# Discuss: Clicker/Marker Training vs Invoking drives



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

"When Clicker Training came along I jumped on it, thinking that it was going to improve my work even more. I joined half a dozen lists, read a dozen books and attended some classes put on by the early leaders in that field. I quickly learned the limitations of that sort of work and how dependent much of it was on the quality of the handler. One of the biggest strengths of the system that I use now is that it matters little, if at all, how good is the handler. He's removed to a great extent from the basic work. The System involves selecting the right dog, invoking the drives you want/need and then getting out of the way."

Lou Castle

*Discuss*


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

When is the quality of the handler nor critical? And marking training is a method of teaching behaviors. Invoking drives is managing the state of mind and underlying motivation of the dog. Not only are they not mutually exclusive but quite complementary. All training is invoking drives anyway


----------



## Steve Strom (Oct 26, 2013)

Nevermind. Hunter said it better.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

hunterisgreat said:


> When is the quality of the handler nor critical? And marking training is a method of teaching behaviors. Invoking drives is managing the state of mind and underlying motivation of the dog. Not only are they not mutually exclusive but quite complementary. All training is invoking drives anyway


I agree with what you are saying. I have been led to believe through listening to videos by Michael Ellis, Ed Frawley and Forrest Micke that Marker training forms an integral part of modern training systems. In fact they base most of their Reward Based System on this.

The idea I got is that Toy drives and work is more advanced work, and you need to work through food drives first.

In either case although I have had dogs all my life, I am only now getting more interested in formal and scientific training methods. 
So I dont have much of my own opinion. 

Instead I created this post because I found that statement very interesting, and want to learn more. I feel this statement should be discussed.

I hope LouCastle ( a very accomplished canine police trainer and user on this forum) can shed more light. I made this and another thread with expressed permission from LouCastle to discuss these statements, that he made in another forum.


----------



## Moriah (May 20, 2014)

I really appreciate the topic. Personally, I am hoping to learn from posters (including Lou!) more about drives in relation to training.


----------



## MaggieRoseLee (Aug 17, 2001)

It's ALWAYS about the handler and what we are willing to learn and then pass onto our dogs. Many systems work, most to the best are very similar


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

hunterisgreat said:


> When is the quality of the handler nor critical?


Here I'm using the term _"handler"_ as it's used in LE (law enforcement) to mean 'one who handles the dog.' That person is separate from the "trainer," the person charged with most of the training with the dog, but does not work him on the street. While handlers do some training, it's mostly maintenance and then, mostly OB or repeating movements that have been taught by the trainer. There's little problem solving, and virtually no original work. With some handlers, there may be some overlap into the duties of trainer, but they generally lack the skill or the knowledge that a trainer of these dogs must have. In this system the quality of the handler is _"not critical."_ In fact, for example in the detection work, the handler can purposefully try to pull the dog away from a find or get him to false alert. But the alerts are so obvious that, as the saying goes, "a blind man can see them." 

In the system that I use, devised by Donn Yarnall** and named after him, the DYDTS (Donn Yarnall Drive Training System), the dog's drives are used with little input from the handler. Many, if not most, systems use a handler supplied reward supplied using the theories of OC (Operant Conditioning). Such a system is inherently flawed for my purposes, and I use it very little for training either LE or SAR (Search And Rescue) dogs. I’m not talking about teaching a dog to do what I call "tricks" (no diminishment intended) which many people use for OB, or for various forms of competition. There, substituting behaviors for drives can achieve great success. 



hunterisgreat said:


> And marking training is a method of teaching behaviors.


Yes it is. I find that there is little use, beyond teaching OB (and even there I use it little) when training these dogs for these vocations. 



hunterisgreat said:


> Invoking drives is managing the state of mind and underlying motivation of the dog. Not only are they not mutually exclusive but quite complementary. * All training is invoking drives anyway *


MOST training uses drives, but only at a superficial level. And they are allowed to be satisfied only occasionally. 

_ **For those not familiar with Donn Yarnall – He founded and headed the LAPD K−9 Narcotics Detection Unit that still works at the LA Airport. He went on to found the LAPD K−9 Patrol unit and was its head trainer for the next 20, or so, years, until his retirement. He started to develop this system while still on the LAPD, and perfected it over the next couple of years. He had no secrets for sale. He shared what he knew with anyone who asked and was interested. _


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Lykoz said:


> I agree with what you are saying. I have been led to believe through listening to videos by Michael Ellis, Ed Frawley and Forrest Micke that Marker training forms an integral part of modern training systems. In fact they base most of their Reward Based System on this.


None of these trainers are deeply involved in either LE or SAR K−9's. I don't know of Forrest Micke's work, so I can't comment. Ellis is VERY good at what he does. I have no regard for the last trainer whose name I'll omit. He's a salesman who makes videos. He's not a trainer of note. And his video on Ecollar training is one of the worst that's available. The last time I looked, his website contains some of the worst old school, heavy handed, ABUSIVE training that's out there. He 'brags' of having stopped a dog from fence fighting (where no one is at risk of injury) by smashing him on the head WITH A SHOVEL three times. 



Lykoz said:


> The idea I got is that Toy drives and work is more advanced work, and you need to work through food drives first.


The thrust of the statement that started this thread is that a system that relies on the handler to supply reinforcement in the form of various rewards is flawed. It depends to a great degree on how good that handler is generally, and how good he is at the very moment of training. If he's got the flu, his training will be poor on those days. If his timing is off there will be massive problems. Timing is actually more important with a clicker than with other tools. 



Lykoz said:


> In either case although I have had dogs all my life, I am only now getting more interested in formal and scientific training methods.
> So I dont have much of my own opinion.


If you're planning on doing work that uses the dog's drives to the maximum effect, I suggest that you take a look at  DONN'S WEBSITE.. Don't be put off by the title, it's intended for LE trainers and handler who want to know how to use the dog's drives directly. There are two sections. One is restricted to LEO only and you need a password. It contains some confidential information that civilians don't need. But anyone can get access to the rest of the site just by clicking on the link. Even if you don't intend to do this sort of work, it's the best source of information on drives that I've ever seen. IF YOU DO GO TO THIS SITE, I suggest that you read it like a book, from front to back. I don't suggest skipping around, looking for 'pearls of wisdom' to pick out because if you don't get the fundamentals, you won't understand what comes after. 



Lykoz said:


> I hope LouCastle ( a very accomplished canine police trainer and user on this forum) can shed more light.


Thanks for the kind words. I appreciate them.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

MaggieRoseLee said:


> It's ALWAYS about the handler and what we are willing to learn and then pass onto our dogs. Many systems work, most to the best are very similar


I agree that _"many systems work."_ It's up to the handler/owner of the dog to pick the one that works best for him, his dog and the avocation/vocation that he chooses. The DYDTS system is significantly different from systems that are based on OC. There are absolutely no rewards in it. And so, how well the handler can do what I call "the whoop and holler" (using a high degree of exuberance to help reinforce the dog's behavior that you want repeated) isn't necessary. I remember being told, at the start of my dog training career that that "how happy" I was, "how much I could put that happiness into my voice and body language" determined, to a great degree, how well my dog learned. Typically LEOs, who are used to managing their emotions and expressions of same, have a difficult time with this. The DYDTS does not require this sort of input from the handler. 

I was also trained that the system I was trained in (OC based) relied to a very great extent to timing and how good I was at delivering reinforcement and punishment at precisely the correct moment in time greatly affected the work. The DYDTS does not require this to nearly the same extent. 

It relies on selecting the correct dog for the vocation/avocation desired. That means picking the dog based on his level and balance of drives, not on how 'pretty he may be. It also means selecting fairly mature dogs, 18 months is about the general minimum, otherwise you can't measure their drives reliably. 

I've been in several heated discussion with folks who were too invested in the training systems that they'd been using, from both from a practical and a theoretical viewpoint, to want to learn a new system. I hope to avoid that here. If you don't think that this training system is appropriate for you, your dog, or what you're training for, that's fine with me. I'm not selling anything and so I'm happy to have you go on your way. 

In the venues where it's been put to the test, on several LE agencies, it far surpassed what came before, both on the protection side and the detection side.


----------



## gsdsar (May 21, 2002)

Interesting topic. 

I think I fall in the middle. 

In SAR work, the use of and completion of a natural instinct/drive, is the most powerful reward system. If you are working a dog with which that drive and nerve strength is strong enough to be able to cap and use it correctly. 

For dogs that maybe have less ability or desire to use natural drive, then basic OP conditioning is a great way to establish and reward behaviors that the trainer wants to see. 

Example: my USAR Labrador shops. By this I mean, she gets on the rubble, finds the victims, then picks which one she wants to alert on. NOT OKAY. But her drive is insane for the hunt and reward. So the most effective "correction" for her, we let her search, when she found a victim and went to leave, she was given a verbal correction and leashed. Then another dog was brought out and allowed to search and find and be rewarded. Then my girl was removed entirely from the pile. She was not allowed to complete her natural instincts. The next time she was brought out. No shopping. 

I think using a dogs natural drive is a very strong way to enforce behaviors. But again, only when the dog is able and driven to use those drives in an appropriate fashion.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Thanks for all the information. Appreciated.

From what I understand due to the fact that you are heavily involved in Police Dog training... That your system is superior because, you are the trainer.. And other officers are handlers with less experience. Makes perfect sense.

As someone who lives on a small island, and haven't found formal guidance of high standard, I am essentially on my own. 

I am not trying to train a police dog... Also as it is at the moment I am the only 'trainer' (Not really, but I am doing the best I can) involved with my dogs... 

Would you say the methods/philosophy you describe to be in any way applicable to a household dog? Or are we discussing strictly police dogs?

From what I understand Police dogs are a different breed of dog... They are a lot more aggressive... At the end of the day... Police dog work is serious bussiness... You cant have the dog not bite in the face of active duty..

How applicable is this in terms of Pet dogs.. Obedience... Even in working towards BH certification, or even IPO...

From what I understand a competent police dog is a very different animal... Even IPO level 3 dogs may completely shut-down in the pressure associated with real police work.

I want a good family dog... I chose to work with them as a hobby, and for their enjoyment... Also maybe one day in future, I see this as possibly get involved in Dog Sports... i.e. IPO.. My journey is just starting.

Basically what I am asking... Is your training advice applicable beyond police dog work? I really don't want to work towards training a police dog... What police require the dog to do, and what I want my dog to do, is very different.

Also can you combine training methods? Or do you need to stick to one system?

Thanks


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Lykoz said:


> From what I understand due to the fact that you are heavily involved in Police Dog training... That your system is superior because, you are the trainer.. And other officers are handlers with less experience. Makes perfect sense.


Because many handlers in my world will not be the perfect handler (heck, some of them don't care about training their dog at all, they just want to do enough to get by) a system that removes them as much as possible from the equation is more efficient. But it's not just that situation where it has advantages. MANY people, other than LEOs are not good at expressing their happiness that their dog has complete some behavior that they're teaching, and so their work suffers. And the converse is true as well. MOST handlers in my experience, both LEOs and civilians, are much better at expressing anger as punishment, to their dogs than at expressing joy. 



Lykoz said:


> I am not trying to train a police dog... Also as it is at the moment I am the only 'trainer' (Not really, but I am doing the best I can) involved with my dogs...
> 
> Would you say the methods/philosophy you describe to be in any way applicable to a household dog? Or are we discussing strictly police dogs?


Except for the level and balance of drives and the job done by the dogs, much of this stuff applies to most kinds of training. The results are sometimes not as good for competition where sometimes appearance trumps reality and a really good trainer can make up for gaps in the dog's natural ability. 



Lykoz said:


> From what I understand Police dogs are a different breed of dog... They are a lot more aggressive... At the end of the day... Police dog work is serious bussiness... You cant have the dog not bite in the face of active duty..


It's not just about _"aggression."_ It has to do with having the dog be the most efficient hunter that he can be. That means he's as close to his ancestors as possible. They weren't distracted by commands from a handler. They weren't called upon to do OB in the middle of a hunt and therefore they could devote all of their attention to the hunt. 



Lykoz said:


> How applicable is this in terms of Pet dogs.. Obedience... Even in working towards BH certification, or even IPO...


In competition OB, it does not have much application. Ditto for the biting sports. But the parts of the system that deal with establishing and maintaining leadership are completely pertinent. It's intended more for _real working dogs, _and I use that term to exclude most types of sport dogs. 



Lykoz said:


> From what I understand a competent police dog is a very different animal... Even IPO level 3 dogs may completely shut-down in the pressure associated with real police work.


It's about the level and balance of drives. When they are right, they bring a very confident dog that can handle the pressure associated with LE work. 



Lykoz said:


> Basically what I am asking... Is your training advice applicable beyond police dog work? I really don't want to work towards training a police dog... What police require the dog to do, and what I want my dog to do, is very different.


But I think that most people would want the kind of relationship where the dog regards the owner as a fair and just leader. There's more to establishing that than just doing training, no matter what methods are used. 



Lykoz said:


> Also can you combine training methods? Or do you need to stick to one system?


Some things will cross over.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Thanks for the in depth information lou.

I have to be inclined to feel that marker training is in fact a form of invoking the dogs natural drives... The topic at hand is not mutually exclusive. Using one method is not against the other... 

If done correctly you need develop the food drive... Not all dogs are naturally inclined to go after food... 

High value rewards can increase the food drive (Or percieved increase in drive... Drive cant really be altered, we are just finding ways to promote the inherent drives).... Building Engagement with the dog is also important. 

This can be achieved for example by making the dog run after the food...

The beauty of marker training is you can mark the moment the dog does something desirable... His reward is not simply just the food... Its the chase of the food... So I mark the behaviour I want.. And then its play time... (Having both a duration and terminal marker)

Also chasing toys/bitting for example can also be used with marker training...

Sure there are many ways to engage the dog, various ways of training. 

You earlier expressed your displeasure with Ed Frawley as a trainer. I personally have huge respect for him. He is the only dog trainer who creates very systematic and complete information for distance learning, utilising lectures and information from a diverse and respected selection of dog trainers. Perfectly ordered, and categorised for easy absorption. Targeted to home pet owners, who want to get involved with their dogs. From basic courses to more advanced. He starts right from the beginning.

Sure there may be many dog trainers a **** of a lot better than him... He admits to this... What he praises himself on is his teaching skills, and ability to organise information well, and teach other people through interactive distance learning. In this regard he is quite frankly unmatched so far. His material is affordable, well organised, easy to understand and utilises various high quality dog trainers to aid in this.

Ultimately Ed Frawley was also sceptical, and not pro-marker training. It was in Fact Michael Ellis that sold him on that idea. Somebody you talk about a lot more favourably.

I think the very significant advantage of utilising Marker Training is the ability to teach a dog behaviours positively... Without the Use of corrections...
Corrections I believe are to change unwanted behaviours.. Non-compliance to a an absorbed generalised known command... At some point just about every dog needs to be corrected... The point is that it is unfair to correct the dog before he understands what you want.. It creates a bad relationship to the owner. Sure there are faster ways for professional trainers to achieve results in dogs designed for a specific task.. But these guys are training dogs for people who often are not interested in learning or doing anything themselves.

I think it is all relevant. 

Its important to find a balance somewhere... 

I think handler error's are part of the learning process for any handler.
I can understand how a police officer may not have the time to make mistakes with his patrol dog, and needs him to consistently do the task
But I believe if you really want to train your dog/future dogs its a learning process as with everything. Timings and correct handler interventions take time to learn.. Can never be completely perfect... However its not rocket science either... And if we are willing to work with the dogs there's no reason we cant be consistent enough to make it work.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Lykoz said:


> I have to be inclined to feel that marker training is in fact a form of invoking the dogs natural drives... The topic at hand is not mutually exclusive. Using one method is not against the other...
> 
> If done correctly you need develop the food drive... Not all dogs are naturally inclined to go after food...


I've been told that any dog that is not _"naturally inclined to go after food"_ can be taught this by not feeding him for a few days. I've had clicker people tell me that they've not fed their dogs for up to four days to do this. I think this is bordering on abuse. 

In any case, this is not really drive based training. It's merely using the dog's desire to eat to get him to work. Thinking that because you're using a dog's desire to eat, that you're doing drive based training is really torturing the language. 



Lykoz said:


> High value rewards can increase the food drive (Or percieved increase in drive... Drive cant really be altered, we are just finding ways to promote the inherent drives).... * Building Engagement with the dog is also important.
> 
> This can be achieved for example by making the dog run after the food... *


I don't think that having a dog chase food, _"builds engagement"_ with the handler. In fact, it has him doing all the work by himself and that happens when he move AWAY from the handler. 



Lykoz said:


> The beauty of marker training is you can mark the moment the dog does something desirable... His reward is not simply just the food... Its the chase of the food... So I mark the behaviour I want.. And then its play time... (Having both a duration and terminal marker)


I understand _"the beauty of marker training"_ and it works beautifully in the lab. But in the real world it takes a very good trainer to get the reliability that one gets with balanced training, training that uses both reinforcement and punishment as they are needed. But both of these are parts of Operant Conditioning and I use a minimum of that in much of my work. 



Lykoz said:


> You earlier expressed your displeasure with Ed Frawley as a trainer. I personally have huge respect for him. He is the only dog trainer who creates very systematic and complete information for distance learning, utilising lectures and information from a diverse and respected selection of dog trainers.


I don't want to get into a discussion of Mr. Frawley. I'll just say that his credentials are greatly exaggerated. Last I heard he had not titled a dog that he trained. He's purchased titled dogs and then repeated that title. There's a difference between making and cataloging videos and being a dog trainer. 



Lykoz said:


> I think the very significant advantage of utilising Marker Training is the ability to teach a dog behaviours positively... Without the Use of corrections...


Never understood the desire to train without corrections. They are the ONLY way to tell a dog, "I don't want you to do that again." No amount of clicker training can get that point across. Teaching an incompatible behavior, for example teaching a dog that like to jump up, to sit, instead, does not stop the jumping up. It just substitutes the sit for it until the dog decides to jump up. 



Lykoz said:


> Corrections I believe are to change unwanted behaviours.. Non-compliance to a an absorbed generalised known command... At some point just about every dog needs to be corrected... The point is that it is unfair to correct the dog before he understands what you want.. * It creates a bad relationship to the owner. *


Nonsense. This is a lie spread by people who call themselves "all positive." They are not. They use punishment and corrections, they just won't admit it. They've even created new terms to avoid the use of the words "correction" and "punishment." Corrections, properly applied, DO NOT _"create a bad relationship [with] the owner."_ 



Lykoz said:


> Sure there are faster ways for professional trainers to achieve results in dogs designed for a specific task.. But these guys are training dogs for people who often are not interested in learning or doing anything themselves.


I'm not sure what you mean by this. Mostly professional trainers who are training dogs for _"a specific task"_ are working with dogs that are driven to perform those tasks. Here I'm referring to such things as trainers working with retrievers on a board−and−train basis, or me, training a police K−9. 



Lykoz said:


> I think handler error's are part of the learning process for any handler.


Of course they are. No one born knowing how to train a dog. 



Lykoz said:


> I can understand how a police officer may not have the time to make mistakes with his patrol dog, and needs him to consistently do the task


A new police K−9 handler makes just as many mistakes, if not more, than someone who is just getting started in training a dog for OB.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I have not thoroughly read this thread so my apologies if I'm not really understanding the questions....I believe that working with marker training can only make you a BETTER handler. It may not be the best system for every dog or every behavior every time, but IMO marker training is a great exercise when it comes to training dogs for several reasons: 

1) Timing is everything when it comes to training dogs and marker training has been the number one method for helping me with my timing (using -R methods would be a close second, but I often pair this with a mark, release, reward...see #3).

2) It helps me think critically about how to break down a behavior chain or more complex behavior into baby steps and "backchain" that behavior. This makes me a better trainer overall.

3) Marker training can easily be paired with plenty of other tools and methods. I am not a "purely positive" trainer; I use prong collars (and give stern corrections with them), I use -R and +P quadrants of operant conditioning, but almost all of my training tools and methods are paired with some level of marker training. I can't think of a time I have never given my dogs clear cues for when they are "right" and paired that with praise and rewards. 

4) It requires you to establish a system of communication that your dog understands *before* you even start putting commands on cue. I train markers early on, so before my dogs are leaning commands, they know the words and cues for when they are correct, when they are being "released" from performing a behavior. We have a way of communicating that isn't just shouting commands or giving corrections. If my dog does something good that I like, I can mark that behavior without even having a command for it.

5) This method is generally safer for a wider scope of dogs as far as breed, goals, and temperament. People who train high level competition dogs marker train. People who train working dogs marker train. People who are just training their first ever pet dog how to sit marker train. As with any method of training and attempting to communicate with an animal, of course you can mess up or frustrate the animal, but I think marker training is better to start with because it's a lot less gimmick-y (all you need is your voice and some form of reward/affirmation, no special collars, sticks, leashes, boxes....), it is based on science of animal behavior, does not involve any physical conflict, and typically presents less mental conflict/pressure as well (that is a generalization, some dogs get overloaded or shut down when they aren't comfortable problem solving even for praise and food).

I am somewhat new to dog training myself though I have trained and titled 4 different dogs now over 35 titles in a dozen different sports/venues and have no intention of stopping. Marker training with a clicker is how I started and I actually took a dog obedience class without a dog and marker trained a cat before I owned a dog. I will always use marker training to some extent with my dogs and use it across venues - Schutzhund, obedience, agility, flyball....you name it.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Liesje said:


> I have not thoroughly read this thread so my apologies if I'm not really understanding the questions.... * I believe that working with marker training can only make you a BETTER handler. *


If you're using a drive based training system, _"working with marker training"_ will only serve to confuse you and make it hard to make the transition to such work. 



Liesje said:


> 1) Timing is everything when it comes to training dogs and marker training has been the number one method for helping me with my timing (using -R methods would be a close second, but I often pair this with a mark, release, reward...see #3).


With a DTS (Drive Training System) timing is not very critical. That's one of its advantages. Not everyone has the excellent timing that's necessary with marker training. If they don't, it's easy to confuse the dog and you can even train the wrong behavior. Timing is actually more important with a clicker than with conventional training methods. Punishment works if it's applied within three seconds of the undesired behavior. 

If you're three seconds behind your dog with a clicker you'll be marking the wrong behavior. He'll be on to some new behavior and THAT'S what you'll be marking. It's not *just *that it's ineffective, you'll be teaching the dog the *wrong thing. * The reason that a clicker is used, rather than just saying "good dog," is that it marks the *precise *moment in time that the dog is "right." If that moment is three seconds too late, not only will he not learn what is desired but he will learn the wrong thing. 

If you want to improve your timing with marker training, work with chickens. Their movement are much faster than those of dogs and they switch from one behavior to the next, faster and without any warning. 



Liesje said:


> 2) It helps me think critically about how to break down a behavior chain or more complex behavior into baby steps and "backchain" that behavior. This makes me a better trainer overall.


Neither _"baby steps"_ nor _"back chaining"_ are used in a DTS. Those are OC (Operant Conditioning) concepts and they have no place in such a system. 



Liesje said:


> 4) It requires you to establish a system of communication that your dog understands *before* you even start putting commands on cue. I train markers early on, so before my dogs are leaning commands, they know the words and cues for when they are correct, when they are being "released" from performing a behavior. We have a way of communicating that isn't just shouting commands or giving corrections. * If my dog does something good that I like, I can mark that behavior without even having a command for it. *


Here's a HUGE difference between what you're doing and a DTS. The handler does not have to recognize _"something good that [you] like"_ and he doesn't have to _"mark that behavior."_ Recognizing that the dog is _"doing something good"_ takes quite a bit of experience and then your timing must be excellent, both things virtually nonexistent in a new dog owner or handler. With a DTS, the training is set up so that the dog can fulfill his drive. That's going to be its own reward, requiring nothing from the handler/owner. 



Liesje said:


> 5) This method is generally safer for a wider scope of dogs as far as breed, goals, and temperament.


_"Safer"_ than what? 



Liesje said:


> People who train high level competition dogs marker train. People who train working dogs marker train. People who are just training their first ever pet dog how to sit marker train.


Sorry but this is too absolute. It would be accurate to say that "some people ..." or even "most people ... " But not everyone who _"train high level competition dogs [does] marker train[ing]."_ Ditto for the rest of the statements like this. And just because others do something does not mean that it's the best system. Before marker training came along and before you used it, you thought that whatever you were doing them was the best system. Now DTS have entered the picture and for many vocations and avocations, people who delve into them, find that they give better results than marker training. 



Liesje said:


> As with any method of training and attempting to communicate with an animal, of course you can mess up or frustrate the animal, but I think marker training is better to start with because it's a lot less gimmick-y (all you need is your voice and some form of reward/affirmation, no special collars, sticks, leashes, boxes....),


It takes quite a bit of time to develop the timing for the average pet owner (whatever that means). It takes quite a bit of study of the science behind it, for people to understand what's going on, how to do it, and why to do it. There are dozens of new terms to learn, some of them used in highly UNfamiliar and counter−intuitive ways. Often, people who are deeply involved in something forget how hard it was, when they got started. Through training lots of newbies, people can see how difficult it is for them. Just continuing along the path conceals this fact. 



Liesje said:


> it is based on science of animal behavior


Virtually ALL conventional training is based on the _"science of animal behavior."_



Liesje said:


> does not involve any physical conflict


I have no idea why this is an advantage. Dogs THRIVE on physical contact with their owners/trainers. Denying them this, is a DISadvantage. People do it because that's how it's done in a laboratory, where they don't want to influence the work. Sometimes in the lab they deny the dog even the visual presence of the handler. This is fine for the lab where they are studying how something affects the animal, but it's a DISadvantage when training a pet or a working dog. 



Liesje said:


> and typically presents less mental conflict/pressure as well (that is a generalization, some dogs get overloaded or shut down when they aren't comfortable problem solving even for praise and food).


LOL. Here is ANOTHER disadvantage of this sort of work, frustration and shut down. Dogs being trained with a DTS are doing what comes instinctively to them. They don't shut down or get frustrated. 



Liesje said:


> I am somewhat new to dog training myself though I have trained and titled 4 different dogs now over 35 titles in a dozen different sports/venues and have no intention of stopping. Marker training with a clicker is how I started and I actually took a dog obedience class without a dog and marker trained a cat before I owned a dog. I will always use marker training to some extent with my dogs and use it across venues - Schutzhund, obedience, agility, flyball....you name it.


You are one of those folks who probably are very good at this kind of work. But a beginner will have little of your success, not without years of work at it. I think it's more work than the average pet owner will want to put into it. Getting early results in the absence of distractions is very easy with these methods. But this early and easy success is very deceptive to anyone who wants reliable behavior in public. Getting such reliability, in the face of high level distractions, takes a LOT of work, more than most beginners realize.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

IMO beginners often aren't instantly successful at much of anything, it takes work, as it should. No one should just expect to get instant results training their dog with no effort, not to mention without establishing a relationship with that dog along the way and that relationship having a large impact on the direction and success of the training. I am not familiar with "DTS" so I'd have to read up on that. I think there are a thousand ways to get to the same spot. Some dogs just fit other methods better, I am the first to admit this. I sold a dog to a good friend who trains very differently than I do and I felt this dog was a better match for him. He has taken the dog to two national level trials and done very well and I'm thrilled for them, not sitting here claiming they should have trained my way. I always start my puppies with marker training and always will. As they grow and our training progresses, we add various methods and tools. There are very few tools or methods I wouldn't use, just depends on the dog, the goals, and our relationship (ex. I train puppies for other people using different methods than I would use training my own puppies). There are also very few methods that I think must be mutually exclusive of other methods. I have yet to meet a trainer that really only uses *one* method of training from puppyhood to an advanced title.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Liesje said:


> IMO beginners often aren't instantly successful at much of anything, it takes work, as it should.


The more work that it takes, the less the average pet owner is going to want to do it and the less they're going to be able to do. 



Liesje said:


> No one should just expect to get instant results training their dog with no effort,


The more work that training is, the fewer people are going to do it. It's a fact that very few people are going to put titles on their dogs. Most people just want a well behaved pet, that doesn't tear up the house, is housebroken, comes when called, sits when told, and does a few tricks. They want to be able to take him for walks, sometimes off leash, and not have him get into fights with other dogs, or run off chasing some critter that happened to appear. I think it's a waste of time and energy for those people to have to learn marker training to get this very basic result. 

But this discussion is not about the issues with clicker/marker training and whether or not it's a good option for beginners or those with more experience. It's about how it compares or contrasts with a DTS. We don't need to rehash this old argument.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Forrest Micke Handling his personal 3 dogs: One of my favourite Videos on youtube. Being heavily influenced by work of Michael Ellis who bases his entire philosophy around Marker Training.
Engagement/Marker Training... 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ibXR7w9F1M&list=FLUo3S9MHWclfgfppfZXs1qw

I would much rather work towards this than towards a police dog...

People need to understand that its not the same thing.

Based on what Lou said I have come to the conclusion that there is a very different mindset in Police officers/Owners who want a ready trained dog... And between people who are trying to learn about training their dog and become better handlers/hobbyists. A Police dog needs to be reliable even if the handler makes mistakes.... 

His training can not suffer because of handler error. What Lou is saying is that Marker training will have variable results based on handler proficiency. This is unacceptable in high stakes police work...

One group wants a quick fix... They want somebody else to do the work... They are not interested in training a dog, or wasting significant time in developing their own handler skills... They are interested in somebody training the dog for them...

Now sure as a professional trainer you will always have a market for this...
But what good is the quick fix for somebody who is trying to develop his handler skills...? What am i going to do... Train other people's dogs? ( I would only do this to enhance my own handling skills... It wouldn't be my livelihood) I just want to train my own dogs... And each time I get a new puppy every 10 years or so... Ill be much better than where I started with previous dogs... Its a hobby and skill that I believe I will eventually get VERY proficient at.

People who want quick fixes, are not here engaging in forums... They have a problem and seek solutions...

I dont have a problem so to speak. I am trying to further my training skills as a hobbyist... In fact I'm a firm believer that training your dog yourself always trumps taking it to somebody else to do the work for you in the long run... Sure you might get much worse result's on your first dog... But if you stick with it... Your second dog will have much better outcomes.

At the end of the day Humans are a lot easier to train than dogs, as long as the humans are committed and willing to learn... Teach the human the right way and he will get a hang of it.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

It is also of critical importance to note that Drives in the true sense of the word are genetically imprinted in the dog...
Police Dogs go through thorough breeding and selection... They only chose the right breed, and the right type of drives... The rest of the dogs dont even make it into the program! I mean a wolf will have a different intensity of drives, to a dog.. And one dog in the same litter will have a different intensity to a litter mate... Now different litters.. different breeding programs, make for very different dogs.
As a pet owner we have a dog... And we accept him for who he is... We cant always rely on just the std. inherent drives to the degree police dogs do... We cant be picky with the dogs... And then kick them out the program because their drives are not right or not handling the training...
The fact is there is very little practical associations between strictly police dog training and pet dogs... I am a firm believer in gaining knowledge from all spheres... But am equally a firm believer that we can not assume that high level training in one specific constrained situation is applicable to all dogs and situations.

Also I question a police trained dog to be a family dog... Police dogs are unquestionably more high risk than normal, untrained family pet GSD...
Marker training builds a bond with the dog/human... 

The following is speculation: I have 0 experience on police dog's other than a few interest readings.
I have heard some police dogs now undergo a period of bonding with the handlers before they commence training... This was due to the large number of officers being bitten whilst working their dogs.. (Maybe I am wrong... Don't have an official source other than Ed Frawley, that Lou will probably immediately discredit... Im pretty sure if Lou could confirm how often police handlers are bit by their own dogs, in his experience ....)


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Sorry I thought this was a thread for discussion, not a PM between you and the OP 

The majority of people I train with are "pet people" and all use marker training in some form or to some extent. It's the most common form of training I have seen at a pet level and is the main form of training used when I was taking beginner and intermediate pet obedience classes or CGC stuff. I've never heard of a pet trainer refer to DTS. I have no stake in that argument since I'm sure it's a perfectly legit and successful training system so a comparison isn't going to convince me one way or the other, but based on earlier comments by the OP I got the impression that s/he was asking about the merits of marker training for people that don't have a lot of training or competition experience. *In my humblest of experiences*, it works, and it works very well for pets and novice owners. It can be challenging, but it is fun. 

Marker training says nothing about drives. I guess that is assumed. Bottom line is, I agree with Hunter:



> When is the quality of the handler nor critical? And marking training is a method of teaching behaviors. Invoking drives is managing the state of mind and underlying motivation of the dog. Not only are they not mutually exclusive but quite complementary. All training is invoking drives anyway.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Lykoz said:


> Forrest Micke Handling his personal 3 dogs: One of my favourite Videos on youtube. Being heavily influenced by work of Michael Ellis who bases his entire philosophy around Marker Training.
> Engagement/Marker Training...
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ibXR7w9F1M&list=FLUo3S9MHWclfgfppfZXs1qw
> ...


I don't think that anyone thinks that what's shown on that video, it's very nice work BTW, is anything like working or training a police K−9. Training a dog to do tricks like this, in a controlled environment, has virtually no relationship to training a dog to hunt criminals in the real world. In the first, marker training excels. In the second, it has little place. The difference lies in training * behaviors, * the various OB movements. The second has almost nothing to do with those movements, they're incidental. The real training involves * channeling the dog's natural drives to hunt * into searching for hiding human beings. There is nothing in the sport world that comes close. 



Lykoz said:


> Based on what Lou said I have come to the conclusion that there is a very different mindset in Police officers/Owners who want a ready trained dog...


It's not that they _"want a ready trained dog"_ it's that every dog must perform at the highest level. The fact is that folks who use marker training in this kind of work just don't realize that they're training individual behaviors. They're trying to train a LE K−9 the same way that a sport dog is trained, and while some of the movement LOOK THE SAME, they are not related at all. When you try to do this, you get a confused dog. And confusion leads to unreliability. 



Lykoz said:


> And between people who are trying to learn about training their dog and become better handlers/hobbyists. A Police dog needs to be reliable even if the handler makes mistakes....


The state of LE K−9 training in this country is nowhere near what it could be. Time and time again we see dogs biting their handlers and dogs biting the wrong person, including other officers. Few people are using a DTS because they are too invested in their own methods and/or they're afraid that someone will turn out to be smarter than they are. 



Lykoz said:


> His training can not suffer because of handler error. * What Lou is saying is that Marker training will have variable results based on handler proficiency. * This is unacceptable in high stakes police work...


Kinda sorta. The skill of LE handlers varies widely. There are those, who want to excel. They want their dogs to be the most effective that they can be. These officers spend their own time in training. They seek out others if issues come up that their trainers cannot fix. Then there is the other extreme, who want to be handlers because they get quite a few benefits by being a K−9 handler. They get a company car to take home. They don't have to handle radio calls or take reports. They really don't give a darn about how good their dog is, as long as they get these benefits. Most handlers fall somewhere in between these extremes. They want their dogs to be good but aren't going to put in any extra time to getting there. And so a system that removes the handler and his shortcomings and inexperience from the system as much as possible, AND at the same time, gives results, is the best kind of system that exists. 

Much of my work these days is with SAR dogs handled by civilians. Most of the dogs in the US are trained with OC methods, many of them with marker training. But the few handlers who are using a DTS are getting much better results, without any of the problems that exists with OC, especially false alerting, being distracted by elements within the environment or getting tired or bored and stopping working, while still appearing to be working.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Liesje said:


> Sorry I thought this was a thread for discussion, not a PM between you and the OP


Sorry if you feel that way... I think Lou is answering us both... There is not much activity here other than the three of us...

Its not that I am intentionally ignoring you... I just agree with everything you are saying... Essentially I think we are saying very similar things... If there was a like button I would use it!

I am trying to engage Lou simply because he has a different philosophy... So it has some sort of exchange... Although I ask Lou's perspective often... My posts are also very generalised for all. Also you haven't referred to me on much of anything.. There is no contradiction of opinion. Nothing to really write about... 

For the record I personally appreciate your posts and think they add a lot of value. And am very happy you are in this thread, and I read all your exchanges with lou... They personally have added very good reading material for me!

There is a significant educational benefit for me... There is so much disagreement amongst professional dog trainers, that we have a very important role to hear each side of the story.

I like your posts very much. And at the moment its the way of thinking im inclined towards also.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Liesje said:


> Sorry I thought this was a thread for discussion, not a PM between you and the OP


Also I feel a thread is more appropriate than PM's... The replies posted here will serve as an archive/discussion that all members can benefit from. This includes everybody not wasting their time constantly PMing each other, discussing the same topics over and over privately when they can have an already discussed topic with information readily available and greater informational impact. For a professional dog trainer like Lou it could also serve as an important 'archive' so that he doesn't need to engage/answer the same questions over and over to individual people. Sort of an online portfolio adressing certain issues.

Hopefully more people will join us add their input, enriching the topic.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

My intention was never to question Lou's DTS method and I stated right of the bat I have no idea what it is, so I guess along those lines I'm "off topic" since I didn't come here to pit one against the other, just speak to my own experiences seeing "clicker/marker training..." in the title. From what I've looked at on the website given and what it sounds like, it's not necessarily an either/or thing, so putting one method "vs" another doesn't always work. That is true for most, if not all training methods, or training "systems", though I find that "systems" are often ways that a person or school is re-marketing a method that many people already used or have been using, just call it something different (for example Bart Bellon's "NePoPo"....tons of people do that without calling it that or attributing it to him). It is very helpful to have a person or group of people that are very successful with a method or system and can demonstrate and teach its success which I have no doubt is true of Lou and his method. I can only speak for maker training, that is where MY experience has been, especially when it comes to beginner or novice level trainers training pets (not intentionally training higher level sport dogs or working candidates).

I've had the same experience in agility, where it is very popular for people to follow a certain handling system. Some people will defend their favorite system as if their life depended on it (usually people who make money training that system), but most people take bits and pieces from all over and form their own system that works for their handling styles and whatever dog they are training at the time. My agility trained dog only has one low level agility title but had training cherry picked from four different systems/popular agility people. I couldn't even say right now which one is my "favorite", though there is one or two that stand out in theory.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Liesje said:


> Sorry I thought this was a thread for discussion, not a PM between you and the OP


Is this aimed at my last comment about not wanting to rehash this old argument? If so, there are plenty of threads where that can take place. Here, it's out of place. 



Liesje said:


> The majority of people I train with are "pet people" and all use marker training in some form or to some extent. It's the most common form of training I have seen at a pet level and is the main form of training used when I was taking beginner and intermediate pet obedience classes or CGC stuff. * I've never heard of a pet trainer refer to DTS. *


*

A DTS is rarely done with pets. Those animals are being taught, for the most part, individual behaviors. At times they're put together in a pattern, but they're not a complex of instinctive based, real world hunt for dangerous felons or the finding of lost children, hikers, and Alzheimer's patients, where the dog is doing most of the work himself, not at the bidding of his handler. There, it has many shortcomings that cause problems with the work. 



Liesje said:



Marker training says nothing about drives.

Click to expand...

I know, and even the most accomplished of marker trainers, the Brelands, admit that this is a weakness and that they plan to take drives more into account. 

You may notice that there are lots of threads here that start with something like, "HELP – Fido chase a deer into the woods and would not come back when I called." That's an example of a problem with a training system that does not take drives into account, as you say is the case with marker training.*


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Liesje said:


> From what I've looked at on the website given and what it sounds like, it's not necessarily an either/or thing,


It pretty much is. There is no room in a DTS for OC. In fact, it harms the work. The marker tells the dog when he is right. In a DTS the dog is never wrong, because training is set up so that he can fulfill his drives. Those are never wrong. A handler who enthusiastically praises his dog may introduce rank into the picture and that may shut off the desired drive. 



Liesje said:


> so putting one method "vs" another doesn't always work.


It does here. This is not the type of training where once can come away from the website with a "few tips" to improve the work that's been done in the past. You either buy into the system or you don't. There are a few tips on testing, establishing and maintaining a relationship that don't relate directly to the training, more to the relationship that's necessary, a leader – follower with each member contributing his strengths to an end. 



Liesje said:


> I find that "systems" are often ways that a person or school is re-marketing a method that many people already used or have been using, just call it something different (for example Bart Bellon's "NePoPo"....tons of people do that without calling it that or attributing it to him).


There's nothing for sale on the website, (again, here it is. Home) the information is there for anyone who wants to take the time to read it. There is also no one else who is doing the same sort of thing to the same degree.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Lou Castle it seems to me that you are achieving good results with drives...

However I cant help but think your reluctance to use any form of marker/training is based on your own personal inability to get results from it.

There are VERY established and respectable trainers getting superb results with its use. They are invoking drives simultaneously.

The only people who completely shut out new ideas are thinking based on an incorrect, flawed and unscientific thinking. Which I have proved on a previous thread.

I will not argue on police dogs. I will chose to respect your knowledge in that area.

However for everything else I believe your insistence of one or the other approach has been PROVEN to be wrong and outdated.

I think you could learn a lot from Ed. Frawley and his forward thinking. He utilises different opinions and associates with some of the best minds in the industry. 

His opinions have changed many times of the years.

To consistently and completely ignore all positive reinforcement is borderline abuse of dogs.
If you are training almost purely with yank and crank techniques I think you are a dying breed.
And you will never change your mind.

Your Philosophy is flawed from the moment you chose to study Wild dogs to pick up behaviours in dogs.

I wanted to hear what you had to say.
And quite frankly I am not impressed.

I have seen you attack other trainers.
They seem to be achieving much better results.

So I am standing up and saying that you are the type of trainer most people should avoid. Together with the exclusive all positive trainers. You are on the other end of the spectrum. Extremist views are always a danger to everyone.


----------



## gsdsar (May 21, 2002)

Lykoz, I think you are misunderstanding Lous approach. It is not yank and crank. It setting up scenarios that successfully allow a dog to utilize his drive for the reward. Which is the completion of the drive. It is not compulsion based. It's actually a positive way of training using the dogs natural drives. 

Lou if I am wrong, correct me. But you are not compulsing a dog to do things. You are channeling his drives to a correct end. Not that corrections may not be used. But it's not yank and crank.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

gsdsar said:


> Lykoz, I think you are misunderstanding Lous approach. It is not yank and crank. It setting up scenarios that successfully allow a dog to utilize his drive for the reward. Which is the completion of the drive. It is not compulsion based. It's actually a positive way of training using the dogs natural drives.
> 
> Lou if I am wrong, correct me. But you are not compulsing a dog to do things. You are channeling his drives to a correct end. Not that corrections may not be used. But it's not yank and crank.


He is letting dogs do their thing... Follow their drives... i.e. setting them up for success... Fine...

He is nurturing the drives he wants...

But drives don't always give wanted behaviour...
He is correcting what he does not want with shock collars etc...
Without ever attempting to show the dog what it is he actually wants...

You cant train anything completely with drives without either some sort of correction or reward...
If he could, he wouldnt need the shock collar either!

You cant change drives... They are inherent... He is promoting certain drives through opperant conditioning (Allow the dog to engage in these drives often- smart concept yes) and limiting others with corrections. However he is giving corrections without first showing the dog what we actually want. 

This is compulsion training


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

In order to fully follow this conversation it would be helpful to know exactly what a DTS is. Yes, I know, there's a link to another website with pages and pages of information to read through, but how about a general description here, so folks don't have to spend a half hour (or whatever, I have no idea how long it would take to read it all) reading about it in exhaustive detail. If you're going to bring an unfamiliar term into a discussion, you really need to tell people what it is. Also, since it's been pointed out that this is a LE training technique that may or may not be useful for training pet or sport dogs, how applicable is it on this board anyway? Most of us here are not LE K9 handlers. 

I agree with hunterisgreat, and the points that Lies made. When she said this: *People who train high level competition dogs marker train. People who train working dogs marker train. People who are just training their first ever pet dog how to sit marker train.*, it was not intended as an absolute, she never said "everyone". It's perfectly clear to me what she meant - that marker training is applicable across a broad spectrum, from pet, to sport, to high level competition training, NOT that ALL of those people use marker training. To say that her statement was inaccurate because she didn't use the words "some" or "most" is just picking at nits for the sake of argument.

I don't think the basic concepts of OC and marker training are all that complicated, and accurate timing shouldn't take years to develop. That doesn't mean it's always easy, but it is fairly simple.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Cassidy's Mom said:


> In order to fully follow this conversation it would be helpful to know exactly what a DTS is. Yes, I know, there's a link to another website with pages and pages of information to read through, but how about a general description here, so folks don't have to spend a half hour (or whatever, I have no idea how long it would take to read it all) reading about it in exhaustive detail. If you're going to bring an unfamiliar term into a discussion, you really need to tell people what it is. Also, since it's been pointed out that this is a LE training technique that may or may not be useful for training pet or sport dogs, how applicable is it on this board anyway? Most of us here are not LE K9 handlers.
> 
> I agree with hunterisgreat, and the points that Lies made. When she said this: *People who train high level competition dogs marker train. People who train working dogs marker train. People who are just training their first ever pet dog how to sit marker train.*, it was not intended as an absolute, she never said "everyone". It's perfectly clear to me what she meant - that marker training is applicable across a broad spectrum, from pet, to sport, to high level competition training, NOT that ALL of those people use marker training. To say that her statement was inaccurate because she didn't use the words "some" or "most" is just picking at nits for the sake of argument.
> 
> I don't think the basic concepts of OC and marker training are all that complicated, and accurate timing shouldn't take years to develop. That doesn't mean it's always easy, but it is fairly simple.


I personally read the whole website.
Most of it has very little relevance to most pet training.

It describes the various drives... For various police work...

It basically explains how they modify unwanted behaviours in the section: Rank Drive...
They say that punishment or corrections are part of the inherent drives of the dogs under "rank drive" (A section in the website). So its ok to use them.
Lou hypothesises that this is not the case with Marker/Training.. Which i personally disagree with.

The website is basically one big disguise of using compulsion training... 
Again my opinion is meaningless with regards to police work...
But this is NOT the way for 99% of pet dogs to be trained.

They hypothesise that it is part of the drive system along with everything else so it is ok.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Lykoz said:


> Lou Castle it seems to me that you are achieving good results with drives...
> 
> However I cant help but think your reluctance to use any form of marker/training is based on your own personal inability to get results from it.


I wonder how you would know about my ability, or inability, as you say, to get results from marker training? We haven't discussed my use of it. And so I'll have to say that you're guessing. In fact, you're quite wrong. 



Lykoz said:


> There are VERY established and respectable trainers getting superb results with its use. They are invoking drives simultaneously.


They are using the drives only peripherally. If they were using the drives directly, as I am, they wouldn't need to use the marker training. Its purpose is to tell the dog the precise moment that he's done the right thing. A dog that's working in drive is doing the right thing as long as it's been channeled properly. Input from the handler is a distraction to the drive. 



Lykoz said:


> The only people who completely shut out new ideas are thinking based on an incorrect, flawed and unscientific thinking. Which I have proved on a previous thread.


You _"proved"_ nothing of the sort _"on a previous thread."_ The Brelands were working on a system based on correct and very scientific thinking. They discovered the flaw in their work was ignoring drives. I've told you of my history with marker training, so I've not _"completely shut out * new ideas."*_ BUT IN FACT, clicker training is * the older theory * when compared to modern theories of drive training. Clicker training has been around for decades, the Brelands classic, _ The Misbehavior of Organisms"_ was written in 1961, over FIFTY years ago. Skinner's work was started in the late 1940's, OVER 60 YEARS AGO. This form of drive training is quite new, the final versions only coming out in the mid 2000's. 



Lykoz said:


> However for everything else I believe your insistence of one or the other approach has been PROVEN to be wrong and outdated.


First, you've proven nothing of the kind. Your mention of a couple of other trainers who use marker training and who you think use drive training, is off base. As I've said a couple of times now, they are using drives, but they are not using a drive training system. 



Lykoz said:


> I think you could learn a lot from Ed. Frawley and his forward thinking. He utilises different opinions and associates with some of the best minds in the industry.


As I said, I don't want to get into a discussion about Mr. Frawley. If you like to discuss him privately PM me. I will just say that many have drunk his Kool Aide and you seem to be one of them. 



Lykoz said:


> His opinions have changed many times of the years.


Yes I know. He changes theories like most people change their sox. The difference is that anytime something new to him comes along, he decries it. He argues against it. He tells everyone why it's no good. He tells everyone why it won't work. FINALLY after years of being passed by, he suddenly changes his mind and embraces it wholeheartedly. The problem is, in so doing, he completely discards EVERYTHING that came before it. Now that he's been "enlightened" he does what he used to do with the new theory, with the old ones. BUT he does not take the old ones down from his site. So anyone going a Google search, can still comes across it. I've been through several of his _"rebirths,"_ you've been fortunate enough to have missed them. 



Lykoz said:


> To consistently and completely ignore all positive reinforcement is borderline abuse of dogs.


Just as it's impossible to train a dog without using punishment, it's impossible to train a dog without using positive reinforcement. Who do you claim is doing this? Do you think that I am? 



Lykoz said:


> If you are training almost purely with yank and crank techniques I think you are a dying breed.


When have I ever said anything about _"yank and crank techniques?"_ Why would you assume that I'm using them? 



Lykoz said:


> And you will never change your mind.


Did I miss some posts or something? Where are you coming up with this tripe? 



Lykoz said:


> Your Philosophy is flawed from the moment you chose to study Wild dogs to pick up behaviours in dogs.


Back on this is see. Just a few words, notice that they are both called DOGS. Notice that they look virtually the same. Notice that in the case of domestic dogs that have high levels of drive, that they are similar in many degrees to those of the Wild Dogs of Africa as well as other canines. Notice that prey drive, for example is the exact same thing in any animal that possess it. Notice the same thing for hunt drive or any of the other drives that dogs use for gathering food. What is flawed is your thinking that because they are genetically not closely related they not related in any significant ways. 



Lykoz said:


> I wanted to hear what you had to say.
> And quite frankly I am not impressed.


Somehow I'll have to learn to live with that. If you were anyone of any significant consequence, I might be concerned. But you're just another rank beginner with little education and ales experience. If I'm wrong and you've titled many dogs, please let me know. I'm pretty sure that you're a relatively new trainer with little following here or anywhere. There are plenty of others here and elsewhere who use my methods and who recommend me just about any time that Ecollars come up. I've gotten quite a few inquiries from people who want to know more about the DYDTS due to this discussion. When I talk on it at the seminars that I do, (mostly LE and SAR but also some for pets) and then demonstrate how well it works, there are many converts who stop using marker training and convert to a DTS. I think it's the next new and best thing in areas where a dog's drives are of the utmost importance in getting him to do life saving work. Those who play games with their dogs can use whatever methods they like, I could not care less about them, as long as they are humane. 



Lykoz said:


> I have seen you attack other trainers.


Really? What _"other trainers"_ have I attacked? AND, I'd certainly call what you're doing here, an attack on me. You've made NUMEROUS MISstatements about my work in the absence of information about it. 



Lykoz said:


> They seem to be achieving much better results.


Please gives us some examples of their better results? 



Lykoz said:


> So I am standing up and saying that you are the type of trainer most people should avoid.


Please tell us why people _"should avoid"_ me. As I've shown you've jumped to many wrong assumptions about me. You could have simply asked, but that appears to have been too much of a bother. And you know very little about the DTS that I use, yet you think it's OK to say this. I'd call this AN ATTACK on me. something that you've claimed that I've done to others. 



Lykoz said:


> Together with the exclusive all positive trainers. You are on the other end of the spectrum. Extremist views are always a danger to everyone.


Please tell us how you think I'm _"on the other end of the spectrum."_ In truth, I'm a balanced trainer using ALL quadrants of OC to achieve my goals with pets. With dogs that work for real, I use a DTS. My ONLY measure of success is * "results achieved humanely." * 

You make lots of accusations and personal attacks, but don't justify even one of them. And along the way, you're wrong repeatedly. You've been asked several questions. I'd appreciate seeing you answer them. Many of them put the lie to many of your statements. 

Sorry you went this way, but it was your choice.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

gsdsar said:


> Lykoz, I think you are misunderstanding Lous approach. It is not yank and crank.


Yep, you're right. She has no idea of how I work. Lykoz could have gone to my website, it's in every signature line, to see just how I worked. Instead he assumed (I just assumed gender, but since the masculine includes the feminine, I'm covered), something, that turned out to be wrong and ran with it. 



gsdsar said:


> It setting up scenarios that successfully allow a dog to utilize his drive for the reward. Which is the completion of the drive. It is not compulsion based. It's actually a positive way of training using the dogs natural drives.


You get it. I can't figure out how Lykoz came to so many faulty assumptions in the absence of information? 



gsdsar said:


> Lou if I am wrong, correct me. But you are not compulsing a dog to do things. You are channeling his drives to a correct end. Not that corrections may not be used. But it's not yank and crank.


You don't need to be corrected. You are right. Lykoz has no idea what I do. It's not _"yank and crank."_


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Lykoz said:


> He is letting dogs do their thing... Follow their drives... i.e. setting them up for success... Fine...


No. YOU THINK that this is what I'm doing, but it's not. 



Lykoz said:


> He is nurturing the drives he wants...
> 
> But drives don't always give wanted behaviour...


That depends on what kind of training you're doing and the selection process. 



Lykoz said:


> He is correcting what he does not want with shock collars etc...
> Without ever attempting to show the dog what it is he actually wants...


Even a quick read of my website OR asking a very simple question would who this to be COMPLETELY UNTRUE. I won't call you a liar because this statement is made out of ignorance, not with evil intent. I suggest that by reading, for example,  HOW I TRAIN A RECALL  you can fix that ignorance of my methods. 



Lykoz said:


> You cant train anything completely with drives without either some sort of correction or reward... If he could, he wouldnt need the shock collar either!


FIRST, no one *"needs" * an Ecollar. We trained dogs for thousands of years before they came along. SECOND, The fact that you use the term _"shock collar"_ just tells us how much you know about the tool. THIRD, you think that all I’m doing is using the Ecollar to correct undesired behavior and you could not be more wrong. What the Ecollar does is allow the drives to come out without the direct interference (and distraction) of the handler. 



Lykoz said:


> You cant change drives... They are inherent...


If one knows what they are doing, you can change how and when they appear and you can develop them to a much higher degree than most trainers do. Most trainers at some point try to cap them or they can't control them. I don't do that, it's not necessary or desirable. 



Lykoz said:


> He is promoting certain drives through opperant conditioning (Allow the dog to engage in these drives often- smart concept yes)


You might have asked how I use various drives, but instead you assumed this, and so you are wrong. I'm sorry that you education and experience is so limited on this. I gave you a website that would have permitted you to learn quite a lot about it, but you chose not to. Now you make assumptions based on your own, quite limited experience and think you know what I do. Sorry but you're wrong. 



Lykoz said:


> and limiting others with corrections.


You're wrong again. 



Lykoz said:


> However he is giving corrections without first showing the dog what we actually want.
> 
> This is compulsion training


Yes, that is _"compulsion training"_ but it's NOT what I do. Please stop guessing and either read the site I gave earlier or AT LEAST ask some intelligent questions. Your continual assumptions that you know what I do, when in fact you have virtually no idea, is not only irksome, but misleading to the forum members, unreasonable on its face and unfair to me. 

BEFORE "telling the world" what I do, please find out so that you don't get it wrong, as you have. 

Lykoz, I've asked you several questions in this post and in several that follow. At the end of my next post I've posted a video showing some DTS work and asked you some questions about that. Please take a look and answer them.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Cassidy's Mom said:


> In order to fully follow this conversation it would be helpful to know exactly what a DTS is. Yes, I know, there's a link to another website with pages and pages of information to read through, but * how about a general description here, * so folks don't have to spend a half hour [/b] (or whatever, I have no idea how long it would take to read it all) reading about it in exhaustive detail. If you're going to bring an unfamiliar term into a discussion, you really need to tell people what it is.


The website is there for folks who are interested. Many will not be. Many will be completely happy with the methods that they use now. That's fine with me. As I said, _"If you're planning on doing work that uses the dog's drives to the maximum effect, I suggest that you take a look at"_ it. Most people aren't interested in doing that so I saw no reason to write something that gave such details. I've gotten several inquiries from some who are interested but who didn't want to step into what's become what one of them called a _"snake pit."_

Writing such a summary, when there is a site that gives the complete information strikes me as redundant. But I have no problem in doing so if someone was interested. Lykoz feigned interest but in the end was more interested in proving himself right than actually learning anything that wasn't what he was already doing. No one else asked for details or a summary. And so it seemed to me that people either weren't interested or were reading Donn's website by themselves. 



Cassidy's Mom said:


> Also, since it's been pointed out that this is a LE training technique that may or may not be useful for training pet or sport dogs, how applicable is it on this board anyway? Most of us here are not LE K9 handlers.


You seem to have missed this, 



> Much of my work these days is with * SAR dogs * handled by civilians. Most of the dogs in the US are trained with OC methods, many of them with marker training. But the few handlers who are using a DTS are getting much better results, without any of the problems that exists with OC, especially false alerting, being distracted by elements within the environment or getting tired or bored and stopping working, while still appearing to be working.


And there are quite a few of those folks here. I also mentioned that the site contains some exercises for testing and then establishing a good working relationship with their dogs where he regards the handler as a fair and just leader, something that does not happen with marker training. I'm not going to rewrite or summarize those. They are quite simple and anyone interested in reading those relatively short articles can do so. If anyone has any specific questions AFTER doing that reading, I'll be happy to answer them. 

My wife's dog, trained with the DYDTS just did a successful trail (real, not in training) for an autistic woman who had walked away from her home. The trail ran through a busy, open shopping mall, including a food court. This was done one day AFTER black Friday, the busiest shopping day of the year. She used to train exclusively with OC as do most SAR handlers in the US, but when she saw the advantages of the DTS she switched, and says that she'll never go back. The training for that dog took about half the time that it's taken with previous dogs to get to the same place. She's training her next dog (being trained right now) with it, and is progressing much faster than the other handlers in her group who started their training at about the same time who are not using a DTS. 



Cassidy's Mom said:


> I agree with hunterisgreat, and the points that Lies made. When she said this: *People who train high level competition dogs marker train. People who train working dogs marker train. People who are just training their first ever pet dog how to sit marker train.*, it was not intended as an absolute, she never said "everyone".


I'm sorry but words have meaning. And when someone writes as Liesje did, without using the word "some" or some other qualifier, the correct meaning is "all." And so I said that had those comments been made with that qualification, I'd agree. As written, it's simply wrong. 



Cassidy's Mom said:


> It's perfectly clear to me what she meant - that marker training is applicable across a broad spectrum, from pet, to sport, to high level competition training, NOT that ALL of those people use marker training.


That may have been what _"she meant."_ And it is what you got. But it's not what she wrote. I'm hardly a grammar Nazi, but people should expect that what they write is how it will be taken. They should not assume that everyone will read into what they write and hopefully get the correct meaning. It should be written properly in the first place. In any case, my qualification, to add the word "some" gives it the meaning that you got. So I'm not sure why you bring this up. THIS seems to me to be the REAL nitpicking that's going on here. 



Cassidy's Mom said:


> To say that her statement was inaccurate because she didn't use the words "some" or "most" is just picking at nits for the sake of argument.


What you call _"picking at nits,"_ I call "attention to detail." Such a lack of attention can make a conversation go off the rails as we've seen with Lykoz' MANY inappropriate assumptions about how I do what I do. 



Cassidy's Mom said:


> I don't think the basic concepts of OC and marker training are all that complicated, and accurate timing shouldn't take years to develop. That doesn't mean it's always easy, but it is fairly simple.


If it was so simple than we wouldn't be having these discussions. AND in any case, it has numerous flaws. In working with dogs that work for real, it can be completely avoided to the betterment of the work. 

The fact that you don't think that _"accurate timing shouldn't take years to develop."_ is interesting, but the REALITY is that some people will NEVER develop it and many more will only develop mediocre timing, guaranteeing that their results will only be mediocre. 

Here's some video of a detection dog that is being trained with the DYDTS. BTW this dog is only about 1/2 way though the training. (WARNING, this is an off color comment or two that may offend the easily offended. If you are one of those, I suggest listening with the sound off). This type of training applies to LE detection work as well as any other that people are interested in. It also to SAR. 

I'd bet that some people will think that the towel used here is a reward. It's not, but this post is already long enough so I'll wait for any questions, or statements to that effect, that come in for the full explanation. Here's a hint. It's a substitute for the prey animal that the dog is hunting for. 










Lykoz, can you show me where the compulsion is used? Can you show me where the dog is being corrected for having the wrong drive appear? Can you show me where this dog is corrected with an Ecollar? Can you show me "other drives" are being _"limited with corrections."_


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Lykoz said:


> I personally read the whole website.
> Most of it has very little relevance to most pet training.


The exercises on leadership have DIRECT APPLICATION to pet training. 



Lykoz said:


> It describes the various drives... For various police work...


No, you're completely wrong. It describes _"the various drives"_ FOR ANY KIND OF REAL (as opposed to sport) WORK. 



Lykoz said:


> It basically explains how they modify unwanted behaviours in the section: Rank Drive...
> 
> They say that punishment or corrections are part of the inherent drives of the dogs under "rank drive" (A section in the website). So its ok to use them.


I've personally spoken to hundreds of people who have read this site and you are THE ONLY one who has gotten this out of it. I'll just quote a couple of paragraphs from the site to show how wrong you are and how little you've truly understood. 



> In reality, the Leader seldom resorts to punishment. A warning is usually sufficient to enforce the Pack Rules. Punishment always causes conflict, and conflict has a negative effect on pack cohesion. Pack cohesion is necessary for cooperation and cooperation is necessary for pack survival such as in combat and the hunt. * Compare this with the number and severity of corrections you employ in a typical obedience or protection training sessions. * When dominance is asserted, it becomes the sole focus. In other words, if your dog is engaged in a hunt or combat and you assert dominance through force or intimidation, then you are essentially taking the dog out of the desired combat or hunt drive and kicking him into Rank Drive (submission). * It is exactly this conflict that causes solid service dogs to anticipate commands, weaken in combat, and fail in the hunt. *
> 
> This system of dominance causes many other problems as well. * Constant domination and unreasonable corrections will cause the dog to distrust you. * An environment of inconsistency and continuous conflict is created. He sees you as an unreasonable bully rather than a fair, trustworthy leader. * A dog will take the punishment only so long and then he is going to let you know about it - one way or another. * If he is a strong dog, he will first protest and then either challenge for rank or kick into Defense Drive and bite you to stop the pain. You have become an adversary rather than a Leader. If he is a handler sensitive or submissive dog, the conflict will cause confusion, and confusion will cause unreliability. In severe cases, the dog will simply shut down or try to escape.
> 
> ...


If anyone thinks that supports the use of yank and crank training, they need their head examined. They have lost touch with reality. You claim to have read the entire website. Either you did not or somehow you missed this bit that COMPLETELY puts the lie to many of your statements. If you missed something this obvious, it's apparent that there's much else that you missed and so, your word should not be taken for what appears there. 

It should be obvious to any who can read, that your last statement is wrong. But in fact, corrections ARE part of ANY system of dog training, including marker training, and it IS ok to use them. I'd guess that you are using some warped definition of the term _"correction"_ that enables you to make this erroneous statement. Please give us your definition for the term. 



Lykoz said:


> Lou hypothesises that this is not the case with Marker/Training.. Which i personally disagree with.


Please show us what statement you think I've made says this. Either I've not been clear, you've misunderstood, or you are twisting my words. 



Lykoz said:


> The website is basically one big disguise of using compulsion training...


You are completely wrong. Anyone using the DYDTS system is NOT using ANY heavy form of compulsion. As the quotation I supplied from the site clearly shows, it takes the dog out of the desired drives and puts him into rank drive, completely negating the work that's going on. 



Lykoz said:


> Again my opinion is meaningless with regards to police work...
> But this is NOT the way for 99% of pet dogs to be trained.


I agree that your _"opinion is MEANINGLESS ..."_ But I don't think that its only applies to police work. If you train a pet without regard to his drives, you court failure. 



Lykoz said:


> They hypothesise that it is part of the drive system along with everything else so it is ok.


If you are referring to corrections here, they ARE OK in training a dog. And if you claim to be training a dog without them you are either lying, ignorant of what you are doing, or you are pretending that you are not using them for reasons of your own. Perhaps it's just that you've swallowed some marketing BS and are now parroting it. I've seen you do this in at least one other thread on this forum.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

LouCastle said:


> The exercises on leadership have DIRECT APPLICATION to pet training.
> I've personally spoken to hundreds of people who have read this site and you are THE ONLY one who has gotten this out of it. I'll just quote a couple of paragraphs from the site to show how wrong you are and how little you've truly understood.
> 
> If anyone thinks that supports the use of yank and crank training, they need their head examined. They have lost touch with reality. You claim to have read the entire website. Either you did not or somehow you missed this bit that COMPLETELY puts the lie to many of your statements. If you missed something this obvious, it's apparent that there's much else that you missed and so, your word should not be taken for what appears there.
> ...


Quote from same page: I love how you always quote things to suite your argument at the time.. And how you break up every idea sentence by sentence to the point that the one point is directly not relevant to the paragraph it is in.. Obviously it is... As the quote you gave from the website... That was just the part that said to *tread with care*...

Quote from same Rank Drive page:

"*No matter how you look at it, the principal purpose for compliance is to escape or avoid pain.* In most cases, this system leads to confusion and a handler sensitive dog. Of course, many trainers balance the stress and pressure by injecting play (ball playing or praise) or some form of reward (food or prey object). Although the use of “stress relievers” is important and proper, the trainer must ensure that the method of relieving stress does not become the end purpose for a dog’s performance – also known as a reward system. That is essentially Trick Training. A combination of tricks may get you past a certification, but it also significantly increases the chance of failure on the street.

No matter how you look at it, a collar correction is simply a forceful exertion of dominance through pain. Essentially, the sheer mechanics of a traditional correction closely resembles a Leader punishing a subordinate. *The ranking dog grabs the subordinate by the neck with his mouth and applies pressure. For severe violations, or when there is a hint of a challenge, the force escalates and can include violent shaking. Compare this with the actions of a traditional training correction. A jerk or pull on the leash causes the choke chain or prong collar to constrict whereby pressure is applied to the dog’s neck.* *For severe violations, or when there is a hint of challenge, the Handler escalates the force causing increased pain and violent shaking until the dog submits.*

Now, let us look at it as the dog sees it. Unless instant action is required or the subordinate has committed a gross violation of the rules, the ranking dog will usually signal or warn the subordinate that he is in violation. The warning can be physical, vocal, or just a look. This warning often serves as a means of teaching the subordinate the rules. If the subordinate does not heed the warning, or if the violation is more serious, then physical punishment is meted out. *The severity of the punishment is according to the severity of the violation and to the rank status of the violator.* The #2 dog is allowed certain liberties that the #3 dog is not; the #3 has more liberties than the #4, etc. A violation by #3 will bring harsher rebuke than the #2 dog receives for committing the same violation.* For the grossest violations, the severity of punishment is increased to the level of “Do it or die!”. In all cases, the warning or punishment ceases when the subordinate signals compliance by exhibiting submissive behavior."*


As you can see that Quote I gave from the same page paints a completely different picture.... I suggest readers read it whole and decide what it is saying for themselves...

Rank Civ


----------



## Moriah (May 20, 2014)

I am so not an expert by any means, but I have recently started employing the "yielding" exercise and standing up taller for improving *leadership* in the article on Lou's site called "leadership" and I have no scientific proof, but I think it has improved my relationship with my dog. He "smiles" at me each night now while we do the yielding exercise (moving out of the way). It is respectful of the dog. 

For the first time today I used the Dogtra 2300 to train my dog. His working level is 5 out of 127. It was way more gentle than yanking him about. It was like a "dance" with the dog. We were working on recall, but differently than I have done in obedience classes. We took a couple breaks to play fetch. My dog was happy and we made good progress. Again, I thought it was respectful of the dog and efficient and effective.

Again, I am no expert and my GSD is a "pet."


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Lykoz said:


> I love how you always quote things to suite your argument at the time..


Giving quotations to support an argument is a good thing. When one makes unsupported statements, especially as a relative beginner to dog training, it WEAKENS the argument. When you quote from bad sources, as you have done, in one other discussion I'm a part of, it weakens your argument. When you quote but DO NOT GIVE A SOURCE, as you've also done elsewhere, it REALLY weakens your argument. It looks as if you're trying to hide information. 



Lykoz said:


> And how you break up every idea sentence by sentence to the point that the one point is directly not relevant to the paragraph it is in..


I quote MOST ALL of posts that I'm addressing. So if someone doesn't understand or wants the context of the material that I'm responding to, it's right there, just a few lines down. 



Lykoz said:


> Obviously it is... As the quote you gave from the website... That was just the part that said to *tread with care*...


Oh good grief. You claimed to have read the entire website but it's now becoming obvious that you missed most of the message. When reading about something new, in order for it to come in, one must have an open mind. Based on these results, it does not appear as if you do. More's the pity. 



Lykoz said:


> Quote from same Rank Drive page:
> 
> "*No matter how you look at it, the principal purpose for compliance is to escape or avoid pain.* In most cases, this system leads to confusion and a handler sensitive dog. Of course, many trainers balance the stress and pressure by injecting play (ball playing or praise) or some form of reward (food or prey object). Although the use of “stress relievers” is important and proper, the trainer must ensure that the method of relieving stress does not become the end purpose for a dog’s performance – also known as a reward system. That is essentially Trick Training. A combination of tricks may get you past a certification, but it also significantly increases the chance of failure on the street.


WOW! Talk about selective quoting! Talk about DELIBERATELY quoting out of context to purposefully distort the true meaning of what the author intended. SOMEHOW, you omitted the first few sentences of it. Here they are so the readers can see how low some people will go in their efforts to be right. I suggest that the readers put THESE statements atop what you just quoted and see how it dramatically changes the meaning of what you quoted. 



> Rank Drive is the foundation for obedience and control in most systems of training. * In traditional systems * the handler intentionally establishes a dominate/subordinate relationship with the dog. Through force and pain, the dog learns to quickly react to a unique sound uttered by the handler. The dog associates the sound with a certain physical position such as sit, heel, or down. [Emphasis Added]


He's talking about OLDER SYSTEMS OF DOG TRAINING. *NOT * his DTS. How did you manage to leave that out of your quote of his writing? 

The quote that I gave in an earlier post COMES AFTER what you just quoted and changes completely the meaning of what you quoted. I like to think that your poor quoting and reading comprehension is not malicious. Is my optimism justified? Here's my previous quote so that folks don't have to go back to find it. Remember folks, this comes AFTER what Lykoz just quoted. 



> In reality, the Leader seldom resorts to punishment. A warning is usually sufficient to enforce the Pack Rules. Punishment always causes conflict, and conflict has a negative effect on pack cohesion. Pack cohesion is necessary for cooperation and cooperation is necessary for pack survival such as in combat and the hunt. * Compare this with the number and severity of corrections you employ in a typical obedience or protection training sessions. * When dominance is asserted, it becomes the sole focus. In other words, if your dog is engaged in a hunt or combat and you assert dominance through force or intimidation, then you are essentially taking the dog out of the desired combat or hunt drive and kicking him into Rank Drive (submission). * It is exactly this conflict that causes solid service dogs to anticipate commands, weaken in combat, and fail in the hunt. *
> 
> This system of dominance causes many other problems as well. * Constant domination and unreasonable corrections will cause the dog to distrust you. * An environment of inconsistency and continuous conflict is created. He sees you as an unreasonable bully rather than a fair, trustworthy leader. * A dog will take the punishment only so long and then he is going to let you know about it - one way or another. * If he is a strong dog, he will first protest and then either challenge for rank or kick into Defense Drive and bite you to stop the pain. You have become an adversary rather than a Leader. If he is a handler sensitive or submissive dog, the conflict will cause confusion, and confusion will cause unreliability. In severe cases, the dog will simply shut down or try to escape.
> 
> ...





Lykoz said:


> * As you can see that Quote I gave from the same page paints a completely different picture.... * I suggest readers read it whole and decide what it is saying for themselves...


Yes it does. You completely distorted the meaning of what Donn wrote by leaving out the first part of a paragraph and somehow forgetting that what I just requited came after it. Did you do it purposefully, to mislead the readers? 

 HERE'S THE LINK AGAIN so that the readers can better compare the true meaning of the section. 

Lykoz, I noticed that you failed to answer EVEN ONE of my questions. All told in this discussion not counting this post, there have been * 14 * of them. Is there some reason for this? I'm pretty sure that I've answered every question that you've asked of me, if I've missed one, please refer me to it, and I'll be happy to address it. But I think that this should be a quid pro quo kinda place, don't you? So I wonder why you're avoiding my simple, direct and straightforward questions? PARTICULARLY in light of the fact that you made MANY statements about my work that are just plain ol' WRONG. 

You made many assumptions about me, based apparently on air, and then based on those assumptions, jumped to many conclusions that are nowhere near the mark. I'd appreciate you answering those questions please.


----------



## LouCastle (Sep 25, 2006)

Moriah said:


> I am so not an expert by any means, but I have recently started employing the "yielding" exercise and standing up taller for improving *leadership* in the article on Lou's site called "leadership" and I have no scientific proof, but I think it has improved my relationship with my dog. He "smiles" at me each night now while we do the yielding exercise (moving out of the way). It is respectful of the dog.


Thanks for jumping in Moriah.  THE ARTICLE ON MY SITE is nearly identical to the article on this site, but it may have been updated since the one here was written. I'm glad that you think it has _"improved [your] relationship with [your] dog."_


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

LouCastle said:


> WOW! Talk about selective quoting! Talk about DELIBERATELY quoting out of context to purposefully distort the true meaning of what the author intended. SOMEHOW, you omitted the first few sentences of it. Here they are so the readers can see how low some people will go in their efforts to be right. I suggest that the readers put THESE statements atop what you just quoted and see how it dramatically changes the meaning of what you quoted.


YOU MISQUOTED the Bottom Part... To distort MEANING

I just simply Quoted the MAIN PART of the ARTICLE to add to the scope...
I said you Misquoted. I also said my Quote could be considered a misquote too...

In that post I PROVIDED a LINK to the FULL ARTICLE.


----------

