# General training methods- your preference



## BARBIElovesSAILOR (Aug 11, 2014)

I am sure there are similar posts out there but, I didn't see one that just generally speaks about this. If there already is one, moderators can remove it.

Last night I was watching Cesar Milan. He was showing how to use a shock collar, and the timing on when to use it. He then proceeded to make the dog lay down, and lay it on its side to show... I forget what haha. Maybe leadership or something.

After that, I was watching Victoria stillwell, where she spoke without mincing words about slip, prong, martingale, and shock collars. She said the only place these belong is in the trash. She said she could teach any dog in 10 minutes how to walk on a loose leash without using any of these devices.

My opinion: I don't agree 100% with all things Cesar does. Last night, Victoria did something for the first time that I disagreed with too.

There is such a juxtaposition in these training methods, and I am sure there are others as well. I just want to have an open and honest discussion.

What training methods do you prefer? Which well known dog trainers do you respect? What theories do you disagree with and why? And pretty much, let's just discuss anything that has to do with the training method controversy.


----------



## Blitzkrieg1 (Jul 31, 2012)

Stilwell cant train a dog period. Show me one dog she has trained, or one serious behavioral problem she has effectively resolved. She is a loud mouth in a cute outfit with no actual skill to back up what she says.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

I don't like either one of them. Both are extremes. I prefer a balanced approach. I teach my dog what I want him to know. When I know that he is certain of what he is supposed to be doing then I can proof it. I use all tools. Nylon choke, prong, e-collar, clicker, reinforcement, treats. Balanced and fair is the key.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

Jax08 said:


> I don't like either one of them. Both are extremes. I prefer a balanced approach. I teach my dog what I want him to know. When I know that he is certain of what he is supposed to be doing then I can proof it. I use all tools. Nylon choke, prong, e-collar, clicker, reinforcement, treats. Balanced and fair is the key.


agree. And neither one of them ever do engagement type training.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

onyx'girl said:


> agree. And neither one of them ever do engagement type training.


*engagement ....engagement.....engagement.....engagement

If there is never another word to learn in training, learn this one.
*


----------



## bentegrity (Dec 15, 2014)

I highly recommend reading the Koehler Method of Dog Training if you're interested in taking a glance at different training methods. 

Even if you don't plan to use the exact methods discussed in the book, it really gives you good insight as far as why something like a choke collar can be used properly in a training medium. The "why" was truly the key part that I found helpful, or is at least what I found to be more revealing. It not only clarifies what exactly it's doing to your dog but tells you how to properly use it I wasn't able to finish my personal research on the Koehler Method to introduce it to my own GSD pup, but with my next pup I do plan on using it. 

For Ursa, my current pup who is 10 months as of today (yay!), we ended up going with an e-collar based training method. Though it's totally not what one normally thinks of with that type of training. The e-collar is extremely light and sensitive in regards to the senstation it produces, and has a scale of 0 to 100 (0 being no feeling at all, 100 being a pretty decent buzz), in which more than half of the scale would be described as just a "feeling" but not actually being electrocuted or punished; basically a feeling of being touched or something of a similar pressure. This basically helps reinforce a command, or to break them from prioritizing the command over any distraction (that's where your dynamic levels come into play with the e-collar remote).


One thing I'll say though -- while I've found the Koehler Method Book to be a wealth of enlightenment for better understanding how to communicate with dogs in training, I certainly have hard times finding elaborate discussion on the method. I see plenty of mentions of it every so often but it really seems like with how successful it's been through time, that I would be hearing of trainers who boast that they use the (what I believe to be) trusted technique, or even find sites dedicated to it.

Sorry for the rambling!


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

BARBIElovesSAILOR said:


> I am sure there are similar posts out there but, I didn't see one that just generally speaks about this. If there already is one, moderators can remove it.
> 
> Last night I was watching Cesar Milan. He was showing how to use a shock collar, and the timing on when to use it. He then proceeded to make the dog lay down, and lay it on its side to show... I forget what haha. Maybe leadership or something.
> 
> ...


Watched a lot of stillwell... I think she is completely clueless. Even in all positive methods, and her application of clicker training.

Again my point, in how establishing your 'dog training philosophy' and watching mutliple opinions on good work done, should always proceed jumping in bed with a professional dog trainer.

Stillwell has a huge following, and is training people to be 'professional dog trainers'... (Imagine the impact that has on terrible trainers you pay to give you rubbish advice)

The only trainer i was thinking of trusting for personal interaction wanted to charge me $750 for 1-3 months work... With twice a week sessions... In group Classes... And he kept missing my calls and appointments.. So even though he seemed knowledgeable.. How can I let go of money with somebody that seemed unreliable in business. He also wanted to charge me the 750, until my dog got his BH certs... (Which actually would not take that long in his opinion, because I had done a lot of groundwork..) and then had to pay another sum like $900 to start working IPO... He charged by the dog completing the cert... (I didnt know if he would just set up the test; so my dog would just pass, and then he would be 'done' with me. I wanted this as a lifelong hobby). Im not so big on certs. and formal competition.. Real protection etc. as I am just wanting to have fun with my dog.

The all-positives were pretty clueless. Most of their dogs, could do less than a dog I trained myself.

From what I understand people in the states have much more options in finding good trainers than I do in my country. You are lucky in that regard. But people still need to do their homework.


----------



## car2ner (Apr 9, 2014)

I tend to like Michael Ellis. For an internet video guru he seems to be the most balanced. Ceaser Milan can be summed up with the idea of Keep Calm and Let your dog know what you want of him. Exercise first, then discipline, then affection. 

Victoria's ideas might work on a soft temperament dog, like my last little whippet mix rescue. Koehler Method worked well with my Ridgie mix many years ago. And then we have the Monks of New Skete. They tell you to get to know your dog and use a method that works best for them. 

One thing our IPO trainer says is a problem with dog training now is that folks watch all kinds of different techniques on the internet and then they and the dogs get too confused.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

car2ner said:


> I tend to like Michael Ellis. For an internet video guru he seems to be the most balanced. Ceaser Milan can be summed up with the idea of Keep Calm and Let your dog know what you want of him. Exercise first, then discipline, then affection.
> 
> Victoria's ideas might work on a soft temperament dog, like my last little whippet mix rescue. Koehler Method worked well with my Ridgie mix many years ago. And then we have the Monks of New Skete. They tell you to get to know your dog and use a method that works best for them.
> 
> One thing our IPO trainer says is a problem with dog training now is that folks watch all kinds of different techniques on the internet and then they and the dogs get too confused.


I agree with this post so much..

If you are going to watch internet videos.. Watch different opinions.. And then pick one system to follow.. Invest in that system... Dont be too all over the place. You can get ideas from other places... But try not to deviate from one system unless you see something that really makes sence that you could use and not confuse the dog.

Free videos are a taster.. You will have to invest financially in a system to follow it at some point.

Consistency with the dog and a clear message is so important.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

Michael Ellis doesn't relate much with pet training people. I doubt many have ever heard of him. I hope he doesn't go the way of televised training like Cesar and Victoria, who try to 'fix'....quickly. 
I think with sport people trying too many techniques and confusing the dog can be true. Consistency is key as long as it works. I've found that using many tools in the toolbox goes with the progression of training. 
The trainer I go to seems to have his 'methods' and it tends to work fairly broadly for most dogs(IPO) from the showlines to the working lines. Though he begins it with young pups, so the foundation is done with his methods. Fixing may require different techniques. 
This isn't behavioral fixing, but possibly chewy grips or stick shy issues. He can get many dogs over their issues and on to titling. Seldom are there failures if working with his methods.


----------



## gsdsar (May 21, 2002)

I tend to consider myself fairly balanced. But I love lots of positive. Training my dog is fun when the dog is having fun. I want to see a dog enjoying everything. But I do use corrections as well. Prong, voice, stim when called for balance out happy positive play and training. 

I don't watch lots of videos. I tend to be more of a "show me how you did that" with someone right in front of me. I learn from the people I train with that have been successful. 

I have gone to seminars. I pull useful things from each person. I don't follow a single methodology. Because dogs are individuals. I don't like to tie my hands behind my back. I look at what's happening and adjust. If I am facing an issue I am not having success with, I ask people I trust and incorporate their advice. 

I find the problems with videos and the like, the person is not there watching your dog. So your dog may be doing the bad behavior the person is talking about, for an entirely different reason. So you can't or shouldn't use the method they are teaching. 

For example, my boy can be dog reactive, in certain situations. I needed someone to point out things to me( he is confused, not actually in a command, defensive/insecure) and how to fix the underlying issues before resorting to behavior mods for a singular issue. Because nothing is cookie cutter with dog. One thing does not work for all dogs.


----------



## dogma13 (Mar 8, 2014)

Like onyx girl says,have many tools in the tool box.Engagement training is what works for us for the most part.Sometimes you hit a "bump in the road" and can work through it by incorporating something new to solve that particular problem.On a few occasions I have used Cesar's "touch" very gently to regain a dog's focus.I used to watch his show with the sound muted just to observe his body language.


----------



## BARBIElovesSAILOR (Aug 11, 2014)

All interesting p.o.v., thank you everyone. I actually have not heard of Michael Ellis, I am curious now and will look into him. I have my own training methods I like to use, but am always up for a discussion on training methods. The methods I use are strictly for basic obedience. Sit, stay, wait, down, etc...if it came to training a SAR dog, or a dog in IPO, or a guide dog, that is where my methods end. For advanced training, especially for working dogs, I have always been curious what training methods work best for that. I would imagine different training styles are used depending on what kind of job you need the dog to do. I believe that simple positive reinforcement training is great for basic obedience, but if you want to train in something more advanced, you may have to broaden your methods.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

BARBIElovesSAILOR said:


> All interesting p.o.v., thank you everyone. I actually have not heard of Michael Ellis, I am curious now and will look into him. I have my own training methods I like to use, but am always up for a discussion on training methods. The methods I use are strictly for basic obedience. Sit, stay, wait, down, etc...if it came to training a SAR dog, or a dog in IPO, or a guide dog, that is where my methods end. For advanced training, especially for working dogs, I have always been curious what training methods work best for that. I would imagine different training styles are used depending on what kind of job you need the dog to do. I believe that simple positive reinforcement training is great for basic obedience, but if you want to train in something more advanced, you may have to broaden your methods.


I think Ellis style is great for pet dogs.
Check out his philosophy for an introduction on what he is about.
Good discussion on All-positive methods.. Aversion training etc. And why he choses to be a balanced reward based trainer.
He even tried going all-positive many years ago... Just found it didn't really work.
I feel the pet dog popular trainers just need a very basic knowledge to get succesfull..

So then guys like stillwell and Zack George just shine in that industry because they market themselves better, also when you attack the good trainers for using prongs/e-collars its easy to sway the general public to be blinded to the really good trainers....

I think Ellis has a far superior approach in the very simple stuff that pet dog owners need to get right.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

expanding your knowledge will help fill your toobox.

this case proves just how these 'quick fixes' aren't successful and more time is needed for the dogs to overcome if they actually can....
&apos;Dog Whisperer&apos; Cesar Millan sued in pit bull attack - LA Times


----------



## huntergreen (Jun 28, 2012)

i have used nylon choke and prong collars. i would resist e collars, most likely because i have never been "trained" in there use. 

i am shocked at the lack of faith in ceaser. he can take any problem dog and fix in 15 or so minutes. i have seen it on tv so it must be true!


----------



## BARBIElovesSAILOR (Aug 11, 2014)

dogma13 said:


> Like onyx girl says,have many tools in the tool box.Engagement training is what works for us for the most part.Sometimes you hit a "bump in the road" and can work through it by incorporating something new to solve that particular problem.On a few occasions I have used Cesar's "touch" very gently to regain a dog's focus.I used to watch his show with the sound muted just to observe his body language.



I'll have to look into the engagement training a little more too. I do agree that some methods just don't work for certain dogs. If something is not working, try something else, amp it up, etc... One of my pet peeves is when owners tell their dog something over and over again without a result. Like, "fido sit, sit, I said sit, sit down, fido, SIT!, sit" it's like... Okay Fido obviously doesn't care or know what sit is!! Jeez, try something else! Haha go back to basics, use a different command, change your body language, use a higher reward treat, give the dog a break. So many ways to approach things.


----------



## Pax8 (Apr 8, 2014)

I personally choose not to use chokes, prongs, or ecollars. I have worked and learned how to use all of them at this point. But I've always been able to use a reward based system to get the behavior that I want without them. So I guess I'm just a reward trainer? I've learned many different methods and I've taken much from both the popular trainers like Stilwell and Milan as well as much from Ellis, Pryor, Ian Dunbar, Sophia Yin, McConnell, Denise Fenzi, and Grisha Stewart. 

But aside from all these trainers and their methods, ultimately I base much of my training on what I have learned about dog behavior. I tend to be very scientific in that aspect. I've studied hundreds of hours watching, learning, and working dog behavior to really understand from the inside out how and why all these methods work and don't work for each situation. So while I like many of these people and their methods, I don't draw specifically from one system of training. I've picked up tools that I find effective and I've put together my own toolbox that, applied with my knowledge of behavior, has worked for me in every situation thus far. That's one reason I love training so much - no two situations are ever the same. 

It's also why I've loved working specifically with all the aggressive dogs I've worked with. No aggression is the same and each one is its own puzzle to figure out all the pieces to and how they fit together. Plus, I would be lying if I said there isn't a thrill in taking a dog that has that has a serious history, that everyone has given up on and applying behavioral modification to mold it into a happy, stable dog that anyone can be safe around.

I'm going to be interested in how my skills develop as I get higher and higher in sport. Especially when looking at protection sport. The fact that compulsion is so often used to finish off training makes me want to develop ways to train a high level dog without using it. Anyways, just thoughts of a trainer still fairly new to sport.


----------



## Sabis mom (Mar 20, 2014)

bentegrity said:


> I highly recommend reading the Koehler Method of Dog Training if you're interested in taking a glance at different training methods.
> 
> Even if you don't plan to use the exact methods discussed in the book, it really gives you good insight as far as why something like a choke collar can be used properly in a training medium. The "why" was truly the key part that I found helpful, or is at least what I found to be more revealing. It not only clarifies what exactly it's doing to your dog but tells you how to properly use it I wasn't able to finish my personal research on the Koehler Method to introduce it to my own GSD pup, but with my next pup I do plan on using it.
> 
> ...


 I have all of Koehlers books and my former boss and mentor was a Koehler student. His methods are my base. But I am old, and have had a lot of time to study, learn and develop my own methods. I also started as a horsewoman and have successfully brought to the dogs many of the same methods and practices I learned with horses.
I routinely use a long line, and throw chains are effective. His leash training method is one of the most effective I have found. I believe in Koehlers belief that your dog has a right to know that it's actions have consequences. His behavior modification methods are harsh, but as a good friend reminded me, back then dogs with behavior issues didn't live long. I guess if you look at it that way he was an angel.
If you want a truly fascinating read, and can find his books Chuck Eisenmann went in a whole 'nother direction with his belief that our dogs are limited by us. His 'method' is generally referred to as conversational training, but as he was known for telling people, he was not a trainer. No denying his dogs were freakin' brilliant. 
Sadly only one of my dogs ever really responded to his methods, although I talk to them a lot more then most people advise and they definitely have a huge vocabulary.
I am firmly of the belief that dogs are individuals and no two will learn the same way. I use what works and I am always happy to learn new techniques and hear new ideas. 
I'll stop rambling now


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Sabis mom said:


> I have all of Koehlers books and my former boss and mentor was a Koehler student. His methods are my base. But I am old, and have had a lot of time to study, learn and develop my own methods. I also started as a horsewoman and have successfully brought to the dogs many of the same methods and practices I learned with horses.
> I routinely use a long line, and throw chains are effective. His leash training method is one of the most effective I have found. I believe in Koehlers belief that your dog has a right to know that it's actions have consequences. His behavior modification methods are harsh, but as a good friend reminded me, back then dogs with behavior issues didn't live long. I guess if you look at it that way he was an angel.
> If you want a truly fascinating read, and can find his books Chuck Eisenmann went in a whole 'nother direction with his belief that our dogs are limited by us. His 'method' is generally referred to as conversational training, but as he was known for telling people, he was not a trainer. No denying his dogs were freakin' brilliant.
> Sadly only one of my dogs ever really responded to his methods, although I talk to them a lot more then most people advise and they definitely have a huge vocabulary.
> ...


I think there were many advances since the time of Koehler...

It is like practicing medicine on completely outdated science...
I hope the method has evolved since then.

I find it unreasonable to follow someone who is no longer alive and trained dogs during WW2..... And probably did most of his work long before that...


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

Depends on the dog, the situation and where we are in training. I have and will use all four quadrants of operant conditioning. I have been known to have food and a clicker in one pocket and a transmitter in the other. I have picked up ideas from many trainers and seminars over the years and adapted methods to fit me and my current dog(s). The skill of a trainer is being able to adapt to the dog they are working, the dog in front of them, and not try to stuff all dogs into one mold or training methodology. 

I have actually never seen Milan or Stillwell though know their names.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Barbie's question brings up something Max mentioned in another thread, blindly following one trainer, one method.

Some (a lot?) people do that, usually because the trainer adheres to or validates a larger meme the person already believes in. The Cesar-Victoria split is between those who believe in the dominance theories (based on wolf behavior which I understand has been debunked?) and the pets are people crowd tend to follow V. Stillwell.

If a person goes into training their dog seeking only to have a training ideology validated they aren't going to look for results oriented progress. Increasing the likelihood of failing at training.

Being flexible and doing what Jane, Lisa and others advise is the best route to having success with training a dog.

Good question Barbie!


----------



## jafo220 (Mar 16, 2013)

BARBIElovesSAILOR said:


> I am sure there are similar posts out there but, I didn't see one that just generally speaks about this. If there already is one, moderators can remove it.
> 
> Last night I was watching Cesar Milan. He was showing how to use a shock collar, and the timing on when to use it. He then proceeded to make the dog lay down, and lay it on its side to show... I forget what haha. Maybe leadership or something.
> 
> ...


Not being a professional trainer my opinion is just that, opinion. My opinion is that training techniques vary on the dog. The type of dog, the drives the dog has etc. Some dogs are balanced and probably train fairly easy not needing other tools. Some dogs are like mine who are a little off balance in their drives and may need reinforced training techniques or tools to get through to the dog or to help override a certain trait. I look at tools as another form of communication between the dog and owner. It's often the most clear form. There is no pronunciation barrier, no volume barrier with a tool like and e-collar. You don't run out of treats as a reward which you can marry the two though with good results. 

Training techniques are a highly opinionated topic. I look at it along the lines of religion or politics almost. It can get that heated. I think what gets lost in those arguments is the dog itself. Does the technique work or not? Yes you can train that dog to sit or down or stop or whatever, but will that dog be solid under distractions using that technique? That to me is when it counts. 

I personally don't feel there is a right or wrong technique. Some trainers are better than others. Boils down to experience and knowing dogs than what technique they use. A good trainer will be sufficient in several techniques and after seeing the dog will know the best method of approach for the dog. 

So to me, it boils more down to who is training the dog rather than what technique is used to train the dog.

Again, just my unprofessional opinion.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Barbie's question brings up something Max mentioned in another thread, blindly following one trainer, one method.
> 
> Some (a lot?) people do that, usually because the trainer adheres to or validates a larger meme the person already believes in. The Cesar-Victoria split is between those who believe in the dominance theories (based on wolf behavior which I understand has been debunked?) and the pets are people crowd tend to follow V. Stillwell.
> 
> ...


All positives who state wolf theories have been "debunked" are reffereing to Mech's work.... 

They are misquoting it.

Mech proved that Wolves born into wild packs do not behave like wolves put together in artificial packs...

Basically wild wolves have a more engrained family structure...

If you are going to compare dogs to wolves... Logically you would compare them to captive/artificial packs...


----------



## BARBIElovesSAILOR (Aug 11, 2014)

jafo220 said:


> *Training techniques are a highly opinionated topic. I look at it along the lines of religion or politics almost. It can get that heated. I think what gets lost in those arguments is the dog itself. Does the technique work or not? Yes you can train that dog to sit or down or stop or whatever, but will that dog be solid under distractions using that technique? That to me is when it counts. *
> 
> I personally don't feel there is a right or wrong technique. Some trainers are better than others. Boils down to experience and knowing dogs than what technique they use. A good trainer will be sufficient in several techniques and after seeing the dog will know the best method of approach for the dog.
> 
> ...


I have often felt this as well. Discussing training methods IS like debating politics or religion. It is just something people feel strongly about and will argue about. It is controversial, and mostly because there is no right answer. People take what they like, and they believe in it wholeheartedly, but that doesn't mean there way is right even though they feel it is. I like treat/clicker training mixed with verbal cues and body language. However, I would be naive to think this works for every dog and in every dog and handler's ultimate goal (ex: IPO). I think the best thing for trainers to do out there is to keep an open mind, be flexible depending on the situation you are training for, and do your research before implementing new techniques.


----------



## Sabis mom (Mar 20, 2014)

Lykoz said:


> I think there were many advances since the time of Koehler...
> 
> It is like practicing medicine on completely outdated science...
> I hope the method has evolved since then.
> ...


Typical throw away attitude. 
His methods are still used, he is recognized widely as the grandfather of modern obedience. More importantly, while other methods have come and gone like clothing styles, his methods still work.
I have a car that was built in the 50's, still runs like a dream. I have gone through multiple 'newer' cars in the last 20 years, but that old girl is still rolling along.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Sabis mom said:


> Typical throw away attitude.
> His methods are still used, he is recognized widely as the grandfather of modern obedience. More importantly, while other methods have come and gone like clothing styles, his methods still work.
> I have a car that was built in the 50's, still runs like a dream. I have gone through multiple 'newer' cars in the last 20 years, but that old girl is still rolling along.


Oh but you are right.

He is an alexander graham bell...

His work probably changed dog training.. And what trainers do today, probably have been influenced by his work..

But you would think in the 21st century we have better lighting options than the first lightbulb...

Christopher Barnard was the pioneer of Heart Transplantation... He performed the first heart transplant.

But again, I would not like to be operated using his technique... Again, many advancements to consider.
Survival rates after heart transplants have been doubled, tripled and quadrupled. 

You are right, his methods will always be a classic...
His memory may be timeless..

But common... lets be straight.. He was a yank and crank trainer..
And there are more options available in our toolbox..

Sure reading his work is great.. But following that old method exclusively in this day and age is a disconnect from science based practise.

If dog trainers did not do any more advancements and original work since ww2 I would really be concerned..


----------



## Moriah (May 20, 2014)

Lykoz said:


> Oh but you are right.
> 
> He is an alexander graham bell...
> 
> ...


I will add this that in the Seattle area there is a Koehler certified trainer and her classes prepare many dogs who title in AKC obedience. Predominantly, GSDs are in her class.

I took a class from her in 1986 and the dog that I trained under her was excellent at obedience after that one class.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Moriah said:


> I will add this that in the Seattle area there is a Koehler certified trainer and her classes prepare many dogs who title in AKC obedience. Predominantly, GSDs are in her class.
> 
> I took a class from her in 1986 and the dog that I trained under her was excellent at obedience after that one class.


I dont think anybody disputes that the method works.

There are just more compassionate ways to train, and advancement in thinking methodologies...

Koehler is not flawless.. I dont know the pro's and con's...

But it is outdated.. 

He had no exposure to prongs... Maybe some outdated electric collars that were barbaric...

Pretty much all the positive methods, had not even made their way, into the dog training world...

Its like shutting off, going back in time... And saying Ok... This is nice.. It works... Lets just stick with it..

Thats not science based practise..

You would not expect your doctor to work that way...

Why would you think it is fine for your dog trainer to..

in 1986... Sure! It was the way to go maybe... But not today.

When all positives criticise balanced trainers... They are actually thinking of this guy in their heads...


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Also wanted to add based on my critique of Koehler methods being outdated...

All positives suffer from exactly the same flawed science...

They chose to ignore methods shown to be effective by Koehler, and re-invent the wheel so to speak... They are failing however...

You cant just disregard the work that was done before, because of a flawed hypothesis...

The best trainers are aware of all the methods, and get the best fit for the dog, depending on what they want to achieve,..

Any trainer that refuses to acknowledge new advancements... Or made new advancements without considering the work of the giants before him at all...

Is a flawed reasoning method...

But the guys I chose to learn from, are familiar and have accounted all aspects into their training, creating their own balanced system..

This is why I like Michael Ellis so much... He forced trained dogs... He tried to train dogs only positively too... With many years of experience.. He has implemented old and new systems, and developed a very good system, over many years... He has stood on the shoulders of Giants, and Innovated himself.. He has not ignored Anything..

He is a true dog man... Not a selective reader, like Stillwell (Who is actually an actor in Dracula... turned Dog Walker.. turned trainer)..

Stillwell is truly terrible.


----------



## Sabis mom (Mar 20, 2014)

Lykoz said:


> I dont think anybody disputes that the method works.
> 
> There are just more compassionate ways to train, and advancement in thinking methodologies...
> 
> ...


 The fact that you mention 1986 as a 'way back' point tells me a thing or two about your age. It was actually a ways forward from WW2. 
Further Koehler had no need for prongs or e-collars, and if you actually study his work he admitted later in his life that our dogs of today are much softer, and far removed from the working dogs he had so much success with.
I never asked him but in studying his training, I would hazard a guess that Lou Castle was a student of the Koehler method. 
As I said when training my dogs I study the dog, the reactions and responses and the mental ability. Let's face it, they aren't all brilliant, no more then we are. I use what works.
My old male does well with Koehler type training, straight forward 'just tell me what to do', hard nosed working dog. My beloved Sabi was not a dog that responded well to it, also not a dog that did positive well since she liked to twist it to her advantage. A balanced approach worked well and she demanded respect and equality in all things. My Shadow girl has been a lesson in humility, an invaluable education. We must be at all times walking a fine line, to hard or to soft and she falls to pieces. She needs a steady handler who is capable of reading her and providing what she needs in that second. My Great Dane needed a firm hand and twenty years ago there was no literature on training deaf dogs. There are methods and techniques that I have found work on all dogs for some things, but even at my age I am willing to learn if the thought process is valid.


----------



## bentegrity (Dec 15, 2014)

Lykoz said:


> I dont think anybody disputes that the method works.
> 
> There are just more compassionate ways to train, and advancement in thinking methodologies...
> 
> ...



I think the biggest aspect you're missing is that most people understand that Koehler, as he repeatedly makes points about in his books, many of the more harsh (or "yank and crank" as you refer to it) aspects of his training are only for dogs that truly warrant it. There is a subjectivism to his approach which he spends lots of time making clear before proceeding into any specific activity. For some dogs (whether it is led to being raised in and rescued from an abusive home, or some other traumatic experience), the difference beween falling in line with obedience or not is a life-or-death decision unfortunately. In which he just drives in the point that if his methods can work for those dogs which were deemed by someone else as "past the point of no return," then it can work with a puppy who is still in his reactive-phase.

To your point, yes the car has changed since it's invention. Though, they haven't changed that much besides a few nuances; they all still have four wheels, they all still have a motor to propel them, they all still have seats for passengers, and much more. For every "difference" you can find, there are two major characteristics which sustain, because it just works! Though that's a moot point as this is comparing Apples to Oranges. So yes, it is an endless comparison of Apples to Orangs and not Apples to Apples, as Dog training is truly like any other (even primates are not as cognitively capable as dogs in some areas) field of scientific-development. 

And if you truly have that kind of attitude/point-of-view on the subject, to dismiss Koehler as you're doing, this is truly not in accordance with the scientific-approach of testing out a hypothesis. Because if you did, you would not be so dismissive of the proven Koehler method. 


Though as most others here, I choose to understand that different dogs require different techniques. There is no book or script with one method that is a cure-all. It's all dependent on what the owner is capable of, what the dog is capable of, lifestyle, and much more. And what I know is not all there is to know, but simply all I've discovered thus far in this never-ending research!


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Sabis mom said:


> The fact that you mention 1986 as a 'way back' point tells me a thing or two about your age. It was actually a ways forward from WW2.
> Further Koehler had no need for prongs or e-collars, and if you actually study his work he admitted later in his life that our dogs of today are much softer, and far removed from the working dogs he had so much success with.
> I never asked him but in studying his training, I would hazard a guess that Lou Castle was a student of the Koehler method.
> As I said when training my dogs I study the dog, the reactions and responses and the mental ability. Let's face it, they aren't all brilliant, no more then we are. I use what works.
> My old male does well with Koehler type training, straight forward 'just tell me what to do', hard nosed working dog. My beloved Sabi was not a dog that responded well to it, also not a dog that did positive well since she liked to twist it to her advantage. A balanced approach worked well and she demanded respect and equality in all things. My Shadow girl has been a lesson in humility, an invaluable education. We must be at all times walking a fine line, to hard or to soft and she falls to pieces. She needs a steady handler who is capable of reading her and providing what she needs in that second. My Great Dane needed a firm hand and twenty years ago there was no literature on training deaf dogs. There are methods and techniques that I have found work on all dogs for some things, but even at my age I am willing to learn if the thought process is valid.


When considering science based practice even 2005 is an outdated time period...
1986 is ancient.. We didn't even have household computers back then...

The world changes fast...

I cant explain it any simpler to you...

We have information at our finger tips.. And you are training your dogs on a method, from a book that is no longer even in print...

Sure you could buy a digital version at Amazon...

I will explain it as best I can in medical terms so you can grasp the concept of something being scientifically relevant in 2015.

Cancer survival rates increased in 30 years from 58% to 80%
Infant mortality decreased by 45.2%
Deaths from Diabetes related complecations have dropped 600% despite increasing amounts of people being diagnosed with diabetes.

People diagnosed with HIV can live up to an additional 50 years if treated with todays anti-retroviral medication. (The average survival rate without treatment is 10 years.).

In fact Scientists only discovered that Aids existed in 1983...

So yes 1986... Is a long time ago with regards to evidence based practise...

To think dog training has not evolved in 30 years is frankly ridiculous.

Koehler did not need Prongs... Because he never thought of them.. And because they never existed...

If he was alive today watching people still using his methods without upgrading them since the time he wrote his books, I doubt he would be very impressed.

Nothing wrong with studying the Koehler method... Professional dog trainers, should have studied it.. But you cant apply it un-altered. And it is not a good source of information, for non-professionals.

Sure you can have different approaches and train dogs in different ways... But its hard for a non-rofessional to rework the wheel from start to finish...

We should draw influence from the guys leading the way... Not all re-inventing the wheel as we train our family pets.

We are talking trainers that influence our thoughts as non-professionals. 
(Otherwise stillwell and Ceasar would never be in that list)

Koehler needs to be taken with a grain of salt in 2015..


----------



## Steve Strom (Oct 26, 2013)

Lykoz, for me personally, if you post something along the lines of "This is what I did with my dog, and I liked how it worked" I find that worth reading. But you really don't know anything more about M.Ellis, Denise Fenzi, Ed Frawley, or Victoria Stillwell, then what you see presented to you. Real life doesnt always match what you're watching. You don't have a clue what they do or have actually done away from the camera or the person putting up their website.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Steve Strom said:


> Lykoz, for me personally, if you post something along the lines of "This is what I did with my dog, and I liked how it worked" I find that worth reading. But you really don't know anything more about M.Ellis, Denise Fenzi, Ed Frawley, or Victoria Stillwell, then what you see presented to you. Real life doesnt always match what you're watching. You don't have a clue what they do or have actually done away from the camera or the person putting up their website.


I know that M. Ellis does not ignore big blocks of information, like stillwell does.

I know he is more accurate than the other nominees with regards to science based practise...

I know Frawley often cites various studies and literature as he teaches on his online courses that you can retrieve and look at.

Are there better trainers in the world? Sure.. Their must be hiding somewhere..

But these guys are the ones in the discussion.

I dont think you could even consider the rest in the same light as M. Ellis. He has sufficient exposure on him, to lead the way, against trainers like Stillwell and Ceasar and Zack George. 

Ellis has created methods accessible to small dogs.. and pet dogs.. Something more unique from the trainers of the Sport world.

He has commendations from the guys dominating even in the sport world. Like Ivan Balbadov... I know he has a very good testimonial from a professor in Behavioural Neuroscience also heavily involved in working dogs..

I know enough to be satisfied.
Nobody is perfect. Everyone has a critic.
But at the end of the day the Jelousy of people tries to bring down people doing great work...

It is common sense that Stillwell is not a good trainer. She does clicker training and does not even use a terminal marker (bridge). If you think she is please say so..

M. Ellis has enough visibility, and the right testimonials to assume that he is doing something very right.

We are discussing general training methods here... Throw another name into the hat so we can discuss him.. (Needs to have some Marketability and exposure (I.e. people holding cameras, and making websites)... I mean how else could we talk about them)...


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

HIM? There_ are_ women who are successful in training(dogs and horses!) 
Denise Fenzie, Bridget Carlsen, Joanne Plumb
Suzanne Clothier
to name a few....


----------



## Moriah (May 20, 2014)

"The second type of training collar is not shown, but is easily described as a band of interlocking, light steel sections that have short, blunt ends which bear on the neck of the dog. A loop of small-link chain passes through rings on the ends of this band, causing constriction and release as the handler tightens or slackens the leash."

"Some experienced trainers use this type collar to advantage in field work and other specialized training. The advocates of this implement claim that, because of the limited constriction and wide bearing surface, together with the shortness of the stubs, there is the least possible chance of injuring a dog with this collar."

From Lesson II--Correct Equipment from *The Koehler Method of Dog* *Training* (1962)

A prong collar....Also, the man who married Koehler's daughter has a website where it states that e collars are appropriate after Lesson 14.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Moriah said:


> "The second type of training collar is not shown, but is easily described as a band of interlocking, light steel sections that have short, blunt ends which bear on the neck of the dog. A loop of small-link chain passes through rings on the ends of this band, causing constriction and release as the handler tightens or slackens the leash."
> 
> "Some experienced trainers use this type collar to advantage in field work and other specialized training. The advocates of this implement claim that, because of the limited constriction and wide bearing surface, together with the shortness of the stubs, there is the least possible chance of injuring a dog with this collar."
> 
> ...


Do you think the prong collars and e-collars in 1962 were equally designed with the ones available in the market today?

Obviously they could be used significantly differently in 2015 than they were used back then..

The tools today, are different to the tools back then...

So their applications in training would also be different.

If the Koehler family has a website, that is great... If they have updated the methods that is great...

But you cant learn and apply the same exact methodology from the Old books of William Koehr and call that relevant and good training.


----------



## Sabis mom (Mar 20, 2014)

Lykoz said:


> When considering science based practice even 2005 is an outdated time period...
> 1986 is ancient.. We didn't even have household computers back then...
> 
> The world changes fast...
> ...


 I'm sorry, you just crossed a line. I am neither simple nor an idiot and as I understand it personal attacks are not acceptable on this forum.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Sabis mom said:


> I'm sorry, you just crossed a line. I am neither simple nor an idiot and as I understand it personal attacks are not acceptable on this forum.


That was not my intention... I don't consider it a personal attack. If you feel you have been attacked I am sorry for that. Based on your posts I believed you did not understand the concept of current evidence based practise.

If I could I would gladly remove the bolded lines.

When talking current relevance of the koehler method in 2015.. 1986 is a long time ago.. As is 1962.. There is no wiggle room around that.


----------



## G-burg (Nov 10, 2002)

> What training methods do you prefer? Which well known dog trainers do you respect?


I like a lot of the Ivan stuff.. And a couple trainers/competitors from Holland.. 

For me I like the more reward based, motivational type training in the beginning.. Along with corrections.


----------



## jafo220 (Mar 16, 2013)

BARBIElovesSAILOR said:


> I have often felt this as well. Discussing training methods IS like debating politics or religion. It is just something people feel strongly about and will argue about. It is controversial, and mostly because there is no right answer. People take what they like, and they believe in it wholeheartedly, but that doesn't mean there way is right even though they feel it is. I like treat/clicker training mixed with verbal cues and body language. However, I would be naive to think this works for every dog and in every dog and handler's ultimate goal (ex: IPO). I think the best thing for trainers to do out there is to keep an open mind, be flexible depending on the situation you are training for, and do your research before implementing new techniques.


Ah. See, that is the thing. There is a right answer. The right answer is trainers who have or accept more than one method and understand dogs to the point of being able to apply necessary methods to train individual dogs not he masses. In other words, they understand not all dogs are the same. People or trainers who refuse to take the time to understand a method and WHY it's used to me is not constructive for the dog or owner. The trainer is also introduced to why it is used parallels to understanding the dog itself. You may not have to ever use said method as an owner or trainer. But in the same breath, one does not have to ridicule what they do not want to take the time to understand. 

How many dogs I wonder, were dumped, killed, beaten or surrendered to a shelter because he owner was guided by a trainer who accepted only one method that just didn't work for the dog? It's not always about house training problems. There are aggressive problems that may have been curbed through a trainer who is open to more than one method. This is a voice of experience as I have been in this type of situation. Had I not got solid advice from people here on this board, my dog may well have been surrendered to a shelter. But I couldn't live with myself and decided to take the advice I found here. I still have my boy and we are all the better for it.


----------



## Steve Strom (Oct 26, 2013)

I think your point is perfect jafo. The best trainers I've ever met know a ton of different ways to do something and pay attention to each dog. Method, I think is too broad a term. I actually like the way G-burg uses stuff. That fits in with what you see online or in videos. The stuff they show you. Most dogs don't exactly fit into a nice little mold of a method.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

https://fearfuldogs.wordpress.com/2015/02/05/what-every-pet-owner-needs-to-know-about-dog-trainers/


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

I know when I had to deal with Midnites dog reactivity it became evident that one way or even the same way for him as my other dogs was not in his best interest. I seen many trainers and took a little bit of everything and did my own thing with him. It worked and worked well. Videos are nice to watch but I am more of a hands on kind of person. I am not a fan of clickers and I choose to use my voice instead, but that is my choice. I also won't use a choker, but I will have one on the dog as a safety measure with a prong. When I talk to trainers I don't agree or disagree with them, take what I want from it. No matter who, they generally have something to offer or something I can use after I disect it.


----------



## Pax8 (Apr 8, 2014)

llombardo said:


> I know when I had to deal with Midnites dog reactivity it became evident that one way or even the same way for him as my other dogs was not in his best interest. I seen many trainers and took a little bit of everything and did my own thing with him. It worked and worked well. Videos are nice to watch but I am more of a hands on kind of person. I am not a fan of clickers and I choose to use my voice instead, but that is my choice. I also won't use a choker, but I will have one on the dog as a safety measure with a prong. When I talk to trainers I don't agree or disagree with them, take what I want from it. No matter who, they generally have something to offer or something I can use after I disect it.


I agree completely. No matter how many years I train, I will always be learning. Just like dogs, the learning never ends, it just gets stronger and develops over time.  I've worked with so many trainers and studied so many at this point. The only sure thing I can say is, no matter if I agree with their methods or not, I learn something from every single one - even if it's a lesson on what NOT to do! I think the worst thing we can do to ourselves when training is close our minds to new possibilities.


----------



## G-burg (Nov 10, 2002)

There's nothing wrong with a trainer/competitor having a "method" *and some of those "methods" work well..* Because the people using them know the ins and outs, so they completely understand what they are doing..

Just because some trainers have a "method" doesn't mean they cannot change or come up with other ideas.. Just means their "method" has worked well for them and others that choose to follow/use it.. 

AND .... I also understand on the flip side, that there are some "trainers" that cannot think outside the box and get stuck or become abusive or negative because they are unwilling to change or the dog doesn't suit them well.


----------



## Pax8 (Apr 8, 2014)

G-burg said:


> There's nothing wrong with a trainer/competitor having a "method" *and some of those "methods" work well..* Because the people using them know the ins and outs, so they completely understand what they are doing..
> 
> Just because some trainers have a "method" doesn't mean they cannot change or come up with other ideas.. Just means their "method" has worked well for them and others that choose to follow/use it..
> 
> AND .... I also understand on the flip side, that there are some "trainers" that cannot think outside the box and get stuck or become abusive or negative because they are unwilling to change or the dog doesn't suit them well.


I don't mean that having a method that you stick to for a majority or all of your training makes you closed-minded. It's fine to have a method. I just mean that, for instance in my case, I have a particular method that works well for me that is adaptable and in line with my training philosophies. But I fully acknowledge and understand other training methods and the possibility that they could be useful to me to better tailor training to the dog. I'm not so ignorant that I would say reward only training would work for every dog. So while I'm going to strive towards training entirely with it, if I come across a case where this method does not work with the dog, I am not going to rule out other forms or new forms of training just because they are not my main chosen method.


----------



## jafo220 (Mar 16, 2013)

G-burg said:


> There's nothing wrong with a trainer/competitor having a "method" *and some of those "methods" work well..* Because the people using them know the ins and outs, so they completely understand what they are doing..
> 
> Just because some trainers have a "method" doesn't mean they cannot change or come up with other ideas.. Just means their "method" has worked well for them and others that choose to follow/use it..
> 
> AND .... I also understand on the flip side, that there are some "trainers" that cannot think outside the box and get stuck or become abusive or negative because they are unwilling to change or the dog doesn't suit them well.


That's it. Knowing the ins and outs. Knowing dog behavior. Knowing potential reactions to methods. Knowing and identifying when a method just is not going to work.

I basically suffered through a trainer that was extremely a one method trainer. Treat and praise some clicker mixed in. Absolutely did not work with my dog. The dog I am confident took this type of training as a weakness (my uneducated guess at behavior). Of course, it was totally on me using his techniques to get through to the dog and it just was never going to happen. After many hard mouthing incidents, holes torn in pants and shirts, many light wounds on the hands and forearms, we decided to go a different direction. There were times right in training classes, this guy was taken back by the behavior of the dog. He tried, but his methods were only making things harder on me and the dog in the end. This guy owned two GSD's. That's why we went with him. But I was frustrated and lost and the dog could sense it. Control slipped further and further away, until the e-collar found it's way around his neck and a new trainer who knew how to use it. It was a beacon of reality for the dog. It was clear precise communication and it did get through to the dog and this dog has turned into a dog you can live with now.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Lykoz said:


> I think there were many advances since the time of Koehler...
> 
> It is like practicing medicine on completely outdated science...


Sorry but your analogy is a false one. The KMODT (Koehler Method of Dog Training) is still being used in many parts of the US. It's still being taught just as Bill set it up. It's still responsible for producing many OB champions. In fact, last year  Tony Ancheta sent two dogs to the AKC National Championships. They made it to the second round. IN FACT, three years ago a KMODT trained dog won the toy group and finished third overall! * IN FACT * the KMODT has had dogs at the NOC (AKC National Obedience Championship) SINCE IT'S INCEPTION, even under various iterations of that name. And it's still responsible for producing many well mannered pets. MOST people who criticize it have never read the books or seen it used properly. Usually they're just read what the pozzies say about it and accept that as gospel. I've yet to see any of them post an accurate review. 



Lykoz said:


> I hope the method has evolved since then.


Nope, no evolution. It's the same today as it was when Bill Koehler developed it and wrote the books. 



Lykoz said:


> I find it unreasonable to follow someone who is no longer alive and trained dogs during WW2..... And probably did most of his work long before that...


I’m not a KMODT trainer, that involves following his method to the letter. I was initially trained in Koehler−LIKE methods, but not the KMODT. But It's discomfiting when someone posts so much *MIS*information about it, as you've done. 



Lykoz said:


> Oh but you are right.
> 
> He is an * alexander graham bell... *
> 
> His work * probably * changed dog training.. And what trainers do today, probably have been influenced by his work..


There is no _"probably"_ about it. 



Lykoz said:


> But you would think in the 21st century we have better lighting options than * the first lightbulb... *


That was Thomas Edison. Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone. 



Lykoz said:


> * Christopher * Barnard was the pioneer of Heart Transplantation... He performed the first heart transplant.


Actually that was * Christiaan * Barnard. And he used techniques pioneered by the man generally acknowledged as "The Father of Heart Transplantation," Norman Shumway. 



Lykoz said:


> But common... lets be straight.. He was a yank and crank trainer..


I agree that we should _"be straight."_ Exactly what do you mean by the term _"yank and crank trainer?"_ It's a term that the pozzies like to throw around but they rarely define it. Can you? 



Lykoz said:


> Sure reading his work is great.. But following that old method exclusively in this day and age is a disconnect from * science based practise. *


Here's another term that the pozzies LOVE to toss out there. Fact is ALL methods of dog training that don't directly involve the dog's drives, are _"science based." 'Reinforce what you want the dog to repeat. Punish that which you don't want the dog to repeat.'_ 



Lykoz said:


> I dont think anybody disputes that the method works.


Anyone graduating from a KMODT class can walk into the appropriate AKC OB class and qualify. How many other tools/methods of dog training promise this? 



Lykoz said:


> Koehler is not flawless.. I dont know the pro's and con's...


NO METHOD of training a dog is _"flawless."_ Your second sentence says that you really know very little about the KMODT. Have you even read the books? 



Lykoz said:


> But it is outdated..


I'll disagree. Just because the method was developed many years back, does not make it outdated. It's still being taught, just as originally developed and with much success. It has many adherents. 



Lykoz said:


> * He had no exposure to prongs... *


Factually untrue. 



Lykoz said:


> Maybe some outdated electric collars that were barbaric...


Electronics were part of the KMODT almost since the beginning. Koehler used them for barking, poison proofing and for predation. Like some of your previous historic references, this is wrong. He mentions them in some of his books and discussed them in his classes. 



Lykoz said:


> Pretty much all the positive methods, had not even made their way, into the dog training world...


Here's that term, _"the positive methods,"_ used without any reference to exactly what it means. Koehler used praise extensively in his training, and that IS part of _"the positive methods."_



Lykoz said:


> We have information at our finger tips.. And you are training your dogs on a method, from a book that is no longer even in print...
> 
> Sure you could buy a digital version at Amazon...


There are plenty of hard cover editions available AT REASONABLE PRICES. 



Lykoz said:


> To think dog training has not evolved in 30 years is frankly ridiculous.


A typical straw man argument. No one has said that _"dog training has not evolved."_ But you're saying that the KMODT is _"outdated,"_ and it's not. 



Lykoz said:


> If he was alive today watching people still using his methods without upgrading them since the time he wrote his books, I doubt he would be very impressed.


I'm quite sure that he'd be thrilled. His son, D i c k, continued his father's work, unaltered, for many years. The trainer I mentioned studied under Bill and is still using the methods just as they were devised. He put out over 20 new KMODT trainers last year. They are using the same method devised by Bill, many years ago. He trained over 10,000 dogs with it. is there anyone who is using the so−called "kinder gentler methods who has tested their methods to that extent? 



Lykoz said:


> Nothing wrong with studying the Koehler method... Professional dog trainers, should have studied it.. * But you cant apply it un-altered. * And it is not a good source of information, for non-professionals.


Sure, you can. MANY pet owners, _"non−professionals"_ as you call them, have had great success with it. 



Lykoz said:


> But you cant learn and apply the same exact methodology from the Old books of William Koehr and call that relevant and good training.


The KMODT is alive and doing very well. Tony Ancheta is teaching the method under his business name, "Dog Management Systems." I linked to his site earlier. 

I’m not a proponent of the system but you've said so much that is wrong here, I just had to correct it.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Lou castle the only correction you made that actually makes sense is that I confused Alexander graham bell and Thomas Edison.

Says a lot about you that you think that way about systems developed during world war 2 still being current and go to methods of training.
Some people will like that fact, others not so much.


----------



## MamaofLEO (Aug 8, 2014)

Leo has excelled (and stayed in our home) with positive reinforcement and positive re-conditioning through our long-term trainer, Marius Geykman. Sophia Lin offers/offered an extensive library of tips for handling fear aggressive and hyper pups (Leo, to a T!) on her website (http://drsophiayin.com). We have also taken cues from Karen Pryor (with and without clicker  with positive reinforcement. We have also altered our expectations and learned plentiful from Leerburg Training tips on dog interaction and how a puppy plays. Coincidentally, we had read Caesar Millan's books on hierarchy and pack mentality and agree, that is present in our household of 2 dogs (1 Senior and a Pup), and also took from Millan's philosophy that, even though they are our family pets, they are animals as a lowest denominator; I used treat Leo, when cuddly and puppiful as a cuddly little baby dog---_and_ we have had to work our way backwards to re-set, and really evaluate Leo as a dog in our family, where he is situated in the "pack" (of sorts) and eliminate the spoiling and "get-out-of-jail-free cards" that we had instilled in cute puppy, Leo. This board has a plethora of available information and a great capacity of learning tools, too! 

With all of the types of training methods out there, we are fully positive reinforcement, but continue to learn from *many different methods *and tools that are available.


----------



## Steve Strom (Oct 26, 2013)

> I confused Alexander graham bell and Thomas Edison.


Whew, thankfully that's been straightened out. I can't imagine the burden of living with that confusion since all the way back on ,,,,,,

FEBRUARY 7TH!


----------



## Sabis mom (Mar 20, 2014)

Steve Strom said:


> Whew, thankfully that's been straightened out. I can't imagine the burden of living with that confusion since all the way back on ,,,,,,
> 
> FEBRUARY 7TH!


 You are so funny! I love sarcasm.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Steve Strom said:


> Whew, thankfully that's been straightened out. I can't imagine the burden of living with that confusion since all the way back on ,,,,,,
> 
> FEBRUARY 7TH!


Your post just expired 25 minutes ago


----------



## jafo220 (Mar 16, 2013)

I don't really want to wade back into this but sorry, Lou makes a lot of sense. Every time he posts a lengthy response so carefully constructed, it tells me one thing about Lou. He is very knowledgeable when it comes to different trainers and their methods. 

JMO.


----------



## jafo220 (Mar 16, 2013)

Steve Strom said:


> Whew, thankfully that's been straightened out. I can't imagine the burden of living with that confusion since all the way back on ,,,,,,
> 
> FEBRUARY 7TH!


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

To respond to the OP's question, 



> What training methods do you prefer? Which well known dog trainers do you respect? What theories do you disagree with and why? And pretty much, let's just discuss anything that has to do with the training method controversy.


I respect Donn Yarnall, Wendell Nope, and Brian Mowry, all trainers of LE K−9's that most here have probably never heard of. Donn's theories of his Drive Training System are the ones that I use to train LE and SAR K−9's. For pets, I use methods that I developed. 

I pay no attention to either Milan or Stillwell but think that she's WORSE than a complete waste of time. Milan is clear that HE'S NOT a dog trainer. Stillwell often provides misleading information. Cesar is close, but he occasionally finds an acorn. Ellis gets it right most of the time with pets and sport work, but he is way off base in applying those methods and that thinking to dogs that work for real. Frawley is a joke and is merely parroting the ideas of those who he's made videos about, and he has no idea of what he's really doing. His own thought process is very confused. He's on record as saying that escape training is _"old school [and] abusive"_ and Michael Ellis is on his videos saying that he's doing is "escape training."


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Lykoz said:


> Lou castle the only correction you made that actually makes sense is that I confused Alexander graham bell and Thomas Edison.


ROFLMFAO. There are none so blind as those who will not see. 

In fact i corrected you on many other points as well. It's telling that you, somehow, missed them. MANY of them are FACTS that you got completely wrong. I also showed that many of your opinions are nothing but that, your opinion. The REALITY shows you to be wrong on many of them. 


* Myth: * You said that the KMODT was _"outdated"_

*REALITY: * I showed that not only is still being taught, but those using it have gone to the NOC (AKC National Obedience Championships) every year that it's existed. There have been LOTS of success with it. If it was, as you claim _"outdated"_ no one would be having any success with it. Other competitors, using other methods, would simply 'push them out' of the field. 



* Myth: * You said that _"Christopher Barnard"_ performed the first heart transplant

*FACT: * His name was * CHRISTIAAN * Barnard. And he didn't develop the techniques, Norman Shumway did. 



* Myth: * You said that the KMODT was _"... a disconnect from science based practice."_

*REALITY: * ALL methods of dog training are based on the science of OC, even if they do not name or use directly involved all the quadrants. 



* Myth: * You said AGAIN that the KMODT was _"outdated"_

*FACT: * It's still being taught now, just as it was when it was first developed. 



* Myth: * You said that the Bill Koehler _"had no exposure to prongs"_

*FACT: * He did have _"exposure to prongs,"_ he mentioned them in his books. 



* Myth: * You said that _"the positive methods had not even made their way, into the dog training world"_

*FACT: * Bill Koehler must have been waaaaay ahead of his time then. He was using all four of the quadrants of OC in his methods before they were even named as "the positive methods!" 



* Myth: * You said that you _"doubt[ed that] he'd be very impressed ... if he saw people using his methods without upgrading them ... "_

*FACT: * His son D i c k, and Tony Ancheta set about calling out trainers who claimed to be using the KMODT but who were deviating from the schedule that Bill established. They were forced to either start using the method properly or change the name of what they were doing. 



* Myth: * You said that the KMODT can't be applied _"unaltered"_

*FACT: * If one is going to use the KMODT it MUST be applied unaltered. Otherwise it's not the KMODT, it's something else. The original schedules are still followed when it's taught today. Any _'alteration'_ to the method and it's NO LONGER the KMODT. 



* Myth: * You said that _"you cant learn and apply the same exact methodology from the Old books of William Koehr and call that relevant and good training."_

*REALITY: * Today _"the same exact methodology from the Old books of William Koehler"_ are being taught. Users are having much success, especially in the field of AKC competition. NO OTHER METHOD OF TRAINING has resulted in sending dogs to the AKC NOC (National Obedience Championship) every year since that method has been developed for use on dogs. Anyone with a shred of common sense would call that "relevant and good training." 



Lykoz said:


> Says a lot about you that you think that way about systems developed during world war 2 still being current and go to methods of training.


FACTS ARE FACTS Lykoz. Your opinion is that the KMODT is _"outdated, not relevant and not good training."_ Yet I've shown that you're wrong. You're entitled to your opinion. I'll let the facts of competition speak for themselves. 

AND along the way, you managed to avoid these questions. Of course you're not required to answer them but failing to do so, just shows what kind of person you are and how you frame a debate. 


Exactly what do you mean by the term _"yank and crank trainer?"_
How many other tools/methods of dog training promise that anyone graduating from their class can walk into the appropriate AKC OB class and qualify? 
Have you even read the books? 
Is there anyone who is using the so−called "kinder gentler methods who has tested their methods to the extent (testing them on 10,000 dogs) that Bill Koehler did?

I'm guessing here, partially based on your statement that you _"don't know the pros and cons"_ and other statements that you've made that YOU HAVE NOT EVEN READ THE METHOD. If this is true, how can you intelligently discuss what the method entails? 

It's obvious that you don't even know of the many competition venues where, decades after it's development, it's STILL BEING PROVEN to be effective. The facts are clear. I've pointed them out to you TWICE now. Of course, you are free to continue to deny reality.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Steve Strom said:


> Whew, thankfully that's been straightened out. I can't imagine the burden of living with that confusion since all the way back on ,,,,,,
> 
> FEBRUARY 7TH!


Steve methinks that you really didn't read my original post in this thread. Just about everything that Lykoz wrote about the KMODT was wrong. Perhaps the most recent post shows you how far wrong Lykoz was, but perhaps not. Some people don't want to see the truth.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

jafo220 said:


> I don't really want to wade back into this but sorry, Lou makes a lot of sense. Every time he posts a lengthy response so carefully constructed, it tells me one thing about Lou. He is very knowledgeable when it comes to different trainers and their methods.
> 
> JMO.


Thanks jafo. It's good to know that someone actually reads and understands my posts. It's not that hard, but there are some who prefer to live in their own world of ignorance and denial. Knowing this stuff is a side benefit of being old, having contacts, and paying attention to the REAL, not the revised, history.


----------



## Sabis mom (Mar 20, 2014)

LouCastle said:


> Thanks jafo. It's good to know that someone actually reads and understands my posts. It's not that hard, but there are some who prefer to live in their own world of ignorance and denial. Knowing this stuff is a side benefit of being old, having contacts, and paying attention to the REAL, not the revised, history.


 I love your posts, you never fail to educate. I also love that you always take time to explain things. 
And if you're old, I guess I am to since we seem to remember a lot of the same FACTS.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

I'll wade in too, to say I appreciate Lou's posts as well.

We are fortunate to have people like Lou, David Winners and Bailiff give of their time to help explain and bring hands on experience to these topics.

We have a lot of talented experienced trainers on this board, but some stay more quiet and I understand why.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

People just be-careful who's protocols you use to train your dogs, and how forgiving those systems are for layman pubic use error.

Some information is better suited to be used in conjunction to professional guidance as your first go to method.
The experienced trainers can pull it off very safely.
But sometimes freely available information on the internet with e-collars as a first line approach can be misused with severe consequence.
People read not to do some things and to be careful, in considered articles. But if its there first time, they will make mistakes anyways. 

For me as a pet owner. Reward based training/Marker training has never created a problem for me.

Some people have dangerous information freely available to public, thinking its their fault if they use and get it wrong. 
The best message is to work your way up. Treats never hurt any dog, from any novice.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

In bold, I have to say that is a fair concern. That's why, especially on threads dealing with aggression, if I say anything, it's to find a trainer familiar with GSDs and appropriate methods.



Lykoz said:


> People just be-careful who's protocols you use to train your dogs, and how forgiving those systems are for layman pubic use error.
> 
> *Some information is better suited to be used in conjunction to professional guidance as your first go to method.*
> The experienced trainers can pull it off very safely.
> ...


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

Lykoz said:


> Some people have dangerous information freely available to public, thinking its their fault if they use and get it wrong.



You mean like that one trainer you're constantly recommending and idolizing even though you've never met him in person and have had success with a very limited amount of dogs using his YouTube videos?


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Lou Castle. In summary I said this:

A book written many years ago, without any revision, towards todays standards...
Which was the hard cover book in discussion on Koehler Methods can not be science based or recent.

It can have as much importance to you as you like. You use your own methods with modifications since then.

A book printed in 1962 for example can not be held up high as an approach in 2015 without considering today.

I am sure it would be a great read for any professional dog trainer.
Me I personally would not waste my time.
Other professionals have read it and evolved their practise based on it.
I prefer sponging off of that considered experience.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Hi Max. :greet: 

I think ME waters his stuff down, for the most part. Right?

Now I'm off to the park, tracking. :sun:

You two play nice.



martemchik said:


> You mean like that one trainer you're constantly recommending and idolizing even though you've never met him in person and have had success with a very limited amount of dogs using his YouTube videos?


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

martemchik said:


> You mean like that one trainer you're constantly recommending and idolizing even though you've never met him in person and have had success with a very limited amount of dogs using his YouTube videos?


The trainer you refer to stands for Marker training first very strongly. They let the dog know the behaviours before corrections. Their basic courses are almost completely based on engagement and marker training.

To each their own. Take my comment to mean any which way. Apply it any way you want.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Hi Max. :greet:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have very little knowledge of what he does, but it's comical to me that someone is going to say how "dangerous" it is for people to post their methods online and just let the user figure things out, then blame the user if the method fails, and yet that person has been constantly recommending a trainer with whom the only experience they have is over the Internet and watching videos.

I base training methods on what works, I could care less who came up with it, published a book about it, made a YouTube video about it, and when they did any of that. If it works, it works. Dog training is a results based business, it shouldn't matter who's taking credit for the system. If you follow any successful training system to a T...you'll succeed. But most people can't do that, doesn't matter what it is, they don't have the ability to understand and put to use what they've read or what they saw in a video. On top of that, each dog is different, and what has worked for that trainer on that dog, might not work on a different dog, but people have the tendency to want to do method X and force it on the dog even when it's not working.

To me...without proper in-person guidance, the majority of first time/second time/ect dog trainers, will fail. Doesn't matter who's YouTube video they're watching.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

To reply to Lou's Defense of Koehler.

I have no reply. I will never be able to discuss that topic to his level and not come out looking like an idiot.
The Lou Castle opinion has been given. So I am going to attach another persons opinion on the subject. I personally acknowledge this more. But I am a newbie, compared to both of these guys, so take my personal opinion with a pinch of salt. 

I implore you not to downgrade into bashing of people, or professionals.
It is obvious that you are both professionals. I don't care if you like each other or not. This is another opinion, so people can have a hollistic reading experience, and see both sides. 

http://leerburg.com/philosophy.htm


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Max- MEs videos, that I've seen online plus on DVD aren't using much of prong or ecollar, especially with puppies and young dogs. I have the power of training with food and used it in conjunction with one on one with an IPO trainer. I found it to be very helpful. Will go into it more later...gotta run.

(To be clear ME does use ecollars and prongs later on)


----------



## Chip18 (Jan 11, 2014)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> I'll wade in too, to say I appreciate Lou's posts as well.
> 
> We are fortunate to have people like Lou, David Winners and Bailiff give of their time to help explain and bring hands on experience to these topics.
> 
> We have a lot of talented experienced trainers on this board, but some stay more quiet and I understand why.


Yes, yes we are!


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Max- MEs videos, that I've seen online plus on DVD aren't using much of prong or ecollar, especially with puppies and young dogs. I have the power of training with food and used it in conjunction with one on one with an IPO trainer. I found it to be very helpful. Will go into it more later...gotta run.
> 
> (To be clear ME does use ecollars and prongs later on)



I know his methods, they're the methods many dog trainers use, it's nothing world changing.

But if you think that even those methods can't be abused and that people don't constantly fail after trying to follow his system, you're kidding yourself...


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

martemchik said:


> I have very little knowledge of what he does, but it's comical to me that someone is going to say how "dangerous" it is for people to post their methods online and just let the user figure things out, then blame the user if the method fails, and yet that person has been constantly recommending a trainer with whom the only experience they have is over the Internet and watching videos.
> 
> I base training methods on what works, I could care less who came up with it, published a book about it, made a YouTube video about it, and when they did any of that. If it works, it works. Dog training is a results based business, it shouldn't matter who's taking credit for the system. If you follow any successful training system to a T...you'll succeed. But most people can't do that, doesn't matter what it is, they don't have the ability to understand and put to use what they've read or what they saw in a video. On top of that, each dog is different, and what has worked for that trainer on that dog, might not work on a different dog, but people have the tendency to want to do method X and force it on the dog even when it's not working.
> 
> To me...without proper in-person guidance, the majority of first time/second time/ect dog trainers, will fail. Doesn't matter who's YouTube video they're watching.


My family has successfully played a part in raising 8 dogs.
I have raised and trained 4 of those strictly myself. (2 are my current dogs)
Never had a single problem with aggression, or serious behavioural problem.
Could be lucky. It can happen to anyone. I had a single dog aggressive dog to foreign dogs, but he coexisted beautifully with 2 dogs of my own. 

Strangely my dog became dog aggressive because of my involvement in a puppy socialisation/basic obedience class at a Schh club. Probably taught by a newbie trainer. They apparently tend to get unexperienced individuals to take those basic classes sometimes I hear. Cant remember who told me  I conveniently forgot.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

Lykoz said:


> Strangely my dog became dog aggressive because of my involvement in a puppy socialisation/basic obedience class at a Schh club. Probably taught by a newbie trainer. They apparently tend to get unexperienced individuals to take those basic classes sometimes I hear. Cant remember who told me  I conveniently forgot.



If you're trying to imply that I told you that, you need to work on your memory. I have never ever taught any classes at a schutzhund club. I've never even been to a schutzhund club that offered something that is referred to as a "class." Maybe this is a phenomenon that occurs on a small island with a single club, but it doesn't happen in the United States.

If our standard for "good training" is that none of the dogs become aggressive, then I guess your system works, but that's not really where I set the bar for "successful training."

If you do feel like calling out "schutzhund training," I just introduced two schutzhund titled dogs to my household and we have not had a single incident involving aggression. All the dogs get along fabulously well. So don't blame a single experience with a single trainer that has probably never achieved any kind of high level success for your dogs aggression issues and then try to say that all training for a venue is the same. If you actually had real experience with a variety of training, you'd understand how there are tons of different ways that people try to do things, it's up to the user to figure out which way works best for them.


----------



## jafo220 (Mar 16, 2013)

martemchik said:


> I know his methods, they're the methods many dog trainers use, it's nothing world changing.
> 
> But if you think that even those methods can't be abused and that people don't constantly fail after trying to follow his system, you're kidding yourself...


I'll agree people can fail and can abuse in any aspect of dog training whether it be positive reinforced or using a tool. Abuse can happen in both worlds. 

Myself, I think training failure happens mostly when the dog throws you a curve and you have no answer to address the behavior. The handler gets frustrated not knowing what or how to correct. Then gives up. I think that for most, you're right by saying they need hands on trainers. There are people who just have a knack for being able to teach themselves in about anything.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

martemchik said:


> If you're trying to imply that I told you that, you need to work on your memory. I have never ever taught any classes at a schutzhund club. I've never even been to a schutzhund club that offered something that is referred to as a "class." Maybe this is a phenomenon that occurs on a small island with a single club, but it doesn't happen in the United States.
> 
> If our standard for "good training" is that none of the dogs become aggressive, then I guess your system works, but that's not really where I set the bar for "successful training."
> 
> If you do feel like calling out "schutzhund training," I just introduced two schutzhund titled dogs to my household and we have not had a single incident involving aggression. All the dogs get along fabulously well. So don't blame a single experience with a single trainer that has probably never achieved any kind of high level success for your dogs aggression issues and then try to say that all training for a venue is the same. If you actually had real experience with a variety of training, you'd understand how there are tons of different ways that people try to do things, it's up to the user to figure out which way works best for them.


Ok so you bit... 
So correct me rather than hiding the truth...

Maybe it was AKC obedience... Some refer to that as a 'higher level' of obedience.
You specifically told me, after just a year of experience with your first dog they made you in charge of dog training the basic obedience or puppy. 

Either way, you know what you said.
Rather listen to guys like Ellis on puppy development, etc than a new green trainer. Had i known what i know now, I would have never let the things that happened in those training/socialisation classes, under that guidance.
Then you have somebody telling you its ok, face to face, who is meant to be the professional... You dont argue, you just do. 
This leads to less critical thought from a newbie trainer, and less understanding why... Whilst the trainer is running around, trying to train various dogs, with individual needs. You dont get a hollistic understanding of what is really going on.
FACT. Been there.. Done THAT... Learn't much much less.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

I taught competitive rally classes and classes to get dogs ready for a CD not puppy or basic obedience. As a successful competitor in the AKC ring I had the experience necessary to teach those classes since my dog had successfully accomplished all those titles. Not sure where you're trying to go with this. I had more than 8 dogs in my classes and all of them accomplished the titles their owners set out to get. 

Woah, do you believe that? Someone that trains other dogs, can have had more experience than you have because you've only done it with your dogs?!? It's quite amazing actually. Funny how that works. Someone can gain more experience in a few years than a person who has been doing something for decades. Wonder if that happens in any other area of life? Oh that's right, most areas of life.

You make real general assumptions on how training classes work, when you haven't actually been in those classes yourself. Just because your trainer ran around and didn't pay attention, doesn't mean the rest of us do that. I had a lot of one on one time, you'd know that if you understood how rally works...

Remember how I told you to not belittle other people's accomplishments when you haven't even come close to them yourself? You're quite close to that line again.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

martemchik said:


> I taught competitive rally classes and classes to get dogs ready for a CD not puppy or basic obedience. As a successful competitor in the AKC ring I had the experience necessary to teach those classes since my dog had successfully accomplished all those titles. Not sure where you're trying to go with this. I had more than 8 dogs in my classes and all of them accomplished the titles their owners set out to get.
> 
> Woah, do you believe that? Someone that trains other dogs, can have had more experience than you have because you've only done it with your dogs?!? It's quite amazing actually. Funny how that works. Someone can gain more experience in a few years than a person who has been doing something for decades. Wonder if that happens in any other area of life? Oh that's right, most areas of life.
> 
> ...


Did not belittle anything. I said I conveniently forgot.

You did not have to bring it up. You could of corrected me on your own terms and I would not have replied. Instead you called me a liar. 

Your reply is sufficient and clears up the topic.


----------



## Sabis mom (Mar 20, 2014)

Lykoz said:


> Lou Castle. In summary I said this:
> 
> A book written many years ago, without any revision, towards todays standards...
> Which was the hard cover book in discussion on Koehler Methods can not be science based or recent.
> ...


 I cannot of the top of my head think of any other trainer who has trained the number of dogs successfully that Koehler did no other trainer who has stood the test of time so brilliantly.
I have a personal practice of never arguing against something I have not studied.
I would be very interested in seeing your credentials, since you obviously have much experience to be able to tell LOU CASTLE that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
That does bring up the question though, have you ever used Mr Castle's methods? Or at least studied them and can you explain to me why you disagree? I really am curious.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Sabis mom said:


> I cannot of the top of my head think of any other trainer who has trained the number of dogs successfully that Koehler did no other trainer who has stood the test of time so brilliantly.
> I have a personal practice of never arguing against something I have not studied.
> I would be very interested in seeing your credentials, since you obviously have much experience to be able to tell LOU CASTLE that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
> That does bring up the question though, have you ever used Mr Castle's methods? Or at least studied them and can you explain to me why you disagree? I really am curious.


Read my posts more carefully.
I called myself a newbie compared to him.
I also said many professionals who I consider better suited in many different applications share COMPLETELY different CONFLICTING VIEWS to each other. Each person has a RIGHT to chose who they would follow. I will not get bullied by anyone, just because they are members here, to adopt his PHILOSOPHY over other Professionals.

Thank you for commenting without reading what I said.


----------



## Sabis mom (Mar 20, 2014)

Lykoz said:


> Lou castle the only correction you made that actually makes sense is that I confused Alexander graham bell and Thomas Edison.
> 
> Says a lot about you that you think that way about systems developed during world war 2 still being current and go to methods of training.
> Some people will like that fact, others not so much.


I don't personally care who does what with their own dog, BUT I find it laughable that someone who admits they know nothing, can't be bothered to even look at the methods he's disputing, then insults a man who has a wealth of knowledge and experience that he kindly GIVES to people who ask for and need help.



Lykoz said:


> Read my posts more carefully.
> *I called myself a newbie compared to him.
> *I also said many professionals who I consider better suited in many different applications share COMPLETELY different CONFLICTING VIEWS to each other. Each person has a RIGHT to chose who they would follow. I will not get bullied by anyone, just because they are members here, to adopt his PHILOSOPHY over other Professionals.
> 
> Thank you for commenting without reading what I said.


How could you possibly consider anything without the facts? Get ALL the information, then argue. It makes for much better debates.


----------



## wolfy dog (Aug 1, 2012)

I start with clicker training and go from there. For the sight hounds clicker training was all I needed and for most pet dog it is sufficient, especially when you start pups.
I used to think in the '90's it was the gospel but over time I have become more open minded in using other tools, like prongs and anti pull harnesses. So I go by the flow: start gentle and use whatever I need to get the desired results within capability and knowledge. So far I have drawn the line at Haltis, e-collars and chokers. I am not afraid to get outside help or ask for ideas or feedback from other trainers. Then pick and choose what I can use.
Favorite collar: martingale
When a case is over my head I decline to take on the dog and refer to appropriate resources.


----------



## misslesleedavis1 (Dec 5, 2013)

I use a mix mash of all different types of techniques. No one real recipe for all my 3 dogs,
My fave YouTube person is Stonnie Dennis. For YouTube he makes things very clear and I like him.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

Sabis mom said:


> How could you possibly consider anything without the facts? Get ALL the information, then argue. It makes for much better debates.


 Oh come on, it’s much easier to make far reaching assumptions and use incorrect facts in order to prove one’s point which is based on very little real life experience. Then when that doesn’t work and you get called out for it, you continue to try to show how the person that has outlined all your mistakes is actually the wrong one by making more far reaching assumptions and try to make up more things about the person that you don’t know, even when that information is easily available. Then when that doesn’t work you try to make some far reaching comparison to a completely different subject in order to try to prove your point once again, usually involving MMA fighting. Then when that doesn’t work, you back pedal and very rarely admit to how your facts were incorrect and you truly don’t have any idea what you’re talking about.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Sabis mom said:


> I don't personally care who does what with their own dog, BUT I find it laughable that someone who admits they know nothing, can't be bothered to even look at the methods he's disputing, then insults a man who has a wealth of knowledge and experience that he kindly GIVES to people who ask for and need help.
> 
> How could you possibly consider anything without the facts? Get ALL the information, then argue. It makes for much better debates.


I have enough of an education to identify what is scientific based practise.
A method unchanged from 1962 used as the basis of opus operandi, by another person who lacks experience just like you and myself... (As the hard copy book we were initially discussing). Contravenes that on every level.

I will not back down on that.
If Lou still believes there are benefits in how dogs were trained in 1962 without any considered update and that is who he is, I have made a conscious choice to not stroke his ego and accept free help. (Which if I had been different, he may have offered me.) Instead I would rather pay for individuals, who are more up to date.

Unfortunately in spite of vast experience, there is obvious lack of current scientific rigour associated with a lot of the old print Koehler method. 
Castle's insistence that exclusively following a protocol from 1962 (Again, this was what we were discussing) is not outdated speaks volumes about his own method in my mind. 
Its a hard relentless method. If the all positives are all over balanced trainers, they would gasp at seeing that method. 

Again 1962... Sorry... That is a time where the calculator, the Audio Cassette tape, or even the first ATM were not yet invented.
Let alone an e-collar (Which he claims was available) that had the low level stims he says he says he trains with.

The method IS OUTDATED.
What is in it. I care not. There are very competent people basing work of that method who have made it more current and applicable to todays standards.

Reading that book, and practising off of it without any other influence is what I was protesting about.

And I have more than enough experience to take that stance.
My professional background allows me to disseminate what is current evidence based practise and what is not. Irrelevant of field. Simply the date 1962... Thats ALL I NEED!

Some people will become Medical Doctors based on the latest western science based practise, and others will become Witch Doctors. Both Exist. Both have the same experience in what they do. Frankly I don't care for the latter. (Not implying anyone is a witch doctor. Just driving a point.)


THOSE ARE THE FACTS! This guys methods were being utilised in ww2... 
They were great as I said. But people have made advancements.
I refuse to believe that everybody after Koehler was so stupid that they did not add anything of IMMENSE AND INCONSIDERABLE BENEFIT, since then.

Will never back down on that. 
You people keep jumping on the bandwagon with Lou Castle.
You get shut down, then jump back at it, because of his comments give you courage.

I will not let one persons Philosophical aproach influence a whole forum because he likes to spend his time engaging with novices, instead of being in discussions with peers at a similar level, and letting us decide who to follow.
I was going to let this go. But I cant live with your hop a long with Lou comment.

He can sit and break down my comments line for line, and lose all meaning of what I am saying all he likes. I am sure it takes him a long time, and only the same people are backing him. So he can waste all the time he wants splitting my comments.
I dont read a lot of what he says anyways anymore. I can read his 'free website' which is a bit more coherent whenever I like.
I just nod off and go to the next comment.


----------



## glowingtoadfly (Feb 28, 2014)

I knew this thread would devolve, it was just a matter of time.


----------



## misslesleedavis1 (Dec 5, 2013)

glowingtoadfly said:


> I knew this thread would devolve, it was just a matter of time.


Lol


----------



## MamaofLEO (Aug 8, 2014)

glowingtoadfly said:


> I knew this thread would devolve, it was just a matter of time.


<sigh> yep, they usually do.


----------



## mycobraracr (Dec 4, 2011)

Sabis mom said:


> I don't personally care who does what with their own dog, BUT I find it laughable that someone who admits they know nothing, can't be bothered to even look at the methods he's disputing, then insults a man who has a wealth of knowledge and experience that he kindly GIVES to people who ask for and need help.



I couldn't agree more. Lou Castle has a wealth of knowledge and is willing to help anyone who asks. For some trainers, it's all about the money. I've never got that impression from Lou and his methods work! I called him a few weeks back about an e-collar issue I was having, and he spent over an hour with me on the phone. He would have spent even more time with me, except I had to get back to work. He's was very generous and willing to help. That's all I have to add to this conversation.


----------



## Sabis mom (Mar 20, 2014)

martemchik said:


> Oh come on, it’s much easier to make far reaching assumptions and use incorrect facts in order to prove one’s point which is based on very little real life experience. Then when that doesn’t work and you get called out for it, you continue to try to show how the person that has outlined all your mistakes is actually the wrong one by making more far reaching assumptions and try to make up more things about the person that you don’t know, even when that information is easily available. Then when that doesn’t work you try to make some far reaching comparison to a completely different subject in order to try to prove your point once again, usually involving MMA fighting. Then when that doesn’t work, you back pedal and very rarely admit to how your facts were incorrect and you truly don’t have any idea what you’re talking about.


 :thumbup:


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Yup. You and I used to go 'round about using prong collars, remember?

'Tis the nature of the beast.



glowingtoadfly said:


> I knew this thread would devolve, it was just a matter of time.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

That's why I told you I'd get into it more later. You are a very smart person who learns quickly and I respect that, as you know, but a wee bit of patience with me is in order. I was out with a friend, playing with dogs and tracking, not sitting on the 'puter here.

You've read enough of my posts to know, in bold below, I would simply reply, Duh. 



martemchik said:


> I know his methods, they're the methods many dog trainers use, it's nothing world changing.
> 
> *But if you think that even those methods can't be abused and that people don't constantly fail after trying to follow his system, you're kidding yourself*...


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

My two cents, which will be ignored on this topic as usual. (I'm using invisible forum ink I'm used to it!).

There are so many layers of grey, so many variables.

The main problem with 'methods' is when anyone, newbie or long time pro, get stuck on a one method, tool, solution fits all.

I learned this with horses and had to (for some reason :crazy *re*learn it with dogs.

I was all into the John Lyons method of trailer loading. I had a lazy ole Quarterhorse, I could tap, tap, tap all day with the dressage whip and he couldn't care less. I had to switch gears and go back to the old lunge him, work him for a bit and then lead him to the trailer. If he didn't load, back to lunging for a bit and sure enough he'd rather hop in the trailer then break a sweat. Then there was my 'ants in the pants' TB (ex race horse) top fuel pony, go, go, go all the time. I could lunge that horse all day and he'd be lets go some more. The John Lyon's tap, tap, tap method worked for him. He didn't want to stand still so I pointed him at the trailer and the only option was to go forward UP into the trailer with the urging of the tap, tap, tap method. Now some old timers would have just given them a good whack, that might have worked with the QH, but my TB, his brain would fall out of his ear and he'd be in fight or flight mode and shut down, he didn't have a good sense of self preservation either, from previous rough treatment I guess. He was a tough one, stubborn but also sensitive.

Then with the dogs I got stuck in the positive only mode. That worked o.k. for super basic OB but I never proofed or did that much with those dogs. Then I started with Ilda and an IPO trainer and this introduced me to M.E. and then others whose books I read (*Schutzhund obedience: Training in drive* with Gottfried Dildei [Sheila Booth] recommended by my IPO trainers and Tracking From the Beginning, Gary Patterson, recommended to me here on this site). 

So I've moved on from just M.E. on to other methods, theories, trainers. 

The point is learning is a process for all of us. It depends on the goals of the dog owner, they may not care about precise OB, it depends on their natural abilities, it depends on their dog. It's a messy process and yeah any method can be abused, even the PO stuff can be abusive if it's trained poorly. All we can do is help guide people who may be a few steps behind us on the path to try something new if they are stuck, like I was. Sometimes they will come around, sometimes they won't. We can't control that.

One thing I've learned, training animals requires humility. Just when you think you've got it figured out a critter will come along to prove you wrong.

Namaste. eace:


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Oh and I've said it before and will say it again, M.E. is a dang sight better then the TV trainers we see like Stillwell and Milan. I look at his videos and training methods as a door opener - for those who want to progress beyond just at home pet OB. Does that mean he's the end all be all? *Of course not*. 

Still, I'm glad I was directed to his material by my trainers. It is good for newbies, he's pretty good at explaining things in a way us newbies can understand. It helped me understand better about markers and timing. He also is more in the venue of a balanced trainer. Yeah so his stuff is marketed better, yeah so his methods may be old hat to someone whose been using since before M.E. was born. I don't think you can patent certain training methods while using, say a prong collar for example. That doesn't make him bad, that's the free market, doing it's thing.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

It’s a complete joke to dismiss any training method, especially if you’re just dismissing it off of WHEN it was developed. The majority of dog training methods are just evolutions of what came before it. If you don’t think that part of what Koehler laid out in his training methodology isn’t used by any of big name trainers today…read the method and then compare it to what they do. Very little has changed. The basic philosophy of what Koehler says, is the basic philosophy of every training method, just applied in different ways. It took me 2 minutes and a Wikipedia article to figure that out.

And in regards to Milan and Stillwell…they aren’t really dog trainers. They come in when a dog is already way past the “training” stage. Like I said, I’ve never really cared about the name in front of a method, just as long as the method works. The majority of methods, require you to start from a young age with a capable dog. Preferably one that’s not a genetic mess and is what most of us would consider at least pet quality. No “big name method” is set to deal with the plethora of aggression or fear issues that some dogs either have genetically engrained in them or have developed due to life experiences. People like Milan and Stillwell have made a living on showing others how to deal with those types of dogs, not really training your pet to sit/down/stay. I’ve yet to see an episode of Cesar’s show where he lays out the simple steps to teach a dog a sit…so I don’t compare him to your regular obedience/competition trainers. A first time dog owner, that has a 2+ year old dog that wasn’t taught with Ellis’s method or any other method, will probably have a very difficult time grasping and making any headway with that method depending on what the issues with the dog are just from watching YouTube videos.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Milan has done shows on house breaking and other basic OB stuff. I've NOT looked into it beyond acknowledging it's existence. Some people think he's all that and then some. Then there are the Stillwell followers. She has done stuff about puppy training. Again, I've not followed her closely either, but they both have done work on *some* basic OB. Cesar talks about loose leash walking a lot. 

As to Koehler, to be honest, because I'm not here trying to prove anything, I've heard of him, a lot, but haven't read his books or learned about him. I don't have a dog in the Koehler fight here....that's between you and Lykoz. 

I ALREADY addressed the fact that some methods are really reincarnated from previous methods, *they aren't generally patentable*, in my prior post as well.

I'm talking from a macro perspective Max. IME flexibility, humility, a willingness to learn and try something different if what you are doing isn't working, is more important then the method.

In other words, as a wise friend told me many years ago, you can train anyone (human that is) to do just about anything, but you cannot train attitude.

With that.....other stuff to do now.


----------



## glowingtoadfly (Feb 28, 2014)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Yup. You and I used to go 'round about using prong collars, remember?
> 
> 'Tis the nature of the beast.


Yes, and then I reached the end of my rope with my sassy girl and it was either try a prong for the nipping or rehome her. I have been pleasantly surprised, and able to keep my dog.


----------



## SuperG (May 11, 2013)

This guy's training methods are interesting....funny and entertaining....
A bit of profanity in the vids.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8Z8dEyL0n0

His video regarding high drive dogs....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ve433-eCMzI


SuperG


----------



## BARBIElovesSAILOR (Aug 11, 2014)

I get such a kick out of Cesar Milan and his shows. My husband and I love to watch it for fun and get a good laugh. We will watch the episode where the problem is presented for example, this person's dog is trying to kill and attack everything in its way. Then my husband and I pause it and discuss how he is going to "rehabilitate" the dog. Then we make a bet, and press play. It's so much fun! Haha 

It's super funny because no matter what the dog's issue is, Cesar's way of resolving it "shhhh! Shh!" And then kicks the dog. Hahahahhaah haha oh... Hahaaaa. 

Lol, no matter what is wrong with the dog. Just say Shh! And kick it. Problem solved. 

(Being sarcastic obviously).

My favorite episode of all time was where he was helping a guy who had a dog that was reactive to everything in walks and with people coming over. Cesar's way of resolving the problem was to tell the owner to take karate lessons. Smh

My husband and I almost died laughing. A little karate lessons, a little bit kicking the dog, poking it, and some shhh! Problem all fixed  good job Cesar.


----------



## Steve Strom (Oct 26, 2013)

SuperG said:


> This guy's training methods are interesting....funny and entertaining....
> A bit of profanity in the vids.
> 
> 
> ...


"Bully and Pester your high drive, dominant dog" Thanks anyway SuperG. Lol.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

:thumbup:

We all have to go through the process of learning and it can be messy, says someone who has been there too. 




glowingtoadfly said:


> Yes, and then I reached the end of my rope with my sassy girl and it was either try a prong for the nipping or rehome her. I have been pleasantly surprised, and able to keep my dog.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Oh boy, Peter Caine. 

Did you see his video about using tugs and tugging for training?

He had a video that I found somewhat true, don't pet my dog, get your own dog, video.

Other then that, he is entertaining.  



SuperG said:


> This guy's training methods are interesting....funny and entertaining....
> A bit of profanity in the vids.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

What bugged me most about Milan was the 'psst' noise. Hubby loved it. Thought the 'pssst' noise was the answer to all his problems handling the dogs. I try not to let him watch the show, he goes around for weeks sounding like a leaky tire!


----------



## SuperG (May 11, 2013)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Oh boy, Peter Caine.
> 
> Did you see his video about using tugs and tugging for training?
> 
> ...


Saw the tugging one....can't imagine the foul names he would call me.....


SuperG


----------



## SuperG (May 11, 2013)

Steve Strom said:


> "Bully and Pester your high drive, dominant dog" Thanks anyway SuperG. Lol.


Agreed....I have enjoyed my spirited shepherds....probably why I keep going back for more.....


SuperG


----------



## Blitzkrieg1 (Jul 31, 2012)

BARBIElovesSAILOR said:


> I get such a kick out of Cesar Milan and his shows. My husband and I love to watch it for fun and get a good laugh. We will watch the episode where the problem is presented for example, this person's dog is trying to kill and attack everything in its way. Then my husband and I pause it and discuss how he is going to "rehabilitate" the dog. Then we make a bet, and press play. It's so much fun! Haha
> 
> It's super funny because no matter what the dog's issue is, Cesar's way of resolving it "shhhh! Shh!" And then kicks the dog. Hahahahhaah haha oh... Hahaaaa.
> 
> ...


If that's what your seeing you need to learn how to read a dog..


----------



## Muskeg (Jun 15, 2012)

Cesar always gets a good bashing, but I have multiple dogs and watching him interact with a pack of dogs, and control a pack of dogs on leash or off, really is an education. I've also watched him use an e-collar very effectively with super timing to stop a tire-biting dog. He certainly has faults, but reading and interacting with a bunch of volatile dogs is not one of them. For me, his work with a pack has more relevance in many ways than expensive "power of food/drive etc." of some of the more famous protection trainers. 

Also, ME is very focused on sports only and on specific dogs of a specific breed. Would be interesting to see him work with different lines or breed, I haven't seen any of that. Not bashing him at all, he's a very talented trainer, but he does charge a ton of money for a training class, and I've known one IPO person who worked with him and her GSD was still dirty on the bite and showed little respect for the handler. I'm not sure how well the handler was applying ME techniques, but she had spend thousands going to ME's classes. 

As Lou Castle mentioned, Donn Yarnell's stuff is a terrific read for anyone with malinois in particular. The guy just gets the breed. What he says makes sense. I learned quite a bit from his website. Some applicable to me, some not, but a good read and education.

As far as training methods, I've gotten the most helpful advice from Bailiff on this forum. Denise Fenzi is great for a certain type of dog- and I actually have dogs a lot like the ones she bred- but it seems to me her methods break down during proofing. Just my observation from her videos and blog. Which is OK for sport- where things are controlled and the dog can focus on handler and that's fine- but doesn't work out quite as well for my goals with my dogs.

As for Koehler, I am currently working with a young dog that is just different from any other dog I've had. I guarantee almost any pozzie-only dog trainer would be totally out of their league with this guy. Some dogs do best with a Koehler method, or adapted Koehler method with some modern e-collar work. He is one of them. First dog I've had like this. Never say never! I think a dog's behavior is 90% genetic. 

I certainly utilize drive and motivational training, but consistency, clear results for bad behavior, and adaptation of technique for different dogs, is key. There are a lot of very good trainers out there that get very little you tube time and are not on national TV. It can be hard to find them, but they are certainly out there. Check out who is competing at high levels at the sports you are most interested in. See who they train with. Most of them are training with non-famous clubs/trainers who get the job done.


----------



## Chip18 (Jan 11, 2014)

Blitzkrieg1 said:


> If that's what your seeing you need to learn how to read a dog..


Yep I saw that one also! Cesar also says he "rehabilities" dogs and he "trains" people!

That guy "needed" the Martial Arts training! Any competent trainer could have dealt with the dog. Not to many "dog trainers" would have been able to help an owner that had no "balls!" That was "my" take away from that episode.


----------



## BARBIElovesSAILOR (Aug 11, 2014)

Okay but come on... Sending him to karate lessons? That was beyond funny. Just a little karate lessons and a psst! And a kick, a whack in the side, and the owner and dog are rehabilitated! Magic!


----------



## gsdsar (May 21, 2002)

Chip18 said:


> Yep I saw that one also! Cesar also says he "rehabilities" dogs and he "trains" people!
> 
> 
> 
> That guy "needed" the Martial Arts training! Any competent trainer could have dealt with the dog. Not to many "dog trainers" would have been able to help an owner that had no "balls!" That was "my" take away from that episode.



Yup. Saw that ep too. That dude needed confidence. He was a disaster handling what looked like a nice dog. 

I don't agree with lots of Milans stuff. But I do agree with staying calm, knowing what you want, and communicating effectively with the dog. Also appropriate exercise is important.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Lykoz said:


> Some information is better suited to be used in conjunction to professional guidance as your first go to method.
> The experienced trainers can pull it off very safely.
> But * sometimes freely available information on the internet with e-collars as a first line approach can be misused with severe consequence. *


I'll agree that some information available on the Net on Ecollars _"can be misused with severe consequence."_ Some of that information comes from Ed Frawley who teaches people to use much higher levels of stim than is necessary. He want a notable "head jerk" when the button is pressed. That's way too high for me or my methods, and there's no reason for it either. He also wants you to just press the button, give the command hope that the dog figures out what is expected of him. 

My articles are written so that someone who has never before trained a dog can read them, put them to work and come out with a dog that reliably recalls, sits and down on command, no matter how far from the handler they are and no matter what distraction is present. 



Lykoz said:


> People read not to do some things and to be careful, in considered articles. But if its there first time, they will make mistakes anyways.


Yep just as they do in a private class with a trainer at their elbows. With the lowest level of stim that the dog can feel, as my articles use, the only thing that happens is that some confusion results and no training effect occurs. Then the person contacts me in email or on the forum and gets the answer to their issues. 



Lykoz said:


> For me as a pet owner. Reward based training/Marker training has never created a problem for me.


That's great. But the FACT is that this forum and ANY forum devoted to dog training has dozens of posts from people who have used these methods and had them fail. Often those failures are nearly catastrophic. They begin with something like, "Help!!! Fluffy chased a rabbit into the woods and would not come back when I called." 

We have no idea of how good your training really is since you've not told us about it in any detail. You may be completely happy with your results, but you may never place them in trying situations and so you have no idea how good it's been. Yet you never fail to give advice as if you're a professional trainer and have worked with thousands of dogs. OFTEN you get very simple and obvious facts wrong, as I demonstrated in your comments about the KMODT. 



Lykoz said:


> Treats never hurt any dog, from any novice.


Here's one such example of you 'getting simple and obvious facts wrong.' THE FACT IS that MANY people have grossly overweight dogs as a result of not doing treat training properly. They've added the treats on top of the dog's regular feeding instead of cutting back on his food. That weight is HIGHLY damaging to ALL of a dogs systems and will greatly shorten his life and quality of that life. AND such methods, especially with highly driven dogs do not give satisfactory results in the face of high level distractions, placing those dogs a high risk, given the dangerous environment of the city that many live in. 



Lykoz said:


> Lou Castle. In summary I said this:
> 
> A book written many years ago, without any revision, towards todays standards...
> Which was the hard cover book in discussion on Koehler Methods * can not be science based or recent. *


You place a very high value on the fact that a training system is _"science based."_ But dog training is not a _"science based"_ industry. It's a RESULTS DRIVEN industry. Owners should not give a hoot how the results were obtained, as long as it was done humanely. But IN FACT, Koehler was using all four quadrants of Operant Conditioning, even before Skinner named them. 

Those who are still teaching the KMODT are well aware of the so called _"science based."_ training methods that have become popular today. They're also aware that it takes a long time to get reliable results and that those methods often fail because they require far better timing than many people have. 



Lykoz said:


> A book printed in 1962 for example can not be held up high as an approach in 2015 without considering today.


You've ASSUMED that those who are teaching the KMODT today, EXACTLY as it was done when the books were first published, have not considered the changes in dog training today. Quite simply, you're wrong. 



Lykoz said:


> I am sure it would be a great read for any professional dog trainer.
> Me I personally would not waste my time.


I think that learning something is never a waste of time. But opinions on this vary. 

BTW FINALLY in a roundabout fashion, you have answered one of my simple, direct and straightforward questions. YOU HAVE NOT READ KOEHLER'S BOOKS! So anything that you have to say about the methods is a complete and total guess on your part. Either that or you're parroting what others have said. More than likely, they've not read the books or done that work themselves, so it's an obvious case of 'the blind leading the blind.' It's pretty outrageous that someone thinks that they can make valid comments about a book that they've never even read, merely relying on others for what it says!


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Lykoz said:


> The trainer you refer to stands for Marker training first very strongly.


I consider that to be a waste of time, unless one is dealing with puppies. My methods with the Ecollar teach the behaviors at the same time that the dog is becoming collar literate. I see no reason to teach something twice. 



Lykoz said:


> To reply to Lou's Defense of Koehler.


I am not defending the KMODT. I've said a couple of times that I don't use it. But you said MANY things that were factually wrong about it, and many things that were nothing but the opinion of a relative novice to dog training, as if they were facts, when they were completely wrong. I don't like *MIS*information being disseminated, no matter what the topic. 



Lykoz said:


> I have no reply. I will never be able to discuss that topic to his level and not come out looking like an idiot.


Well you could reply without _"looking like an idiot,"_ but it would require that you do some reading and thinking about what you'd read. You've already told us that you _"would not waste [your] time."_ Your loss. 



Lykoz said:


> The Lou Castle * opinion * has been given.


Here we go again. What I've written IS NOT my opinion. Those are FACTS. 


NO OTHER METHOD OF DOG TRAINING has sent representatives to the AKC NOC * EVERY YEAR THAT IT'S BEEN IN EXISTENCE! * 
Three years ago a KMODT trained dog won the toy breed and took 3rd overall.
The KMODT exists today, EXACTLY as it did when it was first developed. 
You got the wrong inventor for the light bulb.
You gave the wrong name for the man who did the first heart transplant.
Your comment that the KMODT was _"... a disconnect from science based practice."_ is BS. The KMODT uses ALL FOUR of the quadrants of OC. 
You said that Koehler _"had no exposure to prongs"_ When, in fact, he mentioned them in his books. 
Your doubts that _"he'd be very impressed ... if he saw people using his methods without upgrading them ... "_ are completely wrong. HE INSISTED that people use his method EXACTLY as he'd written them. Not the slightest deviation was allowed. If someone changed the slightest detail, he DEMANDED that they no longer call themselves a KMODT trainer. That ethos persists to this day.

And those are just the highlights of * the facts * that you got wrong. 



Lykoz said:


> So I am going to attach another persons opinion on the subject. I personally acknowledge this more. But I am a newbie, compared to both of these guys, so take my personal opinion with a pinch of salt.
> 
> I implore you not to downgrade into bashing of people, or professionals.
> It is obvious that you are both professionals. I don't care if you like each other or not. This is another opinion, so people can have a hollistic reading experience, and see both sides.
> ...


Mr. Frawley's 'philosophy' is stolen from those trainers he's made videos about. He has very little background or experience in training himself. He's more about the marketing than he is about the training. A critique of his nonsense is off topic here, but I'll be happy to do it elsewhere if you'd like. (I'm sure that you'll run and hide from this challenge, just as you have from my simple, direct and straightforward questions. 



Lykoz said:


> My family has successfully played a part in raising 8 dogs.
> I have raised and trained 4 of those strictly myself. (2 are my current dogs)
> Never had a single problem with aggression, or serious behavioural problem.
> Could be lucky.


Is that your standard of how successful your training has been? That you've _"never had a single problem with aggression or [a] serious behavior problem?"_ So you've trained FOUR DOGS yourself and you think that gives you the experience to give advice here? This level of audacity is amazing. Yes, you're right. You _"could be lucky!"_ LOL



Lykoz said:


> It can happen to anyone. I had a single dog aggressive dog to foreign dogs, but he coexisted beautifully with 2 dogs of my own.


Just a moment before you told us that you _"Never had a single problem with aggression, or serious behavioural problem."_ But now you qualify that with this statement! 



Lykoz said:


> Read my posts more carefully.
> I called myself a newbie compared to him.
> I also said many professionals who I consider better suited in many different applications share COMPLETELY different CONFLICTING VIEWS to each other. Each person has a RIGHT to chose who they would follow. * I will not get bullied by anyone, just because they are members here, to adopt his PHILOSOPHY over other Professionals. *


No one is bullying you. This is just the sort of whining that's occasionally seen when a novice thinks they know more than they do, speaks nonsense consistently, and are therefore consistently being corrected for it. The really sad part of it is that you still think that your opinion counts for something, that it should be considered by someone who is just trying to get their dog trained. In reality, your opinions about dog training should not even be considered by anyone in that boat. You've shown us over and over again that you have opinions on things that you know nothing about, e.g. the KMODT, when you've not even cracked one of his books or taken one of his classes. 

No one really cares what philosophy you adopt or if you adopt one at all. 

AND you continually shill for one commercial website and one trainer who you know ONLY through his videos!


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Lykoz said:


> I have enough of an education to identify what is scientific based practise.


Still hung up on this nonsense I see. Just like the pozzies. LOL. The KMODT is RESULTS BASED and it's been tested on over 10,000 dogs. Can you tell us how many dogs your preferred methods were tested on before being released? 



Lykoz said:


> A method unchanged from 1962 used as the basis of * opus operandi, *


_"[O]pus operandi?"_ Do you mean "modus operandi" – method of operation? Is this another Thomas Edison v. Alexander Graham Bell? 



Lykoz said:


> by another person who lacks experience just like you and myself... (As the hard copy book we were initially discussing). Contravenes that on every level.
> 
> I will not back down on that.


No need. You are entitled to your opinion. Being wrong hasn't stopped you in the past, no reason for it to now either. 



Lykoz said:


> If Lou still believes there are benefits in how dogs were trained in 1962 without any considered update and that is who he is,


You keep pretending that the KMODT has no recent successes. I understand how off−putting it must be to keep being shown to be wrong repeatedly, but that's not my fault. You keep posting nonsense and I keep pointing it out. AGAIN, since the AKC NOC (National Obedience Championships) has existed, through several name changes, the KMODT has had representatives there EVERY YEAR. AGAIN, three years ago a KMODT trained dog won the toy breed and finished third overall. If, as you say that method were out dated and had no benefit, that would not be the case. 



Lykoz said:


> I have made a conscious choice to not stroke his ego and accept free help. (Which if I had been different, he may have offered me.) Instead I would rather pay for individuals, * who are more up to date. *


I'd still help you if you asked. I'm an email away. My ego is just fine without you though. I don't give two hoots about you, but I care about your dogs. As to being _"more up to date,"_ it's a shame that you don't actually read my posts. I've said at least twice, and perhaps more often that I don't use the KMODT and that I never have. 



Lykoz said:


> Unfortunately in spite of vast experience, there is obvious lack of current scientific rigour associated with a lot of the old print Koehler method.


NONSENSE! Like EVERY DOG TRAINING METHOD results derive from reinforcing what you want the dog to repeat, and punish what you don't want the dog to repeat. Cave men who were luring dogs into their caves understood this. Bill Koehler understood this. Neither of them, , nor anyone else needed _"science"_ to train dogs. You somehow forget that we were training dogs for millennia before Skinner came along and put names to the four quadrants that were being used. 



Lykoz said:


> Castle's insistence that exclusively following a protocol from 1962 (Again, this was what we were discussing) is not outdated speaks volumes about his own method * in my mind. *


If it was outdated, it would not be producing champions. Those trainers are in direct competitions with the pozzies and the trainers using other balanced methods. If it was outdated, those trainers using it would have abandoned it long ago. Instead, it persists, and more trainers are being schooled in it every year. About 20 the year before last and about 22 last year. 

And what happens in your mind, is your issue, not anyone else's. What Koehler did has nothing to do with my methods. 



Lykoz said:


> Its a hard relentless method.


I'll disagree and since you've FINALLY admitted that you've not read even one of the books, you have no leg to stand on. It's HYSTERICALLY funny that you persist in this claim, when you actually know nothing but what you've been told by others, who probably also didn't read the books. 



Lykoz said:


> If the all positives are all over balanced trainers, they would gasp at seeing that method.


Kinda like they do when they hear about Ecollars! ROFL. 



Lykoz said:


> Again 1962... Sorry... That is a time where the calculator, the Audio Cassette tape, or even the first ATM were not yet invented.


Yeah it was producing results, even then. 



Lykoz said:


> Let alone an e-collar (Which he claims was available) that had the low level stims he says he says he trains with.


Bill didn't use an Ecollar with low level stim and I've NEVER said that he did. He found that the choke chain was sufficient to accomplish all that he needed. BUT AS HAS BEEN SAID, he used electronics in much of his work. 



Lykoz said:


> The method IS OUTDATED.


Repeating nonsense, even when in CAPS, does not make it true or right. LOL. 



Lykoz said:


> What is in it. I care not.


Of course not, why bother to learn what is ACTUALLY done in the method when it's so much easier to just take the [uneducated] word of others. 



Lykoz said:


> There are very competent people basing work of that method who have made it more current and applicable to todays standards.


And there are plenty of people who are using it EXACTLY as it was devised to achieve great success! 



Lykoz said:


> Reading that book, and practising off of it without any other influence is what I was protesting about.


What book is that Lykoz? There are many written by Bill Koehler that give advice and instructions for training dogs. Do you think that there was only one? 



Lykoz said:


> And I have more than enough experience to take that stance.


That makes ONE of us. 



Lykoz said:


> My professional background allows me to disseminate what is current evidence based practise and what is not. Irrelevant of field. Simply the date 1962... Thats ALL I NEED!


I'm sorry but this is nothing but ignorance and prejudice in play. My preferred carry gun, in fact the preferred carry gun of MOST special teams when left to their own choices, was designed in 1911, about a half century before the date that you keep repeating, ad nauseum. Yet it's still one of the best choices for that job. Today there are more clones of it being made than just about any design of handgun. So for you to judge something, ANYTHING, based on JUST its age, is well, dumb. 

Training a dog has not changed since we started, thousands of years ago. Need I say it again? _ 'Reinforce what you want the dog to repeat and punish what you don't want the dog to repeat.' _ It doesn't need clickers, markers, 'no reward markers,' 'go ahead signals' or any of the other nonsense that the pozzies pretend to have invented. 



Lykoz said:


> Some people will become Medical Doctors based on the latest western science based practise, and others will become Witch Doctors. Both Exist. Both have the same experience in what they do. Frankly I don't care for the latter. (Not implying anyone is a witch doctor. Just driving a point.)


Just another of your MANY false analogies, but somehow I doubt that will stop, or slow you down.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Lykoz said:


> THOSE ARE THE FACTS! This guys methods were being utilised in ww2...
> They were great as I said. But people have made advancements.


What you fail to realize is that – just because advancements have been made, they have not negated what came before them. You sound a bit like a "born again – Ed Frawley." 



Lykoz said:


> You people keep jumping on the bandwagon with Lou Castle.


There's no bandwagon. It's just that more and more people are realizing how little you know and how little experience you actually have. This discussion has been MOST revealing! 



Lykoz said:


> * You get shut down, * then jump back at it, because of his comments give you courage.


The real joke here is you, thinking that you shut anyone down. 



Lykoz said:


> I will not let one persons Philosophical aproach influence a whole forum because he likes to spend his time engaging with novices, instead of being in discussions with peers at a similar level, and letting us decide who to follow.


Really? Please tell us EXACTLY what my _"Philosophical approach"_ is? Fact is, I engage with everyone. Several of the more experienced members, what you call my peers, agree with me. They just think it's a waste of time bothering with you. I'll keep it up as long as you keep posting nonsense that may influence another newbie to the process. 



Lykoz said:


> I was going to let this go. But I cant live with your hop a long with Lou comment.


So anyone who disagrees with you and agrees with me on this, you can't live with? ROFLMFAO. 



Lykoz said:


> He can sit and break down my comments line for line, and lose all meaning of what I am saying all he likes.


Gee, thanks for the permission to do what forums are about. As to _"los[ing] all meaning of what [you] are saying,"_ you are free to call me on taking your comments out of context and changing their meaning. You are free to replace the context that you pretend that I've removed, and show the other members how underhanded such a tactic is. Problem is, I quote almost ALL of the nonsense that you put out. The context is there for all to see. I just put the lie to it. 



Lykoz said:


> I am sure it takes him a long time, and only the same people are backing him. So he can waste all the time he wants splitting my comments.


Again, thanks for granting me your permission. Too funny. 



Lykoz said:


> * I dont read a lot of what he says anyways anymore. *


More's the pity. And so you keep repeating gibberish and I keep pointing out that it IS gibberish. I can only present the truth, I can't make you read it. But it also means that you don't reply to it. I understand that answering questions that demonstrate your inexperience, your lack of knowledge of the history and the facts of dog training, can be quite painful, so put your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalalala" all you like. 



Lykoz said:


> I can read his 'free website' which is a bit more coherent whenever I like.


Actually my posts and my _"free website"_ have about the SAME level of coherency. 



Lykoz said:


> I just nod off and go to the next comment.


And while you're _"nod[ding] off"_ many of us are shaking our heads at the audacity it takes for someone who's trained 4 dogs to who−knows-what−level−of−competence. I've asked but you refuse to tell us. _(More than likely they're nothing more than well behaved pets, [except for that one who is aggressive towards outside dogs, that is.]) _ to compare their knowledge to that of someone who's been training dogs professionally for all sorts of things, for well over three decades. But you keep it up. You lose credibility with every thread. I have a feeling that I'll be linking to this thread for quite some time to demonstrate to readers your LACK of knowledge about dog training.


----------



## Blitzkrieg1 (Jul 31, 2012)

BARBIElovesSAILOR said:


> Okay but come on... Sending him to karate lessons? That was beyond funny. Just a little karate lessons and a psst! And a kick, a whack in the side, and the owner and dog are rehabilitated! Magic!


Your obsession with the physical actions and verbalizations that Milan does is removing your ability to grasp the overall picture of what he is achieving. It does not really matter if he is using a clicker, rolled up newspaper or his heel.

He can read dogs, has excellent timing, confidence and can influence their behavior / emotional states through subtle body language and verbal cues. 

You can go out there and psst and "kick" a dog till the cows come home and will achieve exactly nothing. Hence the warning on the bottom of the TV screen..."Dont try this at home"... 

Just like trainer A cannot train a dog to recall with a clicker, cookies, E Collar and prong combined and trainer B can do it with nothing more then his voice and "energy".

I always laugh when people hate on Milan. Since 99.9% of the haters have never and will never be able to read and work with a dog like he does. 
He practices through primarily instinct based methods vs using training tools to influence outcomes and relying on repitition. However, lately he has been coming closer to the latter via E Collar and other such devices.

If he ever took to sport..he would clean up..jmo.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Yeah...but he's not ever taken up a dog sport. Would be interesting if he did.

Paint me surprised that _you_ are a Milan fan.

I think the "haters" were the PO crowd, mostly.

I watched a couple of shows, including the one with the GSD referred to earlier, I noticed he's not doing the "alpha roll" anymore(?), on TV anyways.


----------



## Blitzkrieg1 (Jul 31, 2012)

Not a fan per say as his methods are not easily replicated and are unique to him. I respect what he does and enjoy his shows for what they are..entertainment not a video seminar.
I have been told that his production often pushed him for fast results and exciting scenes hence some of the dramatics you see. (hence getting bit by that retriever)

Still some of the cases he takes on are head and shoulders above what the majority of pet trainers will take on much less successfully deal with. 
Give the man his due.

Stillwell on the other hand...lol.


----------



## Chip18 (Jan 11, 2014)

Well since Cesar has been dragged in here! What I take away is first he says, I "rehabilitate dogs" and I "train" people!

"Karate" guy was what I consider the best example of "training" people I have ever seen!!

And to clarify he does not "kick" the dog he taps them in the flanks to break the dogs focus and the finger pokes service the same purpose!

"David" advise me to "tap" Rocky on the head with the loose end of the leash, when I watching Rocky start to lock in on barking dogs they were in his face barking there heads off behind a fence and I was trying to figure out what to do??? 

I "tapped" Rocky on the head with the loose end of the leash and Rocky was like "hey what was that??" Problem solved! Cesar does the same thing in essence with the heel and the finger poke!

I also take note of the fact that usually the first thing he does is take off all the "crap" that owners have piled on the dogs, usually in a futile attempt to control them! 

He controls dogs with his presence! Dogs can tell when they can get away with crap and when they can't with a person and respond accordingly! It's a concept and not easy to grasp!

And when he first used an E collar he said "I don't normally use one but people do and I want them to understand what they are doing!"

I don't believe Lou would approve of the way Cesar uses it... but that's out of my league! 

As for me...Slip leash guy myself...KISS in action! I'm good with that!


----------



## Sabis mom (Mar 20, 2014)

Muskeg said:


> As for Koehler, I am currently working with a young dog that is just different from any other dog I've had. I guarantee almost any pozzie-only dog trainer would be totally out of their league with this guy. Some dogs do best with a Koehler method, or adapted Koehler method with some modern e-collar work. He is one of them. First dog I've had like this. Never say never! I think a dog's behavior is 90% genetic.


 I have said it before, and I will say it again. I DARE anyone to step into my yard with my 12, almost 13, year old male GSD with a clicker and a bag of treats. At 1 year old, it wouldn't have worked and it wouldn't work today. He THRIVES on the simple, straightforward approach. He NEEDS consequences for his actions. He WILL come up the leash at his handler for incompetent or wishy-washy handling. He CAN take a correction, shake it off and carry on. Ninety pounds of dog staring you down, you BETTER be able to walk the walk, because he will call you on your crap every time! 
I love that dog, and Koehlers method saved his life. 

Would I use it on Shadow? **** no. 

Because I have a brain, and the experience to understand that a different approach is what she needs.

Lou Castle, you are as always both educational and real. I always enjoy your willingness to engage, and I look forward to speaking with you in the future. Someday, maybe soon, I will have a new puppy. With my history there is not a doubt in my mind that I will get the one that has the breeder scratching their head saying 'how the heck did that one happen?' Lol.


----------



## BARBIElovesSAILOR (Aug 11, 2014)

Wow. Lou castle, I'm impressed you took the time to respond to everyone of Lykoz's comments. Pretty soon you are going to need to start charging for all this information and feedback you are giving to him!


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

BARBIElovesSAILOR said:


> Wow. Lou castle, I'm impressed you took the time to respond to everyone of Lykoz's comments. Pretty soon you are going to need to start charging for all this information and feedback you are giving to him!


Barbie since you just nod and agree with Lou.... How do they train dogs to not dig holes in the koehler method?

And since you are now a pro dog trainer.. I think you should know.
Do you?
Maybe send me your invoice.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Fair enough. 

I agree, he is willing to take on dogs many would not and I've always agreed with him about confidence and energy too.

He also is willing to work with other trainers. I remember one show where he took his client who had a GSD to meet an IPO trainer who showed them how to use a flirt pole.

Recently he had Pat Perrilli of horse training fame on his show too. 



Blitzkrieg1 said:


> Not a fan per say as his methods are not easily replicated and are unique to him. I respect what he does and enjoy his shows for what they are..entertainment not a video seminar.
> I have been told that his production often pushed him for fast results and exciting scenes hence some of the dramatics you see. (hence getting bit by that retriever)
> 
> Still some of the cases he takes on are head and shoulders above what the majority of pet trainers will take on much less successfully deal with.
> ...


----------



## Steve Strom (Oct 26, 2013)

SuperG said:


> Do you accept checks/credit cards/cash ?
> 
> 
> SuperG


Can you cover me? I'll gladly pay you Tuesday.


----------



## SuperG (May 11, 2013)

You're covered J.Wellington.

SuperG


----------



## Steve Strom (Oct 26, 2013)

SuperG said:


> You're covered J.Wellington.
> 
> SuperG


You sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. Please. Call me Wimpy.


----------

