# What is the difference between a Good Trainer and a Great Trainer?



## Guest

I am not here to critique or bash, but the vast majority of working dog trainers/people and the various disciplines have different desires, thoughts, training ideas, etc etc. I am curious to see what most people think as far as what makes a great trainer over a good trainer. (Not what makes you great, but what you look for)? 

Thanks in advance for your participation....and of course the wise cracks I'm sure I'll get..... 

JB


----------



## Jason Sidener

timing and consistency seperate the good from the great


----------



## Matthew Grubb

Patience for the dog and handler…. Open mindedness to new ideas and techniques….


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

The ability to teach others.


----------



## Jason Sidener

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> The ability to teach others.


So you do not believe you can be a great trainer if you are also not great at teaching people?


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

I never said great, but I have yet to meet someone that impressed me that wasn't able to teach others.

When you are unable to verbalize what it is you are doing, how good can you be ??

Great in my definition is not a single thread in the loom. Too many have used the word half assed, and so the word has no meaning. I am giving you MY definition.

I know many good trainers, I don't know any GREAT trainers. Maybe I need to get out more, but the opinion of some first time owner of a seminar giver means **** all to me.

So to me, the ability to teach others is the difference. It is the difference between average and good.


----------



## Guest

Jeff, I do agree that is a valid and crutial part, it's not about training a dog to do something in particular, it is being able to communicate that to the handler (TEAM!) as well as other trainers, handlers, staff, etc.

Here are a few things I have grabbed onto over the years and beleive in each and every one of them, however not the only things....

1. Communication; Communication is a two-way street. You have to be able to communicate to the dog/handler what you want. Just as important, you have to be able to "read" the dog and understand the handler. 

2. Knowledge: You must have the goals/objectives clearly in mind. A trainer must be able to break the objectives down into incremental steps, when completed will result in the achievement of that specific objective. 

3. Patience: A great trainer must have patience, a frustrated trainer only makes a frustrated dog. It hinders communication even prevents the achievement of goals and objectives. 

4. Understanding: (OUTSIDE THE BOX) An understanding that there is no such thing as "one-size fits all" training. Don't be afraid to try the unknown or to venture out with an open mind. The trainer that discounts methods simply because he/she doesn't understand them or has never used them only limits their ability. 

5. The ability to conceptualize; A trainer must be able to keep the "finished product" in mind while taking the baby steps needed to get there.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter

I am with Jeff on this one. Lots of people may be great at training themselves, and people may be able to learn a lot from them, but people who are great trainers of others are great teachers too.

I have yet to hitch my star to any one dog guru, but the great trainers in any dicipline seem to allow you to do more than emulate their methods. They are at the top of their game...but also good communicaters, motivators, mentors...really freakin patient, but not afraid to give you a good smack upside the head when you need it as well.


----------



## Sue Miller

A Great Trainer:

1. Has a real interest in helping the dog & handler.
2. Doesn't roll their eyes during the session because a novice makes a novice mistake
3. Doesn't mind repeating the same thing over & over again until their client understands.
4. Understands that some people just "don't get it" right away.
5. Constantly works at becoming a better trainer.
6. Is friendly & happy--after all--*TRAINING DOGS IS THE BEST JOB IN THE WORLD!*


----------



## Gillian Schuler

For me a great trainer must definitely have the ability to teach both handler and dog. Methods that work for the dog may not work for the handler, so he must be flexible in training. Able to monitor progress, know when to offer praise (often lacking in some trainers) and when to "kick the handler's butt" in a way that the handler stays motivated.

Is never stingy with knowledge and can face his scholar turning out better than he is. What better proof of great training than this?


----------



## Howard Gaines III

Jody Butler said:


> ... I am curious to see what most people think as far as what makes a great trainer over a good trainer. (Not what makes you great, but what you look for)?
> 
> Thanks in advance for your participation....and of course the wise cracks I'm sure I'll get.....
> 
> JB


 How about one word,* "Understanding."*


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Just saw that the difference between good and great trainer is demanded:

The good trainer can bring a good handler to be great

The great trainer can bring an average trainer to be great


----------



## Jehane Michael Le Grange

Always show an interest to further their knowledge and NEVER accept that they know it all! Also their willingness to share their knowledge and assist others for the greater good of dogs. Making use of constructive criticism and through it all putting the dogs first!

On a training side, the ability to fully understand the exercise and what is required as well as understand what the dog is showing them and being able to get the best of of the dog. Also an understanding that all dogs have their limits one way or another and the ability to recognise a dogs limits and make the most of them...


----------



## Berdella Endress

I would say one trait of a great trainer is that after winning at the highest levels, they still continually re-evaluate their methods and those of others for ways to improve.

Another mark of a great trainer IMO is the ability to bring along a student from a novice to a level that their own student could be competitive against them at the highest levels of competition.


----------



## Bob Scott

The ability to adapt different training methods to different dogs. Not all methods work with all dogs.


----------



## Howard Gaines III

Bob Scott said:


> The ability to adapt different training methods to different dogs. Not all methods work with all dogs.


 Then why do they make e-collars? One size fits most...handlers too!:razz::mrgreen:


----------



## James Downey

I going to go out on a limb here (and probably not make any friends here) and say probably everyone here is a "GOOD" trainer. Everyone seems to know what makes the "GREAT" trainer. But they just have a hard time doing it. Seems a bit weird to me they have the answer to something they a striving for....But just have not yet attained it.

I am going to go ahead and say...I think most people here think they know what makes a "GREAT" trainer. But they really do not. They will claim they do, But yet in a month they will be at a seminar with some "GREAT" trainer trying to get a little fairy dust to rub off on them. 

So, F*ck if I know what makes a "GREAT" trainer. But what I do know is that you cannot give away something you do not have. 

So, I think if we are going ask what makes a "GREAT" trainer....we should ask "GREAT" trainers. Not all the other squirrels running around trying to get a nut.

And I think this whole a great trainer can help a handler makes them a good trainer is a bit weird. So how many of you are going home and polishing up on your skills to go out and turn average handlers into the next Ivan, or Flinks? I doubt any of you are. But I am sure your going home and trying to get the dog ready for whatever is you and the do. I think when we talk about training...it means dog training. And I do not care if the guy can turn rain man into Ivan....I want to know his latest scores with dog.


----------



## Nicole Stark

That's a pretty good answer. My response isn't all that creative but I thought about this question for a while and considered the possibility that there might not be a way to really quantify it outside of what you see to know that there is a difference. It's not just about duplicating what you see. There's considerably more to it, I think.

I gather that for those really great it largely comes down to raw talent yet that talent without the resources to get the most from it does obviously inhibits the outcome in taking someone whose really good to great or into a league of their own. A good way to put that statement into perspective is this: How many of you know great musicians who never progressed beyond local fame despite the fact that they were uber talented? I also am compelled to think about that video Jeff posted of Johan. I've never seen anything like it. Hell, that dude was moving so fast and skillfully even the best of the players couldn't keep up with his footwork. His ability defied imagination.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: I also am compelled to think about that video Jeff posted of Johan. I've never seen anything like it. Hell, that dude was moving so fast and skillfully even the best of the players couldn't keep up with his footwork. His ability defied imagination.

THat is why the word "great" is overused to the point it has no real meaning anymore.


----------



## Timothy Saunders

you are right mr downey. that being said I can now tell you what makes a great trainer. the ability to know what needs to be done and the nerve , courgage and humbleness to do it.


----------



## Bob Scott

Howard Gaines III said:


> Then why do they make e-collars? One size fits most...handlers too!:razz::mrgreen:



Yea but not all have the sense to use them correctly. :wink:


----------



## Mel Cobb

A good dog trainer sees the problem and fixes it (or covers it up).

A great dog trainer never lets the problem develop.

Steve


----------



## Wayne Dodge

A Great trainer, the discussion in my opinion could be truly long winded and full of multiple points of view concerning various skill sets yet I feel as though this comes down to three intertwined abilities.

* The ability to read a dogs body language to understand what it is trying to communicate to you and the world around it.

* The ability to allow the dog to understand what you are asking of it clearly.

* The ability to motivate a dog to do as you ask of it, motivation comes in many forms.

Without these skill sets you are simply unable to relay effectively your desires to the dog. A Great trainer has learned how to communicate... it is truly that simple and obviously that difficult.

Just my two cents...

Wayne


----------



## Tim Lynam

Years of experience.


----------



## Konnie Hein

Tim Lynam said:


> Years of experience.


I totally disagree.

There are trainers with 20 years of experience, and then there are trainers with 1 year of experience 20 times. Big difference.


----------



## Guest

Tim, I here you, but just as in other sports, careers, work, etc. To me, experience doesn't make you a good or great trainer in some cases. I use to believe in that, but never really thought about it, unitl a good friend of mine broke it down to me. Experience doesn't mean SQUAT to me now! (Quality experience does and needs to be clarified)

A trainer with 10 years of experience for instance vs a trainer who has 2 years of experience, I guess you would assume the trainer with 10 years is better? I don't. In order to justify the experience level of ones training, you need first look at the quality of that training. 

Just because you have been doing something (in this case dog training) for some amount of years, doesn't necessarily mean you are doing it correctly, using methods that have been outdated, don't work, cause issues/conflict etc. Then a trainer with two years could be doing it all properly and getting much more success and have better results. Who would you want as a trainer? 

Experience is just that, "Experience"! Training, skills, knowledge, discipline, and methodolgy is part of what makes that trainer good/great or even miserable at times.

"I think the term "Trainer" is so misused in the industry today! 

I beleive I can train a dog to do many things, and many things well, just as most others on this forum. From Protection sports, OB, tracking, Sled Dog, etc., but by no means do I call or consider myself a trainer regardless of how long I have been doing this. 

Thanks, again, just my 2 pennies.....


----------



## Mike Lauer

if you're looking for a trainer then you want a person that can train people not just dogs
you didnt say trainer of what, you or your dog
a lot of people train dogs great but cnat explain to you what they did or why or make u understand it

what good is your dog if it only works well for them

dogs learn way faster than people


----------



## Guest

Dog Trainer! Just as you read into this and others have posted, everyone thinks a little different. 

To be more specific, when I think of Trainer (this is a Working Dog Forum) so I assume everyone knows "Dog Trainer", ......A Dog Trainer can train a dog, a handler, other trainers, staff and officers, etc. Not just train a dog, and alot of these attributes can seperate a good trainer from a great trainer. 

This has been a discussion on numerous trips I have made and thought it was an interesting topic as to see how others in the industry/sport think.

Thanks for all your input and discussions.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Well, I can clearly see what the problem is. Y'all want a "dog" trainer train you and any dog you may have endeared yourselves to. What you are describing may be a good trainer that works at a club level so everyone can look up to him. I'll tell you what a great trainer is. A great trainer is one that can quickly evaluate the dog(s) he is working with and trains only the best. That is why he is always in then winners circle. He won't waste his time with a POS dog. Being consistently in the winners circle is what makes him great. Being in the national and world comps is what makes him great. How does he get there consistently.....by working only the best dogs. He knows how to pick them and what to do when he finds them.


----------



## Konnie Hein

Ooooooo, I like that, Don! I'm gonna steal that post if it's OK with you.


----------



## Daryl Ehret

Yeah, but on the other side; how great is your training ability if the dog makes it sooo easy? Eventually, you'll have to get bored of that, want a challenge, and try to match your prior accomplishments armed with a POS.


----------



## Guest

Exactly, work through issues, problem solve, trouble shoot. Sometimes you can't be so picky, something has to work, or put more effort into it, that's were the true skill comes into play


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Go for it Konnie.


----------



## Konnie Hein

Daryl Ehret said:


> Yeah, but on the other side; how great is your training ability if the dog makes it sooo easy? Eventually, you'll have to get bored of that, want a challenge, and try to match your prior accomplishments armed with a POS.


I guess I don't think of the "best" dogs as being necessarily _easy_ to train.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Daryl, Jody, ....while everyone is jacking around with POS dogs saying "what a great trainer I am", the reality is that they want to be in the winners circle too. Do you really think the ones winning a place in the world or nationals is really thinking he should start working POS dogs to become a better trainer? Perish the thought, he is there and has the limelight while all the self perported "good" trainers are still working those POS dogs. Y'all are supposed to learn from experience.....but few seem to. Pick the right dogs and they will make you great....or at least a lot smarter than the rest. Y'all haven't absorbed the concept that you can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear. The "great" trainers understand that concept fully.


----------



## Daryl Ehret

Personally, I'd find greater satisfaction as a "great" breeder than trainer, while trouble shooting my breeding strategies rather than training techniques. I don't find stubborn or stupid dogs all that great, _in any working capacity_. If willing and intelligent, what could be easier? As long as it's courageous enough, aggressive enough, healthy enough, and so on, which _training won't improve anyway_....


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

For me, it is not like I am going to ever figure it all out. I don't think I will ever be great, although I have been told that I am. I definately have different/similar approaches to training.

To me, Koehler was great. Watch Big Red, and tell me how the **** do you get an Irish Setter to go head to head with a cougar ?? LOL If I EVER figure that out, I may just call it a day.

I could give two shits if the "great" trainer can teach people. The job is to teach the dog, regardless of breed or drive or whatever. 

It is cool when they can teach people, but I say **** em, quit jabbering and watch what is going on and you will learn more than you ever have before.

****ing social hour so much of the time. Then, they have to rush home. LOL 

Suuuuuuure your a dog trainer. [-X[-X[-X[-X[-X[-X[-X


----------



## Tim Lynam

Don't worry Jeff. According to some, you have waaaay to much experience to be GREAT! You've got to dumb it down to the human level for greatness... Geeeez!

Fu**in' fu**tards. (I hope that is an appropriate usage)

Bring on the yada, yada, yada brigade.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

I've seen "great" trainers that can teach the dog but not the handlers. Come trial time you can see the dog has been well trained - but the handler's out on a limb. 

Maybe the word "great" is wrong or a great trainer is someone who does it for $$$$$$ and a very good trainer is one who does it whether or not someone buys him a beer in the club house after training? 

We've brought someone to the club, the club's paid him and this way I was lucky to profit from Fritz Biehler and Elmar Mannes. Two men who were blunt with their criticism but generous with their praise. No tricks or tips were shown, just plain, honest evaluations of each dog and help where necessary.

Having MR, IPO, VPG, etc at level 3 makes people believe you more but being able to read the dog and explain it to the handler is more important for me.


----------



## Guest

There are venues out there besides sport or getting to the podium. So not all so called great trainers are in sport and/or on the podium. And I still disagree, however understand what your saying and where your coming from. 

Jeff, totally agree, Passion keeps you training all day and even when everyone is back at the bar or wanting to go to the lake, the great ones are on the field, training room, etc.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Jody Butler said:


> There are venues out there besides sport or getting to the podium. So not all so called great trainers are in sport and/or on the podium. And I still disagree, however understand what your saying and where your coming from.
> 
> Jeff, totally agree, Passion keeps you training all day and even when everyone is back at the bar or wanting to go to the lake, the great ones are on the field, training room, etc.


That's cool Jody. I simply have a different perspective than many. Mine is a hunting/breeding perspective. After spending years around houndsmen, it is strikingly obvious that those with the best dogs do not waste their time with POS dogs. They are culled and removed from the gene pool. That is why they have the best dogs and that is why they are considered the "best" dogmen. It isn't that they are the best trainers, it is that they don't try to make that silk purse out of a sows ear. From a breeding standpoint, if you start with a POS pair of dogs, what is the likely hood you are going to produce POS pups? Odds are good that is what your going to get. Either to be at the top of any game or to breed the best dogs.....you simply can't do it without exceptional stock. If you believe that the best trainer is the one that can best hide the deficiencies of a POS dog, so be it because that does take a lot of talent also. The ability to train a dog to a national level is not near as important as having the right dog in the first place. Picking the right dog is the real talent.....along with being willing to get rid of the dogs that fall short of what they expect.


----------



## Tim Lynam

Man you hit it on the head about Houndsman, Don! I know that if a Bluetick wouldn't show it's "stuff" soon after it was out of the womb, it was culled. The breeders wanted them pre-programed for the work. Only champions were bred. They weren't the most trainable critters either... LOL


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Not really the same thing if you think about it. Hounds and dogs in general do the things naturally. What we do in sport is not natural. 

I do think that any "LINE" that is late maturing needs to be looked at how that happened. It makes me nuts, but how it happened makes me curious.

Must of been a hell of a dog to have started that.


----------



## Tim Lynam

Now THAT is a whole 'nother thread! Probably a good one at that.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

What is natural about a dog going toe to toe with a 300lb boar that can kill them with one swing of the head? What is natural about a dog that will stay on a bear that is bayed on the ground and has already killed several of the dogs compadres? It isn't natural, it is breeding. If the dog is afraid of the superior predators, it is culled, what's left.....well the ones that get the job done of course. That's the hunting world. Then there are other venues where all the rationalizing in the world won't change the fact that a POS is just that. Train them a bit so the real holes aren't so noticeable and sell him as a green dog so the buyer thinks he can see what he is getting. The cycle goes on, mediocre dogs are bred to everyday simply because the people ratioalize that he has "potential"....or his outcrossed parents had potential therefore he should be bred. Hobby breeders have destroyed the integity of breeding because they breed for "LUV". According to them you are a bad breeder if you don't breed for "luv". Nevermind that they producing crap dogs and pawning them off as the real McCoy. Good dogs simply can't be bred with one or two dogs and having one litter a year no matter what they tell you.


----------



## Daryl Ehret

Good breeding and good training are somewhat inversely proportionate to one another. If, over the decades, we have viewed our training methods to have improved, perhaps _it is from necessity_, when the quality of breeding may be in decline. Just so, I imagine one's training talents won't improve much if the dog makes it easy or less of a challenge, being a "natural" for the given type of work.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

I agree Daryl, I think it takes a much better trainer to deal with the dogs of today because the dogs are less stable as a whole. It is a case of being a trainer/therapist.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Dogs hunt in packs. It is a natural thing to hunt. People have used that natural instinct for how many years ??? I don't know, probably more than a thousand.

The protection work, with the control, and the unnatural frontal attack, as well as all the other unnatural things we are asking the dogs to do, it is different.

However, don't think that I am defending weak breeding practices. I would encourage all breeders to produce stronger dogs. However, how many puppies are gonna come back because "working dog" people are to pathetic to handle anything but fluffy ???


----------



## Daryl Ehret

A former owner of a Leeburg dog and supposed "no stranger to working dogs", has been after me about this pup repeatedly, since she was born actually. I've repeatedly declined to sell her.

As willing and focused as this pup is to the handler, the aggression is too much for an unexperienced nonworking handler. I was being too gentle I suppose (they're 3&half months old), it took nearly three minutes for me to break this fight up. I'll start knocking heads next time, and it was entirely my fault, because it was a fight over resources (the flirt pole), not working a single pup at a time. I've not had this kind of incident with my more "fluffy" litters of the past.

My point being, I'm not sure there's enough capable hands available to justify frequently breeding that strong. Even among sporting handlers.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Dogs hunt in packs. It is a natural thing to hunt. People have used that natural instinct for how many years ??? I don't know, probably more than a thousand.
> 
> The protection work, with the control, and the unnatural frontal attack, as well as all the other unnatural things we are asking the dogs to do, it is different.
> 
> However, don't think that I am defending weak breeding practices. I would encourage all breeders to produce stronger dogs. However, how many puppies are gonna come back because "working dog" people are to pathetic to handle anything but fluffy ???


Maybe we should take a closer look at sport dogs. What have you got, prey, hunt, bite, control, nerve? So what is so unnatural? Control maybe, but, you would think after this long they would have the where-with-all for control. Nerve....that is lacking generally speaking and it is in the general world, that is why they are not all top dogs. They can't all be top dogs in the wild but they can be bred that way. If a frontal attack is unnatural then all my dogs are unnatural because the all go for the face. I always wanted a heeling dog, but, the reality is, to get one I would have to breed a dog with stronger survival instincts and that = a lesser dog. The shelters are full of dogs that are not afraid to bite so that seems pretty natural. Did the herders naturally herd or were they bred to do something that was really and totally unnatural like herd and protect rather than kill and eat. If dogs can be bred to do something like protect a flock, which defies anything natural to them, then surely a dog can be bred to attack a decoy since after countless times of doing it he has never been hurt. I can see them curing if they were getting seriously hurt once in a while. Actually, the most unnatural part of what you are asking of them is to do it by themselves....but that is what the handler is supposed to be there for, backup.


----------



## Bill Whatley

Helping people to better their dogs. Being able to advance any dog from and to being better than he/she was without regard to anything else (breed, history, age, etc.). Notice I said helping people. You can't if you have a problem training dogs.:neutral:


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Daryl Ehret said:


> A former owner of a Leeburg dog and supposed "no stranger to working dogs", has been after me about this pup repeatedly, since she was born actually. I've repeatedly declined to sell her.
> 
> As willing and focused as this pup is to the handler, the aggression is too much for an unexperienced nonworking handler. I was being too gentle I suppose (they're 3&half months old), it took nearly three minutes for me to break this fight up. I'll start knocking heads next time, and it was entirely my fault, because it was a fight over resources (the flirt pole), not working a single pup at a time. I've not had this kind of incident with my more "fluffy" litters of the past.
> 
> My point being, I'm not sure there's enough capable hands available to justify frequently breeding that strong. Even among sporting handlers.


Daryl, if the dog has everything to go with the temperament, breeding to an over the top dog is the way to go simply because most of the progeny will be less that the original. Pick the best of the offspring and keep going. The hardest thing to do is to maintain what you start with.


----------



## Daryl Ehret

I'd take any of the three, for different purposes. I like each of them. Their tenacity especially, these pups just don't shut down.

Mother's a nice dog in her own right, and produced nicely, but not quite what I want in herself. Another litter and a couple herding titles, and I'll probably place her with someone who can better appreciate her. One daughter (in the pic) doesn't seem to have an "off switch", though I'm leaning toward continuing the line with her sister.

The most "unnatural" part of schutzhund sport that I can tell, is stupid tracking. Supposed to be a demonstration of trainability for _any skill_, rather than the obvious skill _which it isn't._


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: Maybe we should take a closer look at sport dogs. What have you got, prey, hunt, bite, control, nerve? So what is so unnatural? Control maybe, but, you would think after this long they would have the where-with-all for control. Nerve....that is lacking generally speaking and it is in the general world, that is why they are not all top dogs. They can't all be top dogs in the wild but they can be bred that way. If a frontal attack is unnatural then all my dogs are unnatural because the all go for the face. I always wanted a heeling dog, but, the reality is, to get one I would have to breed a dog with stronger survival instincts and that = a lesser dog. The shelters are full of dogs that are not afraid to bite so that seems pretty natural. Did the herders naturally herd or were they bred to do something that was really and totally unnatural like herd and protect rather than kill and eat. If dogs can be bred to do something like protect a flock, which defies anything natural to them, then surely a dog can be bred to attack a decoy since after countless times of doing it he has never been hurt. I can see them curing if they were getting seriously hurt once in a while. Actually, the most unnatural part of what you are asking of them is to do it by themselves....but that is what the handler is supposed to be there for, backup.


First off, this is why I am so dang curious to see how one of your dogs would work.

If I think about this long enough, and I haven't in some time, and I damn sure haven't attempted to write it down, or do what I would like to do, which would be train one of your dogs to find out, all I have is a theory. I think that is about all I can say for sure is that I have a THEORY.

Keeping that in mind, Dogs hunt in packs is a basic enough thing for the start of my THEORY. Each dog has something in the hunt that they do best, and I have seen this with coondogs. There are the dogs that are tracking fools, there are the kill dogs, and there are the dogs that are in what I call the middle, and they will cast out and start the track, and they do try to distract the **** IF caught somewhere other than a tree. This helps the kill dogs get a good shot. That is what I remember from watching.

The kill dogs learn to grab whatever it is that can hurt them. Maybe they are not always successful at first, but they develop a skill set that keeps them from getting proper ****ed.

THis works on animals.

Now, this is where the difference is in my THEORY. I am going to ask the dog to run down the field, bite the decoy where I have taught the dog to bite, and endure all the silly shit that he is doing.

The stick is where the threat comes from. Mondio, we have no stick hits, but French ring does. 

IF the dog responds to the threat, and releases his bite and bites the stick hand to pacify the threat, then there is disqualification, or if he gets the suit, then there is a point loss, but the decoy is obligated to move the stick to the other hand and so on, so there could be a major point loss.

Then there is the control. I need the dog to release and come back. I have 1 second before I start losing points. If the dog is serious about dispatching the decoy, I lose the whole thing.

If the dog is serious about the decoy, he is going to fail, or seriously lose points on the defense of handler.

Then there is the retard object guard. Don't know what all might go wrong there, as I am currently running out of brain, been up way to long.

SO, that is some of the things that I, in my THEORY, would go wrong, because you have bred for hunting, and for a strong dog.

It is also why I am so dang curious to give it a shot one day. I think that the worst that could happen is that I would have a dog that just was too much to control well enough to go to the higher levels.

Not really a bad thing in my opinion. Definately need to give this a shot, before I can really say that everything I have written is anything but bullshit. LOL


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: 

My point being, I'm not sure there's enough capable hands available to justify frequently breeding that strong. Even among sporting handlers.

Hell, all you have to do is not be DUMB enough to work two good dogs on ONE flirt pole. Not sure what the **** was going on in your head. HA HA :razz::razz::razz::razz::razz::razz::razz::razz::razz::razz::razz::razz::razz:

I get the not wanting to have problems with selling to weak asses that have a good line of BS, but **** that, there is a good possibility that I may want a dog from you in the future, and I don't want a bitch dog. Keep going up, not down or across. Let the handlers get better, and don't sell to chicks. LOL


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote: Maybe we should take a closer look at sport dogs. What have you got, prey, hunt, bite, control, nerve? So what is so unnatural? Control maybe, but, you would think after this long they would have the where-with-all for control. Nerve....that is lacking generally speaking and it is in the general world, that is why they are not all top dogs. They can't all be top dogs in the wild but they can be bred that way. If a frontal attack is unnatural then all my dogs are unnatural because the all go for the face. I always wanted a heeling dog, but, the reality is, to get one I would have to breed a dog with stronger survival instincts and that = a lesser dog. The shelters are full of dogs that are not afraid to bite so that seems pretty natural. Did the herders naturally herd or were they bred to do something that was really and totally unnatural like herd and protect rather than kill and eat. If dogs can be bred to do something like protect a flock, which defies anything natural to them, then surely a dog can be bred to attack a decoy since after countless times of doing it he has never been hurt. I can see them curing if they were getting seriously hurt once in a while. Actually, the most unnatural part of what you are asking of them is to do it by themselves....but that is what the handler is supposed to be there for, backup.
> 
> 
> First off, this is why I am so dang curious to see how one of your dogs would work.
> 
> If I think about this long enough, and I haven't in some time, and I damn sure haven't attempted to write it down, or do what I would like to do, which would be train one of your dogs to find out, all I have is a theory. I think that is about all I can say for sure is that I have a THEORY.
> 
> Keeping that in mind, Dogs hunt in packs is a basic enough thing for the start of my THEORY. Each dog has something in the hunt that they do best, and I have seen this with coondogs. There are the dogs that are tracking fools, there are the kill dogs, and there are the dogs that are in what I call the middle, and they will cast out and start the track, and they do try to distract the **** IF caught somewhere other than a tree. This helps the kill dogs get a good shot. That is what I remember from watching.
> 
> The kill dogs learn to grab whatever it is that can hurt them. Maybe they are not always successful at first, but they develop a skill set that keeps them from getting proper ****ed.
> 
> THis works on animals.
> 
> Now, this is where the difference is in my THEORY. I am going to ask the dog to run down the field, bite the decoy where I have taught the dog to bite, and endure all the silly shit that he is doing.
> 
> The stick is where the threat comes from. Mondio, we have no stick hits, but French ring does.
> 
> IF the dog responds to the threat, and releases his bite and bites the stick hand to pacify the threat, then there is disqualification, or if he gets the suit, then there is a point loss, but the decoy is obligated to move the stick to the other hand and so on, so there could be a major point loss.
> 
> Then there is the control. I need the dog to release and come back. I have 1 second before I start losing points. If the dog is serious about dispatching the decoy, I lose the whole thing.
> 
> If the dog is serious about the decoy, he is going to fail, or seriously lose points on the defense of handler.
> 
> Then there is the retard object guard. Don't know what all might go wrong there, as I am currently running out of brain, been up way to long.
> 
> SO, that is some of the things that I, in my THEORY, would go wrong, because you have bred for hunting, and for a strong dog.
> 
> It is also why I am so dang curious to give it a shot one day. I think that the worst that could happen is that I would have a dog that just was too much to control well enough to go to the higher levels.
> 
> Not really a bad thing in my opinion. Definately need to give this a shot, before I can really say that everything I have written is anything but bullshit. LOL


Jeff, it will be interesting for me also to see how they react to playing a game rather than actually going for the kill. Airedales are mpeople dogs and they are smart enough to know sport work is a game. I personally think you have to bring them up from puppyhood instilling in them that it is just that, a game, and it is ok to play it to the max. I have told the story about being way back in the high country with two of the dogs when it was getting dark. I heard some voices and not wanting to be mistaken for a deer by some flatlanders, I called out and said I was coming over. Had no idea where the two dogs were. I was 20 to 30 yards out in the trees when the three guys in the jeep were all leaned over whispering to each other then they all immediately jumped out of the jeep. Where were the dogs? They were right there watching the three guys from the brush, When the guys hit the ground they were on them. The dogs sensed something and did not like it but they came out with a roar and you could hear those jaws closing because they sound like steel traps. Those boys were back in that jeep in a heartbeat and one dog sat at the rear corner on each sise of the jeep. This situation, they were in the dogs domain, the forest. The dogs perceived a threat to me and didn't see it as a game. One thing I notice is that once they are in control, they stand down and guard. Be real curious to see how they react if someone keeps fighting in a suit.


----------



## Daryl Ehret

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> I get the not wanting to have problems with selling to weak asses that have a good line of BS, but **** that, there is a good possibility that I may want a dog from you in the future, and I don't want a bitch dog. Keep going up, not down or across. Let the handlers get better, and don't sell to chicks. LOL


So tough enough already, but add to that; everyone wants male dogs, and women handlers are generally less apt to handle a strong dog? _Is that supposed to be encouragement?!_ I'd be lucky to produce a litter _every other year_ to meet all the demand. Not frequent enough to make program improvements at any reasonable pace. And do what with all the surplus females produced? Donate to LE or Dept. of H.Sec.?


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

The logistics are too much for me.


----------



## Daryl Ehret

I won't overly worry about it, just producing "for myself" the occasional litter that I (and hopefully others) can appreciate. I'll eventually settle into a niche that'll allow for a more productive momentum. Two or three litters a year is enough to achieve the pace I want.

I'd love to take off with german shepherds on a larger scale, but volume like that begins to present a whole new set of problems. Keeping the "pet" people out, or the aspiring breeders that don't/won't work their dogs, isn't easy once you've garnered a bit too much attention to your breeding.

Take for example, the Tiekerhook USA program being developed. Is this going to be a blessing or a curse? I see the potential for a lot of unnecessary trouble for the breed. I'm not so sure we're ready for this, without the very necessary support to accompany it.

Need more Great Trainers to develop capable handlers. More seminars educating the handlers, forming more "working" venues to participate with these dogs, and transforming public perception and misconceptions of proper temperament, so that legislation isn't fighting it the whole way.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

I have heard of other dutch breeders bringing dogs here to sell. They really don't have any idea what they are getting into, do they ?? LOL


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

I keep wondering with discussions like these when do you face that the sport and judging is encouraging breeding weaker dogs because they make the better point dogs. You hear alot of the foo foo people breeding for easy keepers and with the idea that they can place more dogs. There went the gene pool. The same thing is going on with the herders. The dogs that aren't as keen and amenable to robotics despite their relationship to the stock are selected over stronger dogs that aren't as easy to gain command over instinct or it takes longer---usually when maturity sets in. 

Which of the protection sports actually has any basis in reality? I keep wondering if the police dog trials have more relevance to reality in terms of the exercises and how the dog is judged?

Terrasita


----------



## Tim Lynam

Well Terrasita, with such broad stroke generalizations about the sports and the assumption that police trial venues "have more relevance to reality" than the sports, and that how they are judged, how ever those judges are better in your opinion, it's no wonder you keep wondering.

Do what every police officer on the planet does, take your handgun for a walk. Then when the sh*t hits the fan, you only have yourself to blame if the outcome isn't to your liking. Of course, in your case, blame is the game. I for one have shot guns from all of the best breeders. Beretta breeds a nice .380 but I guess that would be judged weak by police. More people are killed by 22's than any other caliber. Weak too. I think you just ought to get yourself a well bred Smith and Wesson .50. Or are you a weak handler?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Actually, its not an assumption, its a question based on comments from sport people regarding whats expected of the dogs. But if your comment means that the various dog sports aren't supposed to have any basis in reality and really you just need a guy, I guess that's fair enough.

Terrasita


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Oops that should have been gun. Now that I've read another thread, I didn't realize the us vs.them baggage between sport and police dog. I thought that was limited to personal protection training. I think the problem is that I keep thinking of Sch and what it was originally designed for. It could be that its just plain old apples and oranges and one doesn't have anything to do with the other. A good raw dog [drives, confidence, etc.] could be trained to do either one. Now maybe the archives will tell me whether the selection criteria for a green dog for either high level sport or police dog is fairly similar.

Terrasita


----------



## Daryl Ehret

Terrasita, weaker dogs might be plenty successful at lower levels, but in nationals or higher I don't know if that's entirely true.

Tim, strength of nerve and durable character doesn't affect only the protection aspect of the dog (which I wouldn't care to solely rely on, either) but also_ in other ways the dog works._ I hope no one minds my quoting a friend speaking in reference to workingline vs. american-bred herding...



> I have a good friend that is a herding instructor for all breeds....We have long talks and she says she actually dreads dealing with the american lines because they are so lacking in drive that it takes forever to progress. The other issue she constantly chirps about is the lack of resilency these dogs have. If they have one negative experience with the sheep then you are set back maybe three months on weekly training to get back to the original point, if you EVER get back to that point. ....how could they do this to the GS and why don't these people breed to dogs like yours.


In an unrelated matter, my herding instructor is seriously entertaining the idea of utilizing my Tiekerhook male into her bloodlines, to breed to her favorite bitch, despite her general dislike for german bred dogs. Because he would bring greater *drive and assertiveness *to her breeding.

Generally, that's the sort of thinking I'm against, reminding me of people's aim for the "golden middle". Sure, showlines or american-bred lines could improve in a lot of ways, but what do they bring to the working lines of any value? Nothing, IMO, but I suppose it's better than perpetuating those lines _without _a little workingline help (or is it?).


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Now, I get to comment on broad stroke generalizations.:smile: Daryl, I was fortunate to start herding with an American/Canadian GSD bitch. Many of her relatives worked cattle in Canada. She had nerves of steel and would work 24/7. My second bitch was little different flava but there was no job on a working farm that she couldn't do and with any stock. As I've said before, too often competition herders select for those soft dogs and then bemoan the lack of ability to stay in the game. Bob and I were talking about this out at the farm this morning. Regardless of gene pool, its about selection and criteria. There are working line dogs that wouldn't give stock the time of day or that lack the nerve strength to be truly useful as a farm chore dog. That's why I'm glad that more and more working line folks are testing and working dogs. If you know what you are looking for and how to evaluate, you can find the good ones. 

I too had a general dislike for german bred dogs as far as stock work is concerned until I found the good ones. I must admit though that I hadn't seen them work in any other venue. When I saw Bob's dog work a few times, I sort of mosied up to him one day and asked him could I test his dog. Needless to say, he didn't disappoint. The more we work with him the more I see the similarities between him and my last American line bitch. This thread has made me think about the purpose of sport. If I thought about my own venue and what I'll be trialing in a week, its about training. When you look at the course, it really doesn't have much basis in reality either. Its something to TRAIN the dog to do. Another trialing progam better analogizes to real farm work. 

I think you're right about the regional/national level.

Terrasita


----------



## Don Turnipseed

The same thing is seen in field trials these days with pointers and such. The dogs are being bred with so much run and independence that you need to follow the dogs on horseback. They range out 500 and 600 yds. How does that even relate to bird hunting which is done on foot with dogs that stay within shotgun range. Dogs being bred for a lot of this stuff are bred to do the game only and are pretty much useless for their intended purpose.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

English pointers were hunted on horseback, and I remember when I was very young watching the dogs hunt 200 plus yards away. Nothing has changed. I always thought the idea was to catch as many birds as possible, and the lazy close dogs miss many as they run away. :-D Lot of bird dogs where I am from, and the English pointer is rarely used. They like the labs, and spaniels. No horses to chase the dogs around. I learned OB form the one family that had labs AND English pointers.

I like to see them work though. Besides, most of the reason they have to go that far is the land is hunted too much. If their are birds in the first 50 yards, they will get those as well. Just gotta have more birds when you are training the young dogs. Habit is habit. You can get them a whole lot closer by not hunting empty fields. LOL


----------



## hillel schwartzman

Timothy Saunders said:


> you are right mr downey. that being said I can now tell you what makes a great trainer. the ability to know what needs to be done and the nerve , courgage and humbleness to do it.


 
Well put i think you nailed it! we all decide on our own what we feel makes a great trainer..\\/


----------



## Guest

So does it matter if a trainer has only been training police dogs? PSA? ScH?


----------



## James Downey

Jody Butler said:


> So does it matter if a trainer has only been training police dogs? PSA? ScH?


 
I think it's something to consider if someone has had success in multiple discplines. But I do not think it's a necassity to have done many discplines. The old saying of jack of all trades master of none has some truth. If someone has trained till they have 16 titles after the dogs name, but never really had success at high levels. I would not consider them a "great" trainer. They defintly were busy. If they have had success at many of them at high levels. That's a huge accomplishment. But I would not take it away from someone who focuses on one discpline and has great success. I think for me I would rather be the latter. Just do one thing, and do it well. I think for me, if I venture out, I would probably be mediocre at them all.

Another thing to consider is the ability of the dog. If someone takes a dog that maybe a challenge to a 2 or 3 at club level...I still would hold those accomplishments in high esteem.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Jody.

In my opinion, the great ones have the hands to do what they are telling you to do. They can get the behaviors out of any dogs in any venue. Can hear some SOF guy tell them what they need to do, and they can tell them how to do it, do it, and then tweak it to make it look and be amazing. They can work sport and PP and anything, because they understand dogs. That is what makes them great. Not knowing what is in a dogs head, but being able to get trained behaviors out of dogs in the least amount of time with the best success rate.

That being said, Venue doesn't matter to me in a trainer. I have met more jackasses than I think I should have had to from several venues. The only good thing is that I have learned something from every one of them. I have met people way better than me in a lot of areas, and learned bunches from them.



Trainers. Trainers are handlers. Cause if you got a dog on leash he is ****ing learning and if you are a shitty handler, he is learning bad things.

1 year of good training is better than 20 years of bad. I agree with you on that one Jody. I get tired of hearing that as a resume builder when someone is talking about a trainer. It is not what you did yesterday, it is what you can do today.


----------



## hillel schwartzman

Jody Butler said:


> I am not here to critique or bash, but the vast majority of working dog trainers/people and the various disciplines have different desires, thoughts, training ideas, etc etc. I am curious to see what most people think as far as what makes a great trainer over a good trainer. (Not what makes you great, but what you look for)?
> 
> Thanks in advance for your participation....and of course the wise cracks I'm sure I'll get.....
> 
> JB


**** jeff this is starting to scare thye piss out of me..(I AGREE WITH U)
The abilty and the willingness to mentor others...(pass down the tourch of knowledge)
Yes it would be nice if that trainer was the best in the world..but if that trainer only does it for his personal finacial gain only then a great trainer teacher he is not.GIVE me someone who helps people to title their dogs help reach their goals and not just to title their own is what i look for (GREAT)...8)


----------



## chris haynie

hillel schwartzman said:


> The abilty and the willingness to mentor others...(pass down the tourch of knowledge)


this can work both ways. recently in visiting various clubs and trainers i have seen a few total dumbasses who are pretty damn sure they are great trainers, and are overly preachy and very willing to spread their questionable methods, yet they got shit for titles or experienceand are just poorly reguritating some BS training they took in at a seminar in the 80's. 

from the good and great trainers i have met i'd say the great ones all really have clear communication skills, with both the dogs AND the handlers. i have met some fantastic trainers (mostly in agility and flyball) that couldn't stumble through an order at a restaurant, yet they could train any half assed dog to rip up the agility course. they are not great trainers unless they can help train us humans too.


----------



## hillel schwartzman

chris haynie said:


> this can work both ways. recently in visiting various clubs and trainers i have seen a few total dumbasses who are pretty damn sure they are great trainers, and are overly preachy and very willing to spread their questionable methods, yet they got shit for titles or experienceand are just poorly reguritating some BS training they took in at a seminar in the 80's.
> 
> from the good and great trainers i have met i'd say the great ones all really have clear communication skills, with both the dogs AND the handlers. i have met some fantastic trainers (mostly in agility and flyball) that couldn't stumble through an order at a restaurant, yet they could train any half assed dog to rip up the agility course. they are not great trainers unless they can help train us humans too.


 
Just remember the more they say and prech they are great to me that means they arn't worth a peice off shit.. Let me decide that. Give thay guy who just wants to pass his knowlegde to you and through your training together you both reap the rewards..FOR every great there are thousands asshole that think they are great..


----------



## Sue Miller

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> I never said great, but I have yet to meet someone that impressed me that wasn't able to teach others.
> 
> When you are unable to verbalize what it is you are doing, how good can you be ??
> 
> Great in my definition is not a single thread in the loom. Too many have used the word half assed, and so the word has no meaning. I am giving you MY definition.
> 
> I know many good trainers, I don't know any GREAT trainers. Maybe I need to get out more, but the opinion of some first time owner of a seminar giver means **** all to me.
> 
> So to me, the ability to teach others is the difference. It is the difference between average and good.


Verbalize is the easy part. I've had people ask me about training & I've told them exactly what they have to do, why they have to do it & how to do it. Training is complicated & you just don't wave a magic wand to get good results. After 10 minutes or so of talking, I see their eyes glaze over & they're wanting to escape. It's funny, years ago someone told me that that is exactly what would happen. Anyway, eveyone seems to be looking for a magic wand. That's why Ivan's game is so popular--and it should be--it's genius. He presents a simple, easy game that works on all levels without all the boring talk.


----------

