Defense table

I've never used a table before, but I'm not quite sure what to think about them. I've come accross a few trainers lately who have used tables and have no objection to them, but have never seen this type of training in person. I'm not quite sure how it differs from tying a dog to a post other than being able to have the decoy go lower than the table, so if you agree with post training then I don't quite see what the big deal is about a table... but I've read the Table Training article by Ed Frawley and even though he agrees with post and tie-out work, he disagrees strongly with table training.

I'd be interested in hearing the consensus to your question Jerry, it's a topic that much intrigues me, because I don't see how it's any different to working on the ground other than that you're elevating the dog to make them feel more superior... at least, that's how I understand it. There's others, such as Ed F I believe, who think of table training as a "tie em to a post on a table then beat the hell out of the dog till he bites" type tool, but the same could be done with post work, so I think it's more about the trainer using it as a tool than a specific style of training.

Al, unless the decoy runs circles around the table chasing the dog that's avoiding the decoy... much like chasing a dog around a post that's tied to a post, then the dog can still avoid the fight, he's just on a shorter line, but still has movement 360* around the table.

That said, I don't know enough about table training to have an opinion other than basing it on Ed F's article that I linked above -- but I have heard table training described differently too, so the big :?: is "Which is right?". Obviously most people view table training the same way Mr Frawley does, as is witnessed in this thread... but take a look at people like Mike Diehl, alotta people say he's a good trainer right?

Watch this video:
http://www.diehlspolicek9training.com/K9SZEMBITEBOX.wmv

He calls it the "Bite Box".... looks worse than a table to me, the dog has no escape left/right/around like on a table, he's on a short line, can't turn around, n walls left/right of him... but this is a young dog, the dog is being worked without being challenged, so is this form of training acceptable if the decoys job is done properly? Or is Mike Diehl perhaps not as good a trainer as I had originally heard?

Selena -- what is your definition of defense? How do your dogs work if they don't work in defense when a man is threatening them? I'm not saying you're wrong or anything, but I've always learnt that you work a dog in prey for foundation (play/side to side/run away bites/the dog wants to catch the sleeve as a prey toy), then later you also work on defensive training (the decoy comes to the dog full on, no side to side, straight at the dog, decoy threatens the dog, stares the dog down, psychological pressure) -- the dogs demeanor changes, a dog barking in defense has a deeper more serious bark, a dog barking in prey tends to have a higher pitch "please give me the sleeve!!" type bark. Now, I know that a dog that is 100% prey with no defensive drives can still bite, they just don't realize so much that they are being threatened, n all their biting is done because they love to bite, n they bite a human arm because they don't care what they bite -- but a civil dog is a dog who will take defensive pressure and want to bite the man, not the equipment... this is different from a dog who doesn't care what they bite as long as they are biting. So what drive are your dogs in when someone is threatening their life trying to kill the dog in a police apprehension? Again, I'm not saying you're wrong, you probably know better than I do -- but I've never met a trainer who doesn't work their dog defensively when training for police work. Even in Schutzhund, a deep defensive bark sounds better barking in the blind than a high pitched whiney prey bark, my GSD is notorious for his annoying high pitched bark :lol:

I'm just fueling discussion here, I don't have any solid opinion one way or the other on table training

OK here goes. The table used correctly is a great devise as is the prong collar. I do use it and I don't think it is counter productive. I do use it differently than what most of you think that it is being used. I don't make the dog think he has no option other than to fight. I start a dog off on the table that don't even look like the ones in those videos. The table I use is about three feet tall and it's four foot square with a pole in the middle. I use a blind to hide behind. I act very suspicious. I'll stick my head out as I tap on the blind, when I get a bark I'll go back into hiding. I will continue to build from there. The handler will stan beside the dog with a loose leash attached to a prong collar. When I go back into hiding he will lift, very camly, the leash straight up and say sit. Then we start all over again.
The dog is put into defence very very slowly and he don't know it's even being done. When you get dogs that can't get past the first part then they don't do it anymore. Those dogs can't handle it. With the other dogs you progress more and more. To them it is no different than being on the ground BUT being up high it does make them feel superior. As you prgress with these dogs they know that you can't bully them and they love this table work. They will run to the table to get on.
Like it or not it is a great training tool and it's easier on the decoy. This is also a great place to teach the out and the hold and bark if that is what you want to do. Dogs that won't make it on the table won't make it on the ground either. If you saw it used correctly you may have a different opinion.

Jerry, that is exactly how my trainer explained it to me, which is why I was torn between the various opinions on table training. The way you describe it, and the way that my trainer explained it to me (he doesn't have the tables so I have never seen it done) makes perfect sense, but the strong opposition against the tables is what gives me 2nd thoughts. Like I said, if it's done right (something like what you're talking about) then I don't see how it's different from a dog on the ground... now, if the decoy runs at a dog waving a stick threatening to kill the poor thing, I could see it being negative.... but you can be just as abusive on the ground. The superiority the dog feels from standing over the decoy makes more sense to me than instilling stress in the dog from being off the ground, because even when working on the ground, when a decoy falls over from a dogs bite it's a HUGE confidence builder... so towering over the decoy in a dominant position on a table should be more effective, right?