Working Dog Forums banner
21 - 40 of 74 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
455 Posts
Contrary to what Mr. Barriano believes, KMODT is far from obsolete. It is in fact very relevant in both application and results. Its goal is off leash reliability. That, you will get if you adhere to the method within the proscribed 10 weeks.
I took my high drive Mal through the 10 week method before I did anything else. There were no e-collars, prongs, toys or tugs or treats or bites. Just the leash, the choke collar, the dog and me with my praise. We got to off-leash in ten weeks with a solid recall with distractions.
After that I started incorporating all the other training aids mentioned above, and began bite work.
You will get reliable gross aspect obedience with kmodt. If your dog is for PP, like mine is, its just what you need. You can certainly train with other methods after laying in the KMODT foundation.
You will not get that kind of tight attention heeling with KMODT. That's probably why Mr Barriano deems it obsolete, he must have some kind of sport dogs. And he likes them to have that prancy google eyed look, when he takes them out of their pens, to train them, or to trial them, or to show them to people he's trying to sell them to. Is that right Mr. Barriano?
So what was taught during this time? You say gross aspect ob, what does. That mean to you. What is 10 weeks in sessions? Once a week? 3 times a day?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Hhhhhmmmm, I do my fair share of working with lower drive dogs as well as dogs that have been inhibited by incorrectly applied compulsion training. Marker training is highly effective with those type of dogs. I don't see how the decision of whether to apply marker or Koehler methods as one based on drive levels, at all.

T
+1 to that.

I actually don't know that I've ever had a truly "high drive" dog, since I'm still pretty new to the whole working/sport dog world and am competing with a fearful pound puppy special (my very first dog! boy has it been a steep learning curve).

Anyway I've experimented with a variety of different approaches and my experience is that marker training is by far the most successful for me with the broad variety of pet/soft/low drive foster dogs I've had. It gets them really excited and happy to learn, and I have had pretty good success with it on those types of dogs.

If anything, what I often hear is that clicker training only works with "soft" or "low drive" dogs, not the reverse. Whether or not this is true is not something I would know, personally, since (again) I don't think I've ever worked with a "hard" or "high drive" dog. But that's a thing people often tell me.

My suspicion is that what works best for you is determined mostly by you and not so much by the dog(s). Marker training appeals to me on a philosophical level, so I've been motivated to learn as much as I can about it and I've tried hard to apply it correctly to my dogs. When I'm not as confident about whether I want to use a different approach (like Koehler), I don't work as hard to master it and I give up pretty quickly in trying it, which is why those approaches don't work for me but probably work just fine for people more comfortable using them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
606 Posts
Imo low drive dogs require more compulsion to achieve reliable obedience under distraction. If the dog has less motivation to have what you have what do you think will happen to the reliability when you run into competing motivators? Thats been my experience anyways.
Perhaps like anything else Koehler works well with certain types of dog and not so well with others?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
170 Posts
If anything, what I often hear is that clicker training only works with "soft" or "low drive" dogs, not the reverse. Whether or not this is true is not something I would know, personally, since (again) I don't think I've ever worked with a "hard" or "high drive" dog. But that's a thing people often tell me.

uh.... someone lied to you. I own 'hard' and 'high drive' dogs and use clickers/markers. You'll talk to 3 trainers and get 5 different opinions on which way is correct :lol:. If clicker training appeals to you... do that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,408 Posts
Well, uh ..... actually, just "mature." Yeah, that's it.

I'm a spring chicken. A mature one.

Well with maturity comes brains and you sure make some of the spring chickens on here sound like embryos :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
uh.... someone lied to you. I own 'hard' and 'high drive' dogs and use clickers/markers. You'll talk to 3 trainers and get 5 different opinions on which way is correct :lol:. If clicker training appeals to you... do that.
That's kind of the feeling I get, but since I've never done it, I don't actually KNOW, and therefore I think it's more prudent for me to be cautious about saying so. ;-)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,868 Posts
My older GSD Thunder
Cadaver trained land and water, Trained in article search, Sch III, CDX, HT, TT, CGC. ALL trained with markers and no physical corrections.
:lol: Why I get into these discussions in beyond me. Those that don't want to believe, wont. Simple as that!;-)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,537 Posts
Imo low drive dogs require more compulsion to achieve reliable obedience under distraction. If the dog has less motivation to have what you have what do you think will happen to the reliability when you run into competing motivators? Thats been my experience anyways.
Perhaps like anything else Koehler works well with certain types of dog and not so well with others?
And high drive dogs don't run into competing motivators or distractions? Do you all really think you need a prey slave to be able to train reliability? Regardless of drives, rewards or motivators should be something the dog really desires. I work with all sorts of so called drive levels and with any of them the trick is to find what motivates them to perform the work. An important part of this is the dog's relationship with the handler.

T
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,424 Posts
re: "the dog's relationship with the handler....."

i like that phrase ... too bad it's never discussed on here and just taken for granted ](*,)

funny but it's the FIRST think i notice with any customer who is having problems with their dog
...and i sure as hell don't think it applies only to "pet owners", and it isn't necessarily tied to the training system being used

if i ever write a dog book, that will be the subject
....bonding
how to measure it
how to build it up
how to repair a bad bond
why it's taken for granted
...and why a week or two of "down time" with a lot of feeding and watering with no training or no plan is NOT the best way to bond ...imo of course :)
...will be many chapters //lol//
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,424 Posts
i doubt many people have trained a "guard dog" by following the Koehler method of guard dog training unless they were training with him in a class.

why did i say this ?
because i have talked to a few people on a face to face basis who claimed to have used the Koehler method. NONE of them could put it in words and go back through the steps they used in the conversation. Koehler, whether you like him or not, presents his "system" in a very precise, step by step manner. few other trainers have written with the same attention to detail. if they have books out, i've never read them. now that everything is on dvd's that will probably become even rarer.

i guess all that means to me is that people pick and choose stuff and then they do it "their" way, whether they give credit to other trainers or not.

in fact i doubt if many people even use his selection testing for choosing their dog in the first place.
....and i also have my doubts that people still use throw chains in the way Koehler requires to train their dog

still a good read imo
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,318 Posts
I would also hazard a guess that Koehler himself did not use the exact same methods all the time for everything, in many of his books he does offer multiple ways for various things, and probably in those cases he put down into words a couple few of the ones that worked more often for what the goals are.

I also think many of the philosophies are pretty good on premise, and that overall the man made a huge contribution to dog training in general. I have met many people with dogs that I thought in my head while looking at them, "if they tried a few of the Koehler options for that, it'd probably be an easy fix..."

there are several things he suggests that can work with only 1-2-3 repetitions :)



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
402 Posts
Koehler dog training works. The aesthetic is not very good. But done correctly, you can achieve reliable behaviors. Koehler is strictly a pressure avoidance and positive punishment system. I don't know where the 'marker' comment is coming from.

Efficacy is not enough, to me. If it can be trained through positive reinforcement, then I feel a moral obligation to do so. I try to use compulsion only where my R+ training has failed. That's my moral compass in dog training, but everyone is different.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,424 Posts
people i've met who said they used Koehler's methods have been oldies and it was for past dogs .... their memories of the specifics was also old

maybe some of those who like it will actually discuss how they are doing it today and even post some vids of their koehler training methods....
- how to get an out comes to mind....specifically using a (Koehler-spec) hose on those "hard" dogs, and simple chain tosses for those not so hard canines //lol//

if it was so good i would think lots of ppd dog owners and psd trainers would still be using koehler techniques ... then again, there aren't many K9 LEOS that walk a beat on today's streets, and a lot of his training was geared for that type LEO
... but i do think the ppd people could/should step up and come out of the closet if they are koehler training and actually show others how good it is; otherwise it will just be online chat stuff

maybe some youtube searchers can find some modern day koehler clips
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
There are parts of the kmodt training method that is absolutely applicable. But it is not which method is good or not. All methods, at its core is a modulation and application of operant conditioning, Pavlovian connection, and situational learning, together with threshold theory.
A book cannot hope to elaborate fully any person's method. As with much of dog training, you have to see it, do it, and make mistakes to see consequences.
That is why there are handling skill differences.

To be frank, this book was written before the advent of e collars, and marker training. So, I would consider it rudimentary. It's like working with a horse and buggy when there are cars around. Does it get you to point a to b? Yes. But the ones using the newest cars will leave you in the dust.

The other aspect of this is CONNECTION. I don't want to correct my dog. That is, I don't ever want my dog to think a correction comes from me. I want him to think its his BEHAVIOUR that controls the correction and speed of reward. This has NOTHING to do with training for PP or sport. It's good training. Period. It builds reliability and connection. Critical in BOTH PP and sport.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,318 Posts
Koehler dog training works. The aesthetic is not very good. But done correctly, you can achieve reliable behaviors. Koehler is strictly a pressure avoidance and positive punishment system. I don't know where the 'marker' comment is coming from.

Efficacy is not enough, to me. If it can be trained through positive reinforcement, then I feel a moral obligation to do so. I try to use compulsion only where my R+ training has failed. That's my moral compass in dog training, but everyone is different.
I think people used to "praise" their dogs in training, when they did something well, many times that praise was also associated with some sort of reward, and also physical release as well. I also think people used to use verbal or physical "signals" that were used to relay to the dog that he is not doing things correctly, in place of, or prior to some form of correction. Long before "marker training" was a popular term. I think many dog trainers use many methods that are common knowledge to the community, and few label something as their own method, or system.

I think Koehler's methodology is in some ways pretty much marker training if you think about it. (Especially if people had those dogs with "genetic obedience" and high biddibility :)

Or maybe I am looking at marker training in a very different way or something.

Just out of curiosity (side note) honest question for all.

Is there an official Marker Training system?

I think of it as a philosophy that can be applied to many areas of training, not an actual specific system. I do see the obvious differences in certain phases of training, like teaching.

Are there not corrections used in marker training systems?

Who innovated the "marker training system"?



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
Is there an official Marker Training system?

I think of it as a philosophy that can be applied to many areas of training, not an actual specific system. I do see the obvious differences in certain phases of training, like teaching.

Are there not corrections used in marker training systems?

Who innovated the "marker training system"?
I'll take a stab at this for the sake of discussion, but please note (again) that I'm a relative newbie and will of course defer to those with more experience and better accomplishments.

So, to the best of my knowledge:

-- There are individuals (and some schools) who have established "official" systems for training particular sports or exercises, sure, but in the universal sense of a system that all marker/clicker trainers adhere to? I don't think so.

The only universal part of marker training is that a marker signal (for simplicity I'll say a "click" but of course the exact marker can vary, and many trainers use both marker words and clicks depending on what is being taught) is given at the moment that the dog is doing something correctly, and then that click is followed by some form of positive reinforcement (usually but not always a treat or toy).

Beyond that, specifics can and do vary widely.

-- It depends how you define "correction." Some trainers use both clicks and physical punishment (prongs, e-collars, etc.); it doesn't mean they aren't using marker systems. Some trainers use "no reward markers" to signal when the dog has done something wrong, and then reset the exercise or, depending on the situation, possibly impose some form of non-forcible punishment (like a time-out). Some trainers don't use anything and just ignore unwanted behaviors (Emily Larlham comes to mind, and I think Susan Garrett does this too? but I'm not as familiar with her approaches); in that scenario the only "correction" is that the dog does not get a reward.

I would consider all of the above to be using some form of marker training to at least some degree. There's nothing about clicker training that is inherently incompatible with the use of either corrections (including verbal corrections/no reward markers) or physical punishments, although in practice most people who call themselves "clicker trainers" don't use the latter and sometimes also avoid the former.

-- I don't believe any single person can be given credit for inventing marker training. People refine it and add new innovations and improved techniques all the time, but the underlying concept of signal-reward (or, I guess, signal-punishment) is something that people have probably been doing in one form or another as long as they've had dogs.

I feel like all of this is surely stuff you must already have heard before, as training discussions are doubtlessly old hat on this board, but like I said: for the sake of discussion, there are my thoughts. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,408 Posts
We never had Koehler over here in Europe as far as I know. Most was on sale, so I bought it. The one I bought was published in 1975, a while before I started dog training.


http://www.dogwise.com/ItemDetails.cfm?ID=dgt223

Maybe their methods were "harsh" from the today's point of view but maybe far less "cruel" than some of today's trainers' methods which very often leave a dog in a grey zone and confused.

I know, we "know more" about the canine. Do we? Or are we projecting our new found information about the canine on to an unsuspecting victim?
 
21 - 40 of 74 Posts
Top