[RaeganW]

I was scanning Amazon for training books and came across "The Koehler Method of Dog Training." I read the reviews, since I get the best feel of a book from those. This one in particular caught my eye:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R362T83...cm_cr_rdp_perm

Having been educated in the positive (clicker) training camp, I will say that some of his criticisms are intentionally glossing over some of the finer points. The one that gets me though is "that only using positive reinforcement did not create reliable, 100% consistent behaviours." For me, this is the only argument that traditional trainers make that stands up to a full explanation of positive training. I've seen it come up in several places.

Coming from a point of view that more knowledge is always good, what are your opinions/experiences in creating 100% consistent behaviours with different training paradigms?

Coincidently, I am thinking of getting the book because it appears to be at least an interesting read concerning the history of dog training, even if I get no practical training advice from it.

[Keechak]

I use a mix of Adversive training and Positive reinforcement and I get GREAT results from it. My dogs watch my every move and react very fast to commands that are properly understood.

[angel_baby]

I don't use traditional methods of dog training though there was a time when I did and I'd have to say I've had more reliability with the clicker then anything else before.

[Chels_girl]

I'm primarily a clicker trainer, I believe that Positive Training can be 100% effective if given enough time. But I agree, sometimes there is a time for adversives.
Though having read Koehler's book, I found it very hard to read. The methods in it are far oudated and too harsh for general means, when all of the behaviors he has in the book (sit, down, stay, heel), for sit he prescribes jerking hard on a choke chain and pressing hard on the dog's rear. In another portion he had a passage about dogs that bite their handlers, and he said to dangle the dog by a choke chain until it relented. If you want to know about the methods, read the book, but I do not recomend it.

[skelaki]

I also use a mix of positive and adversive training. I use positive during the learning phase but, once I am absolutely sure the dog knows and understands what's expected when given a command in a situation, I will correct the dog if it chooses to not obey. Precisely what a correction will be depends on the dog, it's temperament, age, etc. In other words I do believe in appropriate, well-timed corrections when warranted.

To me the old Koehler method is comparable to someone hitting your hand with a ruler each time you make a mistake learning to write (for example). You'll learn but it's not a way to make you enjoy the task.

Pure positive (without any type of corrections) to me is kind of like if you were driving me to the store in a town you did not know and all I told you was the store's on the west side. Then never told you when you went the wrong direction, just when you were correct. I think you might get frustrated and want to know when you were wrong as well as right. But you would not want me hitting you over the head each time you turned the wrong way. That would be an inappropriate correction under the circumstances.

Does that make any sense at all?

[sparkle]

Originally Posted by RaeganW

I

The one that gets me though is "that only using positive reinforcement did not create reliable, 100% consistent behaviours." .

Coming from a point of view that more knowledge is always good, what are your opinions/experiences in creating 100% consistent behaviours with different training paradigms?

.

I use all four quadrants of operant conditioning and classical conditioning in various formulas depending on the issues (shaping/creating desired behaviors verses eliminating undesired ones) and the dog at hand taking into account that not all dogs respond equally or favorably to the same approach. Also the human element and skill set must be taken into account in various cases.

I find that most trainers have a knack for dismissing various approaches depending on many factors to include agendas of political correctness and can be observed glossing over the fine points to behavioral conditioning which makes for such a wide spectrum of politics/opinions (and outcomes).

Having dabbled in many training venues from agility,flyball,SAR,stock dog herding,competition obedience,service dog work,hunting/retrieving,public training,4H, rescue, show, grooming, and rehabbing dogs on a professional basis I have not been fortunate enough to experience any single or varied approach that "creates reliable, 100% consistent behaviours". Everything boils down to word usage in how one chooses to paint, explain, or shape a message which may or may not be reflective of everyones experience in finding a resolution or achieving a goal in dog behavior conditioning. obviously


IMHO there is both science and art that can go into interaction with dog and I simply choose to shy away from painting with a brush of absolutes.

[lovemygreys]

I think a good trainer uses the most appropriate method for the behavior and for the dog and situation.

My general rule of thumb is that if I'm doing any sort of "trick" training, like sit, down or practicing agility things I only use "postive" techniques. Especially for my breed, which isn't known to be an obedience oriented breed, all training of this sort needs to be positive, fun, rewarding, etc....

If I'm working on a more behavioral type training, ie, don't jump or something along those lines then I use whichever technique is most appropriate - which can include corrections.

I also second what sparkle posted above, though I don't have near the formal training experience they do! Most of our stuff is just every day pack management and obedience/agility for fun and exercise in our back yard.

[Cracker]

I think that if you are curious about the Koehler methods you should get the book. Half of being a good 'dog person' is knowing as much as you can about as many of the methods as you can so that you can choose knowledgeably between them. I don't have the book but it's on my list (AFTER all the R+ ones I want in my library) because I understand there is significant historical information that may be helpful in the future, even if just to refute it's efficacy etc.

As for my own personal choices, I prefer to outthink the dog than to outmuscle them. R+/P- are my go tos and I do believe that within these two quads you can shape and train very efficient behaviours without having to revert to P+. They can take a bit longer if you and your dog are not "clicker savvy" but for me the benefits outweigh this and once the dog is savvy (which does not take long!) it is actually quicker than corrections...where as using punishment (P+) the risks of fallout outweigh any percieved benefits IMO.

Originally Posted by skelaki

Pure positive (without any type of corrections) to me is kind of like if you were driving me to the store in a town you did not know and all I told you was the store's on the west side. Then never told you when you went the wrong direction, just when you were correct. I think you might get frustrated and want to know when you were wrong as well as right. But you would not want me hitting you over the head each time you turned the wrong way. That would be an inappropriate correction under the circumstances.

Does that make any sense at all?

Yes that makes sense, but it's a misinterpretation of positive training. There is still communication that goes on and "purely positive" does not exist. The communication of "that's not right, try again" is made through non reward markers and negative punishment. So they DO know when it's wrong, in fact, the lack of a marker (click) in a clicker savvy dog tells them exactly this and since they have no avoidance of punishment instilled in them they work to achieve the click, as many times as it takes. If the dog is getting frustrated this is because of lack of skill of the trainer in breaking the behaviour down properly, not in the method itself.

[txcollies]

I use a mixture of positive, but also use corrections when and if needed.

I feel that this is the best way for me and my dogs, and the most reliable. I used to be a 100% positive, clicker only, never say no, never let the dog know he is wrong, "cookies and rainbows" kind of trainer - it got us nowhere fast, as it has done many other trainers, as I've found out after doing a lot of research.

I have the Koehler book, learned a lot from him, still know some GOOD trainers that train that way with great and fair results - I've heard he was a super, super person and an excellent dog savvy trainer.

If you are looking for a more "up to date" method, that is still black and white and balanced, then get the Volhard books. FANTASTIC. Look for "Training Your Dog, the step by step manual", "Dog Training for Dummies" and "The Canine Good Citizen, every dog can be one".

If you are looking at competing in obedience then get "Competition Obedience: A Balancing Act" by Adele Yunk and Judy Byron and "Beyond Basic Dog Training" by Diane Bauman.

[Labsnothers]

I have the book. It is terrible. I am disappointed that it is even still available.

His method for stopping a dog from digging holes in the yard? Waterboard it.

Fill the hole with water and hold the dogs head under until it thinks it is going to drown. I don't know if that will work or not, but my yard could be a no man's land before I would ever try it.

I found my copy in a thrift shop. Money well spent to keep it from falling into the hands of somebody that might follow it. Forget Koehler.

I have heard many positive things about clicker training. It is a good positive method I think, but haven't tried it.

Other choices?

Here is a list put together by the professionals at a dog guide school for those caring for their dogs.

The Cultural Clash by Jean Donaldson, 1996

Excel-crated Learning by Pamela Reid, 1996

Don't Shoot the Dog, by Karen Pryor, 1996

Surviving Your Dog's Adolescence, by Carol Lea Benjamin, 1993

Second Hand dog, by Carol Lea Benjamin, 1988

Dog Problems, by Carol Lea Benjamin, 1989

Super Puppy, by Peter J. Vollmer, 1988

HELP, Mt dog Has an Attitude, by Gwen Bohnenkamp, 1994

Owners' Guide Better Behavior in Dogs and Cats, by William Campbell, 1989

What All Good dogs Should Know, By Wendy Vollmer, 1991

How to Raise a Dog When Nobody is Home, Jerry Kilmer, 1991

Through Otis' Eyes-Lessons from a Guide Dog Puppy, by Patricia Berlin Kennedy and Robert Christie, 1998

Puppy Primer, by Brenda K Skidmore and Patricia B. McConnell, Ph.D., 1996

Beginning Family Dog Training, by Patricia B. McConnell, Ph.D., 1996

[wvasko]

Originally Posted by Labsnothers

I have the book. It is terrible. I am disappointed that it is even still available.

His method for stopping a dog from digging holes in the yard? Waterboard it.

Fill the hole with water and hold the dogs head under until it thinks it is going to drown. I don't know if that will work or not, but my yard could be a no man's land before I would ever try it.

I found my copy in a thrift shop. Money well spent to keep it from falling into the hands of somebody that might follow it. Forget Koehler.

I have heard many positive things about clicker training. It is a good positive method I think, but haven't tried it.

Other choices?

Here is a list put together by the professionals at a dog guide school for those caring for their dogs.

The Cultural Clash by Jean Donaldson, 1996

Excel-crated Learning by Pamela Reid, 1996

Don't Shoot the Dog, by Karen Pryor, 1996

Surviving Your Dog's Adolescence, by Carol Lea Benjamin, 1993

Second Hand dog, by Carol Lea Benjamin, 1988

Dog Problems, by Carol Lea Benjamin, 1989

Super Puppy, by Peter J. Vollmer, 1988

HELP, Mt dog Has an Attitude, by Gwen Bohnenkamp, 1994

Owners' Guide Better Behavior in Dogs and Cats, by William Campbell, 1989

What All Good dogs Should Know, By Wendy Vollmer, 1991

How to Raise a Dog When Nobody is Home, Jerry Kilmer, 1991

Through Otis' Eyes-Lessons from a Guide Dog Puppy, by Patricia Berlin Kennedy and Robert Christie, 1998

Puppy Primer, by Brenda K Skidmore and Patricia B. McConnell, Ph.D., 1996

Beginning Family Dog Training, by Patricia B. McConnell, Ph.D., 1996

I'd be interested in methods you have tried and what successes you have had with your dogs.

I read Kohler's book as a very young man, before having any aspirations of ever becoming a dog trainer. As dumb as I was about dog training, common sense told me there were some things in book I just was not going to use on dogs. I did manage to train my 1st protection dog using some of Kohler's methods. (notice I said some)

Anybody reading a book has freedom of choice, to use or not use methods in any book read. As far as dog training common sense dictates balance. The individual training the dog decides what methods/balance is necessary to train their own dogs.

I've never had a problem with books disappointing me as it was very easy to stop reading the book. If I really was upset I could throw the book away. I have always advised people to read dog books because there could be one thing in a very large book of things that jumps right out at you and be of value in working your next dog. The things of no value you disregard.

I feel that this is the best way for me and my dogs, and the most reliable. I used to be a 100% positive, clicker only, never say no, never let the dog know he is wrong, "cookies and rainbows" kind of trainer - it got us nowhere fast, as it has done many other trainers, as I've found out after doing a lot of research.

The above sounds like a trainer who has definitely gone with a balance type approach after trying other programs. I think it's called learning on the job/dog.

[TxRider]

Originally Posted by RaeganW

I was scanning Amazon for training books and came across "The Koehler Method of Dog Training." I read the reviews, since I get the best feel of a book from those. This one in particular caught my eye:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R362T83...cm_cr_rdp_perm

Having been educated in the positive (clicker) training camp, I will say that some of his criticisms are intentionally glossing over some of the finer points. The one that gets me though is "that only using positive reinforcement did not create reliable, 100% consistent behaviours." For me, this is the only argument that traditional trainers make that stands up to a full explanation of positive training. I've seen it come up in several places.

Coming from a point of view that more knowledge is always good, what are your opinions/experiences in creating 100% consistent behaviours with different training paradigms?

Coincidently, I am thinking of getting the book because it appears to be at least an interesting read concerning the history of dog training, even if I get no practical training advice from it.

I think it depends on what behavior your talking about.

Some behaviors seem more predisposed to certain methods.

Some individual behaviors will be more reliable taught through one method, and other behaviors will be more reliable taught through others. And it's dog dependent as well.

[Labsnothers]

What methods do I use? Like any good trainer, they are a work in progress. I, under the influence of a dog guide school, have moved to more and more positive methods. In the past, if a dog pulled on leash, we were taught to give it a good leash pop with its slip collar. Now they send the puppies home with Martingale style collars and teach us to pull the dog backwards. if it jumps up, step backwards.

Sit is taught starting with the first meal after bringing a 7 week old puppy home. Hold the food bowl over its head. It should sit and then you lower the food bowl, going back up if it stands.

Much of it is giving the command as the puppy does it and then rewarding it with praise or a treat.

[TooneyDogs]

The Koehler book is one that I recommend to prospective serious dog trainers. There are still Koehler schools around the country and they are the only ones who guarantee that after 13 weeks of training the dog will be ready for his Companion Dog title.

While he may be the father of dog training, the methods outlined in his book were seldom used by him. He was a master of body language and was able to train without using most of the aversives.

The instant response to commands, the precision of the response, even the hand signals are still expected/used today irregardless of the training methods.

[Marsh Muppet]

There is much good material in Koehler's book. I suspect many of the people who object to his methods know only of the in extremis methods highlighted in the chapter titled: "Problems". Much of that material can be dispensed with, since knowledge has advance considerably since WK's day--and those methods would only rarely have been used even then.

PS: I can still recite my 11 General Orders from memory, all these decades later, so I know aversive training methods have proven value.

[chelsey]

I use a balanced method of training. Whether or not I use adversive depends on the dog and what I'm actually trying to train. Above all, I want my training to be fair and consistent (in terms of rewards and consequences).

In my experience successfully training with no aversives requires a very skilled trainer who is committed to long term management every source of reinforcement in the dogs' life. A dog who has sources of reward or indirect reinforcement in his environment will have less drive to make the right choice for a direct reinforcement knowing that there is no consequence for the wrong choice.

Many people who choose positive methods forget a key component of this style of training: positive is not permissive (a Susan Garrett quote, but soo true). Many of these people take on a "ignore the bad, reward the good" mentality and set their dog up for failure, allowing their dog to rehearse bad behaviours over and over again. Positive-only trainers who give their dogs too much freedom too early in training create many issues. For example, there is nothing more annoying to me than meeting a positive-only trainer who do not have the skills to manage behaviour problems such as dog aggression, who won't interrupt their dog let alone let the dog know that behaviour is unacceptable, are against use a training collar (of any kind) because it involves adversives, and then give their dog a treat while their dog is still eyeing the dog he lunged at (thereby missing the point of rewarding the good behaviour because the dog still has heightened interest in the dog, and basically got rewarded for his behaviour).. Makes me crazy!

[Curbside Prophet]

A complicated subject that I think Brenda Aloff covers well.
http://www.behavior.org/animals/inde...mals_aloff.cfm

Still more:
http://www.clickersolutions.com/arti...1/tradvsoc.htm

The Bob Bailey article referenced within is worth a read too.

[RaeganW]

I discovered my local library has Koehler's books, so I went over to check it out (not literally, as my local library is rather pissed at me, as I have a habit of not returning books). Turns out they have a pretty nice selection of dog training books. They skew towards traditional, my guess is out of age, but have a surprising number of newer books. I found Jean Donaldson's The Culture Clash, which is on my list of dog books to read.

What surprises me most in comparing the two (at least the first ten pages of them) is that they're both taking shots at one another and completely missing the point. Particularly interesting is that they both say their method debunks the "dogs are eager to please" myth, while the other upholds it. The way I think of their opposing stances is "Work with the handler to get what you want" vs. "Work with the handler or get corrected."

Koehler's writing style irks me, especially the use of the word tidbit. It's better when he's not maligning positive trainers, but it still smacks of "I know everything, you know nothing." It bothers me that he is so adamant that there be no additions or omissions to his guide. I can understand it, from a marketing perspective, but I think his methods could be - cleaned up? done more elegantly? - with some positive ones thrown in. In particular I'm thinking the long line exercises in the Foundation chapter could be mixed with the "tree" method of loose leash walking.

I did like "the strongest disctraction [is] a cue to watch you."

There is a lot to think about in this book. I have a lot of emotions tied up in the subject, and my laptop battery is running low, so that's my thoughts on it for now. A lot of my concerns fall along the lines of my ability to deliver an appropriate, well timed correction and the comparative fallout of a poorly executed collar pop versus a poorly timed click.

Curbside, thank you for the link! I'm always fascinated by your ability to conjure a study, no matter the matter at hand. Didn't get to read the whole article (see laptop battery), but it does seem to be very much what I'm looking for.

[Marsh Muppet]

Originally Posted by RaeganW

Koehler's writing style irks me, especially the use of the word tidbit. It's better when he's not maligning positive trainers, but it still smacks of "I know everything, you know nothing." It bothers me that he is so adamant that there be no additions or omissions to his guide. I can understand it, from a marketing perspective, but I think his methods could be - cleaned up? done more elegantly? - with some positive ones thrown in. In particular I'm thinking the long line exercises in the Foundation chapter could be mixed with the "tree" method of loose leash walking.

You're not the first person to object to his tone. The book is geared towards people training a dog for the first time, and he's not open to ad libbing or modifying the method. Your first time out, you're better off adhering closely to whichever method you choose.

[sparkle]

Originally Posted by RaeganW

I
What surprises me most in comparing the two (at least the first ten pages of them) is that they're both taking shots at one another and completely missing the point. Particularly interesting is that they both say their method debunks the "dogs are eager to please" myth, while the other upholds it. The way I think of their opposing stances is "Work with the handler to get what you want" vs. "Work with the handler or get corrected."

" It's better when he's not maligning positive trainers, but it still smacks of "I know everything, you know nothing." It bothers me that he is so adamant that there be no additions or omissions to his guide. "

"I can understand it, from a marketing perspective, but I think his methods could be - cleaned up? done more elegantly? - with some positive ones thrown in..

"



This is "WHAT IT IS " the so called all positive and traditional only base trainers do (if thier is such a thing) and why one must take everything with a grain of salt and a beer of some type (alcoholic or non alcoholic

Can't we all just get along?