itsadogslife

What do you think is being taught by the long line? And how does learning theory improve upon it? As a means of narrowing the answer: I think there is two things being taught, one is in the foreground and easily observed, the other in the backgound. The two are equally important in both the method and the philosophy that informs it.

I am sorry that you went through this. I wonder very much about the trainers you saw, but I do not have the experience to comment further. I am glad that you found another method to fix the problem. Different methods suit different people, finding the one that suits you and your dog best is always the best outcome.

Aidan, sorry to make the topic you, it isn't meant to be, I am just trying to catch your attention. I am just interested in your explanation or views on the above comment you made in the other thread. I am hoping to avoid the topic being on you know who, and simply wish to understand how knowing more about learning dissuades you from doing it exactly the same way.

BTW Weasels, I just brought the book you recommended. The dog on the cover is the spitting image of Riley.

I think most dogs will shut down for those reasons - either that or they will get aggressive. I would say the same applies for any dog. Riley is 4 months old and yep I can already see what you are describing. Thank you, I'll take a look at it. Again, thank you, I appreciate your input.

I agree they are very harsh. But then, if you follow Koehler's instructions for fixing problem behaviours 99% of dogs will never require such harsh measures as found in the second half of the book. Personally, I cannot imagine raising a dog from a puppy how one would ever need to employ such harsh methods. But then I am not a professional trainer, and I don't have to deal with incompetent owners so foolish to allow such behaviors to arise in the first place.

Did you train it exactly as instructed from the book? This sounds highly unlikely to me that you were using the method correctly. You may have been, but it does make me wonder. This makes me even less likely to believe that you were being instructed properly. There is not a (proper) Koehler trainer on the planet that would ever say "she wasn't a retrieving breed" as an excuse for their inability to train.

Whereas I, following the Koehler method to the letter, have never corrected my dog unless necessary - which if done correctly, is seldom.

I have trained one dog in my life, a Hungarian Vizla. He died suddenly from illness a couple of months ago. I did not trial him for reason of work and other commitments and due to the fact that I am not that interested in dog competition. I have recently acquired a Kelpie pup from rescue up in the country. I have plans to start (formally) training him in the new year. My Hungarian Vizsla was a beautiful, soft, lovely dog. The Koehler Method allowed me, a complete novice to train him without help into a well behaved reliable dog to whom I spent many hours enjoyable walking him off lead all the while knowing him would come when call, heel when asked, sit, stay, drop, fetch etc etc. The notion that this dog, was in any way frightened, fearful or harmed by the methods I used is so foreign to my experience with him that I really do wonder why people have such an interest in denying the average dog owner (like myself) a perfectly good, simple method, specifically developed over 16 years and 11,000 dogs with a proven track record of bringing reliability. But then again, almost every single person that I have found who objects to the method has never used it.

So what is the issue here? Do people here object to a dog being proof using corrections or not? Many people here say that they do not object to a dog being proofed with corrections. If so, then again, what is the issue?

I agree. K9Pro for instance uses a training methodology of teach, train, proof. Pretty much the same methodology in principle as Koehler, so it doesn't surprise me that he would achieve consistent reliability.

But a dog that has been specifically trained to perform in drive in competition does not perform in drive on a casual walk.

A fully trained dog should have no more difficulty remaining attentive to his handler on a two hour walk, than it is for you to remain attentive on a two hour car drive.

Here is another poorly performed Koehler dog winning first place in Novice with a score of 197. Here is the same poorly performed dog in 2011 winning in Utility with High Combined and High in Trial with a score of 198.5. Of course it goes without saying that the judges are incompetent, the competition woefully poor, and no dog trained this way in Australia will ever do any good.

My interest in this thread was pipped by the fact that only a few weeks ago, I too, was looking for a trainer in Melbourne who understood the method. I was ringing around different people until I came across this trainer who said he had been training professionally for 30 years. He informed me that he had trained using Koehler, had the books and was very familiar with the method. He then went on to say the usual things about how training had progressed and that we no longer used such correction based methods. I expressed surprise as I did not feel in training my previous dog, that it was heavily focused on corrections. As a way of illustrating my point, I explained how Koehler trained the sit (straight from the book) - to which he replied with a straight face: "oh, that's not Koehler. Personally, I would be surprised that anyone in Australia would have seen a purely trained Koehler dog. I rather suspect that the Koehler method was revised and modified and mixed with other traditional methods from the moment it arrived in Australia. So much so that even a professional trainer with over 30 years of experience can be clueless as to the correct application of the method.

Then that is perfectly fine. We have different standards. But I see no reason why I should apply your standard as if it THE STANDARD, any more than I expect you to apply and live by my standards. The standard for the Koehler trained dog, is as I have said, the same regardless where they are. You have to understand that when Koehler was developing his method, obedience trials were thought of very differently to the way they are now. There was much more emphasis on 'trialling' your dog to an objective standard which demonstrated the good manners and obedience of your dog. Good manners and obedience that could and would be taken everywhere you and your dog went. Of course, humans being humans, trialling soon became competitive. People started training with the specific goal of winning trials. For Koehler, training behaviors specifically for the ring was nonsensical and opposed to the original intention of obedience trials. Of course, there is nothing to say that you can't change the standards of which dogs 'perform' in the ring. But there is also nothing in your 'standards' - which is the standards of 'performance' - that compels me to change my standards, which are the standards of everyday living. We have have these disagreements, because you and others have confused your standards as being THE STANDARD.

Excellent. I have joined the ranks of treat trainer! The rate of reinforcement in Koehler, as I said before, is about 100 treats to 1 correction. I think that is a fair and logical way to train a dog.

I train my dog in the same way, except I use praise instead of treats. I proof my dog around distractions with both praise and corrections if necessary. I don't, if your dog is reliable that's great.

No. Not really. Koehler trained doggs are in minority these days. I don't know what you mean by this. A Koehler trained dog whilst still in training has a very light line attached to it - for reinforcement if needed - as the weeks progress the line is progressively shortened until none exists. At that point the dog is no longer able to be corrected, hence is reliable.

The dog is being corrected, the trainer is using negative punishment, and yes the video does show the dog being - gasp, horror - forcibly manipulated by a leash. As I said, a nice video.

A nice video, but it really does surprise me that you can claim that that dog still in training is reliable. The dog will be trained and reliable when she can put away the food and get the same behavior. As I said, to me, what I am seeing is a dog being trained, not a fully trained reliable dog.

That's fine Huski. Some of us are only looking for one. And the video I posted shows a very good example of one - one that will work everywhere and anywhere - properly trained of course. You prefer the other one when in competition, and that's fine. But I don't see why those who prefer just one both in and out of competition are bad mouthed for it. They represent different aims that's all.

It is about the dog's performance anywhere, regardless. Your dogs are trained to give a 'performance' in the ring, Koehler trained dogs are not. There are different standards at work here. You seem to only be able to comprehend or appreciate one particular standard.

Precisely. The dog has been trained to perform to that standard regardless of what context it is in. The different aims of training. Again, why can't you understand this? The dog has not been trained to perform in the ring - it has been trained to perform in any and all contexts to that standard. The dog has been trained to perform to that standard in every context. Aren't you the person who asked me why wouldn't you want to improve your standard?

Thank you Falcor. Finally someone who understand the different aims of training at work here.