Chronic Puller! Help!

[4lex]

There was a time when Koehler style obedience training won everything and the dogs trained that way were millimeter perfect in their routines but some that were under heavy handed training (Koehler to extreme) although perfect in obedience, were considered flat in performance, didn't have "happy feet" I remember someone describing the flatness as.

When Koehler was in vouge that was all there was. If you used food or were "soft"you certainly didn't admit it Training with food was scorned and you were not considered to be a dog trainer's rear end. In his book Koehler makes constant reference to those he considered to be wimps (not his words but something similar). As has been mentioned how many were written off as too soft (not saying that rehoming a dog because it doesn't suit your requirements isn't ok, as long as it goes to a good home) At least the handlers these days are training all types of dogs not just the ones that could take the knocks or had preparedness to conform to humans, to me these are real dog trainers as they know more about motivating all dogs, not just certain types.

As far as using a harness goes try to tell the 69 yr old lady I was talking to today they aren't an effective training tool. She was nearly crying tears of joy (so was I, as her mood was very infectious) and she also gave me a huge hug, because she can now walk her 5yr old male Mal without her hip hurting her from correcting the pulling and the lunging at other dogs. In just 9 days this behaviour has ceased, she can now walk down streets she has avoided because of the dogs that rush the fence. You might ask why did a older lady take on an entire male Mal (as I did initially) but long story short she saved him from death row because his irresponsible previous owners. He is a lovely dog and didn't deserve to die.

I don't know anyone who has done the Koehler method of loose leash walking by the book who has an issue with it. I'm not sure if I'd use it again for my own dog, though.

I do, he followed it to the tee even when the dog had an extinction burst similar to the one described in the book. After that show this dog a check chain and it curled up into the foetal position, it was very sad to see The modified versions you get now seem ok not that I've ever done it.

cheers

M-J

Hi M-J,

Gee, disappointing to hear of such a terminal reaction to Koehler leash training with the dog you have described. I had a momentary shut down with a very timid Golden Retriever once which took special care having quite a spooky nature. It was the only time I have personally experienced a negative event with what I thought at the time, wasn't an overly heavy correction, but obviously it was for that particular dog???. He sprung back ok I recall and trained up well and didn't seem to effect him afterwards, always a bit spooky but seemed a happy dog.

From what I have read about Koehler, he was in his day, a very high profile trainer and held some most prestigeous positions that he earned from the recognition of his training performances. There were other trainers and systems around at the time as far as I am aware, as Koehler had obedience competition teams he ran in trials around the US and his teams did always win. I am sure that anything in a competitive nature in those days, Koehler won it all at some stage. I read also once, Koehler pleading with the organisers of a major obedience competition when he was a young fellow for an entry with his scraggy old dog apparantly. The story unfolded that they allowed his entry in the end and he went on to win "every" event. The story ended by saying that considering him and his dog caught trains and buses to reach the venue, he couldn't carry all of his trophies home

I don't think for a minute in those times, that Koehler was an inflated figure from artificial means, I think that what he achieved was the basis of what he could do above the rest in dog obedience and behaviour in those days. Koehler was anti treat training I remember that too, so obviously treat training was pioneered during his time for him to mention that. This is digging deep into the memory banks, but treat based training was initially more as opposition to Koehler's methods being barbaric and cruel. I don't recall initially that treat training was to deliver a better obedience result, it was to match Koehler's performance without conflicts with the dog which was the beginning of the division between positive and negative training methods, or something to that effect???.

That's a nice story with the elderly lady handling her Malinios, she would be happy with that. I have enough trouble at 49 years old with an over exuberant working dog sometimes If it works for her and her dog, well done

Cheers Ken

Edited June 6, 2010 by 4lex

[corvus]

Isn't Koehler all about markers these days?

[huski]

I will duck for cover from the shower of rotten eggs about to be thrown at me lol!!!, as I have in the past trained Koehler methods with many dogs, but found as time evolved that I could improve the system with the inclusion of positives into Koehler's basic system with faster results and less aversives. I think the modern methods in dogsport has extracted the ability for the success of breeds not previously used for sure and has probably also increased the sporting potential for dogs perhaps of the preferred breed but lacking the natural traits and ability. Individual dog selection was of major importance in the "old days" that responded well to aversive methods, where if a dog shut down on correction, the dog was condsidered no good and rehomed in many cases.

Each dog is an individual in how they respond and focus even in the same breed, some focus easily, some are more difficult and some take some real work to get the basics. Sometimes you can get a dog that has the attitude "make me do it", and aversives I have found works best with dogs of that nature, but a good responsive dog, there is little need.

Cheers Ken

No need to duck for cover Ken I use corrections when I trained LLW with my dogs. Not big yanks on the leash or anything that would block their air flow, though But training LLW in my mind is different to how I would train competition heel work.

My dog used to be pretty unresponsive even if I shoved food under her nose, she was likely to ignore it. Lots of people wrote her off and giving her a big leash correction when she was unresponsive (i.e. on a scent) would do nothing to deter her or force her to be more interested in me. Sure that wasn't so much her saying "make me do it" as it was her completely switching off and find drive satisfaction quickly through another outlet, but it does make me question why a dog won't comply with a command. I think finding ways to motivate our dogs is one of the most important things we can do.

Why use more force than necessary?

Good question! I'd love to hear the answer, because it's never been something I could get my head around.

We all love our dogs, right? Why hurt the things you love? When there is a better way?

Sorry Jeanne, don't take that to mean I don't agree with using corrections when necessary. Because I have no issue with people using prongs, e-collars etc when it's appropriate... but when they are being used appropriately, it wouldn't be what I consider unnecessary force. In fact when I've seen these tools used properly it's all about using as minimal force as possible. On the other hand, giving a mammoth leash correction to a dog when you're trying to train competition heel work purely because the dog is disinterested/lacking motivation - an example of unnecessary force IMO.

Edited June 6, 2010 by huski

[Aidan]

I understand a dog not having much foundation work on leash and taken for a walk can be improved with some of these devices including prong collars, but I see in this system a "training on the run" situation which in some cases can amount to a drawn out exercise taking weeks and months even years to establish the obedience one is looking to achieve. I think of leash training like breaking in a horse and always begin a new dog in the park with low distractions first before I venture onto the streets and footpaths, because the dog will fail for sure when met with the slightest distraction without some foundation work.

I thought many parts of your post were excellent, Ken. I do credit Koehler and have even quoted him (and Pearsall) in some of my articles. Koehler didn't cover everything or everyone but he had some very good ideas that we have been able to build on.

This is digging deep into the memory banks, but treat based training was initially more as opposition to Koehler's methods being barbaric and cruel

No doubt that was a motivation for many, but outside of dog training "treat training" was purely a pragmatic approach to training animals that began in laboratories and found it's way very quickly into the training of animals for armed forces, scientific study, service and entertainment. It didn't really become a "reaction" to Koehler methods until the 90s.

Gosh, you sound familiar, Ken - do I know you from somewhere?

[Prydenjoy]

Why use more force than necessary?

Good question! I'd love to hear the answer, because it's never been something I could get my head around.

We all love our dogs, right? Why hurt the things you love? When there is a better way?

Sorry Jeanne, don't take that to mean I don't agree with using corrections when necessary. Because I have no issue with people using prongs, e-collars etc when it's appropriate... but when they are being used appropriately, it wouldn't be what I consider unnecessary force. In fact when I've seen these tools used properly it's all about using as minimal force as possible. On the other hand, giving a mammoth leash correction to a dog when you're trying to train competition heel work purely because the dog is disinterested/lacking motivation - an example of unnecessary force IMO.

I agree, but isn't it fair on the dog to exhaust all of the more positive, gentle methods before resorting to a prong etc? If the dog would walk nicely on a lead without pulling using an easy walk with a couple of well timed reinforcement then wouldn't that be a better FIRST option to try?

At the end of the day you need to go with what works, but you owe it to your dog to try to work with them, not against them, and if they still don't respond then try something else.

[Steve K9Pro]

J:

I agree, but isn't it fair on the dog to exhaust all of the more positive, gentle methods before resorting to a prong etc?

K9: There are a number of problems in doing that, one is that when you try a number of training methods or tools and fail, then "resort" to something, that something often is met with high resistance as the dog has known you to give up in the past, and waits for you to do it again.

This in turn subjects the dog to a higher level of correction than is ideally neccessary, because you tried to do him a favour.

Another is that, if people knew a way to train a dog to do something, there wouldnt need to be a resort, because the problem would have been solved.

If the dog would walk nicely on a lead without pulling using an easy walk with a couple of well timed reinforcement then wouldn't that be a better FIRST option to try?

K9: If training a Loose Leash walk was the one and only brief, then it "may" be, but of there were other things that needed to be addressed then maybe not.

I would like to mention though that, by no means are Halters and No Pull Harnesses purely positive by any standard.

At the end of the day you need to go with what works, but you owe it to your dog to try to work with them, not against them, and if they still don't respond then try something else.

K9: It is a great ideal or mission statement, doesnt always benefit the dog though.

[corvus]

I agree, but isn't it fair on the dog to exhaust all of the more positive, gentle methods before resorting to a prong etc? If the dog would walk nicely on a lead without pulling using an easy walk with a couple of well timed reinforcement then wouldn't that be a better FIRST option to try?

Haha, I'm going to slightly disagree with that suggestion despite being very much a positive trainer and using as few aversives in training as I can...

The reason why is if you have a dog that is persistent by nature and quite driven (Erik, I'm looking at you) and you mess around trying positive methods for a while and they don't work, then all this time that you're messing about this persistent dog of yours is developing a real taste for what he's doing, and what was a rewarding activity is now a near obsession. Chances are it's going to be harder to fix now than it would have been a while ago when it first cropped up, and you have pretty much painted yourself into a corner so that you have to use aversives and will likely have to use them several times to create the inhibition you need.

Having said that, IMO if you were a good trainer you would have realised more quickly that there was a fault in your positive approach, identified it, and taken care of it and got back on track right away with a different positive approach. The only time I ever want to create inhibitions is when I've left myself no other option. I'd far prefer to train incompatible behaviours, and if I put my butt in gear as soon as a potential problem rears it's head, I can do just that before it becomes an obsession. Other people are a lot more relaxed about inhibitions, and that's fine.

Of course, sometimes we don't realise there's a problem until it's already an obsession, and sometimes we underestimate a dog's drive to do something, and sometimes our management measures fail us before we can get the problem in hand. There are lots of ways things can go wrong. I'd always assess what to use based on the personality of the dog. I'd be quite happy to plod along trying different positive methods with Kivi where I'd move very swiftly indeed for Erik. If someone brought me a dog like Kivi and wanted to fix a problem that was already there, I'd try positives first all the way. If it was a dog like Erik, though... well, it would depend on the behaviour.

[Staranais]

Of course, sometimes we don't realise there's a problem until it's already an obsession, and sometimes we underestimate a dog's drive to do something, and sometimes our management measures fail us before we can get the problem in hand. There are lots of ways things can go wrong. I'd always assess what to use based on the personality of the dog. I'd be quite happy to plod along trying different positive methods with Kivi where I'd move very swiftly indeed for Erik. If someone brought me a dog like Kivi and wanted to fix a problem that was already there, I'd try positives first all the way. If it was a dog like Erik, though... well, it would depend on the behaviour.

I've also many times seen the situation where owners bring their large pulling dog to a positive training club for a basic manners course, and leave after 8 weeks of group training sessions... with the dog still pulling. Many of these owners don't come back. God knows what happens to the dogs, but I presume that many of them pull (and get nagged for it) their entire lives.

I know you can teach 99% of dogs to walk nicely using positive methods only, if you put enough time and enough brainpower into the problem. I don't know if most pet owners can be bothered with doing that, since it will often take a considerable investment in time or energy compared to a few weeks of leash corrections.

For many pet owners, training is a chore, not a hobby. Most pet owners I know just want their dog to walk nicely now. They don't want to spend money on private lessons. They don't want to learn the theory, they don't want to walk round with a treat pouch or a tennis ball for months, they just want a dog that will quickly and completely learn not to pull their arm off. I don't think it's necessarily reasonable to expect them to try every positive method out there before using corrections. From what I have seen, many will give up in disgust and not come back to the class if they don't get results quickly, or just leave their dog on a halti forever - a good way to manage the pulling, perhaps, but hardly a positive solution either.

[Aidan3]

I know you can teach 99% of dogs to walk nicely using positive methods only, if you put enough time and enough brainpower into the problem. I don't know if most pet owners can be bothered with doing that, since it will often take a considerable investment in time or energy compared to a few weeks of leash corrections.

I think the real issue with positive methods (+R coupled with a flat collar or normal harness) is that it takes absolute consistency. You cannot reinforce pulling on a variable schedule and expect it to extinguish. Hence, the reliance on tools for some people. Hence, why if I suggest a tool I also suggest a double ended leash so that they can have two stimulus conditions and neither of them need to involve pulling.

P.S Neither of us should be here, Staranais! Haven't we got exams looming?

Edited June 7, 2010 by Aidan2

[Staranais]

I think the real issue with positive methods (+R coupled with a flat collar or normal harness) is that it takes absolute consistency. You cannot reinforce pulling on a variable schedule and expect it to extinguish. Hence, the reliance on tools for some people. Hence, why if I suggest a tool I also suggest a double ended leash so that they can have two stimulus conditions and neither of them need to involve pulling.

P.S Neither of us should be here, Staranais! Haven't we got exams looming?

I see your point, but also think that consistency does take brainpower for some people! And it certainly takes time and will power - I think it is often very tempting to let the dog get away with pulling "just this once" because you're already late getting home from the walk, or you have the kids with you and they're getting grumpy at all the stopping & starting, or the weather has turned foul and you just want to get home... etc etc... Heck, in both positive training schools I've attended, I've seen people letting the dog actually pull them to class - and then get surprised when the dog pulls during class!

Perhaps these dog owners "should" be willing to put more time and effort into training their dogs. But what I've observed actually happens is that they tend to get fed up, give up and leave.

Yes, I do have my small animal surgery and medicine exam tomorrow - ugh. DOL is too tempting a way to procrastinate. Surely for you this counts as revision, though?

Edited for sense!

Edited June 7, 2010 by Staranais

[Aidan3]

I see your point, but also think that consistency does take brainpower for some people! And it certainly takes time and will power

Oh yes, I wasn't disagreeing with you, just narrowing it down. I'm not sure about "will power" though, except as a cognitive construct. It is reinforcing to "give in" to pulling, which is one reason why I try to limit the opportunities and condition people not to do it (is that "will power"?)

Heck, in both positive training schools I've attended, I've seen people letting the dog actually pull them to class - and then get surprised when the dog pulls during class!

As a couple of DOLers can attest, I pay more attention to what people do on the way from the car than I do once they get to the field. I'm sure a few of my local clients are more consistent than they would otherwise be just because they might run into me on the street.

Yes, I do have my small animal surgery and medicine exam tomorrow - ugh. DOL is too tempting a way to procrastinate. Surely for you this counts as revision, though?

Yes, but suprisingly not for the behaviourism aspect!

[m-j]

Isn't Koehler all about markers these days?

Markers being as we recognise them, not what I was told as a kid, how I understand the book or in more recent years the info on the website I went on. If it is he will be turning in his grave, if he has passed away. Pure Koehler is about 100% corrections no pussy footing around you only need to look at the illustrations in the book to see that. Well that was the way I interpreted this info. What has been described in this thread is what I would call traditional training, a dilute/modifided version of Koehler. When I was a kid and receiving some instruction from a friend of the family who did train using Koehler, I do remember him telling me my training corrections didn't have enough omph. It did work I had an obedient dog along with the others that followed (even though I mellowed as I got older), but I like my dogs attitude to training better with the training philosophies I apply now.

Gee, disappointing to hear of such a terminal reaction to Koehler leash training with the dog you have described.

Yes not nice. The dog fine was on a flat collar and a lead, just the check chain. That was her reaction to when the owner tried to put one on her as the training was done on the check chain.

Koehler was anti treat training I remember that too,

Not only anti treat, anti soft also the constant reference to the "wimps" who wouldn't do this training in his book is testament to this.

That's a nice story with the elderly lady handling her Malinios, she would be happy with that. I have enough trouble at 49 years old with an over exuberant working dog sometimes If it works for her and her dog, well done

Thanks but I actually didn't do anything except provide her with a tool and instructions on how to get it on and off with a short walk up the road. She has done it, because that tool provided her an opportunity to give an effective "correction" that didn't end up with her hips sore from a walk with a pulling/lungeing dog and a tool where the corrections were not very effective. My appologies the dog is a Malamute.

Case in point, I sat through a series of physiology lectures in 2nd year in which our lecturer argued that battery chickens weren't any more stressed than uncaged chickens, since their plasma cortisol levels weren't any higher. According to his definition, he was completely correct. But I still am not personally convinced that the battery chickens were as happy as the free range ones, as he also tried to suggest. Cortisol and adrenaline don't measure "happy".

I'm with you, Corvus put this in another thread,in it they mentioned the experiment of the dog in the pavlovian harness that was monitored whilst and after recieving shocks over a period of time....... this may account for the chooks physiological responses to being a battery hen being in contrast to what we see/feel, maybe???

The Opponent-process Theory of Motivation paper is available in full for free here: http://dionysus.psych.wisc.edu/lit/Article...lomonR1974a.pdf

cheers

M-J

Edited June 7, 2010 by m-j

[Snoopy21]

As a couple of DOLers can attest, I pay more attention to what people do on the way from the car than I do once they get to the field.

*sheepishly raises hand and admits to taking forever to get out of car without dog dragging me across the field to enthusiastically greet Aidan*

[Aidan]

As a couple of DOLers can attest, I pay more attention to what people do on the way from the car than I do once they get to the field.

*sheepishly raises hand and admits to taking forever to get out of car without dog dragging me across the field to enthusiastically greet Aidan*

Haha, I detect a "conditioned emotional response" to my harsh people training methods here! But W got the picture pretty quickly from memory?

[lanabanana]

As a couple of DOLers can attest, I pay more attention to what people do on the way from the car than I do once they get to the field.

*sheepishly raises hand and admits to taking forever to get out of car without dog dragging me across the field to enthusiastically greet Aidan*

LOL I can so sympathise

Barney would be ok to get out of the car not a problem. And would stand there waiting for me to walk - great, though he may whine or yelp a bit coz he wants to get going.

However, the minute I took one step forward BAM he'd be at the end of the lead and not necessarily in the direction I wanted!

I have been a bit slack and wasn't able to try the harness properly yesterday but we are off tonight on our first real street test. I will post how it all goes if anyone is interested. Please feel free to let me know any further tips or advice based on tonights attempt. I have found all of the information really informative and helpful (even though at this stage I may not be listening to all).

[Prydenjoy]

The reason why is if you have a dog that is persistent by nature and quite driven (Erik, I'm looking at you) and you mess around trying positive methods for a while and they don't work, then all this time that you're messing about this persistent dog of yours is developing a real taste for what he's doing, and what was a rewarding activity is now a near obsession. Chances are it's going to be harder to fix now than it would have been a while ago when it first cropped up, and you have pretty much painted yourself into a corner so that you have to use aversives and will likely have to use them several times to create the inhibition you need.

So you're saying that people with driven dogs shouldn't bother "messing" around with positives? Interesting, Berri is very driven and in the times where I have used aversives on him he's taken giant leaps backwards on all of the work I've done with him. Positives keep him switched on and attentive, without the added anxiety which tends to make him flip out (he's very reactive as well). I really have to disagree with you on this one Corvus

[Snoopy21]

Haha, I detect a "conditioned emotional response" to my harsh people training methods here! But W got the picture pretty quickly from memory?

She did. She will always behave at that field from now on. Working on making it the same other places. You enjoyed the doggy kisses anyway didn't you? Occupational hazard?

[huski]

Jeanne:

So you're saying that people with driven dogs shouldn't bother "messing" around with positives?

What Corvus is saying (and she can correct me if I am wrong) is that the method you use depends on the dog. Not everyone has the luxury of trying 1000 different "positive" things during which time the behaviour you are trying to stop can become more and more ingrained, then requiring a stronger aversive/correction to stop it by the time you do exhaust all the "positive" avenues. Corrections or punishments do not have to be extreme, harsh or terrible - what will be aversive to one dog may not to another and how a dog will respond to something aversive depends on the individual.

K9 Pro explained it quite nicely in the post above Corvus's, did you see it?

Interesting, Berri is very driven and in the times where I have used aversives on him he's taken giant leaps backwards on all of the work I've done with him. Positives keep him switched on and attentive, without the added anxiety which tends to make him flip out (he's very reactive as well). I really have to disagree with you on this one Corvus

If that's the reaction you get from using aversives (setting him backwards) then you aren't using them properly or appropriately.

Remember too what one person will class as 'very driven' will differ - I would class a working line Malinois as 'very driven', my little beagle who I train in food drive as quite low drive in comparison. How much experience have you had training very hard, high drive working dogs, Jeanne? How easily have you trained them out of an ingrained habit with positive methods 100% of the time?

I honestly don't understand why these threads always turn into a debate on positive vs negative, when it should really be about what works best for the individual dog.

[corvus]

The reason why is if you have a dog that is persistent by nature and quite driven (Erik, I'm looking at you) and you mess around trying positive methods for a while and they don't work, then all this time that you're messing about this persistent dog of yours is developing a real taste for what he's doing, and what was a rewarding activity is now a near obsession. Chances are it's going to be harder to fix now than it would have been a while ago when it first cropped up, and you have pretty much painted yourself into a corner so that you have to use aversives and will likely have to use them several times to create the inhibition you need.

So you're saying that people with driven dogs shouldn't bother "messing" around with positives?

Not quite. I'm saying if you have a driven dog engaging in a self-rewarding behaviour, it's not always better to run through a few positive methods first. IME, you're running against the clock in these cases. It's a gamble to try ANYTHING that might not work because it's not as easy as just trying something else if it doesn't. Now you've got a dog that is more driven to practise the behaviour and not only are you on a slippery slope down to punishments, but the behaviour is getting more and more habitual with every occurrence and you're looking at a tougher time of installing the behaviour you want instead, and maybe even a higher probability of spontaneous recovery (although that one depends on a lot of factors). I'd far rather use a mild punishment well at the outset than find I have an obsessive behaviour on my hands down the track. That's all I'm saying.

But like I said, if you were in the fortunate position of seeing this process begin, and you realise what you might be up against if you let it continue, there's no reason why you can't take care of it with positive methods the first time. Positive methods if applied well tend to work, even with dogs that are very aroused and driven. If they don't I assume the problem is with me or my identification of what I should be treating. And if you have a different sort of dog that's not the type to get wound up and obsessive, I'd just stick with the positives indefinitely and not even consider aversives.

Interesting, Berri is very driven and in the times where I have used aversives on him he's taken giant leaps backwards on all of the work I've done with him. Positives keep him switched on and attentive, without the added anxiety which tends to make him flip out (he's very reactive as well). I really have to disagree with you on this one Corvus

What I should have said but didn't is that I think there are very few situations suited to punishments anyway. For example, I wouldn't punish anything I think is a symptom of an underlying problem unless the behaviour was an ingrained habit feeding the underlying problem. I'd be mad to introduce punishments in everyday training with Erik, and I can't say I would ever do it if he was in any state other than a drivey, persistant, exceedingly optimistic one. And even then I still expect fallout.

What it comes down to, is if Erik started doing something I badly didn't want him to do, I'd break out the treats and tell him what I want him to do instead. If instead of seeing him engaging more and more in what I want him to do and am rewarding, he just starts doing what I don't want him to be doing even more and becomes harder to distract from it, and I'd decided this wasn't a symptom of some underlying problem, then I would be considering whether this is something I want inhibited and how I might be able to pull that off with the least amount of fallout.

[corvus]

I honestly don't understand why these threads always turn into a debate on positive vs negative, when it should really be about what works best for the individual dog.

Well, I think that "what works best" is more dependent on the skill of the trainer than the dog. There are lots of ways to train something and I don't think there necessarily is a "best" way in any one situation with any one dog. What "works" best, though, will be what the trainer is most skilled and consistent in applying.

That might seem to be contradictory to what I just said about how differently I would approach something depending on the personality of the dog. Personality of the dog should certainly be considered, but even more so the arousal level associated with the problem behaviour, and the way it is being reinforced, and what kind of reinforcement. If Kivi was engaging in some sort of highly aroused problem behaviour that was endangering him (or my rabbits, for example) I would definitely consider P+. If he was engaging in a problem behaviour in a moderately aroused state, I wouldn't. Considering he is almost never in a highly aroused state, I can safely say I can't imagine ever using P+ on him. That's not to say, though, that you can't get a dog typically in low arousal that can't also be a bit on the obsessive side.