koehler method of dog training
- Thread starter blackcat
- Start date
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'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?
: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.
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?
: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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Heh Ed, yeah I wasn't going to go there initially, but Koehler with hounds....ahahahahah! That would very much be 
opcorn:
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.
opcorn: 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.
Heh Ed, yeah I wasn't going to go there initially, but Koehler with hounds....ahahahahah! That would very much be opcorn:
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.
opcorn: 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.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2007
- Messages
- 12
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 0
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.
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.
^ 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
By the way, here is Frawley's take on Koehler: http://leerburg.com/philosophy.htm
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.
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.