SpecTraining

Is "spirited" a euphemism for "need to know the handler is prepared to kill them"? No bloody wonder some security dogs attack the handler at the first sign of weakness. I don't know the training backgrounds of security dogs that have attacked their handlers although there has been a few occasions I have heard about it happening. None of mine have ever attacked their handlers and I don't expect that they would either.

I put them back in family homes with kids and other dogs, but I guess that isn't a real test? Indeed. Or who is a real person. This thread was about Cesar Milan techniques Aidan, by your responses it seems you think the thread is about you for some reason

Can't recall too many blind people training guide dogs Cosmolo, or too many guide dogs fall apart when beyond the trainers presence as one example. Yes, poorly trained dogs with inadequate foundation can exhibit what you have explained I agree, it happens.

So where do you go next, Garry? The dog is now aware that you can kill him, he no longer tries to bite you (the trainer). Has he learned not to bite everyone? Has he learned not to bite children, or other dogs? What about off-leash? Does he have less motivation to try and bite others? What is it that CM isn't showing us and that you haven't explained here? I don't think a dog that has to know the handler can kill them in order for them to respect, is well suited for a pet. Most people do not want to almost kill their pet dog in order to gain respect. Many people may not even be capable of doing this. Sometimes the best option for the owner is to rehome to a working home or sadly, PTS. No, they are not a good pet proposition at all I totally agree, but some people love them regardless and want to try and give them the best opportunity to rehabilitate them which I think is fair enough

Not everyone's level of "extreme" is the same Cosmolo. I have had many supposedly experienced trainers of extreme dogs that can't handle a spirited Belgian Malinios or a GSD with some civil drive, let alone teach someone how to train them. I have also seen trainers walk away from jobs when the dog has come back up the leash at them too and they write the dog off as untrainable. Some of these situations have been trainers who claim to specialise in aggression and quite honestly, they really haven't got a clue and are often scared of the dog which doesn't help. Some also apply techniques not to ruffle the dog up and avoid triggers which provides the wrong impression of the training success as the dog still remains willing and able to aggress when faced with certain triggers. They don't test the dog properly in rehabilitation to face the right triggers that will cause the dog to react, and by avoiding triggers in a claim that the dog is now rehabilitated and safe is a dangerous practice IMHO. Most trainers who work with aggression for real and understand it, work in similar principals and methods and the one's who disagree I have always found have limited exposure and experience in comparison. Their opinions are often based upon what they have read or what someone has told them, but their opinions if based upon personal experience working with aggression I think in many cases would be a lot different. It's not hard to tell reading peoples posts and opinions who is genuinely experienced with aggression and who isn't

And again, the point being made here is not that you can't rehab a dog if you are sufficiently skilled and physically capable. The point is that many dogs are owned by people who are NOT physically or mentally capable of the things Milan does. Some dogs are always going to go wind up dead because there are not enough average homes for dogs who behave, much less highly skilled, well resourced and capable homes for dogs who don't. Many owners don't have any training skills being the reason they hire professional trainers to sort out issues with their dog, but it often happens that the supposed trainer they select doesn't have the experience and skill to correct the issues either and condemns the dog to mask their inabilities. There are extreme cases of dog and owner mismatches especially people who are physically impaired, but the dog in most cases can be rehabilitated by a professional trainer to allow an impaired owner to handle them. It's not all about teaching people how to train their dog and a dog doesn't have to be owner trained to eliminate unwanted behaviours if the professional trainer is good enough.

Why the assumption that it's either alpha roll and choke your dog until it gives up, or food and cuddles? Who here is saying that dogs shouldn't learn the rules? Why the insinuation that if you use food or praise with aggressive dogs you aren't also able to implementing boundaries or rules? I have no problem with giving corrections, using tools like prongs or e-collars etc or giving dog boundaries but some of the things Cesar does makes me feel quite ill. Besides, many people would not be strong enough to choke or alpha roll a 50kg aggressive newfie until it gave up (or just plain ran out of breath). ETA: I find it amusing that anyone who doesn't 110% support Cesar is lumped into the new age food and cuddles, never ever punish your dog crowd. What I think is most amusing is the criticsm of Cesars methods from people who have never trained aggressive dogs and quite frankly don't have the experience with aggressive dogs to form an educated opinion IMHO. The "never punish a dog crowd" are the ones responsible in most cases who recommend sending aggressive dogs to the bridge and deem the dog untrainable which is understandable given that their training methods don't work with dogs of that nature. Seriously aggressive dogs WILL nail you at the drop of a hat and if you are scared of them and allow the dog to win if they bring on a fight makes them worse. Standing up to dogs like that and winning the fight, the dog soon gets the message that it can't win and begins to form some respect. Some dogs need to learn that the handler can kill them if required which in some cases is the ONLY way that the dog will learn enough respect to stop it's fighting challenges. Not too many dogs will take on a subject they can't beat and rehabilitation works in the exact opposite to confidence building used in protection training. The problem with methods that doesn't teach the dog respect of power, is that although softer methods can work to a degree, the dog ALWAYS has aggression up it's sleeve and will use aggression if need be. The dog has to learn that ANY aggression results in a major loss and at times, the more aversive and unpleasant for the particular dog the better and the alternative is PTS because the dog is too dangerous and unpredictable without learning clear definition and consequence.

Surely Nekhbet though you are aware there are other options when training an aggressive dog other than choke it, or cuddle it and give it food I've seen trainers handle "red zone" (as Cesar would call them) dogs without resorting to alpha rolling them (that would just be sheer stupidity anyway) or choking them till they give up (or run out of oxygen, either way) with great results so... I guess the "they are strong aggressive dogs" doesn't really make sense for me. And often, handling big aggressive dogs like Cesar does would be outright impossible for many owners to do - you'd have to be able to physically over power the dog, until it breaks. And even then, you are setting yourself up to get bitten. Did you know that Nekhbet is well experienced at assessing and rehabilitating aggressive dogs Huski and I am not talking only cranky little snappers either, 40 odd kilo dogs looked at the wrong way are happy to take your head off, and she's actually very good at it and a respected trainer in the working dog fraturnity which may explain where her views on the situation derives from, practical work and success with animals of that nature, not an opinion based on a handful of theories and favourtism of particular training methods

what, like on every episode it is written do not try this at home without a professional? I agree

That video is Koehler training and looked good for a 10 month old pup, no lures, no treats and the dog had good focus for the stage of training it had completed with distractions. Yes, aversive methods overdone does have a potential to cause a flatter performance, and is the reason why a combination of aversive and reward methods provides the best of both worlds

Koehler corrects for disobedience and breaking commands. The trainer in the video was standing around with the dog under no instruction then corrected when the dog focused upon something else. Konrad Most was the pioneer of yank and crank using the style of leading the dog into a mistake then correct, where Koehler methods in the situation shown on the video would not correct the dog when it wasn't subject to a command. Koehler would correct the dog in a similar fashion if he had commanded a sit and the dog disobeyed or broke the sit. Koehler methods never correct a dog in that fashion without disobedience from a known command. Winifred Strickland, a GSD breeder and high profile obedience/performance competitor was one of the first trainers to use Koehler basics adding positive reward as a double reinforcer and creating what we know today as an introduction to a training in drive scenario. She claimed several world titles in pioneering flashy obedience in certain disciplines removing the flatness in performance often seen in dogs trained in purely aversive methods.

Correct JulesP. The video Kavik posted is not Koehler leash work, looks more like Konrad Most style.

Training in Schutzhund routines is done primarily in drive for the best results that is correct, the foundation training to pass the BH to qualify into the Schutzhund routines isn't. The dog has to first display pet like behaviour and obedience, it has to walk on a loose leash and not be distracted by people, other dogs, noise, cars, bicycles, joggers and behave it's self beyond the handlers view tied to a post on it's own and if the dog jumps around, misbehaves, barks etc it fails the test. E collars are often used now in the tie out training on some dogs who misbehave without the handler's presence. Many dogs are trained in Koehler style to achieve the obedience level and reliablity to pass the BH in the foundation training.

Totally agree JulesP, it's exactly the tools (flat collar) and method I also find best with young dogs.

I wouldn't describe being quiet and obedient while having to suppress an innate response through worry of retribution as tranquility, by any stretch of the imagination. Not from what I have observed/experienced anyway. And they are top level too, from what I have seen. cheers M-J The dog doesn't supress anything in that situation, it simply makes a choice and chooses the most comfortable outcome which is to stay put and is more than happy to comply. Yes it does prey drive is a fixed action pattern. You can't correct hard wiring out of a dog, only suppress it. I would say there would be a great deal of conflict happening. I have heard that explanation given as an excuse for the inability of containing a prey driven animal by command which in reality is untrue. Prey driven animals will loop out often during attempts to suppress the behaviour in an untrained state, but a highly prey driven dog can be trained to sit quietly and mind it's business in the presence of prey quite easily. Of course they can, I'm not disagreeing with you on that one, but I don't believe the dog is tranquil. Outwardly they may appear that way but they loop out because of fear. It's survival, no good concentrating on chasing the rabbit for dinner if a tiger is chasing you for his dinner. I don't believe either the handler or the dog can stop the initial response to the stimuli, only the behaviour. The dog knows if they display the behaviour their brain is telling them to display, they will receive a correction that at best will be unpleasant, pending on how high the dog's drive is. You might be right m-j, but providing the dog behaves and obeys commands, I am happy with that behaviour. Prey drive isn't essentially a stressed component as would be defense drive, so I guess providing the anticipation to break the command is suppressed enough for the dog to behave quitely, the training result has been achieved.

Bearing in mind, a dog must pass a BH before it can progress to Schutzhund training which is a companion animal test (pet test) which requires pet obedience and behaviour. I have trained several for the BH in Koehler, passed and progressed to Schutzhund training. Comments like no one trains in Koehler foundation work in Schutzhund is silly really Kavik, none of us know the exact methods used for every dog that has been Schutzhund titled and personally I don't believe you should make comments like that when it's so plainly obvious that you couldn't possibly know that and neither do I for that matter.

Of course not, it's not designed to achieve a competition heel, it's designed to achieve handler focus and obedience and once that is established, the competition heel is trained from there. Many Schutzhund dogs are trained in Koehler basics as the foundation and shaped to form a faultless heel as you would be aware

Perhaps I am not being clear enough SpecTraining, once again... leash corrections are not the only kind that you can use. There are other ways show your dog there is a consequence for certain actions. I am not making comparisons between how I train and Koehler style training but simply saying... I have a dog who walks reliably on a loose leash, who was not trained with big leash corrections. In fact I have seen dozens of dogs trained to reliably walk on a loose leash without needing big Koehler style leash corrections. Besides that, why would I use Koehler style leash corrections to train focus? I trained my dog to be more focused by building her drive, big leash corrections in the drive building stage would have hinder our training not improved it. I corrected her on a check chain plenty of times when we first started obedience and the only thing it did was teach her to switch off in training and made it harder to get her to go into drive when I wanted her to. She's a low drive dog, Koehler methods would be unsuitable and unnecessary to use on her. If you have ever done an about turn with a dog on leash Huski, that's Koehler concept and has nothing to do with mindfully administering big corrections at all. Put a leash on a puppy, walk around changing direction and the puppy gets excited, chases the handler around jumping up and thinks it's a game. Done correctly, the puppy has 100% focus upon what the handler is doing and where the handler is going which is the foundation of the Koehler leash training concept. Couple that up with positive reward to reinforce the focus, results in a very handler focused pup in a short period of time. The dog at minimal distraction has learned that handler focus is a good thing, then as the dog is subject to higher levels of distraction is the point where handler focus is lost to the distraction and the dog will self correct when not following the handler's direction. Because the dog has been foundation trained to follow the handler, the correction causes the dog to re-think it's action and where it's focus needs to be which is on the handler and not the distraction. When the dog re-focuses, it's reinforced with reward. Koehler obedience was all about handler focus using a leash as a training tool until proofed, then the leash was thrown away. You can't apply big leash corrections to a leashless dog Koehler ruined his brilliant foundation training concept with rediculous problem solving aversive measures and did himself and his entire systems and injustice IMHO and had he not projected such barbaric problem solving methods, today I am sure his leash training concepts would have been at legendary status where it deserves to be. Where people mess it up, is not following the foundation training work and beginning at step 6 taking dogs into high distraction areas and applying severe corrections when they don't comply. Take the same dog back into a low distraction area which I have done many times and do some direction changes and the dog has no foundation handler focus whatsoever and is all over the place although it may walk on a loose leash quite ok. Complete the basic focus exercises, then return to areas of higher distraction and you have a completely different and much improved behaviour to work on from there. Do I think this process would work on your dog Huski, of course, absolutely Garry

I wouldn't describe being quiet and obedient while having to suppress an innate response through worry of retribution as tranquility, by any stretch of the imagination. Not from what I have observed/experienced anyway. And they are top level too, from what I have seen. cheers M-J The dog doesn't supress anything in that situation, it simply makes a choice and chooses the most comfortable outcome which is to stay put and is more than happy to comply. Yes it does prey drive is a fixed action pattern. You can't correct hard wiring out of a dog, only suppress it. I would say there would be a great deal of conflict happening. I have heard that explanation given as an excuse for the inability of containing a prey driven animal by command which in reality is untrue. Prey driven animals will loop out often during attempts to suppress the behaviour in an untrained state, but a highly prey driven dog can be trained to sit quietly and mind it's business in the presence of prey quite easily.

I don't think you did figure it out either Mrs Rusty Bucket because if the dog's doing backflips at the end of the leash, you are not applying the correction correctly As the dog bolts forward, you turn around and walk in the opposite direction which teaches the dog to focus on the handler at all times, then the focus is reinforced with positive reward

I wouldn't describe being quiet and obedient while having to suppress an innate response through worry of retribution as tranquility, by any stretch of the imagination. Not from what I have observed/experienced anyway. And they are top level too, from what I have seen. cheers M-J The dog doesn't supress anything in that situation, it simply makes a choice and chooses the most comfortable outcome which is to stay put and is more than happy to comply.

Purley out of interest, what is your reasoning for avoiding punishments Corvus???. Is it the humane, handler fallout, cruelty, purely positive patter???. What you have achieved sounds good and semi reliable, but geez, there is a lot of unnecessary work IMHO to achieve the goals you have reached. The difference when leash trained with corrections properly, the default behaviour is that the dog stays by your side and responds to any known verbal command. The dog doesn't have to be proofed to individual scenarios like cats dashing across the road as it has two choices, stay put and enjoy tranquility or chase the cat and reach the end of the leash with an uncomfortable outcome

Far be it for me to speak for K9 Pro but I've never seen him use a Koehler style leash correction, and I've seen him train quite a few dogs to walk reliably on a loose leash. I also do all my training on flat collar and have since day one... and am yet to be advised to use a Koehler style correction, but I still teach my dog there are consequences to certain actions without giving a big leash correction, a leash correction is not the only way to show the dog there are negative consequences to specific actions. Perhaps I didn't write clearly enough Huski my reference to K9Pro was his approach to training in both negative and positive methods, nothing to do with Koehler in that vein. If you have never trained in Koehler leash obedience Huski, how do you compare the results with your methods to determine which is most effective???.

Yes, I did get that Huski and asked why he wouldn't use a correction in the circumstances which boiled down to the same "purely positive" perspective which IMHO is nonsence for the most part, and I share the same opinion regarding the side effects of correction in the same way described by Nekhbet in this thread and K9pro's link I provided. Dogs that have learned no consequence for their actions shows up in other behavioural traits. A loose leash walk can established with positive reinforcement and the dog can walk beautifully until it reaches a major distraction and will shoot the end of the leash and pull. A dog trained to loose leash walk from aversive methods for example Koehler leash work, knows what happens at the end of the leash and they don't display the same behaviour with any distractions, there is a marked difference between the two methods in reliability terms. If you have ever walked a dog trained in Koehler leash work and walked a dog trained in positive methods, you would know the difference I am referring to when distractions are elevated, it's like chalk and cheese

No-one was arguing otherwise. My apologies to the OP for letting this get off-topic by my participation. I had only intended to answer specific questions related to the original post and had hoped that this would not turn into a method debate. Least of all a debate of extremes ("purely positive", police dogs, high level competition dogs etc). Somehow Neville (SpecTraining) seems to always bring it back to either an imagined "purely positive" or "all GSDs must have SchH titles" debate, which is a shame because I honestly believe that Neville has more to offer than that. The original question he posed was insightful, unfortunately the forest seems to have been lost for the trees. You specifically asked for reasons other than these. What was happening back then is way out of context with what is happening today. This discussion has nothing to do with GSD's and Schutzhund titles George (Aidan), it has to do with what has transpired in the thread from my suggestion to add a correction and the "purely positive" people wanted to voice an opinion in opposition to using a correction in the OP's situation and the reason for opposing a correction is what I asked in hope of an informed and sensible discussion which is relative to what the OP has asked for, "tips to re-gain focus". My point of mentioning high level competition and police dogs is that reliability is paramount, so if purely positive methods worked best to attain the required reliability the trainers working in these disciplines would use only positive methods, yeah???. They wouldn't use aversives and jeopardise the training of a dog that is worth a lot of value in that case if the get it wrong, and purely positive methods is not how these dogs are trained "fact". They are trained in a combination of both methods in the same fashion as explained by Steve Courtney from K9 Pro in the link I provided, did you read that???. What happens today regarding purley positive training is still the same reasoning as it was intitially, injuring the dog, handler fallout, cruelty, etc as a basis for why aversive methods should be avoided, and my question irrespective of this still remains unanswered where no one yet has provided a reason in terms of reliability how positve reinforcement is assumed to provide a more reliable result than a correction