What is the Koehler method?
Mad Cow
tell me what this is. There seems to be some controversy re: this. The word
'cruel' pops up frequently. What type of punishment exactly does Koehler
use?
Posts welcomed, email replies preferred.
Thank you.
Amy Dahl
book, "The Koehler Method of Dog Training." There is a phone
number you can call to order the book at
http://www.koehlerdogtraining.com .
There is controversy. Koehler himself believed that cruelty lies
in indefinite handling, lack of clarity, and an attitude that
denies dogs responsibility for their own actions. He also
believes (with good reason based on experience) that dogs can
be trained to extreme levels of responsibility--following which
they can be included in their owners' lives to a high degree.
Koehler's detractors believe his method is cruel because it
makes use of physical corrections. My impression is that
their opinions are fueled by application of Koehler's name
to a lot of badly-done, abusive training which Koehler himself
would repudiate. Koehler is dead, but I know a couple of people
who took classes from him, and apparently he would come down on
you like a ton of bricks if you did anything he considered the
least bit unfair to your dog.
Koehler does not recommend any punishment in the *training* of
dogs. He does put forward some solutions to certain behavior
problems which are punitive in that the unpleasant consequences
are not immediately associated with the behavior. He stresses,
however, that these methods are not to be used until after a
dog's obedience training is complete, because many problems
resolve on their own with training.
I have used the method on a variety of dogs and find that the
dogs respond with enthusiasm and eagerness to work--but I think
the fact that it suits my own style and attitudes helps me to
be successful. If you read the book and find it does not appeal
to you, probably you would do better with another method.
Vicki Hearne has written a book, "Adam's Task," in which she
further explores the issues of what is "kindness" and what
is "cruelty" which are raised by Koehler's books and the
methods and criticisms proposed by his detractors.
[posted and mailed]
--
Amy Frost Dahl Retriever Training phone: (910) 295-6710
Oak Hill Kennel & Handling email: a...@oakhillkennel.com
Pinehurst, NC 28370 (http://www.oakhillkennel.com)
FREDERICK HASSEN
>I've heard about the Koehler method re: dog
>training. Can someone please tell me what this
>is.
The Koehler method is an incremental step-by-step process, that does a
tremendous amount of repetition and praise for every individual
exercise, until the dog clearly shows that it knows what is expected of
it. Once the dog clearly demonstrates this on a number of occasion,
correction is brought in as responsibility for wrong action. Again,
this is only presented after a very fair introduction. Mr. Koehler
believed that the dog should be in a 'decision making process", and
decide which action is correct. Similar to regular life where there is
consequence for shooting someone, being late for work, running a stop
sign etc. When questioned, detractors of the program usually show their
misunderstanding of it, and just mention the correction part of it.
Here is a Q/A section off of the Koehler website
(www.koehlerdogtraining.com).
Q&A Discussion
Question: Regarding the first week's work, I have heard that you must
continually repeat a command in a pleasant tone of voice in order for
the dog to understand what you want him to do. You advocate that I say
nothing to him, yet expect him to pay attention. How is this possible?
Answer: Your dog, at this point, does not understand your articulations
of want or desire. He does, however, learn that you may change direction
and speed, without a moments notice, and that if he is caught unaware
then the result is something less than comfortable. And don't be drawn
in to thinking that your dog must hear what you want him to do, many
deaf dogs have successfully completed our classes. In fact, a deaf mute
attended one of our 10 week courses in Stockton, Ca. A local charity
provided a "signer" to interpret my instructions. At the end of the
course he graduated with a score of 194 out of a possible 200 (we use
the AKC Novice ring format and rules for our graduating exercise)
without ever saying a single word!
Question: The method seems a bit drawn-out, you don't even start the
recall exercise until about week four. Other methods seem much faster,
couldn't the process be sped up, and made more enjoyable for the dog
with treats.
Answer: If the "process of the training" is your focal desire, as it is
for many hobbits, then I suppose you can speed things up with treats;
that it is more enjoyable to the dog depends on how motivated the dog is
in wanting the bribe. But, if the focal desire is to get the dog
trained, as it is for most of our clients, consider this; on occasion I
have met private training clients at Pier 39 in San Francisco to return
their dogs. I'll demonstrate my confidence in their dog with a quick
novice-dog routine, then hand the leash to them. We make our way from
the Embarcadero to the financial district on-leash. We then proceed
off-leash through Chinatown back to the Maritime museum where we work on
sit and down stays. Over to the pier for some recall work, and back to
the parking garage. A street trial, if you will, which takes about 90
minutes to comfortably complete. Our private training program, like our
classes, is 10 to 13 weeks, this is fast enough for us. As far as the
enjoyment factor goes, I can only say that we prefer to get the dog
beyond contention so that we can enjoy the companionship of the trained
dog, not the process of training him.
Question: I have heard that you emphasize too many leash and collar
corrections and that your use of punishment is your primary training
tool. Could you comment.
Answer: Simple, those who have formed this opinion...can't read. First
of all, if you were to read the book and follow it's content to the
letter, you will realize that leash corrections, when correctly
administered, are minimal; and infrequent beyond the seventh week...the
dog's not wearing a leash! In our classes (and outlined in the book) we
test the adequacy of your leash and collar work before moving on to
off-leash. You do this by connecting a 6" piece of common sewing thread,
looped and knotted, to the running ring of your training collar and snap
your leash on the loop. We then do about 10 minutes of "scrambled
heeling," sit, down, and stand stays, and recalls. If you made it
through without breaking your thread you're ready for off-leash. This
test is given at week five. A dog who has had too many leash corrections
(thereby making him ultimately dependent on the leash as a controlling
influence rather than being influenced by the reward of right action) is
likely to fail this test.
Question: Still, the book seems to focus more on the aspect of
punishment for wrong action rather than the use of positive
reinforcement for right action, why?
Answer: Without the use of positive reinforcement the longe line (the
very foundation of our training) would not work. Perhaps you should try
reading the book aloud to the "man in the mirror." If your definition of
positive reinforcement is to offer a treat to the dog for correct
performance you are probably more than a little confused. If you were to
give a Koehler trained dog a treat for every act of right performance
the dog would be very fat. Click on the "Pattern of Learning" link to
learn the dynamic relationship of positive and negative reinforcement,
reward systems, schedules of reinforcement, primary reinforcers,
secondary reinforcers, the use of delayed secondary rewards, and the use
of modified punishers as reinforcers.
Question: I adopted my dog, a 6 months old Chihuahua/Terrier cross, from
a rescue organization. They told be that he had been badly abused by his
former owners and cringes every time I show any kind of authority. Can
your method help this dog?
Answer: This dog would definitely benefit from our method. By not
fixating or focusing on this display we can eliminate it as an
undesirable behaviour from the dog's repertoire of displacement
behaviours. By remaining fixed and focused on our intended goal we can
teach desired behaviours instead. For instance, let's say that we are
starting day 1 of the "Sit," as we slide our left hand down the leash to
stop the dog's forward motion, he goes belly down. We simply replace our
left hand with our right, pull up with the right, push down on the rear
with the left, thereby mechanically placing the dog into the sit
position and praise for the sit. Proceed as scheduled with the heeling &
sitting. The dog will learn that cringing does not discourage you from
proceeding toward your intended desire, but sitting quickly (in response
to your desire for him to do so) will result in earned praise. The
quicker he complies...the quicker he is praised. You will see that your
desire becomes more compelling to him than his need to cringe. As the
cringing lessens you intensify the praise.
Question: I'm going to use the book as my tutor, any helpful advice?
Answer: Read the entire text before you start. Once you start, follow it
along and do the exercises exactly as they are presented and in the
order that they are presented in. Do not shortcut the process or you
will fall short of your intended desire...a well mannered, off-leash
dog. When done correctly, you and your dog will soon be able to
responsibly enjoy the freedom of an off-lead relationship.
FRED HASSEN
"SIT MEANS SIT" Internet talkshow host
http://www.lovemypets.com/sitmeanssit
Dog Training for the Real World
Sit Means Sit Dog Training (702-877-4581)
When your dog doesn't know:
"Sit from Shinola"
tarag
>Koehler's detractors believe his method is cruel because it
>makes use of physical corrections. My impression is that
>their opinions are fueled by application of Koehler's name
>to a lot of badly-done, abusive training which Koehler himself
>would repudiate.
That is not altogether true, Amy. There are many detractors of Koehler who
*do* use corrections...and I am one of them.
My problem with Koehler (and many other trainers have the same problem with
him) is that he *teaches* behavior through force. I don't have a problem
with correcting a dog who has shown that s/he *knows* the behavior, but
simply made the wrong choice (i.e.. to do something else instead). I do,
however, believe that showing and teaching a dog a new behavior is best done
without physical corrections. If I don't even know what *right* thing to do
*is* yet, I wouldn't want to be taught something brand new by getting choked
every time I did the wrong thing.
No, this is not based on "badly done" Koehler...just in the principles and
the applications themselves.
I respect your opinion, but please let those of us who do not like Koehler
speak for ourselves....there could be as many answers as there are
individuals here....some will get caught up in absolutes and some
won't....but don't define *all* of us by the few you are referring to.
respectfully,
Tara
Ron Hardin
> My problem with Koehler (and many other trainers have the same problem with
> him) is that he *teaches* behavior through force. I don't have a problem
> with correcting a dog who has shown that s/he *knows* the behavior, but
> simply made the wrong choice (i.e.. to do something else instead). I do,
> however, believe that showing and teaching a dog a new behavior is best done
> without physical corrections. If I don't even know what *right* thing to do
> *is* yet, I wouldn't want to be taught something brand new by getting choked
> every time I did the wrong thing.
You're following Koehler. Look up the book.
--
Ron Hardin
rhha...@mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
FREDERICK HASSEN
>I don't have a problem with correcting a dog
>who has shown that s/he *knows* the behavior,
>but simply made the wrong choice (i.e.. to do
>something else instead). I do, however, believe
>that showing and teaching a dog a new
>behavior is best done without physical
>corrections. If I don't even know what *right*
>thing to do *is* yet, I wouldn't want to be taught
>something brand new by getting choked every
>time I did the wrong thing.
Once again, a Koehler detractor giving out total misinformation.
Koehler NEVER, and I repeat NEVER advocates the correction of a dog
without the dog showing a thorough understanding. In fact, if Koehler
had a problem, it was maybe in giving the dog MORE than ample
opportunity to show that he understood before correcting the dog starts.
Some people just turn to the 'incorrigible dog" section, and believe
that's how he teaches it.
Koehler NEVER would show a dog a new behavior by correcting it. I've
had several conversations with Mr. Koehler's son Dick, in fact, my radio
show was the last interview Dick Koehler gave before passing away a few
months ago. You are WAYYYYYYYY off base here.
Lynn Kosmakos
tarag wrote:
>
> My problem with Koehler (and many other trainers have the same problem with
> him) is that he *teaches* behavior through force. I don't have a problem
> with correcting a dog who has shown that s/he *knows* the behavior, but
> simply made the wrong choice (i.e.. to do something else instead).
I'm a Koehler fan, and I happen to agree with you on this. There
are some very specific techniques recommended by Koehler that I
don't use for this reason, believing that there are better methods
that teach the behavior non-physically. A good example is his
recommendation on quickly turning in the opposite direction for
forging. However, I still find value in much of the material in
Koehler's books. I think that we need to keep in mind the amount
of time that has passed since those books were written, and hope
that we all can continually learn and add better techniques to
our "toolboxes", while still agreeing with basic premises.
Lynn K.
canis55
A few threads back, you said something about not having to deal with
behavior problems because working dogs don't have behavior problems.
Then, in another thread, you said something about a client not being
able to control her dog, while you were able to elicit satisfactory
obedience from the same dog. I'm paraphrasing here, so cut me some slack
on the misread. I'm aware of it. That's why I didn't comment.
My objection to the Koehler method is not the presence of corrections.
The biggest problem with Koehler is that he establishes, from the very
beginning, an adversarial or antagonistic relationship between dog and
handler. This goes against the very nature of a dog. They are highly
cooperative animals, designed to hunt within a harmonious unit. *This*
is why you don't see behavior problems in working dogs. See, when you've
got this hunting thing going, most dogs can work around and overcome all
the damage created by a dominance training model. They're really amazing
creatures. Remember when you said that the work seems to be the greatest
reward, and the greatest reinforcement? (I'm paraphrasing again.) You
are absolutely right. It also happens to be one of the greatest
curatives for behavior problems.
I'm not sure if you understand what I'm saying, but I do know--from
reading your posts--that if I'm stating this well enough, you and I
agree here.
I'm asking you to consider what would happen if we started all training
by playing hunting games with the dog. What if we channeled this
predatory impulse and this need to cooperate into obedience? Everything
we're asking of the dog, from a sit/stay to a heel, is a natural
behavior. The only unnatural thing is that the dog be required to do it
on command and for a definite period of time. If we establish, right
from the beginning, that all these commanded behaviors are orientated
towards chasing and biting--given that stalking is not outside a dog's
naturally occurring repertoire--we can achieve the same enthusiasm and
willingness in basic obedience that you see in a working retriever.
Now, if my hypothesis regarding why you don't see behavior problems in
working dogs is correct, then we shouldn't see behavior problems in
family pets who have been trained through cooperative hunting games. My
experience supports this hypothesis. What I don't know, but do strongly
suspect, is that if working dogs were trained through cooperative
hunting games from the very beginning, they would train faster and prove
more reliable.
Koehler's greatest failure is that, for the most part, he trains against
what a dog naturally is. This forces the dog to work around the whole
technique. Some of them can actually do it. They're amazing creatures.
The problem is that most of them can't work around it entirely, and some
of them can't work around it at all. That's when we see the behavior
problems and the total obedience washouts. The latter half of his famous
book instructs us to escalate our own aggression towards the dogs, as a
consequence of what he perceives as their willful disobedience or
challenge to his authority. This, to me at least, reads as though we are
to take these misbehaviors as a personal assault. They aren't. They are
an assault on the training model. Nothing more. When we fail to
recognize this, and simply apply more dominance, we are basically
attempting to force a round peg into a square hole.
If we look at the Koehler method, we see that all the basic obedience
positions and behaviors are presented to the dog in a medium to low
drive emotional state. My own observations and experience suggest that
dogs learn quicker and more completely when excited into a high drive
state. Once the behaviors have been taught, they can then be presented
in a calmer emotional state with near perfect reliability.
Furthermore, Koehler recommends that the dog be physically manipulated
(pushed, pulled, yanked) into the various positions and behaviors, to
show the dog what we want when we say a certain word. I don't know if
this is cruel in the sense of what most people would perceive as cruel.
Pushing a dog's ass firmly but gently to the ground is not, in my
opinion, cruel in and of itself, nor is hauling him in on a lunge line.
(We'll leave stepping on a leash and drawing the dog's chin to the
ground out of this for now.) However, the very process of pushing or
pulling the dog will create resistance toward the behavior. Again, not a
big deal. If, however, I administer a leash correction in reaction to
this resistance--which is exactly what Koehler recommends--then it
becomes cruel. It is cruel because I am holding the dog responsible for
the resistance (a slowness to comply) which I myself have instilled.
What should really take place, is that *I* should receive the
correction. I should receive a shock, telling me to go back and examine
the way I've originally taught the behavior. If I want quick compliance,
I should teach the word for the behavior in a high drive state. I should
bait the dog, within the context of a hunting game, into whatever
position I want. This promotes the same enthusiasm for all these basic
obedience commands that you see in a retrieve.
To me, this stuff is both simple and obvious. I've been saying it over
and over again on this ng until I've begun to bore even myself. The only
reason I've gone ahead and written it again is because I've been reading
your posts, and I get the impression that you've also seen this same
thing. Although, not training family pets, you may not yet have
identified it.
So Amy, it's not an improper application of the Koehler method that I
see as creating problems. It's the inability of most dogs to overcome
the poorly thought out and flawed approach. Everything I've seen tells
me that in the 20 to 35% of the dogs where we could pretty much say the
Koehler method proves successful, it's the dogs that prove successful,
and not the approach. These dogs could be trained using any method. To
say that the dogs who wash out or develop behavior problems are poorly
bred, is unfair to dogs. It's like saying a round peg that fails to
modify itself to accommodate a square hole is a mis-shaped peg. The
hole's supposed to be round to accommodate the peg.
If a peg manages to get inside that square hole often enough, we should
say, "Now that's an extraordinary peg." It's foolish to accept this as
evidence of a well designed hole, and to believe that the other pegs
were just introduced at an improper angle, or that they were poorly
lathed pegs to begin with.
In article <37C94494...@oakhillkennel.com>,
Amy Dahl <a...@oakhillkennel.com> wrote:
> The best way to find out about Koehler's method is to read his
> book, "The Koehler Method of Dog Training." There is a phone
> number you can call to order the book at
> http://www.koehlerdogtraining.com .
>
> There is controversy. Koehler himself believed that cruelty lies
> in indefinite handling, lack of clarity, and an attitude that
> denies dogs responsibility for their own actions. He also
> believes (with good reason based on experience) that dogs can
> be trained to extreme levels of responsibility--following which
> they can be included in their owners' lives to a high degree.
>
> Koehler's detractors believe his method is cruel because it
> makes use of physical corrections. My impression is that
> their opinions are fueled by application of Koehler's name
> to a lot of badly-done, abusive training which Koehler himself
> would repudiate. Koehler is dead, but I know a couple of people
> who took classes from him, and apparently he would come down on
> you like a ton of bricks if you did anything he considered the
> least bit unfair to your dog.
>
> Koehler does not recommend any punishment in the *training* of
> dogs. He does put forward some solutions to certain behavior
> problems which are punitive in that the unpleasant consequences
> are not immediately associated with the behavior. He stresses,
> however, that these methods are not to be used until after a
> dog's obedience training is complete, because many problems
> resolve on their own with training.
>
> I have used the method on a variety of dogs and find that the
> dogs respond with enthusiasm and eagerness to work--but I think
> the fact that it suits my own style and attitudes helps me to
> be successful. If you read the book and find it does not appeal
> to you, probably you would do better with another method.
>
> Vicki Hearne has written a book, "Adam's Task," in which she
> further explores the issues of what is "kindness" and what
> is "cruelty" which are raised by Koehler's books and the
> methods and criticisms proposed by his detractors.
>
> [posted and mailed]
>
> Mad Cow wrote:
> >
> > I've heard about the Koehler method re: dog training. Can someone
please
> > tell me what this is. There seems to be some controversy re: this.
The word
> > 'cruel' pops up frequently. What type of punishment exactly does
Koehler
> > use?
> >
> > Posts welcomed, email replies preferred.
> >
> > Thank you.
>
> --
> Amy Frost Dahl Retriever Training phone:
(910) 295-6710
> Oak Hill Kennel & Handling
email: a...@oakhillkennel.com
> Pinehurst, NC 28370
(http://www.oakhillkennel.com)
>
>
--
I trains'em as I sees'em.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Aspiring Trainer
everyone. This is one. People we are all visit this place to learn and
share what we know. Let us not forget the the animals we love and
protect should be the true benefactors of our endeavors.
Read with an open mind. If you conclude a writer makes sense, will
yourself to cast aside your previous methodology. For quite a time, I
have observed the threads here content to only rarely post a reply.
However, the post to which I refer here is the most true observation
into the art/science of dog training I have read in this forum. Please
read it with an open mind and grant the topic the analytical and
informed discussion it so rightly deserves.
In article <7qek0s$4t5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
--
If you care, please visit www.naturaldogtraining.com
"Having a car all your life doesn't make you a mechanic,
the same is true with dogs and dog trainers."
Learn how to train your dog, and how to educate owners.
Tricia9999
>The biggest problem with Koehler is that he establishes, from the very
>beginning, an adversarial or antagonistic relationship between dog and
>handler. This goes against the very nature of a dog.
Very nicely put. The whole notion of having to "show them who is boss". I used
to see this with horses alot, too. Turned out that those who approached with
gentleness and teaching did better than those who had to "break" them. Dogs
are supposed to be our companions and friends - why start with an antagonistic
relationship?
>I'm asking you to consider what would happen if we started all training
>by playing hunting games with the dog. What if we channeled this
>predatory impulse and this need to cooperate into obedience? Everything
>we're asking of the dog, from a sit/stay to a heel, is a natural
>behavior.
Work with the dog's hard wiring instead of against it. More progress, less
stress to both involved, better relationship, more willingness to cooperate,
and so on in a self reinforcing cycle.
>The latter half of his famous
>book instructs us to escalate our own aggression towards the dogs, as a
>consequence of what he perceives as their willful disobedience or
>challenge to his authority. This, to me at least, reads as though we are
>to take these misbehaviors as a personal assault. They aren't. They are
>an assault on the training model.
Vicki Hearne would concur. The belief that they are taking responsibility for
their "misdeeds". Why would you want to have a dog in your household if they
had such evil intent?
>Everything I've seen tells
>me that in the 20 to 35% of the dogs where we could pretty much say the
>Koehler method proves successful, it's the dogs that prove successful,
>and not the approach. These dogs could be trained using any method.
Dogs are amazingly plastic animals. They have high tolerances for our nonsense,
thus we get away with a lot. Anyone can read the Problems chapter at the back
of Koehler's first book to get an idea of his model of human-dog relationships.
Sonya
price is only $2.00 ( No I'm not the one selling it either LOL) Just
thought if someone were going to buy it they'd save themselves a bunch
of money.
Amy Dahl
Tricia9999 wrote:
>
> >My objection to the Koehler method is not the presence of corrections.
> >The biggest problem with Koehler is that he establishes, from the very
> >beginning, an adversarial or antagonistic relationship between dog and
> >handler. This goes against the very nature of a dog.
>
> Very nicely put. The whole notion of having to "show them who is boss".
I have to disagree, with two points. Having read Koehler carefully
and used the method a lot, IMO it is *not* "adversarial." In fact
it is very carefully designed to avoid confrontation. Second, the
relationship established is very well tailored to the nature of a
dog. Dogs and their ancestors naturally take to a hierarchical
social pattern. They respect and love one who shows clear leadership,
and in the absence of a good leader, they vie for the "top dog"
position.
If you just read the book and surmise how a dog might respond, or
you look at the bad trainers who use Koehler as a "justification" of
poor and abusive training, you will never realize how well dogs
respond to this approach. I have used it with everything from
dominant dogs with a history of biting to fearful, spooky dogs
terrified of their own shadows. For some reason the clear rules
or boundaries established in the first lesson evoke an enthusiastic
response--confident, attentive, tails wagging.
> Vicki Hearne would concur. The belief that they are taking responsibility for
> their "misdeeds". Why would you want to have a dog in your household if they
> had such evil intent?
Hearne concurs that dogs are capable of responsibility for their
*actions.* They cannot know we consider something offensive unless
we make it clear. It is silly to impute "evil intent." They are
bright, active, curious, and will do various things which we may
or may not like--until we educate them otherwise.
>
> >Everything I've seen tells
> >me that in the 20 to 35% of the dogs where we could pretty much say the
> >Koehler method proves successful, it's the dogs that prove successful,
> >and not the approach. These dogs could be trained using any method.
Again, I don't know what you've seen. I have rehabilitated
several dogs that were considered untrainable, temperamentally
defective, even dangerous. They weren't. Once I provided them
with a set of rules that made sense, they relaxed into really
nice dogs. It was a small number--not statistically significant,
I admit. Being closely involved with the dogs as I was, though,
I was blown away by the changes that took place.
My experience suggests dogs love Koehler. But it is easy to
see how, when a trainer strays from certain of Koehler's rules,
the clarity of the method would evaporate--then if the trainer
got frustrated and used leash "corrections" as meaningless
punishment, dog and trainer would be on the long road of
adversarial struggle.
By all means, if you read the book and find it doesn't suit you,
find a method you are more comfortable with.
>
> Dogs are amazingly plastic animals. They have high tolerances for our nonsense,
> thus we get away with a lot.
And many times, the trainer is far more important than the method.
Nancy E. Holmes or R. Nelson Ruffin
Sonya wrote in message <16949-37...@newsd-151.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Nancy E. Holmes or R. Nelson Ruffin
FREDERICK HASSEN wrote in message
<4012-37C...@newsd-101.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
snip
Answer: Simple, those who have formed this opinion...can't read. First
of all, if you were to read the book and follow it's content to the
letter, you will realize that leash corrections, when correctly
administered, are minimal; and infrequent beyond the seventh week
snip some more
Fred - this statement suggests to me exactly what has been said all along -
the dogs are punished into the exercises - leash corrections in the *first*
seven weeks of training doesn't sound any better when put in a question and
answer format than it does in the books
Nancy
Jerry Howe
> "tarag" <ta...@gateway.net> writes:
>
> >That is not altogether true, Amy. There are many detractors of Koehler who
> >*do* use corrections...and I am one of them.
>
> >My problem with Koehler (and many other trainers have the same problem with
> >him) is that he *teaches* behavior through force. I don't have a problem
>
> My problem with Koehler is that so few people seem to be able to
> follow his training advice. Relatively few people appear to have his
> talent for training. So I don't recommend Koehler myself. But, this
> characterization is incorrect. Koehler pays a lot of attention to
> teaching something before using corrections.
>
> ObDisclaimer: I do not particularly use Koehler's methods today. I
> think we've found even more effective ways of teaching things before
> corrections come into play.
>
> --
> ***** tit...@io.com *** DOG FAQS AT http://www.k9web.com/dog-faqs/ *****
> WAGGERY U-CD Terrell's Chocolate Deduction CGC CDX--Hershe LABRADORS
> ------- Delby's Wood Nymph at Waggery JH WC CGC--Angel ---------
> KT's Before the Mast--Dana
> *** Southern California Lab Rescue: http://www.sclrr.org/ ***
Why don't you teach us howe to train a forced retrieve? I always want to learn
howe to enhance the bond with a dog in training through training tools like the
ear pinch and toe twist. I know that effective corrections will make the dog
respect and adore me, but I want more than that. Can you post the forced
retrieve here please? J>>>
Jerry Howe
> tarag wrote:
> >
> > My problem with Koehler (and many other trainers have the same problem with
> > him) is that he *teaches* behavior through force. I don't have a problem
> > with correcting a dog who has shown that s/he *knows* the behavior, but
> > simply made the wrong choice (i.e.. to do something else instead).
>
> I'm a Koehler fan, and I happen to agree with you on this. There
> are some very specific techniques recommended by Koehler that I
> don't use for this reason, believing that there are better methods
> that teach the behavior non-physically. A good example is his
> recommendation on quickly turning in the opposite direction for
> forging. However, I still find value in much of the material in
> Koehler's books. I think that we need to keep in mind the amount
> of time that has passed since those books were written, and hope
> that we all can continually learn and add better techniques to
> our "toolboxes", while still agreeing with basic premises.
>
> Lynn K.
Hello Lyinglynn,
You mean the part where the dog gets flipped ass over bucket when you reverse on
him, and the stupid dog thinks he did it to himself? Yeah, I get a kick out of
that part too! It's amazing howe stupid dogs are!!! They think all the crap you
dish out on them was caused by themselves, and they just love and respect you all
the more. Till they have a chance to get even you stupid pig. J>>>
Jerry Howe
> There is a Koehler book at http://www.ebay.com its current bidding
> price is only $2.00 ( No I'm not the one selling it either LOL) Just
> thought if someone were going to buy it they'd save themselves a bunch
> of money.
Somebody should buy it to prevent someone from using it. J>
FREDERICK HASSEN
>You mean the part where the dog gets flipped
>ass over bucket when you reverse on him, and
>the stupid dog thinks he did it to himself?
No, the part where the shaker can goes off whenever you are around, and
the stupid dog thinks it's coming from the sky.
Not The Poster Formerly Known As Dogman
>Every now and then someone composes a post which should be read by
>everyone. This is one.
[...]
Now we even have "aspiring" trainers who think they have a freakin'
clue!
Geeeeeez.
Where's the freakin' Booker's when I need it most....
--
Not The Poster Formerly Known As Dogman
mailto:dog...@i1.net
http://www.i1.net/~dogman
Lynn Kosmakos
Jerry Howe wrote:
> You mean the part where the dog gets flipped ass over bucket when you reverse on
> him, and the stupid dog thinks he did it to himself? Yeah, I get a kick out of
> that part too! It's amazing howe stupid dogs are!!! They think all the crap you
> dish out on them was caused by themselves, and they just love and respect you all
> the more. Till they have a chance to get even you stupid pig.
Geez, Jerry, did you even read what I wrote? That I agree with
you on this one and don't use that method? Or are you just in
kneejerk insult mode, regardless of content?
Lynn K.
Aspiring Trainer
is part of my reason for writing.....but not entirely.
Regardless of the theory involved, this post should be read for the
following reasons:
1. It is analytical and follows a logical progression of thought.
2. The author refrains from the counter-productive antagonist tones
often attributed to this NG.
3. The concepts discussed are thought provoking, and worthy of
discussion.
I, like many people here, am trying to learn new concepts and techniques
which advance my knowledge. Posts like the one I responded to are not
only helpful, they inspire the type of debate responsible for the
advancement of procedural knowledge.
If you can open your mind to the theories of your contemporaries you run
the risk of learning something determinative.
In article <37e723b0...@news1.i1.net>,
pleas...@sig.file (Not The Poster Formerly Known As Dogman) wrote:
> Aspiring Trainer <animal...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >Every now and then someone composes a post which should be read by
> >everyone. This is one.
> [...]
>
> Now we even have "aspiring" trainers who think they have a freakin'
> clue!
>
> Geeeeeez.
>
> Where's the freakin' Booker's when I need it most....
> --
>
> Not The Poster Formerly Known As Dogman
> mailto:dog...@i1.net
> http://www.i1.net/~dogman
>
--
Leon Milberg
>If we look at the Koehler method, we see that all the basic obedience
>positions and behaviors are presented to the dog in a medium to low
>drive emotional state. My own observations and experience suggest that
>dogs learn quicker and more completely when excited into a high drive
>state. Once the behaviors have been taught, they can then be presented
>in a calmer emotional state with near perfect reliability.
Canis I have read a few of your procedures that generate a high drive
situation (i.e. the down command). I think it is quite effective, but
I can't seem to figure out how you would achieve a long down stay
using high drive. When I get my dogs excited there is NO chance of
getting them to stay in one spot for a long time. Additionally I have
trouble with the off leash recall when they are in a high drive state.
I have about 85% recall with one dog and 70% with the other (of course
the 85% dog is dropping in performance now that I have a 70% dog!).
This usually occurs with fun activities like swimming and greeting
other dogs. How would you each train and proof these two obedience
behaviors? It would be great to compare each of your different
techniques on both behaviors.
Leon Milberg le...@4pet.net
Toni
Cindy Tittle Moore <tit...@io.com> wrote in message
news:7qh5ga$vr3$1...@eris.io.com...
> Read your dog, tailor your approach to work best with that dog's
> temperament. Difficult? You bet. You learn how to train with one
> dog, and learn all over again with the next.
Training is MORE about reading your dogs reactions than knowing "the best"
method popular today.
They are ALL different, within groups, breeds, even the same dog on a
different day.
The ability to work WITH your dogs natural tendencies, rather than against
them, is what makes a great trainer.
--
Toni (who has one soft dog, and one knucklehead)
www.irish-wolfhounds.com
e-mail Toni [at] irish-wolfhounds [dot] com
Jerry Howe
> le...@4pet.net (Leon Milberg) writes:
>
> >canis, Amy and Others:
>
> >>If we look at the Koehler method, we see that all the basic obedience
> >>positions and behaviors are presented to the dog in a medium to low
> >>drive emotional state. My own observations and experience suggest that
> >>dogs learn quicker and more completely when excited into a high drive
> >>state. Once the behaviors have been taught, they can then be presented
> >>in a calmer emotional state with near perfect reliability.
>
> >Canis I have read a few of your procedures that generate a high drive
> >situation (i.e. the down command). I think it is quite effective, but
>
> I think it's effective for some dogs. But believe me I've run into
> some dogs that if you pump them up like this, their brain shuts down
> and you get nothing.
>
> Again, training isn't a one-size-fits-all suit. Some dogs benefit from
> pumping up, others don't. Some will zoom up quickly, others take more
> work.
>
> Read your dog, tailor your approach to work best with that dog's
> temperament. Difficult? You bet. You learn how to train with one
> dog, and learn all over again with the next.
>
> --
> ***** tit...@io.com *** DOG FAQS AT http://www.k9web.com/dog-faqs/ *****
> WAGGERY U-CD Terrell's Chocolate Deduction CGC CDX--Hershe LABRADORS
> ------- Delby's Wood Nymph at Waggery JH WC CGC--Angel ---------
> KT's Before the Mast--Dana
> *** Southern California Lab Rescue: http://www.sclrr.org/ ***
Hello Cindy,
You are unaware of the concept, let alone howe to use it. You have no idea what
the hell you are talking about. Stick to teaching us howe to train a forced
retrieve. You know, the part with the ear pinching and toe twisting? That's
your speed. Anything more intelligent than that goes right over your swollen
head. Post the forced retrieve. I dare you. J>>>
"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious
truth if it would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which
they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, proudly taught to others,
and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their
lives."
Leo Tolstoy
Is it any wonder that the following sig file has generated more
complaints to my personal email than any other controversial post I have
made to date, bar none?:
caveat
If you have to do things to your dog to train him, that you would
rather not have to do, then you shouldn't be doing them. If you
have a dog trainer that tells you to jerk your dog around, choke him,
pinch his ears, or twist his toes, shock, shake, slap, scold, hit, or
punish him in any manner, that corrections are appropriate, that the
dog won't think of you as the punisher, or that corrections are not
harmful, or if they can't train your dog to do what you want, look for a
trainer that knows Howe.
Ron Hardin
The reversing course in Koehler is one of the nicest tricks around;
the dog, being already six months old, is able to comprehend the physics
of the situation very quickly and is not caught unawares again easily.
It is simple, can be done instantly at any time it's called for,
and remarkably effective. (Look at Koehler's remedy for walking
on the wrong side of a tree on leash, and try it, to see how
easily and quickly a dog works out certain kinds of physics problems.
I have the feeling it's in the Open Obedience book. He uses this
exercise to taunt psych students.)
The reverse establishes automatically and easily that no matter how exciting
a new place is when you get out of the car, the more exciting it is the
more important to watch the handler very carefully. Priorities change
for the better.
As for its hurting the dog, it plainly does not, as you can tell
instantly when you do it. The reaction isn't panic but ``hmmm, I'd
better watch.'' You don't jerk the line, the dog does, is the
way he sees it. Since you are heavier than him, you have the
right of way, he reasons.
There's a border collie who's often chained out in the back yard when
I go by on my bicycle every day, and _every day_ he charges the full length
of the tie-out, hits the end of the line, and flips over full speed.
For some reason they learn something when there's somebody walking the
other way on the end of the lead, but this shows that it's not traumatic.
Lynn Kosmakos
Ron Hardin wrote:
> The reversing course in Koehler is one of the nicest tricks around;
> the dog, being already six months old, is able to comprehend the physics
> of the situation very quickly and is not caught unawares again easily.
And that's a key reason why I don't use that technique - it just
never comes up if you begin training a pup on attention at 8 or 10
weeks old. There's been a lot of really good work in the past
decade by many people on very early shaping of competitive heeling.
If you use those techniques, you simply don't have a 6 month old
pup who doesn't already know his position at your side with his
eyes on your face.
Lynn K.
Deirdre Edwards
>
>
> Hello Cindy,
>
> You are unaware of the concept, let alone howe to use it. You have no idea what
> the hell you are talking about. Stick to teaching us howe to train a forced
> retrieve. You know, the part with the ear pinching and toe twisting? That's
> your speed. Anything more intelligent than that goes right over your swollen
> head. Post the forced retrieve. I dare you. J>>>
RATTLE RATTLE RATTLE
Good boy! That's a good boy that stays on topic, yes he does, yes he
does! And his sig isn't too long, nonono, 'cause he's a good boy, yes
he is. He's not the least bit vicious, is he? Oh no, he's a good boy!
Well, it was worth a try :)
--Deirdre
Leon Milberg
>I think it's effective for some dogs. But believe me I've run into
>some dogs that if you pump them up like this, their brain shuts down
>and you get nothing.
>
>Again, training isn't a one-size-fits-all suit. Some dogs benefit from
>pumping up, others don't. Some will zoom up quickly, others take more
>work.
>
>Read your dog, tailor your approach to work best with that dog's
>temperament. Difficult? You bet. You learn how to train with one
>dog, and learn all over again with the next.
I am sure you are correct. But you missed the most important part of
the post (to me anyway!). How would you train those two behaviors
(long down stay, and a highly distracted off leash recall)? I would
like to compare several trainers procedures for doing these specific
obedience exercises.
Leon Milberg le...@4pet.net
Jerry Howe
Hello Deirdre,
You haven't been paying attention. It's one brief sound and five to fifteen seconds
of praise. And it can be used to break or teach a behavior. No need to pinch ears or
twist toes. J>>>
FREDERICK HASSEN
>Hello Deirdre,
>You haven't been paying attention. It's one brief
>sound and five to fifteen seconds of praise. And
>it can be used to break or teach a behavior. No
>need to pinch ears or twist toes. J>>>
Yep, this is the big secret of why all the pitbull owners come to Jer
for his dog aggression specialty. He forgets to add about what he does
when the dog laughs at the sound, and what he does with the fighting
dogs while he's standing there praising for 15 seconds. Just when you
think Ol' Jer's run out of material.
Ron Hardin
I hope you don't mean the heeling where the dog looks up at you, which
I find disgusting. I want the dog watching me out
of the very corner of her eye. It's mainly a constant awareness
that you want. She's supposed to be watching whatever interests
her on walks, except she has to be aware of me all the time.
Susie and I heeled for miles at a time sometimes, on main roads.
Every 4th of July we'd heel through the milling crowds on the main
street of the town with the rides, and I'd try to lose her, without
success, and off lead. Yet to the eye she's a dog walking by my side,
with no signs of anything special except that that itself is unusual
these days.
Anyway it's so easy to teach to absolute reliability, with persistence
and creative use of what distractions come up from time to time, that
there's no reason to do anything else.
canis55
le...@4pet.net wrote:
> canis, Amy and Others:
>
> >If we look at the Koehler method, we see that all the basic obedience
> >positions and behaviors are presented to the dog in a medium to low
> >drive emotional state. My own observations and experience suggest
that
> >dogs learn quicker and more completely when excited into a high drive
> >state. Once the behaviors have been taught, they can then be
presented
> >in a calmer emotional state with near perfect reliability.
>
> situation (i.e. the down command). I think it is quite effective, but
> using high drive. When I get my dogs excited there is NO chance of
> getting them to stay in one spot for a long time.
Well, you would already need to have taught stay. If the dog's popping
up right away (like a push-up), that's fine cause the idea is to make
sure that the dog is smacking it's chest to the ground at the word
"down". You could try incorporating a short crawl extended from the down
to get the idea across of staying down. It depends on the dog and what
it's doing. Let's say you've already perfected the two exercises I've
previously posted, Lee Kelley's "Trick or Treat" & "The Emotional Stay".
You could start teaching a down/stay, but I'd wait till I've taught the
Stay (in a sitting position) with Ultimate Distraction.
I guess if I had to come up with some quick solution over the net,
without doing everything I would have done prior to having the dog do
something like a down stay, I'd say, if you're using wrestling to work
the dog up and your empty hand to target him, switch to a tennis ball
and don't throw the tennis ball until you've got even the briefest stay,
then "okay" and throw the ball and praise the hell out of the dog. When
he turns, produce another tennis ball--he should drop the other
one--repeat. This really isn't beyond him. Dogs will often go into a
down/stay on their own while hunting. You've just got to patiently show
him what he must do to have the opportunity to chase and bite that ball.
Again, it depends on what exactly the dog is doing. Just give the dog
time to go at his own pace of learning. It will click for him if you
keep presenting the problem. Something resembling the finished behavior
will surface from him. That's the one that triggers the tennis ball.
Don't say "no" or feed the wrong response in any way. If the dog gets
frustrated, do something else and come back to this later.
Keep in mind that anything I'm teaching will be rewarded for even an
approximate behavior, then you start only rewarding behaviors that get
closer and closer to the finished behavior. If the dog tries the
finished behavior (let's say a stay without any shifting, tail wagging,
or other signs of anxiety) right away fine, but this isn't usually the
case. The most important thing is to have the enthusiasm right from the
beginning.
Something else to think about here: Watch two dogs play. Do they freeze
at points, and then trigger the play again by a sudden movement? That's
the energy and behavior your trying to simulate. Try it without the down
first. Get the dog used to doing *that* with you. It's the same
emotional posture you're working towards with the down stay in the
way you're teaching it.
Additionally I have
> trouble with the off leash recall when they are in a high drive state.
> I have about 85% recall with one dog and 70% with the other (of course
> the 85% dog is dropping in performance now that I have a 70% dog!).
> This usually occurs with fun activities like swimming and greeting
> other dogs.
70% percent recall with distraction is not too shabby to begin with,
Leon. What the hell are you bitching about? A good many of these
competition dogs don't have much better without a 30 minute "warm up"
before an event.
Once again, and to an even greater degree this time, you're asking me to
tell you how to train something that I would have been training into the
dog from the very beginning. Everything I would have been doing with the
dog, and also not doing (using the word "no" or using direct
corrections), would have been instilling one of the strongest recalls in
the business. So short of using a shock here, which is what I'd probably
do, let me ask you what the dogs are running towards within the context
of their recall? I mean what are *you* doing as they run towards you?
What happens when they get to you? Also, when they fail to respond to
the recall, is it partial or total? Do they look up? Do they turn and
then turn back?
How would you each train and proof these two obedience
> behaviors? It would be great to compare each of your different
> techniques on both behaviors.
>
You happen to be a real SOB for posting this, Leon. There's really a lot
involved in the process of training these things. For Amy and I to start
going through it step by step, would almost require book length
manuscripts from us.
I hope I've gotten at least close to a satisfactory explanation. I
still like you and I still like dolphins, but you're pushing it,
Professor. If you review my posts, you'll see I'm about due to go
ballistic on somebody.
Just kidding, Leon, in case you weren't sure. You're all right in my
book. Always were, and always will be.
canis55
Lynn Kosmakos
Leon Milberg wrote:
>
> How would you train those two behaviors
> (long down stay, and a highly distracted off leash recall)?
Proofing, proofing and more proofing. The dog obviously knows
both down and recall, so the need is proofing in lots of
situations to convince the dog that the rewards of obeying the
command are more attractive than getting up to investigate a
spot or romping with another dog instead of coming when called.
I believe that the easiest way to teach a rock-solid recall is
to start at the earliest weeks with lots of daily fun recalls -
high, happy voice, down at the pups level. Lots of calling the
pup out of play with other pups, always letting him return to
play after being rewarded and praised heartily. The recall is
fun and doesn't stop play time. It works. I saw Diane Blackman's
14 week old pup recently, and that pup comes happily and immediately
whenever he's called, without fail, using these methods. He gets
lots of praise for doing so, and he's very proud of himself for it.
Proofing the long down is actually proofing the Stay. Thinking up
interesting distractions is a big part of the fun. We've used
flapping chickens, thrown balls, guns, people and dogs jumping
over the dog, strolling cats (and one unfortunate spitting llama).
I like to do it in a group, working to a point where the handlers
are out of sight, leaving one person to call people back if their
dog breaks. The person left can stand on the lead of less steady
dogs, so they'll give themselves a reminder if they start to break.
I believe that the presence of other dogs relaxed in a down
reinforces the learning process.
Was that the kind of thing you were looking for?
Lynn K.
Patrick M. Hennessey
<dei...@mail.biol.sc.edu> wrote:
>Jerry Howe wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hello Cindy,
>>
>> You are unaware of the concept, let alone howe to use it. You have no idea what
>> the hell you are talking about. Stick to teaching us howe to train a forced
>> retrieve. You know, the part with the ear pinching and toe twisting? That's
>> your speed. Anything more intelligent than that goes right over your swollen
>> head. Post the forced retrieve. I dare you. J>>>
>
>RATTLE RATTLE RATTLE
>
>Good boy! That's a good boy that stays on topic, yes he does, yes he
>does! And his sig isn't too long, nonono, 'cause he's a good boy, yes
>he is. He's not the least bit vicious, is he? Oh no, he's a good boy!
>
>Well, it was worth a try :)
LOL You didn't touch him, did you? (ick) Because the distraction is
supposed to be followed by prolonged *non-physical* praise.
That was a good one, Deirdre!
Sally Hennessey
Marilyn Rammell
canis55 <can...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7qek0s$4t5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Hi Canis,
I have been out of touch with the ng. a touch lately, but today was trying
to catch up a little. I find this thread interesting and informative.
Particularly your post which is so well written and puts into words so
beautifully, so many of my scrambled thoughts. - Thank you.
regards,
Marilyn
> Amy,
>
> A few threads back, you said something about not having to deal with
> behavior problems because working dogs don't have behavior problems.
> Then, in another thread, you said something about a client not being
> able to control her dog, while you were able to elicit satisfactory
> obedience from the same dog. I'm paraphrasing here, so cut me some slack
> on the misread. I'm aware of it. That's why I didn't comment.
>
> My objection to the Koehler method is not the presence of corrections.
> The biggest problem with Koehler is that he establishes, from the very
> beginning, an adversarial or antagonistic relationship between dog and
> handler. This goes against the very nature of a dog. They are highly
> cooperative animals, designed to hunt within a harmonious unit. *This*
> is why you don't see behavior problems in working dogs. See, when you've
> got this hunting thing going, most dogs can work around and overcome all
> the damage created by a dominance training model. They're really amazing
> creatures. Remember when you said that the work seems to be the greatest
> reward, and the greatest reinforcement? (I'm paraphrasing again.) You
> are absolutely right. It also happens to be one of the greatest
> curatives for behavior problems.
>
> I'm not sure if you understand what I'm saying, but I do know--from
> reading your posts--that if I'm stating this well enough, you and I
> agree here.
>
> I'm asking you to consider what would happen if we started all training
> by playing hunting games with the dog. What if we channeled this
> predatory impulse and this need to cooperate into obedience? Everything
> we're asking of the dog, from a sit/stay to a heel, is a natural
> behavior. The only unnatural thing is that the dog be required to do it
> on command and for a definite period of time. If we establish, right
> from the beginning, that all these commanded behaviors are orientated
> towards chasing and biting--given that stalking is not outside a dog's
> naturally occurring repertoire--we can achieve the same enthusiasm and
> willingness in basic obedience that you see in a working retriever.
>
> Now, if my hypothesis regarding why you don't see behavior problems in
> working dogs is correct, then we shouldn't see behavior problems in
> family pets who have been trained through cooperative hunting games. My
> experience supports this hypothesis. What I don't know, but do strongly
> suspect, is that if working dogs were trained through cooperative
> hunting games from the very beginning, they would train faster and prove
> more reliable.
>
> Koehler's greatest failure is that, for the most part, he trains against
> what a dog naturally is. This forces the dog to work around the whole
> technique. Some of them can actually do it. They're amazing creatures.
> The problem is that most of them can't work around it entirely, and some
> of them can't work around it at all. That's when we see the behavior
> problems and the total obedience washouts. The latter half of his famous
> book instructs us to escalate our own aggression towards the dogs, as a
> consequence of what he perceives as their willful disobedience or
> challenge to his authority. This, to me at least, reads as though we are
> to take these misbehaviors as a personal assault. They aren't. They are
> an assault on the training model. Nothing more. When we fail to
> recognize this, and simply apply more dominance, we are basically
> attempting to force a round peg into a square hole.
>
> If we look at the Koehler method, we see that all the basic obedience
> positions and behaviors are presented to the dog in a medium to low
> drive emotional state. My own observations and experience suggest that
> dogs learn quicker and more completely when excited into a high drive
> state. Once the behaviors have been taught, they can then be presented
> in a calmer emotional state with near perfect reliability.
>
> Furthermore, Koehler recommends that the dog be physically manipulated
> (pushed, pulled, yanked) into the various positions and behaviors, to
> show the dog what we want when we say a certain word. I don't know if
> this is cruel in the sense of what most people would perceive as cruel.
> Pushing a dog's ass firmly but gently to the ground is not, in my
> opinion, cruel in and of itself, nor is hauling him in on a lunge line.
> (We'll leave stepping on a leash and drawing the dog's chin to the
> ground out of this for now.) However, the very process of pushing or
> pulling the dog will create resistance toward the behavior. Again, not a
> big deal. If, however, I administer a leash correction in reaction to
> this resistance--which is exactly what Koehler recommends--then it
> becomes cruel. It is cruel because I am holding the dog responsible for
> the resistance (a slowness to comply) which I myself have instilled.
>
> What should really take place, is that *I* should receive the
> correction. I should receive a shock, telling me to go back and examine
> the way I've originally taught the behavior. If I want quick compliance,
> I should teach the word for the behavior in a high drive state. I should
> bait the dog, within the context of a hunting game, into whatever
> position I want. This promotes the same enthusiasm for all these basic
> obedience commands that you see in a retrieve.
>
> To me, this stuff is both simple and obvious. I've been saying it over
> and over again on this ng until I've begun to bore even myself. The only
> reason I've gone ahead and written it again is because I've been reading
> your posts, and I get the impression that you've also seen this same
> thing. Although, not training family pets, you may not yet have
> identified it.
>
> So Amy, it's not an improper application of the Koehler method that I
> see as creating problems. It's the inability of most dogs to overcome
> the poorly thought out and flawed approach. Everything I've seen tells
> me that in the 20 to 35% of the dogs where we could pretty much say the
> Koehler method proves successful, it's the dogs that prove successful,
> and not the approach. These dogs could be trained using any method. To
> say that the dogs who wash out or develop behavior problems are poorly
> bred, is unfair to dogs. It's like saying a round peg that fails to
> modify itself to accommodate a square hole is a mis-shaped peg. The
> hole's supposed to be round to accommodate the peg.
>
> If a peg manages to get inside that square hole often enough, we should
> say, "Now that's an extraordinary peg." It's foolish to accept this as
> evidence of a well designed hole, and to believe that the other pegs
> were just introduced at an improper angle, or that they were poorly
> lathed pegs to begin with.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In article <37C94494...@oakhillkennel.com>,
> Amy Dahl <a...@oakhillkennel.com> wrote:
> > The best way to find out about Koehler's method is to read his
> > book, "The Koehler Method of Dog Training." There is a phone
> > number you can call to order the book at
> > http://www.koehlerdogtraining.com .
> >
> > There is controversy. Koehler himself believed that cruelty lies
> > in indefinite handling, lack of clarity, and an attitude that
> > denies dogs responsibility for their own actions. He also
> > believes (with good reason based on experience) that dogs can
> > be trained to extreme levels of responsibility--following which
> > they can be included in their owners' lives to a high degree.
> >
> > Koehler's detractors believe his method is cruel because it
> > makes use of physical corrections. My impression is that
> > their opinions are fueled by application of Koehler's name
> > to a lot of badly-done, abusive training which Koehler himself
> > would repudiate. Koehler is dead, but I know a couple of people
> > who took classes from him, and apparently he would come down on
> > you like a ton of bricks if you did anything he considered the
> > least bit unfair to your dog.
> >
> > Koehler does not recommend any punishment in the *training* of
> > dogs. He does put forward some solutions to certain behavior
> > problems which are punitive in that the unpleasant consequences
> > are not immediately associated with the behavior. He stresses,
> > however, that these methods are not to be used until after a
> > dog's obedience training is complete, because many problems
> > resolve on their own with training.
> >
> > I have used the method on a variety of dogs and find that the
> > dogs respond with enthusiasm and eagerness to work--but I think
> > the fact that it suits my own style and attitudes helps me to
> > be successful. If you read the book and find it does not appeal
> > to you, probably you would do better with another method.
> >
> > Vicki Hearne has written a book, "Adam's Task," in which she
> > further explores the issues of what is "kindness" and what
> > is "cruelty" which are raised by Koehler's books and the
> > methods and criticisms proposed by his detractors.
> >
> > [posted and mailed]
> >
> > Mad Cow wrote:
> > >
> > > I've heard about the Koehler method re: dog training. Can someone
> please
> > > tell me what this is. There seems to be some controversy re: this.
> The word
> > > 'cruel' pops up frequently. What type of punishment exactly does
> Koehler
> > > use?
> > >
> > > Posts welcomed, email replies preferred.
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> >
> > --
> > Amy Frost Dahl Retriever Training phone:
> (910) 295-6710
> > Oak Hill Kennel & Handling
> email: a...@oakhillkennel.com
> > Pinehurst, NC 28370
> (http://www.oakhillkennel.com)
> >
> >
>
Leon Milberg
>Was that the kind of thing you were looking for?
Yes thank you!!! Hopefully others will also respond. It would be
terrific to compare others' techniques for the long down stay and a
distracted recall.
Leon Milberg le...@4pet.net
Lynn Kosmakos
Ron Hardin wrote:
> I hope you don't mean the heeling where the dog looks up at you, which
> I find disgusting. I want the dog watching me out
> of the very corner of her eye.
Yeah, I do mean attention heeling, but I train both, because I
have use for both since I compete and walk casually with my dogs.
They aren't mutually exclusive. The bottom line is that if you
start shaping the very young pup to the position and attention
to you, you don't have any need for the "reverse direction"
thing at 6 months. It's just a matter of being proactive, rather
than reactive. Of course, that's no help for someone who is
getting a dog after those early puppy weeks :-)
Lynn K.
Amy Dahl
Sorry it has taken so long to reply to this. Sometimes my
newsreader doesn't display posts--this one showed up this
morning.
canis55 wrote:
>
> Amy,
>
> A few threads back, you said something about not having to deal with
> behavior problems because working dogs don't have behavior problems.
> Then, in another thread, you said something about a client not being
> able to control her dog, while you were able to elicit satisfactory
> obedience from the same dog. I'm paraphrasing here, so cut me some slack
> on the misread. I'm aware of it. That's why I didn't comment.
Thank you for the compliment of reading my posts so closely.
Most of my work consists of training dogs for other people.
The dogs board here for several months during training. They
generally have few to no behavior problems, while here or at
home, and show great adaptability.
Occasionally, because this is not an urban area with better
alternatives, someone comes to me with a dog with behavior
problems. I do not claim to be knowledgeable in this area,
but sometimes judge that it's better to try than to refuse
to help. The particular dog whose owner couldn't control it
was a male yellow Lab who had bitten more than once. It was
basically a dog with a dominant nature who made all of the
rules and enforced them with his teeth. I could not take
this dog, re-train and place him because of his history of
biting, and I wasn't confident that even if I trained him
pro bono, he would change his attitude toward his owner (he
was about four years old). So I tried to persuade her to
alter the relationship, using training as the means. I worked
with her for two weeks and she saw great improvement in the
dog--then she lapsed back into her authority-less stance of
cooing requests at the dog, quit coming to our scheduled
sessions, and didn't return my calls. I heard from someone
else later that he had bitten again and been euthanized.
>
> My objection to the Koehler method is not the presence of corrections.
> The biggest problem with Koehler is that he establishes, from the very
> beginning, an adversarial or antagonistic relationship between dog and
> handler. This goes against the very nature of a dog.
I already addressed this when I saw it quoted elsewhere.
What I feel is Koehler's greatest genius is that he establishes
authority in a nonconfrontational manner, gradually, through the
process of teaching the series of exercises. When I employ the
method, I don't feel it is adversarial, and it is certainly not
antagonistic (although I suppose Koehler's writing style might
make you think so. I believe he intended to convey something else).
I get a cooperative response immediately with most dogs. Others
experiment around to define the limits, but do not respond as
though they have been challenged or threatened.
The cooperation business is intimately tied up with canines'
hierarchical social structure. I dislike talking in terms of
"dominance" because it conjures up a caricature of an insecure
brute who feels a need to "show 'im who's boss." But I think
it's inescapable canine nature that they respect and love a
leader. I see providing good leadership as the responsibility
of anyone who would work with a dog.
I struggled with this when I was starting out. My first dog
was a big Lab and I agonized over what gave me the right to
command him to "sit." I forced myself to go to training classes
for the practical reason that he was going to be a large dog
and would need good manners. Probably I have never fully
satisfied my philosophical problem--what gives *me* the right
to "make" a dog do anything--but it has become overbalanced, in
my mind, by the great benefits to a dog of being trained--which
I see over and over and over again. They love it, and it gives
them lots of scope to participate in their owners' lives.
They are highly
> cooperative animals, designed to hunt within a harmonious unit. *This*
> is why you don't see behavior problems in working dogs. See, when you've
> got this hunting thing going, most dogs can work around and overcome all
> the damage created by a dominance training model. They're really amazing
> creatures. Remember when you said that the work seems to be the greatest
> reward, and the greatest reinforcement? (I'm paraphrasing again.) You
> are absolutely right. It also happens to be one of the greatest
> curatives for behavior problems.
I think you and I have serious difference in our paradigms for
training and for dog behavior. I hope you take this post as
a sincere response, an attempt to articulate my point of view,
even though I don't feel we can come to a complete understanding
because of our differences. I don't believe my "training model"
in terms of responsible leadership, or dominance if you must, does
damage. Quite the opposite. I see dogs respond positively to the
structure of basic obedience, before ever beginning retrieve work.
>
> I'm not sure if you understand what I'm saying, but I do know--from
> reading your posts--that if I'm stating this well enough, you and I
> agree here.
>
> I'm asking you to consider what would happen if we started all training
> by playing hunting games with the dog. What if we channeled this
> predatory impulse and this need to cooperate into obedience? Everything
> we're asking of the dog, from a sit/stay to a heel, is a natural
> behavior. The only unnatural thing is that the dog be required to do it
> on command and for a definite period of time. If we establish, right
> from the beginning, that all these commanded behaviors are orientated
> towards chasing and biting--given that stalking is not outside a dog's
> naturally occurring repertoire--we can achieve the same enthusiasm and
> willingness in basic obedience that you see in a working retriever.
When I raise a puppy, one of my goals is to foster enthusiasm for
work and training. What I do may be similar to what you suggest.
I disagree, however, with the statement that behavior on command
is unnatural. It has been awhile since I have read L. David Mech,
but I am pretty sure he characterized wolf commands for "stay where
you are" as well as others.
My experience is that obedience commands such as "heel" do not
need to be linked to chasing and biting for dogs to respond
enthusiastically. Most dogs I have trained love heeling when
I teach it as Koehler recommends--so much so that I can readily
use heeling as a reward during the learning phase of other
exercises. They respond to it as a big game.
>
> Now, if my hypothesis regarding why you don't see behavior problems in
> working dogs is correct, then we shouldn't see behavior problems in
> family pets who have been trained through cooperative hunting games. My
> experience supports this hypothesis. What I don't know, but do strongly
> suspect, is that if working dogs were trained through cooperative
> hunting games from the very beginning, they would train faster and prove
> more reliable.
I believe your expectation here is incorrect. Many hunters who train
their own dogs proceed this way, since it is easier than a structured
training program, and places fewer demands of consistency and
commitment. In general we see a lot of reliability problems with dogs
trained this way. Of course I know of no really experienced trainers
who try to train in the manner you have described, so that may bias
the sample--but it begs the question of *why* experienced retriever
trainers all elect structured programs based on obedience.
I believe the answer is (1) if you are going to take someone's
money to train their dog, you want to make sure it will be reliable;
and (2) it's a hell of a lot faster to start with obedience and go
step-by-step.
The great counterexample to your hypothesis is with pet/hunting
Chesapeakes who exhibit behavior problems. They may be massaged into
a high level of hunting proficiency through the approach you describe,
but if the owner is not their master, providing leadership as needed,
they tend to become uncooperative in various ways and often end up biting.
As a Chesapeake breeder I have explored this issue at length in the
interest of reliably placing puppies in homes where they will be
successes not disasters.
>
> Koehler's greatest failure is that, for the most part, he trains against
> what a dog naturally is. This forces the dog to work around the whole
> technique. Some of them can actually do it. They're amazing creatures.
> The problem is that most of them can't work around it entirely, and some
> of them can't work around it at all. That's when we see the behavior
> problems and the total obedience washouts. The latter half of his famous
> book instructs us to escalate our own aggression towards the dogs, as a
> consequence of what he perceives as their willful disobedience or
> challenge to his authority. This, to me at least, reads as though we are
> to take these misbehaviors as a personal assault. They aren't. They are
> an assault on the training model. Nothing more. When we fail to
> recognize this, and simply apply more dominance, we are basically
> attempting to force a round peg into a square hole.
This is so different from my experience with the method, all I
can say is I think the practitioner makes a difference. I think,
though, that Koehler himself would discourage anyone from taking
their dogs' behavior personally--except insofar as you could learn
from it what your training mistakes were.
>
> If we look at the Koehler method, we see that all the basic obedience
> positions and behaviors are presented to the dog in a medium to low
> drive emotional state. My own observations and experience suggest that
> dogs learn quicker and more completely when excited into a high drive
> state. Once the behaviors have been taught, they can then be presented
> in a calmer emotional state with near perfect reliability.
Here's where the difference of paradigm makes it difficult to
continue the discussion. In my approach, one of the primary
goals is for the dog to learn the self-discipline to react to
things calmly. I can think of only one circumstance where I
try to excite a dog, and that is when I am trying to introduce
a play-retrieve to a dog that has never done one before.
>
> Furthermore, Koehler recommends that the dog be physically manipulated
> (pushed, pulled, yanked) into the various positions and behaviors, to
> show the dog what we want when we say a certain word. I don't know if
> this is cruel in the sense of what most people would perceive as cruel.
> Pushing a dog's ass firmly but gently to the ground is not, in my
> opinion, cruel in and of itself, nor is hauling him in on a lunge line.
> (We'll leave stepping on a leash and drawing the dog's chin to the
> ground out of this for now.)
Let me interject that Koehler is adamant that leash-stepping is
a poor procedure.
However, the very process of pushing or
> pulling the dog will create resistance toward the behavior. Again, not a
> big deal. If, however, I administer a leash correction in reaction to
> this resistance--which is exactly what Koehler recommends--
I think you have misread Koehler here. The only place I remember his
recommending a leash correction for resistance to a *new* exercise or
manipulation is when the dumbbell is placed in the dog's mouth for the
"fetch" command.
I am pretty sure that Koehler would contend that pushing or pulling
in such a manner as to create resistance is poor procedure, except
in teaching of the sit-stay where the dog's resistance to a gentle
tug on the leash helps it to be successful.
then it
> becomes cruel. It is cruel because I am holding the dog responsible for
> the resistance (a slowness to comply) which I myself have instilled.
I believe Koehler would agree with you. I agree with you. Perhaps
that is the pitfall of his method: if you don't do it well, you
hold the dog responsible for your own errors.
>
> What should really take place, is that *I* should receive the
> correction. I should receive a shock, telling me to go back and examine
> the way I've originally taught the behavior. If I want quick compliance,
> I should teach the word for the behavior in a high drive state. I should
> bait the dog, within the context of a hunting game, into whatever
> position I want. This promotes the same enthusiasm for all these basic
> obedience commands that you see in a retrieve.
I find it hard to relate to the idea of teaching a dog in a
"high drive state" because I always want the dog as calm, sensible,
and self-disciplined as possible.
>
> To me, this stuff is both simple and obvious. I've been saying it over
> and over again on this ng until I've begun to bore even myself. The only
> reason I've gone ahead and written it again is because I've been reading
> your posts, and I get the impression that you've also seen this same
> thing. Although, not training family pets, you may not yet have
> identified it.
>
> So Amy, it's not an improper application of the Koehler method that I
> see as creating problems. It's the inability of most dogs to overcome
> the poorly thought out and flawed approach. Everything I've seen tells
> me that in the 20 to 35% of the dogs where we could pretty much say the
> Koehler method proves successful, it's the dogs that prove successful,
> and not the approach. These dogs could be trained using any method. To
> say that the dogs who wash out or develop behavior problems are poorly
> bred, is unfair to dogs. It's like saying a round peg that fails to
> modify itself to accommodate a square hole is a mis-shaped peg. The
> hole's supposed to be round to accommodate the peg.
I'm going to reiterate my opinion that the trainer applying the
method is an important factor. If people cannot read Koehler and
avoid the pitfalls he tells them to avoid, they are probably
better off not using the method. In his classes, he apparently
clobbered anyone who was the least bit unfair to their dog. His
method requires absolute consistency and commitment on that
point. Without him to supervise, probably many trainers are
better off not trying to train from his book.
On the subject of washouts, we wash dogs out mainly if they
lack the interest in retrieving or in birds to brave forbidding
conditions to bring one back. Since money is a factor in
professional training, we will also inform the owner if their
dog is not smart enough to learn all of the material in the
time allowed by their budget. It doesn't mean their dog can't
be trained, but that the result they might get is not worth the
expense. This, of course, varies, and we have had some of these
"slow" dogs blossom out with extended training.
Dog Game SuperStar
>
> Every now and then someone composes a post which should be read by
> everyone. This is one.
And I concur.
This is Michael
Reporting Live...
From the SuperDog Station
http://dogtv.com
HOPE IS ALIVE
People we are all visit this place to learn and
> share what we know. Let us not forget the the animals we love and
> protect should be the true benefactors of our endeavors.
>
> Read with an open mind. If you conclude a writer makes sense, will
> yourself to cast aside your previous methodology. For quite a time, I
> have observed the threads here content to only rarely post a reply.
> However, the post to which I refer here is the most true observation
> into the art/science of dog training I have read in this forum. Please
> read it with an open mind and grant the topic the analytical and
> informed discussion it so rightly deserves.
>
> In article <7qek0s$4t5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> canis55 <can...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Amy,
> >
> > A few threads back, you said something about not having to deal with
> > behavior problems because working dogs don't have behavior problems.
> > Then, in another thread, you said something about a client not being
> > able to control her dog, while you were able to elicit satisfactory
> > obedience from the same dog. I'm paraphrasing here, so cut me some
> slack
> > on the misread. I'm aware of it. That's why I didn't comment.
> >
> > My objection to the Koehler method is not the presence of corrections.
> > The biggest problem with Koehler is that he establishes, from the very
> > beginning, an adversarial or antagonistic relationship between dog and
> > handler. This goes against the very nature of a dog. They are highly
> > cooperative animals, designed to hunt within a harmonious unit. *This*
> > is why you don't see behavior problems in working dogs. See, when
> you've
> > got this hunting thing going, most dogs can work around and overcome
> all
> > the damage created by a dominance training model. They're really
> amazing
> > creatures. Remember when you said that the work seems to be the
> greatest
> > reward, and the greatest reinforcement? (I'm paraphrasing again.) You
> > are absolutely right. It also happens to be one of the greatest
> > curatives for behavior problems.
> >
> > I'm not sure if you understand what I'm saying, but I do know--from
> > reading your posts--that if I'm stating this well enough, you and I
> > agree here.
> >
> > I'm asking you to consider what would happen if we started all
> training
> > by playing hunting games with the dog. What if we channeled this
> > predatory impulse and this need to cooperate into obedience?
> Everything
> > we're asking of the dog, from a sit/stay to a heel, is a natural
> > behavior. The only unnatural thing is that the dog be required to do
> it
> > on command and for a definite period of time. If we establish, right
> > from the beginning, that all these commanded behaviors are orientated
> > towards chasing and biting--given that stalking is not outside a dog's
> > naturally occurring repertoire--we can achieve the same enthusiasm and
> > willingness in basic obedience that you see in a working retriever.
> >
> > Now, if my hypothesis regarding why you don't see behavior problems in
> > working dogs is correct, then we shouldn't see behavior problems in
> > family pets who have been trained through cooperative hunting games.
> My
> > experience supports this hypothesis. What I don't know, but do
> strongly
> > suspect, is that if working dogs were trained through cooperative
> > hunting games from the very beginning, they would train faster and
> prove
> > more reliable.
> >
> > Koehler's greatest failure is that, for the most part, he trains
> against
> > what a dog naturally is. This forces the dog to work around the whole
> > technique. Some of them can actually do it. They're amazing creatures.
> > The problem is that most of them can't work around it entirely, and
> some
> > of them can't work around it at all. That's when we see the behavior
> > problems and the total obedience washouts. The latter half of his
> famous
> > book instructs us to escalate our own aggression towards the dogs, as
> a
> > consequence of what he perceives as their willful disobedience or
> > challenge to his authority. This, to me at least, reads as though we
> are
> > to take these misbehaviors as a personal assault. They aren't. They
> are
> > an assault on the training model. Nothing more. When we fail to
> > recognize this, and simply apply more dominance, we are basically
> > attempting to force a round peg into a square hole.
> >
> > If we look at the Koehler method, we see that all the basic obedience
> > positions and behaviors are presented to the dog in a medium to low
> > drive emotional state. My own observations and experience suggest that
> > dogs learn quicker and more completely when excited into a high drive
> > state. Once the behaviors have been taught, they can then be presented
> > in a calmer emotional state with near perfect reliability.
> >
> > Furthermore, Koehler recommends that the dog be physically manipulated
> > (pushed, pulled, yanked) into the various positions and behaviors, to
> > show the dog what we want when we say a certain word. I don't know if
> > this is cruel in the sense of what most people would perceive as
> cruel.
> > Pushing a dog's ass firmly but gently to the ground is not, in my
> > opinion, cruel in and of itself, nor is hauling him in on a lunge
> line.
> > (We'll leave stepping on a leash and drawing the dog's chin to the
> > ground out of this for now.) However, the very process of pushing or
> > pulling the dog will create resistance toward the behavior. Again, not
> a
> > big deal. If, however, I administer a leash correction in reaction to
> > this resistance--which is exactly what Koehler recommends--then it
> > becomes cruel. It is cruel because I am holding the dog responsible
> for
> > the resistance (a slowness to comply) which I myself have instilled.
> >
> > What should really take place, is that *I* should receive the
> > correction. I should receive a shock, telling me to go back and
> examine
> > the way I've originally taught the behavior. If I want quick
> compliance,
> > I should teach the word for the behavior in a high drive state. I
> should
> > bait the dog, within the context of a hunting game, into whatever
> > position I want. This promotes the same enthusiasm for all these basic
> > obedience commands that you see in a retrieve.
> >
> > To me, this stuff is both simple and obvious. I've been saying it over
> > and over again on this ng until I've begun to bore even myself. The
> only
> > reason I've gone ahead and written it again is because I've been
> reading
> > your posts, and I get the impression that you've also seen this same
> > thing. Although, not training family pets, you may not yet have
> > identified it.
> >
> > So Amy, it's not an improper application of the Koehler method that I
> > see as creating problems. It's the inability of most dogs to overcome
> > the poorly thought out and flawed approach. Everything I've seen tells
> > me that in the 20 to 35% of the dogs where we could pretty much say
> the
> > Koehler method proves successful, it's the dogs that prove successful,
> > and not the approach. These dogs could be trained using any method. To
> > say that the dogs who wash out or develop behavior problems are poorly
> > bred, is unfair to dogs. It's like saying a round peg that fails to
> > modify itself to accommodate a square hole is a mis-shaped peg. The
> > hole's supposed to be round to accommodate the peg.
> >
> > > --
> > > Amy Frost Dahl Retriever Training phone:
> > (910) 295-6710
> > > Oak Hill Kennel & Handling
> > email: a...@oakhillkennel.com
> > > Pinehurst, NC 28370
> > (http://www.oakhillkennel.com)
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > I trains'em as I sees'em.
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
> >
>
> --
> If you care, please visit www.naturaldogtraining.com
> "Having a car all your life doesn't make you a mechanic,
> the same is true with dogs and dog trainers."
> Learn how to train your dog, and how to educate owners.
>
Marilyn Rammell
How would you train those two behaviors
> (long down stay, and a highly distracted off leash recall)? I would
> like to compare several trainers procedures for doing these specific
> obedience exercises.
>
>
> Leon Milberg le...@4pet.net
Hi Leon,
Teaching Long Down Stay: All students attending my classes must
successfully leave their dogs for 10 minutes out of sight 'down/stay' in
order to achieve pass in their test. The following, is how I teach dogs
'reliable long term down/stay', results should be that the dog will stay for
at least 10 minutes in or out of sight.
The dog is taught right from the start to either react to a command, or do
nothing. (remain still). This may not be clear at this stage, and it is so
much easier to demonstrate than to describe here on a ng. We start teaching
'sit/stay' while teaching 'heel'. The dog is taught that heel means 'stay
with the left leg' - If the leg moves, the dog moves - if the leg is still,
the dog has to be still. - If we move the left leg without saying 'heel',
the dog does nothing, because nothing has been requested. Hence a stay. We
confirm this is correct by labelling the 'doing nothing' with the command
'stay', and suitable body language. (never underestimate the body
language).We don't praise the dog, nor do we use the dogs name while in
'stay' - we give a physical back up command with right hand held outright,
with fingers pointed to the sky - and, we ALWAYS 'Release' from the stay
with specific and consistent, well timed 'release exercise'. However, this
is just the beginning and cannot be considered a reliable 'life saving'
stay. For this, we have to first teach our dog to down (I wont go into that
now). Then, 'with our dog in excited mood' (running at heel for instance),
we down/stay the dog - we imagine an invisible beam running from our dogs
eyes straight to our own eyes - if the beam is broken even for an instant,
we mend the beam by taking our command hand swiftly towards the break, which
is always just in front of our dog's eyes. Once repaired, we slowly back off
to our original position. We slowly circle the dog, as if on tightrope. As
we pass a certain point behind the dog, we watch his eyes follow until he
can't quite see us and has to spin his head round frantically (so as not to
break that beam),
- I have no words to describe this feeling -
It's stronger than 'mood', 'concentration', 'obedience', 'control', - It's
more like 'focus', way out, hypnotic, two souls connected, magical, ........
the feeling I have when teaching stay is that 'nothing else exists' - just
my dog and me, here in this place that can't be touched by anything or
anyone - that invisible beam is life or death - it cannot and 'will' not be
broken - I imagine the dog on one remaining chunk of ice in the middle of
the ocean, if he moves a fraction he will fall and drown. I have to use
every ounce of energy in my body and mind to keep us connected. The
'excitement' still exists , being stored - it's still there showing in his
eyes. Then, when the times right, the 'release' and an 'explosion of
excitement'!
This is the moment the dog learns. (The more excited, the more reliable next
time).
I list some of the things I've done with Whisky to proof his down/stay. He
will down/stay in the middle of anything up to 10 other dogs, while working
or playing, for up to an hour - he will not move. I can gently pull him
along the floor by his lead - he remains still. I can throw his favourite
toy or a chunk of meat to land between his front feet - he will not touch
it. I can run past him, jump over him, call his name - he knows he hasn't
been released, it's a trick and will not move. I can ask any number of
observers to call him, clap their hands, or whatever they want to do to try
to encourage him to them - he will not move. I can leave him, go make a cup
of coffee, answer the phone and dry my hair and return to him - he has not
moved. He can be running in a field playing, I command down/stay - He goes
down instantly and will not move until released. I can 'pretend' to release
him and do it minutely wrong - he will not move.
Most important part of all - He enjoys it - Its' part of his job - It's
meaningful to him. He thrives on being given the opportunity to show how
good he is at his job - how 'strong he is', and being rewarded with my
approval and gratitude.
What you put in, is what you get out.
I'm too exhausted now to go onto the recall :-)
Regards,
Marilyn
>
FREDERICK HASSEN
>Hi Leon,
>Teaching Long Down Stay: All students
>attending my classes must successfully leave
>their dogs for 10 minutes out of sight
>'down/stay' in order to achieve pass in their test.
That's good demanding the 10 minute stuff. I have read your post twice
however, and I really couldn't find what you do if the dog gets up. I
don't like to present things to my clients as if that possibility
doesn't even exist. So you are behind a building after 3 minutes, and
the dog gets up to go sniff another dog??? What do you do??
Leon Milberg
>That's good demanding the 10 minute stuff. I have read your post twice
>however, and I really couldn't find what you do if the dog gets up. I
>don't like to present things to my clients as if that possibility
>doesn't even exist. So you are behind a building after 3 minutes, and
>the dog gets up to go sniff another dog??? What do you do??
Excellent question. How do YOU train the long down, stay? What do you
do when the dog gets up? How can us newbies compare different
methodologies when only Marilyn has replied? Please, let's see some
responses!! I know ALL of the professionals teach it. Surely there is
more than one methodology. I guess I'll push for the distracted recall
later.
Leon Milberg le...@4pet.net
Lynn Kosmakos
Leon Milberg wrote:
> Excellent question. How do YOU train the long down, stay? What do you
> do when the dog gets up? How can us newbies compare different
> methodologies when only Marilyn has replied?
Leon, perhaps you missed my reply earlier this week. I like to
do the long down/stay in a group of dogs, because they tend to
learn from each other. Teaching the down is a prerequisite, and
I start pups at an early age, lying at my feet with me sitting
on their lead, for 30 minutes to an hour daily while I read or
watch tv or whatever. I do that for a different reason, to teach
the pup how to accept how to relax and be quiet for an extended
period, rather than think that the presence of a human automatically
means playtime.
With dogs 3 to 5 feet apart, everyone puts their dogs in a down/stay
and moves in front of their dog to the end of the lead. If the
dog moves, the handler quietly moves back to their dog and puts
him back in position, repeating the "stay" command. Not the "Down".
Stay is the command the dog broke. The next step is having the
handlers walk around their dogs while they hold a stay. Then
adding distractions; thrown balls, other dogs heeling through the
down dogs, etc. It's good if the dogs in the group are at different
levels. There's nothing wrong with having a pup who needs to have
someone standing on the leash while other dogs have their handlers
going out of sight. A trainer stays with the group of dogs. When
a dog gets up or crawls when their handler is not in sight, the
trainer quietly calls the handler back into the ring. The handler
puts the dog back into the original position, repeats the stay,
and leaves again.
One of the required tests for SAR dogs in California is a 10
minute down/stay with handler out of sight. 3 minutes quiet,
4 minutes of noise, 3 minutes quiet. The noise includes air
horns, invalid walkers with cowbells on the top rail, and just
about anything else you can think of. It isn't at all uncommon
to have dogs less than a year old pass that test.
Lynn K.
DogStar716
>do when the dog gets up? How can us newbies compare different
>methodologies when only Marilyn has replied?
Well, when I teach the long down stay (out of sight), I have an assistant
standing with the dogs while the handler goes out of sight. If a dog should
happen to get up, the assitant puts him back into a downstay repeating the word
"Stay"... works for us.
Dogstar716
Come see Gunnars Life: http://www.angelfire.com/ut/Gunnar
"Any normal trainer in my position would have left by now, but I'm not a normal
person". - Jerry Howe
Amy Dahl
Leon Milberg wrote:
>
How would you train those two behaviors
> (long down stay, and a highly distracted off leash recall)? I would
> like to compare several trainers procedures for doing these specific
> obedience exercises.
>
Down: I follow Koehler verbatim. Start with the dog in a sit,
relaxed, give command, lift dog's front legs and lay it down on
the ground as in the picture in the book. No, I am sorry, I
depart from K; I accompany the command with a hand signal.
Practice several times during a training session for a few
days until the dog downs when the command and signal are given.
Stay: taught in "sit" position, transfers to down and other
situations readily.
Proofing: I just practice in lots of places, for longer and
longer times. At this stage, any dog I'm doing this with is
very cooperative, so if it breaks, I return, say "no" in a
mildly disapproving voice, guide it back to the spot where I
originally downed it, and it lies back down. This is merely
teaching a cooperative student that "stay" means "until I
release you," even if that's quite a long time.
Corrections: average of one or two, during the "stay" phase,
again following Koehler (swift jerk forward, downward, and to
the right).
A couple of months ago my car broke down, downtown. I had a
pet dog along whom I haven't trained in four years
(I'm kind of ashamed of that). I downed him in front of my
bank in a patch of shade and went in to call for a tow.
For personal reasons I was compelled to stay
in the bank. During the hour I waited for the tow truck,
I watched as a variety of passers-by petted my dog,
children tried to get him to chase them, etc. He thumped
his tail and was friendly to everyone. Apart from easing
over to his other side, he did not move until I came back
and released him.
Recalls: I teach the "here" command then back it up with
a variety of enforcements depending on the dog's personality.
Often I use the e-collar. I get a good instant response out
to 300-400 yards in most situations, but some dogs cannot
be called in from an incomplete retrieve.
FREDERICK HASSEN
>Excellent question. How do YOU train the long
>down, stay? What do you do when the dog gets
>up?
Do you want a leash response, or an ecollar response??
Leon Milberg
>Do you want a leash response, or an ecollar response??
Leash please. It is likely few of us newbies have ecollars.
Leon Milberg le...@4pet.net
Leon Milberg
Excellent post.
>It isn't at all uncommon
>to have dogs less than a year old pass that test.
I see that from time to time and I am in awe of those dogs and their
trainers. Can your method be adapted to working two dogs at the same
time by one handler, or is that too much to ask of two dogs living
together? As far as your corrections, do you just start them over like
nothing happened?
I can't tell you how nice it is to read these replies. I bet all the
newbies out their are secretly waiting for more post like these. I
know I am!!
Leon Milberg le...@4pet.net
Leon Milberg
Great post.
>Proofing: I just practice in lots of places, for longer and
>longer times. At this stage, any dog I'm doing this with is
>very cooperative, so if it breaks, I return, say "no" in a
>mildly disapproving voice, guide it back to the spot where I
>originally downed it, and it lies back down. This is merely
>teaching a cooperative student that "stay" means "until I
>release you," even if that's quite a long time.
I have been doing this for months unsuccessfully. It has become a
game. He breaks, I put him back (with a "no") and he will continue to
break before his release time. It then forces me to back track to some
times he can handle. We gradually inch up, then wham he has figured
out the game and effectively trains me to lower the standard for him
by breaking sooner. I have held out for the desired behavior to no
avail. Progress has bee virtually non-existant.
>Corrections: average of one or two, during the "stay" phase,
>again following Koehler (swift jerk forward, downward, and to
>the right).
If I could get it that low I would be pleased (make that ecstatic).
>A couple of months ago my car broke down, downtown. I had a
>pet dog along whom I haven't trained in four years
>(I'm kind of ashamed of that). I downed him in front of my
>bank in a patch of shade and went in to call for a tow.
>For personal reasons I was compelled to stay
>in the bank. During the hour I waited for the tow truck,
>I watched as a variety of passers-by petted my dog,
>children tried to get him to chase them, etc. He thumped
>his tail and was friendly to everyone. Apart from easing
>over to his other side, he did not move until I came back
>and released him.
I am in awe of dogs and their trainers that are like that. That would
be my ultimate goal. Can it be done with two dogs?
>Recalls: I teach the "here" command then back it up with
>a variety of enforcements depending on the dog's personality.
>Often I use the e-collar. I get a good instant response out
>to 300-400 yards in most situations, but some dogs cannot
>be called in from an incomplete retrieve.
What "enforcements"? Can they be done without an ecollar?
Leon Milberg le...@4pet.net
DogStar716
>break before his release time.
Have you tried having someone else put him back? The reason that we train with
an assistant putting the dog back into postion sometimes is because the dog
isn't expecting another person to correct him. This gives the dog the idea (at
least in the ring) that the judge himself MAY come over and correct him if he
breaks :)
Marilyn Rammell
FREDERICK HASSEN <FHA...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:13731-37...@newsd-103.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Marilyn writes:
> >Hi Leon,
> >Teaching Long Down Stay: All students
> >attending my classes must successfully leave
> >their dogs for 10 minutes out of sight
> >'down/stay' in order to achieve pass in their test.
>
> That's good demanding the 10 minute stuff. I have read your post twice
> however, and I really couldn't find what you do if the dog gets up. I
> don't like to present things to my clients as if that possibility
> doesn't even exist. So you are behind a building after 3 minutes, and
> the dog gets up to go sniff another dog??? What do you do??
They would fail their test :-) Two things to consider here:
a) Owners would be aware of their responsibility and my expectation that
should a dog get up and disturb their dog in a test, it will be collected up
as soon as possible. However, their dog should not be lured from the stay
even with this distraction.
They will be used to this because of their training sessions where some dogs
are put in down/stay, while other dogs are heeling etc.
b) While teaching the down/stay, far more importance is placed on the
'in-sight' training. If the dog is properly taught to down/stay, it is
unusual that 'going out of sight' will cause the dog to move. Going back to
my last post - the 'down' has to be taught first - this means that the dog
will go down on command - immediately.
The down/stay training depends on constant 'eye contact' (described as an
invisible beam). Timing is essential - If we lose eye contact, the dog
'will' move. We have just a split second to gain back that eye contact -
if we're too slow and dog gets up, we are left with having to command 'down'
(not stay).
When this happens, 'we' have failed - not the dog - we return to the dog at
soonest thereafter and release. (with loads of praise). We make note of
distance travelled and time lapsed before losing the eye contact on this
unsuccessful occasion and when next attempting the down/stay we travel just
short of that distance and time, before returning and releasing. We
gradually build up distance and time but must keep in mind that whenever
there is a failure, we have to reduce distance and time slightly on next
attempt.
Regards,
Marilyn
Lynn Kosmakos
Leon Milberg wrote:
> Can your method be adapted to working two dogs at the same
> time by one handler, or is that too much to ask of two dogs living
> together?
Sure. My dogs are on down/stays together daily when I run into
Starbucks for my morning coffee. But I wouldn't try to train them
together on this before they both knew the down and stay commands.
After that, you're really just reacting to the dog that moves and
putting him/her back into position. Where it gets tricky is when
one dog breaking triggers the other to break. The way I get by
this is to shoot the 2nd dog a look to remind him to stay at the
time I start to move to get the breaking dog.
I don't correct a breaking dog while teaching the long down. I
simply go get the dog, put him back to the place he left from,
put him in a down and repeat the stay command. I try to come at
him quickly from a side angle, rather than charging straight at
him, because I don't want to frighten him, and I keep my body
language relaxed. I also go to the dog to release him, rather
than calling him to me while he's in the learning phase. Only
after I'm sure he knows what is expect do I add corrections, in
the form of an "EhEh" when he starts to raise on his elbows to
get up. If he decides to break after getting that vocal reminder,
then a collar correction is given.
Lynn K.
Lynn Kosmakos
Leon Milberg wrote:
> He breaks, I put him back (with a "no") and he will continue to
> break before his release time.
Think about what you're saying to the dog. You put him somewhere
you want him to be - then tell him "No". ???? What is the dog
supposed to associate that "No" with? Being at that place in a
down? He's not doing anything at that moment, and can't figure
out what action you want him to stop by telling him "no".
Lynn K.
Ron Hardin
one thing builds on the previous, including the meaning of a correction.
If you're doing Koehler from the start though, the correction for a
break is to haul him back _without a word_ by as an exact a reverse path
as possible and give the down correction when you arrive at where
he should have been on a down stay, with no additional command and
no words. He's still on the original down stay
after the correction. Then walk back off to wherever you were
waiting.
There's a very subtle grammar of the correction.
Susie my former Dobie was on a sit stay at one end of the main
street sidewalk in Granville OH and I at the other, preparing
to give a recall signal (and a drop halfway home); when some guy
hissed at Susie and kicked at her. Susie got up to get out of
range and walked to me, a hundred yards away.
This was a question from Susie. Do I stay when kicked at or not?
The answer was that she's responsible for her own safety when
I'm not there, and this was said by heeling he back to where
she had been sitting (another command), and putting her on a new
sit stay (new command).
Had it been important for Susie to hold a stay even when kicked
at for some reason, say some police deal, then I would not have
given her another command but dragged her back to where she should
have been staying, and given a sit correction there without a word.
Since I did not do that, she knew she had done the right thing.
As I say, I think the grammar of the correction is built up in
Koehler so that it can be used like this, and you're not likely
to be, or won't necesarily be, as successful just taking a piece
of his course and applying it.
Don't make a dog stay on a down stay longer that he's likely
to be able to do, while you're building up. The successes
are important. Most breaks should be due to distractions and
temptations you set up, and I think be on fairly short down stays
so that he gets a fast reward after ignoring the distraction.
Dogman
>Amy:
>
>Great post.
>
>>Proofing: I just practice in lots of places, for longer and
>>longer times. At this stage, any dog I'm doing this with is
>>very cooperative, so if it breaks, I return, say "no" in a
>>mildly disapproving voice, guide it back to the spot where I
>>originally downed it, and it lies back down. This is merely
>>teaching a cooperative student that "stay" means "until I
>>release you," even if that's quite a long time.
>
>I have been doing this for months unsuccessfully. It has become a
>game.
[...]
Well, at least you managed to figure that out, eh?
The question still remains, though: How long do you want to keep
playing this game?
>He breaks, I put him back (with a "no") and he will continue to
>break before his release time.
And I bet you do that with some authority, too, eh?
Yeah, right.
:>(
The next time he breaks, Leon, don't say a word, just CORRECT him, but
do it like you actually MEAN IT.
If he breaks 20 times in a row, correct him 20 times in a row.
If you can somehow manage to *correct* your dog for breaking in the
same firm but fair manner that the wonderful sister's at St. Ambrose
Elementary School used to correct me for putting my elbows on the pew
(HINT: they used a yard stick), you'll get a dog that not only likes
you, Leon, but one that RESPECTS you as well.
To this very day, each time I'm even tempted to put my elbows on the
pew, I think of all those wonderful sisters at St. Ambrose.
;>)
PS: Of course, Leon, you could always just learn to live with a dog
that basically ignores you, eh?
That's what most "positive-only" trainers do.
Until the day they take the dog to the pound to be put down, that is.
:>(
--
Dogman
mailto:dog...@i1.net
http://www.i1.net/~dogman
FREDERICK HASSEN
maybe my machine is not getting the posts. Anyway, here is mine----I've
posted this before, and is from an article I wrote for "Dog Sport"
magazine.
The 'Down' Command
by Fred Hassen (FHA...@webtv.net)
"SIT MEANS SIT" Internet talkshow host
Copyright © 1998
I teach the 'down' command on street corners and sidewalks. There are a
number of reasons that I do this. First of all, since my training
consists of "real world" training, I find that I am also able to teach
the dog not to go into the street until invited at the same time.
There are quite a few advantages to teaching this command on corners and
sidewalks. The first is that there is a very clear-cut, defined
elevation in the sidewalk that will eliminate creeping right from the
beginning. The second reason is that it will make the next progression
to the "down in motion" happen at an astonishingly fast pace. Also, if
you happen to be using a "foot on the leash" technique to teach it, your
foot can get lower than the dog's head and so can your hand if you are
using your hand on the leash.
Once you start walking and downing your dog on the corner---the dog
quickly will learn that moving forward at all will bring him into the
street-----which will in turn get him corrected back to the sidewalk.
Even a dog can figure that out pretty quickly. If you are only downing
him at corners, or on a sidewalk before you step into the street, the
dog is learning two things simultaneously. First, is that whenever you
walk into the street -- he must "down" (you can bring a release command
in case your jogging or just do not want him to "down", he doesn't have
to--I use 'break'). You can also later throw balls in the street, and
let him see that until a release command is given -- he has to "down" on
the sidewalk. Very quickly after that, you can "down" him when you get
to the corner, and continue to walk into the street. Again, the clear
cut boundary eliminates the creeping, and makes it visibly very clear
what he is supposed to do. You can then progress to just walking into
the street and him downing without the command until you release him.
To further "proof" him, you can walk down the street, and before even
coming to the end, step diagonally into the street and he should be
downing there also. This not going into the street is one of the first
exercises that I teach all of my clients, it's a life saver. Now, the
dog is learning to "down" without moving forward, and if he does--your
correction is for him coming into the street without being asked.
When this is transferred over to grass or whatever, it is pretty firmly
imbedded about just dropping immediately. To further teach, every time I
cross a street and the dog's paw hits the sidewalk -- I say "sidewalk".
Now he is learning what a "sidewalk" is on top of everything else. Later
this comes in handy when he makes a mistake or for other reasons, you
can direct him back to the "sidewalk", and he knows exactly where to go.
FREDERICK HASSEN
>They would fail their test :-)
Maybe you misunderstood my question. I was asking what you would do if
they DIDN'T hold the down-stay and broke. Not necessarily on testing
day, but at any time during the conditioning -----a month after, a year
after----whenever. What do YOU do when the dog BREAKS the
command--whenever that may be. I know that you don't show them once,
and then they never break it, under any distraction forever. That much
I know DOESN'T happen. What do you tell your clients to do when the dog
gets up???? Hope I'm a little clearer this time.
Amy Dahl
Ron Hardin wrote:
>
> I have no idea how Koehler works if you don't do all Koehler, since
> one thing builds on the previous, including the meaning of a correction.
>
> If you're doing Koehler from the start though, the correction for a
> break is to haul him back _without a word_ by as an exact a reverse path
> as possible and give the down correction when you arrive at where
> he should have been on a down stay, with no additional command and
> no words. He's still on the original down stay
> after the correction. Then walk back off to wherever you were
> waiting.
Ron,
you're quite right, my procedure departs from Koehler's
recommendations in the manner of the correction for breaking
the down-stay during the proofing stage. I feel justified in
doing this by my ability to read the dogs I train; probably
I would recommend a novice go by the book.
I also prefer shorter training sessions that Koehler
recommends, and I will go to a pinch collar pretty
quickly with a dog that does not respond to a chain.
I have, however, followed Koehler pretty closely on
a number of occasions, and usually find the need to
apply relatively few corrections--especially by the time
we get to the "down."
Marilyn Rammell
FREDERICK HASSEN <FHA...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:10642-37...@newsd-101.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Marilyn writes:
> >They would fail their test :-)
> >(snip)
>
> Maybe you misunderstood my question. I was asking what you would do if
> they DIDN'T hold the down-stay and broke. Not necessarily on testing
> day, but at any time during the conditioning -----a month after, a year
> after----whenever. What do YOU do when the dog BREAKS the
> command--whenever that may be. I know that you don't show them once,
> and then they never break it, under any distraction forever. That much
> I know DOESN'T happen. What do you tell your clients to do when the dog
> gets up???? Hope I'm a little clearer this time.
Assuming the dog is properly trained to 'down/stay', (this would most
definitely 'not' just mean showing the dog just once - it is a gradual
increase of time and distance, as explained earlier) and once competently
completed, all that is required should the dog break the stay (which is
unlikely, but possible) is to command 'DOWN', then 'Stay'.
regards,
Marilyn
Lynn Kosmakos
Cindy Tittle Moore wrote:
>
> When FEMA was trying to put tests for SAR dogs together, the original
> version had a 1/2 hour down stay with no handler present (but you
> could leave a backpack or personal item for the dog to stay with).
> Don't know what was finally adopted for those standards, but...
I think there were a few changes to the FEMA standards last year
and I'm not sure what they are now, but 30 minutes sounds right.
I should have clarified that the test I described was CARDA's,
which is certainly not the only certification body in CA.
Lynn K.
Marilyn Rammell
Leon Milberg <le...@4pet.net> wrote in message
news:37d4e721...@news.nwlink.com...
> I have been doing this for months unsuccessfully. It has become a
> game. He breaks, I put him back (with a "no")
With respect Leon, this is why it dosn't work - What are you telling him
'no' not to do????? If you 'put him back' and 'then' say 'no' he could take
that as meaning 'No don't be here' It means nothing constructive to the
dog. If your dog breaks the stay you have to act 'before' he has time to
take a step. First thing you need to do is tell him to go back into the
position he was in while in the 'stay' (Down) - Once you have repositioned
him, then command 'stay'. Try telling the dog what you 'want him to do' and
not 'what you dont want him to do'.
and he will continue to
> break before his release time. It then forces me to back track to some
> times he can handle. We gradually inch up, then wham he has figured
> out the game and effectively trains me to lower the standard for him
> by breaking sooner.
By commanding 'no' each time you reposition him, you are telling him not to
stay so long. IMO. (Just confusing the dog)
Imagine this: You are being taught to look at a spot on a wall - you don't
know what's on the teacher's mind however. The teacher walks you to the
wall and directs your head so the spot is in front of you. You still don't
know what the teacher wants you to do. You look around wondering what this
is all about - the teacher grabs your head and puts it back to face the spot
and yells 'NO', What the hell is going on you think.
Another teacher comes along - points your head at the spot, says 'Look' and
then says 'that's great, well done' lets you rest. Then points your head
to the spot again says 'Look', and says 'that's great, well done. Does this
several times, increasing the time before praise a fraction longer each
time. You like the praise and wait for it each time. One time, you move
your head before the praise and the teacher repositions your head and says
'Look', then praises.
Which teacher do you understand and want to please the most?
regards,
Marilyn
Marilyn Rammell
FREDERICK HASSEN <FHA...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:21716-37...@newsd-102.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Still haven't seen what Marilyn does when the dog doesn't do it, but
maybe my machine is not getting the posts. Anyway, here is mine----I've
posted this before, and is from an article I wrote for "Dog Sport"
magazine.
I have replied Fred, but you may not understand how 'commanding' Down once
the dog stands up, but before he takes a step, can be effective (if already
taught in the way I describe) - That could be because our methods of
teaching are so different and you have your method (and dogs) in mind as
comparison when reading my replies. I think what could be the most
significant differences between our methods is that everything I teach a dog
is taught in a way that the dog sees as, not only 'fun and exciting' -
but also part of his role in the pack. You have already indicated to me in
another thread that some dogs don't appear to enjoy this 'natural pack
instinct' anymore - so in order that we understand each other, I have to
imagine a dog that no longer possesses what I consider to be 'normal and
natural canine behaviour' and you have to imagine one that does.
I will now read your method used for 'down/stay/ again and comment thereon
after digesting.
Regards,
Marilyn
DogStar716
>significant differences between our methods is that everything I teach a dog
>is taught in a way that the dog sees as, not only 'fun and exciting' -
>but also part of his role in the pack.
What I am getting from your method is that the dogs you teach never make
mistakes, they are all perfectly taught by you, make perfect eye contact all
the time, and never do things like break eye contact with you and you always
catch them BEFORE they take a step, etc. That cannot be. Especially if you
are working on the out of sight stay. What do you do if the dog does take a
step before you have a chance to tell him to DOWN again? What do you do if the
dog just gets up and walks away?
FREDERICK HASSEN
>Assuming the dog is properly trained to
>'down/stay', (this would most definitely 'not' just
>mean showing the dog just once - it is a gradual
>increase of time and distance, as explained
>earlier) and once competently completed, all
>that is required should the dog break the stay
>(which is unlikely, but possible) is to command
>'DOWN', then 'Stay'. regards,
You are STILL dodging my question. Let's assume that the dog IS
properly trained, and we will assume that YOU trained it. You already
admit in the post that it's not just a matter of showing the dog one
time. So let's go all the way back to that time when it broke the
command (whenever that may have been), and what did you do to the dog
THEN. It's gradual because if the dog just got it in milliseconds, and
never broke the command-------there would be no need for it to be
'gradual'. He'd understand it anywhere, everywhere, and anytime. It's
'gradual' because the dog does break it along the way, and especially as
the situation may become a little more trying. Now, what do YOU do when
that time comes-----you already admit that it comes, now WHAT DO YOU (as
in Marilyn) do. I'm patient Marilyn, I'm used to this kind of runaround
with 'positive only's'. Remember YOU are training the dog, so there is
no bad training going on. I'll repeat it again if you still don't
understand the question. I'm trying to make it as simple as possible.
FREDERICK HASSEN
>I have, however, followed Koehler pretty closely
>on a number of occasions, and usually find the
>need to apply relatively few
>corrections--especially by the time we get to the
>"down."
That's about par for the course using Koehler properly. So let's look
at this. If Amy gives a 'down' command-----it's fair to say that on
perhaps 95 or more (leaving a little extra room for the hell of it) she
is saying 'good boy', and nothing else. That's as purely positive as
any method, no matter how you want to slice it. People never look past
what the correction does and they think that you are doing that all the
time. People just can't read.
Marilyn Rammell
DogStar716 <dogst...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990906101747...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
> >I think what could be the most
> >significant differences between our methods is that everything I teach a
dog
> >is taught in a way that the dog sees as, not only 'fun and exciting' -
> >but also part of his role in the pack.
>
> What I am getting from your method is that the dogs you teach never make
> mistakes, they are all perfectly taught by you, make perfect eye contact
all
> the time, and never do things like break eye contact with you and you
always
> catch them BEFORE they take a step, etc. That cannot be.
Let's go back to the original question:
From Leon:
"How would you train those two behaviors
> (long down stay, and a highly distracted off leash recall)? I would
> like to compare several trainers procedures for doing these specific
> obedience exercises".
Leon asks "HOW WOULD YOU TRAIN"
My answer is based on what we do 'WHILE TRAINING'
Yes, 'of course' we train to acheive perfect eye contact
and 'of course' we always 'catch them before that first step'
What do you think 'training's all about' (Just standing there, hands in
pocket and whistling Yankee Doodle came to town' ????????
Especially if you
> are working on the out of sight stay.
I thought I made it clear - the training 'IN SIGHT' is what counts -
('Know-how', 'Consistency', 'Timing', and being able to detect canine body
language efficiently enough to 'know when the dog is going to move' etc.
etc.etc.etc.etc.etc and ten thousand more etcs.
What do you do if the dog does take a
> step before you have a chance to tell him to DOWN again?
Why would you have to tell him DOWN AGAIN? If you had done your 'down'
training properly the dog would go down on first command. If not, then you
need to get back into training the DOWN again - PROPERLY!
What do you do if the
> dog just gets up and walks away?
You look seriously at your training techniques and improve your training and
handling ability. Everytime we fail (and it's us failing - not the dog) we
backtrack to the 'relevant' weak link (in our training program).
For those of you who 'do understand' what I write please accept my apologies
for my obvious frustrated tone.
Marilyn
DogStar716
>You are STILL dodging my question. Let's assume that the dog IS
>properly trained, and we will assume that YOU trained it. You already
>admit in the post that it's not just a matter of showing the dog one
>time. So let's go all the way back to that time when it broke the
>command (whenever that may have been), and what did you do to the dog
>THEN.
Ok, glad to see I'm not the only one who is wondering this exact same thing...
FREDERICK HASSEN
>I teach a dog is taught in a way that the dog
>sees as, not only 'fun and exciting' - but also
>part of his role in the pack.
Great---I don't care "how" you teach it, I'm assuming that you are
teaching it just fine. My question was "WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN THE DOG
DOESN'T DO IT?'------EVEN ON THE FIRST DAY??? I still haven't seen an
answer to that. There is no way that I'm buying that every dog when
shown what a command is (no matter what method you use to show it) will
never do anything other than exactly that-----even on the first day, or
under any distraction.
>You have already indicated to me in another
>thread that some dogs don't appear to enjoy
>this 'natural pack instinct' anymore
Don't recall ever saying anything like that.
>I will now read your method used for
>'down/stay/ again and comment thereon after
>digesting.
>Regards,
>Marilyn
You won't have much trouble finding where I say what I would do when the
dog breaks the command once he knows it. I'll point it directly out to
you if you have trouble finding it. I can not find ANYWHERE what you
will do when a dog breaks the command.
FREDERICK HASSEN
>With respect Leon, this is why it dosn't work -
>What are you telling him 'no' not to do????? If
>you 'put him back' and 'then' say 'no' he could
>take that as meaning 'No don't be here' It
>means nothing constructive to the dog. If your
>dog breaks the stay you have to act 'before' he
>has time to take a step. First thing you need to
>do is tell him to go back into the position he was
>in while in the 'stay' (Down) - Once you have
>repositioned him, then command 'stay'. Try
>telling the dog what you 'want him to do' and not
>'what you dont want him to do'.
Had to hunt for it, but we're getting somewhere now. You 'reposition'
him-----that's what YOU do. Thank You. You mean you get him and put
him back where he was. I assume that's what you mean by 'reposition'.
You walk over and pick him up, or take him by the leash, or in some way
'reposition' him----is that what you are trying to say??? Don't worry,
we don't hate you for that.
Marilyn Rammell
--
FREDERICK HASSEN <FHA...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:11860-37...@newsd-101.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Marilyn writes:
> >Assuming the dog is properly trained to
> >'down/stay', (this would most definitely 'not' just
> >mean showing the dog just once - it is a gradual
> >increase of time and distance, as explained
> >earlier) and once competently completed, all
> >that is required should the dog break the stay
> >(which is unlikely, but possible) is to command
> >'DOWN', then 'Stay'. regards,
>
> You are STILL dodging my question.
Fred - I AM NOT dodging your question.
Let's assume that the dog IS
> properly trained, and we will assume that YOU trained it. You already
> admit in the post that it's not just a matter of showing the dog one
> time. So let's go all the way back to that time when it broke the
> command (whenever that may have been), and what did you do to the dog
> THEN.
Yes, let's go right back to the beginning. The beginning is heel/sit/stay -
this is where the dog initially learns how to stay - but as we all know,
sit/stay is not secure and the longest I would confidently expect the
average dog to sit/stay is 5 minutes and even then I would not be surprised
if the dog moved after 2 minutes.
Then we teach the 'Down' - this in my book is the life-saver and needs to be
significantly reliable. We don't go onto the Down/Stay until it is.
Now the dog already understands Stay and Down.
While training (which is always 'in-sight' situation) I gradually build up
time and distance and 'always' return to dog if I 'even suspect' that I'm
going to lose eye contact. If however, I miss the signs and the dog 'does'
break eye contact and I havn't been successful in repairing it in time, the
dog will stand up - I have to then depend on previous 'Down' training (not
stay training - it's too late for that). So I command 'Down'. I have to
'down' the dog 'before he walks'. If I fail,
I do nothing - Yes, nothing at all - End of exercise.
Dog forfeits his reward, and I realise that I have to 'go back and improve
the down' before we can expect a secure out of sight stay. If a dog will
not obey a command (Heel, Sit, Down) then there is little hope of it
'staying out of sight'. We go back to the weak link in the training. We
repair it - then we test it.
Now please note above 'DOG FORFEITS REWARD' - this is relevant.
It's gradual because if the dog just got it in milliseconds, and
> never broke the command-------there would be no need for it to be
> 'gradual'. He'd understand it anywhere, everywhere, and anytime. It's
> 'gradual' because the dog does break it along the way, and especially as
> the situation may become a little more trying. Now, what do YOU do when
> that time comes-----you already admit that it comes, now WHAT DO YOU (as
> in Marilyn) do.
Fred, you know now what I would do - you don't have to agree - but if you're
trying to bully me into telling you I use a 'correction' then your wasting
your time. - 'cos I wouldn't. I used to and yes it worked, but not because
the dog was working with me, but because the dog was afraid. No need for
all that now.
I'm patient Marilyn, I'm used to this kind of runaround
> with 'positive only's'.
I'm patient too Fred. Very patient.
Remember YOU are training the dog, so there is
> no bad training going on.
I'll repeat it again if you still don't
> understand the question. I'm trying to make it as simple as possible.
>
>
>
Debbie, Dan & Murphy
to know if the down/stay that our dog was taught in training is the same as
Koehler. I have not heard the command we use mentioned here, I would like
to know where it originated. When our dog was younger we signed up at a dog
training academy where we received one on one training. The dog and us
were trained together. We were taught the "place" command and Murphy
responds to it very well. "Place" means down-stay and don't get up until I
release you. All of the commands were taught with a combination of voice and
hand signals. He will respond to either. The "place" command is given by
pointing to the floor and/or saying "place". The dog will instantly drop to
the floor and stay there until released. He has been tested up to 20 minutes
in the place position. I think he would probably stay there longer, but I
have never had a reason to test him any longer than that. Initially, we
would work distractions in, like throwing a tennis ball in his general
direction, people walking by, the handler leaving, then returning. If he
breaks the place, he is returned to the original location and placed again.
When we release him, we just give a simple "O.K." and a lot of praise. I
think this may work well because the dog understands that "place" means
something different than just "down". When you think about it, we use the
words sit, down, stay in different combinations. The word "place" is
associated with only one thing - lay down and don't get up until I say so.
We might be talking about the same training with different words, but I
would like to know where "place" came from and if anyone else uses this
command.
Debbie
Lynn Kosmakos <lkos...@home.com> wrote in message
news:37D2A98C...@home.com...
>
>
> Leon Milberg wrote:
>
> > Excellent question. How do YOU train the long down, stay? What do you
> > do when the dog gets up? How can us newbies compare different
> > methodologies when only Marilyn has replied?
>
> Leon, perhaps you missed my reply earlier this week. I like to
> do the long down/stay in a group of dogs, because they tend to
> learn from each other. Teaching the down is a prerequisite, and
> I start pups at an early age, lying at my feet with me sitting
> on their lead, for 30 minutes to an hour daily while I read or
> watch tv or whatever. I do that for a different reason, to teach
> the pup how to accept how to relax and be quiet for an extended
> period, rather than think that the presence of a human automatically
> means playtime.
>
> With dogs 3 to 5 feet apart, everyone puts their dogs in a down/stay
> and moves in front of their dog to the end of the lead. If the
> dog moves, the handler quietly moves back to their dog and puts
> him back in position, repeating the "stay" command. Not the "Down".
> Stay is the command the dog broke. The next step is having the
> handlers walk around their dogs while they hold a stay. Then
> adding distractions; thrown balls, other dogs heeling through the
> down dogs, etc. It's good if the dogs in the group are at different
> levels. There's nothing wrong with having a pup who needs to have
> someone standing on the leash while other dogs have their handlers
> going out of sight. A trainer stays with the group of dogs. When
> a dog gets up or crawls when their handler is not in sight, the
> trainer quietly calls the handler back into the ring. The handler
> puts the dog back into the original position, repeats the stay,
> and leaves again.
>
> One of the required tests for SAR dogs in California is a 10
> minute down/stay with handler out of sight. 3 minutes quiet,
> 4 minutes of noise, 3 minutes quiet. The noise includes air
> horns, invalid walkers with cowbells on the top rail, and just
> about anything else you can think of. It isn't at all uncommon
> to have dogs less than a year old pass that test.
>
> Lynn K.
KayEdwards
watching what we mean sometimes" :o)
DogStar716
>training properly the dog would go down on first command. If not, then you
>need to get back into training the DOWN again - PROPERLY!
Ok, I know my way of speaking to you may be frustrating, so I am going to try
and curb my sarcasm the best that I can...
Marilyn, there is NO dog in the world who does everything perfectly the very
first time and from then on. Maybe we should go all the way back to the
beginning.
How do teach a down?
DogStar716
>backtrack to the 'relevant' weak link (in our training program).
>
And this I do not agree with at all.
Marilyn Rammell
FREDERICK HASSEN <FHA...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:11861-37...@newsd-101.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Marilyn writes:
> >With respect Leon, this is why it dosn't work -
> >What are you telling him 'no' not to do????? If
> >you 'put him back' and 'then' say 'no' he could
> >take that as meaning 'No don't be here' It
> >means nothing constructive to the dog. If your
> >dog breaks the stay you have to act 'before' he
> >has time to take a step. First thing you need to
> >do is tell him to go back into the position he was
> >in while in the 'stay' (Down) - Once you have
> >repositioned him, then command 'stay'. Try
> >telling the dog what you 'want him to do' and not
> >'what you dont want him to do'.
>
> Had to hunt for it, but we're getting somewhere now. You 'reposition'
> him-----that's what YOU do. Thank You. You mean you get him and put
> him back where he was. I assume that's what you mean by 'reposition'.
> You walk over and pick him up, or take him by the leash, or in some way
> 'reposition' him----is that what you are trying to say??? Don't worry,
> we don't hate you for that.
No Fred - I wouldn't do that - I'm making a modification suggestion to the
way Leon does it.
I know you don't hate me Fred.
Likewise.
regards,
Marilyn
Marilyn Rammell
Cindy Tittle Moore <tit...@io.com> wrote in message
news:7r0o14$bpj$1...@fnord.io.com...
> "Marilyn Rammell" <marilyn...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> >For those of you who 'do understand' what I write please accept my
apologies
> >for my obvious frustrated tone.
>
> I think I partly understand, but you're not being clear about it.
Thanks Cindy - it's so difficult to include everything and to understand
exactly what someone is asking here.
I have however (hopefully) answered in a previous post to Fred (today)
>
> As you teach a dog a down stay, there is going to be some point, somewhere
> in this process where the dog breaks it. What do you do at that point?
>
> - reposition the dog
No
> - ignore it and when then next time for training the dog comes up,
> shorten up the time to prevent another mistake
Partly and also identify the weak links and repair them, before attempting
long down/stay again.
> - try to catch the dog with another "DOWN" before he makes it all
> the way off the ground
I would probably continue to command 'down' if the dog did not actually take
any steps from the spot left. However, once his feet move it's too late
IMO.
(Better described in my last post/reply to Fred)
Regards,
Marilyn
>
> Or...?
>
> --
> ***** tit...@io.com *** DOG FAQS AT http://www.k9web.com/dog-faqs/
*****
> WAGGERY U-CD Terrell's Chocolate Deduction CGC CDX--Hershe
LABRADORS
> ------- Delby's Wood Nymph at Waggery JH WC
Angel ---------
> KT's Before the Mast--Dana
> *** Southern California Lab Rescue: http://www.sclrr.org/ ***
DogStar716
>
Yes, you are. Again I will ask in the simplest of terms:
How do you teach a down?
If you were to ask ME this, my reply would be:
The dog is in the sitting postion (he already knows sit, this taught by holding
a piece of food over dogs head until he backs into the sitting position. If
this method fails, tell dog to sit, tuck his back end until he sits, and
praise). Tell dog DOWN, take a piece of food and lower itl front and out on
the ground while dog follows it into down postion. Praise. If this method
fails, tell dog DOWN, pick up front legs and lower dog into down postion.
Praise. For dogs who want to get up before the relase command, stand on leash
to keep them down, say OK and let dog up. Praise.
Now, that is the format in your answer I would like to see. Call me stupid,
but I like things spelled out for me.
FREDERICK HASSEN
>So I command 'Down'. I have to 'down' the dog
>'before he walks'. If I fail,
>I do nothing - Yes, nothing at all - End of
>exercise. Dog forfeits his reward, and I realise
>that I have to 'go back and improve the down'
>before we can expect a secure out of sight stay.
So you command the dog to "down", and he sees a cat dash across the
street. The dog takes off after the cat, and you stand there. Similar
things have happened to all of us.
>Now please note above 'DOG FORFEITS
>REWARD' - this is relevant.
Wrong, dog got his reward------he got to chase the cat.
FREDERICK HASSEN
Definetly, that's why you can't just give info over the phone, and
that's why I always get clients that say "Oh, I've been using the
Koehler method", and then you see that they are doing nothing even
remotely close. I tell them that I need to come and see what they are
doing wrong, and then we fix it right up. This place is pretty good
entertainment, but it's really hard for people to understand without
seeing it. I'm sure when Cindi came out here with her dogs that I
worked with-----she probably had a completely different impression of
what I said was going on through this board. Believe what you see.
Marilyn Rammell
DogStar716 <dogst...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990906121659...@ng-cc1.aol.com...
> > Everytime we fail (and it's us failing - not the dog) we
> >backtrack to the 'relevant' weak link (in our training program).
> >
>
> And this I do not agree with at all.
That's your prerogative.
Marilyn
Leon Milberg
>When this happens, 'we' have failed - not the dog - we return to the dog at
>soonest thereafter and release. (with loads of praise). We make note of
>distance travelled and time lapsed before losing the eye contact on this
>unsuccessful occasion and when next attempting the down/stay we travel just
>short of that distance and time, before returning and releasing. We
>gradually build up distance and time but must keep in mind that whenever
>there is a failure, we have to reduce distance and time slightly on next
>attempt.
That is exactly the problem. He has figured out the game. I get him to
about two minutes, reliably, and then he will fail (break) repeatedly
until I have moved back to a comfortable time in his eyes. I am not
taking big steps either. What do you recommend.
Leon Milberg le...@4pet.net
Leon Milberg
Where is your response? You do ask a good question, but how about
joining this thread with your technique? You seem to be dodging my
question in your zeal for a response from Marilyn.
Leon Milberg le...@4pet.net
Dogman
[...]
>Definetly, that's why you can't just give info over the phone, and
>that's why I always get clients that say "Oh, I've been using the
>Koehler method", and then you see that they are doing nothing even
>remotely close.
[...]
Fred, unfortunately that's exactly why Koehler gets blamed for
everything from hemorrhoids to the breaking up of the Spice Girls.
The vast majority of people really haven't a clue as to what Koehler
is -- or isn't.
:>(
You can thank scumbags like Jerry Howe for that.
--
Dogman
mailto:dog...@i1.net
http://www.i1.net/~dogman
Marilyn Rammell
DogStar716 <dogst...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990906121618...@ng-cc1.aol.com...
> >Why would you have to tell him DOWN AGAIN? If you had done your 'down'
> >training properly the dog would go down on first command. If not, then
you
> >need to get back into training the DOWN again - PROPERLY!
>
> Ok, I know my way of speaking to you may be frustrating, so I am going to
try
> and curb my sarcasm the best that I can...
>
> Marilyn, there is NO dog in the world who does everything perfectly the
very
> first time and from then on. Maybe we should go all the way back to the
> beginning.
>
> How do teach a down?
No, sorry - that's all from me at the moment - let someone else have a turn.
All I'll say is that it includes no leash checking and absolutely no
discomfort to the dog. I've told one person (in confidence) here on the ng.
They may back me up without actually giving the details. - I leave that to
their discretion.
Leon Milberg
>I do nothing - Yes, nothing at all - End of exercise.
>Dog forfeits his reward, and I realise that I have to 'go back and improve
>the down' before we can expect a secure out of sight stay. If a dog will
>not obey a command (Heel, Sit, Down) then there is little hope of it
>'staying out of sight'. We go back to the weak link in the training. We
>repair it - then we test it.
>Now please note above 'DOG FORFEITS REWARD' - this is relevant.
That has been my strategy for months. The dog has figured it out. He
can force me back to square one in one session. I just can't make
"breaking" less reinforcing than staying.
Leon Milberg le...@4pet.net
Leon Milberg
>>He breaks, I put him back (with a "no") and he will continue to
>>break before his release time.
>
>Have you tried having someone else put him back? The reason that we train with
>an assistant putting the dog back into postion sometimes is because the dog
>isn't expecting another person to correct him. This gives the dog the idea (at
>least in the ring) that the judge himself MAY come over and correct him if he
>breaks :)
Dogstar716:
I do not have anyone to assist me.
Leon Milberg le...@4pet.net
Leon Milberg
>> He breaks, I put him back (with a "no") and he will continue to
>> break before his release time.
>
>Think about what you're saying to the dog. You put him somewhere
>you want him to be - then tell him "No". ???? What is the dog
>supposed to associate that "No" with? Being at that place in a
>down? He's not doing anything at that moment, and can't figure
>out what action you want him to stop by telling him "no".
I went months with no verbal correction. It did not work. He has
figured out the game and has since the beginning. I can get an instant
reliable down. I can get a stay for about 1-2 minutes. When I work
back up to two minutes, he will get the standard lowered until the
stay time is once again short.
Leon Milberg le...@4pet.net
Lynn Kosmakos
Marilyn Rammell wrote:
>
> I thought I made it clear - the training 'IN SIGHT' is what counts -
> ('Know-how', 'Consistency', 'Timing', and being able to detect canine body
> language efficiently enough to 'know when the dog is going to move' etc.
> etc.etc.etc.etc.etc and ten thousand more etcs.
I believe I understand you to be saying that there are no
consequences to the dog if he breaks the stay. But I have to
ask what your response is when you see the dog start to lift
his shoulders in preparation for breaking the stay. I know
what I do in that case - eye contact and "eheh", which are
corrections, in my book. Do you use something else to cause the
dog to change his mind about getting up?
Lynn K.
Leon Milberg
>Don't make a dog stay on a down stay longer that he's likely
>to be able to do, while you're building up. The successes
>are important. Most breaks should be due to distractions and
>temptations you set up, and I think be on fairly short down stays
>so that he gets a fast reward after ignoring the distraction.
This is too easy for my dog to figure out. He has effectively
"trained" me to only demand a short "stay" command. My female on the
other hand, is working well in this fashion, so far.
Leon Milberg le...@4pet.net
Leon Milberg
>The next time he breaks, Leon, don't say a word, just CORRECT him, but
>do it like you actually MEAN IT.
>
>If he breaks 20 times in a row, correct him 20 times in a row.
He will just shut down and refuse to work. It could be a 100 times and
it will make little difference. If he is not reinforced within a time
HE judges sufficient, he will out and out refuse to work. There must
be some success or all you see is frustration from him.
Leon Milberg le...@4pet.net
Leon Milberg
>
>With respect Leon, this is why it dosn't work - What are you telling him
>'no' not to do????? If you 'put him back' and 'then' say 'no' he could take
>that as meaning 'No don't be here' It means nothing constructive to the
>dog. If your dog breaks the stay you have to act 'before' he has time to
>take a step. First thing you need to do is tell him to go back into the
>position he was in while in the 'stay' (Down) - Once you have repositioned
>him, then command 'stay'. Try telling the dog what you 'want him to do' and
>not 'what you dont want him to do'.
I understand that. As I said in response to other posts in this
thread. I went months trying it with no correction. I have now been in
the same spot using the correction. Neither has worked as the dog has
figured out the game. Assume I am back to doing it without any
correction as you suggest. How do you get a dog that has learned to
make it more reinforcing to shorten the time than lengthening it?
Leon Milberg le...@4pet.net
Lynn Kosmakos
"Debbie, Dan & Murphy" wrote:
>
> "Place" means down-stay and don't get up until I
> release you.
The training academy where you trained may be using "place"
as a derivation of the German "platz", the command for down.
While the German for "stay" is actually "bleib", most trainers
simply use the down command, without the stay.
Lynn K.
dw
bad place to be.
dw
Jerry Howe
> Amy Dahl writes:
> >I have, however, followed Koehler pretty closely
> >on a number of occasions, and usually find the
> >need to apply relatively few
> >corrections--especially by the time we get to the
> >"down."
>
> That's about par for the course using Koehler properly. So let's look
> at this. If Amy gives a 'down' command-----it's fair to say that on
> perhaps 95 or more (leaving a little extra room for the hell of it) she
> is saying 'good boy', and nothing else. That's as purely positive as
> any method, no matter how you want to slice it. People never look past
> what the correction does and they think that you are doing that all the
> time. People just can't read.
>
>
>
> FRED HASSEN
> "SIT MEANS SIT" Internet talkshow host
> http://www.lovemypets.com/sitmeanssit
> Dog Training for the Real World
> Sit Means Sit Dog Training (702-877-4581)
> When your dog doesn't know:
> "Sit from Shinola"
>
Hello Frantik Fraud Die,
People can read better than you think. Everybody reading this thread is
aware that you bums are not using all of the gifts G-d gave you jerks. You
are a bunch of abusive morons, and deserve to be dragged back to where you
came from and given a sharp downward correction and be made to stay there.
J>>>
"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious
truth if it would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which
they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, proudly taught to others,
and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their
lives."
Leo Tolstoy
Is it any wonder that the following sig file has generated more
complaints to my personal email than any other controversial post I have
made to date, bar none?:
caveat
If you have to do things to your dog to train him, that you would
rather not have to do, then you shouldn't be doing them. If you
have a dog trainer that tells you to jerk your dog around, choke him,
pinch his ears, or twist his toes, shock, shake, slap, scold, hit, or
punish him in any manner, that corrections are appropriate, that the
dog won't think of you as the punisher, or that corrections are not
harmful, or if they can't train your dog to do what you want, look for a
trainer that knows Howe.
Sincerely,
Jerry Howe,
Wits' End Dog Training
Witse...@aol.com
http://www.doggydoright.com
Nature, to be mastered, must be obeyed.
-Francis Bacon-
There are terrible people who, instead of solving a problem,
bungle it and make it more difficult for all who come after. Who
ever can't hit the nail on the head should, please, not hit at all.
-Nietzsche-
The abilities to think, rationalize and solve problems are learned
qualities.
The Wits' End Dog Training Method challenges the learning
centers in the dogs brain. These centers, once challenged, develop
and continue to grow exponentially, to make him smarter.
The Wits' End Dog Training method capitalizes on praising split
seconds of canine thought, strategy, and timing, not mindless hours of
forced repetition, constant corrections, and scolding.
-Jerry Howe-
Jerry Howe
> What do you do if the
> > dog just gets up and walks away?
>
> You look seriously at your training techniques and improve your training and
> handling ability. Everytime we fail (and it's us failing - not the dog) we
> backtrack to the 'relevant' weak link (in our training program).
Yes, that makes sense. But it is very frustrating, and I find it is reassuring
for me to exert brute force when I'm frustrated and can't think of anything more
productive to do than to take out my aggression on a poor defenseless animal.
Besides, it makes me look powerful and MACHO! I like looking strong and
intelligent. J>>>
Lynn Kosmakos
Leon Milberg wrote:
> I went months with no verbal correction. It did not work.
Leon, the problem with what you described is that you are not
giving him the verbal correction you think you are. Your
timing is wrong and your dog can't make the association between
your "no" and the act of breaking the stay.
To make the connection, you have to tell the dog "no" as he is
getting up - not when you are putting him back into position.
Lynn K.
Jerry Howe
> FREDERICK HASSEN <FHA...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:21716-37...@newsd-102.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Still haven't seen what Marilyn does when the dog doesn't do it, but
> maybe my machine is not getting the posts. Anyway, here is mine----I've
> posted this before, and is from an article I wrote for "Dog Sport"
> magazine.
>
> I have replied Fred, but you may not understand how 'commanding' Down once
> the dog stands up, but before he takes a step, can be effective (if already
> taught in the way I describe) - That could be because our methods of
> teaching are so different and you have your method (and dogs) in mind as
> comparison when reading my replies. I think what could be the most
> significant differences between our methods is that everything I teach a dog
> is taught in a way that the dog sees as, not only 'fun and exciting' -
> but also part of his role in the pack. You have already indicated to me in
> another thread that some dogs don't appear to enjoy this 'natural pack
> instinct' anymore - so in order that we understand each other, I have to
> imagine a dog that no longer possesses what I consider to be 'normal and
> natural canine behaviour' and you have to imagine one that does.
> I will now read your method used for 'down/stay/ again and comment thereon
> after digesting.
> Regards,
> Marilyn
There is NOTHING normal or natural about the force and degrading abuse of the
Koehler method, or in the people that use it after being informed as to the
consequences of their behavior... J>>>
Jerry Howe
> Leon Milberg <le...@4pet.net> wrote in message
> news:37d4e721...@news.nwlink.com...
>
> > I have been doing this for months unsuccessfully. It has become a
> > game. He breaks, I put him back (with a "no")
>
> With respect Leon, this is why it dosn't work - What are you telling him
> 'no' not to do????? First thing you need to do is tell him to go back into
> the
> position he was in while in the 'stay' (Down) - Once you have repositioned
> him, then command 'stay'. Try telling the dog what you 'want him to do' and
> not 'what you dont want him to do'.
>
> and he will continue to
> > break before his release time. It then forces me to back track to some
> > times he can handle. We gradually inch up, then wham he has figured
> > out the game and effectively trains me to lower the standard for him
> > by breaking sooner.
>
> By commanding 'no' each time you reposition him, you are telling him not to
> stay so long. IMO. (Just confusing the dog)
> Imagine this: You are being taught to look at a spot on a wall - you don't
> know what's on the teacher's mind however. The teacher walks you to the
> wall and directs your head so the spot is in front of you. You still don't
> know what the teacher wants you to do. You look around wondering what this
> is all about - the teacher grabs your head and puts it back to face the spot
> and yells 'NO', What the hell is going on you think.
> Another teacher comes along - points your head at the spot, says 'Look' and
> then says 'that's great, well done' lets you rest. Then points your head
> to the spot again says 'Look', and says 'that's great, well done. Does this
> several times, increasing the time before praise a fraction longer each
> time. You like the praise and wait for it each time. One time, you move
> your head before the praise and the teacher repositions your head and says
> 'Look', then praises.
> Which teacher do you understand and want to please the most?
> regards,
> Marilyn
Nice post, Marilyn,
These guys just don't get it.
> If you 'put him back' and 'then' say 'no' he could take
> that as meaning 'No don't be here' It means nothing constructive to the
> dog. If your dog breaks the stay you have to act 'before' he has time to
> take a step.
The "correction" can be done instantly and without force and without even
moving, by simply creating a sound and praising. It's difficult because it takes
brains and doesn't give the satisfaction of jerking the dog around and choking
the shit out of him for screwing you over on purpose, as they are know to do.
Dan H
Has anyone said this, or is this just a marketing technique for you?
Why is it you take statements that other people make and interpitate them to your liking?
Dan H
jerryboy wrote:
It's difficult
because it takes
brains and doesn't give the satisfaction of jerking the dog
around and choking
the shit out of him for screwing you over on purpose, as they are
know to do.
--
ON THE TRAIL FOR MISSING CHILDREN
http://www.pinenet.com/~trex/onthetrail.html
It is a great ride for an even greater cause
So please pass the word Thank you
DogStar716
>All I'll say is that it includes no leash checking and absolutely no
>discomfort to the dog. I've told one person (in confidence) here on the ng.
>They may back me up without actually giving the details. - I leave that to
>their discretion.
I don't believe this. You are acting like the way you teach a down is some top
secret technique! You have told ONE person? I do not understand you at
all.....