Pulling And Pulling

[Guest trainer47]

I'm sorry, I just don't agree! All of my dogs were trained with Koehler and were certainly NOT robots! They have so much personality! Even when I give them a command their tails are still wagging!

[pgm]

If you want to see a robot dog, read 'The koehler method of dog training' by william koehler. Some of the stories and scenarios he has in there make dogs trained using this method seem like robots.

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.

[PAX]

When i say a "robot dog" i mean a dog that trots in the recall and barely at that and a dog thats tail is down. A dog that does the send out in slow motion, retreives in a walk. If you have acheived a happy springy happy dog well then obviously your are a good trainer that has very good timing and your dog must understand the exercises well. I don't have a problem with that and i agree with you in the sense that i think its kinder to teach a dog to heel quickly than be forever nagging at the poor dog.

I also see dogs that the trainers food train and the second they go in the ring the dogs say " no food no work"

If you havent seen the type of dogs I'm talking about just sit and watch at a trial.

BTW my dog is also happy and fast in the retreive and i do not have to take the clicker everywhere just as i'm sure you dont use the force fetch every time.

Clicker training is not new but it was new to me.

[pgm]

I also see dogs that the trainers food train and the second they go in the ring the dogs say " no food no work"

If you havent seen the type of dogs I'm talking about just sit and watch at a trial.

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.

[Guest Tess32]

Is it not possible for either side to discuss training methods without sarcasm and condesension?

There are bad trainers using EVERY METHOD.

If you need to correct your dog constantly, you're not training properly, and if you need to shove food down your dog's throat for every behaviour, you're also not training properly.

Nat

[pgm]

Is it not possible for either side to discuss training methods without sarcasm and condesension?

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...

Edited May 30, 2005 by pgm

[Guest Tess32]

Fair enough.

But not everyone who uses positive methods thinks other methods are cruel or inferior - and that's what it sometimes implied. And surely there are people who use traditional methods who don't think clicker training is useless as well.

Nat

[PAX]

Well the people i'm taking about do not have a happy voice. They are the ones you see kicking there dogs into the correct return to heel position and checking the shit out of it down the back away form the ring.

I agree with Tess 32, in that some people are just bad at training no matter what they learnt, been told or seen. Otherwise we could all read the same book and all have perfect dogs. Its a good thing to be willing to try something new if things arent working, and keep an open mind.

Maybe we can meet at a trial one day and critique some dogs and handlers.

[pgm]

But not everyone who uses positive methods thinks other methods are cruel or inferior - and that's what it sometimes implied.

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.

[haven]

Well said pgm.

A great trainer learns all methods and so has a 'complete toolbox' to use what works for each individual dog.

You can train dogs in many ways but "The sharper the contrast between the disagreeable experience the dog receives for undesirable behaviour and the agreeable experience it receives for desirable behaviour, the easier it is for the animal to appreciate where it's advantage lies and it learns very quickly".

Konrad Most, 1910.

[Erny]

Ditto what Haven said!

[Guest Tess32]

It depends, I think everyone seems to be interchanging definitions.

To be clear, I would suggest that "method" is an actual method, like clicker training, or Koehler as examples. Positive Training is not a method, it tells you nothing. Similarly traditional training is also obviously not a method.

Eg. I noticed that you mentioned in another post PGM that the only difference is you use all four quadrants instead of two.

Is that really true - as I think the *way* you train something is more than just "is this positive reinforcement, or negative reinforcement or positive punishment or negative pu nishment". For example using a check chain to teach heeling or using an E collar to teach heeling *might* use the same part of the quadrant but they are still different methods.

Does this make sense?

Nat

[George my Doggie]

I was just wondering if those of you that use the Koehler method use the original koehler or the 'modern' koehler.

I have read the book Lazlo's Mum mentioned, and I do believe that some of his methods are too harsh, although I don't believe the entire thing is straight out cruelty, William Koehler constantly insults positive methods and even admits that some of his more extreme techniques should only be used when the alternative is the dog being put to sleep.

I shall quote from his book:

"And it must be remembered that the extreme procedures inluded herein are advised only is those cases where the alternative is as drastic as being 'put to sleep'"

His solution for destructive chewing:

"select a piece of the material he has chewed (and you don't need to catch him in the act) and place it well back crossways in his mouth. Use a strip of adhesive tape to wrap his muzzle securely infront of the chewed material, so that no amount of gagging or clawing can remove it from his mouth.

Perhaps you are wondering if his frantic effortsto rid himself of the material will cause him to scratch himself painfyully. Yup. They surely will."

Koehler's method of housetraining:

"When you discover a mess, move in fast, take him to the place of his error and hold his head close enough so that he associates the error with the punishment. Punish him by spanking him with a strap or switch. Either one is better than a rolled newspaper."

I can see how Lazlo's mum could be sickened by this book.

I know people that only use the Koehler for lead walking and perhaps recall and a few other commands they have trouble with.

I personally believe that punishment isn't necessary for puppies, as they haven't been shown what to do. Some people give their dogs problems that is impossible for a dog to solve without being shown, and then punish them for failing.

I believe punishment should only be used for older dogs when all other avenues have failed.

But that's just my opinion, so please don't pick on me for it. I do not believe that the Koehler method is necessarily cruel, I just think that in some cases it's over-kill. That is, more than what is necessary.

(sorry if I'm getting a bit irrelevant, I haven't read the entire thread, just the last few pages)

[Kavik]

A great trainer learns all methods and so has a 'complete toolbox' to use what works for each individual dog.

Exactly!

Not one method is going to work for all dogs. This includes Koehler. This includes clicker training. Continual learning about new methods and keeping an open mind about methods and equipment is the best way to do this.

Often the method that works best depends on:

The dog's temperament

The owner's temperament (and training style preference)

What the goal of training is (competition obedience, agility, pet, Schutzhund, Security, scent detection, assistance dog etc)

Most of the time a dog can be trained successfully with a number of methods or styles.

[pgm]

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

using a check chain to teach heeling or using an E collar to teach heeling *might* use the same part of the quadrant but they are still different methods.

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.

[pgm]

I personally believe that punishment isn't necessary for puppies, as they haven't been shown what to do. Some people give their dogs problems that is impossible for a dog to solve without being shown, and then punish them for failing.

This is what I find most frustrating. What you have said is essentially Koehler in a nutshell. Why do people think otherwise?

I believe punishment should only be used for older dogs when all other avenues have failed.

Again, pure unadulterated Koehler.

His solution for destructive chewing

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.

Koehler's method of housetraining:

Again, quoted out of context.

[m-j]

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.

I can't speak for anyone else but you gave me the impression that you trained using Koehler, this is what had me feeling sorry for your dogs, but obviously you don't

Let's face it pure koehler at it's very best would be a bloody awful learning experience. The book is a little too anthropomorphic for me to take what it says seriously. Nothing evokes heated disscussion like the word Koehler, as you know

cheers

M-J

[Staranais]

I thought the Koehler method used both positive and negative reinforcement? So although it uses positive reinforcement, it's not PURELY positive.

(I don't know much about the method, but that was the impression I had).

[Guest Tess32]

There are not many "purely positive" methods out there. I've never read one and it sounds impossible to me.

Nat

[pgm]

I can't speak for anyone else but you gave me the impression that you trained using Koehler, this is what had me feeling sorry for your dogs, but obviously you don't

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?

Edited May 31, 2005 by pgm