koehler method of dog training

[blackcat]

Okay I seen today that the city's park and rec distric is offering a dog obediance class. They state that they use the Koehler method. Can someone discribe this for me. I know on one episode of mythbusters they did the teach an old dog new tricks myth and they used two methods of dog training, unfortunatly I fell asleep and couldn't finish watching it. Was this Koehler method of the methods.

[Maxy24]

I don't like it, that's for sure. He's the guy that half drowns dogs for digging holes I believe (OK sorry, makes the dog think he's drowning, the head still gets shoved under the water). It uses fear to scare dogs away from behaviors, it uses pain, and they are very outdated methods.

[Purdue#1]

He believes in using corrections which most people don't like. A dog is held accountable for his actions. he was a disney animal trainer for 21+ years.

here's a useful link to his methods:

http://www.koehlerdogtraining.com/index.html

He's wrote books, but this one is the only one i read. Its the first book he wrote:

http://www.amazon.com/Koehler-Method-Dog-Training/dp/0876056575/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-0305344-1304809?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189299518&sr=8-1

[adojrts]

That method has been deemed abusive by most knowledgable trainers these days. The methods are very outdated and not used much anymore. Although some (sadly) still use them.
As for him being the trainer for Disney all those years ago, I would expect with the laws and the Humane Society involved in the film industry today, those methods would not be allowed.
When he was training those methods 30-50 years ago it was also common for Sterilizations to be done on Mentally Challenged people, Lobotomies were common as well, doesn't make them right and we have learned not to do that, same with Koehlers methods.

[houndlove]

Any more, most "animal stars" of movies and TV are clicker trained.

Kohler method uses a lot of physical punishment of the dog and behavioral assumptions about dogs that we now know were mistaken.

[Cheetah]

The Koehler method is outdated and abusive. Find a class that teaches positive methods - Koehler is definitely not it.

[DoggyDaze]

OK, I'm new to the whole dog training thing. But, can a case be made for some dogs that don't respond to positive methods?

My dog just wants to please me, she is very easy to deal with and train. But I do encounter dogs that make me wonder how in the heck the handler deals with them.

Do some dogs just need harsher methods??

[VWilson]

Okay I seen today that the city's park and rec distric is offering a dog obediance class. They state that they use the Koehler method. Can someone discribe this for me. I know on one episode of mythbusters they did the teach an old dog new tricks myth and they used two methods of dog training, unfortunatly I fell asleep and couldn't finish watching it. Was this Koehler method of the methods.

It is an excellent method, and the biggest detractors know little, and understand even less about it, and likely have never read his books, and are merely going from what they hear.
Read the book, and then make your own decision.
The book is very enlightening.

Strict unyeilding dogmatic, and intolerant adhearence to any specific style of training is wrong, as all dogs are different, and we should not limit our options for dealing with problems that may be beyond our preferred styles.

While I do not prefer food based training, I believe it does have a place with food motivated dogs early in training.

The actual Koehler method only uses as much as is needed, and some dogs will respond to the positive reinforcement in the training, and the early training phase is exactly the same as all positive training, without the treats, which puts a lot of focus on positive reinforcement, such as praise, and positive attention.
Indeed the all positive approach could be considered "Koehler Lite"

At some point in any individual dogs training, some correction may be needed, and it will vary depending upon the indiviual dog. For many dogs a strong voice will be enough, for others, a leash pop to bring back their focus will work.
Some dogs seem to come almost plug, and play, and those few dogs, get nothing but kind words, and hugs

No matter the method used, treat, all positive, or Koehler some dogs will resist, to varying degrees, any efforts to train, control, or give them balance, and a small percentage will violently, and viciously resist training.

For such racalcitrant dogs, the Koehler method offers a lengthened continuum that addresses such needs.

Each dog is different and each dog requires individualized training, specific to its temperment, and drive. Koehler addresses those individual needs.

Proper use of the method cures, and repairs aggression issues with dogs in a swift fashion, whereas other methods may take a management approach rather than a cure. Why manage what you can cure. Management is only for incurable issues. Owners refusing to implement a cure is not a reason for management of the issue, just an excuse

Some methods may take a longer term approach, in an attempt to cure, but why take years to do what can be done in weeks, or even a single session??

Detractors point to abuse cases, and that has nothing to do with the results of the proper use of the methods, and techniques.
Abuse, Improper, or ill informed use of any method, tool, or technique tends to result in problems, so the argument does not actually pertain to the Koehler method.

People who drive recklessly cause accidents, while those who drive properly have no problems other than those caused by reckless drivers

I hear the remarks about old, and outdated, but I do not see any other method that works with such reliable results, to create a well behaved, and balanced dog, especially with dogs that resist training, and serious behavioral issues.
Dogs, and how they think, and react to training have not changed since the book was written. So there is no way the method could be outdated.
The only thing that has changed is the peoples opinion of how people want to train dogs.

The dunking method, for the seeemingly impossible to cure diggers, some seem to be hung up on, and other techniques, or methods that are so very controversial, are intended only for the worst of the worst, and indeed would rarely, if ever, be used.

His techniques are not inhumane, nor are they "harsh" as some describe.
They are individualized for the indivdual dog, and therefore cannot be harsh, if it is what it takes to balance the dog.

They do result in a well balanced dog that functions well in society, and indeed if continued past the basic training into advanced, and ultra advanced levels, result in dogs that are a few notches above all other dogs.

This is not to say the all positive methods do not, or cannot work, I would dare say most owners would prefer to use the all positive, and treat training methods, and that most owners have dogs that do just fine using the all positive, and treat training methods.

If for whatever reason, the all positive, or treat training methods do not work with a particular dog, then the Koehler methods should definitely be considered, and if one chooses to go that route, then they should be used properly, and exactly as taught.


V WIlson

[houndlove]

Actually, some of the most vocal detractors of it used to use it themselves and teach others to do so.

[Barb04]

Been there, done it, don't like it and will never use that method again.

[Purdue#1]

well,informed post VWilson. very nice.

[Renee750il]

You have to figure that going to a trainer who is promoting themselves as using "the Koehler method" exposes you and your dog to a substantial risk that the trainer may very well be one who leans on the abusive crutches of the method.

I'd definitely steer very clear.

[Herschel]

If you're OK with hitting your dog to "teach" something then you might not mind Koehler's methods. However, for those of us that are against animal abuse, they aren't very humane at all.

VWilson, can you please cite specific examples of dogs that were trained with aversives being "a notch above" dogs that were trained with rewards?

Purdue, your post contributed nothing. If you want to complement VWilson, do it in PM. Otherwise, say something useful for once.

[Purdue#1]

no. when someone does something nice publicly then they should be complemented publicly.

[Renee750il]

If you're OK with hitting your dog to "teach" something then you might not mind Koehler's methods. However, for those of us that are against animal abuse, they aren't very humane at all.

VWilson, can you please cite specific examples of dogs that were trained with aversives being "a notch above" dogs that were trained with rewards?

Purdue, your post contributed nothing. If you want to complement VWilson, do it in PM. Otherwise, say something useful for once.

Heheh . . . Word for the day . . . . "sycophant"

[Saintgirl]

Purdue, I have asked before but am never answered. If these aversive training techniques are the absolute best methods around can you please explain why they are discredited by the majority of professional trainers and behaviorists today. I add today because of course you are going to see that the majority of trainers in the past promoted these techniques, but most of them have changed their methods. Why is this so if these methods that you are promoting are the best way to train your dog? Why is it that scholars teaching behavior modification in universities teach positive reinforcement to modify a behavior? That aversive techniques can create further behavioral problems and infact set back any progress made? These are not my opinions but come directly from university books in Behavior Modification such as Behavior Modification In Applied Settings by Alan E. Kazdin, or Behavior Modification : What is it and how to do it by Gary L Martin and Joseph Pear Or Behavior Modification: Principles and Procedures by Raymond G Miltenberger or perhaps this one Ethics for Behavior Analysts: A practical guide to the behavior analyst certification board, guidelines for responsible conduct by Jon s Bailey?

I am not saying that your methods do not work, Purdue. I am only asking why it is that you discredit modern science?

[elegy]

OK, I'm new to the whole dog training thing. But, can a case be made for some dogs that don't respond to positive methods?

My dog just wants to please me, she is very easy to deal with and train. But I do encounter dogs that make me wonder how in the heck the handler deals with them.

Do some dogs just need harsher methods??

i don't think so. i think the handler just needs to figure out what buttons to push with that dog- find out what interests them, and what they find rewarding. a big part of positive training is that you put the dog in charge- the dog has to figure out what to do in order to get the reward. if the dog doesn't care about your reward, you're not going to have much success. it makes the handler think outside the box a lot, and i think that's definitely a good thing!

[Herschel]

I am not saying that your methods do not work, Purdue. I am only asking why it is that you discredit modern science?

Purdue still thinks the earth is flat.

[heartdogs]

OK, I'm new to the whole dog training thing. But, can a case be made for some dogs that don't respond to positive methods?

My dog just wants to please me, she is very easy to deal with and train. But I do encounter dogs that make me wonder how in the heck the handler deals with them.

Do some dogs just need harsher methods??

No, they need competent and inventive trainers, which anyone can become if they study the right mentors. Koehler got his dogs to obey, but they were undoubtedly doing so out of fear. Not the relationship I want with my dogs.
As a trainer, I am appalled at the number of people still touting this crap.
I have never laid a hand on my Aussie, yet I can call her off a moving live target and she magically appears at my feet. For the naysayers, who think that Aussies are easy to train - I have a hound with a recall, too.

[VWilson]

If you're OK with hitting your dog to "teach" something then you might not mind Koehler's methods. However, for those of us that are against animal abuse, they aren't very humane at all.

VWilson, can you please cite specific examples of dogs that were trained with aversives being "a notch above" dogs that were trained with rewards?

Purdue, your post contributed nothing. If you want to complement VWilson, do it in PM. Otherwise, say something useful for once.

I have reviewed the archives of this forum, and realize quite well the general consensus, of the some of the forum members who post most often, and where these threads head when questions about these methods are asked.

I politely refuse to engage.
I simply posted an answer to an inquirey, as part of the discussion.
Frankly, it is not worth my time to argue, and caterwaul with those who will not be influenced, or changed. Nor do I care if they are changed or influenced. I do not have to live with a problem dog, so it is of no concern to me.
I prefer to dust off my sandals and move on.

I am not one who cares to entrench myself in the dogma of any particular method to the point that it damages my dogs.
I would prefer to toss tidbits all day long to train, if it was feasible, and worked for the individual dog. Actually it is quite fun to train in such a manner; however, if it is not working, I am all for changing it up into something that works.
I choose to adapt to the training needs of the dog, and not even bother adapting the dog to my training needs.

The Koehler method, as it is referred to as, does work, and has its continiuum based on the core psychology of the dog. The "Positive only" methods are also based upon the psychology of the dog, although opinions may vary on the limits with the most training resistent dogs.

If a dog lives an average of 10 years, and the owner has been working on repairing for 2-3 years, then the problem, if repaired will consume a minimum of 20-30% of the dogs life. Some of us find that unacceptable if there is a quicker fix that will allow the dog to integrate in weeks, or a couple of months
Life is to short to spend large percentages of it with serious, but curable behavioral issues.

If the owner chooses to manage a problem for the entire life of a dog, even though the problem could be cured, then there is a problem with the owner, and choosen training method, not the dog.

Dogs seem to have a grasp on the concept of free will, and as such some will
choose to resist some training, and at that point it is proper to adapt to the dogs individual needs, and move to plan B.

We should be happy with the multiple methods of training available, as it means no dog is beyond helping, if we the humans are willing to adapt to the needs of the dogs

V Wilson.

[Saintgirl]

V Wilson, I wasn't trying to start another debate on the downfalls of your methods, you have already researched this forum and know how the majority of us feel when it comes to these aversive methods, it would be like beating a dead horse. My point in posting here today was to show the original poster that there are many other methods and all of them should be researched well before bringing the dog to class.

The "Positive only" methods are also based upon the psychology of the dog
Exactly!!! When I want to modify a behavior I approach the psychology of what causes the behaviors, why this causes the behaviors, when this causes the behaviors, how this behavior occurs, etc, which leads to being able to replace the unwanted behavior with a desirable behavior. I don't want to 'cure' my dog through fear. Pschology allows you to find the root of the problem and allow a sound and consistent alternate behavior to replace the old. Without considering the psychology behind the behavior you can infact cause more psychological damage. We just approach this in two different ways. Does my method take longer? Perhaps, but my method doesn't mask the original problem because of fear, it has actually been replaced.

Again, I ask why does modern day science not support your methods???

[adojrts]

It is an excellent method, and the biggest detractors know little, and understand even less about it, and likely have never read his books, and are merely going from what they hear.
Read the book, and then make your own decision.

V WIlson

Wrong, You would be surprised at the knowledge on this forum and many are very knowledgable about those methods. It's because of that knowledge that so many know there are far better methods.

[Buddy'sParents]

Frankly, it is not worth my time to argue, and caterwaul with those who will not be influenced, or changed. Nor do I care if they are changed or influenced.

But, yet, here you are.... *giggles*

Anywho-----

I think the methods are purely outdated and are for those that have this notion that they are some superior, dominate being over their dog and feel the need to demonstrate such dominance via means of physical punishments (otherwise known as abuse to those smart enough to put two and two together). Definitely not needed.

It surprises me, too, that it's even remotely popular with what we know now regarding dog behaviors. Respect is earned and is not at all done so by an individual putting their hands or instruments even on an innocent creature. Talk about disrespect.

ETA:

If you looks closely in this pic, there are hot dog slices at each of my dogs feet. Hot dogs are a hot commodity in this house. They can smell them from far away. Where are they looking? At ME. That's respect. Thats being obedient. They were told "leave it" and leave it they will. I did not need to hit them, threaten them nor do anything physical to get them to do this. And they would STILL love me and respect me if they didn't get those hot dogs...

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g107/msnikkibelieves/hotdogs.jpg

[elegy]

oh, i own a copy of the koehler method of dog training. my favorite part was the instructions on how to electrify a chicken. at this point, i find it much more informative about the people who support his methods than i do about actually training a dog.

[VWilson]

But, yet, here you are.... *giggles*

Anywho-----

I think the methods are purely outdated and are for those that have this notion that they are some superior, dominate being over their dog and feel the need to demonstrate such dominance via means of physical punishments (otherwise known as abuse to those smart enough to put two and two together). Definitely not needed.

It surprises me, too, that it's even remotely popular with what we know now regarding dog behaviors. Respect is earned and is not at all done so by an individual putting their hands or instruments even on an innocent creature. Talk about disrespect.

As I said I will not engage in conflict.
The books are available used, on Ebay for as little as 2.50-10.00 each plus shipping, and I just bought 3 of them.
I would suggest people who want to know about the methods read them, with an open mind, and make a fair minded attempt to process the information fairly, and without preconcieved ideas.
Should they choose to utilize them I would suggest they follow the method, and not modify to suit, or appease their own personal emotional issues,

I would suggest people do the same with All Positive, or food based training methods also.

My area of interest is in aggressive, and training resistent dogs, so my views are very different than those who work mostly with the easier to train dogs.

Given the reality that shelters, and animal control agencys are full of dogs with behavior problems, I see no need to argue with what works to create a stable, dog that is sound of mind, no matter the methology.

Supposedly, sharing what works should be the goal of any training forum.

Val W

[elegy]

My area of interest is in aggressive, and training resistent dogs, so my views are very different than those who work mostly with the easier to train dogs.

then your intentions should be even MORE SO to resolve the underlying issues, not just suppress the problem behaviors through punishment.

i hope your reading list also includes people like brenda aloff and pamela dennison.

[houndlove]

Aside from the fact that the OP on this thread just wants regular ole pet dog training for their regular ole pet dog. Even if I did think that Koehler methods were okay for serious rehab cases, don't you think it's sort of overkill for the average non-issues-having pet dog?

[VWilson]

oh, i own a copy of the koehler method of dog training. my favorite part was the instructions on how to electrify a chicken. at this point, i find it much more informative about the people who support his methods than I do about actually training a dog.


So because you disagree with a single method, or several suggested, in the back of the book, in a section for dealing with the most problematic dogs, to stop a dog from killing chickens, and other animals, you disregard the whole program, Without regard for whether it works, or not for the most delinquent of dog who are in danger of euthanasia.
I shall discontinue my participation in this thread, as it is serving no pupose.

V Wilson

[Buddy'sParents]

I would suggest people who want to know about the methods read them, with an open mind, and make a fair minded attempt to process the information fairly, and without preconcieved ideas.

....

My area of interest is in aggressive, and training resistent dogs, so my views are very different than those who work mostly with the easier to train dogs.


I've read all that I want to read, thanks. Its not for me, nor should it be for any dog owner with respect for his or her animals.

Do you really believe that treating already aggressive dogs with physical punishment is wise?

On second thought.. don't answer that. I already know the answer seeing as I know who you are and why you're here. ;)

[Dekka]

I read his stuff. I read it back before I was into positive training. But even then I felt it was abusive and punished the dog for a trainers lack of talent. IMO if a dog needs a correction, then you have failed in your training. A dog will do what it is trained to do IF it has been conditioned to do so. A correction is what people do when their training fails.

Also VWilson, I find it interesting that you ask us to read with an open mind. Yet you imply that positive training is tossing tidbits. That is ridiculous, and disingenuous.

[Purdue#1]

most of the dogs in shelters are dogs with issues. most have been to a positive-reinforcement training class or classes which obviously didn't work. the trainer tells them to put the dog down, which they do because the trainer teaches positive reinforcement which is humane so the trainer is humane, isn't he?

yes, positive reinforcement can work on the low-energy, easy temperment dogs, but it is when a dog comes in that has problems it fails. on the other hand richling, Konrad Most, Koehler,etc.'s methods will work on any dog. You just have to figure out how hard of a correction the dog needs. Some need a stern voice others need a hard pop on the leash. That's where the art of dog training comes in.

I also wouldn't give sly the same light pop i would give mickey. That would be under-correcting him. It builds his resistance to me because i am nagging him and eventually he will snap because he has had enough of my nagging. I would deserve that beautiful gash he would leave in my arm because i nagged him so he snapped.It's the art of dog training. You have to be able to suit it to the dog in front of you, not get a dog that is aggressive and say he needs to put down or given to someone else because my methods don't work on him and i am not going to use any corrective measures.IMO

[Buddy'sParents]

It builds his resistance to me because i am nagging him and eventually he will snap because he has had enough of my nagging. I would deserve that beautiful gash he would leave in my arm because i nagged him so he snapped.

He might snap anyways. And that snap might not be a beautiful gash on your arm. It may be your life.

[Purdue#1]

no. when i give him the correction he needs for his temperment, i am eradicating the whole thought of resisting what i tell him to do.

[MelissaCato]

Remember, a well trained protection dog is the only defensive that can not and will not be used against you.

[shadowfacedanes]

yes, positive reinforcement can work on the low-energy, easy temperment dogs, but it is when a dog comes in that has problems it fails.


How very wrong you are. I've trained a great dane who upon meeting me put his big head right in my face, growled, showed his teeth and engaged me.

Had I struck at the dog, I'd likely be dead. Instead, I used my KNOWLEDGE to get out of the situation, and 6 months down the road, I was able to place him confidently in a home.

He was far from an easy temperament. Far from low energy. He wanted to shred me the day I went to pick him up. We had several trials and tribulations, but NILIF training is a miracle. I never had to strike him. Until I could confidently handle him, I muzzled him. I used a gentle tone, positive reinforcement and built him up so that he no longer felt the need to be so pushy. The dog needed an alpha, and without becoming some stick weilding mad-woman, I became his alpha.

Knowledge is SUCH a better option than force.

[shadowfacedanes]

Remember, a well trained protection dog is the only defensive that can not and will not be used against you.

WTH does that have to do with this topic.

I don't know how many times I have to say it before it finally sinks in - dogs are NOT perfect, not infallible, and most importantly, not machines.

Push one too many times, self preservation kicks in and they will push back.

[Momof2Pups]

Purdue, you are sadly misinformed about positive training. Take Patricia McConnell for example; she regularly works with problem dogs, often with extreme aggression problems and saves them from a terrible fate. She helps these dogs and their owners without being harsh in any way or laying a hard hand on them. That is training skill.
Correcting a dog and making it obey you because it is scared of what happens otherwise is hardly training.

[MelissaCato]

Push one too many times, self preservation kicks in and they will push back.

A dog a mans best friend.

[Buddy'sParents]

no. when i give him the correction he needs for his temperment, i am eradicating the whole thought of resisting what i tell him to do.

You keep telling yourself that.

[elegy]

most of the dogs in shelters are dogs with issues. most have been to a positive-reinforcement training class or classes which obviously didn't work. the trainer tells them to put the dog down, which they do because the trainer teaches positive reinforcement which is humane so the trainer is humane, isn't he?

ime, most of the dogs in shelters are dogs who haven't been trained, period. it's less that they have issues and more that they had disinterested, lazy owners.

my latest and greatest shelter dog would completely shut down if i corrected him for something. his biggest flaw is that he has thunderstorm anxiety. his second biggest flaw is that he paws for attention. but boy howdy has that attention seeking been a powerful tool to use to teach him alternate behaviors. he's there begging for something he wants, and i can use that so easily to create a) an alternate and more acceptable behavior (i chose to teach him to lie down) and b) a reward worth working for.

[bcmoffatt]

I...am...going..to...SCREAM!!! http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c57/baileymoffatt/banghead002.gif

[Purdue#1]

All i know is +R didn't work on sly and it didn't work on any of the other dogs in my training classes who's dogs were very aggressive. Some had been through as many as 8 different trainers with them all saying the same thing... put the dog down. Most were kicked out of training classes because their dogs were too aggressive. they were pushed out out of the training group.

luckily they didn't follow the advice of these trainers. These dogs are now well behaved dogs that can heel around 20+ dogs in very distracting and stressful situations.

so You do what you want with your dogs. all you want to do is nothing, but fight. you all have your opinions and i have mine. with that said i have homework that i must get done.Bye


Thanks MC.

[Buddy'sParents]

I...am...going..to...SCREAM!!! http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c57/baileymoffatt/banghead002.gif

*hands bcmoffatt a sedative*

It'll make it all go away for a lil' bit.

[Aussie Red]

oh heck bite me !!!!

[Saintgirl]

Purdue, have you ever thought for a moment that your expereince with positive reinforcement may have been instructed by a poor teacher. I honestly ask you, can you provide me with some peer reviewed scientific studies that offer solid information that my opinions are wrong? I think I can turn blue in the face asking for this info, and all of you aversive technique worshippers will continue to jump around this one simple question. The only thing that I am happy to see when there are threads like this is that there are alot of positive reinforcers and those who truely want to get to the root of the problem with their dog. That is a great thing! I am sorry that you who support these 'old school' techniques aren't open enough to truely research our 'soft' methods. And before you jump on the wagon screaming that the research has been done, where has that research been done???

[taratippy]

most of the dogs in shelters are dogs with issues. most have been to a positive-reinforcement training class or classes which obviously didn't work.

the trainer tells them to put the dog down, which they do because the trainer teaches positive reinforcement which is humane so the trainer is humane, isn't he?

Do you have a link or something to back this claim up and can I ask which shelters you are involved with? Do you question the owners when they are giving the dogs regarding what training methods they have used?

It must be very different in the US as in fact in the UK the majority of dogs in rescue do not have issues.

I also confused if the trainer has told them to put the dog down and they have, how do they end up in a shelter?

[shadowfacedanes]

A dog a mans best friend.

Huh?

Was that a reply?

[ToscasMom]

Never heard of him. Just like I never heard of that Richling guy until somebody posted about him (I think it was himself if I recall correctly). But after reading the information offered on Koehler in this thread, I am more than fairly certain I haven't missed much by not knowing who he is.

[Dekka]

You know they used to train horses by putting tying cats to poles and then upending them under the horse's bellies, to scratch the h3ll out of the poor horse. The horse would often kick the cat and kill it. But at the time that was considered an approved way to punish a horse. People learn, we progress. The cat method may have worked? But at what cost?

Purdue-There are 1000's of dogs rehabbed by postitive training. Your posts on positive training, show that your trainer sucked at it. Positive does not mean permissive, positive does not mean no consequences. I used negative punishment. And there are consequences my dogs don't like if they don't perform. But I never use positive punishment, as it has been linked to many behavioural problems. Now if you ignore those problems as they manifest, then it does appear that positive punishment works. But when it works, it always works at a cost.

[houndlove]

most of the dogs in shelters are dogs with issues. most have been to a positive-reinforcement training class or classes which obviously didn't work.

Would love to see the actual statistic here *eyeroll*. I've seen statistics claiming that only 5-10% of pet dogs in this country actually receieve ANY formal training of any kind. So unless every single one of these dogs winds up in a shelter, I'd say you're pulling numbers out of your backside. My own experience with volunteering in animal shelters is that most of the dogs there don't have serious issues, they simply lack any kind of obedience training or manners whatsoever. No one ever taught them, in any way, how to behave. The typical scenario goes like this: dog is brought home as a puppy, and puppies are very cute, and small and clingy and so no one ever thinks to actually train the dog--he's so adorable and easy to control. Then, 9 months later, the puppy has turned in to an adolescent dog, often much larger, and now a lot harder to control and less cute, and it still has no manners or training. It is not a coincidence that the majority of dogs in shelters are 9-24 months old. That's when dogs hit adolescence, get difficult, and are also bigger and less cute. The cute puppy's lack of training is not so cute in an adult. The dog gets dumped at a shelter because it's easier to do that than to actually take a class, read a book, and do some training. The end.

[ToscasMom]

most of the dogs in shelters are dogs with issues. most have been to a positive-reinforcement training class or classes which obviously didn't work.
I would also like some statistics from a reliable source on this because I don't believe a whit of it. I believe most dogs end up in shelters because they have had no training whatsoever, save for the ones whose owners died.

[Doberluv]

Koehler and his so called "method" is a ridiculous and abusive way to handle a dog. Ridiculous because it is not based on anything which has anything to do with training....it's just flat out abuse. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with how dogs think and learn, their nature...nothing. Ridiculous!

Positive reinforcement....operant/classical conditioning, the science of learning behavior, devoid of harsh aversives is PROVEN to work on all mammals with a brain stem. If someone says "it" doesn't work, that's not "it" which doesn't work. That's the trainer that is defective. There is NO debate. You can argue about matters of opinion all you want. But arguing about facts is ridiculous. Arguing with ignorant people, giving them the time of day is also ridiculous. That's all I have to say.

[Cheetah]

I was able to train my dog out of her dog-aggressive issues without the use of harsh aversives. We've certainly come a long way since Koehler... wasn't that like 40-50 years ago?! We've landed on the moon now, we have portable personal computers, we've cloned things, and we've learned a heck of a lot more about dog behavior.

[BostonBanker]

You know they used to train horses by putting tying cats to poles and then upending them under the horse's bellies, to scratch the h3ll out of the poor horse. The horse would often kick the cat and kill it. But at the time that was considered an approved way to punish a horse. People learn, we progress. The cat method may have worked? But at what cost?


Hmmm, interesting. Think that would be a good way to get a bit more activity from my horse's hindlegs? Anyone got a cat I can borrow?;)

[Momof2Pups]

You know they used to train horses by putting tying cats to poles and then upending them under the horse's bellies, to scratch the h3ll out of the poor horse. The horse would often kick the cat and kill it. But at the time that was considered an approved way to punish a horse. People learn, we progress. The cat method may have worked? But at what cost?

Oh, I've never heard of that. Thats horrible! :(:(

[elegy]

Anyone got a cat I can borrow?;)

me! me! i do! i do! :yikes:

[ToscasMom]

Harumph!

I will give you Mojo. All I can say is I hope your horse is ok when he is done.

[BoxMeIn21]

yes, positive reinforcement can work on the low-energy, easy temperment dogs, but it is when a dog comes in that has problems it fails. on the other hand richling, Konrad Most, Koehler,etc.'s methods will work on any dog. You just have to figure out how hard of a correction the dog needs. Some need a stern voice others need a hard pop on the leash. That's where the art of dog training comes in.



HA! Sorry this statement made me laugh. You're understanding of positive reinforcement is most definitely flawed.

[Dekka]

Hmmm, interesting. Think that would be a good way to get a bit more activity from my horse's hindlegs? Anyone got a cat I can borrow?;)

I don't think you would want belly though then. The cat would need to be applied to the gaskins. The belly would likely cause the haunches to be raised.

[Lilavati]

I really wanted to stay out of this, but I feel that I need to make a comment. I use positve methods with my dog, and I firmly believe that positive methods can work in almost every situation . . . perhaps in every situation, with a knowledgable and talented trainer. But I can understand fully why some people are turned off to these methods. One, they can be difficult to understand starting out, particularly the aspect of timing. Two, there are crappy positive training method books out there. The first book that I bought, in my ignorance, was such a book (I won't name names here). Although it provides a perfectly good outline for positive training, it doesn't tell you what you are supposed to do if the instructions in the book don't work. It also doesn't tell you what to do if things go terribly wrong. It does tell you, at great length, never to yell at your dog, jerk its collar, or even say 'no' or dire, dire consequences can occur.

Now, to the point. I had been very careful not to give my dog a chance to chase the cats, but she had been fairly polite to them during the first week. So I decided to walk her off leash from the back door to the staircase and up to her crate. When we came in the door, there was kitty. Kitty gave dog a wary look. Dog play bowed. Kitty, not wanting to play with soemthing several times his size, takes off at a run. Dog, thinking kitty is proposing a rousing game of chase, pursues him.

Ack, there's nothing about this in the book! But I know for sure I don't want Sarama to learn that chasing cats is fun. I'm really, really sure I don't want her to catch that cat. So, falling back on years of watching my parents teach the dogs manners in the old way, I shout 'No!' followed by a growlly 'Leave that cat alone' and leap forward, seized her collar and shoved her ( pulling against my hand and barking) back out the rear door into the backyard. Cat peers out from behind the couch. Peace reigns.

I felt guilty . . . had I harmed my dog? Then I looked at another book. This is a highly respected book on positve training . . and it drew the distinction between training and management. What I'd done was crisis management. I'd prevented kitty from getting hurt and prevented Sarama from having a roaring good time chasing him. I hadn't TRAINED the dog. She didn't know what she was supposed to do instead. I'd undoubtably made a withdrawal from my relationship bank. But the immediate crisis was solved, and now that I knew that she would chase cats IF they ran. I could now make plans to use positive methods to train her not to. (Its five weeks later, and though I can't say I'd trust her not to chase the cats if really given the chance, a soft 'uh-uh' and calling her to me will keep her away from them in my presence.)

My point? Not that positive methods don't work, or they aren't the best way to train a dog, but that there is a lot of material out there that isn't very helpful, especially to someone trying the methods for the first time. There's a lot of theory, which is necessary to understand what you are doing, but not enough real world practical advice. What do you do if the dog is chasing the cat? If its about to jump on your 93 year old gradmother? If its actually leaping into a fight with another dog? If your dog has appearently had a psychotic episode and has trapped you in the closet? (other than the first, I hve not had these problems, thank god). Sometimes you do what you have to do to prevent disaster. That's common sense. (Note, I did not hit her to make her stop . . I startled her, made my displeasure known, and removed her from the cat's presence)

So I can understand how people who do not have a great deal of respect for science (which was one of the principal things that convinced me this was the right method) or who are very frustrated, would fall back on another method that is known to work. It might not work the way we like, it might be fraught with potential disaster, but it does work, and worked fairly well for years before positive methods were wide spread. If nothing else, such methods are easier to get instant results with, which, unfortunately, is more valuable than their relationship with thier dog. The best thing we can do is recommend good books on positive training . .. and remind people that crisis management isnt' training, but its better than letting something bad happen which will turn people off to positive methods altogether.

/ducks the flames

[ToscasMom]

Boston, one more cat joke and I am going to sneak a VERY large bird into your home.

[BostonBanker]

I will give you Mojo. All I can say is I hope your horse is ok when he is done.


That would be super! I think they can ship FedEx right to the barn! How big of a pole do you think I would need? And trust me - Mojo has never met a beast like Tristan. Many a larger horse has fled from his wrath!

I don't think you would want belly though then. The cat would need to be applied to the gaskins. The belly would likely cause the haunches to be raised.

I'm pretty sure applying a cat to this horse's gaskins would result in the hindlegs going backwards - active, sure, but in the wrong direction! I was thinking a cat to the stomach would get those hindlegs really reaching under him - in an attempt to squash it.

Now the real question is - do I click and treat as the leg lifts, or when he stands still to let the me remove the pancaked cat from under his feet?

Boston, one more cat joke and I am going to sneak a VERY large bird into your home.

:yikes: Okay, now you are hitting below the belt. Behave yourself or I shall hook up a chastity belt to your little hussy, and you can deal with her and all her angry suitors.

[ron]

First, I'm not a certified dog anything. Nor do I have a degree in psychology. Yet, even I can understand the basics of operant conditioning. And, it would appear that there is a lack of that understanding in the Koehler Method. Hanging dogs until near death, physical pain, these only produce a dog that either shuts down, or bides it's time until it can retaliate.

BTW, I used to scruff and pin. And was lucky. First, I never did it to cause pain, which limited it's value as a true punishment. Second, since it didn't cause pain, my dog viewed it as attention and would lower and roll, offering appeasement. And, it only stopped the behavior at that moment and it didn't train. I did pin him forcefully one time. He was attacking my in-law's geriatric Lhasa Apso. He left her alone for the rest of the visit. Next visit, he did it again. Therefore, even the forceful pin, eyelock, and loud, low "no" didn't do squat for stopping the behavior. What has worked far better is commanding incompatible behavior that is postively trained. I use +R because it works, not because I'm afraid to scruff and pin. And +R works more effectively. To the original poster, don't go to the Koehler method.

And, in my humble opinion, a dog that is not responding to +R is not going to respond to corrections, either.

[Renee750il]

Good post, good points, Lilavati :)

[Xerxes]

most of the dogs in shelters are dogs with issues. most have been to a positive-reinforcement training class or classes which obviously didn't work.

Most? Most? So you're saying that tens of thousands of dogs have received positive only training and have issues because of it?

What is your source of facts? What do you mean by "most?" "Most" should indicate a minimum of 51%.

"Most" of the aggressive dogs I've met have been trained with Dominance theory as a primary vocabulary. The dog chews a shoe. "He's trying to dominate you." The dog jumps on furniture. "That's a sign of dominance." The dog lays his head on your foot. "Dominance."

Phooey.

"Most" of the behavioral problems that I've seen in shelters is caused by lack of exercise or mental stimulus, lack of boundaries, lack of socialization, as well as an owner that didn't take the time to work with his/her dog.

I'd like to see a Koehler method work with a hound. Actually, no I wouldn't. I'd hate to see what you'd do with a hound.

[ToscasMom]

Okay, now you are hitting below the belt. Behave yourself or I shall hook up a chastity belt to your little hussy, and you can deal with her and all her angry suitors.
Yeah well she says to tell Meg thanks for last night.

[Boemy]

most of the dogs in shelters are dogs with issues. most have been to a positive-reinforcement training class or classes which obviously didn't work.

Excuse me, what now? One of the most common reasons for turning in dogs to the shelter is "we're moving". And many dogs are strays. They aren't there because of some failure on the dog's part, but rather because they were crassly regarded as a disposable nuisance rather than a living being.

Of the dogs who are turned in because "he jumps" or "she chews on the rug", most probably haven't had any formal training at all; a lot of people just expect dogs to train themselves instead of acting like dogs.

And finally, the average person doesn't know about clicker training, etc, and is much more likely to use "whap 'em with a newspaper" type training than positive training, so it's far more likely shelter dogs have had "negative" training than positive.

[Dekka]

Most? Most? So you're saying that tens of thousands of dogs have received positive only training and have issues because of it?

What is your source of facts? What do you mean by "most?" "Most" should indicate a minimum of 51%.

"Most" of the aggressive dogs I've met have been trained with Dominance theory as a primary vocabulary. The dog chews a shoe. "He's trying to dominate you." The dog jumps on furniture. "That's a sign of dominance." The dog lays his head on your foot. "Dominance."

Phooey.

"Most" of the behavioral problems that I've seen in shelters is caused by lack of exercise or mental stimulus, lack of boundaries, lack of socialization, as well as an owner that didn't take the time to work with his/her dog.

I'd like to see a Koehler method work with a hound. Actually, no I wouldn't. I'd hate to see what you'd do with a hound.

:hail: :hail: :hail: Fantastic post..And I can imagine what I hound would say to a Koehler trainer LOL it would be dignified, scathing and probably waayyy over the trainers head.

[adojrts]

Purdue,
Just how much worldly experience do you have with rescues???? Just how many Rescue Org.s or Shelters have you worked in? How many rescues have you had in your home, retrained and then rehomed to a forever home???

How about a rescue, that had been trained in the *traditional methods', and now NOBODY could even touch her???? Including those trainers that had made her this way. NOBODY had been able to touch this dog for 3 YEARS!!!! (she was 4 yrs btw) Her owners couldn't either, when they started to have problems with her as a pup (they got her at 8 wks and started classes by 10 wks!!!), they went to a Traditional Trainer for over a year. They didn't like the methods that they were shown but everyone assured them that this was the way to train dogs. What a bloody mess they ended up with. Those trainers told them to put her DOWN, Shelters and Rescues wouldn't take her either. And do you have enough knowledge of training and behaviour to be the FIRST PERSON to touch that dog in 3 years and NOT GET BIT?? Oh yeah it only took a couple of days, not months and I used ONLY Positive methods. I was also the ONLY person willing to take her.

So tell me, how would YOU start to do some behavioural modification and training on such a dog? One you can't touch or even look at without the risk of getting attacked?
So tell me..........I can't wait.

[taratippy]

Most? Most? So you're saying that tens of thousands of dogs have received positive only training and have issues because of it?

What is your source of facts? What do you mean by "most?" "Most" should indicate a minimum of 51%.

"Most" of the aggressive dogs I've met have been trained with Dominance theory as a primary vocabulary. The dog chews a shoe. "He's trying to dominate you." The dog jumps on furniture. "That's a sign of dominance." The dog lays his head on your foot. "Dominance."

Phooey.

"Most" of the behavioral problems that I've seen in shelters is caused by lack of exercise or mental stimulus, lack of boundaries, lack of socialization, as well as an owner that didn't take the time to work with his/her dog.

I'd like to see a Koehler method work with a hound. Actually, no I wouldn't. I'd hate to see what you'd do with a hound.

Thanks for that I was wondering what Purdue's involvement was with rescue and if it was so different over there as such and how she could possibly know how the dogs had been trained. I think the posts since then have confirmed more what I thought, the dogs in rescue are certainly not there because of positive training, more no training or owners fault.

[Aussie Red]

most of the dogs in shelters are dogs with issues. most have been to a positive-reinforcement training class or classes which obviously didn't work. the trainer tells them to put the dog down, which they do because the trainer teaches positive reinforcement which is humane so the trainer is humane, isn't he?

yes, positive reinforcement can work on the low-energy, easy temperment dogs, but it is when a dog comes in that has problems it fails. on the other hand richling, Konrad Most, Koehler,etc.'s methods will work on any dog. You just have to figure out how hard of a correction the dog needs. Some need a stern voice others need a hard pop on the leash. That's where the art of dog training comes in.

I also wouldn't give sly the same light pop i would give mickey. That would be under-correcting him. It builds his resistance to me because i am nagging him and eventually he will snap because he has had enough of my nagging. I would deserve that beautiful gash he would leave in my arm because i nagged him so he snapped.It's the art of dog training. You have to be able to suit it to the dog in front of you, not get a dog that is aggressive and say he needs to put down or given to someone else because my methods don't work on him and i am not going to use any corrective measures.IMO


Ah here we go again sort of like ring around the rosie only Perdue you are the one going in circles here. You have no facts to support your argument only what you believe to be fact. I know that to make a statement that most dogs end up in shelters because of positive training that you don't do any form of rescue work or more over you just showed the board what an arrogant person you are. You are not willing to learn anything your mind is set on the fact that kicking your dogs ass when it does not mind you is the only way you can have an obedient dog. I know you don't know what you are talking about for sure now. Over 70% of the rescues I have done are from owners who got rid of them because they did not mind and trust me when I reach out to fast for the rescued dog it will duck and cower or snap and that is not from positive training my friend. These dogs come out of that behavior because they are introduced to a kinder more gentle approach and go on to have a good long healthy happy life. You are going to continue to jump on these threads and stand in support to anyone who whacks his dog or half drowns it and try to make us see that dogs respond better to abuse well you are batting a big fat 0 my friend and loosing ground daily. Continue to tell us how positive trained dogs end up in shelters or will turn on us and I will continue to look for your name in a news paper telling us how badly injured by your dog you are or how your dog chewed up some innocent . Have a good day. I personally wish you would contribute something of value to this forum and quit wasting everyones time.

[DanL]

On the horse thing- a guy I used to work with had worked with race horses for a few years. The male horses would masturbate themselves by slapping their penis against their belly. If they let them do that, they wouldn't be as intense or as willing to race. They fixed the problem by strapping a wire brush to the horses belly. That stopped the habit pretty fast!

[houndlove]

Heh Ed, yeah I wasn't going to go there initially, but Koehler with hounds....ahahahahah! That would very much be :popcorn:

My pet theory is that this is the reason hounds have the reputation as "dumb and lazy". Because during the bad old days where traditional training was the only option, no one could freakin' train their hounds! It's only in the past decade where rewards-based training has gotten more popular that people have been really able to train their hounds the way they really respond to.

[Xerxes]

Heh Ed, yeah I wasn't going to go there initially, but Koehler with hounds....ahahahahah! That would very much be :popcorn:

My pet theory is that this is the reason hounds have the reputation as "dumb and lazy". Because during the bad old days where traditional training was the only option, no one could freakin' train their hounds! It's only in the past decade where rewards-based training has gotten more popular that people have been really able to train their hounds the way they really respond to.

Exactly... Hard to motivate a hound with "do this or get a correction." They'd much rather lay in a corner and have you convinced that they're stupid. Then they go out in the backyard and figure out how to open your gate, then the neighbors gate, climb up the trellis to get to Mrs. Johnson's freshly made huckleberry pie.:)

[eley@peoplepc.com]

WOW...surprising to hear that people are still talking about Koehler.

It has been proven over and over that it can hurt a dog (both physically and emotionally) more than it will ever help.

As far as the statement that most dogs in shelters have been to a +R "class or classes", that is plain ridiculous. It doesn't take a dog expert to figure out that the issues that most shelter dogs have are a direct result from abuse and/or neglect.

I find it interesting that even Ed Frawley, who is regarded by a lot of people as "old school" or "brutal", says that Koehler is outdated, cruel, and flat out bad for the dog/human relationship.

[Herschel]

^ is new to the Chaz community. See? We're not the only ones that believe that choking, hitting, etc. is abuse. Welcome, Eley!

By the way, here is Frawley's take on Koehler: http://leerburg.com/philosophy.htm
Thirty five to forty years ago people trained dogs almost exclusively with force. Read the old William Kohler books. William Koehler is the model-T of the dog training world. I read them when I was 16 and thought they were the cats ass. Since then I have come to realize that Koehler was the master of yank and crank training.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
The first category on the left is the group of people who beg or bribe their dogs to do something by offering a food or toy reward. Don’t get me wrong, I use food and toys in training, but I also use distractions and corrections. The people in this first category use neither. All of the large pet food warehouses (I.E. Pet Smart, Petco , or the Monks of New Skeet etc) sponsor this category of ineffective training because they feel it's politically correct.

The problem with this group is that the dogs often choose to not do what’s asked because they don’t think the reward is worth the task. These dogs end up being pushy, dominant and often antisocial aggressive animals. These are the dogs that are turned into animal shelters as being un-manageable when in fact they act the way they do as a result of ineffective dog training.

At the other end of the scale, on the right side, is the second category of dog trainers. These are trainers who intimidate or force their dogs to do what they want (the William Koehler trainers) . I call them the old school “yank and crank” trainers.

They put a choke collar on a dog and force it to do everything. Many professional dog trainers use these methods because for them time is money and with enough force a dog can be trained to do almost anything.

The problem with yank and crank trainers is the dogs seldom like their handlers and in fact are often afraid of them. These are the dogs that tuck their tails or lay on the ground when asked to do something. When these dogs are near their owners they don’t look happy because they never know when the hammer is going to fall.

[Laurelin]

Now that's interesting.

[Doberluv]

He's full of sch!t too. "begging, bribing, the reward not worth the task." Oh puleeeeeze. Yet another person who is uneducated about real behavior modification based on sound science and methods used by so many esteemed trainers, university behavior depts. it isn't even funny. These people are ridiculous.

[Xerxes]

Funny thing is that Operant Conditioning works across all species lines, at least in my experience. Fish, Birds, Large Mammals, people and dogs too.

[Doberluv]

Absolutely. It's how all species, all organisms with a brain learn. FACT. And it's a fact that harsh aversives are not necessary when proper use of training methods is employed. They train so many animals which are not nearly as smart or as bidable as dogs and animals which can not have pos. punishment used on them. So, for goodness sake! To say that "some" dogs can't be trained with operant/classical conditioning without harsh aversives is just flat out wrong. Not opinion. Fact.

[FoxyWench]

all i can say to this method is...

youd heel too if you were terrified some maniac was going to beat the hell out of you...

that is untill the day you realive you can bite that heal and bad person falls down

im my closest shelter 5 dogs are currently considered unadopatable because of behavioural issues...
of those 5 dogs, 1 had recived no trainign or socilization at all, 1 had been severly beaten, and the other 3 had been raised using methods like these brutal ones and each one day snapped, the first had been trained with strong leash and "switch" (beat with stick) methods, he was aparently very well behaved untill one day he snapped, removed the switch form his "masters" hand and proceded to take the guy down via the ankles, the man needed over 150 stitches on one thigh alone where the dog had decided he didnt want this person ever getting up again..this person swears that this behaviour was sudden and uncalled for, yet he was the one "tapping" the dog with a bamboo pole!

theres no place for abuse in this world, its outdated and works on FEAR not respect...

personally ive worked with easy dogs, ive worked with hard dogs and ive worked with dogs so bad they were on death row, and never once have i had to resort to leash popping, kicking or half drowning any or them...

[Doberluv]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

all i can say to this method is...

youd heel too if you were terrified some maniac was going to beat the hell out of you...

that is untill the day you realive you can bite that heal and bad person falls down

im my closest shelter 5 dogs are currently considered unadopatable because of behavioural issues...
of those 5 dogs, 1 had recived no trainign or socilization at all, 1 had been severly beaten, and the other 3 had been raised using methods like these brutal ones and each one day snapped, the first had been trained with strong leash and "switch" (beat with stick) methods, he was aparently very well behaved untill one day he snapped, removed the switch form his "masters" hand and proceded to take the guy down via the ankles, the man needed over 150 stitches on one thigh alone where the dog had decided he didnt want this person ever getting up again..this person swears that this behaviour was sudden and uncalled for, yet he was the one "tapping" the dog with a bamboo pole!

theres no place for abuse in this world, its outdated and works on FEAR not respect...

personally ive worked with easy dogs, ive worked with hard dogs and ive worked with dogs so bad they were on death row, and never once have i had to resort to leash popping, kicking or half drowning any or them...

:hail: :hail: :hail: Great post Foxy! You are so right.

[Xerxes]

Foxy, all I can say is ditto what Doberluv said.

[heartdogs]

Recently, in our area, a Pit Bull redirected on his owner when the "trainer" who had been working with him showed up at the door. Think he'd had enough, too, perhaps????
This method, especially in view of what we now know about dogs' ability to learn using more humane techniques, should be unthinkable. Period.

[CanadianK9]

To sum this thread into 2 words

Koehler = moron

[Doberluv]

Recently, in our area, a Pit Bull redirected on his owner when the "trainer" who had been working with him showed up at the door. Think he'd had enough, too, perhaps????
This method, especially in view of what we now know about dogs' ability to learn using more humane techniques, should be unthinkable. Period.

Case in point. (among vast numbers) Good post.



To sum this thread into 2 words

Koehler = moron

ROFLOL! I love your economy with words. No better way to say it! Touche`!

[ToscasMom]

Originally Posted by VWilson
Frankly, it is not worth my time to argue, and caterwaul with those who will not be influenced, or changed. Nor do I care if they are changed or influenced.
Coulda fooled me. For somebody who regards the consensus of the VAST majority of this board as a waste of your far more valuable time, you sure are humping it.

[Lilavati]

To sum this thread into 2 words

Koehler = moron

Anyone using his techniques today IS a moron. But to be fair to the late Mr. Koehler, who died in 1993 at the age of 82, our current methods were not around at the time. In fact, pet dogs were generally not trained at all at the time, and were usually kept outdoors. Koehler promoted people having a relationship with their dog, bringing dogs into the home, and showed through his film work that dogs could be trained to do marvelous things. He also supported the use of praise, as well as punishment.

Does this mean that anyone should be using his books today? No, of course not. But be fair. For his time, he was progressive, and his work laid the foundation for the serious study of dog training. Keep in mind also, that Mr. Koehler was a German, schooled himself by methods not all that different from how he trained his dogs. That's how CHILDREN were brought up at the time. And Germany was notorious for having the harshest schools . . .though American schools weren't much better.

We've learned since that there are better ways to teach both dogs and children. But its not quite fair to blame Mr. Koehler for not knowing what we do now . . . especially since most of his books were written long before his death.


As a side note, Purdue, making up statistics about shelter dogs isn't smart. One, on this board, you'll be caught at it. Two, they have a hard enough lot in life as it is without someone advocating that all they need is a choke chain and a swat on the nose.

[Doberluv]

These current methods were around a lot earlier than Koehler, actually. Pavlov really brought a lot of this to the forefront in the 1890s. BF Skinner actually recommended the little toy cricket to use in dog training as a conditioned reinforcer, just as it is used so much now. There is nothing new about the science of learning behavior or how it pertains to dog training. Karen Pryor of modern times has certainly re-vitalized and plumped up the use of +R training with dogs and other animals. But she certainly isn't the first. In other words, operant and classical conditioning has been around for a long time.

I do not believe that abuse or even extraordinarily harsh methods really belong being labled as "old school." (I know that term is used a lot and I use it myself) There were lots of trainers who may not have used +R to the extent that it is being re-juvinated today, but treatment such as Koehler's, I do not believe was really the main-stay or "school of thought" for many trainers. Maybe it was in Germany. I don't know. And I do buy that harsher methods were probably more widely used. But Koehler's viciousness toward dogs????? No one who loves dogs could do those things he advocated without doing serious damage to their own souls.

[heartdogs]

I have to agree. My mother was "training with cookies" in the 1950's, although leash walking was, arguably, still taught with a choke collar, pretty much like Barbara Woodhouse did, so not everyone felt good about teaching Fido who's boss in ways that hurt Fido.

[ron]

Recently, in our area, a Pit Bull redirected on his owner when the "trainer" who had been working with him showed up at the door. Think he'd had enough, too, perhaps????
This method, especially in view of what we now know about dogs' ability to learn using more humane techniques, should be unthinkable. Period.

Methinks the dog is smarter than the humans give him credit for.

[Laurelin]

These current methods were around a lot earlier than Koehler, actually. Pavlov really brought a lot of this to the forefront in the 1890s. BF Skinner actually recommended the little toy cricket to use in dog training as a conditioned reinforcer, just as it is used so much now. There is nothing new about the science of learning behavior or how it pertains to dog training. Karen Pryor of modern times has certainly re-vitalized and plumped up the use of +R training with dogs and other animals. But she certainly isn't the first. In other words, operant and classical conditioning has been around for a long time.

I do not believe that abuse or even extraordinarily harsh methods really belong being labled as "old school." (I know that term is used a lot and I use it myself) There were lots of trainers who may not have used +R to the extent that it is being re-juvinated today, but treatment such as Koehler's, I do not believe was really the main-stay or "school of thought" for many trainers. Maybe it was in Germany. I don't know. And I do buy that harsher methods were probably more widely used. But Koehler's viciousness toward dogs????? No one who loves dogs could do those things he advocated without doing serious damage to their own souls.

That reads like my last psychology class!

[ToscasMom]

Skinner always made me a little nervous because they used him a lot in graduate education courses. The problem is, they applied his findings to kids and he never studied anything but rats.

But yeah, I am no spring chicken and I went to basic AKC obedience classes with my dog back when I was about 12 (that was acceptable then so long as a parent was there), we did use choke chains. But we sure didn't hang our dogs with them. It was very similar to classes today. I don't recall anyone even suggesting anything like some of the crap I am reading on this thread.

[ToscasMom]

Originally Posted by heartdogs
Recently, in our area, a Pit Bull redirected on his owner when the "trainer" who had been working with him showed up at the door. Think he'd had enough, too, perhaps????
In some quarters, this would be called Poetic Justice.

[Lilavati]

I stand corrected, then, Doberluv. I was under the impression that although Pavlov's and Skinner's research had been done, they had not yet been applied to animal training in the wider world.

I will confess not to having read, nor to having any desire to read Koehler's books. But I had thought, from other sources, that the man himself was not the origin of the worst abuses of his method (things like helicoptering and hanging) and that he was the first to widely advocate the training of dogs and the integration of them into families in the United States.

And yes, it definately was a German thing . . . he learned his methods from those used to train German army dogs for WWI at least according to what I've read.

The wonderful thing about these boards is I learn something new each day :D

[blackcat]

Okay wow I read some of that but quickly became disinterested. Anyways my brother had a rottwriler that he took to school and everything and when I tried to walk him pulled like a bitch. I tought him to heal through positive reinforcement, but later on after I told my brother what I had did he told me all I needed to do was pull on the dogs ear and he would walk right next to me. Would that pulling on the ear be the koehler method of training?

[Lilavati]

Whatever it is, sounds like a great way to get bitten to me

[Doberluv]

Yes Lilavate...definitely. And a good way to erode the trust a human works so hard to get from an animal.......or should work to achieve. Trust and a good relationship with our dogs is the strongest and most powerful tool in the training tool box.

[Laurelin]

I don't see why pulling on a dog's ear would make him walk right next to you. I know it'd make my female sheltie probably snap at you, though.

But I don't know if Koehler advocates pulling on ears, to answer your question. I haven't seen that anywhere.

[Zoom]

Who would ever have thought to see the day where I agreed with Frawley on ANYTHING??

The first category on the left is the group of people who beg or bribe their dogs to do something by offering a food or toy reward.

The problem with this group is that the dogs often choose to not do what’s asked because they don’t think the reward is worth the task. These dogs end up being pushy, dominant and often antisocial aggressive animals. These are the dogs that are turned into animal shelters as being un-manageable when in fact they act the way they do as a result of ineffective dog training.


This is true, at least at face value. I know MANY people who have dogs that won't do a thing unless they see a cookie. That is not "positive training" that is "beg, bribe and hope". These might be the dogs Purdue thinks they see in shelters and is so dismissive of. These dogs have never had a single day of acutal training in their life, they have instead manipulated the "coke machine" effect to the utmost, while the owners have not had the knowledge or personality to insist on treat-less obedience.

Many of you have met my dogs. I train initially with treats and then fade them out so that they listen with minimal praise. Occassionaly I'll break out some of the good stuff for a "tune-up" training session. Would those of you who have met my dogs call them "ticking time bombs" or anything of the other ridiculous comments bandied about?

I've trained under Kohler/Most trainers before and I see better, happier results with +R. So if you want to deliberatly cause pain to your dog for whatever reason, that's between you and your dog. Myself, I'm going to go with the method that gets good results and no stitches.

[Cheetah]

If I pulled on either of my dogs' ears, they'd probably cower and shy away from me, not want to walk next to me lol...

[elegy]

good post, zoom. that was my response as well. i suspect frawley doesn't have a very good grasp of what *good* positive trainers are actually up to.

[heartdogs]

we did use choke chains. But we sure didn't hang our dogs with them. It was very similar to classes today. I don't recall anyone even suggesting anything like some of the crap I am reading on this thread

And, if you trained with someone like Brian Kilcommons, for example, the likelihood is that you would recognize the proper leash handling and minimal correction that you are used to. But, I also have seen a so-called trainer take a four month old Husky and alpha roll it - at my local obedience club. And, at the same club, I stood and fed my Sioux forty gazillion liver treats in a row so that she would realize that the scream-fest going on behind her was directed at the nine year old Corgi (UD) who had just made some kind of "error", and not at her. It went on for several minutes. I never went back. :mad: So, at least give us the benefit of the doubt that some of us have witnessed the flip side of what good training used to be about. That said, I have to say that I am much happier that we have graduated to more friendly techniques that work just as well, if not better.

[houndlove]

Depending on how hard you're pulling, if it was Marlowe he'd probably lay down and ask you do it some more rather than heeling. He loves having his ears pulled. Conrad would definately issue you a little correction of his own for being so impolite as to mess with his ears like that.

I used to train with collar corrections in a pretty mild style, but I still wouldn't do it anymore. I wasn't hanging or beating or drowining my dogs, but I also wasn't accomplishing much and my first dog paid for it with his life. Nothing poisons a good reliable recall like mistrust of the handler and my first dog, my husband's heart dog, was hit by a car because of his chronic lack of a good recall. I blame myself entirely for that--not because I was the one who was butter-fingered about transferring him from his tie-out to his leash, but because I tried to train him in a way that taught him that I was unpredictable, sometimes a little scary, and that bounding around and running away from me when called was a lot more fun than the inevitable yelling he'd recieve when he finally did arrive. He learned very well that when he was on the long line, he'd better answer to "HERE!" or he'd get yanked by the neck, but off the long line, what reason would there be for him to come when called? He was a big, fast dog, a GSD x akita, there was no way I could actually physically catch him if he did not want to be caught. And more often than not, he did not want to be caught.

When I see people yanking their dogs around by choke chains, I want to stop and sit them down and tell them that story. And also that it took me literally years after that happened to change the way I was doing things and to please not make that same mistake.

[ToscasMom]

So, at least give us the benefit of the doubt that some of us have witnessed the flip side of what good training used to be about.
Heartdogs, I wasn't questioning or even doubting you. My comments were to reinforce that positive training methods have been around for a long time as well. Basically responding to Dober's comment here:
Originally Posted by Doberluv
These current methods were around a lot earlier than Koehler, actually. Pavlov really brought a lot of this to the forefront in the 1890s. BF Skinner actually recommended the little toy cricket to use in dog training as a conditioned reinforcer, just as it is used so much now. There is nothing new about the science of learning behavior or how it pertains to dog training. Karen Pryor of modern times has certainly re-vitalized and plumped up the use of +R training with dogs and other animals. But she certainly isn't the first. In other words, operant and classical conditioning has been around for a long time.

Here in my area, I almost signed up to train with a trainer who sounded an awful lot like a punishment trainer. It didn't take me long to find some people who had some experiences and it didn't take me long to opt out and go with a trainer who was not a punishing person. So it appears that the two types of training remain side by side today, and I could see how someone could get caught up in punishment training without even realizing that it sucks and it isn't going to build a whit of relationship with their dogs. I suspect there are more people than we would like to admit who want a dog to be nothing but a guarding and protection tool without any real relationship whatsoever. I would say these are the people who go for near drownings and dogs as penis extensions. But for them to even imply that they have a happy well adjusted dog is beyond ludicrous.

[Xerxes]

Yes Lilavate...definitely. And a good way to erode the trust a human works so hard to get from an animal.......or should work to achieve. Trust and a good relationship with our dogs is the strongest and most powerful tool in the training tool box.

Trust is a powerful thing in the dog/human relationship, much more important IMO than dependence.