itsadogslife

Ok, take a look at the dog heeling offlead in that video, imagine the exact same behavior in the dog as it takes a casual stroll with it's owner. Are you saying that that performance can be improved? What do you mean by that? That the dog should be in high drive, prancing on all fours, looking at adoringly at its owner as they enjoy a causal stroll? Why would you want a dog like that on a casual walk? That is what the dog has been trained for - to be attentive and responsible in ordinary life. Why can you not understand that the aim of training here is different?

The dog is isn't looking at the handler? lol. How do you suppose the dog remains in heel if it wasn't paying attention to the handler? Some of us are unconcerned to have a dog stare up at our faces in a trained display of adoration.

The dog scored 196.5 Obviously American judges are all incompetant fools as well, no doubt.

Yep nice video showing how corrections can work to help the dog make the right choice.

What makes you assume that my training goal is specifically or solely aimed at competition? If you want to train specifically to win competition then fine. The dog in that video was not trained specifically or solely for competition.

LOL. Of course heaven forbid teaching the dog to act responsibility. Being responsible means making the right choice even if you might at the moment prefer to do something else. If you never allow that choice, you may well train behavior, but you haven't trained responsibility.

Yes.

Steve's methodology is teach the behavior, train the behavior, proof the behavior. It's the same basic methodology that Koehler uses. So you shouldn't have any problem then.

Not if the dog has something more fun to do.

The dog in the above video did win the trial lol. Perhaps all the other dogs were trained with clickers?

Exactly. They are training two different things. As I have said if training the behavior that Ellis gets is what you want, then great. Everybody should get what they want. I just wonder why a certain, very small section of the dog owning population has such keen interest in bad mouthing others from getting what they want. Ellis is not training the same things as Koehler.

There are other things in life, called responsibilty, good manners. I suppose ditching good manners and responsibility and the satisfactions that come from good behavior for having "fun" is what you call an improvement. I don't. Now please don't start complaining that oh, my dog is well behaved and responsible etc. They may be and that's good if they are. But if that is the case why do you and others seem to criticize everything on the basis, that oh, it's "not fun". I don't see anything in anyone's training philosophy here other than it's got to fun. We have to have fun, fun, fun. Now I suppose I'll now have endure post after post of people abusing me and about how sorry they are for my dog. As if teaching resposibility and good manners excluded having fun.

Kavik, you are also missing and essential element of the method. Namely, teaching responsibility. The dog is being taught that part of the dog's responsibility is to pay attention. And no, this does not mean that the handler is not responsible.

Which is exactly what Koehler is doing. It is a silly or supeficial understanding to say that Koehler is not engaged in an activity with the dog simply because the first week of training (training, is that not an activity between dog and handler?)the dog is ignored. The dog is ignored precisely to get his attention on the handler so that a co-operative activity may begin - namely training.

No is isn't Kavik. Koehler gets engagement by ignoring the dog. If you saw the first week of training on the long line, you would clearly see the engagement (or attention as Koehler calls it) developing in the dog.

Ok, my first video wasn't a great success lol. I rushed it, didn't actually watch it properly and agree that it wasn't a great example. Obviously the dog wasn't ready for trialling. This next video is a better example of a Koehler trained dog. As you will see, the dog does not 'perform' with the same energy and drive as a Micheal Ellis trained dog. Some of us prefer this type of dog.

If something is "rewarding to the dog", it really doesn't matter what you or I may want to call it.

Negative reinforcement: removal of something (adversive) which reinforces behavior tending to make it repeat.

But I wasn't asking how long they can maintain that drive and focus in competition, I was wondering how long they can maintain they level of drive and focus full stop? But the Koehler method is reward based. How else can you teach a dog to do something (as opposed to stop doing something) and then keep doing it, unless it is rewarding? Surely the science alone must tell you that? Behaviour does not have a tendency to repeat unless it is reinforcing in some way or another.

Kavik this is not aimed at you personally, I know we disagree and will probably continue to do so. But I want to turn this around and get you to look at it from the average dog owners perspective. (in other words, from the perspective that I see things) Here is video of a six month old dog being trained to heel using Micheal Ellis's techniques. Now once again, let me make clear, I think Ellis is a brilliant dog trainer, so I am not arguing that this method or this trainer is better than that or this trainer. Now imagine the average person saw this dog being heeled down the road in this manner. You don't think they would think something odd was going on? Imagine if they walked up to the owner and asked, why is your dog behaving that way? and the owner said, because I trained him to heel this way. Why says the average dog owner? Because I want my dog to have 100% focus on me at all times says the owner. You don't think the average person wouldn't walk away thinking to himself something very weird is going own with that owner, why would anyone want to train a dog that way? Now let's imagine Micheal Ellis is taking his dog on a causal walk around to the shops, do you think he would be heeling his dog in that fashion? Or do you not rather imagine that his dog would look like a calm, relaxed dog enjoying a walk with his owner. Imagine that dog and you will see the dog that I want, behaving in the manner I want. A well trained Koehler dog gives you that kind of dog why would I use Micheal Ellis's techniques for training in drive when I have no use for it? Why does a very small percentage of the dog owning population condemn a method specifically designed and developed for the 'average dog owner' from the complete beginner to the more advanced, for methods and techniques which produce behaviors that the average dog owner would consider patently ridiculous? And one more question, how long can the dog in the video be reasonably expected to maintain that total 100% focus without reward? Let's consider a fully trained dog - how long once the dog has been trained can they reasonably be expected to maintain that drive and focus? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqRksbKrYSI

I think most people reading this know that this is not what I have been saying. But as you have no interest in making any effort at reasonable disagreement, I'll not waste my time responding to your dribble. I have tried to be polite, I understand that people disagree on these matters and that's fine. But I see no reason why people cannot disagree without resorting to ignorant attacks upon others that they may disagree with. A method, no matter whose it is, is only as good as the person holding the lead. As such, I see no reason to continue to talking to you.

Huski, here is a video of a Koehler trained dog in training for novice ask away...

I don't have any video's of my dog, but I will see if I can find some of Koehler trained competing. They are hard to find, every video I have seen on Koehler trained dogs on You Tube for instance, is an example of someone not using Koehler lol.

That is excellent. Why do you assume that my dog doesn't? Have you used the Koehler method? A couple of things, I am not arguing that only the Koehler Method can get reliable results. I am not arguing against your preferred methods of training or anyone else's for that matter. I am not interested in arguing which or whose methods are better. Better is a relative term. Choose the method that is best for you. My only interest is in defending my own chosen method against certain regular and persistent misconceptions. I have Micheal Ellis's latest video on teaching the heel. Micheal Ellis is a brilliant trainer. His dogs are brilliantly trained and performed dogs. Are they better than Koehler methods? Well guess what, no they are not. Better is a relative term, what is better for you, depends on what behaviors you want to train in your dog. I don't use Micheal Ellis's method of training in drive, because I am not interested in training those behaviours (such as seen on the video). If on the other hand you are, then obviously you ought to seek out those methods rather than Koehler's.

If you have trained previous dogs using the Koehler Method as instructed from the book (without revision or modification) and got these kinds of result, then it is a very good thing that you train with different methods now. Personally, none of the things you imply here and elsewhere are indicative of how my dog behaved to command. Except for the perfect heeling and reliable recall that is. Do you realise how offensive it is to imply that someone whom you have never met 'beats' their dog? How about a dog that heels off-lead and remains attentive whilst at the same time takes in the surroundings? Attentivenss to the handler in Koehler’s method is the same kind of attentiveness that a person has when driving a car. Personally, driving the car is the last thing I am thinking of when driving, yet I am remain attentive, all the while I can carry on a conversation with the person next to me, admire the scenery, look out for a house I am looking for etc. A trained behavior as Koehler sees it, becomes automatic, unconscious, like driving a car. This free up the mind to take in the scenery and surroundings without losing attentiveness. I certainly would not want my dog to have no other interest in the world other than me. Being attentive to me does not mean sole focus on me to the exclusion of everything else. Yet if I were to show you evidence that your methods did not meet with 100% success rate you would no doubt complain that the handler was not committed, did not do the work, did not follow the instructions etc. Yet Koehler failure to achieve 100% success rate is attributed by you to all manner faults of the method, such as “can’t handle corrections and turn into quivering nervous wreck who snap at the worst moment, mauling a child and being put to sleep”. Can you rachet up the emotional blackmail anymore? Again, you have never met me, yet seem awfully free with your unfounded assumptions. Should I tell you that I have attended a workshop with Steve Courtney up in Sydney? Perhaps not, it might spoil your fantasies. I don’t know. I ask, and you reply with nothing but emotional blackmail. You mean, am I well read in the science of behaviorism? The science founded by B.F. Skinner? The same science that has been discarded for over thirty years in the human sciences as being inadequate to explain behavior? The same science that treats the mind as irrelevant in explaining behavior? The science of Classical Conditioning? The science of Learning Theory? The science of Operant Conditioning? More patronizing insults? Can you provide an answer to the question that I reasonably asked or are you just going to continue with this emotional blackmail? Yet more patronizing insults based on unfounded assumptions of a person and his dog that you have never met.