# The Koehler Method of Dog Training



## Chip18

The Koehler Method of Dog Training,The Koehler Method of Dog Training, koehlerdogtraining.com Home


I usually only start threads on stuff I understand or have done! This I find interesting but honestly I can't understand this?? I feel that there is "something here??" But it's out of my league!

So I'm just putting it out here! Let the debate begin! 
__________________


----------



## dogma13

It's the "old fashioned,old school" training method.It involves a choke chain training collar and corrections to teach the dog what not to do.An oversimplification I admit.


----------



## selzer

LOL! They use the term "throw chain" instead of "choke chain" or "choker."

Yes, the method has been around forever, and most of us who have been around awhile have deliberately or inadvertently use the methods. They do work. 

Just because something has been around forever and gives results, does not mean there aren't better overall methods for training dogs. 

Dog training works when the communication is effective. If the dog understands that what he just did was what you want, he is likely to repeat it. Communication includes timing, praise, reward, body language. A lot of dog training is training/disciplining the handler. If you can make your body do the same routine, the dog is going to learn much quicker. If you can make your body language work to cause a dog to naturally perform the desired trait, training becomes much easier. 

For example, raising the treat up above the dog's head so that to follow it, his hind quarters must go down, and the sit is accomplished. That movement of your hand becomes the sign for sit, and it is close to natural -- this is not the Koehler method. 

The Koehler Method works because it is repetitious and consistent. The idea of repeating something 25x every night is ridiculous though. 

I just think there are better ways to bond with your dog and teach him what is expected. Choke chains have their place. I have used them in shows where corrections are not allowed. Once the dog is trained, a martingale or a choke chain can be interchangeable. Training a dog with a choke can cause damage...

Interesting what they say about e-collars.


----------



## LeoRose

The Koehler method is compulsion based training.

A throw chain isn't a collar. Its literally a piece of chain (like a wadded up training collar) that you throw at a dog to "reinforce" your command.  

Koehler also advocated hanging a dog by the leash for noncompliance or fighting back. And yeah, hanging means just that.


----------



## selzer

They do use choke chains though. I couldn't find mention of one on the site, only the throw chain. 

I know they used to choke a dog out on a choke chain, seriously until the dog passes out. 

Of course when the prong collar people tested dogs to see which causes more damage, if they were choking dogs out with the choke chains, yeah that's going to cause all kinds of damage. Jerking action on the choke chain can throw a dog out of alignment, and yeah, it is compulsion, but as codmaster always seemed to say, you compel a dog in positive training as well. Holding a treat over the dog's head compels the dog to sit his butt on the ground, if he is food motivated. 

But I understand what you mean by compulsion.


----------



## onyx'girl

were the dogs harder then, that those harsher corrective measures were necessary? Or did those methods soften the dogs to make them submissive so we see it in generations later....I know the training methods of the past were not what the AR's would ever approve of. I remember Clover's obedience class handout suggested hitting the dog with a newspaper if the dog pottied in the house. That was early '90's and they also said to rub the nose in it after the newspaper hit....lol, this was the local dog training club with many people training this way. Make the dog submit to the alpha, and don't engage the dog in tug because that will make a dog aggressive...blah, blah blah.

Makes me wonder if nerves were compromised by certain unnecessary methods of training, and then the dogs bred had the pups feed off that anxiety which after a generation or two of those training methods made them a bit on edge/showing in the progeny.


----------



## selzer

I think too many of the positive trainers are just permissive and dogs are really wigged out because they can't feel any confidence in their owners. It is too darn bad that dogs would be happier in a compulsive but consistent situation, than in a positive but permissive situation. Dogs maybe are worse, but too many people just do not know how to act around a dog much less raise a puppy.


----------



## Baillif

He's old school. Nothing wrong with that per se but I prefer prongs and e collars to chokes and using more guidance in the form of negative reinforcement before I start anything more punitive. Lots of good stuff still to be gleaned from the guy, but theres stuff out there with more finesse and tact.


----------



## Chip18

Baillif said:


> He's old school. Nothing wrong with that per se but I prefer prongs and e collars to chokes and using more guidance in the form of negative reinforcement before I start anything more punitive. Lots of good stuff still to be gleaned from the guy, but theres stuff out there with more finesse and tact.


Aww finesse and tact! Works with Boxers and works with GSD's!

Pretty sure koehler is the origin of the K9 trainer that once said "he can train 3 GSD's in the time it takes to train one Boxer!" 

As I find Boxers amazingly easy to work with (the males) anyway, the girls...well as the sung goes...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIb6AZdTr-A

Yeah I went there! Boxer thing! :laugh:

I'll try again found another site "off leash training."


----------



## Sabis mom

LeoRose said:


> The Koehler method is compulsion based training.
> 
> A throw chain isn't a collar. Its literally a piece of chain (like a wadded up training collar) that you throw at a dog to "reinforce" your command.
> 
> Koehler also advocated hanging a dog by the leash for noncompliance or fighting back. And yeah, hanging means just that.


 Koehlers methods for behavior modification were harsh, but keep in mind that back then the options for an out of control dog were, well, death.

His training methods are based on the fact that your dog has a right to know that his actions have consequences. He also stated quite clearly that any modification of his methods to make it 'nicer' would result in it being cruel and unjust. He talks about prongs in his book, and does advocate their use, but not as a first step. 
I was mentored by a Koehler student, and while it does not work well for me the flaw is with me not the system. It is my go to method for 'hard' or excessively resistant dogs. His method of teaching heel is my favorite and I routinely use his long line methods. 
His methods are still widely used today, and no other method has had such success on so many dogs.

I believe that all tools are good tools. Dogs are not all the same, and some learn better a different way. But to dismiss something that has had so much success is just silly. The method has been tried and proven, repeatedly. Bill Koehler was an accomplished trainer with credits and credentials that would be tough to beat and the dogs he worked certainly were not cowering or fearful.


----------



## LouCastle

Chip18 said:


> The Koehler Method of Dog Training,The Koehler Method of Dog Training, koehlerdogtraining.com Home
> 
> 
> I usually only start threads on stuff I understand or have done! This I find interesting but honestly I can't understand this?? I feel that there is "something here??" But it's out of my league!
> 
> So I'm just putting it out here! Let the debate begin!
> __________________


Chip, I'm neither a Koehler advocate, nor do I use the Koehler Method of Dog Training (KMODT), but I am familiar with the method and I am friends with Tony Ancheta, the trainer whose site you linked to. What is it that you _"can't understand"_ about it?


----------



## LouCastle

selzer said:


> LOL! They use the term "throw chain" instead of "choke chain" or "choker."
> 
> Yes, the method has been around forever, and most of us who have been around awhile have deliberately or inadvertently use the methods. They do work.


Actually there is no such things as _"the methods."_ You are either using ALL of the KMODT, that is using the tools, and following the protocols and schedules, or you are not using it. There is no in−between. In fact, the Koehlers made it a point to stop those professional trainers who claimed that they were using the KMODT, but who were not adhering to the schedules, to stop making that claim. 



selzer said:


> The Koehler Method works because it is repetitious and consistent. The idea of repeating something 25x every night is ridiculous though.


One can literally walk out of a KMODT class and into an AKC competition (of the appropriate level) and qualify. I don't know of any other school of dog training that gives that. Is there one? 

Bill Koehler trained thousands of dogs while developing his method. It remains unchanged today, decades later, and still produces many competition OB champions. 



selzer said:


> Interesting what they say about e-collars.


What do they say that you find _"interesting?"_


----------



## LouCastle

LeoRose said:


> The Koehler method is compulsion based training.


If you think about what's going on, ALL training is _"compulsion based."_



LeoRose said:


> Koehler also advocated hanging a dog by the leash * for noncompliance or fighting back. * And yeah, hanging means just that.


I believe that you're mistaken. Can you provide a quotation from any of his books where Koehler recommends hanging for _"noncompliance?"_ If a dog is _"fighting back"_ doesn't that mean that the handler started the attack? In fact, Koehler recommended _"hanging"_ as one self−defense measure when a dog that is capable of causing serious injury committed an all−out attack on the handler. So do I.


----------



## LouCastle

selzer said:


> I know they used to choke a dog out on a choke chain, seriously until the dog passes out.


Yes for serious attacks on the handler. 



selzer said:


> Of course when the prong collar people tested dogs to see which causes more damage, if they were choking dogs out with the choke chains, yeah that's going to cause all kinds of damage.


When a dog comes at me with murderous intent, I'm more interested in protecting myself than in preventing damage to that dog. The few times that it needs to be done to a given dog is not going to cause any serious damage. As with anything, if it's used too often or improperly, problems will result.


----------



## LouCastle

onyx'girl said:


> were the dogs harder then, that those harsher corrective measures were necessary? Or did those methods soften the dogs to make them submissive so we see it in generations later....


Do you think that using _"harsher corrective methods"_ on a dog will affect his progeny?


----------



## Jax08

LouCastle said:


> Yes for serious attacks on the handler.
> 
> 
> 
> When a dog comes at me with murderous intent, I'm more interested in protecting myself than in preventing damage to that dog. The few times that it needs to be done to a given dog is not going to cause any serious damage. As with anything, if it's used too often or improperly, problems will result.


It's to bad the idiot with the Doberman didn't have that philosophy. I would have 3 less infected holes in my leg right now.

I'm all out of sympathy for owners that can not control their dogs and for dogs that will attack other dogs and/or people.


----------



## Sabis mom

Jax08 said:


> It's to bad the idiot with the Doberman didn't have that philosophy. I would have 3 less infected holes in my leg right now.
> 
> I'm all out of sympathy for owners that can not control their dogs and for dogs that will attack other dogs and/or people.


 This!

Say what you will about Koehler, but his approach to behavior modification was no nonsense and effective. This 'kinder, gentler approach that people now advocate often results in injuries to dogs and people and ultimately dogs get put down. Sometimes these dogs just need a 'come to Jesus' moment, with a handler that will make it happen.


----------



## Jax08

Sabis mom said:


> This!
> 
> Say what you will about Koehler, but his approach to behavior modification was no nonsense and effective. This 'kinder, gentler approach that people now advocate often results in injuries to dogs and people and ultimately dogs get put down. Sometimes these dogs just need a 'come to Jesus' moment, with a handler that will make it happen.


I was agreeing with Lou. Not the "Koehler" method. I thought that was clear in the blurb I quoted. 

But yeah, a solid Come to Jesus moment at any point in the 3 yrs of this dog's life would have saved my leg. As well as a positive foundation based on focus and engagement, which you are not going to get with compulsion like you would the 'kinder, gentler approach'. And solid genetics. A dog that redirects on a person like that Dobe did on me just simply because I pulled my dog back is not stable and has no place on this earth.

There is no one single solution to a complicated issue.


----------



## Sabis mom

Jax08 said:


> I was agreeing with Lou. Not the "Koehler" method. I thought that was clear in the blurb I quoted.
> 
> But yeah, a solid Come to Jesus moment at any point in the 3 yrs of this dog's life would have saved my leg. As well as a positive foundation based on focus and engagement, which you are not going to get with compulsion like you would the 'kinder, gentler approach'. And solid genetics. A dog that redirects on a person like that Dobe did on me just simply because I pulled my dog back is not stable and has no place on this earth.
> 
> There is no one single solution to a complicated issue.


I wasn't saying you were agreeing with Koehler, just stating that sometimes his method would be a better option.

As I said, I largely have a problem with his method, because it doesn't work for me, because at heart I struggle with being 'hard'. Not because the method doesn't work.

And I am sorry you got bit. I do agree that dogs that quick to turn on a person should not be allowed to be around people.


----------



## Chip18

LouCastle said:


> Chip, I'm neither a Koehler advocate, nor do I use the Koehler Method of Dog Training (KMODT), but I am familiar with the method and I am friends with Tony Ancheta, the trainer whose site you linked to. What is it that you _"can't understand"_ about it?


Speiffically it was the long line method?? I thought it was on the site I linked but now I can't find it there??

But in a nut shell it used a long line to train a dog to walk off leash. That is not what I did with Rocky or my Boxer Struddell.

The difference is that I trust Rocky off leash everywhere. My Boxer I only "trusted" in the field! Logically that made no sense, they were both trained the same way? She never gave any indication that walking around the neighbor off leash would be a problem?? 

Logically that made no sense?? My GSD I would trust with my life! My Boxer...yeah not so much! :blush:

And that makes no sense either as Boxers were also dogs of war! Of course those were the Euro/German Boxers! The American lines...yeah not so much! 

But my neighborhood is not a "war zone" so my differentiation between the two, made no sense??

I guess maybe it's as simple as "Pro's" know how there dogs will behave and "pet people" even the goods one "assume" how there dogs will behave?? Don't know??


----------



## Chip18

Sabis mom said:


> Koehlers methods for behavior modification were harsh, but keep in mind that back then the options for an out of control dog were, well, death.


I don't doubt that! But most of us aren't dealing with "Red Zone" dogs, the closest most of us "family pet people" get is inter-pact aggression and "preferably" male v male! And in "some" cases you can throw Human aggression in the mix too!! I don't know if the HA is just a WL thing??

I would have happily used a "Dominate" dog collar on Rocky for the pack issues! Don't know if that would have been right or wrong but it is what I would have done!

But in as much as he has "Wobblers" that was not a viable option! The pack issue sadly resolved itself when Gunther passed due to "unrelated" issue. 

That still had me dealing with the HA, thing and I solved that with my oft quoted "Who Pets my Puppy or Dog" (the walk part ) Not really a dog rehab thing, but it made sense to me?? I keep people out of his face and he can't bite anyone!! Worked out fine, problem solved and I do that with all the dogs I work with! I don't "know" those dogs so "no one" gets in there face under my watch! The dogs I work with get that! 

Many have been said to be pullers??  But with me they walk as well as my dogs! I only had an "issue" with one "fear of people" Boxer. On our tour of the park, he was fine, just like walking one of my own well trained dogs. I stopped and spoke to someone that asked about him, the dog was at my side I kept our distance and spoke.

Then the lady stepped forward and asked to pet him?? The dog pressed in close to me?? I looked down and his eyes were big as saucers! I held out my hand and said, "NO" he is in training and we went on our way. 



Sabis mom said:


> His training methods are based on the fact that your dog has a right to know that his actions have consequences. He also stated quite clearly that any modification of his methods to make it 'nicer' would result in it being cruel and unjust. He talks about prongs in his book, and does advocate their use, but not as a first step.
> I was mentored by a Koehler student, and while it does not work well for me the flaw is with me not the system. It is my go-to method for 'hard' or excessively resistant dogs. His method of teaching heel is my favorite and I routinely use his long line methods.
> His methods are still widely used today, and no other method has had such success on so many dogs.


"Most" dogs sure, but I know the exceptions no one has the time and patience for "compulsion" with American line Boxers! They will simply shut down, training time is over! 

The term "fold" like an umbrella comes to mind! I saw it once with my first Boxer mix and never did it again with any Boxer or derivative thereof! I got better and faster results with a more "moderate approach!" But...you can't be a one trick pony!




Sabis mom said:


> I believe that all tools are good tools. Dogs are not all the same, and some learn better a different way. But to dismiss something that has had so much success is just silly. The method has been tried and proven, repeatedly. Bill Koehler was an accomplished trainer with credits and credentials that would be tough to beat and the dogs he worked certainly were not cowering or fearful.


It was not my intent to throw "Koehler" under the bus! My questions were related to the long line thing to teach off leash walking! I thought it was on the site I listed, but it's gone now??

And I posted it anyway "my bad!" :blush:

But now it seems, the thread has a life of it's on??


----------



## Sabis mom

Chip, to the best of my recollection the long line is used as a foundation for the heel, among other things-door/gate rushing, etc. His point was that once your dog knows that behavior is unacceptable, it will be trustworthy of leash.


----------



## Steve Strom

The long line as the foundation of the whole program is mentioned here:

The Koehler Method of Dog Training, koehlerdogtraining.com First time users of the method

There are a few videos around of people using it, I don't know if they're good examples or not though as far as following the plan strictly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jalYS93NDPc


----------



## LouCastle

Chip18 said:


> Speiffically it was the long line method?? I thought it was on the site I linked but now I can't find it there??


I think that you're referring to the first step of the method. I'm sure that I don't have it down 100%, since it's been decades since I taught a dog with this method, but the idea of the long line is to put it on the dog and let him move away from you. When he looks away, the handler is to move quickly away from the dog such that when the leash pulls tight discomfort is applied. The dog learns that if he does not pay attention to the handler and when he moves, that discomfort follows. 

It's the basis for what I do when I start recall training with the Ecollar, but I'm working at a much lower level of discomfort and with a type of discomfort that is (usually) completely foreign to the dog. 



Chip18 said:


> But in a nut shell it used a long line to train a dog to walk off leash. That is not what I did with Rocky or my Boxer Struddell.


I seem to remember that when the dog starts paying close attention to the trainer's movement that you graduate to a 6' leash. Since it's been so long ago, I may have forgotten some steps.


----------



## RunShepherdRun

Sabis mom said:


> This!
> 
> Say what you will about Koehler, but his approach to behavior modification was no nonsense and effective. This 'kinder, gentler approach that people now advocate often results in injuries to dogs and people and ultimately dogs get put down. Sometimes these dogs just need a 'come to Jesus' moment, with a handler that will make it happen.


Do you mean that dog bites and serious aggression started only when reward based methods became widely used? I wish that were so, we'd have an easy solution to aggression issues!

Unfortunately, there were plenty of 'injuries to dog and people' and dogs put down for aggression during the times when compulsion based training methods were the only way. I am old enough to know  And I still see handlers of that style. They burn up a lot of dogs. 

In both approaches, reward and compulsion based, there are good trainers and there are bad trainers, and most trainers are so so. And as you say, Sabi's mom, the handler is part of the equation. Dogs like clarity, and one can be clear in both approaches. If one is a good trainer... Still, at trial time you don't see the ones that washed out before.

There is no 'one way' or 'one fits all' approach to dealing with aggression. Each case needs its own approach, an open mind, and an open toolbox.

Jax, so sorry you got a bite and such a deep one that it became infected. I hope hope you'll heal quickly and that there will be consequences.


----------



## onyx'girl

LouCastle said:


> Do you think that using _"harsher corrective methods"_ on a dog will affect his progeny?


not so much 'him' but a bitch raising puppies...the bitch has been placed in a submissive state through the harsher handling which could cause anxiety, puppies feed off that and become somewhat anxious and not stable in temperament themselves. That is what my post was about.


----------



## onyx'girl

Jax08 said:


> I was agreeing with Lou. Not the "Koehler" method. I thought that was clear in the blurb I quoted.
> 
> But yeah, a solid Come to Jesus moment at any point in the 3 yrs of this dog's life would have saved my leg. As well as a positive foundation based on focus and engagement, which you are not going to get with compulsion like you would the 'kinder, gentler approach'. And *solid genetics*. A dog that redirects on a person like that Dobe did on me just simply because I pulled my dog back is not stable and has no place on this earth.
> 
> There is no one single solution to a complicated issue.


solid genetics is key...a dog with solid nerves doesn't shut down with corrections as long as they are fair. Sadly too many dogs are being bred that have less than solid nerves.


----------



## Chip18

Steve Strom said:


> The long line as the foundation of the whole program is mentioned here:
> 
> The Koehler Method of Dog Training, koehlerdogtraining.com First time users of the method
> 
> There are a few videos around of people using it, I don't know if they're good examples or not though as far as following the plan strictly.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jalYS93NDPc





LouCastle said:


> I think that you're referring to the first step of the method. I'm sure that I don't have it down 100%, since it's been decades since I taught a dog with this method, but the idea of the long line is to put it on the dog and let him move away from you. When he looks away, the handler is to move quickly away from the dog such that when the leash pulls tight discomfort is applied. The dog learns that if he does not pay attention to the handler and when he moves, that discomfort follows.
> 
> It's the basis for what I do when I start recall training with the Ecollar, but I'm working at a much lower level of discomfort and with a type of discomfort that is (usually) completely foreign to the dog.
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to remember that when the dog starts paying close attention to the trainer's movement that you graduate to a 6' leash. Since it's been so long ago, I may have forgotten some steps.


Thanks guys that explains it! I was confused in reading it! Most likely because I did not do anything like that...to my knowledge??
Yep that was my "actual" question now with a better of how it's suppose to work> I can look at it aginn (thanks for the links) and gain a better understand of the "long line thing" in particular!


----------



## selzer

I don't know how else you would do it, Lou, of course you step out of whatever dog class your are taking your dog to, and into the ring. Are you saying that one session with the Koehler method -- 45 minutes, and the dog could then get a qualifying score in novice obedience, which includes on lead, off lead, group sits and downs, finishes, heeling? I guess I do not get what else there is. I have taken a couple of my dogs to matches, but they are so few and far between, that most of my dogs have never been to a match. So what do most people do between dog classes and dog shows?


----------



## gsdsar

I have never read up on the method, though I "think" I understand the basics. And I think I have probably used some of the methods. The "throw chain" for one, when teaching a drop on recall. I am not adverse to tossing the leash at my dog when I say "Platz". Breaks the drive and they stop for a second and actually "hear" the "platz". That said, my aim sucks and I can't tell you a single time the leash actually made contact with my dog. LOL. 

I have also used the "change of direction" to teach my dog they must be aware of where I am and what direction I am headed. It's a pretty fool proof way of teaching a loose leash walk and off leash hiking. But I intersperse, mainly on hikes, with hiding from the dog. They get too far ahead and I duck behind a tree. Boy oh boy, do they learn quick to keep their eye on me. 

Not that either are strict Kohler method. But the theory is similar. And it's very effective.


----------



## Chip18

Well, this is certainly interesting for what I considered a throwaway thread?? I know I used a long line in the past.

Because well I have one! But I used it like a string on a kite...so the "item" on the other end won't get away! I kept all my dogs so it must have worked! 

And I have found my "missing info" so thanks everyone!!


----------



## Sabis mom

RunShepherdRun said:


> Do you mean that dog bites and serious aggression started only when reward based methods became widely used? I wish that were so, we'd have an easy solution to aggression issues!
> Not at all! I'm saying that sometimes it's time to stop saying will you please and start saying do it now.
> 
> Unfortunately, there were plenty of 'injuries to dog and people' and dogs put down for aggression during the times when compulsion based training methods were the only way. I am old enough to know  And I still see handlers of that style. They burn up a lot of dogs.
> 
> Yes and as I said, Koehlers behavior modification may have been a bit harsh, but he saved an awful lot of dogs who's other option was death.
> And bad trainers of any method are causing harm to dogs everyday. You should see some of the quacks who claim to use Lou Castles methods.
> 
> In both approaches, reward and compulsion based, there are good trainers and there are bad trainers, and most trainers are so so. And as you say, Sabi's mom, the handler is part of the equation. Dogs like clarity, and one can be clear in both approaches. If one is a good trainer... Still, at trial time you don't see the ones that washed out before.
> 
> There is no 'one way' or 'one fits all' approach to dealing with aggression. Each case needs its own approach, an open mind, and an open toolbox.
> 
> Exactly what I said, all tools are good. See, we do agree
> 
> Jax, so sorry you got a bite and such a deep one that it became infected. I hope hope you'll heal quickly and that there will be consequences.


 

It has always fascinated me that I can make someone else's dog behave but mine are spoiled beasts.


----------



## LouCastle

onyx'girl said:


> not so much 'him' but a bitch raising puppies...the bitch has been placed in a submissive state through the harsher handling which could cause anxiety, puppies feed off that and become somewhat anxious and not stable in temperament themselves. That is what my post was about.


I don't think that a nervous bitch will necessarily raise nervous puppies. I think that genetics will out.


----------



## LouCastle

selzer said:


> I don't know how else you would do it, Lou, of course you step out of whatever dog class your are taking your dog to, and into the ring. Are you saying that one session with the Koehler method -- 45 minutes, and the dog could then get a qualifying score in novice obedience, which includes on lead, off lead, group sits and downs, finishes, heeling? I guess I do not get what else there is.


I'm talking about a full KMODT class, not just one session of that class. 

I don't know of any other dog training method that will have graduates LITERALLY walking out the door and into an AKC match and qualifying at the level of the class. ALL others that I've ever seen require quite a bit more work before a qualifying score is possible. That's not the case with KMODT classes. Do you know of another method that allows this? 

Again, what is it that _"they say about Ecollars"_ that you find _"interesting?"_


----------



## LouCastle

gsdsar said:


> I have never read up on the method, though I "think" I understand the basics. * And I think I have probably used some of the methods. * The "throw chain" for one, when teaching a drop on recall. I am not adverse to tossing the leash at my dog when I say "Platz". Breaks the drive and they stop for a second and actually "hear" the "platz". That said, my aim sucks and I can't tell you a single time the leash actually made contact with my dog. LOL.


To be completely accurate, one cannot use _"some of the methods."_ Either one uses the KMODT, or one does not. One might say that they have used 'Koehler−like' methods but it's improper to say that one has used the method unless one has followed the protocols and schedules specified in it. It's a bit like saying you drove a truck that was 'like an F−150,' when in fact, it was a VW Microbus. 

It's not necessary to hit the dog with the throw chain in the KMODT. 



gsdsar said:


> I have also used the "change of direction" to teach my dog they must be aware of where I am and what direction I am headed. It's a pretty fool proof way of teaching a loose leash walk and off leash hiking.


The KMODT specifies when, in the protocol to do this and how often to do it. 



gsdsar said:


> Not that either are strict Kohler method. But the theory is similar. And it's very effective.


One of the biggest differences between other methods and the KMODT is that most classes that people attend these days don't have a rigid schedule of training. The KMODT does, it's VERY structured! It specifies exactly what should be done, how it should be done, how many times on a given day of the training it should be done, and for how long it should be done in a given session. Before writing his books, Koehler trained over 10,000 dogs. I don't know of any other trainer that had that basis of experience before finalizing their methods. Does anyone know of such a trainer? 

Contrary to those who say that no method works for every dog, Koehler said that EVERY dog can be trained with the KMODT. Those who still follow his methods agree.


----------



## Sabis mom

LouCastle said:


> Contrary to those who say that no method works for every dog, Koehler said that EVERY dog can be trained with the KMODT. Those who still follow his methods agree.


 Sadly it doesn't work for every person

I'm just not, by nature, that forceful. I can be and when it counts I am, but I'm really more the owner Koehler grumbled about.


----------



## car2ner

Honestly, it worked for my Ridgie mix. I got her at age two and had to learn quickly. She was smart and something in her mix toned down the ridgie stubbornness. It only took a couple of days for her to learn a new behavior and didn't need much correction once she figured out what I was asking for. 

with my little whippet beagle mix...not a good training method.


----------



## selzer

LouCastle said:


> I'm talking about a full KMODT class, not just one session of that class.
> 
> I don't know of any other dog training method that will have graduates LITERALLY walking out the door and into an AKC match and qualifying at the level of the class. ALL others that I've ever seen require quite a bit more work before a qualifying score is possible. That's not the case with KMODT classes. Do you know of another method that allows this?
> 
> Again, what is it that _"they say about Ecollars"_ that you find _"interesting?"_


Lou, I got my hands slapped years ago for talking about e-collars with you, so I won't do it. 

I have taken dogs through eight weeks of ordinary classes and at the end have qualified. It's not that difficult if you have a good dog, and take the dog each week. I rarely work with my dogs at all between classes -- yep, I am one of _those _owners.

Personally, I think that most training methods would work with any dog. The thing is most methods do not work with most handlers. Or, because of differences with their previous dog, the handler applies the same method, the same way to the different dog and it doesn't work, the method is not ok with this dog. But they don't give it a chance really because the dog is not acting the same way the previous dog did, and every method gets adjusted somewhat to the handler and what worked with the first dog. Good positive training works with all dogs. It just doesn't work with all handlers or all dog/handler combinations. And if someone approaches it with the opinion that it won't work, it won't. The problem is not in the dog, it is in the human. 

I really do not know anything about purely positive or positive only training. I think that most people have some sort of negative marker to communicate effectively with a dog. I think good positive training includes the use of negative markers of some form, typically and EH! or No! when necessary, lack of praise and redo is also a method of letting the dog know he performed a task incorrectly. 

I do not like the idea the the Koehler method has no room for improvising. I think good training assesses the dog, the handler and finds the best combination of methods to get from point A to point B with the dog. I have a passel of dogs, I have put a dozen or more through titles and some with multiple titles. I do not train them like robots. They are individuals, and I adjust my training to get the best results out of each dog. That is practically impossible to advise someone over the internet when they are having a problem. This is why, find a good trainer is generally a good answer. A trainer can observe the dog and the owner and the interaction between both. Why teach a limp bit of spaghetti to jerk her dog properly and bark commands and corrections with force that is totally unnatural to her, when you can see she has the patience of Job, and can probably do better with follow through and persisitence, consistency, etc.? 

It really doesn't help though, that people don't seem to consider training, or can't seem to justify/come up with the money to start training until the dog is exhibiting serious issues. Some of those might make progress with methods that take time and patience and persistence, but unfortunately, by the time some people go the trainer route, it's a last ditch effort before the dog is put down, and there is no time for the dog to progress at a reasonable rate. And, unfortunately, too many of these owners are half-accepting of the ultimate demise of the dog if this doesn't work, and are less than half-believing that it will. 

And so we have dogs that have bitten three separate people and the judge feels the dog needs a new owner, the dog needs training, the training to remove bad habits and inappropriate reactions may be less comfortable for everyone once you have a dog that will bite. 

Ah well, too many dogs fall into the hands of people who would be better served owning a pet rock. And nothing will change that. I will say that when I get a dog back, I treat them like all my other dogs, give them some time, then take them to classes. I don't use correction collars on them, negative markers are tone of voice, and rewards are generally praise and I get very good results. Maybe I have just not yet worked with a dog with a very bad temperament yet.


----------



## LouCastle

selzer said:


> Lou, I got my hands slapped years ago for talking about e-collars with you, so I won't do it.


OK, but I don't recall the discussion but I doubt that it was merely _"talking about Ecollars with [me]."_ I've _"gotten my hands slapped"_ quite a few times. It doesn't stop my discussions, I just temper my comments. 



selzer said:


> I have taken dogs through eight weeks of ordinary classes and at the end have qualified. It's not that difficult if you have a good dog, and take the dog each week.


You've missed the point. You are a very experienced trainer so it's easy to accept that you've done this. My point is that ANYONE in a KMODT class who graduates can qualify in the appropriate AKC competition, including novice trainers. That IS NOT THE CASE with other dog training methods. 



selzer said:


> Personally, I think that most training methods would work with * any dog. *


I think that there are MANY dogs that will not respond to the so−called "kinder gentler methods" reliably. It's not just a matter of those methods being applied improperly, it's a matter of the drive levels of those dogs being too high. As was pointed out OVER 50 YEARS AGO by The Brelands in "The Misbehavior of Organisms" (a not-so-subtle poke at Skinner's tome, "The Behavior of Organisms"). 

_"These egregious failures came as a rather considerable shock to us, for * there was nothing in our background in behaviorism to prepare us for such gross inabilities to predict and control the behavior of animals with which we had been working for years. * 

* "The examples listed we feel represent a clear and utter failure of conditioning theory. * They are far from what one would normally expect on the basis of the theory alone. Furthermore, they are definite, observable; the diagnosis of theory failure does not depend on subtle statistical interpretations or on semantic legerdemain – * the animal simply does not do what he has been conditioned to do. * 

"... Here we have animals, after having been conditioned to a specific learned response, gradually drifting into behaviors that are entirely different from those which were conditioned. ...
"It seems obvious that these animals are trapped by strong instinctive behaviors, and clearly we have here a demonstration of the prepotency of such behavior patterns over those which have been conditioned. 

"... The general principle seems to be that wherever an animal has strong instinctive behaviors in the area of the conditioned response, after continued running the organism will drift toward the instinctive behavior to the detriment of the conditioned behavior and even to the delay or preclusion of the reinforcement. * In a very boiled-down, simplified form, it might be stated as 'learned behavior drifts toward instinctive behavior.' " * _​
The Brelands were certainly experts in the use and application of these methods on many species of animals. Yet there was NOTHING they could do to stop this "drift." 

Yes, of course there are many 'experts' out there training highly driven dogs who have not experienced these events but your statement claimed that _"most training methods would work with * any dog."*_ 



selzer said:


> The thing is most methods do not work with most handlers.


I agree that there is no shortage of handlers who have an ethos that causes them problems with some methods. But as far as I'm concerned the goal of training is not to get parlor tricks or a dog that is reliable in the kitchen, the living room, or the back yard. It's to get reliability in the face of commonly occurring distractions. Relatively few of those espousing the so−called "kinder gentler methods" achieve this. For years I travelled across the US looking for trainers who could actually do what they claimed with those methods. I WANTED them to work. I WANTED them to give the same degree of reliability as methods that I'd been trained with. I never found such a trainer who could do it with any but a small number of carefully selected dogs. They couldn't do it with "any dog." The darling of the positive crowd, the woman who popularized the movement for dogs, Karen Pryor, killed her own cat because she could not train it to stop doing something unpleasant, urinating on the stove burners. Perhaps that trainer who can get reliability with _"any dog"_ is out there and I missed him!? 



selzer said:


> Good positive training works with all dogs.


The Brelands disagree with this statement and so do I (as long as we're talking about reliability in the face of distractions). 



selzer said:


> It just doesn't work with all handlers or all dog/handler combinations. And if someone approaches it with the opinion that it won't work, it won't. The problem is not in the dog, it is in the human.


While the problem MAY LIE with the human, often the issue is with dogs that are just too highly driven to stop their instinctive behavior in favor of the conditioned behavior. 



selzer said:


> I really do not know anything about purely positive or positive only training.


I know enough to know that there is no such thing as _"purely positive or positive only training."_ It's a myth, a lie, a bill of goods literally sold to an unsuspecting public who wants to believe in magic. It's nothing but clever marketing. 



selzer said:


> I think that most people have some sort of negative marker to communicate effectively with a dog.


----------



## selzer

LouCastle said:


> OK, but I don't recall the discussion but I doubt that it was merely _"talking about Ecollars with [me]."_ I've _"gotten my hands slapped"_ quite a few times. It doesn't stop my discussions, I just temper my comments.
> 
> You do not remember it because I did not break any rules. I did not swear. I did not call you names. No personal attacks. Maybe they smacked you and decided they better smack me too to be fair. No idea as they don't generally tell you if they warned the other party. Whatever. E-collars are your thing. They aren't mine so I stopped visiting the training threads and let it be. Didn't have a dog in that fight -- I chose not to battle over it.
> 
> I think we are not far from the same page. I would rather someone use a method that produces a dog that isn't going to give the breed a bad name if the alternative is someone who can't follow through, can't be consistent, can't control their dog because they are simply unable to apply other methods.


----------



## middleofnowhere

With any training method, what I try to remember is what relationship I want with my dog. There are people out there still who want a forced retrieve because it looks good. The training is harsh and to me it isn't worth it. I have from time to time come across Kohler's book in thrift shops. I've been tempted to buy it to remove it from circulation. 

When I visited my favorite trainer after an absense (MS doesn't like any way I spell that) of several years, he had changed his methods drastically. What he had to say about the change was that if you never changed, you weren't open to learning anything new.


----------



## Moriah

I am certainly no expert, but when my 1.5 yr. old decides he wants to break a 15-minute down and I have repeated the command, I use what I learned yrs. ago in a Koehler class. Don't talk, just correct. On my hardwood floors, I whip him around by leash and down him. 

Getting my guy to heal worked as long as I kept feeding him, food goes away, he forged ahead even on prong. Used Koehler's methods, I have a dog that heels.

Reliability was/is a big factor in using Koehler's methods. We know soooo much more today and have better tools. But I have to say, when my guy says with his behavior that he doesn't care about the treat and he doesn't have to listen, Koehler is effective and clear.


----------



## Blitzkrieg1

Most people on here are pet people, meaning your dogs are pets. Basically all you need is a dog that comes, sits, downs, heels when told. He does not have to be in drive or look flashy, he just has to do it reliably.
There is no better way to do this then with pressure. It's fast and reliable.
I do pet dogs in about 6 or 7 sessions with owners doing some homework. That's for full obedience off leash.

These places that promote positive training for pets are doing this out of ignorance or the love of having clients with perpetually unfinished dogs that need to keep coming back and spending money.
If you are serious about having an obedient trustworthy dog then do yourself a favor and avoid the flavour of the day training information. Go with what works and has worked for a thousand years.

Positive training is primarily good for teaching certain exercises in performance sport. That's when you need drive, flash, speed and precision.
Even my sport dogs have two separate commands trained separate ways. 
Example Foose and heel very different taught very differently.


----------



## MaggieRoseLee

Lou, as you've been told numerous times, the board limits post to 1000 words German Shepherd Dog Forums - Announcements in Forum : Welcome to the GSD/FAQ's for the first time owner

I have your post as almost double that, as soon as a moderator in this forum gets back they will probably just cut off the entire last portion of your post....


----------



## LouCastle

middleofnowhere said:


> With any training method, what I try to remember is what relationship I want with my dog.


Lots of people go to this place when the topic of the KMODT comes up. The fact is that when applied as designed, the method gives an EXCELLENT relationship with ANY dog. The problem comes, as it will with any tool or method, when it's not applied properly. I'd bet that you've never trained a dog with the KMODT, that you've just listened to the myths, and/or have only applied a small part of it. 



middleofnowhere said:


> There are people out there still who want a forced retrieve because it looks good. The training is harsh and to me it isn't worth it.


Applying human standards to what is and isn't harsh, often leads down the wrong road. I know dogs that become aggressive and will bite, if a treat is withheld. Is that harsh? Fido seems to think so. Yet it's a staple of the "kinder and gentler" folks. The fact is, that those competitors who use a forced retrieve do so not merely because _"it looks good"_ but because it brings great reliability. If the dogs thought it was harsh, I think it would show in the work. Yet, when done properly, it does not. The dogs look eager and energetic. 



middleofnowhere said:


> I have from time to time come across Kohler's book in thrift shops. I've been tempted to buy it to remove it from circulation.


LOL. It's one of the highest circulating dog training books in the world, and there are several books. From Amazon,


> *One of the most popular books on dog training ever published. * This book has been the choice of thousands seeking expert instruction in dog training since it first appeared in 1962. The Koehler Method has gone through 38 printings and has sold over 475,000 copies.
> 
> The Koehler Method of Dog Training: William R. Koehler, R.T. Yankie: 9780876055779: Amazon.com: Books


Buy all you want, they'll print more. 



middleofnowhere said:


> When I visited my favorite trainer after an absense (MS doesn't like any way I spell that) of several years, he had changed his methods drastically. What he had to say about the change was that if you never changed, you weren't open to learning anything new.


There are several reasons that a dog trainer may change his methods. The best is that he comes up with a better way to teach/train something. It may be that it's a better way to get a point across to the owner or to the dog. Sometimes it because better marketing may increase sales. But since few trainers, and I'd bet that yours is in this group, have BEFORE THEY FINALIZED THEIR METHODS, have trained over 10,000 dogs, it's not unusual that many of them change their minds as often as they change their underwear. I've only worked with several thousand dogs so I'm still refining my techniques. Probably, when and if I ever get to 10,000 (doubtful since I've slowed down quite a bit, and never was a commercial trainer) I'll have pretty much settled on my methods.


----------



## LouCastle

MaggieRoseLee said:


> Lou, as you've been told numerous times, the board limits post to 1000 words German Shepherd Dog Forums - Announcements in Forum : Welcome to the GSD/FAQ's for the first time owner
> 
> I have your post as almost double that, as soon as a moderator in this forum gets back they will probably just cut off the entire last portion of your post....


MRL, in the past the forum software has prevented me from posting longer posts than this limit. This time it did not. If the software had done its job, I'd have either shortened it or broken it into several posts. 

I think that such artificial limits are a poor choice, but it's not my forum so it's not my rules. I agree with the quotation sometimes attributed to Winston Churchill, _"A good speech should be like a woman's skirt; long enough to cover the subject and short enough to create interest."_ It seems to me that if someone loses interest they'll stop reading and that's fine with me. Many people thank me privately for going into such detail in my posts. 

But I understand that the forum has this rule and that apparently I violated it. I thought the post was fairly long but since the forum software did not stop me from submitting it, I figured that it was not over the limit. Apologies.


----------



## Chip18

MaggieRoseLee said:


> Lou, as you've been told numerous times, the board limits post to 1000 words German Shepherd Dog Forums - Announcements in Forum : Welcome to the GSD/FAQ's for the first time owner
> 
> I have your post as almost double that, as soon as a moderator in this forum gets back they will probably just cut off the entire last portion of your post....


Well that sucks!! Don't lower the standards...raise the limit!

For the record, BoxerForum has a 5500 word limit on pm's. And I smacked up against it!!! :blush:

But if people have the time and lots to say...what's the harm???

Just saying.


----------



## Chip18

MaggieRoseLee said:


> Lou, as you've been told numerous times, the board limits post to 1000 words German Shepherd Dog Forums - Announcements in Forum : Welcome to the GSD/FAQ's for the first time ownerWOW yet again, I am impressed! That is "spoken" like a true statesman!
> 
> Clearly I'm more of the whinny type! But, due to your unintended infraction, some of us have learned something about how to better behave! I try and remember this is the future!
> 
> So thanks for that!


----------



## Sabis mom

The Koehler Method of Dog Training
"This book differs from others in two ways: it openly acknowledges that not all dogs 'want to please', and that some are even viciously resentful of efforts to train them; and it takes the stand that these viciously resentful problem dogs, since they are bred and influenced by man, have a moral right to the training that may be necessary to rehabilitate them"

A direct quote, and the first paragraph of the introduction. A moral right? Does not sound to me like the 'yank and crank' trainer he is sometimes referred to as. He is also one of the few trainers to ever acknowledge that, say what we will, some dogs just have better things to do then listen.


----------



## Chip18

LouCastle said:


> Applying human standards to what is and isn't harsh, often leads down the wrong road. I know dogs that become aggressive and will bite, if a treat is withheld. Is that harsh? Fido seems to think so. Yet it's a staple of the "kinder and gentler" folks.


Hmmm as it happens, I ran into that on a whim and in violation of the advice I give! I started working with a clients fearful dog on a down by luring her into a "down" with treats and "lots" of praise! The dog "clearly" did not want to do a down! But I got one down done, hey no problem!

Tried again same deal but this time the dog flipped out!! I was on my knees and the dog spun around and air snapped about four feet from my face!! :wild:

I never moved and the dog did down after throwing a "fit." Lessons learned...keep your mouth shut, be safe and oh yeah, fearful dogs can be "unpredictable!" Yes I know...no surprise there!


----------



## RunShepherdRun

Quote:
"Originally Posted by RunShepherdRun 
Do you mean that dog bites and serious aggression started only when reward based methods became widely used? I wish that were so, we'd have an easy solution to aggression issues!
Sabi's Mom: Not at all! I'm saying that sometimes it's time to stop saying will you please and start saying do it now."

"Will you please" is not what primarily reward based trainers do. Very far off.

Quote:
"Run: Unfortunately, there were plenty of 'injuries to dog and people' and dogs put down for aggression during the times when compulsion based training methods were the only way. I am old enough to know And I still see handlers of that style. They burn up a lot of dogs. 

Sabi's Mom: Yes and as I said, Koehlers behavior modification may have been a bit harsh, but he saved an awful lot of dogs who's other option was death."

a) How do you know? How does anyone know? There have been no studies comparing the long term results of Koehler's methods and that of less invasive methods to treat aggression. Without evidence based studies, neither side can conclusively claim to be better than the other. I don't see these studies coming either as science based trainers don't string up dogs for training purposes, not even for a study. And you'd need a huge number of cases to get meaningful results b/c you cannot control all confounding factors, and there are a huge number of them.

b) I personally do not trust a dog who has been 'treated' solely with aggression countered by aggression. It does not address the underlying issues such as fear or learned disrespect for humans. It likely makes them worse and you only put a lid on them.

c) Koehler & Co strung up dogs not only in defensive situations, they are also strung up in a punitive way as a training method.
I have evaluated countless shelter dogs and am quite familiar with what I need to do when a dog goes up the leash, a rare situation, btw, and you don't keep a dog up, you only get him away from you or your assistant. But that is very different from hanging a dog up for a transgression like digging holes (Vicky Hearne, an ardent Koehler disciple) or hanging him up until he passes out and being nice to him when he opens his eyes to 'treat' handler directed aggression. 

d) There are many handlers who had their "come to Jesus moments" after overcorrecting a dog. What comes around, goes around.
And don't try that -ever- with a terrier!

Again, I have an open tool box. I teach a wanted behavior by shaping and luring first but will correct with the minimum necessary to get results if a dog doesn't perform the taught behavior under incrementally increased distraction. But you need to have taught the alternate behavior first. 
'Purely positive' is a fiction that punitive trainers love as a straw figure to beat. 

I have read Koehler's book and was appalled. And as a trainer who uses compulsion first, his approach compares poorly to Konrad Most who wrote and trained decades before him.


----------



## Jax08

RunShepherdRun said:


> d) There are many handlers who had their "come to Jesus moments" after overcorrecting a dog. What comes around, goes around.
> And don't try that -ever- with a terrier!
> 
> Again, I have an open tool box. I teach a wanted behavior by shaping and luring first but will correct with the minimum necessary to get results if a dog doesn't perform the taught behavior under incrementally increased distraction. 'Purely positive' is a fiction that punitive trainers love as a straw figure to beat.


These two paragraphs are so important.

IMO, when a dog is showing aggression, it's either genetic or they've ruled out flight and submission and think their only choice is fight.

In either of these situations, at the point that the dog is actively aggressive, it's highly likely the dog is not going to back down. Personally, I would take a step back. Bring the dog under his threshold and work on behavior modification.

Second, I don't ever want to train in a way other than teach by shaping and luring and then correcting if need be. And that correction could just simply be withholding the reward. Or it could be a form of compulsion.

But I don't ever want to train by strictly compulsion again. What a grand way to ruin a dog and break their spirit. That's my opinion. Not up for argument, just my opinion based on my how I trained my first dog.

And, as far as " 'Purely positive' is a fiction that punitive trainers love as a straw figure to beat. ", there are two sides to that. I don't think there is such a thing as "purely positive". But I see many people who think they are purely positive who use corrections without knowing it. Again, the correction could be withholding the reward. It's still a negative. Still a punishment. I think people get hung up on semantics without really thinking about what they are actually doing. Balance. It's all about balance.


----------



## Sabis mom

RunShepherdRun said:


> Quote:
> "Originally Posted by RunShepherdRun
> Do you mean that dog bites and serious aggression started only when reward based methods became widely used? I wish that were so, we'd have an easy solution to aggression issues!
> Sabi's Mom: Not at all! I'm saying that sometimes it's time to stop saying will you please and start saying do it now."
> 
> "Will you please" is not what primarily reward based trainers do. Very far off.
> 
> Quote:
> "Run: Unfortunately, there were plenty of 'injuries to dog and people' and dogs put down for aggression during the times when compulsion based training methods were the only way. I am old enough to know And I still see handlers of that style. They burn up a lot of dogs.
> 
> Sabi's Mom: Yes and as I said, Koehlers behavior modification may have been a bit harsh, but he saved an awful lot of dogs who's other option was death."
> 
> a) How do you know? How does anyone know? There have been no studies comparing the long term results of Koehler's methods and that of less invasive methods to treat aggression. Without evidence based studies, neither side can conclusively claim to be better than the other. I don't see these studies coming either as science based trainers don't string up dogs for training purposes, not even for a study. And you'd need a huge number of cases to get meaningful results b/c you cannot control all confounding factors, and there are a huge number of them.
> 
> b) I personally do not trust a dog who has been 'treated' solely with aggression countered by aggression. It does not address the underlying issues such as fear or learned disrespect for humans. It likely makes them worse and you only put a lid on them.
> 
> c) Koehler & Co strung up dogs not only in defensive situations, they are also strung up in a punitive way as a training method.
> I have evaluated countless shelter dogs and am quite familiar with what I need to do when a dog goes up the leash, a rare situation, btw, and you don't keep a dog up, you only get him away from you or your assistant. But that is very different from hanging a dog up for a transgression like digging holes (Vicky Hearne, an ardent Koehler disciple) or hanging him up until he passes out and being nice to him when he opens his eyes to 'treat' handler directed aggression.
> 
> d) There are many handlers who had their "come to Jesus moments" after overcorrecting a dog. What comes around, goes around.
> And don't try that -ever- with a terrier!
> 
> Again, I have an open tool box. I teach a wanted behavior by shaping and luring first but will correct with the minimum necessary to get results if a dog doesn't perform the taught behavior under incrementally increased distraction. But you need to have taught the alternate behavior first.
> 'Purely positive' is a fiction that punitive trainers love as a straw figure to beat.
> 
> I have read Koehler's book and was appalled. And as a trainer who uses compulsion first, his approach compares poorly to Konrad Most who wrote and trained decades before him.


 
I'm not sure which of his books you read that was appalling.

I can say that no where in his teaching does he say be nice to the dog when it wakes up, and no where does he say string it up repeatedly, and no where does he say choke it until its out.

In fact he specifically says do it right the first time, because under correction is cruel, choke the dog until it is not interested in continuing the fight and he very clearly says do NOT make a fuss over the dog, simply continue training.
He also says these harsh methods are for severe transgressions, where the handler is in jeopardy.

For someone with an open toolbox you are quick to condemn methods you clearly have not tried.

And don't talk down to me please. You don't know me or my dogs, and you have no idea what experience I may or may not have.
Terriers? Been there done that, so did Koehler by the way. Read his bio.


----------



## LouCastle

Earlier Sabi's Mom wrote,


> ... he saved an awful lot of dogs who's other option was death.





RunShepherdRun said:


> a) How do you know? How does anyone know?


When someone brings a dog to a trainer as happened with Koehler often, and with me several times, and says something like, _"You are his last hope. If what you do doesn't work, we're going to put him down,"_ we call that a clue. After the training session, when instead of going to the vet or the shelter, they happily take their pet home and begin training using what they were shown, we call that evidence. 



RunShepherdRun said:


> * There have been no studies * comparing the long term results of Koehler's methods and that of less invasive methods to treat aggression.


I'm not surprised that someone who subscribes to the so called "scientific methods" needs a _"study"_ before they accept that something is effective. The fact that Koehler's books still are one of the biggest sellers after 50 plus years should tell you something, but somehow you've missed this. 



RunShepherdRun said:


> Without evidence based studies, neither side can conclusively claim to be better than the other.


I don't see anyone saying that their side is _"better"_ than the other. 



RunShepherdRun said:


> I don't see these studies coming either as * science based trainers * don't string up dogs for training purposes, not even for a study.


LOL on SEVERAL levels. First, calling one training method _"science based"_ insinuates that another is not. The fact is that ALL training is based on conditioning principles, _'reinforce that which you want repeated and punish that which you don't want repeated.'_ Humans have been doing this since we first domesticated dogs. Skinner didn't invent the principles or Operant Conditioning, he just formalized them and wrote them down. 

Second, I don't see ANYONE from any recognized discipline stringing up dogs for training purposes. Koehler suggested it as a self−defense tool for when a dog commits an attack on the handler. I know that there is no shortage of people who do this for training but they ARE NOT using the KMODT. 



RunShepherdRun said:


> And you'd need *a huge number of cases *to get meaningful results b/c you cannot control all confounding factors, and there are a huge number of them.


Speaking of _"a huge number of cases,"_ Koehler perfected his methods on about 10,000 dogs before writing his seminal book. Anyone else got that large a database of what works? How many animals did Skinner train before writing "The Behavior of Organisms?" How many dogs did Karen Pryor train before writing "Don't Shoot the Dog?" (This last is a trick question). 



RunShepherdRun said:


> b) I personally do not trust a dog who has been 'treated' solely with aggression countered by aggression. It does not address the underlying issues such as fear or learned disrespect for humans. It likely makes them worse and you only put a lid on them.


I’m not sure what you're talking about here so I'll guess that you're talking about hanging a dog for a handler attack. It's not a _"treatment"_ any more than a police officer shooting back at someone who is shooting at him, is a _"treatment."_ It's self−defense. I make the same recommendation for the same attack. 



RunShepherdRun said:


> c) Koehler & Co strung up dogs not only in defensive situations, they are also strung up in a punitive way as a training method.


Someone else made a similar claim previously in this thread. I'll make the same request of you that I made of them − I believe that you're mistaken. Can you provide a quotation from any of his books where Koehler recommends hanging for _"noncompliance?"_



RunShepherdRun said:


> I have evaluated countless shelter dogs and am quite familiar with what I need to do when a dog goes up the leash, a rare situation, btw, and you don't keep a dog up, you only get him away from you or your assistant.


I'll have to say that if that method has worked for you, you've NEVER seen a serious handler attack. Your method will work for a 'protest' or for a dog that is saying, "get away from me" or "leave me alone." It WILL NOT WORK for the dog that is saying, "I'm going to kill you." With such a dog, merely _"get[ting] him away from you or your assistant"_ merely postpones the bite. As soon as THAT DOG is back on the ground, he'll come again, and again, until he's affirmatively stopped. Sometimes, rarely, that takes choking the dog into unconsciousness. I've had a couple of dogs who tried again, even after that was done. I've heard of only one dog who tried it a third time. 



RunShepherdRun said:


> But that is very different from hanging a dog up for a transgression like digging holes (Vicky Hearne, an ardent Koehler disciple) or hanging him up until he passes out and being nice to him when he opens his eyes to 'treat' handler directed aggression.


Please show us the quotation from Vicky Hearne giving this advice. Please also show us the context that most leave out when they quote Koehler on something like this. I knew Vicky and I'm pretty sure that she only advocated such a response when the dog was going to be killed if the behavior persisted. 


****************************

_** Post truncated by ADMIN ** _


----------



## LouCastle

Jax08 said:


> IMO, when a dog is showing aggression, it's either genetic or they've ruled out flight and submission and think their only choice is fight.


Yep, I'd agree. For the genetically alpha dog, actually extremely rare, there is no thought of _"flight and submission."_ The genetic compulsion is fight. 



Jax08 said:


> In either of these situations, at the point that the dog is actively aggressive, it's highly likely the dog is not going to back down. Personally, I would take a step back. Bring the dog under his threshold and work on behavior modification.


For a good trainer who sees the dog loading up, lowering the threshold is a good idea. But for the average pet owner (whatever that means) often they completely miss the signs that this is happening. By the time the dog comes up the leash, it's too late. At that time, self defense is the only option if you want to avoid a trip to the ER. 



Jax08 said:


> But I don't ever want to train by strictly compulsion again.


Just as it's impossible to train a dog using only reinforcement, it's impossible to train a dog using only _"compulsion."_ We're talking about the KMODT here and that's not only about compulsion. There's plenty of reinforcement there. 



Jax08 said:


> And, as far as " 'Purely positive' is a fiction that punitive trainers love as a straw figure to beat. ", there are two sides to that. I don't think there is such a thing as "purely positive". * But I see many people who think they are purely positive who use corrections without knowing it. * Again, the correction could be withholding the reward. It's still a negative. Still a punishment. I think people get hung up on semantics without really thinking about what they are actually doing.


Agree completely. I've taken part in dozens of discussions with people who claim that they NEVER use punishment. In those discussions all I've done is to get them to describe, with specificity, the steps they take to teach a dog to sit. At some point they withhold a treat, praise or whatever else they use as a reinforcement. Some of them will continue to argue that this is NOT punishment. That just means that they've swallowed the Kool−Aid, and don't even realize what they're really doing. 



Jax08 said:


> Balance. It's all about balance.


Yep. The KMODT is well balanced. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be so effective.


----------



## Jax08

LouCastle said:


> For a good trainer who sees the dog loading up, lowering the threshold is a good idea. But for the average pet owner (whatever that means) *often they completely miss the signs that this is happening. By the time the dog comes up the leash, it's too late.* At that time, self defense is the only option if you want to avoid a trip to the ER.



And THAT is exactly how I got bit by a Doberman last week. An average pet owner who thinks she's a trainer and had no clue her dog was loading and out of control. To bad my back was turned and I never saw it coming.

My compassion is all used up for the month.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

LouCastle said:


> MRL, in the past the forum software has prevented me from posting longer posts than this limit. This time it did not. If the software had done its job, I'd have either shortened it or broken it into several posts.


I have never known the software to prevent excess post length. All members should make themselves aware of the board rules, which are in a sticky thread at the top of each sub-forum, and be responsible for complying with them.


----------



## Chip18

Cassidy's Mom said:


> I have never known the software to prevent excess post length. All members should make themselves aware of the board rules, which are in a sticky thread at the top of each sub-forum, and be responsible for complying with them.


I actually did read it since it was "right here" and yep sure enough! 

I bet two's of members know that!


----------



## Chip18

Chip18 said:


> I actually did read it since it was "right here" and yep sure enough!
> 
> I bet two's of members know that!


Oh forgot to add:


----------



## Chip18

Since I have neither done TKMODT or read the book I can't comment on it. But the folks who work with and can successfully rehab real "Red Zone Dog" are the ones I tend to listen to and follow.

My first "Red Zone" dog got me my first stitches. But that was caused by my breaking up a fight and doing that wrong! 

So don't know if I'll ever use it I will get the book...and read it, I do collect books among other things.

And since there has been talk about this book getting hard to find and yep original copies are expensive and kinda hard to find, but it's still around:

Amazon.com: Buying Choices: The Koehler Method of Dog Training: Certified Techniques by Movieland's Most Experienced Dog Trainer by Koehler, William R. published by Howell Book House (1976) Hardcover 

My self-appointed goal is providing useful information and although this thread has gone far beyond my original scope, I've found it very enlightening.


----------



## Moriah

I got the book on Kindle. A certified instructor is still teaching in my area and a lot of GSDs that have titled in AKC obedience have taken her class. Her class is heavy with GSD from what I can tell.


----------



## Chip18

Moriah said:


> I got the book on Kindle. A certified instructor is still teaching in my area and a lot of GSDs that have titled in AKC obedience have taken her class. Her class is heavy with GSD from what I can tell.


On Kindle?? I"ll look into that thanks!

And I have to say after looking at a couple of other sites, I find it pretty interesting in that TKMODT seems to be misunderstood by, well pretty much everyone! 

I can relate it best to Home Audio. Among Audiophiles, Bose is considered well crap! Nonetheless the Model 901's have been in production for more than 45 years! And are still made today. 

They have expanded in a different direction, but 901's are what put them on the map. Bose does not publish frequency range numbers?? Well, audiophiles love numbers, Bose does not give them, hence the 901's must suck!

In audiophile world "everybody" has an "opinion on 901's and how much they "must" suck! I had held that same view and freely shared it! :crazy:

Every now and then someone would ask have you heard them?? Most of the time the answer was uh "NO" but I know they suck because....

Times change, people change and today some of us are discovering we "may" have been...well not correct. Some may still not like them, but they suck appears to have been a bit much! 

That is a rather round about way of saying. if something has been around for more than a decade or two?? There may be something there??


----------



## Sabis mom

Chip18 said:


> Since I have neither done TKMODT or read the book I can't comment on it. But the folks who work with and can successfully rehab real "Red Zone Dog" are the ones I tend to listen to and follow.
> 
> My first "Red Zone" dog got me my first stitches. But that was caused by my breaking up a fight and doing that wrong!
> 
> So don't know if I'll ever use it I will get the book...and read it, I do collect books among other things.
> 
> And since there has been talk about this book getting hard to find and yep original copies are expensive and kinda hard to find, but it's still around:
> 
> Amazon.com: Buying Choices: The Koehler Method of Dog Training: Certified Techniques by Movieland's Most Experienced Dog Trainer by Koehler, William R. published by Howell Book House (1976) Hardcover
> 
> My self-appointed goal is providing useful information and although this thread has gone far beyond my original scope, I've found it very enlightening.


 
I have a vast collection of books, all of Koehlers among them. I do not listen to books, I read them. All of Koehlers books I scored at used book stores, where they still sell for a pretty good price.


----------



## dogma13

Chip,I am an audiophile.Our goal is for the music to be reproduced in our homes exactly as it sounded in the studio or venue where it was recorded.Bose is not capable of that.It's like comparing various breeds of dogs,they were bred and developed for radically different purposes.
End of thread hijackPM me any audio geeks,maybe we'll start a new thread?


----------



## Steve Strom

> And I have to say after looking at a couple of other sites, I find it pretty interesting in that TKMODT seems to be misunderstood by, well pretty much everyone!


I always get the idea there's some misunderstanding with it because the actual method is the way its ordered from beginning to end. People always seem to know some of the different techniques because they're used by a lot of trainers and obedience clubs in their own ways.


----------



## Chip18

dogma13 said:


> Chip,I am an audiophile.Our goal is for the music to be reproduced in our homes exactly as it sounded in the studio or venue where it was recorded.Bose is not capable of that.It's like comparing various breeds of dogs,they were bred and developed for radically different purposes.
> End of thread hijackPM me any audio geeks ,maybe we'll start a new thread?




Well this a surprise!! This is where the "action" is. I'll PM you the "901" link. 

AudioKarma.org Home Audio Stereo Discussion Forums - Powered by vBulletin
(Hey they have rules too! )


----------



## Chip18

Steve Strom said:


> I always get the idea there's some misunderstanding with it because the actual method is the way its ordered from beginning to end. People always seem to know some of the different techniques because they're used by a lot of trainers and obedience clubs in their own ways.


Yes what I'm seeing is a lot of repetition and structure??

Piled in with a lot of misconceptions??


----------



## Chip18

Chip18 said:


> Yes what I'm seeing is a lot of repetition and structure??
> 
> Piled in with a lot of misconceptions??


Should have added on the first part...I don't see that as a problem??

And that there is a lot of "misconceptions" over exactly what the KMODT actually is but that does not seem to stop anyone from rendering an opinion.


----------



## WesS

Chip18 said:


> Moriah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got the book on Kindle. A certified instructor is still teaching in my area and a lot of GSDs that have titled in AKC obedience have taken her class. Her class is heavy with GSD from what I can tell.
> 
> 
> 
> On Kindle?? I"ll look into that thanks!
> 
> And I have to say after looking at a couple of other sites, I find it pretty interesting in that TKMODT seems to be misunderstood by, well pretty much everyone!
> 
> I can relate it best to Home Audio. Among Audiophiles, Bose is considered well crap! Nonetheless the Model 901's have been in production for more than 45 years! And are still made today.
> 
> They have expanded in a different direction, but 901's are what put them on the map. Bose does not publish frequency range numbers?? Well, audiophiles love numbers, Bose does not give them, hence the 901's must suck!
> 
> In audiophile world "everybody" has an "opinion on 901's and how much they "must" suck! I had held that same view and freely shared it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every now and then someone would ask have you heard them?? Most of the time the answer was uh "NO" but I know they suck because....
> 
> Times change, people change and today some of us are discovering we "may" have been...well not correct. Some may still not like them, but they suck appears to have been a bit much!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a rather round about way of saying. if something has been around for more than a decade or two?? There may be something there??
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right. There is obviously something there. It obviously also means improvements have been made.









So beware people who use old methods exclusively unaltered in 2015. Advancements are always made, weather the original author was Einstein.. Theories and progression is always built on classic works. And the competent people around the world that can make these progressions is not limited to Koehler family tree.

Never disgard, but never think old works are completely relevant unaltered, decades later.

The human race is symbiotic.. And we learn from generation to generation, from both achievements and mistakes.


----------



## LouCastle

Speaking of _"achievements."_ In some types of competition trainers using the KMODT and other balanced methods rather consistently beat trainers who use other methods. When and if this reverses, I have little doubt that they'll change their methods. But until then ... 

Just because something is newer, doesn't mean it's better.


----------



## Chip18

LouCastle said:


> Speaking of _"achievements."_ In some types of competition trainers using the KMODT and other balanced methods rather consistently beat trainers who use other methods. When and if this reverses, I have little doubt that they'll change their methods. But until then ...
> 
> Just because something is newer, doesn't mean it's better.


Well that is certainly true in Stereo World!

But back on point, having actually gained "some" actual understanding of the KMODT and having still not read the book. 

I think "structure" and "repetition" is the key?? Being as how I am "kinda" like my "Boxers" "structure" and "repetition" does not sound like a whole lotta fun??

Now if you have a dog with real issues yeah time to get real as it were but does, KMODT work with "100% American Line Goofy??"


----------



## Sabis mom

Chip18 said:


> Well that is certainly true in Stereo World!
> 
> But back on point, having actually gained "some" actual understanding of the KMODT and having still not read the book.
> 
> I think "structure" and "repetition" is the key?? Being as how I am "kinda" like my "Boxers" "structure" and "repetition" does not sound like a whole lotta fun??
> 
> Now if you have a dog with real issues yeah time to get real as it were but does, KMODT work with "100% American Line Goofy??"


Structure and repetition yes, but more importantly Koehler believed that our dogs have a right to know what behavior is expected and that other behaviors have consequences-and what those consequences are, and he stated repeatedly that a correction is only a correction if it is enough to correct, anything less is abuse.


----------



## Chip18

Sabis mom said:


> Structure and repetition yes, but more importantly Koehler believed that our dogs have a right to know what behavior is expected and that other behaviors have consequences-and what those consequences are, and he stated repeatedly that a correction is only a correction if it is enough to correct, anything less is abuse.


Well even for a "Boxer" guy...that makes sense!

Certainly nothing there to object to??? As I say I'm here to learn also!

I have to say I'm really surprised at what I have found out thus far! I only started this thread because I was interested in the long line thing. I trained my other guys to walk off leash in the field, but Rocky was the only one that I "noticed/trusted" did that just fine on neighborhood walks without issues.

So even though I "stumbled" into GSD world and it was a very Rocky start, (hmm yet again, no pun intended!) with my GSD (Rocky) I found myself "thinking" more and more about what I was doing correctly and how I was doing it?? Pretty much as simple as that. 

Lou said he no longer uses the KMODT, so if he is still around I would be curious about why the change in methods?? I would speculate that the E collar, just gives faster results??

But hey as long as it's not a life or death "issue" ...I'm not in a hurry.


----------



## LouCastle

Chip18 said:


> Lou said he no longer uses the KMODT, so if he is still around I would be curious about why the change in methods?? I would speculate that the E collar, just gives faster results??
> 
> But hey as long as it's not a life or death "issue" ...I'm not in a hurry.


Still around. I changed methods because the KMODT wasn't suitable for what I was doing. It's a multi−week program intended to teach basic OB. I was working with police service dogs that, before they were imported from Europe, had hundreds, sometimes thousands of hours of work, and were being converted from sport work to law enforcement. Many of them had sport titles and they didn't need training in the recall, sit, down, or other basic OB. I was also maintaining those dogs after their basic LE conversion training had been done. 

Time was always a factor because the admins only let us train for so long and then they start to worry that they're not getting enough "work" out of us. I use the Ecollar because it lets me communicate clearly to work on specific issues and it opens the door to the drive training system that I use. 

When I did use the KMODT, it was for some pets that I was doing basic OB training with, and one of my own dogs that was just starting in training. It gave reliable results but I'm not good at working on the rigid schedules that it calls for.


----------



## Chip18

LouCastle said:


> Still around. I changed methods because the KMODT wasn't suitable for what I was doing. It's a multi−week program intended to teach basic OB. I was working with police service dogs that, before they were imported from Europe, had hundreds, sometimes thousands of hours of work, and were being converted from sport work to law enforcement. Many of them had sport titles and they didn't need training in the recall, sit, down, or other basic OB. I was also maintaining those dogs after their basic LE conversion training had been done.
> 
> Time was always a factor because the admins only let us train for so long and then they start to worry that they're not getting enough "work" out of us. I use the Ecollar because it lets me communicate clearly to work on specific issues and it opens the door to the drive training system that I use.
> 
> When I did use the KMODT, it was for some pets that I was doing+ basic OB training with, and one of my own dogs that was just starting in training. It gave reliable results but I'm not good at working on the rigid schedules that it calls for.


Oh just saw this last night! Thanks for the reply and the explaination!

I figured "speed" of results had something to do with it. I get the "sharpen" particular behaviours part. Pro stuff my goals are much more "modest!" 

"Don't be acting like no fool" pretty much covers it! 

So in "essence" it seems that the only "legitmate" critizem of TKMODT,would be "the stric struture required by it's "proper use."

I kown for a fact that I am rather haphazard in my approach. I tend to address "issues" if there are any as I see them. "Most" of the time that works out fine (time not being a factor for me) but "sometimes" if you don't get lucky! Thinking a dog "knows" a behaviour that they "donot" can cost your dog his or her's life! Car proofing for me and I got lucky!

My guys dont get out of the car without an "explicit" command. I had always trained Gunther and Struddel(Struddel was the second dog) together. Gunther knew this one and when I took Struddel on a trip w/o her buddy. I then discoverd that she did not in fact understand "Da Rulz!" She had been cueing on Gunther! No Gunther...no understanding "Opps" I got lucky!:blush:

So yeah there is something to be said for "struture" oh well lots to learn and again thanks for the info and the explaination of why you moved.


----------



## Chip18

Steve Strom said:


> The long line as the foundation of the whole program is mentioned here:
> 
> The Koehler Method of Dog Training, koehlerdogtraining.com First time users of the method
> 
> There are a few videos around of people using it, I don't know if they're good examples or not though as far as following the plan strictly.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jalYS93NDPc


Started watching other than...tedious and boring! 

Seems pretty solid thanks! Don't know that I would have stumbled across it myself?? The thing with the internet is, it's a big "place" and it becomes a bit smaller, when others with a background of understanding can point you in the right direction!


----------



## WesS

Chip18 said:


> Oh just saw this last night! Thanks for the reply and the explaination!
> 
> I figured "speed" of results had something to do with it. I get the "sharpen" particular behaviours part. Pro stuff my goals are much more "modest!"
> 
> "Don't be acting like no fool" pretty much covers it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So in "essence" it seems that the only "legitmate" critizem of TKMODT,would be "the stric struture required by it's "proper use."
> 
> I kown for a fact that I am rather haphazard in my approach. I tend to address "issues" if there are any as I see them. "Most" of the time that works out fine (time not being a factor for me) but "sometimes" if you don't get lucky! Thinking a dog "knows" a behaviour that they "donot" can cost your dog his or her's life! Car proofing for me and I got lucky!
> 
> My guys dont get out of the car without an "explicit" command. I had always trained Gunther and Struddel(Struddel was the second dog) together. Gunther knew this one and when I took Struddel on a trip w/o her buddy. I then discoverd that she did not in fact understand "Da Rulz!" She had been cueing on Gunther! No Gunther...no understanding "Opps" I got lucky!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So yeah there is something to be said for "struture" oh well lots to learn and again thanks for the info and the explaination of why you moved.


Quote from Dr. Hillard (PhD behavioural neuroscience) and heavily involved in working dogs. When it comes to scientific and current reasoning, I think this is a guy whose words hold a lot of merit.

http://www.caninetrainingsystems.com/people/stewart-hilliard

"The history of dog training is a chronicle of gradual evolution, interspersed with periods of revolutionary change in theory and method. The last revolution, with which much of the dog training world still has not caught up, was the introduction of reward-centric training techniques beginning in the 1980?s. Prior to this time, the bulk of training was accomplished through more or less forcing the dogs to comply. After 1980, however, the ?operant conditioning? techniques pioneered by students of B.F. Skinner for the training of exotic animals, and brought to the level of high art by trainers employed in private animal parks in the U.S., began to penetrate into the dog training fancy.
In the first phase of this penetration, dog trainers began making extensive use of rewards like food and toys to not only motivate dogs to work, but also to teach them the necessary understandings. The first field to be extensively influenced was competitive obedience, but gradually through the influence of pioneers such as Gottfried Dildei, reward-centric methods assumed importance in Schutzhund/IPO as well. However, although many dog trainers were quick to adopt reward-based methods, they were slow to realize the importance of informational aspects of ?operant? animal training methods.
This realization had to wait for the second phase of the penetration, during which trainers began to figure out how conditioned reinforcers, called ?bridges,? or ?markers,? could be developed for dogs, and used to teach the animals to better understand the relationships between their behavior and rewards. Again, the influence was first felt in the realm of competitive obedience. What we might call the ?working dog? disciplines (Schutzhund/IPO, Ring Sport, and Police K9) lagged behind. Obedience trainers tended to take in one gulp all the methods and ideas that had been developed for exotic animal training. These methods and ideas sprang ultimately from the work of B.F. Skinner and other Radical Behaviorists, and included the axiom that the use in animal training of any aversive stimuli (or ?corrections?) is somehow unethical and counter-productive. In contrast, ?working dog? trainers have always relied on ?corrections? to train their dogs, partly because they contend with a different set of problems -- their dogs are trained, and perform, in very intensely drive-motivated states such as profound aggression. And it must be remembered that, as a result of 100 years of development, systems of traditional ?correction-based? training can accomplish amazing feats, such as 400-point performances in French Ring competition, and 300-point performances in Schutzhund/IPO. 
In the third phase of the dog training revolution that we are witnessing today, traditional systems of dog training are being integrated with ?operant? methods, creating the most powerful and humane systems of working dog training ever in existence. In these elegant and tightly-integrated systems, corrections are exploited to rapidly establish strong control over powerfully-motivated behaviors; rewards are used to teach and motivate performance; and a sophisticated system of conditioned behavior markers is used to render it all clear to the dog. "


----------



## WesS

So it comes down to a balance of humane, and 400 point performances. It comes down to top trainers often able to utilise reward based training in their systems in high level competition too. It comes down to weather your training a real service dog with a no nonsense attitude or a pet dog. It comes down to more than what is just effective or clear communication. It comes down to in part building a relationship with the dog who lives in your home and is your best friend. So I ask you all what is more important for basic obedience for the average pet dog? 

I think today there are better more humane ways to reliably teach such dogs. As dr Stewart Hilliard says.


----------



## dogma13

Excellent post Wes!


----------



## acacia

I'm new to dog training and still trying to decide on the method I want to approach. After seeing this thread, I thought I should look into KMOTD a little bit more. Does anybody know if there were any content changes between the original 1962 print and the newer 80s or 90s prints? I found a number of 1962 prints very cheap.


----------



## Sabis mom

WesS said:


> So it comes down to a balance of humane, and 400 point performances. It comes down to top trainers often able to utilise reward based training in their systems in high level competition too. It comes down to weather your training a real service dog with a no nonsense attitude or a pet dog. It comes down to more than what is just effective or clear communication. It comes down to in part building a relationship with the dog who lives in your home and is your best friend. So I ask you all what is more important for basic obedience for the average pet dog?
> 
> I think today there are better more humane ways to reliably teach such dogs. As dr Stewart Hilliard says.


 
Why do people think that Koehler was inhumane?

Here is what's inhumane, a PET dog in the evet because the kids/neighbors/grandma/friend/ left the door/car/gate/ opened.
How about a PET dog in a shelter because it's family can't deal with the jumping/pulling/bolting anymore, or lets talk about the neighbor/friend we all have who's dog is in training and has been for it's entire life, walking down the sidewalk with repeated little jerks on it's neck, listening to a song of heel, heel, heel for it's whole life.
KMODT will give results in the specified time. It is easy to understand, easy to follow and Wes just so you know, one of the biggest reasons dogs are surrendered is behavior/training issues, it's also a leading cause of abusive treatment and neglect. It's why no dog leaves my home without the basics taught, because the best shot I can give them is to make them well behaved companions. So no, KMODT is not inhumane. Short sighted owners are.


----------



## WesS

Sabis mom said:


> WesS said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it comes down to a balance of humane, and 400 point performances. It comes down to top trainers often able to utilise reward based training in their systems in high level competition too. It comes down to weather your training a real service dog with a no nonsense attitude or a pet dog. It comes down to more than what is just effective or clear communication. It comes down to in part building a relationship with the dog who lives in your home and is your best friend. So I ask you all what is more important for basic obedience for the average pet dog?
> 
> I think today there are better more humane ways to reliably teach such dogs. As dr Stewart Hilliard says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do people think that Koehler was inhumane?
> 
> Here is what's inhumane, a PET dog in the evet because the kids/neighbors/grandma/friend/ left the door/car/gate/ opened.
> How about a PET dog in a shelter because it's family can't deal with the jumping/pulling/bolting anymore, or lets talk about the neighbor/friend we all have who's dog is in training and has been for it's entire life, walking down the sidewalk with repeated little jerks on it's neck, listening to a song of heel, heel, heel for it's whole life.
> KMODT will give results in the specified time. It is easy to understand, easy to follow and Wes just so you know, one of the biggest reasons dogs are surrendered is behavior/training issues, it's also a leading cause of abusive treatment and neglect. It's why no dog leaves my home without the basics taught, because the best shot I can give them is to make them well behaved companions. So no, KMODT is not inhumane. Short sighted owners are.
Click to expand...

This post is beyond me. I am not against corrections and I am not for all positive. 

Are Michael Ellis dogs running rampant with no control? Are trainers dogs like multiple world champ and first ever American to get that, Ivan balbanoav dogs running rampant and out of control? They all use reward based methods. Are all the people on the forums dogs running rampant who use more recent and yes In my opinion more humane methods running rampant and in danger?

You make big claims of people who don't grovel at old Koehler. I think you missed the point of my post. You need to read it in context with the stillard quote. I've never seen something so well written about dogs from a person so accomplished in the dog world, and a professor of behavioural neuroscience.

Despite me not believing in the all positive mindset at all. They do have some valid points in some regards. 

It's like any child. Our pet dogs are not soldiers. And a well raised pet dog is not out of control.

Koehler methods have been made to seem like the go to method in this thread. I vehemently disagree. As do many others. 

Many People confuse active duty dogs, sport dogs and pet dogs. It's not the same thing. 

And a pet dog trained in other methods is hardly out of control of done right. In fact some, including Dr stillard argue the newer all encompassing methods. The third revolution as he puts it is the most powerfull. That is a matter of opinion for the experts to discuss. As for me. I'm happy with my dogs, and I'm sure many others are too. I think the dogs are happier too. Nothing makes my day more than when I say get the ball, and dogs gets super excited and brings his tug to play and to train.


----------



## Sabis mom

You missed my point. 

My old dog was trained using KMODT. He's a giant cuddle bug, loves to play, lounges on the furniture, goes camping with us. He is not afraid of me, does not cower when I approach. In fact he runs to me if scared or hurt, to hide his face in my shirt. 
So where is the problem? Where is the damaged relationship? 

I have used, and continue to use, all sorts of methods and techniques. 

But when I want guaranteed results, in a guaranteed time, guess where I go.


----------



## DaniFani

WesS said:


> This post is beyond me. I am not against corrections and I am not for all positive.
> 
> Are Michael Ellis dogs running rampant with no control? Are trainers dogs like multiple world champ and first ever American to get that, Ivan balbanoav dogs running rampant and out of control? They all use reward based methods. Are all the people on the forums dogs running rampant who use more recent and yes In my opinion more humane methods running rampant and in danger?
> 
> You make big claims of people who don't grovel at old Koehler. I think you missed the point of my post. You need to read it in context with the stillard quote. I've never seen something so well written about dogs from a person so accomplished in the dog world, and a professor of behavioural neuroscience.
> 
> Despite me not believing in the all positive mindset at all. They do have some valid points in some regards.
> 
> It's like any child. Our pet dogs are not soldiers. And a well raised pet dog is not out of control.
> 
> Koehler methods have been made to seem like the go to method in this thread. I vehemently disagree. As do many others.
> 
> Many People confuse active duty dogs, sport dogs and pet dogs. It's not the same thing.
> 
> And a pet dog trained in other methods is hardly out of control of done right. In fact some, including Dr stillard argue the newer all encompassing methods. The third revolution as he puts it is the most powerfull. That is a matter of opinion for the experts to discuss. As for me. I'm happy with my dogs, and I'm sure many others are too. I think the dogs are happier too. Nothing makes my day more than when I say get the ball, and dogs gets super excited and brings his tug to play and to train.


I think you are completely missing the points of others posts. You keep making statements like "groveling at feet" or "made to seem like the go to method".....as someone who's been a spectator on this thread I never got either of those impressions from the people you are claiming are acting like that. If anything YOU are making very genralized judgements of a method you have neither implemented or studied. I have to "lol" with Lou castle on this one. Many in this thread have simply pointed out the success of this particular method. You disagree, although I have to say. Lou is backing up his thoughts with "evidence". Which is ironic because you keep calling for evidenc, and yet completelt ignore when he provides just that.

Bottom line, there are many many ways to train a dog. I listen when some one has literally successfully trained 1000's of dogs (many of them pet and problem dogs). But I guess it needs to happen by someone with a phd to be taken seriously? The success rate is more important to me.

Oh and it's cute you think Ivan and Michael don't use a whole lot of compulsion (fair compulsion) along with their reward methods. I personally know someone who couldn't get their dog to stop becoming extremely barrier aggressive in his crate when another dog walked by....guess who told him to put the dog in a metal crate and flip the whole dang crate when it happened again....I'll give you a hint, it's one of the "reward based" trainers you listed...usually when you dig a little deeper or you actually train with some of the very successful trainers out there, there is still a lot of FAIR compulsion. But its compulsion/punishment nonthe less.

I also have to add, I HATE the insinuation/argument made that because a dog experiences less "punishment" than another dog, the dog with less punishment has a better relationship. I guarantee is I lined up a bunch of dogs that have a fair amount of punishment, via pinch collars, ecollars, etc....and a bunch of dogs (pet or not) that never saw fair punishment, and sent them all on a recall to their owners, you wouldn't be able to tell which ones were which.


----------



## Sabis mom

acacia said:


> I'm new to dog training and still trying to decide on the method I want to approach. After seeing this thread, I thought I should look into KMOTD a little bit more. Does anybody know if there were any content changes between the original 1962 print and the newer 80s or 90s prints? I found a number of 1962 prints very cheap.


 I don't know if there are differences in print. I do know the method remains unchanged to this day.
The books that I have are published in 1976.


----------



## WesS

DaniFani said:


> WesS said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post is beyond me. I am not against corrections and I am not for all positive.
> 
> Are Michael Ellis dogs running rampant with no control? Are trainers dogs like multiple world champ and first ever American to get that, Ivan balbanoav dogs running rampant and out of control? They all use reward based methods. Are all the people on the forums dogs running rampant who use more recent and yes In my opinion more humane methods running rampant and in danger?
> 
> You make big claims of people who don't grovel at old Koehler. I think you missed the point of my post. You need to read it in context with the stillard quote. I've never seen something so well written about dogs from a person so accomplished in the dog world, and a professor of behavioural neuroscience.
> 
> Despite me not believing in the all positive mindset at all. They do have some valid points in some regards.
> 
> It's like any child. Our pet dogs are not soldiers. And a well raised pet dog is not out of control.
> 
> Koehler methods have been made to seem like the go to method in this thread. I vehemently disagree. As do many others.
> 
> Many People confuse active duty dogs, sport dogs and pet dogs. It's not the same thing.
> 
> And a pet dog trained in other methods is hardly out of control of done right. In fact some, including Dr stillard argue the newer all encompassing methods. The third revolution as he puts it is the most powerfull. That is a matter of opinion for the experts to discuss. As for me. I'm happy with my dogs, and I'm sure many others are too. I think the dogs are happier too. Nothing makes my day more than when I say get the ball, and dogs gets super excited and brings his tug to play and to train.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are completely missing the points of others posts. You keep making statements like "groveling at feet" or "made to seem like the go to method".....as someone who's been a spectator on this thread I never got either of those impressions from the people you are claiming are acting like that. If anything YOU are making very genralized judgements of a method you have neither implemented or studied. I have to "lol" with Lou castle on this one. Many in this thread have simply pointed out the success of this particular method. You disagree, although I have to say. Lou is backing up his thoughts with "evidence". Which is ironic because you keep calling for evidenc, and yet completelt ignore when he provides just that.
> 
> Bottom line, there are many many ways to train a dog. I tend to shut up and listen when some one has literally successfully trained 1000's of dogs (many of them pet and problem dogs). But I guess it needs to happen in a "scientific lab" to be taken seriously? Oh well.
> 
> Oh and it's cute you think Ivan and Michael don't use a whole lot of compulsion (fair compulsion) along with their reward methods. I personally know someone who couldn't get their dog to stop becoming extremely barrier aggressive in his crate when another dog walked by....guess who told him to put the dog in a metal crate and flip the whole dang crate when it happened again....I'll give you a hint, it's one of the "reward based" trainers you listed...usually when you dig a little deeper or you actually train with some of the very successful trainers out there, there is still a lot of FAIR compulsion. But its compulsion/punishment nonthe less.
> 
> I also have to add, I HATE the insinuation/argument made that because a dog experiences less "punishment" than another dog, the dog with less punishment has a better relationship. I guarantee is I lined up a bunch of dogs that have a fair amount of punishment, via pinch collars, ecollars, etc....and a bunch of dogs (pet or not) that never saw fair punishment, and sent them all on a recall to their owners, you wouldn't be able to tell which ones were which.
Click to expand...

Ok that was passive aggressive. You need to realise that my point was simple. 

There are many experienced people. Sure the famous Ellis uses compulsion... And? His core concept is building engagement and rewarding the dog... Everything else follows that mostly for proofing the dog and alleviating the choice the dog has. But he spends a lot of time focusing on the relationship.

He tailors the training for the dog and the owners needs. Pet dog. Working. Sport. Both. Watever. His methods are mixed and not cut and paste from an old book written many years ago. He has a nice toolbox. 

Go make this post on the dogforum.com or on dogforums.com I guarantee you it won't go well for you. You will find you will be heavily attacked there. I think gsd.com is much more knowledgeable by a long shot. But my point is this... People fall into different groups of thinking. That holds true for people who have trained 1 dog or thousands of dogs. Experts and non experts. And guess what? We have to follow something. Those of us who don't have the experience to make up our own systems. 

So my message is irrelevant of who you think has the most experience or not. There are alternate views. Some feel strongly against all corrections. Those people don't do well on this forum. Then there is the dog forum.com where you won't do well if you even suggest a mild correction towards a dog in any case. Or ripped to shreds if you even mention a prong or e collar. 

So it's a matter of opinion. And this opinion is an important philosophy in choosing how to raise your pet dog. 

So since this is a discussion about a particular style that was brought to the fore some years ago. There will be experts who oppose those systems strictly working for every dog in every situation at least currently. They have good reasons with good experience to back their opinions too. 

So as a non professional we are left to sieve through all of this and make a decision. Personally I would not take my pet dogs and engage them in a strictly Koehler training. I gave my reasons. I gave some alternate sources.

It comes down to one thing. And this is about more than dog training experience. It's a life choice. One static in the world is that nobody is ever completely right. Never was never will be. So those who are progressive and use an open mind with an open toolbox ready to adapt and evolve, moment to moment and accept both old and new rather than read an older text as complete, are in my personal experience the best in any endeavour they partake in.


----------



## Moriah

Sabis mom said:


> You missed my point.
> 
> My old dog was trained using KMODT. He's a giant cuddle bug, loves to play, lounges on the furniture, goes camping with us. He is not afraid of me, does not cower when I approach. In fact he runs to me if scared or hurt, to hide his face in my shirt.
> So where is the problem? Where is the damaged relationship?
> 
> I have used, and continue to use, all sorts of methods and techniques.
> 
> But when I want guaranteed results, in a guaranteed time, guess where I go.



^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^^ I am no expert. One thing two trainers have told me is that my GSD is sometimes confused about what I want. The Koehler training I received helps me to be clear in what I want. My dog is happier when things are clearly communicated. My guy knows a fair correction.

I was so worried about doing things "right" with all the click and treat and positive methods. At 1.5 yrs. old, my guy does better when I throw some Koehler in too. He wants leadership and responds well to it. He easily rebounds from fair correction.


----------



## LouCastle

WesS said:


> This post is beyond me. I am not against corrections and * I am not for all positive. *


Good – because there is no such thing as _"all positive"_ dog training. 



WesS said:


> Are Michael Ellis dogs running rampant with no control? Are trainers dogs like multiple world champ and first ever American to get that, Ivan balbanoav dogs running rampant and out of control? * They all use reward based methods. *


No, they don't. They use BALANCED METHODS. In fact, everyone does, no matter what they claim. Their methods are based, just as much on punishment as it is on reward, (both words used in the scientific sense). When the dog does the right thing, that act is rewarded. When he does the wrong thing, that act is punished. They use all sorts of tools, from voice to treats to toys to the Ecollar, and they use them for both reward and for punishment. The claim that it's _"reward based"_ is just clever marketing. 



WesS said:


> Are all the people on the forums dogs running rampant who use more recent and yes In my opinion more humane methods running rampant and in danger?


So _"more recent"_ equals _"more humane?"_ Sorry but 'the era' that a method was developed has nothing to do with whether it's humane or inhumane. And there is NOTHING inhumane in the KMODT. Anyone who makes such a claim, either has an off−kilter idea about what is and what isn't inhumane, and/or knows little about the KMODT. 



WesS said:


> You make big claims of people who don't grovel at * old Koehler. *


NO ONE is asking that anyone _"grovel."_ The gratuitous, cheap shot is noted. 



WesS said:


> Despite me not believing in the all positive mindset at all. They do have some valid points in some regards.


Please tell us some of the _"valid points"_ of an argument of a theory of dog training that does not exist?



WesS said:


> It's like any child. Our pet dogs are not soldiers. And a well raised pet dog is not out of control.


Your _"Our pet dogs are not soldiers"_ comment leads me to believe that you are one of those folks who criticizes the KMODT without having either used it or read the books. Is that the case? 



WesS said:


> Koehler methods have been made to seem like the go to method in this thread. I vehemently disagree. As do many others.


What has anyone said that leads you down this road? 



WesS said:


> Many People confuse active duty dogs, sport dogs and pet dogs. It's not the same thing.


I don't think that anyone has made such a statement. Again, What has anyone said that leads you down this road? 



WesS said:


> Nothing makes my day more than when I say get the ball, and dogs gets super excited and brings his tug to play and to train.


What leads you to think that dogs trained with the KMODT do not get _"super excited and bring [their] tugs to play and to train?"_ Any evidence to support such a statement?


----------



## LouCastle

DaniFani said:


> I also have to add, I HATE the insinuation/argument made that because a dog experiences less "punishment" than another dog, the dog with less punishment has a better relationship.


I think that argument is often based on anthropomorphism.


----------



## LouCastle

WesS said:


> Ok that was passive aggressive.


Really? I think it as full of common sense. 



WesS said:


> You need to realise that my point was simple.


Perhaps but it was, I think poorly stated. You snarky, derisive comments greatly detract from your point. 



WesS said:


> There are many experienced people. Sure the famous Ellis uses compulsion... And? His core concept is building engagement and rewarding the dog...


His _"core concept"_ is to apply balanced methods to achieve his goals. What you're citing is more marketing to appeal to those who lean towards the so−called "kinder gentler methods." 



WesS said:


> Everything else follows that mostly for proofing the dog and alleviating the choice the dog has. But he spends a lot of time focusing on the relationship.


Oddly, it seems to be those who have either never used the KMODT or who have not read about it who make statements like this, insinuating that those dogs don't have good relationships with their owners. 



WesS said:


> He tailors the training for the dog and the owners needs.


Koehler _"tailored"_ his methods for ALL dogs and ALL owners. 



WesS said:


> Pet dog. Working. Sport. Both. Watever. His methods are mixed and not cut and paste from an old book written many years ago. He has a nice toolbox.


More snarky, derisive comments that do nothing to forward your argument. In fact, the opposite is the case. 



WesS said:


> Go make this post on the dogforum.com or on dogforums.com I guarantee you it won't go well for you.


Neither would advice from the people you bring to this discussion, Hilliard, Balabanov, or Ellis. What's your point? 



WesS said:


> You will find you will be heavily attacked there.


So would they. 



WesS said:


> It comes down to one thing. And this is about more than dog training experience. It's a life choice. One static in the world is that nobody is ever completely right. Never was never will be. * So those who are progressive and use an open mind with an open toolbox ready to adapt and evolve, moment to moment and accept both old and new rather than read an older text as complete, are in my personal experience the best in any endeavour they partake in. *


I'll agree that those _"who ... use an open mind with an open toolbox ... "_ are better off than who with closed minds. But it seems that your mind is closed to the results that are obtained with the KMODT and the relationship those owners have with their dogs, in short, much about the method. It's odd, really, because based on many of your comments you have neither used the method, nor read the books, at least not with an open mind. It seems that to you it's "old" and therefore not worth anything. 

This is not an uncommon sentiment. Those who pretend to use 'all positive' methods often argue that their methods are 'newer, and are therefore better.' Fact is, Skinner's first book, which started these methods was written in 1938, some 24 years before Koehler wrote his first book, detailing his method of training. Clickers were used by the Brelands for their work in the 1940's and 1950's. Pryor's book, "Don't Shoot the Dog," widely credited with bringing that form of training to dogs was published in 1985. Her subtitle was "The New Art of Teaching and Training" but it was nothing new. It merely brought the methods and tools that animal trainers had been using for decades on other species, to dogs and pet owners. This entire 'newer is better' argument is full of fail on many levels.


----------



## Chip18

Hmmm....well I see the "crazy" train has pulled into the station! Not pointing out any particular, "member" for it's arrival but I have seen this "crap" before! 

And since I started this thread I'll say, that "train" is...usually filled with "Behaviourist" and you can't "debate" with them! Because much like a "Red Zone" dog over threshold, ...they can't *"hear You!"*

I learned that lesson as Gunther on *"BOXERWORLD" *if a problem could not be solved with "Cookies and treats," PTS will"...problem solved! That's not really how I roll...I was not a good fit! 

I employ the "KISS" principle myself. The trainers "I" respect" (and that does include) "members" here as well as Pro's! And follow are the ones that work with dogs with "serious freaking problems" and they can "solve" those dogs "issues!"

I routinely only cite the works from two "behaviourist," and that is very specific:

Three Dogs Who Shouldn’t Be at the Dog Park or Daycare | Robin Bennett

https://fearfuldogs.wordpress.com/2...or-working-with-fearful-dogs-by-nicole-wilde/


The latter of which coincides with this (the walk part )
Leerburg | Dog Parks: Why They Are A Bad Idea

The former?? I have no idea of their larger body of work "I" don't care myself, I take what "I" need. 

If folks want to work with a "behaviourist" go for it! I would say "be sure to ask them for a list of former clients and find out how long the dogs they have "helped" have been on the couch," most likely...discussing what type of "treat" would best suit them??? Asking for "references of work done"... seems like a reasonable request to me??

But the "couch thing" as I term it?? Even "I" as a family "pet guy" and "Boxer fan"...don't have that much time! 

So for those that have "pertinent" information to "add" to this thread...please continue to do so! As "Boxerforum" has shown as of late...I seem to be getting pretty good at my KISS thing and passing what I learn on to others! 

Keep your eyes on the prize as it were. In other words...don't waste your breath with haters! 

In other words...It's like teaching a Pig to drive a car, it annoys the Pig and waste your time!


----------



## Chip18

DaniFani said:


> I personally know someone who couldn't get their dog to stop becoming extremely barrier aggressive in his crate when another dog walked by....guess who told him to put the dog in a metal crate and flip the whole dang crate when it happened again....


OMG!

Boy, I like that one myself! I was starting to think E-Collar training was the "only" solution for this type of crap but while I don't have an E-Collar...I do have two hands! Can't get much simpler than flipping the crate over!

Personally, I like it myself!


----------



## dogma13

Chip18 said:


> OMG!
> 
> Boy, I like that one myself! I was starting to think E-Collar training was the "only" solution for this type of crap but while I don't have an E-Collar...I do have two hands! Can't get much simpler than flipping the crate over!
> 
> Personally, I like it myself!


Simply abuse is the name of that training method.
Why not just flip the crate down a staircase while you're at it.That'll really teach him.


----------



## Chip18

dogma13 said:


> Simply abuse is the name of that training method.
> Why not just flip the crate down a staircase while you're at it.That'll really teach him.


It wasn't my idea! I can't help it if "I" happen to see some value in it.

If "someone" wants to start a "Crate Flipping" thread...I'll be happy to chime in.


----------



## selzer

Dog training methods are so controversial they ought to be a banned topic here. They probably wouldn't get me so irritated if everyone was to some extent respectful. But it seems you are either in the compulsion camp or not. 

The compulsion camp tends to suggest that dogs trained in other methods are not reliable -- not true. They suggest it takes longer -- not true. They suggest it doesn't work for all dogs -- well, as I have not trained every dog on the planet, I cannot really answer this one, but I can say that the Kohler method is not going to work for all dogs either, only they would say that a dog that failed to thrive in that method was defective. 

After putting a dog on a shelf for 3 years. (I did not train her or work with her at all, and the only place she went was to the vet for her rabies-distemper shot) I took that dog to a run through on a Saturday, and the next day she got her final Rally Advanced leg and I mover her up for her first Excellent leg. She had never done some of the excellent signs. I showed her them between the walk-through and my turn in the ring -- I was first, she did them in the parking lot between the building and the car for the first time and preformed them in the ring. She took first place in both classes. 

No Kohler method was ever used with her. I did her Rally Novice when she was just over a year old, and started in advanced but she hurt herself, so I benched her. She got her advanced at 5 or 6 years. She hurt her leg again on her second Excellent run, so I retired her. She is 9 now. I took her out this summer one day to my training class. I did obedience with her that day. They told me I should take her out of retirement because she was that good. 

That is positive training, with verbal corrections few and far between. Very little repetition. Keeping her engaged and interested, switching things up, not repeating commands, not repeating any exercise more than three times in a session. Setting the dog up to succeed and praising her for the success. No proofing (setting the dog up so they can fail so you can correct her). She is a trained dog. Her foundation was excellent, and she does not need to be worked with constantly or she will forget her training. 

The idea that these methods do not work, take too long, won't work without having a treat, are not reliable is simply ludicrous. And hearing that over and again, makes me answer back dissing methods that are primarily compulsion, depending on punishment. 

What I don't understand is why everyone is in such a hurry to get a puppy from here to there. Slow down, relax, and enjoy the journey. I can't do that if I am yanking and cranking my dog, or making him repeat something 25 times every night. That's nuts. Maybe your 6 or 8 month old dog is getting title legs in obedience while mine is stealing cones on the rally course, but why the hurry? Why not let them be a puppy? 

If you use the Kohler method on some dogs, it will crush their spirit. Not all dogs. Some dogs. Some dogs, like Heidi, do not need to be managed with that method of training. Could she have handled it? Probably. But it would have been over-kill, and I do not think it would be without cost.


----------



## WesS

Chip18 said:


> Hmmm....well I see the "crazy" train has pulled into the station! Not pointing out any particular, "member" for it's arrival but I have seen this "crap" before!
> 
> And since I started this thread I'll say, that "train" is...usually filled with "Behaviourist" and you can't "debate" with them! Because much like a "Red Zone" dog over threshold, ...they can't *"hear You!"*
> 
> I learned that lesson as Gunther on *"BOXERWORLD" *if a problem could not be solved with "Cookies and treats," PTS will"...problem solved! That's not really how I roll...I was not a good fit!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I employ the "KISS" principle myself. The trainers "I" respect" (and that does include) "members" here as well as Pro's! And follow are the ones that work with dogs with "serious freaking problems" and they can "solve" those dogs "issues!"
> 
> I routinely only cite the works from two "behaviourist," and that is very specific:
> 
> Three Dogs Who Shouldn?t Be at the Dog Park or Daycare | Robin Bennett
> 
> https://fearfuldogs.wordpress.com/2...or-working-with-fearful-dogs-by-nicole-wilde/
> 
> 
> The latter of which coincides with this (the walk part
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> Leerburg | Dog Parks: Why They Are A Bad Idea
> 
> The former?? I have no idea of their larger body of work "I" don't care myself, I take what "I" need.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If folks want to work with a "behaviourist" go for it! I would say "be sure to ask them for a list of former clients and find out how long the dogs they have "helped" have been on the couch," most likely...discussing what type of "treat" would best suit them??? Asking for "references of work done"... seems like a reasonable request to me??
> 
> But the "couch thing" as I term it?? Even "I" as a family "pet guy" and "Boxer fan"...don't have that much time!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So for those that have "pertinent" information to "add" to this thread...please continue to do so! As "Boxerforum" has shown as of late...I seem to be getting pretty good at my KISS thing and passing what I learn on to others!
> 
> Keep your eyes on the prize as it were. In other words...don't waste your breath with haters!
> 
> In other words...It's like teaching a Pig to drive a car, it annoys the Pig and waste your time!



You are mistakingly thinking that a PhD in behavioural neuroscience is the same thing as a dog behaviourist who has a few day course.

The guy I cited is not a behaviourist in the way you understand it. This is the 'behaviourist' you are making a field day of.

"Stewart Hilliard has better than 30 years experience in training companion and working dogs. He began training working dogs in 1980 in Denver, Colorado, when he became involved in German-style sport training and joined the Rocky Mountain Schutzhund Club, where he soon became the Training Director. Shortly thereafter he became a professional dog trainer, and established a reputation as an authority on canine aggression and man-work for both sport dogs and police service dogs. In the mid-1980's he was one of the first Americans to import working-bred Belgian Malinois to the United States, and he traveled widely in Western Europe studying Malinois breeding and the training disciplines of French Ring, Belgian Ring, and KNPV. He was the founder and first president of the American Ring Federation, the first F.C.I.-sanctioned organization for French Ring Sport in the U.S., and he was the first American to receive his Selection (certification) in France as a French Ring Trial Decoy.

He has taught working dog training seminars for sport clubs and law enforcement agencies all over the United States, and also been invited to teach in Melbourne and Brisbane, Australia, Sao Paulo, Brazil, Montreal, Canada, and Beijing, China. He is the co-author, with Susan Barwig, of the very successful training manual Schutzhund: Theory and Training Methods, and has also written and directed many well-received videotapes about sport and service dog training produced by Canine Training Systems:registered:. In 1983, Stewart Hilliard received his B.A. in psychology, and in 1990 he moved to Austin, Texas to enter Graduate School at the University of Texas at Austin, where he studied animal behavior and learning.

He is the author of a number of scientific papers in reputable psychological journals, and in 1997 he received his Ph.D in Behavioral Neuroscience. Dr. Hilliard has worked in various research & development and operational capacities for the Department of Defense Military Working Dog program since 1997, including Chief of the Military Working Dog Course at the 341st Training Squadron, Lackland Air Force Base, Texas. In this role, he managed the basic training of most of the patrol and substance detector dogs supplied to all branches of the U. S. armed forces. Dr. Hilliard also served as Chief of Military Working Dog Logistics and Procurement at the 341st. He directed the testing and procurement of all the dogs purchased for the Military Working Dog Course and the Specialized Search Dog Course. Dr. Hilliard is currently Chief of the Military Working Dog Breeding Program at the 341st Training Squadron."


----------



## WesS

> I'll agree that those _"who ... use an open mind with an open toolbox ... "_ are better off than who with closed minds. But it seems that your mind is closed to the results that are obtained with the KMODT and the relationship those owners have with their dogs, in short, much about the method. It's odd, really, because based on many of your comments you have neither used the method, nor read the books, at least not with an open mind. It seems that to you it's "old" and therefore not worth anything.
> 
> This is not an uncommon sentiment. Those who pretend to use 'all positive' methods often argue that their methods are 'newer, and are therefore better.' Fact is, Skinner's first book, which started these methods was written in 1938, some 24 years before Koehler wrote his first book, detailing his method of training. Clickers were used by the Brelands for their work in the 1940's and 1950's. Pryor's book, "Don't Shoot the Dog," widely credited with bringing that form of training to dogs was published in 1985. Her subtitle was "The New Art of Teaching and Training" but it was nothing new. It merely brought the methods and tools that animal trainers had been using for decades on other species, to dogs and pet owners. This entire 'newer is better' argument is full of fail on many levels.


I didn't say, bf skinners work was new. Indeed entered dog training later. Or the rest of them.

My point is that in the time Koehler and others contributed to progression. To take any one of their works in whole without consideration for the rest is what is outdated. To follow more recent ideologies from people who have considered and have a lot of experience is a plus. 

Thing is I'm somewhere in the middle. So there is constant differences in discussing with the acclaimed all positives or the other side.

Now for me animal ethics when it comes to my pet dog also plays a role and for me that trumps performance any day of the week. Which has better results is not something I personally know obviously.

But I know all sides have some points. And all sides have some flaws. I like trainers who can speak about both strengths and flaws and form a recent appraisal today.. And backup why they do certain things. Call it marketing. I call it communication and progression. Ellis starts with familiar things. Things people can't mess up with really. And are familiar with. And he slowly adds more tools based around his core concepts. Now if he acts differently with his own dogs. That's fine. I'm not Ellis. He gives information we should use. You can never expect a seasoned professional and a rookie to achieve maximum results (for their capabilities) using the same methods. He teaches by telling you what you are ready for. The rest will come if you want to delve further. He also talks about fundamental problems on both schools of thought. And less face it Koehler vs all positive mindset is as close as it comes to a far left vs a far right philosophy in dog training. Usually both sides have a point somewhere in all the extremes.


----------



## WesS

dogma13 said:


> Chip18 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!
> 
> Boy, I like that one myself! I was starting to think E-Collar training was the "only" solution for this type of crap but while I don't have an E-Collar...I do have two hands! Can't get much simpler than flipping the crate over!
> 
> Personally, I like it myself!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply abuse is the name of that training method.
> Why not just flip the crate down a staircase while you're at it.That'll really teach him.
Click to expand...

Agree completely. Difference with an e -collar and flipping a crate is that at least with e collar you know what stim level the dog gets. 

Flipping the crate could hurt the dog, and there is no control over it. Throw something 9 times against a wall it might not break. The 10th or maybe even the first time you may cause injury. There is no real standardisation of process.

This way of thinking.. Sigh.. As dogma said. Might as well push the crate down the stairs and hope for the best.


----------



## Sabis mom

Selzer, he specifically stated that your dog be at least 6 months old to use his method. 



All of my dogs respond to Koehlers method, I'm the whiner. Even the ultra sensitive Shadow does just fine with it. She does not like clicker training, shaping behaviors is beyond her no matter how I break them down, and the actual clicker made her attack me. She hates the noise, we tried a marker word but imagine timing with a dog that moves like a demented puppet half the time, chases shadows and dandelion fluff and is distracted by the wind blowing.
My only issue with KMODT and Shadow is that because of HOW she learns, I need to repeat steps frequently to remind her. 
For example, one quick about face reminds her that we are heeling, and what is expected. If I don't do it though she is scattered. I would assume this is a by product of the brain damage.
Sabi and Lexi were both trained using KMODT initially, I experimented with other methods and techniques with Sabi as we advanced, because I wanted to and she was a great dog to learn stuff with.
Bud was trained using KMODT, and he was horrifically abused as a young dog. I have experimented with other methods, he hates them. He wants structure and clear, consistent rules. Less tends to make him uncomfortable. 
Mori was a mill pup we rescued with several others, including her mom. She had never been out of the cage she was born in, she was trained using KMODT, before being placed in her forever home. So was her mom.

I could go one, because there are lots more. Other breeds? Rotti/lab cross, SCWT, Elkhound, Great Dane. I have had hundreds of dogs go through my home over the years.

Wes, don't knock it til you try it. I disagree with lots of things, but not until I have studied, tried, tested and analyzed. Otherwise I'm just another ******* with an opinion.


----------



## Chip18

WesS said:


> Agree completely. Difference with an e -collar and flipping a crate is that at least with e collar you know what stim level the dog gets.
> 
> Flipping the crate could hurt the dog, and there is no control over it. Throw something 9 times against a wall it might not break. The 10th or maybe even the first time you may cause injury. There is no real standardisation of process.
> 
> This way of thinking.. Sigh.. As dogma said. Might as well push the crate down the stairs and hope for the best.


Fine!!!! I "won't offer it as a suggestion on boards! I don't see how flipping a crate, seems to "instantly" get equated to pushing a dog in a crate down a flight of stairs but whatever.

I will say for myself, however, that if I chose to crate train my next dog... they best not be acting like a "fool" in that crate and we don't have stairs!


----------



## Sabis mom

Chip18 said:


> Fine!!!! I "won't offer it as a suggestion on boards! I don't see how flipping a crate, seems to "instantly" get equated to pushing a dog in a crate down a flight of stairs but whatever.
> 
> I will say for myself, however, that if I chose to crate train my next dog... they best not be acting like a "fool" in that crate and we don't have stairs!



Chip, ya make me laugh.


----------



## Chip18

WesS said:


> You are mistakingly thinking that a PhD in behavioural neuroscience is the same thing as a dog behaviourist who has a few day course.


I concede your point! I did "perceive" behaviourist and went off! A pretty low threshold as it were... you got me!

But at least, I make it pretty crystal clear what camp I'm in. And without having read the KMODT book "I" can't render an informed opinion. But aside from boring I don't see how a lot of repetition an structure is a bad thing??

Anything aside from that "I" don't know to be true or accurate about KMODT.


----------



## Chip18

Sabis mom said:


> Chip, ya make me laugh.


Well as I am wont to say...


----------



## G-burg

I'm wondering how "popular" this (Koehler Method) really is.. In this day and age?


----------



## Jax08

Chip18 said:


> Fine!!!! I "won't offer it as a suggestion on boards! I don't see how flipping a crate, seems to "instantly" get equated to pushing a dog in a crate down a flight of stairs but whatever.


If it makes you feel any better, Chip, I did it with a garbage can once. I got up to go the bathroom at 3am, came around the corner to see a garbage can on it's side and a Boxer Butt sticking out the end. So I picked it up. :shrug:

Did you know a Boxer can walk backwards vertically?

btw...the only thing that worked was actually putting the garbage can in a room behind a closed door.


----------



## WesS

Sabis mom said:


> Wes, don't knock it til you try it. I disagree with lots of things, but not until I have studied, tried, tested and analyzed. Otherwise I'm just another ******* with an opinion.


Never hit or choked out a woman. Don't plan on trying. And I'll knock those that do as much as I like. 

Get my point? Not saying it's the same thing. Point is... Well you get it.

In any case. I just said there are better methods in existence today for most pet dogs that are just as efficient and more humane out there. And many top professionals feel that way too. I used stillard, Ellis and Ivan as examples. There are many people in the same mold. And yes I would put some of those guys on equal footing to old Koehler. Many of them made as many advancements today as koehler did back then. Hardly knocking it. Just saying. It's been made to be a little too much as a 'go to' thing on this thread.

Some of those guys may have even hit the magical number of 10 000 dogs of experience.
Together I'm pretty sure they have more than surpassed it. And that's just 3 of today's 'Renaissance' trainers.


----------



## Steve Strom

G-burg said:


> I'm wondering how "popular" this (Koehler Method) really is.. In this day and age?


I don't know if popular fits exactly, but I bet most people going to group obedience classes are using some different pieces without knowing it because there's nothing extraordinary about them. I think where the method comes from is the order of how the pieces are put together and that's where people kinda freelance.


----------



## Sabis mom

WesS said:


> Never hit or choked out a woman. Don't plan on trying. And I'll knock those that do as much as I like.
> 
> Get my point? Not saying it's the same thing. Point is... Well you get it.
> 
> In any case. I just said there are better methods in existence today for most pet dogs that are *just as efficient and more humane* out there. And many top professionals feel that way too. I used stillard, Ellis and Ivan as examples. There are many people in the same mold. And yes I would put some of those guys on equal footing to old Koehler. Many of them made as many advancements today as koehler did back then. Hardly knocking it. Just saying. It's been made to be a little too much as a 'go to' thing on this thread.
> 
> Some of those guys may have even hit the magical number of 10 000 dogs of experience.
> Together I'm pretty sure they have more than surpassed it. And that's just 3 of today's 'Renaissance' trainers.


 This is the 3rd or 4th time you've referred to KMODT as inhumane. Please give me some evidence of what is inhumane. Because I am really curious if you actually know anything here or are just regurgitating what you've been told.


----------



## WesS

Sabis mom said:


> WesS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never hit or choked out a woman. Don't plan on trying. And I'll knock those that do as much as I like.
> 
> Get my point? Not saying it's the same thing. Point is... Well you get it.
> 
> In any case. I just said there are better methods in existence today for most pet dogs that are *just as efficient and more humane* out there. And many top professionals feel that way too. I used stillard, Ellis and Ivan as examples. There are many people in the same mold. And yes I would put some of those guys on equal footing to old Koehler. Many of them made as many advancements today as koehler did back then. Hardly knocking it. Just saying. It's been made to be a little too much as a 'go to' thing on this thread.
> 
> Some of those guys may have even hit the magical number of 10 000 dogs of experience.
> Together I'm pretty sure they have more than surpassed it. And that's just 3 of today's 'Renaissance' trainers.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the 3rd or 4th time you've referred to KMODT as inhumane. Please give me some evidence of what is inhumane. Because I am really curious if you actually know anything here or are just regurgitating what you've been told.
Click to expand...

When you can teach a dog to do something through desire and choice and then reinforce with consequence of non compliance or choosing to mind you with 'force' or corrections. Is more humane than clear force from the get go.

Show them the way. Make them want to do it. And then show consequences. Reward based training I know for a fact builds a better relationship with the dog. It's only fair to show them what's correct with no pressure first.

That has been proven to be more effective learning in human psychology.


----------



## Sabis mom

WesS said:


> When you can teach a dog to do something through desire and choice and then reinforce with consequence of non compliance or choosing to mind you with 'force' or corrections. Is more humane than clear force from the get go.
> 
> Show them the way. Make them want to do it. And then show consequences. Reward based training I know for a fact builds a better relationship with the dog. It's only fair to show them what's correct with no pressure first.
> 
> That's has been proven to be more effective learning in advanced human psychology.


 The long line is an excellent example of choice. 
I just explained that I currently own two dogs that dislike reward based training, and flounder badly with it.
And I'm sorry, but you would have to work really hard to find anyone with a better relationship with their dogs.

You still haven't given me anything inhumane, and you still don't sound like you really know anything about this method


----------



## LouCastle

selzer said:


> Dog training methods are so controversial they ought to be a banned topic here. They probably wouldn't get me so irritated if everyone was to some extent respectful. But it seems you are either in the compulsion camp or not.


I've been in thousands of discussions about training dogs. Usually the only time it gets out of line is when those who favor the so−called "kinder gentler methods start decrying things that they know little about. Frequently they start name calling and making snarky comments. 



selzer said:


> The compulsion camp


Sorta like this. Please tell us EXACTLY what is _"the compulsion camp"_ and who is in it? 



selzer said:


> tends to suggest that dogs trained in other methods are not reliable – * not true. *


Yes, it is true. In just about every form of competition those who are not hesitant to use compulsion appropriately, usually beat those who avoid it. And in areas where lives are on the line, in law enforcement it's COMPLETELY UNHEARD OF for a dog to be trained without it. When I was on the clicker email lists I asked many times if anyone knew of a police patrol K−9 that had been trained exclusively with a clicker. I never got an affirmative answer. For a couple of decades now, I've been looking for, a police patrol service dog that was trained only with the so−called "kinder gentler methods." I've offered finder's fees for such a dog as high as $5,000. * NEVER *HAS ANYONE SHOWN ME SUCH A DOG. If you (or ANYONE) thinks you know of such a dog, let me know, and I'll send you the complete details. 



selzer said:


> They suggest it takes longer – * not true. *


For owners and new trainers who try them, it is completely true. Any honest person favoring the so−called "kinder gentler methods will admit it. For the EXPERT trainer who is using them, the time frame may be about the same, but since there are so few of them around, the truth is that when you compare novices or intermediate level trainers, probably most here would fill that bill, those who are not hesitant to use compulsion appropriately, get results much faster. On occasion, it works on the first or second rep. Sorry, but the so−called "kinder gentler methods don't work that quickly. 



selzer said:


> They suggest it doesn't work for all dogs –


It does not, as can be seen from a read of the Brelands article, _"The Misbehavior of Organisms"_ which I previously cited. Highly driven dogs simply revert to natural behaviors even when conditioned against them. The two trainers, probably with the most expertise in those methods in the world, were not able to stop what they termed "instinctive drift." Imagine the trouble that a novice trainer will have! I've cited that article in several of our discussions and now again, for the second time in this thread. I notice that you've not once commented on the findings in it. Is that because the work was done by true experts in those methods and it completely undermines your arguments? 



selzer said:


> well, as I have not trained every dog on the planet, I cannot really answer this one, but * I can say that the Kohler method is not going to work for all dogs either, *


Except that Bill Koehler successfully trained over 10,000 dogs before he wrote his book detailing his methods. While that's certainly not _"every dog on the planet"_ it's certainly plenty enough to say that it will work (meaning that it will give reliable results) on most of them. But such a disagreement is really moot. It's impossible to test the method on _"all dogs."_ 



selzer said:


> ... only they would say that a dog that failed to thrive in that method was defective.


Can you please show us a KMODT trainer making this statement? Or is this just more conjecture? 



selzer said:


> After putting a dog on a shelf for 3 years. (I did not train her or work with her at all, and the only place she went was to the vet for her rabies-distemper shot) I took that dog to a run through on a Saturday, and * the next day she got her final Rally Advanced leg * and I mover her up for her first Excellent leg. She had never done some of the excellent signs. I showed her them between the walk-through and my turn in the ring -- I was first, she did them in the parking lot between the building and the car for the first time and preformed them in the ring.


That's great until you realize that Rally is not that difficult of a test. Some of it is done on leash. At some levels multiple command are permitted without penalty. Rally was created for people who found AKC OB too hard and too much work to train for. Entries were falling (read that as 'incomes from entry fees were dropping') and the AKC had to create some new interest (read that as 'new ways to bring in money.') 

To quote the AKC,


> * AKC Rally® is a companion sport to AKC Obedience. * It too requires teamwork between dog and handler along with performance skills similar to obedience. * Rally provides an excellent introduction to AKC events for new dogs and handlers, * and can provide a challenging opportunity for competitors in other events to strengthen their skills. [Emphasis Added]
> 
> Rally - American Kennel Club





selzer said:


> No Kohler method was ever used with her.


When has anyone said that it's impossible to win at Rally unless one uses Koehler?


----------



## LouCastle

selzer said:


> The idea that these methods do not work, take too long, won't work without having a treat, are not reliable is simply ludicrous.


I disagree. And when the average pet owner (whatever that means) puts them to use, all kinds or unreliability shows up. This forum, as with many others, has dozens of threads that begin with something like, "HELP. Fluffy chased a deer into the woods and would not come when I called her." MOSTLY those folks have trained with the so−called "kinder gentler methods." Yes, they did not do a good job. Yes they did not proof their dogs around distractions, but this is just a minor issue with these methods. Folks think that they've done a good job when Fluffy performs reliably without any distractions present, and they stop training. The KMODT does not allow this. Training continues according to a schedule that WILL provide reliability in the face of distractions. 

As is almost ALWAYS the case in these discussions, you folks ONLY want to talk about method that you don't like − when they are used improperly, while you ONLY want to talk about the methods that you favor − when they are used properly. I'm talking about what happens in the real world. Someone following the KMODT will get a dog that is reliable. Someone following the so−called "kinder gentler methods" that do not have a schedule of training, will probably NOT get such a result. Koehler was quite clear about how many reps to do, and how long one should work on a given skill, to get reliability. I've never seen such a schedule from someone using the so−called "kinder gentler methods." Is there one? I’m pretty sure that there is not such a schedule. And so owners and novice trainers are left to their own devices as to how often to train, how many reps to do, and how often to proof their training. Without such guidelines they're simply not capable of making such decisions at their level of training. Yet, being able to vary the training "to suit the dog" is one of the leading features of such methods. This, in the face of a lack of experience and knowledge of many, if not most of those who are using the methods!? In this case, the lack of structure giving a novice trainer the number of reps to do or how long to work on a given behavior is a WEAKNESS, not a strength. 



selzer said:


> And hearing that over and again, makes me answer back dissing methods that are primarily compulsion, depending on punishment.


Yes we've seen your dismissive posts. Just because you're hearing something frequently that you disagree with, does not forgive _"answering back dissing [those] methods."_ It's telling that you're _"hearing [those comments] over and again."_ I've responded back to many of those posts with many questions, that you pretend have not been asked, because you know they punch holes in your theories and comments. In this thread I even re−asked one of them that you then refused to answer, apparently because you lost your composure _"years ago"_ when doing so. The idea behind _"hand slap[ping]"_ is not to silence someone but to get them to temper their comments. It seems that some are not capable of that. 



selzer said:


> What I don't understand is why everyone is in such a hurry to get a puppy from here to there.


When did puppies become part of the discussion? 



selzer said:


> Slow down, relax, and enjoy the journey. I can't do that if I am yanking and cranking my dog, or making him repeat something 25 times every night. That's nuts. Maybe your 6 or 8 month old dog is getting title legs in obedience while mine is stealing cones on the rally course, but why the hurry? Why not let them be a puppy?


If dogs lived to be 80 or 90 years old, as humans do, and we lived in an era when running free meant little danger to them, this might be some good advice. But in light of the fact that dogs have relatively short life spans, and we've created a very dangerous environment for them, IT'S HORRIBLE ADVICE. 

In any case, I don't recall this discussion being about using the KMODT on _"puppies."_ It's odd that you bring them up. It's about generalities of that training method. Perhaps you bring it up because the rest of your argument is so weak!? 



selzer said:


> If you use the Kohler method on some dogs, it will crush their spirit.


NOT TRUE! This is one of the myths that people who favor the so−called "kinder gentler methods" put out. If this WAS true, of the 10,000 that Koehler trained MANY would have been _"crushed"_ and their owners would have out up such an outcry that the KMODT never would have made it to a book, much less one of the best−selling books on dog training in the world. 



selzer said:


> Not all dogs. Some dogs. Some dogs, like Heidi, do not need to be managed with that method of training. Could she have handled it? Probably. But it would have been over-kill, and I do not think it would be without cost.


It's GREAT that you give us your opinion, based on little knowledge and absolutely no experience with the KMODT, of how you think a given dog would have responded to a training method. But it has no basis in fact, it's only your imagination working overtime.


----------



## LouCastle

WesS said:


> You are mistakingly thinking that a PhD in behavioural neuroscience is the same thing as a dog behaviourist who has a few day course.
> 
> The guy I cited is not a behaviourist in the way you understand it. This is the 'behaviourist' you are making a field day of.
> 
> "Stewart Hilliard has better than 30 years experience in training companion and working dogs. ...


So what? His is just another opinion. It's an educated one, but still, just an opinion. It's rare, in that, unlike you, he's probably actually read the KMODT and perhaps has even used it. But it's still just an opinion. And let's not forget that he's a commercial dog trainer who has to sell (that means 'market') his methods to a world that has become focused on "being kind to Fluffy" at the expense of reliability.


----------



## LouCastle

WesS said:


> I didn't say, bf skinners work was new. Indeed entered dog training later. Or the rest of them.
> 
> My point is that in the time Koehler and others contributed to progression. To take any one of their works in whole without consideration for the rest is what is outdated. * To follow more recent ideologies from people who have considered and have a lot of experience is a plus. *


When a method of training was developed is immaterial. What matters is "does it provide reliability while being humane." We're back to your absurd position that 'newer is better.' It's just a fallacy. 



WesS said:


> Now for me animal ethics when it comes to my pet dog also plays a role and for me that trumps performance any day of the week. Which has better results is not something I personally know obviously.


Many of us do know better. We've tried both methods and realize that what works best is A BALANCE of both reward and punishment. NO METHOD ON THE PLANET USES EITHER ONE EXCLUSIVELY. Anyone who pretends that they do is either a liar or simply ignorant of what they are truly doing. 

WesS I notice that you have somehow overlooked some simple, direct and straightforward questions that I asked you. I'll repeat them now, so you don't have to go back and search for them. 


You claimed that the _"all positive mindset ... have some valid points."_ I asked you to "Please tell us some of the _"valid points"_ ..."
I've asked a couple of times if you have ever used or read the KMODT? 
You claimed that _"Koehler methods have been made to seem like the go to method in this thread."_ I asked "What has anyone said that leads you down this road?"
You claimed that _"Many People confuse active duty dogs, sport dogs and pet dogs. It's not the same thing."_ I asked, "What has anyone said that leads you down this road?"
You wrote that _"Nothing makes my day more than when I say get the ball, and dogs gets super excited and brings his tug to play and to train."_ insinuating that the KMODT does not give this result. I asked "What leads you to think that dogs trained with the KMODT do not get _'super excited and bring [their] tugs to play and to train?_" I added, "Any evidence to support such a statement?"

I eagerly look forward to your answers.


----------



## LouCastle

WesS said:


> Agree completely. Difference with an e -collar and flipping a crate is that at least with e collar you know what stim level the dog gets.
> 
> * Flipping the crate could hurt the dog, and there is no control over it. * Throw something 9 times against a wall it might not break. The 10th or maybe even the first time you may cause injury. There is no real standardisation of process.


SOMEHOW you missed Dani's point that this technique was suggested by one of the trainers who you claim are _"reward based"_ that YOU brought into this discussion. Here's the quotation from that post. 



DaniFani said:


> Oh and it's cute you think Ivan and Michael don't use a whole lot of compulsion (fair compulsion) along with their reward methods. I personally know someone who couldn't get their dog to stop becoming extremely barrier aggressive in his crate when another dog walked by.... * guess who told him to put the dog in a metal crate and flip the whole dang crate when it happened again.... I'll give you a hint, it's one of the "reward based" trainers you listed ... *


----------



## LouCastle

WesS said:


> Never hit or choked out a woman. Don't plan on trying. And I'll knock those that do as much as I like.


Another false analogy. Claiming that a dog training method that has probably been used with more success on more dogs than ANY OTHER IN THE WORLD, is in the same class as _"hitting or chok[ing] out a woman"_ just shows how desperate someone is to win an argument. 



WesS said:


> In any case. I just said there are better methods in existence today for most pet dogs that are * just as efficient and more humane out there. *


If it was _"just as efficient"_ then those methods would be the ones that put the owners of those dogs on top of the podium at EVERY national competition of EVERY form of competition to the exclusion of ALL other methods. Fact is, this is NOT happening. The KMODT has had dogs at the at the NOC (AKC National Obedience Championship) SINCE IT'S INCEPTION, even under various iterations of that name. Can you tell us another method of training that can make that claim? 

As far as _"more humane ... "_ Either something is humane or it is not humane. And NEVER has anyone of authority found the KMODT to be inhumane. 



WesS said:


> And many top professionals feel that way too.


And many disagree with them. 



WesS said:


> I used stillard, Ellis and Ivan as examples. * There are many people in the same mold. *


Not really. First I'm pretty sure that you mean Stewart Hilliard, not stillard. You misspelled it once before as well, making it difficult for anyone to Google him if they want more info. Second, they are not competing in the same venue that Koehler's dogs did. They are competing in venues where the dog's drives come into play to a much larger degree. Koehler was interested mostly in AKC OB and pets. 



WesS said:


> And yes I would put some of those guys on equal footing to * old Koehler. *


There's that snarky cheap shot again. Some reason you can't stay polite and professional? 



WesS said:


> Many of them made as many advancements today as koehler did back then.


Really? Please tell us of a few of those advancements that these trainers are responsible for. 



WesS said:


> Hardly knocking it. Just saying. It's been made to be a little too much as a 'go to' thing on this thread.


You made this comment once before. Back then I asked "What has anyone said that leads you down this road?" Somehow, you didn't answer!? 



WesS said:


> Some of those guys may have even hit the magical number of 10 000 dogs of experience.


When THEY make that claim, I'll believe it. When you propose it in this manner, it's just conjecture, grasping at straws. AND even if it's true, it's an apples and oranges comparison. Koehler trained that many dogs BEFORE he wrote his book, detailing his method. These folks have been developing their methods as they go, modifying them as needed. Koehler made mods to his methods BEFORE taking it public. 



WesS said:


> Together I'm pretty sure they have more than surpassed it. And that's just 3 of today's 'Renaissance' trainers.


And yet MORE conjecture to try to bolster the argument of someone who refuses to answer simple, direct and straightforward questions.


----------



## LouCastle

Steve Strom said:


> I don't know if popular fits exactly, but I bet most people going to group obedience classes are using some different pieces without knowing it because there's nothing extraordinary about them. I think where the method comes from is the order of how the pieces are put together and that's where people kinda freelance.


Steve, to be accurate, one cannot use _"different pieces"_ of the KMODT. One either uses it or one does not. Using it means that one follows, to the letter, its schedules. It's probably accurate to say that those folks are using Koehler−like methods. And yes, on this, I'm a bit pedantic. The Koehler's have been very protective of "the method." If they discover that someone is claiming to be a KMODT trainer but he's not using the protocols EXACTLY on the schedules proscribed by Bill, they've forced them to either conform to them or to stop using the family name. Deviating from the directions often results in failure in many endeavors. "When all else fails, RTFM!" 

As to popularity of the method − here's something I wrote in a recent discussion where the KMODT came up. 



> 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.


----------



## WesS

Sabis mom said:


> WesS said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you can teach a dog to do something through desire and choice and then reinforce with consequence of non compliance or choosing to mind you with 'force' or corrections. Is more humane than clear force from the get go.
> 
> Show them the way. Make them want to do it. And then show consequences. Reward based training I know for a fact builds a better relationship with the dog. It's only fair to show them what's correct with no pressure first.
> 
> That's has been proven to be more effective learning in advanced human psychology.
> 
> 
> 
> The long line is an excellent example of choice.
> I just explained that I currently own two dogs that dislike reward based training, and flounder badly with it.
> And I'm sorry, but you would have to work really hard to find anyone with a better relationship with their dogs.
> 
> You still haven't given me anything inhumane, and you still don't sound like you really know anything about this method
Click to expand...

There are many many documented cases by professionals who used koehlers methods exclusively who have wrecked and broken dogs. Ellis talks about this. He was brought up in Koehler systems. He warns of the problems as do MANY others. As always it may have its uses with certain dogs and for certain functions. But it is neither the go to method for most pet dogs to create good bonds. It is essentially a method created for military service dogs many years ago during the world war. Want tough dogs... Fine.. But our society does not run on Spartan principles anymore. At least not in the realm of pet dogs.

How about drowning a dog who dig holes?
Listen I'm not here to bicker about the nitty gritty. It's the general philosophy and precept that is the issue. Pressure before choice. Force before desire. You become the law, not the prize. If you can't understand this, take a trip to North Korea. It will become very clear very quickly. You might find some people are very happy there. But I think you enjoy your freedoms as well as commenting on a public board more.

I said there are MORE humane methods. And more recent/developed/educated for pet dogs today.

Again what I said earlier perfectly well explains that pressure is the mechanism of learning. This creates dogs scared to try new things and is not humane and does not incentivise creative learning. That essentially is as good a reason you will get.


----------



## Chip18

Steve Strom said:


> I don't know if popular fits exactly, but I bet most people going to group obedience classes are using some different pieces without knowing it because there's nothing extraordinary about them. I think where the method comes from is the order of how the pieces are put together and that's where people kinda freelance.


This exactly! I am the king of "Freelance!" 

The long leash thing "I only used a long leash to keep the dog safe until I trained Recall Sit Stay and Down. And those were done in no particular pattern that I could recall??

Hence when I saw the Day one training routine..."I thought...what be this???"


----------



## Chip18

Jax08 said:


> If it makes you feel any better, Chip, I did it with a garbage can once. I got up to go the bathroom at 3am, came around the corner to see a garbage can on it's side and a Boxer Butt sticking out the end. So I picked it up. :shrug:
> 
> Did you know a Boxer can walk backwards vertically?
> 
> btw...the only thing that worked was actually putting the garbage can in a room behind a closed door.


Well Boxers...you know.


----------



## Sabis mom

WesS said:


> There are many many documented cases by professionals who used koehlers methods exclusively who have wrecked and broken dogs. Ellis talks about this. He was brought up in Koehler systems. He warns of the problems as do MANY others. As always it may have its uses with certain dogs and for certain functions. But it is neither the go to method for most pet dogs to create good bonds. It is essentially a method created for military service dogs many years ago during the world war. Want tough dogs... Fine.. But our society does not run on Spartan principles anymore.
> 
> How about drowning a dog who dig holes?
> Listen I'm not here to bicker about the nitty gritty. It's the general philosophy and precept that is the issue. Pressure before choice. Force before desire. You become the law, not the prize. If you can't understand this, take a trip to North Korea. It will become very clear very quickly. You might find some people are very happy there. But I think you enjoy your freedoms as well as commenting on a public board more.
> 
> I said there are MORE humane methods. And more recent/developed/educated for pet dogs today.
> 
> Again what I said earlier perfectly well explains that pressure is the mechanism of learning. This creates dogs scared to try new things and is not humane and does not incentivise creative learning. That essentially is as good a reason you will get.


 I have all of Koehlers books. No drowning.

So your basis for not liking Koehler is Ellis? Who are the other professionals and where is this documentation? 

My dogs try new stuff all the time. Explore and have fun. Just finished a quick game of Frisbee with Shadow who is fond of bringing it to me and then turning it into a game of tag, that ends with us both on the ground
laughing. Then she begs for belly tickles. Last week she learned the A frame, and the other day we were playing on a tire bridge.
Sabi rode in helicopters, bush planes, on quads, snowmobiles, golf carts. She climbed ladders, crossed catwalks, rode in glass elevators. Definitely a scared dog.


----------



## WesS

Sabis mom said:


> WesS said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are many many documented cases by professionals who used koehlers methods exclusively who have wrecked and broken dogs. Ellis talks about this. He was brought up in Koehler systems. He warns of the problems as do MANY others. As always it may have its uses with certain dogs and for certain functions. But it is neither the go to method for most pet dogs to create good bonds. It is essentially a method created for military service dogs many years ago during the world war. Want tough dogs... Fine.. But our society does not run on Spartan principles anymore.
> 
> How about drowning a dog who dig holes?
> Listen I'm not here to bicker about the nitty gritty. It's the general philosophy and precept that is the issue. Pressure before choice. Force before desire. You become the law, not the prize. If you can't understand this, take a trip to North Korea. It will become very clear very quickly. You might find some people are very happy there. But I think you enjoy your freedoms as well as commenting on a public board more.
> 
> I said there are MORE humane methods. And more recent/developed/educated for pet dogs today.
> 
> Again what I said earlier perfectly well explains that pressure is the mechanism of learning. This creates dogs scared to try new things and is not humane and does not incentivise creative learning. That essentially is as good a reason you will get.
> 
> 
> 
> I have all of Koehlers books. No drowning.
> 
> So your basis for not liking Koehler is Ellis? Who are the other professionals and where is this documentation?
> 
> My dogs try new stuff all the time. Explore and have fun. Just finished a quick game of Frisbee with Shadow who is fond of bringing it to me and then turning it into a game of tag, that ends with us both on the ground
> laughing. Then she begs for belly tickles. Last week she learned the A frame, and the other day we were playing on a tire bridge.
> Sabi rode in helicopters, bush planes, on quads, snowmobiles, golf carts. She climbed ladders, crossed catwalks, rode in glass elevators. Definitely a scared dog.
Click to expand...

Here is a review on Amazon for koehlers book. This reader seems to have read a different book:

"This book is 40 years out of date, and we now know it is unnecessary to hurt your dog and call it dog training.
Some of the Koehler "corrections" include punishing digging by filling the hole with water and holding the dog's head under "until he thinks he's going to die", and repeating this daily for a week. He punishes chewing by duct-taping the chewed object into the dog's mouth for hours (very dangerous!). He recommends threading a dowel through a rubber hose and hitting the dog with it for up to 20 minutes (again "until he thinks he's going to die"), and hanging a dog off his feet until he cannot breathe and to the point of vomiting for mouthing the leash. Hitting, choking, drowning, and other technques using fear and force are unnecessary and cruel."

Again... I should not have even entertained your request to get specific. I know it's there. It's the general philosophy and the fact that there have been advancements since it was written that gets to me. And people chose to ignore the simple fact that even if it was brilliant in its time it is unequivocally outdated today.

Even professional trainers who support koehlers work unequivocally admit to not using his systems anymore. There is excuse of time management etc. Well excuse me. If a professional dog trainer does not have the time to do it properly and utilise it, what makes people think it's a good choice for an uneducated pet owner who chooses an old book to train his pet dogs from. Do we not think they will make mistakes?

Koehler methods should only be used by professional dog trainers for specific purpose after assessing a specific type of dog. They can use what they like if they have vast experience and can justify why they chose to use it. However it's not what the rest of us should flock to.

Also I don't see any of the fun things you mention doing with your dog included in koehlers book.


----------



## Sabis mom

WesS said:


> Here is a review on Amazon for koehlers book. This reader seems to have read a different book:
> 
> "This book is 40 years out of date, and we now know it is unnecessary to hurt your dog and call it dog training.
> Some of the Koehler "corrections" include punishing digging by filling the hole with water and holding the dog's head under "until he thinks he's going to die", and repeating this daily for a week. He punishes chewing by duct-taping the chewed object into the dog's mouth for hours (very dangerous!). He recommends threading a dowel through a rubber hose and hitting the dog with it for up to 20 minutes (again "until he thinks he's going to die"), and hanging a dog off his feet until he cannot breathe and to the point of vomiting for mouthing the leash. Hitting, choking, drowning, and other technques using fear and force are unnecessary and cruel."
> 
> Again... I should not have even entertained your request to get specific. I know it's there. It's the general philosophy and the fact that there have been advancements since it was written that gets to me. And people chose to ignore the simple fact that even if it was brilliant in its time it is unequivocally outdated today.
> 
> Even professional trainers who support koehlers work unequivocally admit to not using his systems anymore. There is excuse of time management etc. Well excuse me. If a professional dog trainer does not have the time to do it properly and utilise it, what makes people think it's a good choice for an uneducated pet owner who chooses an old book to train his pet dogs from. Do we not think they will make mistakes?
> 
> Koehler methods should only be used by professional dog trainers for specific purpose after assessing a specific type of dog. They can use what they like if they have vast experience and can justify why they chose to use it. However it's not what the rest of us should flock to.


 
First of all, what you just quoted was a misquote, second you just clearly told me you yourself know nothing about the method and are simply following the flock.
I will address the wooden dowel. 
It is to be used on dogs who attack their handlers and the prescribed method is one hit. In fact Koehler states that even a truly nasty dog is not going to try it more then twice. NO WHERE DOES HE SAY BEAT THE DOG!

What he does say, repeatedly, is that wimpy, ineffective corrections are cruel. Because they don't work, force you to repeat them endlessly.

NO WHERE DOES HE SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE DOG THINKING IT'S DYING!

The techniques are in the behavior modification section, NOT PART OF TRAINING

Again don't argue what you don't know.

Military? 
Koehler trained for Disney


----------



## Moriah

It was very important to Koehler that corrections not "nag" over and over again. Give a clear, sharp correction that gives the message and be done with it. 

I am a teacher. It really ruins class "climate' for the teacher to constantly nag. Nobody wants to sit in a classroom with that kind of atmosphere--better to swiftly give consequence (if called for) and move on. Students appreciate a happy feeling tone.

I think it is the same with dogs.


----------



## WesS

Sabis mom said:


> First of all, what you just quoted was a misquote, second you just clearly told me you yourself know nothing about the method and are simply following the flock.
> I will address the wooden dowel.
> It is to be used on dogs who attack their handlers and the prescribed method is one hit. In fact Koehler states that even a truly nasty dog is not going to try it more then twice. NO WHERE DOES HE SAY BEAT THE DOG!
> 
> What he does say, repeatedly, is that wimpy, ineffective corrections are cruel. Because they don't work, force you to repeat them endlessly.
> 
> NO WHERE DOES HE SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE DOG THINKING IT'S DYING!
> 
> The techniques are in the behavior modification section, NOT PART OF TRAINING
> 
> Again don't argue what you don't know.
> 
> Military?
> Koehler trained for Disney


Another Review:

"I started taking dog training seriously -- back in the dark ages of the 1960's - when people like William Koehler and Winifred Strickland were considered experts in the field. Using food to train dogs back then was almost unheard of.

The argument was "If you train with food, at some point you're going to have to stop and then what will you do?"

Well dog training is light years ahead of where it was back then and this question has been answer. Koehler and Strickland have become the model-T ford of the training industry. They got you around but it wasn't pretty."

Ed Frawley.


----------



## G-burg

The training facility I work at has been in operation since the late 70's, and they started with the Koehler Method.. After a few years they moved away from it..

When I've conversed with trainers in different venues from different states over the years, I don't hear any of them mention Koehler as their preferred choice of training.. Hence, the reason I asked how "popular" is it still.. 

I'm not knocking the method.. Just curious..


----------



## dogma13

I have read Koehler.The hitting,choking,and drowning are true.Remember the bull terrier in "The Incredible Journey"?He was the recipient of the drowning method.


----------



## Sabis mom

WesS said:


> Another Review:
> 
> "I started taking dog training seriously -- back in the dark ages of the 1960's - when people like William Koehler and Winifred Strickland were considered experts in the field. *Using food to train dogs back then was almost unheard of.
> *
> The argument was "If you train with food, at some point you're going to have to stop and then what will you do?"
> 
> Well dog training is light years ahead of where it was back then and this question has been answer. Koehler and Strickland have become the model-T ford of the training industry. They got you around but it wasn't pretty."
> 
> Ed Frawley.


 For the same reason I STILL don't use it and actively train against random treats.
_People poison dogs!_
Shadow was my first variance from my strict 'no food except from your dish or my hand'. It makes me nervous. Teaching them to pick food off the ground? Having strangers give treats? Makes me really nervous.
Treats are not allowed in an OB ring. And I'm sure not allowed in IPO?


----------



## Sabis mom

dogma13 said:


> I have read Koehler.*The hitting,choking,and drowning are true.*Remember the bull terrier in "The Incredible Journey"?He was the recipient of the drowning method.


 NOT as part of the training! And not as described in this thread.


----------



## WesS

Sabis mom said:


> WesS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another Review:
> 
> "I started taking dog training seriously -- back in the dark ages of the 1960's - when people like William Koehler and Winifred Strickland were considered experts in the field. *Using food to train dogs back then was almost unheard of.
> *
> The argument was "If you train with food, at some point you're going to have to stop and then what will you do?"
> 
> Well dog training is light years ahead of where it was back then and this question has been answer. Koehler and Strickland have become the model-T ford of the training industry. They got you around but it wasn't pretty."
> 
> Ed Frawley.
> 
> 
> 
> For the same reason I STILL don't use it and actively train against random treats.
> _People poison dogs!_
> Shadow was my first variance from my strict 'no food except from your dish or my hand'. It makes me nervous. Teaching them to pick food off the ground? Having strangers give treats? Makes me really nervous.
> Treats are not allowed in an OB ring. And I'm sure not allowed in IPO?
Click to expand...

So you found a way for a dog to not be poisoned by some criminal? Koehler teaches how to not have your dogs poisoned? 

Interesting... 

Train a dog based on something you can't prevent anyways.

Maybe you can share with us how exactly you would stop your dog from taking poison from a home intruder when your not there.

In any case... I don't get strangers to give treats. I also feed the dog in his bowl or out of hand or on a release yes command... Yes my dog can resist a nice juicy steak until he gets the command. 

And this prevents poisoning? How?
And why is this a core issue anyways... Do people you know and allow your dogs contact with regularly carry poisoned treats? Or are you speaking about home intruders when you are not home? Do you think your dog will turn down a juicy steak laced with poison from an intruder when your not there?


----------



## WesS

Sabis mom said:


> WesS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another Review:
> 
> "I started taking dog training seriously -- back in the dark ages of the 1960's - when people like William Koehler and Winifred Strickland were considered experts in the field. *Using food to train dogs back then was almost unheard of.
> *
> The argument was "If you train with food, at some point you're going to have to stop and then what will you do?"
> 
> Well dog training is light years ahead of where it was back then and this question has been answer. Koehler and Strickland have become the model-T ford of the training industry. They got you around but it wasn't pretty."
> 
> Ed Frawley.
> 
> 
> 
> For the same reason I STILL don't use it and actively train against random treats.
> _People poison dogs!_
> Shadow was my first variance from my strict 'no food except from your dish or my hand'. It makes me nervous. Teaching them to pick food off the ground? Having strangers give treats? Makes me really nervous.
> Treats are not allowed in an OB ring. And I'm sure not allowed in IPO?
Click to expand...

As for ipo. I'm talking pet dogs here. And are you saying michael Ellis can't cert. An ipo dog with his reward based methods?

Been done over and over. Strictly all positive mindset. Maybe not. But it's not a them vs us. It's not this or that. The argument is a bit of both in balance and moderation. Also treats a toy... It all depends on the situation/dog. 

Sure there will be dogs better suited maybe even today to koehlers method. Sure some pet dog somewhere will benefit. Hardly a gold standard for your average everyday pet today. Gsd or not. Not even close. 40 years ago.. Maybe.

It's been proven that kids don't all learn the same way. What makes you think every dog fits perfectly into the Koehler templates. (That seems to be the message being pushed on this thread so far).


----------



## LouCastle

WesS said:


> There are many many documented cases by professionals who used koehlers methods exclusively who have wrecked and broken dogs.


Since you claim that there are _"many many documented cases by professionals who used koehlers [sic] methods exclusively who have wrecked and broken dogs"_ it should be an easy matter for you to supply such _"document[ation]."_ Yet you do not, in spite of being asked for it repeatedly! We can only believe that you are wrong, that they don't exist. 



WesS said:


> Ellis talks about this.


Another trainer _"talk[ing] about this"_ is not what you tell us exists, _"documented cases."_ 



WesS said:


> He was brought up in Koehler systems. He warns of the problems as do MANY others.


I'm warning about the so−called "kinder gentler methods." But it's just another opinion. Of course my opinion is based on decades of personal experience and evidence, much of which I've supplied. You've YET to supply evidence to support your claims. Rather you're full of myths, misconceptions and opinions. 



WesS said:


> As always it may have its uses with certain dogs and for certain functions. But it is neither the go to method for most pet dogs to create good bonds. * It is essentially a method created for military service dogs many years ago during the world war. * Want tough dogs... Fine.. But our society does not run on Spartan principles anymore. At least not in the realm of pet dogs.


QUITE WRONG. While Koehler did quite a bit of work with the military and law enforcement, his method was SPECIFICALLY devised for pets. For a couple of decades he "served as Chief Trainer for the OB program of the Orange Empire Dog Club, the largest open membership dog club in the US ... More than 14,000 dog participated in the OB classes sponsored by [this] organization." For about ten years "he served as Class Instructor of OB classes sponsored by the Boxer Club of Southern California. ... More than 1,100 dogs participated in these classes." Koehler ran OB classes for the "Doberman Pinscher Club of Southern California" where "90 dogs participated in [his] classes." He put "140 dogs" through OB classes for the "Irish Setter Club of Southern California." 

Koehler is credited with "The rehabilitation of an unsurpassed number of problem dogs, many of which were referred to his classes by human organizations and law force as a last hope to avoid destruction." His work was MAINLY with pets. 

These quotations are from a notarized affidavit in "The Koehler Method of Guard Dog Training," pp 11-12, 1983. There's lots more. You're still parroting the misinformation put out by others. 



WesS said:


> How about drowning a dog who dig holes?


Thanks for spouting this bit of nonsense that the pozzies often cite. It REALLY shows your true colors and your rather COMPLETE lack of actual knowledge about the method. Koehler NEVER suggested drowning a dog. But that's an EXCELLENT bit of hyperbole! 



WesS said:


> Listen I'm not here to bicker about the nitty gritty. It's the general philosophy and precept that is the issue.


Of course you don't want to talk about the nitty gritty, the details, THE TRUTH. You'd rather be vague, misquote, and spread the myths. When it gets detailed and REAL, you fold up. 



WesS said:


> Pressure before choice.


Yep show the dog what is desired and then enforce it. That way the dog does not get to start out wrong. 



WesS said:


> Force before desire.


Yep that's the way that just about all organisms learn. Children don't learn to brush their teeth so that decades later they won't develop cavities and lose teeth. They're taught to brush with pressure from their parents, who know the outcome of failure to brush. 



WesS said:


> You become the law, not the prize.


You really should do some reading before spouting this nonsense. The KMODT is full of prizes. 



WesS said:


> If you can't understand this, take a trip to North Korea. It will become very clear very quickly. You might find some people are very happy there. But I think you enjoy your freedoms as well as commenting on a public board more.


What tripe. This is nothing but the typical emotional appeal used to sway the uninformed and the unintelligent, when the facts simply do not support your argument. Not gonna work here. These folks are too smart for it. 



WesS said:


> I said there are MORE humane methods. And more recent/developed/educated for pet dogs today.


Once more, Either something is humane or it is not humane. And NEVER has anyone of authority found the KMODT to be inhumane. 



WesS said:


> Again what I said earlier perfectly well explains that pressure is the mechanism of learning. This creates dogs scared to try new things and is not humane and does not incentivise creative learning. That essentially is as good a reason you will get.


Pressure is a part of EVERY method of dog training, whether the trainer will admit it or not. Hold up a treat to get a dog to sit and he feels pressure because he DOES NOT HAVE THE TREAT AND HE WANTS IT. Even Ellis, who you cite several times, admits this.


----------



## LouCastle

WesS said:


> Here is a review on Amazon for koehlers book. This reader seems to have read a different book:
> 
> "This book is 40 years out of date, and we now know it is unnecessary to hurt your dog and call it dog training.
> Some of the Koehler "corrections" include punishing digging by filling the hole with water and holding the dog's head under "until he thinks he's going to die", and repeating this daily for a week. He punishes chewing by duct-taping the chewed object into the dog's mouth for hours (very dangerous!). He recommends threading a dowel through a rubber hose and hitting the dog with it for up to 20 minutes (again "until he thinks he's going to die"), and hanging a dog off his feet until he cannot breathe and to the point of vomiting for mouthing the leash. Hitting, choking, drowning, and other technques using fear and force are unnecessary and cruel."


Uh WesS, citing a book review (someone's opinion) is NOT _"documentation."_ This fool is just as wrong as you are. Basing your opinion on someone else's opinion is foolish, at best. 



WesS said:


> Again... I should not have even entertained your request to get specific. * I know it's there. *


And yet you've failed to produce a single bit of evidence to support your statements! This speaks volumes about your comments. 



WesS said:


> It's the general philosophy and the fact that there have been advancements since it was written that gets to me.


You've got it backwards. Koehler's book came AFTER what you call _"advancements,"_ as I've already shown. 



WesS said:


> And people chose to ignore the simple fact that even if it was brilliant in its time it is unequivocally outdated today.


ROFL. Repeating nonsense, does not make it more believable. 



WesS said:


> Even professional trainers who support koehlers work unequivocally admit to not using his systems anymore.


It's a hard sell to most pet owners who are not interested in getting the best out of their dogs. Most owners are content with a dog that comes when he's called, sits on command, will to go a bed and does not tear up the home. For them, the method may be unnecessary. That DOES NOT make it _"outdated."_ It's just that it has a different purpose than most people want today. And with political correctness sweeping the country (and IMNTBHO, ruining many aspects of it) it's more profitable to sell the 'training method of the moment,' even though it's less effective. And with some folks, like you, spreading myths and outright lies, it's an even harder sell. 



WesS said:


> There is excuse of time management etc. * Well excuse me. If a professional dog trainer does not have the time to do it properly *


It's not that the _"professional dog trainer does not have the time ... "_ it's that few pet owners are willing to work for 12-13 weeks to get reliability in the face of distractions. They don't see the need for it UNTIL they have an incident. AGAIN, this forum has many threads that begin with something like, "HELP!!! Fluffy chased a deer into the forest and would not come back!" THEN they discover that their so−called "kinder gentler methods" did not give them the reliability they really needed. 



WesS said:


> what makes people think it's a good choice for an uneducated pet owner who chooses an old book to train his pet dogs from. * Do we not think they will make mistakes? *


And of course NO ONE EVER MAKES MISTAKES with the so−called "kinder gentler methods" right? 



WesS said:


> Koehler methods should only be used by professional dog trainers for specific purpose after assessing a specific type of dog.


NONSENSE. The KMODT is for anyone who wants high degrees or reliability on their dog. No assessment is necessary. 



WesS said:


> Also I don't see any of the fun things you mention doing with your dog included in koehlers book.


It's obvious that you've never read it with an open mind. So you really have no idea what it contains.


----------



## LouCastle

WesS said:


> Another Review:


ANOTHER opinion, and this one is hysterical! 



> "I started taking dog training seriously -- back in the dark ages of the 1960's - when people like William Koehler and Winifred Strickland were considered experts in the field. Using food to train dogs back then was almost unheard of.
> 
> The argument was "If you train with food, at some point you're going to have to stop and then what will you do?"
> 
> Well dog training is light years ahead of where it was back then and this question has been answer. Koehler and Strickland have become the model-T ford of the training industry. They got you around but it wasn't pretty."
> 
> Ed Frawley.


Here's a tidbit from Mr. Frawley's site,


> I have owned some nasty dogs in my life. I own a male right now that is as bad as anything I have ever seen - probably worse than anything most people will ever see in their life (I bought him when he was 5 years old). This dog will viscously * try and attack another dog through a fence * [commonly known as fence fighting where no person and no dog is actually in danger of injury]. when I let him out of the kennel. This is going to blow the minds of the Goody-two-shoes and the phooo phooo Halty and Clicker people that read my web site - but * I have stopped this dog’s fence fighting. It took three 30 second training sessions. I simply told him “NO” and hit him over the head with a kennel shovel. * The reason it took three sessions was because I did not know how thick this dog’s head was – * I really had to whack him hard on the third session to get his attention. * Now he knows that there are consequences to fence fighting.


Yep there's someone's advice to take and whose opinions are of value to this group! ROFLMFAO.


----------



## Sabis mom

WesS said:


> So you found a way for a dog to not be poisoned by some criminal? Koehler teaches how to not have your dogs poisoned?
> Yes and yes.
> Interesting...
> 
> Train a dog based on something you can't prevent anyways.
> 
> Why can it not be prevented?
> 
> Maybe you can share with us how exactly you would stop your dog from taking poison from a home intruder when your not there.
> 
> My dogs do not accept food from strangers, nor do they pick up food from the ground.
> Yes I use aversion, because this is a deadly serious issue. Three dead patrol dogs are an unforgettable lesson.
> 
> In any case... I don't get strangers to give treats. I also feed the dog in his bowl or out of hand or on a release yes command... Yes my dog can resist a nice juicy steak until he gets the command.
> 
> 
> And this prevents poisoning? How?
> And why is this a core issue anyways... Do people you know and allow your dogs contact with regularly carry poisoned treats? Or are you speaking about home intruders when you are not home? Do you think your dog will turn down a juicy steak laced with poison from an intruder when your not there?
> 
> My dogs will not pick up food from the ground or accept offered morsels, whether or not I am there.
> In fact I proved it. by having someone we knew offer Sabi a treat while I stepped outside. And it was Bud who found the strychnine laced meat at the edge of a trail, and left it, thank God, to come find me. None of my dogs touched the raw salmon tossed over my fence one night.


 Ask and you shall receive.


----------



## LouCastle

G-burg said:


> The training facility I work at has been in operation since the late 70's, and they started with the Koehler Method.. After a few years they moved away from it..


Lots of people have moved away from it. Today's ethos does not have people willing to follow and comply with strict instructions. Everyone is an expert and everyone wants to freelance, because they know more than the person who trained them. It's also a hard sell to the public because people like WesS spout myths, lies and misconceptions about it. 



G-burg said:


> When I've conversed with trainers in different venues from different states over the years, I don't hear any of them mention Koehler as their preferred choice of training.. Hence, the reason I asked how "popular" is it still..
> 
> I'm not knocking the method.. Just curious..


Did you see my comments from Tony Ancheta?


----------



## Castlemaid

I'm going to lock this as it the arguments are just going around in circles, and deteriorating into personal bickering and nastiness.


----------



## LouCastle

dogma13 said:


> I have read Koehler.The hitting,choking,and drowning are true.Remember the bull terrier in "The Incredible Journey"?He was the recipient of the drowning method.


You're wrong. These things are mentioned but NOT as has been described in this discussion. If you disagree, please provide support for your statements.


----------

