong. Trust me, looking at the dog is always the biggest advantage you have to work with, use that instead of large words and trying to explain every minute detail into fance ass words?


When I first started off, I bought a couple of books about sport dog training, having always found reading about a hobby will educate me best. 

There is no better way to educate new dog trainers than by showing them how. For instance, tracking, or square searching.

In tracking we followed the trainer and a handler with dog and learned via the trainer what the handler and the dog were doing.

Proection work was later learned by watching the helper work the dogs and listening to his commentary after each dog session.

Obedience was explained and watched and commented by the trainer. Praise him, give more (mental) pressure), and so on.

I agree it must be documented and maybe this is far more important in the USA than in Europe where we have dog clubs around every corner but the truth is, there is no better training than visual training.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Comparing the US to Europe is probably not the best analogy. 

A better one would be if i went to a club with a competent trainer in the US or abroad, and did what he said vs. learning and understanding the why as well as doing it, it would be comprable to what you are talking about. I'd rather be able to do it, understand it and teach it where it sounds like you are happy just doing and not knowing why you do it.

A trainer who's answer is "because I say so" isn't a trainer I'll listen too for much. I am not a dog and can reason. I'll mimic something for a while if it works, but I want to know why so I can apply it later.




Gillian Schuler said:


> When I first started off, I bought a couple of books about sport dog training, having always found reading about a hobby will educate me best.
> 
> There is no better way to educate new dog trainers than by showing them how. For instance, tracking, or square searching.
> 
> In tracking we followed the trainer and a handler with dog and learned via the trainer what the handler and the dog were doing.
> 
> Proection work was later learned by watching the helper work the dogs and listening to his commentary after each dog session.
> 
> Obedience was explained and watched and commented by the trainer. Praise him, give more (mental) pressure), and so on.
> 
> I agree it must be documented and maybe this is far more important in the USA than in Europe where we have dog clubs around every corner but the truth is, there is no better training than visual training.


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Ariel Peldunas said:


> Perhaps I worry about it more than others because I spend a lot of time teaching other humans in addition to dogs. If I was just working my own dogs, I probably wouldn't try to have such a thorough understanding of the science part of things. But when I am teaching people who are new to dog training or who want to understand how to better communicate with their dogs, I find it useful to help them understand the terms and process. There are some people who are visual learners ...who can watch me or another trainer do something and mimic it. Others are more conceptual learners ...they can read something, think about it and figure out how to make it work. I try to help people combine the two.
> 
> Pat Nolan also told me, there are mechanics and there are engineers. The mechanics know how to put something together, fix it when it breaks and keep it running smoothly. The engineers are the designers. They create, understand the inner workings of their creation and continue to strive to make their creation better. I know which I would prefer to be and I think understanding why things happen as they do helps me in my goal of achieving that.
> 
> Also, this discussion came about because I noticed people applying terms incorrectly. I think it's important that if we use these terms, we understand how they have been defined for decades. Like I said, I wasn't intending to derail the thread and tried to start another to avoid that ...but then again, I think the point of forums is to elicit in depth discussions that sometimes follow various paths.


My comments where never made in malice or in anger or directed to anything you said personally...that is one thing I want to make sure you understand...that aside tho? I understand where you and other people are coming from...I understand completely! It is just that I prefer the hands on aproach with a dog and it has worked extremely well for me over the last 25 years so I am not inclined to fix what isn't broken. 

What annoys and irritates me most about terminology is that it is often learned and then used as scripture for new trainers to tell old trainers what they are suddenly doing wrong since they do not use the same terminology with their dogs. I agree that you can learn and use something from everything that goes around as far as the dog training world is concerned but it shouldn't take over the actual training. Words and explanations can not compare to actual hands on working with a dog to find out what works for the dog. My worry with use of terminology and drawn out ideas of how a dog should or would react to certain positive or negative stimuly is that there is to much thinking about the fictional part of training and not the actual training of the dog itself...which in my eyes could be very confusing for the dog. We think in terminology, we have words to paste on behaviours and labels to slap on actions, dogs do not think in those kind of ways, I see people on this forum saying things like "the dog thinks" Huh? Excuse you? No one knows what the dog thinks! We can only hope to begin to understand what the goes on inside of the dogs head by reading its bodylanguage and its behaviour in certain circumstances and hope to learn from that...


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Dave Colborn said:


> Comparing the US to Europe is probably not the best analogy.
> 
> A better one would be if i went to a club with a competent trainer in the US or abroad, and did what he said vs. learning and understanding the why as well as doing it, it would be comprable to what you are talking about. I'd rather be able to do it, understand it and teach it where it sounds like you are happy just doing and not knowing why you do it.
> 
> A trainer who's answer is "because I say so" isn't a trainer I'll listen too for much. I am not a dog and can reason. I'll mimic something for a while if it works, but I want to know why so I can apply it later.


If you think that we didn't discuss each dog's performance - then you are wrong. What's wrong with you folks? Why do you assume instead of asking questions. We didn't just do - we learned in the proper method and applied it to our training to gain good trial results.


----------



## Matt Vandart

I'm sorry to continue disagreeing with you Ariel but:
Positive= anything added, (including prong pressure)
Reinforcement= to encourage a behavior (walking closer)

This can also be perceived as you said from the human perspective:
dog is pulling- Prong pop to discourage a behavior= positive puniishment

But you see you are not just discouraging a behavior you are encouraging an alternative incompatible behavior, that of walking closer.

You could say that the release of the prong pressure and the dog walking closer is negative reinforcement. However a prong pop is not a sustained pressure so the release of pressure is not playing a great deal in the circumstance.
You are adding something (prong pop) to encourage a behavior (walking closer)

Like I said and later you said I am talking from the dogs perspective not the humans, the dog is the one doing the learning, the one who is operant.

The dog finds that if he moves closer after a lead check, the lead checks stop, therefore the loose lead walking becomes reinforced, increases in frequency.

Please be mindfull that I understand exactly why you are saying what you are and I agree with your human perspective on the situation.

Positive reinforcement will have the same result.

Look at it this way, in the dogs head.

If I move closer I will get treats- treats= something added to encourage a behavior (walking closer)

I got a pop on the prong I will move closer to stop it happening again- prong pop = something added to encourage a behavior (walking closer)

It is because of stimulus- treat is a stimulus as is a prong pop, each have a consequence, they are both positive (something added) they both increase the frequency of a behavior (walking closer)

OC is really cool, but it is a human description of a natural process. Natural process's are fluid, they don't have definite beginnings and ends as we like to think. It's all about perspective, I am looking at it from the dogs perspective because, as I said before, he is the one doing the learning, he is the one that is operant.

That is the real reason why terminology can cause confusion.
I apologize for that load of bollocks, I am just giving my opinion on OC which I do look at with my training.
I also use SMAF to plan stuff sometimes which is why I asked Rick, it takes all the confusion out of OC


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Gillian Schuler said:


> If you think that we didn't discuss each dog's performance - then you are wrong. What's wrong with you folks? Why do you assume instead of asking questions. We didn't just do - we learned in the proper method and applied it to our training to gain good trial results.


I rest my case... 

It is automatically assumed that since we do not subscribe to a certain kind of training or use of terminology that we do not think or react to what is in front of us.. Lets face it Gillian! We are mindless puppets! *pats the bench space beside me * Come sit with me on the puppet bench :mrgreen: there is plenty of room on it for us ignorant folk


----------



## Connie Sutherland

_"Come sit with me on the puppet bench"_


I will! :lol:




I do get the objection to trainers who are essentially ignorant/inexperienced but believe they are suddenly all-knowing when they have a few new terms to toss around.

But many of us started out by listening to and/or reading the words of those who went before, and that doesn't work well unless we have the same set of definitions they have.

The more I understand the terminology of someone whose work I admire, the better I get what s/he is telling me.


----------



## Matt Vandart

Just to make it known I am not a terminology freak nut, rather I was attempting to illustrate the trap of concentrating too much on terminology and confusing matters by showing how the same desired outcome and method to gain that out come can be looked at from many perspectives and become confusing.

I say I would also like to sit on the puppet bench as I prescribe to the liberal use of Occams razor in dog training as in, if it works use it.


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Matt Vandart said:


> Just to make it known I am not a terminology freak nut, rather I was attempting to illustrate the trap of concentrating too much on terminology and confusing matters by showing how the same desired outcome and method to gain that out come can be looked at from many perspectives and become confusing.
> 
> I say I would also like to sit on the puppet bench as I prescribe to the liberal use of Occams razor in dog training as in, if it works use it.



Occam's razor! Now we are talking! That is one statement I can subscribe to completely!


----------



## Raegan Walter

Matt Vandart said:


> I'm sorry to continue disagreeing with you Ariel but:
> Positive= anything added, (including prong pressure)
> Reinforcement= to encourage a behavior (walking closer)
> 
> This can also be perceived as you said from the human perspective:
> dog is pulling- Prong pop to discourage a behavior= positive puniishment
> 
> But you see you are not just discouraging a behavior you are encouraging an alternative incompatible behavior, that of walking closer.


No. Popping the dog for pulling only tells him pulling is bad. It does not tell the dog where you want him - he could start lagging, going wide, start crowding you, or refuse to move at all.



> You could say that the release of the prong pressure and the dog walking closer is negative reinforcement. However a prong pop is not a sustained pressure so the release of pressure is not playing a great deal in the circumstance.
> You are adding something (prong pop) to encourage a behavior (walking closer)
> 
> Like I said and later you said I am talking from the dogs perspective not the humans, the dog is the one doing the learning, the one who is operant.
> 
> The dog finds that if he moves closer after a lead check,* the lead checks stop,* therefore the loose lead walking becomes reinforced, increases in frequency.


Try popping the collar when the dog is walking close. What happens?

Prong is +P pulling, NO PRONG is the negative reinforcement for walking close.


----------



## Matt Vandart

Raegan Walter said:


> No. Popping the dog for pulling only tells him pulling is bad. It does not tell the dog where you want him - he could start lagging, going wide, start crowding you, or refuse to move at all.
> 
> *I am not popping him for pulling I am popping him to encourage him to move closer. None of those outcomes is the one I am looking for so all would be treated the same as pulling. So everything outside of the sweet spot (moving closer) is popped, in this hypothetical situation.
> I stand by my statement.
> Prong pop= something added to encourage a behavior (walk closer)
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Try popping the collar when the dog is walking close. What happens?
> 
> *why would I do that? please explain.
> *
> Prong is +P pulling, NO PRONG is the negative reinforcement for walking close.
> 
> *I'm not really sure how I can explain it any better from the dogs perspective. The dog does not rationalize. He cannot experience 'no prong' only 'release of the prong pressure'
> I have already stated I believe that it can be viewed correctly as 'negative reinforcement' but it is also 'positive reinforcement' from the dogs perspective.
> I'll try again.
> Dog feels prong, dog moves somewhere else. It is irrelevent where he moves to, he moves.
> Say he moves out wide, he gets another pop, dog moves closer he gets no pop. The dog doesn't think to himself 'I am here and the threat of the prong has been removed' He just experiences no pop, totally unaware that it could have happened.
> Now next time he is in wrong position, whatever that is and he gets a pop, he will move closer, to where there is no pop. The prong pop has made him move to the no pop zone and as such has increased the frequency of that behavior (moving to the no pop zone i.e walking closer) as a direct result of the prong pop.
> 
> Now once the dog has got into the 'no pop zone' it is THEN 'negative reinforcement' that KEEPS him there, it does not move him there in the first place.
> Or some shit like that.
> If you look at OC in a purely probability point if view, as in the probability that reinforcement (positive or negative) will actually increase the frequency of a particular behavior you find that the theory all goes to shit.
> 
> Personally I don't use corrections for heeling, that is one place I do only use positive reinforcement and negative punishment, seems to work for me. *


----------



## Raegan Walter

> *I am not popping him for pulling I am popping him to encourage him to move closer. None of those outcomes is the one I am looking for so all would be treated the same as pulling. So everything outside of the sweet spot is popped, in this hypothetical situation.
> I stand by my statement.
> Prong pop= something added to encourage a behavior (walk closer)
> *


Well because if we're looking at it from the dog's perspective, he doesn't know why you're popping him. He knows I am here = discomfort.

If there's discomfort everywhere but heel position, and comfort in heel position... that's negative reinforcement.



> Try popping the collar when the dog is walking close. What happens?
> 
> *why would I do that? please explain.*


Because it will tell you if a stimulus is reinforcing or not. 



> *Dog feels prong, dog moves somewhere else. It is irrelevent where he moves to, he moves.*
> * Say he moves out wide, he gets another pop, dog moves closer he gets no pop. The dog doesn't think to himself 'I am here and the threat of the prong has been removed' He just experiences no pop, totally unaware that it could have happened.*


Which... is positive punishment and negative reinforcement.

*



Now next time he is in wrong position, whatever that is and he gets a pop, he will move closer, to where there is no pop. The prong pop has made him move to the no pop zone and as such has increased the frequency of that behavior (moving to the no pop zone i.e walking closer) as a direct result of the prong pop.

Click to expand...

*He moves to the no pop zone because there's no pop there. He moves there because of the history of reinforcement for that position.
* 



If you look at OC in a purely probability point if view, as in the probability that reinforcement (positive or negative) will actually increase the frequency of a particular behavior you find that the theory all goes to shit.

Click to expand...

*It really doesn't. You're describing negative reinforcement.


----------



## Alice Bezemer

That awkward moment when even the people who use terminology can't agree on which terminology to use where and when....or why for that matter... #-o


----------



## rick smith

sorry but i gotta mention this since it fits so well in the current direction this thread is going

saw a trainer out with their customer's constantly forging gsd trying to get it to settle in to a heel position.....i was sitting having coffee so i saw them coming from my right to left about 30 meters away.
- fwiw, the female trainer, who i know, also works at the police academy and does psd training there too. worked there maybe 3-4 years now, but does private training too

so as i see them approaching, here's the set up :
- dog was definitely young; under 2 yrs old.
- trainer has a longer lead to a prong, trailing the owner, and owner is also got a shorter lead to a flat collar
- owner walking at a constant pace in a straight line and dog is lunging with an occasional choke but making no noise. obviously excited with all the people around
- trainer is popping it every time it surges past the owner's hip and pretty much pulling it back into position after she popped the prong
- i lost count at about 30 pops and that was before they got in front of me
- the lunging was fairly constant as the passed by and about the same routine as they walked out of site, even tho the dog would stay on her hip for a few steps
- dog also got popped for starting to look away at any distraction
- i could tell the owner was pretty happy with all this cause her "big gsd" was "kinda heeling"
- i could hear a quiet "FUS" every now and then before a pop, but certainly not given on any consistent basis
- and i have no idea if this was the first or tenth attempt at heeling (they looked "busy" and i didn't want to butt in)

hope the picture is fairly clear

Q : i'm curious what you would think. was this trainer training operantly ? (leave the owner out of this; she was obviously doing nothing but holding a lead)
.... not really looking for a critique, just curious about your overall perspective, so please answer the Q first before you add anything else, thank you 

i'm busy reading Koehler and will soon start a K thread if this doesn't get back on topic in the next few days


----------



## Ariel Peldunas

Alice Bezemer said:


> My comments where never made in malice or in anger or directed to anything you said personally...that is one thing I want to make sure you understand...that aside tho? I understand where you and other people are coming from...I understand completely! It is just that I prefer the hands on aproach with a dog and it has worked extremely well for me over the last 25 years so I am not inclined to fix what isn't broken.
> 
> What annoys and irritates me most about terminology is that it is often learned and then used as scripture for new trainers to tell old trainers what they are suddenly doing wrong since they do not use the same terminology with their dogs. I agree that you can learn and use something from everything that goes around as far as the dog training world is concerned but it shouldn't take over the actual training. Words and explanations can not compare to actual hands on working with a dog to find out what works for the dog. My worry with use of terminology and drawn out ideas of how a dog should or would react to certain positive or negative stimuly is that there is to much thinking about the fictional part of training and not the actual training of the dog itself...which in my eyes could be very confusing for the dog. We think in terminology, we have words to paste on behaviours and labels to slap on actions, dogs do not think in those kind of ways, I see people on this forum saying things like "the dog thinks" Huh? Excuse you? No one knows what the dog thinks! We can only hope to begin to understand what the goes on inside of the dogs head by reading its bodylanguage and its behaviour in certain circumstances and hope to learn from that...


Alice ...no offense was taken from your posts. And certainly there are plenty of opinions to go around and I don't fault someone else for thinking differently than I do. I've never met you or trained with you and wouldn't judge your abilities based solely on whether or not you explain what happens when you're training a dog in the terms I use. I just don't think putting in words what's happening during the learning process fictionalizes anything or detracts anything from the ability of the person applying the terminology, nor does it affect the outcome. I don't think it's accurate to call using terminology the "fictional" part of training. It exists. It makes sense. It's just a matter of understanding cause and effect and why popping the dog on a prong makes a behavior happen less frequently but feeding the dog a cookie makes the behavior happen more frequently. There are certainly many people who read about training and never have any idea how to apply it. There are also many people who may believe they are effective trainers through practice alone, but their results prove differently. Understanding operant conditioning doesn't tell us what the dog is thinking ...it just provides an explanation as to how the learning process occurs.

It seems you expect trainers like yourself who don't worry about terminology not to be criticized or thought any less of, but what I get from your posts is that you look down on trainers who do worry about terminology. That's not exactly fair, is it?


----------



## Gillian Schuler

I'm sitting on the bench next to Alice and I'm sure she isn't thinking like you think she is. As a matter of fact nor am I.

I think as I always did do - the dog obeys me or he doesn't, the wheres and the whys are not relevant.

It's getting late and I have a bunch of eager beavers willing to learn English tomorrow, so g'night all.


----------



## Ariel Peldunas

*I am not popping him for pulling I am popping him to encourage him to move closer. None of those outcomes is the one I am looking for so all would be treated the same as pulling. So everything outside of the sweet spot (moving closer) is popped, in this hypothetical situation. 
I stand by my statement.
Prong pop= something added to encourage a behavior (walk closer)*

*I'm not really sure how I can explain it any better from the dogs perspective. The dog does not rationalize. He cannot experience 'no prong' only 'release of the prong pressure' 
I have already stated I believe that it can be viewed correctly as 'negative reinforcement' but it is also 'positive reinforcement' from the dogs perspective.
I'll try again. 
Dog feels prong, dog moves somewhere else. It is irrelevent where he moves to, he moves.
Say he moves out wide, he gets another pop, dog moves closer he gets no pop. The dog doesn't think to himself 'I am here and the threat of the prong has been removed' He just experiences no pop, totally unaware that it could have happened.
Now next time he is in wrong position, whatever that is and he gets a pop, he will move closer, to where there is no pop. The prong pop has made him move to the no pop zone and as such has increased the frequency of that behavior (moving to the no pop zone i.e walking closer) as a direct result of the prong pop.

Now once the dog has got into the 'no pop zone' it is THEN 'negative reinforcement' that KEEPS him there, it does not move him there in the first place.
Or some shit like that.
If you look at OC in a purely probability point if view, as in the probability that reinforcement (positive or negative) will actually increase the frequency of a particular behavior you find that the theory all goes to shit.

Personally I don't use corrections for heeling, that is one place I do only use positive reinforcement and negative punishment, seems to work for me. *

Matt ...I really hope you're not taking personal offense to this, but you're wrong. Maybe try to think of it in terms of behavior first then consequence. In many of your examples, you're putting the consequence before the behavior. Commands come before behaviors ...consequences come after.

Negative reinforcement is removing an uncomfortable stimulus after a behavior occurs to make that behavior happen more frequently. The classic example is the alarm you hear in your car that reminds you that you're not wearing your seatbelt. When you exhibit the desired behavior (buckling up), the consequence occurs (removal of the undesirable stimulus=>alarm). Negative reinforcement=taking away something undesirable to reinforce the desired behavior. This is similar to your last explanation of how you are using the collar pops. I tend to try to use a stimulus that has more continuity than separate pops (something like CONT on an e-collar or steady leash pressure), but certainly repeated leash pops can be negative reinforcement. 

The leash pops can also be positive punishment if you look at it from the perspective that you're punishing the dog pulling on the leash or being away from you. Behavior happens first=>pulling or getting too far away ...then undesirable consequence=>leash pop ...which makes the behavior less likely to happen.

You don't have to take my word for it, though. There are plenty of books and articles that explain it ...probably better than I can.

This one doesn't address negative punishment but it's pretty simple and to the point in describing positive and negative reinforcement and positive punishment.

http://allpsych.com/psychology101/reinforcement.html

No examples, but a straightforward explanation.

http://uwf.edu/jgould/classicalvsoperant.pdf

I am off to train some dogs, but I'll try to find some websites with dog training related examples of the differences between positive and negative reinforcement and punishment.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Ariel Peldunas said:


> *I am not popping him for pulling I am popping him to encourage him to move closer. None of those outcomes is the one I am looking for so all would be treated the same as pulling. So everything outside of the sweet spot (moving closer) is popped, in this hypothetical situation. *
> *I stand by my statement.*
> *Prong pop= something added to encourage a behavior (walk closer)*
> 
> *I'm not really sure how I can explain it any better from the dogs perspective. The dog does not rationalize. He cannot experience 'no prong' only 'release of the prong pressure' *
> *I have already stated I believe that it can be viewed correctly as 'negative reinforcement' but it is also 'positive reinforcement' from the dogs perspective.*
> *I'll try again. *
> *Dog feels prong, dog moves somewhere else. It is irrelevent where he moves to, he moves.*
> *Say he moves out wide, he gets another pop, dog moves closer he gets no pop. The dog doesn't think to himself 'I am here and the threat of the prong has been removed' He just experiences no pop, totally unaware that it could have happened.*
> *Now next time he is in wrong position, whatever that is and he gets a pop, he will move closer, to where there is no pop. The prong pop has made him move to the no pop zone and as such has increased the frequency of that behavior (moving to the no pop zone i.e walking closer) as a direct result of the prong pop.*
> 
> *Now once the dog has got into the 'no pop zone' it is THEN 'negative reinforcement' that KEEPS him there, it does not move him there in the first place.*
> *Or some shit like that.*
> *If you look at OC in a purely probability point if view, as in the probability that reinforcement (positive or negative) will actually increase the frequency of a particular behavior you find that the theory all goes to shit.*
> 
> *Personally I don't use corrections for heeling, that is one place I do only use positive reinforcement and negative punishment, seems to work for me. *
> 
> Matt ...I really hope you're not taking personal offense to this, but you're wrong. Maybe try to think of it in terms of behavior first then consequence. In many of your examples, you're putting the consequence before the behavior. Commands come before behaviors ...consequences come after.
> 
> Negative reinforcement is removing an uncomfortable stimulus after a behavior occurs to make that behavior happen more frequently. The classic example is the alarm you hear in your car that reminds you that you're not wearing your seatbelt. When you exhibit the desired behavior (buckling up), the consequence occurs (removal of the undesirable stimulus=>alarm). Negative reinforcement=taking away something undesirable to reinforce the desired behavior. This is similar to your last explanation of how you are using the collar pops. I tend to try to use a stimulus that has more continuity than separate pops (something like CONT on an e-collar or steady leash pressure), but certainly repeated leash pops can be negative reinforcement.
> 
> The leash pops can also be positive punishment if you look at it from the perspective that you're punishing the dog pulling on the leash or being away from you. Behavior happens first=>pulling or getting too far away ...then undesirable consequence=>leash pop ...which makes the behavior less likely to happen.
> 
> You don't have to take my word for it, though. There are plenty of books and articles that explain it ...probably better than I can.
> 
> This one doesn't address negative punishment but it's pretty simple and to the point in describing positive and negative reinforcement and positive punishment.
> 
> http://allpsych.com/psychology101/reinforcement.html
> 
> No examples, but a straightforward explanation.
> 
> http://uwf.edu/jgould/classicalvsoperant.pdf
> 
> I am off to train some dogs, but I'll try to find some websites with dog training related examples of the differences between positive and negative reinforcement and punishment.


 
Haven't been able to delve into this thread yet, but agree with Ariel. Also, off to train dogs.

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Matt Vandart said:


> Its even more complex/contrived than that.
> 
> For example it depends on the perspective of the action. For example if you use a choke chain/prong to correct a dog for pulling on a lead you are:
> 
> Postive- check on the lead
> Punnishment- to discourage the pulling behaviour
> 
> you are also:
> Positive- check on the lead
> Reinforcement- encouraging the dog to walk closer
> 
> *what did you add that increased the frequency of the desired behavior?*
> 
> also at the same time you are:
> negative- release of the lead pressure (as dog comes closer)
> reinforcement- encouraging the dog to walk closer
> 
> and even more contrived;
> negative- romoving freedom of movement
> punishment- to discourage the dog from pulling on the lead.
> 
> *taking away freedom of movement stopped the undesired behavior?*
> 
> Edit: also the marker is a bridge reinforcer


*secondary and what is your marker and what behavior did you mark? *

*I see one confused pup in the making. Consider "from the dog's point of view."*


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Haven't been able to delve into this thread yet, but agree with Ariel.
> 
> T




So do I. And with Raegan.

_"But you see you are not just discouraging a behavior you are encouraging an alternative incompatible behavior, that of walking closer."_

Reply: No. Popping the dog for pulling only tells him pulling is bad. It does not tell the dog where you want him - he could start lagging, going wide, start crowding you, or refuse to move at all.



Agreed: Popping the dog for pulling only tells him pulling is bad. It does not tell the dog where you want him. 

It's not "something added to encourage a behavior (walk closer)." It's not something added to encourage any specific alternate behavior. He could indeed stop pulling but start start lagging, going wide, crowding you, or refusing to move at all.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> ... what did you add that increased the frequency of the desired behavior?
> 
> ... what is your marker and what behavior did you mark?



I have the same questions.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Connie Sutherland said:


> So do I. And with Raegan.
> 
> _"_." It's not something added to encourage any specific alternate behavior. He could indeed stop pulling but start start lagging, going wide, crowding you, or refusing to move at all.


Exactly. This isn't about what the handler intends to happen. Its about how the dog perceives the information provided and how he connects the dots. You aren't encouraging anything. The dog either performs a behavior [won't get into proximation] or he stops a behavior. Just because you punish a behaivor doesn't mean you stop it either; i.e. all this popping is getting you what? Nor is pooch going to make some gigantic leap to the desired behavior. If pooch connects the dots then he will perform the behavior and all those repeated pops wouldn't be necessary. If your pops were effective as a positive punishment then pooch wouldn't keep moving out of position. Pooch is confused and developing deensitization to the nagging meaningless pops. You want the dog to choose the position. Only then do you know that he understands what is desired of him.

T


----------



## leslie cassian

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Exactly. This isn't about what the handler intends to happen. Its about how the dog perceives the information provided and how he connects the dots. You aren't encouraging anything. The dog either performs a behavior [won't get into proximation] or he stops a behavior. Just because you punish a behaivor doesn't mean you stop it either; i.e. all this popping is getting you what? Nor is pooch going to make some gigantic leap to the desired behavior. If pooch connects the dots then he will perform the behavior and all those repeated pops wouldn't be necessary. If your pops were effective as a positive punishment then pooch wouldn't keep moving out of position. Pooch is confused and developing deensitization to the nagging meaningless pops. You want the dog to choose the position. Only then do you know that he understands what is desired of him.
> 
> T


Which seems to be a pretty good explanation of what was wrong in the training scenario Rick described.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

_"Nor is pooch going to make some gigantic leap to the desired behavior."_

Agreed, and this (I think) is one of the basic flaws in the idea that "a prong pop for pulling is something added to encourage a behavior (walk closer)."


----------



## leslie cassian

I'm one of those people that likes theory. 

When I learned to ride a horse as a kid, I was taught to move the horse into the correct lead at a canter by placing the outside leg behind the girth and the inside leg ahead of the girth and turn the horse's head slightly to the inside. I had no idea why, it was just what I was told to do and it worked.

When I took up riding more seriously as an adult, my coach explained to our class why we did this. How each piece of the action - my legs, body and hands was affecting the horse - legs, body and head. Basics, in riding, but fundamental to moving on to more complex movements. There are people who do this by instinct and feel and there are people who have to think about it and then work on it until it becomes (hopefully) second nature. (I still can't feel my leads worth shit on a strange horse, but at least I could figure it out on my own)

So with dog training. For some people it is more instinctive, or just something that they have had enough time and experience to develop. For people like me, terminology and theory add a layer of understanding and comprehension that is both helpful and interesting.


----------



## maggie fraser

leslie cassian said:


> i'm one of those people that likes theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when i learned to ride a horse as a kid, i was taught to move the horse into the correct lead at a canter by placing the outside leg behind the girth and the inside leg ahead of the girth and turn the horse's head slightly to the inside. I had no idea why, it was just what i was told to do and it worked.
> 
> 
> 
> because you were learning a discipline maybe and gave you something for your brain to focus (can help with balance) you were also learning the 'correc't position as well as body co-ordination,,that's not really theory but more instruction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When i took up riding more seriously as an adult, my coach explained to our class why we did this. How each piece of the action - my legs, body and hands was affecting the horse - legs, body and head. Basics, in riding, but fundamental to moving on to more complex movements. there are people who do this by instinct and feel and there are people who have to think about it and then work on it until it becomes (hopefully) second nature. (i still can't feel my leads worth shit on a strange horse, but at least i could figure it out on my own)[/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm of the opinion if you have no feel in horses, one's development is limited, whereby 'working it out' is neither here nor there.
> 
> quote]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so with dog training. For some people it is more instinctive, or just something that they have had enough time and experience to develop. For people like me, terminology and theory add a layer of understanding and comprehension that is both helpful and interesting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> That must be because it gives you something to talk and think about :-D doesn't necessarily help because it is an intellectual approach.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dave Colborn

There really is no debate here. Neither you nor alice has any firm position you are sticking to. State what we are debating about and support your position. I bet you can't make one statement that your previous posts will support, because your posts don't support each other.




Gillian Schuler said:


> If you think that we didn't discuss each dog's performance - then you are wrong. What's wrong with you folks? Why do you assume instead of asking questions. We didn't just do - we learned in the proper method and applied it to our training to gain good trial results.


----------



## jack van strien

Alice, you use better words and describe things better then i can but we are on the same line. 
I do believe there is a great big difference between dogsport in the US and in Europe,this thread already shows a lot.
The way i was taught in Holland was, we do it like this!Why,because it works!!
Later when i gained a bit of experience i started to do things a little bit my own way.
Beginners who do *Any* bitework on their own?Goodbye!
I am also not big on terminology ,drives?not important to me.
How can you question the way some one trains his or her dog when this person has a lot of experience and a lot of results?
I have been working with dogs in Holland ,Canada and France, did decoy work for IPO,French ring and KNPV and i know each sport has its drawbacks but also many good things.
Koehler did what he did but he had very limited possibilities,he did what every good trainer is basically doing.
You find what works for you and you go from there.


----------



## Alice Bezemer

jack van strien said:


> Alice, you use better words and describe things better then i can but we are on the same line.
> I do believe there is a great big difference between dogsport in the US and in Europe,this thread already shows a lot.
> The way i was taught in Holland was, we do it like this!Why,because it works!!
> Later when i gained a bit of experience i started to do things a little bit my own way.
> Beginners who do *Any* bitework on their own?Goodbye!
> I am also not big on terminology ,drives?not important to me.
> How can you question the way some one trains his or her dog when this person has a lot of experience and a lot of results?
> I have been working with dogs in Holland ,Canada and France, did decoy work for IPO,French ring and KNPV and i know each sport has its drawbacks but also many good things.
> Koehler did what he did but he had very limited possibilities,he did what every good trainer is basically doing.
> You find what works for you and you go from there.


Couldn't agree with you more, Jack. How I started out on the field with my first dog, an Eros, van Dijk pup, was pretty damn simple. I went to a club, asked to join, got told to tie my pup out on the pole and to shut up and watch and learn. I got drug into a decoy suit for the very first time and told to shut up and learn, after the training was done I was taken inside and the leader of the club said... Now...tell me what you think you saw and ask me whatever question you have in your head. It all went from there... It wasn't that people expected me to learn by myself, they expected me to use my eyes and come up with my own thoughts on what I saw and for me to formulate my own questions on it during a training session... Each and every question would be answered AFTER the training, or in short during the training, but mostly after the training. We did not go and discuss at length on the field on how and what! Field time is training time, questions are for the coffeebreaks and end of training where we could discuss whatever we had in our heads, making sure that our actual training time wasn't affected by hours of conversation but was filled with actual training of the dogs. 

Drives? Thats one thing that has never really made any sense to me, why worry about drives. For some reason drive makes the dog to most people....I don't understand why tho. A low drive dog can and will do the job just as well if not better! It's not only the dog that gives you the outcome you are looking for, its what you are willing to do to get the desired outcome from that dog! I have trained and sold enough low drive dogs into LE.... I didn't train them with that in the back of my mind tho...I didn't look at them as low drive, I just trained them and made known what I expected and didn't take no for an answer. 

As for your observation about a difference between US and Europe Dogsport, aint that the truth!


----------



## Dave Colborn

jack van strien said:


> Alice, you use better words and describe things better then i can but we are on the same line.
> I do believe there is a great big difference between dogsport in the US and in Europe,this thread already shows a lot.
> The way i was taught in Holland was, we do it like this!Why,because it works!!
> Later when i gained a bit of experience i started to do things a little bit my own way.
> Beginners who do *Any* bitework on their own?Goodbye!
> I am also not big on terminology ,drives?not important to me.
> How can you question the way some one trains his or her dog when this person has a lot of experience and a lot of results?
> I have been working with dogs in Holland ,Canada and France, did decoy work for IPO,French ring and KNPV and i know each sport has its drawbacks but also many good things.
> Koehler did what he did but he had very limited possibilities,he did what every good trainer is basically doing.
> You find what works for you and you go from there.


Sure the US and Europe are different. Just like Holland and Germany. KNPV vs. IPO. Different methodologies and application of training found in both sports. I bet you wont find one top competitor in any sport that hasn't changed and grown over the years. I'll bet a lot on that. That comes from discussion of ideas and application.

Most people that don't want to talk about the why of training believe they are right about what they do, so why discuss it? To get better, you have to know the why. You have to pose questions to your trainer so that you can understand. The inherent opinion from Gillian and Alice and now you is that we somehow differ in the US because we ask questions and that terminology doesn't matter. Sounds like all three of you have communicated and asked questions to get where you are training and trialing. We do it and it's wrong to you???

Seems kind of odd.

I find a lot of terms stupid and ridiculous. I do. But if you don't understand what other people mean, you can't educate and inform them.


----------



## Joby Becker

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Nor is pooch going to make some gigantic leap to the desired behavior. If pooch connects the dots then he will perform the behavior and all those repeated pops wouldn't be necessary.
> 
> T


I agree with the definitions put forth by most people here.

But pooch's also can and do often make gigantic leaps, with popping of the collar.


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Dave Colborn said:


> There really is no debate here. Neither you nor alice has any firm position you are sticking to. State what we are debating about and support your position. I bet you can't make one statement that your previous posts will support, because your posts don't support each other.


You want a position? No problem, let me give you a position to chew on?

I do not believe that OC and Terminology makes a better trainer or a better dog or for better training for that matter. I believe it makes things infinitely harder for the dog where it should be quite easy. 

Why do I think this? Simple... I am thinking from a dogs point of view...the easiest way to rome is the shortest way! Not the one that has 43.249 options for the dog to CHOOSE from. 

I see all this talk about when how you do one thing there could be a number of outcomes, from there on every outcome is discussed, scrutinized, put under a microscope, one option picked and tried and a whole new range of outcomes come into view which are once again discussed at length while the dog is?...yep laying there doing nothing!

Dogsports in any shape, way or form is supposed a sport, not a discussion forum for ways to make it harder for the dog to understand what is happening around it!

Let me be a real bitch at this point and just come out and say what I realy think :twisted:

I take a dog, I look at it, find out what works for it, teach it the things it needs to know and when I know it understands what is expected of it I don't take no for an answer. The dog knows what I want, I will NOT ask it to do anything. I will TELL it to do what it is supposed to do. I do not give it any options, a mind of its own, grey areas or room for alternate behaviour. This is what I want from the dog, this is what I will get from the dog. I do not change the rules on him. I am always clear in what I expect and the dog knows this.

What I see happening with OC and use of terminology is the following. The dog is swimming in a world of grey areas where it gets to pick for itself whatever it wants to pick. Where it has a hard time understanding what is expected of it, where out of sorts behaviour is douced in a bath of terminology and alternate planning and where in the end you have a dog that more often then not is confussed about what is expected of it. 
The dog gets ASKED to perform certain behaviour, or gently nudged into a certain direction to get a desired behaviour.

Example!

All this talk about popping the leash for the dog to go forward, back, up down, sideways! 

My god! How hard do you want to make it for yourself when it should be so easy to do! I take a young dog and start walking with it, it pulls I turn around on my heels, I don't yank the lead, I am not even using a prong or choke chain! A simple leather collar, nothing more. The dog is forced to follow since I refuse to follow him, he goes ahead and pulls? I turn around again, he goes left without my asking? I go right! and vice versa... I am not there to pay attention to the dog! The dog should be paying attention to me. Now my doing this might annoy the shit out of my dog but you know what? Not my problem! I decide where we go, not the dog. When he starts walking where I want him he will get rewarded exuberantly for his progress. I don't punish him perse for his wrong behaviour, I just show him, without words what the right way is. Trust me on this, the dog is smart enough to learn quickly and understand what is expected. I just don't give him any option for anything else. Same goes with the dog when it starts hindering progress by walking in an obstructive manner...some dogs will start hindering you, walking infront of your feet, leaning into your knee and pushing. Simple solution, turn into the dog as it leans and walk against it... You hit his head or step on its toes? To bad! His problem, not yours. He knows what he is doing and is testing the waters to see what he can get away with...in my book tho, he can get away with absolutely nothing. 

I guess that is the big difference between me and someone who is a fan of terminology and OC... I refuse to ask my dog to do something. I feed, love, play with my dog. I keep him warm and safe and healthy. He gets what his heart desires...but I will be ****ed if I ever ask him to do anything for me. I tell, he does! Black and white and and absolutely no grey!


----------



## Joby Becker

Alice.. you are thinking of OC as a method of training...it is merely used to describe and label parts of training methods and their functions according to the OC model.

is still used by people that tell the dog what to do, and not ask it..

what you are describing AS what you do, to get a dog to follow, IS also OC., as are many other methods..



OC is very simple.

-P punishment by witholding reward (for not doing good stuff), or 

+P using active punishment. (stepping on toes) 

+R re-enforcement by rewarding (for doing good stuff), or 

-R re-enforcement by removal of undesirable things. (changing directions, annoying the dog, which stops when dog pays attention)

peace and love for all mankind


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Joby Becker said:


> Alice.. you are thinking of OC as a method of training...it is merely used to describe and label parts of training methods and their functions according to the OC model.
> 
> is still used by people that tell the dog what to do, and not ask it..
> 
> what you are describing AS what you do, to get a dog to follow, IS also OC., as are many other methods..
> 
> 
> 
> OC is very simple.
> 
> -P punishment by witholding reward (for not doing good stuff), or
> 
> +P using active punishment. (stepping on toes)
> 
> +R re-enforcement by rewarding (for doing good stuff), or
> 
> -R re-enforcement by removal of undesirable things. (changing directions, annoying the dog, which stops when dog pays attention)
> 
> peace and love for all mankind


*snorts laughing*

You lost me at -P


----------



## Nicole Stark

Joby, I printed that sheet that you posted one day with a plan to get that all straight in my head. Finally, I imagined the terminals on a car battery and then it all clicked. Not that this is terribly meaningful to the conversation but that was my special ah ha moment.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Alice Bezemer said:


> I do not believe that OC and Terminology makes a better trainer or a better dog or for better training for that matter. I believe it makes things infinitely harder for the dog where it should be quite easy.


You can believe the world is flat. Doesn't make it so. If you'd read and ask questions, you could learn why it would make you a better trainer, and in fact probably already does. A dogs training is infinitely easier when the guy on the leash understands the cause and effect relationship that they (the handler) and the environment have on the dog. If you know that a dog will sit more frequently either from rewarding it, withholding a reward for not sitting, correcting for not sitting, or forcing the dog into position with escape training, then you can actually teach it. If you don't know that, how do you teach the dog to sit? 



Alice Bezemer said:


> Why do I think this? Simple... I am thinking from a dogs point of view...the easiest way to rome is the shortest way! Not the one that has 43.249 options for the dog to CHOOSE from.


You don't know what the dog is thinking. Science and experience tell us what the dogs reaction will be to stimulus. Try not to turn them into people by getting the idea that they think like we do. They want things and we have them. We manipulate things to train them. Dogs have 43.249 options always. It's our job to pick the right option(s) and set up training so the dog can succeed.



Alice Bezemer said:


> I see all this talk about when how you do one thing there could be a number of outcomes, from there on every outcome is discussed, scrutinized, put under a microscope, one option picked and tried and a whole new range of outcomes come into view which are once again discussed at length while the dog is?...yep laying there doing nothing!


Wow. you should talk about training before you do it, or walk onto the field with a plan. If something goes haywire you react accordingly if you have experienced parties, or you stop, put the dog away and then start again. It happens. I would have suspected that if you were speaking truthfully you'd understand that. i have rarely had a dog working where I stopped and talked about it, unless I was working on a long down, and it was an appropriate point to work on extending his down time. Killing two birds with one stone is okay.



Alice Bezemer said:


> Dogsports in any shape, way or form is supposed a sport, not a discussion forum for ways to make it harder for the dog to understand what is happening around it!


Dogs don't read the forums, Alice, we do. Dog sport isn't a forum, but this certainly is. Us learning our craft better supports the dog learning his tasks better. We can't all be born European and have dog training come as second nature, although it does to some in the US as well. For the rest of us, we have to learn in one program or another, ask questions and perform.



Alice Bezemer said:


> I take a dog, I look at it, find out what works for it, teach it the things it needs to know and when I know it understands what is expected of it I don't take no for an answer. The dog knows what I want, I will NOT ask it to do anything. I will TELL it to do what it is supposed to do. I do not give it any options, a mind of its own, grey areas or room for alternate behaviour. This is what I want from the dog, this is what I will get from the dog. I do not change the rules on him. I am always clear in what I expect and the dog knows this.


How do you find out what works for it? prior experience? Your trainer telling you what to do? How do you teach it? Operant conditioning...lol. whether you like it or not. I have taken no for an answer on occasion when I mistakenly planned something that the dog would be able to perform. I came back to it. They have a mind of their own, and when that leash is off on the trial field, if you haven't trained the option you want, you are shit out of luck at that point. It's good you provide clear cues and consequences. If you talk about those cues and consequences, you are talking about operant conditioning.



Alice Bezemer said:


> What I see happening with OC and use of terminology is the following. The dog is swimming in a world of grey areas where it gets to pick for itself whatever it wants to pick. Where it has a hard time understanding what is expected of it, where out of sorts behaviour is douced in a bath of terminology and alternate planning and where in the end you have a dog that more often then not is confussed about what is expected of it.
> The dog gets ASKED to perform certain behaviour, or gently nudged into a certain direction to get a desired behaviour.


If this is your opinion, you should maybe describe what YOU think operant conditioning is to the rest of us, cause you may not have a good grasp of what you are talking about, European or not.





Alice Bezemer said:


> My god! How hard do you want to make it for yourself when it should be so easy to do! I take a young dog and start walking with it, it pulls I turn around on my heels, I don't yank the lead, I am not even using a prong or choke chain! A simple leather collar, nothing more. The dog is forced to follow since I refuse to follow him, he goes ahead and pulls? I turn around again, he goes left without my asking? I go right! and vice versa... I am not there to pay attention to the dog! The dog should be paying attention to me. Now my doing this might annoy the shit out of my dog but you know what? Not my problem! I decide where we go, not the dog. When he starts walking where I want him he will get rewarded exuberantly for his progress. I don't punish him perse for his wrong behaviour, I just show him, without words what the right way is. Trust me on this, the dog is smart enough to learn quickly and understand what is expected. I just don't give him any option for anything else. Same goes with the dog when it starts hindering progress by walking in an obstructive manner...some dogs will start hindering you, walking infront of your feet, leaning into your knee and pushing. Simple solution, turn into the dog as it leans and walk against it... You hit his head or step on its toes? To bad! His problem, not yours. He knows what he is doing and is testing the waters to see what he can get away with...in my book tho, he can get away with absolutely nothing.


It isn't hard for me. I am glad you have a method to train a dog.  It's good that you use operant conditioning. 



Alice Bezemer said:


> I guess that is the big difference between me and someone who is a fan of terminology and OC... I refuse to ask my dog to do something. I feed, love, play with my dog. I keep him warm and safe and healthy. He gets what his heart desires...but I will be ****ed if I ever ask him to do anything for me. I tell, he does! Black and white and and absolutely no grey!


Well since you use operant conditioning, this is somewhat of a conundrum. I think we should go back to you explaining what it is, since you don't have much of a grasp of it in light of this paragraph. 

Lecture is the weakest form of teaching. Hands on demonstration is better. learning the task and then re-teaching it to your peers is hands down the best way of learning something though. So teach me what operant conditioning is.


----------



## Louise Jollyman

I think part of the problem here is a lot of the fluffy crowd call themselves "operant trainers" or "pure positive trainers", this totally muddys the waters, as it is totally incorrect according to the scientific concepts. It drives me nuts 

The operant model just describes how animals learn and interact with their environment. All animals. It allows us a way to communicate what is happening.

BTW, I'm European


----------



## Ariel Peldunas

Alice Bezemer said:


> You want a position? No problem, let me give you a position to chew on?
> 
> I do not believe that OC and Terminology makes a better trainer or a better dog or for better training for that matter. I believe it makes things infinitely harder for the dog where it should be quite easy.
> 
> Why do I think this? Simple... I am thinking from a dogs point of view...the easiest way to rome is the shortest way! Not the one that has 43.249 options for the dog to CHOOSE from.
> 
> I see all this talk about when how you do one thing there could be a number of outcomes, from there on every outcome is discussed, scrutinized, put under a microscope, one option picked and tried and a whole new range of outcomes come into view which are once again discussed at length while the dog is?...yep laying there doing nothing!
> 
> Dogsports in any shape, way or form is supposed a sport, not a discussion forum for ways to make it harder for the dog to understand what is happening around it!
> 
> Let me be a real bitch at this point and just come out and say what I realy think :twisted:
> 
> I take a dog, I look at it, find out what works for it, teach it the things it needs to know and when I know it understands what is expected of it I don't take no for an answer. The dog knows what I want, I will NOT ask it to do anything. I will TELL it to do what it is supposed to do. I do not give it any options, a mind of its own, grey areas or room for alternate behaviour. This is what I want from the dog, this is what I will get from the dog. I do not change the rules on him. I am always clear in what I expect and the dog knows this.
> 
> What I see happening with OC and use of terminology is the following. The dog is swimming in a world of grey areas where it gets to pick for itself whatever it wants to pick. Where it has a hard time understanding what is expected of it, where out of sorts behaviour is douced in a bath of terminology and alternate planning and where in the end you have a dog that more often then not is confussed about what is expected of it.
> The dog gets ASKED to perform certain behaviour, or gently nudged into a certain direction to get a desired behaviour.
> 
> Example!
> 
> All this talk about popping the leash for the dog to go forward, back, up down, sideways!
> 
> My god! How hard do you want to make it for yourself when it should be so easy to do! I take a young dog and start walking with it, it pulls I turn around on my heels, I don't yank the lead, I am not even using a prong or choke chain! A simple leather collar, nothing more. The dog is forced to follow since I refuse to follow him, he goes ahead and pulls? I turn around again, he goes left without my asking? I go right! and vice versa... I am not there to pay attention to the dog! The dog should be paying attention to me. Now my doing this might annoy the shit out of my dog but you know what? Not my problem! I decide where we go, not the dog. When he starts walking where I want him he will get rewarded exuberantly for his progress. I don't punish him perse for his wrong behaviour, I just show him, without words what the right way is. Trust me on this, the dog is smart enough to learn quickly and understand what is expected. I just don't give him any option for anything else. Same goes with the dog when it starts hindering progress by walking in an obstructive manner...some dogs will start hindering you, walking infront of your feet, leaning into your knee and pushing. Simple solution, turn into the dog as it leans and walk against it... You hit his head or step on its toes? To bad! His problem, not yours. He knows what he is doing and is testing the waters to see what he can get away with...in my book tho, he can get away with absolutely nothing.
> 
> I guess that is the big difference between me and someone who is a fan of terminology and OC... I refuse to ask my dog to do something. I feed, love, play with my dog. I keep him warm and safe and healthy. He gets what his heart desires...but I will be ****ed if I ever ask him to do anything for me. I tell, he does! Black and white and and absolutely no grey!


OC isn't on method of training, it's an explanation for what's happening. You're still using OC in the way you described training your dog to walk on a leash. Just because you choose not to say it in OC terms doesn't make it something other than OC. 

I'm not sure where the idea came from that trainers who like to understand the science and terms behind what they're doing all stand around on the training field talking about training while the dogs sit there doing nothing. I've never done that. None of the other trainers I've trained with have done that. We may stop for a second to discuss a new approach if something is clearly not working, but when the dog is out ready to learn, it's time to train. But, I think it's valuable for me to be able to sit down before or after training and understand why something I'm planning to do or have done will work or not.

You may train differently than another trainer. You may choose to teach using a leash and collar and compulsion while I prefer to teach using treats and toys and rewards. I also expect that once the dog understands what's expected, it should comply. I'm not standing around begging my dog to work for me just because I talk about positive reinforcement or negative punishment. However, I like to understand and use those two pieces of OC because I don't just expect control out of my dogs. I need them to do tasks independent of me ...substance detection, for instance. If I don't understand how to motivate and reward my dog for performing correctly, I will not have a dog who performs well. I can't punish or force a dog with no drive into having the desire to go out and search in the capacity I expect. I've seen dogs who have been trained to do substance detection with force and they are not reliable.

But I digress ...I just don't think it's fair that you group all trainers who discuss OC together and make assumptions on our methods. Whether you care to admit it or not, you're using OC when you're training. Anytime a trainer teaches an animal to something (voluntary) on cue using any method, it's OC. I'm not judging you because you don't want to talk about training in those terms. I'm not sure why you seem to be knocking people like me who do like to understand those terms.

[Just as a side note, I'm not talking about reflexive behaviors like the salivating of Pavlov's dogs ...just voluntary behaviors that the animal is able to control.]


----------



## Dave Colborn

Thanks for being European AND having a clear concise end to the shenanigans. Now if you could sort the brits out for having pints, brews, rows, spanners and ****...



Louise Jollyman said:


> I think part of the problem here is a lot of the fluffy crowd call themselves "operant trainers" or "pure positive trainers", this totally muddys the waters, as it is totally incorrect according to the scientific concepts. It drives me nuts
> 
> The operant model just describes how animals learn and interact with their environment. All animals. It allows us a way to communicate what is happening.
> 
> BTW, I'm European


----------



## Louise Jollyman

Dave Colborn said:


> Thanks for being European AND having a clear concise end to the shenanigans. Now if you could sort the brits out for having pints, brews, rows, spanners and ****...


Ah, but then we wouldn't have anything to joke and rib each other about :-D I'm off to get my fringe cut! Sorry bangs!


----------



## Ariel Peldunas

Louise Jollyman said:


> I think part of the problem here is a lot of the fluffy crowd call themselves "operant trainers" or "pure positive trainers", this totally muddys the waters, as it is totally incorrect according to the scientific concepts. It drives me nuts
> 
> The operant model just describes how animals learn and interact with their environment. All animals. It allows us a way to communicate what is happening.
> 
> BTW, I'm European


+1

I should just wait and let other people explain what I'm trying to say.


----------



## Raegan Walter

To bring it back to Koehler, and to make a point about OC not being the exclusive domain of +R trainers, Koehler is absolutely OC. It's -R/+P, but there's virtually nothing that isn't solidly and easily within the realm of operant conditioning. Take a look through the novice section and try to pick out the +P and -R components.

Its even easier in the guard dog section: introduce stimulus, get the reaction you want from the dog, remove stimulus.


----------



## Jim Leon

Alice, 
Your admonitions are right in line with Koehler Method. 
In Koehler, there is no asking. There is a command, and its not repeated. 
Heel means to the dog, you are in heel command until you hear otherwise.
Unitl you hear otherwise you will heel at my left side, you will auto-sit when I stop, and when I step out with my left leg you will resume heeling.
Its a great method. 
I used it on my KNPV Malinois right from the git-go. 
Trained all her OB commands with it. No treats, no balls, no toys.
After 10 weeks I had an off-leash handling dog.
Then I began protection and bite training.
One year later and I now I have a superlative Personal Protection Dog.

Jim Leon
Brooklyn, NY


----------



## Matt Vandart

Connie Sutherland said:


> I have the same questions.


This is not areal life situation.

As I stated earlier but many have not recognized I do not use this method for teaching the heel position, I use motivational techniques aka positive reinforcement and negative punishment.

Here is a quick vid of becca, I trained this in three short sessions, they are all on my youtube channel.
I know this vid is brief, but you can see quite clearly that dog has not been trained using positive punishment in her general demeanor:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ImuSZO0G2I


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Jim Leon said:


> Alice,
> Your admonitions are right in line with Koehler Method.
> In Koehler, there is no asking. There is a command, and its not repeated.
> Heel means to the dog, you are in heel command until you hear otherwise.
> Unitl you hear otherwise you will heel at my left side, you will auto-sit when I stop, and when I step out with my left leg you will resume heeling.
> Its a great method.
> I used it on my KNPV Malinois right from the git-go.
> Trained all her OB commands with it. No treats, no balls, no toys.
> After 10 weeks I had an off-leash handling dog.
> Then I began protection and bite training.
> One year later and I now I have a superlative Personal Protection Dog.
> 
> Jim Leon
> Brooklyn, NY


I've been training KNPV for almost 25 years now and my view is that the proof is in the pudding... Keep it short, simple and to the point with no grey mixed in. It works so why fix what's not broken?


----------



## Steve Burger

Alice Bezemer said:


> I've been training KNPV for almost 25 years now and my view is that the proof is in the pudding... Keep it short, simple and to the point with no grey mixed in. It works so why fix what's not broken?


 Go for it. If you don't need a nice picture then who cares. Except maybe when you consider that too often the good is the enemy of the best. The very first dog book I ever bought or read or applied 30 years ago was Kohler's Guard Dog training book. However a lot has improved over the last 30 years, including dog training.


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Steve Burger said:


> Go for it. If you don't need a nice picture then who cares. Except maybe when you consider that too often the good is the enemy of the best. The very first dog book I ever bought or read or applied 30 years ago was Kohler's Guard Dog training book. However a lot has improved over the last 30 years, including dog training.


  Not sure what you mean with the nice picture thing? 

As for the good being the enemy of the best... want to elaborate? Again makes no sense to me what so ever! Not trying to be a smartass but I am just not sure in what you are trying to say with either remark 

I agree, a lot has improved, a lot has changed in the last 30 years. I will also say that a lot has changed that hasn't brought any improvement at all... 

The very first book on dogs that I ever read...and the only one until Koehler's book (which I am reading now) Was a book by Eberhardt Trumler Dogs are to be loved. From that book, which has nothing to do with training at all but is all about observing the dynamics as pack life evolved over a set period of time, I took away certain things that I use in my training of dogs. The main thing being, be clear to your dog in what you want. Do not create grey areas for it to explore, do not make things harder then they should be. 

I see all these books and DVD's and lecture's and papers floating around on the internet, each has its own opinion, each has its own view, each advocates for their own particular way of training.... Thing is tho, they all do the same thing. They theorise and talk about the science of dog training when its not about the theory, or the science. It is about looking at what you have in front of you and working with that without making things harder on yourself or the dog. It's a great thing that people try and understand what makes up their dogs mental make up...its a great thing that people want to explain and explore the options that are given by any given way of training that they use... Its a sad thing when people overshoot themselves by falling back on what books told them, what DVD'd told them, what Lectures told them. Sure they might help with one dog, they could also fail miserably with another dog! 

What annoys me about the whole terminology thing and all the OC talk is that it just gets more confusing and elaborate for people to follow....People are not walking on the field looking at their dog and thinking GOOD BOY! Or maybe BAD BOY! Nope, they are walking around thinking, was that a +r or a -P? They are putting so much information into their heads that the end is starting to get lost... When it comes to dogs we are on an information overload! And somehow, during training, we expect our dogs to understand where we are coming from? What we mean? Seriously? Every Theory, bit of terminology, every word concerning a dogs training is nothing more then a humanized way to relay how WE think the dog feels, should feel, thinks or should think...when in fact, it has nothing to do with the dog at all.... It is just us, putting our thoughts into words. There is so much discusion on how to get a dog to do something and how hard we are all trying to understand why a certain action gives us a certain reaction... People need to stop thinking for the dogs and give the dogs some credit for being able to think and learn for themselves! Dogs are not stupid by any means... Keep it simple and clear and the dog might surprise you with how quick it learns to pick up things that you thought might take forever to learn. 

I have nothing against different ways of training a dog or people using terminology or the need to label things, its just not something I subscribe to and I feel it distracts of the most important thing in all this... the dog.


----------



## Erik Berg

I guess it´s as simple as this, if someone can reach the absolute top in let´s say IPO or competition obedience with the same way they trained 20 years ago, then there is no reason to change. Some sports don´t care so much if the dog is not so happy and entusiastic in the obedience work as an example, isn´t this one major difference between for example todays IPO and other programs like KNPV or ringsport?


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Erik Berg said:


> I guess it´s as simple as this, if someone can reach the absolute top in let´s say IPO or competition obedience with the same way they trained 20 years ago, then there is no reason to change. *Some sports don´t care so much if the dog is not so happy and entusiastic in the obedience work as an example,* isn´t this one major difference between for example todays IPO and other programs like KNPV or ringsport?


That little sentence, right there... it says it all... The biggest missconception of them all is that just because I do not adhere or subscribe to anything OC or terminology or books or DVD's I must also have unhappy, enthousiasm lacking dogs... ](*,) :|

Excuse me while I go out and train for the afternoon... I have enthousiasm to break and happiness in my dog that I need to get rid of with my old school, straight forward, no grey area training... It is after all, what us old school trainers do....right? :roll:


----------



## Erik Berg

But they don´t care so much for precision and a very happy dog in obedience in ring or KNPV, not saying all IPO-folks can show that, but the ones that constantly are in the absolute top in IPO must have that because it´s a part of their sport. Don´t think top IPO people like mia skogster train like many did in SCH not so long ago.


----------



## Steve Burger

Alice Bezemer said:


> Not sure what you mean with the nice picture thing?
> 
> As for the good being the enemy of the best... want to elaborate? Again makes no sense to me what so ever! Not trying to be a smartass but I am just not sure in what you are trying to say with either remark
> 
> .


 The picture is the expression of the dog. In IPO, which I train in, if the dog is not comletely focussed and with a happy expression, you cannot compete at top levels. In terms of the other saying. If we accept a method that works good, then we may not be seeking what is going to bring better (excellent) results. My TD has an expression that he does not hear a Whoosh sound, which is what you hear when people that keep trying to improve their methodology pass you by in the competition.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Steve, you have me lost here, too.

As I understand it, the dog should happily (freudig) accompany its handler throughout the obedience routine, i.e. ears up, tail not drooping, etc., should not crowd him and, above all, carry out the exercises correctly. If there is any indication that the dog has suffered painful training methods, this will be noted.

This is not a great problem with today's dogs in obedience, they seem to be more biddable than in the 1990's. 

In the 1990's, the dogs at the top were there because of their protection abilities. They had to have the obedience exercises more or less drummed into them. However, correct exercises prevailed of course.

I guess tracking has remained the same over the years. 

As for protection, I am curious as to what sort of dogs who put up a pretty obedience programme, retain the fire and fight to combat the helper?


----------



## Gillian Schuler

I had to attend a seminar about training dogs the modern way R- P+, etc. I became confused until one of the participants (a policemen) said, Gill "it's what you've always done", i.e. "Zuckerbrot und Peitsche" still being offered as a training course in Germany.today.

So, nothing has changed apart from the terminolgy or? The dogs have changed. The biddable, excitable GSD has taken the place of the more serious GSD that was difficult to get through the obedience routine, although his protection abilities were far more serious, less prey, I guess.


----------



## Steve Burger

Gillian Schuler;375378.
As for protection said:


> What I see with our dogs, is that some of the toughest, driviest,and high nerve dogs, are maintaining that same kind of happy expression with the modern training methods. I think even with such dogs it works better. That is not to say that you don't have to have a few "come to Jesus" sessions with such dogs because you are likely to.
> 
> I am talking about some dogs that are pretty serious.


----------



## Steve Burger

Steve Burger said:


> . My TD has an expression that he does not hear a Whoosh sound, which is what you hear when people that keep trying to improve their methodology pass you by in the competition.


 I re-read that after too much time had elapsed to edit. I meant he does not WANT to hear a Whoosh sound. That is why we keep searching for better and better methods. I was privy to a conversation between him and Jogi Zank, and they expressed the exactly same sentiments. They are both constantly trying to improve their methods and do not rest on their laurals.


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Steve Burger said:


> The picture is the expression of the dog. In IPO, which I train in, if the dog is not comletely focussed and with a happy expression, you cannot compete at top levels. In terms of the other saying. If we accept a method that works good, then we may not be seeking what is going to bring better (excellent) results. My TD has an expression that he does not hear a Whoosh sound, which is what you hear when people that keep trying to improve their methodology pass you by in the competition.


Strangly enough, my dog is completely focussed and he seems to look pretty darn pleased when he is working but I guess that is the common misconception of people...We train in a different way, therefor our dogs must be sad saps who crawl alongside us on the field. 

Again, strangly enough :mrgreen: my dog brings excellent results! I am not looking to improve something that is already working at a great level... I think the biggest difference is that I train dogs to go into LE and not into competition. 

I think some people forget that all change is not allways an improvement?


----------



## Matt Vandart

Steve Burger said:


> What I see with our dogs, is that some of the toughest, driviest,and high nerve dogs, are maintaining that same kind of happy expression with the modern training methods. I think even with such dogs it works better. That is not to say that you don't have to have a few "come to Jesus" sessions with such dogs because you are likely to.
> 
> I am talking about some dogs that are pretty serious.


'Come to Jesus' sessions !!!

hahahaha I love it


----------

