# Anyone else annoyed by Leerburg (Ed Frawley)?



## MTAussie

I like that he is spreading the word on clicker training under the alias of Leerburg 'Marker Training', but annoyed that he seems to be exploiting it a little too quickly after bad mouthing it for so long, in regards to his videos on 'Marker Training' that he is now marketing.
Anyone else care have an opinion on Frawley?


----------



## GunnerJones

I like Ed's products and website, if you're looking for warm fuzzies and cutesy dialog on his website you'll be disappointed. Ed was talking about marker training years ago and took no issue with it. What he takes exception to is faddish training and positive training only methods. I've found most the people who are most vocal about Ed are disturbed or they are envious of his commercial success of his website and videos.


----------



## bmass01

I think he has a lot of good useful information, just like a lot of people. You do not have to agree with everything. Just a matter of taking what applies to your situation. If he has found the "marker training" has its place, good for him! I think the term marker refers more to a word then an actual clicker (I could be off base though) I use the word "yes" instead of a clicker, never could get that to work just right.







I think the sign of a good trainer is the ability to change the way you do things.


----------



## MaggieRoseLee

Some of his info I really like and some I don't agree with. But regardless of my opinion, he has tons of followers.



> Quote: exploiting it a little too quickly after bad mouthing it for so long, in regards to his videos on 'Marker Training'


I also find it interesting if he's got a new video based on marker training. But think it's a good thing cause it shows that he can change his mind about training methods (even if it takes awhile







). And ANYONE that's a proponent of positive based training (whether you call it clicker training or use a clicker) is a good thing!!!!


----------



## caview

We bought the video and it's very good (there were some things I disagreed with, for instance, negative reinforcement -- with "no")

He states in the video that he was a huge opponent and that he was totally wrong and it was all due to ignorance on his part.

Gives credit to a lot of people there who converted him.

There is also a very touching segment there where he talks about the new/positive school and the old/compulsion school and where he apologies and expresses his regrets about hurting the dogs in the name of training!

Overall, I really liked how he presented the material and the key messages in the video!

Tanya


----------



## MaggieRoseLee

> Quote:He states in the video that he was a huge opponent and that he was totally wrong and it was all due to ignorance on his part.
> 
> Gives credit to a lot of people there who converted him.
> 
> There is also a very touching segment there where he talks about the new/positive school and the old/compulsion school and where he apologies and expresses his regrets about hurting the dogs in the name of training!


And I say GOOD FOR HIM! Think we shows we all can be a bit more open minded when it comes to new methods and styles of training.


----------



## MTAussie

> Originally Posted By: caviewWe bought the video and it's very good (there were some things I disagreed with, for instance, negative reinforcement -- with "no")
> 
> He states in the video that he was a huge opponent and that he was totally wrong and it was all due to ignorance on his part.
> 
> Gives credit to a lot of people there who converted him.
> 
> There is also a very touching segment there where he talks about the new/positive school and the old/compulsion school and where he apologies and expresses his regrets about hurting the dogs in the name of training!
> 
> Overall, I really liked how he presented the material and the key messages in the video!
> 
> Tanya


Tanya,

Thanks for your reply! I guess I should watch the video! It definitely is impressive that he talks about regretting using compulsion training.
I don't think that because someone disagrees with him they are jealous, etc. though. And it looks like he is on the fad train now with clicker training, which is a good thing!


----------



## MTAussie

> Originally Posted By: MaggieRoseLeeSome of his info I really like and some I don't agree with. But regardless of my opinion, he has tons of followers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote: exploiting it a little too quickly after bad mouthing it for so long, in regards to his videos on 'Marker Training'
> 
> 
> 
> I also find it interesting if he's got a new video based on marker training. But think it's a good thing cause it shows that he can change his mind about training methods (even if it takes awhile
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ). And ANYONE that's a proponent of positive based training (whether you call it clicker training or use a clicker) is a good thing!!!!
Click to expand...

Agreed! Hopefully his followers get into positive training! That is definitely a plus to his videos. I guess my annoyance just comes from people following some of his "old" stuff. Like not letting anyone pet your puppy, (which I know has been discussed enough times on this forum) but I went to see a dog today that was raised by a guy doing exactly this wanting his GSD he bought to be a Schutzhund, bought him from a breeder at 8 weeks, and by the time he was 4 months, rehomed him because he decided he didn't have enough time. So now the new family has had him 2 months and he barks at all strangers, and it is obviously fear driven. He barks and runs away, but did snip at my husband. I got him to take treats and let me pet him, but he was much better with his family, including their 4 year old son who he is very good with.
He hasn't been socialized like he needs to be because his new family seems to not have enough time/experience for him. They have good intentions, but he is outside alone with an underground electric fence, and only comes inside to sleep in the garage. 
So we went to see him today, looking for a new dog for our inlaws, and obviously he was not a good match. I wish I didn't have 3 already or I would have brought him home. I think he would do well in an experienced home with some training and a lot of positive socializing.
I guess that just prompted me to look at the Leerburg website since the original owner was a "Follower" of Frawleys. But I guess everyone is ultimately responsible for their own actions really. 
Sorry for the rant! Just bummed. If anyone is interested in a 6 month male supposed Czech line pup with some fear issues send me a pm!


----------



## IliamnasQuest

I'm not fond of Frawley, but maybe he's changed from his old "make the dog submit" methods. I hope so.

I haven't checked recently, but he had a page on his site about chows and how terrible they were - and how you should train them with a prong or shock collar because they were vicious animals. In one part he talked about "helicoptering" them around at the end of a leash. When someone is so blind about a particular breed, it just sets of many red flags about his abilities as a trainer. I don't have problems training chows. And I don't automatically classify a dog as vicious because of the breed.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska


----------



## IliamnasQuest

> Originally Posted By: MaxGunnarI like Ed's products and website, if you're looking for warm fuzzies and cutesy dialog on his website you'll be disappointed. Ed was talking about marker training years ago and took no issue with it. What he takes exception to is faddish training and positive training only methods. I've found most the people who are most vocal about Ed are disturbed or they are envious of his commercial success of his website and videos.


Oh, and I find this to be ridiculous. People object to methods that are harsh, and that has nothing to do with being disturbed or envious. I SHOULD be bothered by someone who promotes harsh training techniques! It disturbs me that others aren't. And he DID make fun of positive methods in his page on chows. He mocked the woman on the radio who promotes positive training. 

It's always been sad to me that he has such a following. While I'm sure he's got an occasional item on his website that is valid and helpful, overall he has been a blight on dog training (in my opinion). I truly do hope he's seen the light and taken a step out of the muck. It's about time. And I hope his followers see the light too, and realize that all that time that they spent thinking of him as "wonder-trainer" was wrong.

The ends do NOT always justify the means.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska


----------



## MTAussie

> Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted By: MaxGunnarI like Ed's products and website, if you're looking for warm fuzzies and cutesy dialog on his website you'll be disappointed. Ed was talking about marker training years ago and took no issue with it. What he takes exception to is faddish training and positive training only methods. I've found most the people who are most vocal about Ed are disturbed or they are envious of his commercial success of his website and videos.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and I find this to be ridiculous. People object to methods that are harsh, and that has nothing to do with being disturbed or envious. I SHOULD be bothered by someone who promotes harsh training techniques! It disturbs me that others aren't. And he DID make fun of positive methods in his page on chows. He mocked the woman on the radio who promotes positive training.
> 
> It's always been sad to me that he has such a following. While I'm sure he's got an occasional item on his website that is valid and helpful, overall he has been a blight on dog training (in my opinion). I truly do hope he's seen the light and taken a step out of the muck. It's about time. And I hope his followers see the light too, and realize that all that time that they spent thinking of him as "wonder-trainer" was wrong.
> 
> The ends do NOT always justify the means.
> 
> Melanie and the gang in Alaska
Click to expand...

Thanks for being honest! I didn't want to stir the pot! But this is kind of what caught my eye, not so much that he decided to really get into positive training, but a scrutinizing eye may see he is smart enough to know that it is another way for him to profit by regurgitating clicker training with a twist and immediately pumping out videos.
His free ebook on marker training isn't bad either. Although he has some conflicting info in it, like how he disagrees with "clicker purists" when it comes to training a dominant dog, but then says 
"It is also a perfect way to retrain adult dog (even dominant dogs) because the consequences of a behavior are not conflict with the handler. So when it is done correctly it is a safe way to retrain the foundation of obedience work on a dominant dog."

I would be really convinced if he started pumping out Schutzhund training videos with clicker/"marker" training. Think he will?


----------



## Sarah'sSita

I use marker training with schutzhund, you bet!
Ed Frawley is a business man. Period. Good or bad. He has not trained or titled a dog for some time. Repackaged and marketed dog training.
His prices are a bit high for me.


----------



## caview

> Quote: I didn't want to stir the pot! But this is kind of what caught my eye, not so much that he decided to really get into positive training, but a scrutinizing eye may see he is smart enough to know that it is another way for him to profit by regurgitating clicker training with a twist and immediately pumping out videos.


I am sorry, but I don't understand this bashing -- we all agree it's a good thing the man saw that "positive" is good.

Why bash and bash? 

How about using the same "positive" approach when it comes to people?

Tanya


----------



## ahlamarana

> Originally Posted By: caview
> 
> 
> 
> Quote: I didn't want to stir the pot! But this is kind of what caught my eye, not so much that he decided to really get into positive training, but a scrutinizing eye may see he is smart enough to know that it is another way for him to profit by regurgitating clicker training with a twist and immediately pumping out videos.
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry, but I don't understand this bashing -- we all agree it's a good thing the man saw that "positive" is good.
> 
> Why bash and bash?
> 
> How about using the same "positive" approach when it comes to people?
> 
> Tanya
Click to expand...

Good post, Tanya









I am an "Ed Frawley follower", lol. I even got a dog from him. In fact, I can't imagine where I would be with my first dog if it hadn't been for his advice. Everything I have read or watched of his in the last couple of years states that he is not all about the "yank and crank" methods anymore. He even touched on marker training in his "Basic Dog Obedience" dvd, and that came out like 3 years ago, so it's not exactly a "new" idea for him. 

I believe that it is important to study all the methods of training out there, whether you agree with them or not, to see what works best for your particular dog in a given situation. I don't follow Ed Frawley's methods to the letter, I pick and choose what works for me and my two very different dogs and use that. I use bits and pieces from several other trainers. I have also read Koehler, although I choose not to use that method. It is with this varied knowledge that I can distinguish good training from bad, and if I am not comfortable with something, or don't feel it is right for my dog at that point in time, I just don't use it.

I think it takes a big person to stand up and very publicly admit they have been wrong in the past.


----------



## AbbyK9

> Quote:I believe that it is important to study all the methods of training out there, whether you agree with them or not, to see what works best for your particular dog in a given situation. I don't follow Ed Frawley's methods to the letter, I pick and choose what works for me and my two very different dogs and use that. I use bits and pieces from several other trainers. I have also read Koehler, although I choose not to use that method. It is with this varied knowledge that I can distinguish good training from bad, and if I am not comfortable with something, or don't feel it is right for my dog at that point in time, I just don't use it.


Excellent post!

I also want to add that I seem to remember there being an article on "marker training" on the Leerburg website about 4 or 5 years ago when I first found the website and read some of the articles. The big difference is that the marker talked about on the site (at the time - not sure if it has changed) was a voice marker, rather than a clicker.


----------



## MaggieRoseLee

> Quote:The big difference is that the marker talked about on the site (at the time - not sure if it has changed) was a voice marker, rather than a clicker.


I think he's still saying that the voice is can be used the same... but then has to continue with the explanation about how exact and specific and consistant and............you then need to always be so that it WILL be the same. 

So I think that's a bit funny (and I do mean funny ha ha). Because though he's 100% behind the marker training ideas and philosophy. He's backing off a bit with the use of a COMPLETELY neutral marker like the clicker (I wouldn't care if he used a whistle or clapped or .... rather than the voice). He's telling us to be neutral if we use our voices but I think that's not taking into consideration enough that we ARE HUMAN. We do get frustrated and aren't always consistant, and that does come thru in our voices and tone and will affect the training.

It won't ruin the training. But just makes it a little less clear. I'd also say that because many of us talk too much in general in training, specially with a new behavior (even if it's with praise) that it muddy's the training waters. What I like about all the initial clicker training is we are supposed to shut the heck up (very hard for me BTW) and let the dogs figure it out and earn the 'click/reward'. 

************ People on his site also used to use the 'click' and marker to mean to continue with the behavior with NO reward. As in say your dog was in perfect heel positioning going across the field, they used to say you could click click click during the walk and only reward when you finished at the end of exercise. Kind of a 'keep going' type of thing. Which was NOT my understanding of marker training. Wonder if that has changed or is one of his uses.


----------



## Liesje

I've found that if I listen to or look into ANY trainer for long enough I start finding things that annoy me.

Whether or not I agree with all of Ed's ideas, I think he's a very experienced handler and trainer and appreciate that he offers so much information for free.


----------



## ahlamarana

> Originally Posted By: MaggieRoseLee
> ************ People on his site also used to use the 'click' and marker to mean to continue with the behavior with NO reward. As in say your dog was in perfect heel positioning going across the field, they used to say you could click click click during the walk and only reward when you finished at the end of exercise. Kind of a 'keep going' type of thing. Which was NOT my understanding of marker training. Wonder if that has changed or is one of his uses.


This is the way I marker train: I use a terminal bridge to mark a specific behavior (yes) which always gets a treat, an intermediate bridge that says to keep doing that behavior (gooood), and a negative marker (oops). Although I do do some free shaping at the very beginning of a behavior, this is a bit different. It may seem that it is not as clear to the dog as an impersonal click, but if I may give an example? I am starting to teach Dutch to stay, so I ask him for a stand and started to walk around him(saying "gooood"). He moved to follow me, so I said "oops", asked for a front sit, then a stand again. The second time I tried to walk around him (saying "gooood") he didn't move at all. This was 5 days ago, and while I don't ask him to stay for more than a couple of minutes at a time, several times a day, he hasn't broken it since that first time. 

I think the use of an intermediate bridge and a negative marker along with the terminal bridge (clicker) clarifies things for the dog while still allowing them to think for themselves and learn to problem solve to earn their reward.


----------



## MTAussie

> Originally Posted By: caview
> 
> 
> 
> Quote: I didn't want to stir the pot! But this is kind of what caught my eye, not so much that he decided to really get into positive training, but a scrutinizing eye may see he is smart enough to know that it is another way for him to profit by regurgitating clicker training with a twist and immediately pumping out videos.
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry, but I don't understand this bashing -- we all agree it's a good thing the man saw that "positive" is good.
> 
> Why bash and bash?
> 
> How about using the same "positive" approach when it comes to people?
> 
> Tanya
Click to expand...

Why bash? I am not bashing, I am questioning! Because people need to be smart consumers, especially when it comes to training their pet. And to be honest, he has said some very concerning things about dogs and training in the past, and he should absolutely expect to be questioned in result.
I am a big fan of Karen Pryor, yes, but I am not a clicker purist and I am familiar with most training theories/methods, negative/positive. I have just recently left a military/police dog training kennel following his "old" stuff and I think I can say I am quite familiar with some of his "followers" (not anyone on this forum).
If you like Frawley that is great, please say so and why! If not, great, please say so and why!
If you don't like the fact that I am questioning him (and looking for constructive responses), please give me a reason beyond his latest marketing to not do so! 
If you can't do any of these things, feel free to "bash" me back as others chose to.


----------



## LedZep

I like Ed Frawley. After reading and watching many dog trainers (and going to classes with a trainer) over the past year, I have more respect for Ed than for any of the others so far. Why? Honesty. His honest and straight-forward approach comes through when I watch his videos. Even my wife said "I like this guy" the first time we sat and watched one of his videos.

Yes, he is a businessman and if there is one annoying quality to me, it is that he hocks his wares non-stop during his training videos (which, BTW I paid good money for and don't like the infomercials within)... but that is a minor annoyance and one I can overlook.

It is my responsibility as an adult human being and responsible dog owner to make some decisions with regard to which methods I adopt/attempt and which I do not. I realize that free will and the acceptance of responsibility is very un-American these days, but I do it anyway. 

I have recently stuck my toe in the waters of clicker training, having tried many other methods (and doing a fairly good job at botching most of them). I bought the Karen Pryor book. I have read her website. I have also read Ed's thoughts on it, as well as the afrorementioned apology. I agree with a previous poster that it takes a big man to bluntly say "I was wrong, and I'm sorry". In the year or so that I have been reading this forum, I find many of its more active members to be much less open minded. 

To answer the OP question - no, I do not find it annoying for a dog trainer of many years and much success to have a change of heart regarding a specific methodology and incoroporate it into his repertoire. I find that to be a sign of a trainer/instructor who adapts. If he is also attempting to "sell" that training and market products around it, I have no issues. Karen Pryor did not give me her book -I had to buy it.


----------



## MaggieRoseLee

> Quote: This is the way I marker train: I use a terminal bridge to mark a specific behavior (yes) which always gets a treat, an intermediate bridge that says to keep doing that behavior (gooood), and a negative marker (oops). Although I do do some free shaping at the very beginning of a behavior, this is a bit different. It may seem that it is not as clear to the dog as an impersonal click, but if I may give an example? I am starting to teach Dutch to stay, so I ask him for a stand and started to walk around him(saying "gooood"). He moved to follow me, so I said "oops", asked for a front sit, then a stand again. The second time I tried to walk around him (saying "gooood") he didn't move at all. This was 5 days ago, and while I don't ask him to stay for more than a couple of minutes at a time, several times a day, he hasn't broken it since that first time.
> 
> I think the use of an intermediate bridge and a negative marker along with the terminal bridge (clicker) clarifies things for the dog while still allowing them to think for themselves and learn to problem solve to earn their reward.


I don't see you using 'good' as a marker at all, so if you didn't reward that's fine. It would just be reassuring and giving info back to the dog (though, once again with me, I tend to talk way too much when training so it's harder for my dog to weed out the *garbage* from the real *information* when I talk). 

Also, whenever I initially train a new behavior (like a stand) I want my dog to think they are BRILLIANT and how can they keep being BRILLIANT and always doing right! So instead of using a 'good' and a 'oops' and a 'yes' all in the same initial training session(s).....

I'd have only used the clicker and treat and stood really close to my dog. That way I'd put them in a stand and click/treat alot, as long as they didn't move and stood in position.

I'd only make it harder (distance from me, or motion from me and later both from me) when they seemed to get it and not be moving with me close. Then release and play and have them do it again.

Since when I train anything initially my goal is to set the dog up for success, there shouldn't be any need for reassurance with a 'good' or an 'oops' if they do it wrong. My goal is the won't do it wrong (unless I mess up) and they won't need any assurance from me (cause they will KNOW they are doing it right if I am click/treating properly).

Way later on, when I KNOW they know the stand. And probably I'm not using the clicker at all anymore cause they KNOW what the 'stand' command means do I add the oops and the goods.......not for the initial training sessions.


----------



## LedZep

they lost me at "terminal bridge".


----------



## caview

> Originally Posted By: MaggieRoseLee [quote
> ************ People on his site also used to use the 'click' and marker to mean to continue with the behavior with NO reward. As in say your dog was in perfect heel positioning going across the field, they used to say you could click click click during the walk and only reward when you finished at the end of exercise. Kind of a 'keep going' type of thing. Which was NOT my understanding of marker training. Wonder if that has changed or is one of his uses.


MaggieRoseLee, he is very clear about clicking only once at the end of the behaviour (adjusted for shaping). The word for the interim (i.e., keep it up) he uses is "good".

A couple more things I liked on the video was when he was correcting the video after it was taken, for instance saying "we did bad timing there" or "we missed behavior" -- that was very good to see with the "editorial" comment.

He also did there what Karen wrote in her book about -- two people playing the role of a person and a dog -- very fun and educational!

Tanya


----------



## MaggieRoseLee

> Quote:A couple more things I liked on the video was when he was correcting the video after it was taken, for instance saying "we did bad timing there" or "we missed behavior" -- that was very good to see with the "editorial" comment.
> 
> He also did there what Karen wrote in her book about -- two people playing the role of a person and a dog -- very fun and educational!
> 
> Tanya










Think it sounds like he did a great job!


----------



## SeriousConfusion

> Originally Posted By: LedZepthey lost me at "terminal bridge".



Me too


----------



## doggiedad

> Originally Posted By: LedZepthey lost me at "terminal bridge".


i was lost there also. some of this dog theory is out there. a good breeder, good training a good dog. i've never worried about nerves, drive, tempermant, etc. the dog i have now is from a working show line, imported. generations of Schutzhund trained dogs in his pedigree (males and females). i picked my dog on color. i wanted a blk&red GSD. my GF and i discussed getting a Shiloh Shepherd, long hair Shepherd or some type of over-sized Shepherd. upon a 
miscommunication we decided to buy a show dog. i would have bought a coatie but i thought my GF didn't want one.

so, i look around and find a breeder. i bought my puppy before he was born, sight unseen. i saw the parents on line and some of their previous pups. after a two or three month wait, bam, i have a blk&red pup. our breeder kept us informed with 2 or 3 phone calls a week, pictures, and x-rays. everything turned out fine. our breeder still calls us, 18 months later.

i don't know all of this stuff about GSD'S. i found a good breeder, we socialized and socialized, puppy classes and a trainer. we used a trainer in the early months then i continued to train my dog. he's super freindly with other animals and people. we go to restraurants together, hike, walk in the city, dog parks and he's very good. he's has manners and social skills. when it comes to all of these theories, methods, who's-who's, top dog, top trainer i don't know it.

my theory is a good breeder, a good trainer makes a good dog. what line their from well, i think whatever line their from we can shape them to be the dog we want. i think Shepherds are that adaptable.


----------



## Timber1

Ed Frawley, well one thing about Ed is when he decides to criticize someone, the mods would delete his comments. However, his comments tend to be direct and I approeciate that.

Aside from E Mail and his site, I have never dealt with Ed directly. However, my son, who has a gentle but competitive yellow lab, has. He contacted Ed after becoming very disgusted with the so called dog store training classes. 

Ed was helpful, and in the case of the lab, "Jumpin George", Ed never recommended any harsh training method.

As for his site, I try and separate the good from the bad, as it relates to my dog.


----------



## The Stig

I respect Ed Frawley, and have used his training methods on my dog with success. Where advice, help and knowledge have failed on forums, books, and trainers, Leerburg's methods have helped my GSD and I immensely. Apart from his products, he is very prompt with his correspondence with humility and dry humour, which I appreciate in a person.

As with EVERY training method - be it Frawley, Milan, Stillwell, etc - one must use common sense and an innate understanding of one's dog to use what will work and ignore what will not. No *one* specific method by a renowned or popular trainer is foolproof, because every dog is different, with individual personalities, genetics, environmental stimuli, etc.

Custom-fitting a training method will best benefit a dog, IMHO. While Frawley's teachings formed a strong backbone to my training, I did not cut and paste directly from his videos onto my individual sessions with Janka. Unfortunately, there are plenty enough idiots out there who cannot exist outside a box. And there are those who misinterpret the methods and philosophies, which is even worse! 

I think him changing his 'old methods' by putting out the marker training video is a good testiment to him as a trainer because it shows that he is always learning and modifying his methods to see what works for the average dog owner. A *poor* trainer is one who is stagnant and insists that a particular method will work and ignore other possibilities, be it training in compulsion or purely positive training.


----------



## Packen

I know for a fact that,

1: Ed Frawley knows more than I do about dog training, as a matter of fact, all of us put together. 
2: No one's perfect.

Based on 1 and 2 I have no issues with him but go to his site every now and then to get a pointer!


----------



## khawk

I work with assistance dogs and tracking dogs and I don't have a doubt in the world that Frawley would despise my soft, kind, gentle dogs and their quiet, calm demeanor, but I personally have learned from his site and am grateful to him for going to all the effort and spending all the time to make this information so readily available to us. I recommend his site to people with hard, dominant, or just hard-headed dogs all the time, and they come back to me and tell me how much he has helped them. I find him a valuable resource.


----------



## MikeB06

I think the bottom line is Ed is a very good business man and he had to change his methods with the current positive changes of dog training. His old methods worked on many dog but today owners want kinder methods that also work. He is all about selling videos/DVD's and if you need to change your tune then that is what will make him money. Frankly I don't think he or his methods are worth all the above conversation. 

I do agree with if you can't say something nice then don't say anything at all.


----------



## sunnygirl272

> Originally Posted By: The Stig.....As with EVERY training method - be it Frawley, Milan, Stillwell, etc - one must use common sense and an innate understanding of one's dog to use what will work and ignore what will not. No *one* specific method by a renowned or popular trainer is foolproof, because every dog is different, with individual personalities, genetics, environmental stimuli, etc.
> 
> Custom-fitting a training method will best benefit a dog, IMHO.


*ding ding ding*
TOTALLY agree!
Have never interacted personally with Ed Frawley, but have taken much from his site, and adapted it to dogs I have fostered and/or owned.


----------



## MaggieRoseLee

> Quote:I think him changing his 'old methods' by putting out the marker training video is a good testiment to him as a trainer because it shows that he is always learning and modifying his methods to see what works for the average dog owner. A poor trainer is one who is stagnant and insists that a particular method will work and ignore other possibilities, be it training in compulsion or purely positive training.


and that's what impressed me most about him and ALL good trainers. Always willing to learn and try new methods and ways.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang

Hey - EVER single trainer I've ever worked with, seen on TV, read a book by or whatever has taught me something.

I learned from some of them what *NOT* to do to/with my dogs (by watching what they DID to theirs).


----------



## LedZep

> Originally Posted By: MikeB06I think the bottom line is Ed is a very good business man and he had to change his methods with the current positive changes of dog training. His old methods worked on many dog but today owners want kinder methods that also work. He is all about selling videos/DVD's and if you need to change your tune then that is what will make him money. Frankly I don't think he or his methods are worth all the above conversation.
> 
> I do agree with if you can't say something nice then don't say anything at all.


Wow, and I thought I was cynical! If he changes his methods, produces new material on behavioral training, apologizes for past methods and statements... it is all just to make a buck? 

I find Mr. Frawley to be a "what you see is what you get" guy. Doesn't mean I agree with everything he says or does, but I always know what he is teaching and WHY. 

I find it amusing that he is so polarizing.... but even funnier how worked up his detractors get about it.


----------



## GunnerJones

If I was fully retired( I work for the Post Office) I would love to get all his working dog vids and take a few litters from start to finish and compair it to other working dog programs. The fact remains he is the only person I know of that has put his experience of training working and sport dogs on DVD, you can contact him directly and he periodicaly revises and is willing to retool/rethink training if he sees and actual improvement.


----------



## MelissaHoyer

I think he offers a lot to the dog training world and like anything, you take what works for you and your dog. A lot of his methods are not really based on "pet" dogs and I'd say his experience lays with much sharper dogs than most of us are used to. His training forum is excellent and there are many, many knowledgeable people on it. His new marker training DVD is very good...just working my way through it now. One thing for certain is that he says what he thinks and I personally admire that in a person, even if I don't always agree.


----------



## ozzymama

> Originally Posted By: MaggieRoseLee
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:I think him changing his 'old methods' by putting out the marker training video is a good testiment to him as a trainer because it shows that he is always learning and modifying his methods to see what works for the average dog owner. A poor trainer is one who is stagnant and insists that a particular method will work and ignore other possibilities, be it training in compulsion or purely positive training.
> 
> 
> 
> and that's what impressed me most about him and ALL good trainers. Always willing to learn and try new methods and ways.
Click to expand...


I agree, I also like his views on holistic and natural vetting. Most of us who prefer that route 10 years ago were total freaks







Some of us still are, but that is an evolution in animal husbandry which has really been changing and people who at one time might have opposed it are changing their minds after trying it or knowing someone who has relied on it.

I don't agree with all his training methods, but I probably haven't ever seen as many dogs as he has trained. It's like any other "tool" in our training tool boxes you pull it out when you think you need it. One method does not work for all dogs, nor does one trainer. I read his information and watch his videos because I will take something away from it and it will be there in the back of my mind if and when I encounter a similar problem.


----------



## benkllr

I happen to be an Ed follower myself, I have several of his videos and all of his e-articles. Like others have already mentioned, I take bits and peices of his training to follow. Is he the best for advice for GSD's? I wouldnt know, nor would I have the experience nessecary to say one way or the other. I do know, that using some of the information in the videos is better than no information at all.

Before I had a GSD, my views on training a dog, was similar to 95% of the population of dog owners...and that is the WRONG way to raise a dog. Imagine for a second if you didnt have any leerburg, or no germanshepherds.com or anything but the knowledge you "THINK" you know about raising a dog...how do you think your GSD would turn out? So can Ed be better? Definitely. Am I better off after reading/watching his DVD's? Absolutely, cause at the bare minimum it will stop bad habits that are ingrained in everyone's head about what we 'think' we know about raising a dog.

I echo the comments made by someone earlier, I'm not a big fan of his self promotion in the videos...I mean I've already paid for the DVD, I didnt pay to hear about what toy I should buy (from you) to play with, or pawn off some advertiser's crate...


----------



## Timber1

Actually, my son has a very gentle competitive lab. My son was very upset because our local trainer used the E Collar, and the dog was very gentle and eager to learn. My son contacted Ed, and he agreed that there was no reason to use any harsh methods to train the dog.

Bottom line, at least in our case, is Ed did not despise the kinder, more gentle yellow lab my son has. He was very helpful.


----------



## DianaM

I like some of his stuff, I dislike some of his stuff. One needs to be very well rounded in dog training/behavior theory and methodology to sift through his site in order to understand what can be kept and used, what should be discarded, and what should never be touched in the first place.


----------



## Timber1

Precisely, and the same is true for every other trainer.


----------



## harlanr3

Well here is my 2cents.I respect Ed as a dog trainer and a business man.
I think his methods are more geared toward certain types of dogs and trainers.do I think that most pet owners should train this way probably not.I used to train labs and one of the things that made me quit was E collars.all of the sudden every one and there brother when out a got one and strapped it on there dog and started frying there dogs expecting to have a great dog.what a mess.now in the hands of the right person(and dog) they produced some great dogs.that said I have seen that Right person wash out good dogs because they did not fit in there E collar program and did not want to put in the work or time to do it the hard way.I think the best trainers are the ones with the most tools and know how to use them


----------



## jmopaso

I don't care much for the insinuations he makes concerning veterinarian's and their motives. I don't much care for his stand concerning vaccinations. Nowhere is there any scientific research supporting his stance.


----------



## LedZep

> Originally Posted By: jmogsdI don't care much for the insinuations he makes concerning veterinarian's and their motives. I don't much care for his stand concerning vaccinations. Nowhere is there any scientific research supporting his stance.


Oh, I disagree! Vaccinosis is a medical fact. I don't agree with no vaccinations at all, but I question my vet about each one and why it is necessary, then decide. 

As far as veterinarian's motives.... you sound very naive. What do you suppose pays the bills at the vet's office and allows them to make a nice living? How many animals are injured and require treatment, vs. the number of "routine", revenue generating visits? This is no different than your dentist wanting to take new X Rays at every visit... unnecessary, and simply to pad the bill. 

Don't misunderstand - I take my dog to the vet regularly and have him vaccinated. But I make the decisions about my dog's healthcare. Like every profession, there are vets that are worthy of sainthood, and vets that should be run out of the business. 

Look up the statistics on how much Americans spend on their pets... you don't think some people go to veternary school with a prime motive being "make a damned good living"?


----------



## Chris Wild

> Originally Posted By: jmogsdI don't care much for the insinuations he makes concerning veterinarian's and their motives. I don't much care for his stand concerning vaccinations. Nowhere is there any scientific research supporting his stance.


You might want to actually do some research on that opinion before you determine that there "is no scientific research" supporting minimal vaccinations. Because there is a TON of it. The AVMA has even published revised (significantly reduced) vaccination protocols in their own journal.


----------

