pgm

BTW, can you provide a reference for this experiment by any chance? Very handy for future debates.

Haven, you have just described why the ecollar is such an effective training tool. The first thing that a trainer does is to teach the dog how to turn off the ecollar stim. Was this experiment worth it? Well, my answer is to wonder why behaviorists never consult animal trainers. An animal trainer could have told you the result without the need for this experiment. But nobody listens to animal trainers. Instead, they boast how science is advancing our knowledge of training - yeah, right! Confidence comes from learning how to control our enviroment. It does not come from reward, though that is certainly an aspect - it comes from learning to master our enviroment.

To my way of thinking, the only thing that is better 'ethically' is to get better results - meaning: a confident, healthy, well-behaved animal. If one could produce better results by smashing the dog over the head with a sledgehammer, then in principle, I would have no objections. I put the emphasis of ethics on the result, not the process.

Actually, I just think people have become soft in the head. Since we have given up the concept of using physical corrections on children, we now put them on drugs instead. There are over half a million children in this country on anti-depressants and amphetamines for what are essentially behavioral problems. I suspect dogs are headed for the same fate.

The only reason people describe themselves as 'positive trainers' is to differentiate themselves from other types of trainers, such as traditional trainers. There would be no point in calling oneself a 'positive trainer' if it didn't mark some kind difference with other trainers. Otherwise why not just say that you are a dog trainer? Maybe, but almost everytime someone suggests that correcting a dog might be a good thing, there is no shortage of people jumping up ready to condemn. The trouble with the language of OC is that it is a specialized language. Punishment for instance does not mean the same thing as punishment in its everyday sense. Yet all too often people who preach positive methods (and such people typically claim their methods are based on OC) condemn the use of punishment and 'punishment based methods' (of which none exist) - but they do so relying on its everyday meaning to condemn other methods. All positive punishment means in OC is to ADD something to decrease behavior. Everytime you say 'no' to your dog is an example of positive punishment - big deal, what's the problem?

The prey item is faded, same as food - I presume. It isn't different as far as I know - just that some dogs are more prey driven than food driven. No reason why corrections cannot be used in proofing - K9 certainly uses corrections in the proofing stage.

On the contrary, it is perfectly obvious that I train using Koehler, something that I think you already know. Or are you just trying to wind me up?

This is what I find most frustrating. What you have said is essentially Koehler in a nutshell. Why do people think otherwise? Again, pure unadulterated Koehler. Again, another example of taking Koehler out of context. This is not his technique for destructive chewing. The first ten weeks of obedience training, training twice a day for 20mins is his technique for destructive chewing. Everybody knows that destructive chewing or digging is more often than not due to boredom. Today behaviorists announce this as if this was new discovery. Koehler knew perfectly well that boredom created many of these problems, which is why, to repeat once again, he had this to say at the very beginning of the small section at the back of book dealing with problems: "You have already learned one reason why this book maintains that your dog should be trained in his basic obedience BEFORE you make a direct approach to specific problems..." Why, because many of the problems that Koehler deals with in the back of the book (which for some reason people seem strangely drawn to) disappear of their own accord once the dog has been trained and exercised out of its boredom. The sections dealing with problems are for those dogs who have for whatever reason failed to respond to normal methods and are in danger of losing their home, and hence their life. Again, quoted out of context.

Personally Nat, I really don't give much thought to operant conditioning in terms of how I train. The only time I think about it and how it applies to the Koehler is when I am on the internet replying to posts. I really don't think that it is a terribly useful way to think about training - some people do, I don't. Konrad Most said best. If you want to distill this down to its simplest form: 'reward want you want, unreward what you don't want'. Eleanor Herrick That is very true, the way the dog processes information is different depending on the tool and how it is used. The ecollar for instance can be used in quite a few different ways. There are trainers in USA for instance that are developing ecollar training along the same lines as clicker training, using it in exactly the same way as you use a clicker. I am told it works very well. This why the ecollar is such a useful and versatile tool, the same tool can used for positive reinforcement as well as negative reinforcement as well as positive punishment. But you don't need to know that, all you need to know is how to correctly apply the tool to get results.

I am not sure where I have implied that. But let me say one of the biggest obstacles to having a reasonable conversation is the way in which people divide training methods up between positive and negative. There is no such thing as a method based on punishment or correction. Yet so often people talk about different methods in terms that work to preclude reasonable conversation by dividing them into a reward/punishment paradigm. As if the choice is between one or the other. The fact is I train using positive reinforcement, (positive reinforcement is by far the greater part of the method I use) the only difference between the way I train and others train is that I don't confine myself to reward only. If people stopped dividing methods up between positive and negative (a false dichtomy) then that would certainly open up such discussions along more reasonable lines.

Sure it is. When people stop referring to the methods I and others use to train as cruel and abusive and/or 'sickening', then discussion can proceed along more reasonable lines. Assuming that's what people are looking for...

Actually, I have seen these types of dog. Usually they are accompanied into the ring with a handler who has brought into the stuff about using a high pitched sqeal to call their dog (apparently it's called using a happy voice to make sure the dog knows its all fun and games). I've just never associated this kind of dog with what people call 'robot dogs'. But then that's because I've never heard of anyone say: 'oh, I don't want to use food or toys with my dog, I don't want to turn him into a robot'. I do however, regularly hear of people complaining of how their dog no longer responds to the treats they are using and are then encouraged to use higher value treats. In fact just this very complaint was made in another thread by the same poster who laments how 'sickening' Koehler is and how the 'only' reward ever offered to the dog is praise.

Gee, and I would have thought that one would of had to have seen a dog trained using this method before one made judgements as to whether the dog behaved like a 'robot'. But then, like Haven, I never seen a 'robot dog' and so am always left wondering what people mean by this. Though I have seen quite a few dogs lacking any real interest in working with their handlers, dogs that are more or less going though the motions. These dogs I have noticed are the ones more often than not trained with tidbits. Must be why there are so many posts on here about giving higher value food rewards all the time. Maybe you should try pavola. Oh, but wait a minute, my dog was trained using the Koehler method, maybe that's what you mean by a robot dog. Let's see, that must mean a dog that heels offlead without lagging and trots along with a spring in his step, a dog that often gives a little jump for joy when I move into fast pace. A dog that sprints flat out on the recall and drops in a flash on comand. A dog that sprints flat out on the retrieve and then sprints back with tail wagging. But how could this be? I mean I even taught him the 'force fetch', yet he is just so damn happy and enthusiatic to get that dumbell that I often have to correct him to stay before giving the command. Clearly I have misread Koehler, clearly I alone have difficulty in comprehending simple English. Clearly my dog is way too happy and enthusiatic. Or perhaps its just his reliability that offends. That's what all you people must mean: a reliable dog is a robot dog. Well then, I must concede, I have a robot dog.

Nobody references the study - it doesn't exist. Anne Marie Silverton allegedly referred to the study in an obsure seminar in the 90's. Nobody has got any further than that. I want the name of the author and when and where it was published so that I can actually read it. Until then the study is mere conjecture.

K9, the link you provided sent me to the same mythical study that I seen many times. Even if this study did exist (it doesn't) it says nothing about how these collars were used, let alone whether they were use correctly. Now please don't get me wrong, I have no objections to prong collars. In fact I believe that they would be a better, safer, more effective tool for the average person than a check chain. A dog is far more likely to self-correct on a prong collar than a check chain. I believe everything you have said regarding prong collars requiring less force for correction than check chains. I think they should be freely available to the public, I think the problems of pulling on lead would be greatly reduced if the average person had access to what is a perfectly safe tool when used by any normal person. I am simply questioning the notion that check chains when used correctly cause injury. My dog has not pulled or lunged on the check chain since the second day of training. That was over a year ago. I don't see how the check chain can be harming my dog if he is not recieving any corrections. I mean he had it on today when I took him to run an errand through the city at lunchtime. Not one correction, not even a tug on the lead. Oh - but he wasn't on lead - never left my side.

K9, the only study that I know is the mythical prong/check chain study done in Germany where 50 dogs on prong collars and 50 dogs on check chains where compared. The study does not exist. It is the Loch Ness monster of the internet. Many reported sightings no actual sightings. If you can provide me with a citation: name of author, when and where it was published I would be most interested. To save you time I can report that I have spent many hours searching the internet for such a citation and found nothing except quite a few other people asking the same question. I don't know of any research. But I would interested if anyone could provide me with some.

K9, can I ask which research you are referring to?

No, I would prefer you to do as I suggested. Quote him in context. I have already quoted the introduction - what did you not understand? Now here is the first paragraph of the small section at the back of the book titled "Problems": This comes on page 175 of a book containing 207 pages. What about the other 174 pages that occur before this section - have you forgotten to read them? - did you fall asleep and then suddenly wake up on page 175? I mean if even you did wake up on page 175, surely the first paragraph would suggest that might have missed something? But wait! Here is the introduction to puppy training in the section titled 'Problems': I could go on, there is five paragraphs of similar advice before any mention is made of dealing with those dogs that for some reason or another do not respond to normal methods of housebreaking - such dogs are in danger of losing their home and ending up at the pound where they stand a good chance of being pts. But I guess you would prefer that they be put to sleep rather than using harsher methods to deal with what is for many people (not me or you or anyone on this forum) a serious problem that can often end in abandonment. No, you do not lie or exagerate - you do something much worse, you continually quote out of context in order to portray Koehler in the worse possible light. You are quite correct, I did follow his method, exactly as he wrote it, WITHOUT A SINGLE OMISSION. And no, I have never hung or beat my dog, haven't even yelled at it. Gee, that's funny, maybe I missed something...Then again, maybe I am able to read and comprehend simple English... And it a good thing too - people who are unable to read and comprehend simple English shouldn't even consider Koehler...

Hearne was a philosopher and dog and horse trainer. Her book is a philosophical account of training animals, not a 'how to manual'. She passed away recently. She was a good friend of Dick Koehler. I learnt a lot about the method (in particular its philosophical grounding) through her book. I have learnt lots more on a yahoo list called 'Balanced Trainers'. The list is run by Margot Woods, who also worked with Koehler. Lots of great trainers on there as well as a few old time Koehler trainers. Check it out if you haven't already, its a great list.

I read Vicki Hearne's "Adam's Task: Calling Animals by Name", immediately understood and related to what she wrote. Sometime after that I got a dog, looked up Hearne to remember who she was referring to and ordered the book from Amazon. Trained him on my own straight from the book, worked like a charm. Now working through the Koehler Utility book. Hope to start trialling in another month or so.

That's a pity, I don't know of anyone in Australia who teaches Koehler as per the book. The only trainers I know that teach it are like yourself, in USA. Damn....

Kavik, to add to what Trainer47 said. Nothing is said during the first week of trsaining. After that positive reinforcement is used continually for every exercise taught including heel. Here is an example: to teach the sit, the trainer is told to gently place the dog into position and then praise. One is instructed to repeat this process over four days in different locations with about 200 repetitions all with positive reinforcement. On the fifth day one is told to give the command without placing the dog. If the dogs sits, you praise, if it doesn't you correct. Thats 200 hundred repetitions of positive reinforcement against one instance of correction. How many times have I had to correct my dog for failing to sit? Once. How many times have I praised my dog for sitting after said correction: many, many, many, many, many times, too many to remember. Every exercise that Koehler teaches (with the sole exception of the first week's work) follows the same pattern of positive reinforcement versus correction.

Oh, btw I forgot to ask, do you work in Australia, trainer47 ?

Kavik, this will sound counterintuitive, but the first week of training is not about teaching the heel position. Strange as it may sound, it is one of the reasons that the method is so effective. The dog takes up the heel position of its own choice, the dog chooses to walk next to the handler. Remember the long line is fifteen foot long, the dog can walk anywhere within that radius. Why does the dog choose to walk next to the handler? Because that is the best place for the dog to keep an eye on where the handler is going. Its about teaching the foundation for all learning - attention to the handler. The handler does not say 'come on let's go here', he simply goes to where he is going: the dog follows, thus establishing the leader follower relationship within five minutes of training. It will take most dogs about 2 or 3 times getting caught before their attention becomes riveted on the handler. After that only distractions will take that focus away - and after they have been caught out a few times with distractions you will find it hard if not impossible to catch them out again. Now let me address your comment about it not being at all positive. Consider some of the examples given on this forum lately regarding the problem of pulling. Many people take many weeks, if not months (in some cases it has been reported 18 months) trying to teach their dog not to pull, all during that time the dog is continually pulling on the lead and being brought to an abrupt halt by the handler stopping until such time as the behavior is learnt. I would be willing to wager that far less negative reinforcement occurs with the Koehler method than does with many of the other methods suggested on this forum. Why? Because the majority of dogs will stop pulling within the time it takes you to complete the first lesson. After that they will be walking on a loose leash watching the handler attentively without any pulling, unless distracted. Once they are caught out a few times with distractions, that will be it - you will have to work damn hard, and find some pretty big distractions to ever catch them out again. So no, you are right about not using positive reinforcement in the first week. It is introduced in the second week when Koehler introduces the 'heel' command. But, as I said, I will still wager that the method uses far less negative reinforcment than most others. It is no good saying that you are not deliberately using negative reinforcement - every time the dog pulls or strains on the leash negative reinforcemnt is happening whether it is used deliberately or not. The Koehler method is simply using it to its advantage and uses it far less than other methods for the simple reason that the dog stops pulling immediately. From my perspective that is far kinder (and more positive) to the dog than to spend weeks or months (where negative reinforcement is occuring all the time) trying to teach something that can be taught within twenty minutes.

What good points belonging to other methods do I not acknowledge? Positive reinforcement? - use it consistently as the basis of teaching Negative reinforcement? - use it when necessary Negative punishment? - use it when necessary Positive punishment? - use it very rarely, but on occasion Have I missed anything?