itsadogslife

In the real world, you don't need to try and knock down your hypotheses - life will do it for you. I have had people quote this 'scientific study' to me as evidence showing that positive methods get better results than aversives. You can find it here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34153889/Surveyof-ConfrontationalandNonconfrontationalTrainingMethodsinClientDogsShowingUndesiredBehaviors Honestly, this kind of stuff is high school level and shows an inherent bias that these kinds of studies almost always demonstrate. Honestly I have not read a scientific study on dog training that has held up to any kind of scrutiny. If you have any, I am quite happy to read them.

Aidan what gives or speaks with authority for each of us is different. For many people in regards to dog training science speaks with authority. I could say the same thing to those people, be a little less credulous. This is not having a dig, just noting that the lines of authority speak differently to different people. I am a person who is impressed by real world experience, not science when it comes to dog training.

I don't know Leerburg's procedure. Koehler uses the check chain - he experimented with many things in developing the method including the prong collar, he choose the check chain because it proved itself to get the best results for the average person. If you want to use the prong collar, then use the Leerburg method or some other method that has been specially developed for its use. No you weren't. You said: There was no about turns in the video, the woman simply held the line. The force of the correction is determined by the dog. Only after preceeding this way for a full three days will you introduce about turns on the fourth day.

The method is explained in the Koehler Method of Dog Training available at Amazon. David Dikeman also has a DVD on sale, google David Dikeman Command Performance. The method Dikeman uses is basically a fairly straight forward copy of Koehler. I would advise you to get the book for the best results. The DVD can serve as a useful reference. I must warn you however, that you need to put in the work to get the results. If you don't have the time you wont see the same results. The long line method however takes about a week to get something like a loose lead walk. For a quicker result (if loose lead walking is all you want) then you might be better off seeking a professional trainer. But still, either way you need to put in the work to get the results.

You see Nekhbet, one only has to mention the name Koehler and you get this nonsense. The above bears little relation to the Koehler long line method. I make a note for anyone reading the above: do not use a prong collar for long line work. The long line work is done with a check chain.

Certainly Phoenix. Here is a video of David Dikeman advertizing his "Command Performance". Dikeman is basically using the Koehler Method. This video shows the first twenty minutes of training on the line long. Try to ignore the cheesy advertising that starts the video, just go to 3.50 mins into the video where you will see a perfectly normal result after 20mins. Of course, there will be those that will point out (correctly) that I am not an experienced trainer. I am however on other lists than this one. I know of over a half a dozen trainers with over 30+ years experience with with method that will tell you that it works with all dogs. So take it for what it is worth and make up your own mind.

Everyone should indeed find the best method for themselves and which they feel confident in using. Some of us simply dislike our own methods being constantly vilified and misrepresented.

The Koehler method for teaching the sit involves gently placing the sit with approx 150 repetitions over four days in as many different locations as you can find. Then and only then, will corrections be given for failure to sit. Every exercise Koehler teaches follows this same pattern.

Then that's a nice result then, something worth paying for. Pity said owner of dog didn't come to you first, instead of spending 3 years unsuccessfully trying to train a dog.

Okay Aidan, let's keep it simple then. What is a reasonable time frame to train the above category of dogs to heel off-leash around distractions? Let's assume the owner is an average pet owner, and let's also assume he is compliant with instructions. What is a reasonable time frame to get the above result?

Regardless of the trainers preferred tool, what I would want to know if I was to pay good money for what is essentially a professional service, is what results can I expect and how long will it take me to achieve it? A trainer ought to be able to provide a client with a reasonable timeframe for a reasonable result. Now the trainer may wish to qualify (to an extent) this statement by saying, you will achieve this result in this timeframe so long as you do the work and follow instructions. I say he may qualify the statement to an extent for the reason that surely a professional trainers job is teach and motivate the student. In other words, I'm not paying the trainer to train the dog, but rather to teach me how to train the dog. And if he is going to take my money, he ought to be good at doing this. On the other hand, when such trainers start telling me that the results I get and the timeframe in which I can reasonably expect to get such results, will depend on the dog, well I am sorry but that trainer ought not be taking money. Furthermore, if said trainer were to tell me to use a halti, I would say fine - please show me one of your students dogs and what it can do and how long it took to get those results.

Not directed at yourself Snoopy, but all I can say to that is wow! The quality of obedience training in this country must be extraordinary in its ineptness if can take 3 years and 2 trainers to train a dog to walk to heel without pulling or lunging. Just wow!

As Mace has said, take the front harness off your dog and see how much control you have. If you are relying on the tool for control then your dog is simply not trained. The very best method for keeping your dog under control and safe is training that will bring you control independently of whatever tool you may be using. There is a man in a motorized wheelchair who lives around where I do. He keeps his two small dogs on the wheelchair on leash. Both dogs, especially the Jack Russell are completely out of control. The Jack Russell goes completely beserk whenever he sees another dog. Trying to walk past this man is a complete nightmare. Guess what happens? Every so often the Jack Russell gets loose from the man's grip. These dogs are tragedy waiting to happen. Your rottie may be well behaved and the front harness may give you a feeling of control. But should something unexpected happen not of your making, such as meeting this man above with his two completely out of control dogs the very best guarantee you have to keep your dog safe and out of harms way is training that brings you offlead control and reliability.

I know I will get into trouble here again, but the fact is that until you are prepared to make the effort to train your dog it is simply untrue that you'll do "anything" to avoid similar situations. The very best way to avoid similar situations is to train your dog. Try it, you'll be doing your dog the best favor you can do for him.

Megan I am not finding offense and I apologize if my comments come across that way. I don't want to highjack this thread so I will leave it there. Again, I apologize and wish you and your dog's the best. I know having such a dog would be difficult.

I am sorry Megan, I don't mean to be difficult. I guess I am confused about the idea of rehabilitation and the idea of mental and physical exercise being two seperate things. To my way of thinking a structured obedience program provides both the mental and physical needs of the dog whilst at the same time solving the problem. I mean if the behavorist is only treating the DA problem itself and not the whole dog (meaning the mental and physical needs of the dog) at the same time, then I would have reason to doubt their value. But that's just me.

I will get into trouble for saying this, but why not take it to an experienced trainer who has experience in rehabilitating DA reactive dogs. A sound and structured obedience program would surely overcome these kinds of problems in many dogs? That way you get both the mental and physical exercise as well as solving your problem.

Put a tab on the dog's collar so that you will have something to grab onto - or else a short light line. Keep it on the dog around the house. When you want him to get off the couch don't push him off. Rather take the opportunity to teach him a very useful command - such as "off" - the couch, the bed or whatever. Just take the line and use it to encourage him to get off the couch, as he moves to get off say (his name) "off". Praise or give him a treat. Avoid using your hands - use the tab or light line (a thin piece of rope attached to his collar). Biting or nipping your heels? Teach him the down command - every time he starts to nip, give him the command. As for his problem around other dogs - he needs to be taught formal obedience. Find a trainer. Every problem you have mentioned can be solved by switching your thinking around from how do I stop this behavior to what can I teach him so that the behavior is redirected into something useful. Good luck - looks like a great dog.

one. see above. lol

Ok, I will ask the same question that I asked in the previous thread. Do you know of a method that can take a class of handlers and their dogs and get a 80% success rate in passing a AKC Novice test in ten weeks? I took my first dog to an obedience club and can assure you that nobody was doing the same thing. For one everybody was using different tools, some on flat collar, others on gentle leaders, others on harnesses other still on martingale. To say that such a club followed a 'method' in teaching would be a gross overestimation. Having people walk about doing the same things, but with different tools during class is not a method. I expect, that most obedience clubs are similar. To say it again, obedience clubs are the very last place I would go to see people following the "same recipe". But why don't you know whether it is or isn't the exception? Surely a simple empirical study would very easily establish it one way or another. Why has such studies not been conducted by behaviorists? You have said that there is a close relationship between theory and experience - but here, I only see a gaping void. Surely you can see that there is a vast gap between experiments conducted in controlled enviroments as opposed to real people with real dogs in real life. If you want to know whether the long line brings uniform results one need only seek out a qualified Koehler instructor, spend six months observing and keeping records and you will have your answer. No matter how many experiments behaviorist do in controlled enviroments it doesn't add up to anything (at least in recommending a method of training) until they take those experiments out into the real world of people and dogs and have them empirically tested in real world conditions.

You have misunderstood my question. You said: "I understand that Koehler trainers don't see his method as "setting the dog up to fail", but from a behaviour analysts perspective, that is what actually happens in practice." On what basis should I accept the behaviorist's perspective as opposed to the Koehler perspective that the "method sets up the dog to fail".

How do you know this? This goes to the question of why should I accept the behaviorist's perspective? This is also goes to your suggestion that there is not much of a gap between theory and practice? Can you point me to where a behaviorist has studied and observed a qualified Koehler class over a period of time to reach such a conclusion? I would be far more impressed with this comment, if you could show me a study of Koehler class over an extended period of time. Has any such study been conducted? Again, on what basis should I accept the behaviorists perspective? You have said the science is rigorous - okay, where can I find a rigorous empirical study done on the long line use as instructed by Koehler?

Posted by Aidan2 They know the line is there. But you said that Koehler and his proteges must have had a deft touch and so knew how to avoid this. How did they avoid this? Obviously they were also working with the long line.

Sorry to keep asking questions, I keep seeing different things in your response. But my question is, on what basis should I accept the "behaviour analysts perspective"?

But the long line is 15' for a reason. You are instructed to turn whilst the line is slack, thereby avoiding giving the dog any cues. An experienced trainer could use a shorter line without giving cues, but the length of the line was specifically chosen so that even a novice could turn without giving a cue.