# Leerburg training DVD's



## SMoore (Nov 9, 2007)

Has anybody used any of his DVD's he sells on his website? From what others have said they're well worth the money. I don't mind spending money if it's well worth it.

I was just wondering if anybody here has viewed them.

Here is the link: http://leerburg.com/vidolist.htm

Also, i've downloaded some of his ebooks and those are pretty good. Most of them are free on his website.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Keep this in perspective in regards to my comments...I do not appreciate the applicability of dominance theory to dog training, and IMO Ed Frawley is a dominance theorist. 

That being said, I've found his DVD's excessively boring, and I do not appreciate the lack of learning theory in his explanations. That means he doesn't back up his statements outside of his own experience. He comes off as, it must be done this way or else, as most dominance theorists tend to be.

So, IMO, you'd find better value in DVD's from dogwise.com versus leerburg.


----------



## wb2glp (Jan 28, 2009)

I have borrowed and viewed several of his DVDs. I have found them to be very informative and well worth the price. I have recently purchased his Establishing Pack Structure with the Family Pet DVD. If Ed was boring or uninformative on the DVDs I borrowed, I wouldn't have purchased my own. 

Let it be said that I'm just a guy with a dog. I'm not a professional trainer, breeder, show dog person, or dog psychologist. I have found Ed's DVDs to be excellent. If you are not sure about purchasing his DVDs, check out the numerous free materials on his site in both PDF and streaming video. You can definitely get a good feel for what to expect on his DVDs from this material. If he rubs you the wrong way or you don't agree with his approach, don't order.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

When it comes to training, I've found it to be best to just go to the source. Maybe you've read up on all this, and this is just another video for you to watch. But honestly, reading "Excel-erated Learning" among many other books have given me a pretty much universal understanding of all training methods. I don't have enough experience and understanding yet to be able to define it all on my own, however I can see everyone's training method for what it really is, rather than the smoke and mirror reasoning they often use for why it works.

I don't find any value in Leerburg's stuff for that reason. If you know Learning Theory, you know what he is trying to do with a huge pile of irrelevant explanation on top of it.

That's just my own opinion, though.


----------



## lucygoose (Feb 11, 2008)

I bought the one Training with Markers.....I am very embarrassed to say that I forgot about it..........I got started watching it, then I think the holidays came?? I can't remember ......but so far it was okay.....Thanks for bring this up as now I need to finish watching it.....


----------



## Shepherdmom (Jan 26, 2009)

Ive read some of his e-books before, never saw a dvd tho. Even those I consider myself more of a "postive trainer" I find it informative and intresting to understand "correction training", from other types of trainers. Ive seen Leeburg as a Rec from alot of the balance/correction trainers. I betcha there is some reveiws on amazon and stuff too.


----------



## Bear's Dad (Jan 30, 2009)

I have purchased two of the Leerburg DVD's and consider both to be money well spent. If you find the articles and videos on the website to be useful, then chances are you will also find the DVD's useful as well.


----------



## Shepherdmom (Jan 26, 2009)

I can't find the link, but Recently Leeburg as gotten into some Clicker training, I just saw a Vid of him doing Karen pyrors "clicker training game" See even the correction traners are realizing this stuff works!!!! (I'll post the link if i can find it)


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

This is 2nd thread with this reply as we have 2 Leerburg threads going, please excuse the repeat.

I have a question. I first became aware of Ed Frawley in early 80s and at that time he was going to different Schutzhund Championships in Europe the states etc and video taping the different dog work and selling videos back here in the states. At that time he would send newspaper type brochures on protection equipment, collars etc. At that time he was not doing any dog handling/training etc that I knew about. He was taping how to videos of top German and other trainers about bite work / tracking / obedience whatever. I also see now when googling Frawley the info says he has been in business 45 yrs. That's a stretch. Now I am not knocking his business attitude as he appears to be very successful. I just dabbled in some Schutzhund work 25 yrs ago and have not kept track of stuff. I would like to know how many dogs that Ed Frawley has trained himself and handled to a title. I'm not talking about professionally trained dogs that he then took and handled. I am just curious does anybody have any info on his actual training and titling of dogs. Is there somebody on forum maybe Xeph that would have any info on this.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

wvasko; my understanding is that Ed Frawley is more of a compiler of training information. Look at the bio on his website and you'll see he has a not terribly impressive record of dog training awards. That's fine. Successful training methods have been around a very long time, but extremely competent trainers are not always competent authors. Frawley seems to be the bridge between the successful trainers and the large group of novice trainers who need information in a well organized format. Not that he is not a good trainer himself, but that he provides a service that many of the truly top-notch trainers (i.e., the ones with impressive records of accomplishment) may not be able to.

There is a popular retriever training author who is constantly defending himself against similar charges. He may not have brought very many dogs through FT championships, but he makes training information accessible to novice trainers. His stuff works, and that's what matters.

PS: I don't know enough about Frawley to have strong opinions of him, one way or the other.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Muppet
Yes I dove into his Bio and everything is about what I surmised. I'm not pro or con either on his programs as he has paid his dues. It's just kind of wierd how everybody goes off when they hear the Leerburg/Cesar names. In either case nobody has to use any of their methods, but a lot of bells and whistles go off.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

wvasko said:


> It's just kind of wierd how everybody goes off when they hear the Leerburg/Cesar names. In either case nobody has to use any of their methods, but a lot of bells and whistles go off.


Much like the reception you get if you inquire about Richard Wolters on certain retriever oriented message boards. Here was a guy who was a writer and not a professional dog trainer, but who sold 10 skazillion books on dog training. There are a number of legitimate criticisms of his program, but if you follow it you will get a nice dog out of it. Maybe not an awe-inspiring dog, but one that will wow 95% of the gun dog owners you'll ever meet.

I think a lot of vastly more accomplished trainers still resent his success. That filters down to the hoi polloi who merely parrot what the dog training gurus say about him.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

wvasko said:


> Muppet
> Yes I dove into his Bio and everything is about what I surmised. I'm not pro or con either on his programs as he has paid his dues. It's just kind of wierd how everybody goes off when they hear the Leerburg/Cesar names. In either case nobody has to use any of their methods, but a lot of bells and whistles go off.


I do understand that nobody has to use their methods. The concern is the welfare of the dogs who get trained under that method.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

The 1st and actually only retrieving book I have read was Wolters and as I've stated before, I did do the Koehler book. I was very young and dumb and I still liked some parts of both books and not other parts. While I agree with the welfare I do not want to throw the baby with the bathwater. Interesting whenever a newbie comes on and asks for help a lot of positive books articles etc get thrown at them and no info say like Leerburg to compare with. I have this month received 3 calls about people wanting help with their dogs and they have all asked the same question, do I use food rewards. They had tried but did not get desired results with reward system. I explain balance to them and booked 2 dogs and 3rd dog will have to wait as I don't need 2-100 lb brutes at the same time. They all had the same message the dogs did some work when they felt like it. These people did not want to hear about getting better treats, they just wanted to walk their dogs. I'm not saying they should go to the dark side but getting more info on dog training does not hurt. One had an in home 100% positive trainer and this dog I believe was headed towards the shelter as the owner weighs 110 lbs and dog 100 lbs at 10 months of age. All I'm saying is view all info that's out there to at least find out what you do not want to do.


----------



## skelaki (Nov 9, 2006)

personally I like to have books and access to various training methods including Koehler and today's clicker training methods. I do believe in being positive as much as possible but also in appropriate corrections when needed. One thing we have to remember about Koehler and others like him is that at the time many were training dogs for military duty and they had to train them fast. Their methods worked and even if we no longer use their methods (at least most don't) we can still learn from them at least from a historical point of view.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

wvasko said:


> The 1st and actually only retrieving book I have read was Wolters and as I've stated before, I did do the Koehler book. I was very young and dumb and I still liked some parts of both books and not other parts. While I agree with the welfare I do not want to throw the baby with the bathwater. Interesting whenever a newbie comes on and asks for help a lot of positive books articles etc get thrown at them and no info say like Leerburg to compare with. I have this month received 3 calls about people wanting help with their dogs and they have all asked the same question, do I use food rewards. They had tried but did not get desired results with reward system. I explain balance to them and booked 2 dogs and 3rd dog will have to wait as I don't need 2-100 lb brutes at the same time. They all had the same message the dogs did some work when they felt like it. These people did not want to hear about getting better treats, they just wanted to walk their dogs. I'm not saying they should go to the dark side but getting more info on dog training does not hurt. One had an in home 100% positive trainer and this dog I believe was headed towards the shelter as the owner weighs 110 lbs and dog 100 lbs at 10 months of age. All I'm saying is view all info that's out there to at least find out what you do not want to do.


While I agree that a trained dog is better than an untrained dog, the issue lies in the fact that positive training is practically foolproof. Yes, some people might do it wrong, but it's hard to damage a dog using positive reinforcement methods. If someone comes here asking about lure and reward training, clicker training, and so on, I can give them a decades worth of info on both without worry that they might be confused about it and do the wrong thing.

However I can tell them all about pack theory, dominance theory, choke collars, ecollars, prongs, alpha rolls, blah blah blah. And if they don't have understanding of it like you and me do, what happens? The dog can get ruined because we are not there to correct them from the wrong method. They start thinking that a dog not following the command is a disobedient dog, not respecting their alpha status, etc and get harsher and harsher until the dog shuts down.

Yeah, I bet they just want to walk their dog. Imagine if they now can't walk their dog because they didn't understand a bunch of people online and didn't have the experience of a bunch of trainers online and consistently overcorrected the dog to the point he has tails tucked and is dragging feet refusing to walk every time he sees the leash. I don't think they would appreciate that either.

Where I agree with you is, the people who had problems with their dog called you for advice. You met with them, you showed them how to do it. You trained the dog, and to an extent trained the owner. I have faith in your experience and that what you would do is right. But the random guy off the street is not going to have that same experience as you.


----------



## Poly (Sep 19, 2007)

Using only totally positive training (TPT) or reward-based training methods does work _in some situations_.

Unfortunately - perhaps in over-reaction to the "traditional" yank-and-crank training methods - the pendulum swung too far to one side where *only TPT * methods were used in _*every*_ situation, even when some - truly mild - correction techniques were actually called for. 

These days some trainers seem to be trending toward a middle ground or "balanced training methods", which is probably all to the good. 

In point of fact, even TPT-only advocates do occasionally use correction or aversion equipment - such as head halters - athough they are reluctant to admit that is what they are doing. The difference between properly using a head halter or a prong collar, for example, is not all that much. 

Also, one has got to realize that when dealing with high-energy or high-drive dogs - such as may be found in the Leerburg lines for example - correction techniques may be needed as the dog matures. This is not necessarily a result of mistraining when the dog was younger. 

The goal of _proper_ correction techniques on a high-drive dog is one that will work very hard through fatigue and distractions, and focus totally on the job at hand. Not to mention a close bond with the handler. And those dogs can really do well in such things as SAR, K9, service work, field trials, and other activites that require that type of dog personality. A pretty good outcome, all-in-all. 

One advantage to TPT or the exculsively positive techniques is that you really can't mess up a dog permanently by using them. So it isn't wrong to start off with that approach. Certainly with a puppy that is the only approach to use for some time. Maybe they will continue to work out as the dog matures and that is fine. But even with a misbehaving adult dog, positive methods should be tried first.

However, the result may sometimes be a dog that is not well trained and/or continues to show all kinds of anti-social misbehaviors. But they will be correctable - if one keeps an open mind.

On the other hand, some of the old-fashioned "traditional" techniques really did damage some dogs physically or emotionally. Frawley himself states or implies this in some of his articles.

Here is a good article that briefly explains the different approaches:

Positive Motivation, Traditional and Balanced Training Methods


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Poly said:


> reward-based training methods does work _in some situations_.


I would argue that reward-based training methods work in every situation, not some. Unless suppressed, the dog will always choose what he finds most rewarding. We can not, should not, change the definition of reinforcement to define a class of trainer or as justification for the methods we use. 



> In point of fact, even TPT-only advocates do occasionally use correction or aversion equipment - such as head halters - athough they are reluctant to admit that is what they are doing. The difference between properly using a head halter or a prong collar, for example, is not all that much.


I don't know what trainers you are speaking of, this has not been my experience. The trainers I've met that employ learning theory understand how consequences effect behavior, as much as if not more so, than how antecedents drive behavior. I wouldn't confuse the choosing of a less aversive method, first, for being an advocacy of the undisciplined practice in applying learning theory. In fact it would be just the opposite. 



> Also, one has got to realize that when dealing with high-energy or high-drive dogs - such as may be found in the Leerburg lines for example - correction techniques may be needed as the dog matures. This is not necessarily a result of mistraining when the dog was younger.


This is the nature/nurture argument and the answer is a simple one...learning is the nature of dogs. How we label the dog does not change how he learns. It only changes the criteria that may be required of our mechanical skill and application of the theory.



> However, the result may sometimes be a dog that is not well trained and/or continues to show all kinds of anti-social misbehaviors. But they will be correctable - if one keeps an open mind.


I really don't understand the concept of linking a training methodology to a dog being "not well trained". It seems intuitive that if the dog is "not well trained", the one doing the training is to blame, not the methodology. This being true I would argue that aversive training requires more mechanical skill than non-aversive training simply because aversive training works against classical conditioning.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

RBark said:


> While I agree that a trained dog is better than an untrained dog, the issue lies in the fact that positive training is practically foolproof. Yes, some people might do it wrong, but it's hard to damage a dog using positive reinforcement methods.


Clearly, you need to get out and meet more fools.

Poly: you should be ashamed of yourself. Such information as you've posted is too dangerous to be in the possession of the common people. [/snark]


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

CP
*
I would argue that reward-based training methods work in every situation, not some. Unless suppressed, the dog will always choose what he finds most rewarding. We can not, should not, change the definition of reinforcement to define a class of trainer or as justification for the methods we use.*

That's a pretty black and white statement. My argument would be that you just have not met the right dogs. Unlimited time could make your methods possible though. I said could not would. I'm just trying to stir the pot.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

wvasko said:


> That's a pretty black and white statement. My argument would be that you just have not met the right dogs. Unlimited time could make your methods possible though. I said could not would. I'm just trying to stir the pot.


It is in fact black and white by definition.

Reinforcement is defined as a consequence that follows an operant response that *increase (or attempts to increase)* the likelihood of that response occurring in the future. Now I'm assuming every trainer knows what operant response they are training. That being so you can only get behavior through reinforcement. 

Countering this is punishment. Punishment is defined as a consequence that follows an operant response that *decreases (or attempts to decrease)* the likelihood of that response occurring in the future. In other words you do not get behavior from punishment, you only decrease or attempt to decrease the frequency of the non-target behavior from occuring. 

It's not a matter of my experience or meeting that one dog to make me think differently. The laws of learning theory are defined as they are because there is a preponderance of evidence to them, and one dog can't/won't/shouldn't change the definition. Our approach may change in light of our inadequacy, but not the application of the theory.

Imagine if I fell off a three story building, I come up unharmed and I proclaim, _see, my body is not effected by gravity like others. _This is in essence what people are saying when they proclaim reward-based training does not work for every dog. It absolutely does, you just need to wrap your head around the definition to see it.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> [/I]This is in essence what people are saying when they proclaim reward-based training does not work for every dog. It absolutely does, you just need to wrap your head around the definition to see it.


Reward based training obviously works. Whether it produces adequate results in all situations is what seems to be in dispute.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Marsh Muppet said:


> Clearly, you need to get out and meet more fools.
> 
> Poly: you should be ashamed of yourself. Such information as you've posted is too dangerous to be in the possession of the common people. [/snark]


I'm having a difficult time wrapping my head around a situation where clicker training or lure training would produce a dog that is fearful, displaying avoidance behavior, and so on. Perhaps you would care to enlighten me. 



Marsh Muppet said:


> Reward based training obviously works. Whether it produces adequate results in all situations is what seems to be in dispute.


I'm not sure why this statement was made. I could counter that with "Punishment based training obviously works. Whether it produces aquedate results in all situations is what seems to be in dispute." and I would be no more or no less correct than your statement. So it seems pretty irrelevant.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

RBark said:


> I'm having a difficult time wrapping my head around a situation where clicker training or lure training would produce a dog that is fearful, displaying avoidance behavior, and so on. Perhaps you would care to enlighten me.


I don't say it would. However, you said: "...some people might do it wrong, but it's hard to damage a dog using positive reinforcement methods." If a dog's destructive and/or dangerous behavior cannot be improved with click-and-treat, he may very well come to an untimely end. Failure to use more effective methods could be said to be a contributing factor in his demise. I'm merely saying that the individual dog, and the training requirements, dictate the methods. Not bias or ideology.



RBark said:


> I'm not sure why this statement was made. I could counter that with "Punishment based training obviously works. Whether it produces aquedate results in all situations is what seems to be in dispute." and I would be no more or no less correct than your statement. So it seems pretty irrelevant.


Even Wm. Koehler, the recognized Dean of The Old School, advocated balanced training. He constantly reiterated the need for "contrast" between reward and punishment. Whether Koehler's definition of "balance" comports with yours is a subject for another thread (I'm pretty sure I already know the answer and I believe we would agree). Much has been learned since WK was training dogs, and the vast majority of his former acolytes have moved on to more progressive methods. Rewards and punishments exist on a continuum.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Marsh Muppet said:


> I don't say it would. However, you said: "...some people might do it wrong, but it's hard to damage a dog using positive reinforcement methods." If a dog's destructive and/or dangerous behavior cannot be improved with click-and-treat, he may very well come to an untimely end. Failure to use more effective methods could be said to be a contributing factor in his demise. I'm merely saying that the individual dog, and the training requirements, dictate the methods. Not bias or ideology.


That's not what I am saying at all. Yes, if a dog is destructive and dangerous, situations may call for need of punishment/correction/whatever you like to call it. However we are on a internet forum. When a person comes here and says that their dog is displaying aggressive behaviors, do you tell them to choke the dog, electrocute it, and so on? Even if they are not displaying detrimental behaviors, do you tell them to do that? What qualification does the person asking have in making this kind of judgement call?

If positive methods fail, and for the dog's safety some other method is needed. Go to a behaviorist or a trainer, not some people on the internet. Do you think you could explain how to do proper timing, show your experience, and demostrate what's correct and incorrect over the internet? I can't imagine anyone being able to do that.

Kobe is going to be trained with a e-collar for his recall. I've done positive methods out of the wazoo, but I can't get a reliable recall still. Will the e-collar work, I don't know. But even though I've had several experienced trainers tell me how it works, and seen some videos of how it works, and I am confident I understand how to properly train with a e-collar without causing Kobe to shut down or otherwise show undesirable behavior. Despite all that, I am going to be meeting with a trainer who does Schutzhund and SAR work to show me how to use it properly.

But I can't guarantee that everyone will do as I do. If a problem can't be resolved with positive methods, then find a trainer or behaviorist knowledgable in Learning Theory not Dominance Hypothesis.




> Even Wm. Koehler, the recognized Dean of The Old School, advocated balanced training. He constantly reiterated the need for "contrast" between reward and punishment. Whether Koehler's definition of "balance" comports with yours is a subject for another thread (I'm pretty sure I already know the answer and I believe we would agree). Much has been learned since WK was training dogs, and the vast majority of his former acolytes have moved on to more progressive methods. Rewards and punishments exist on a continuum.


I never said that punishments should never be used. I argue the use of punishment through application of Dominance Hypothesis. I don't argue punishment via application of Learning Theory by a professional behaviorist. I also argue the teaching of punishment to random people online who can use it improperly.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Marsh Muppet said:


> Whether it produces adequate results in all situations is what seems to be in dispute.


Adequate, as in meeting your criteria? Who develops the criteria? If you accept dog training is mechanical skill you accept that the results are a function of your mechanical skill and setting of criteria. You can have two trainers train the same dog with two opposing methods and obtain nearly identical results. What exactly is in dispute here? It certainly isn't the adequacy of results. 

What is being disputed is the justification of aversive techniques. Claiming reward-based training does not work for all dogs, therefore non-reward-based training is necessary for some, is not a logical deduction. It would be better to say I don't have the mechanical skill necessary to derive a successful reward-based protocol for this dog, therefore I'm choosing punitive methods that I think will be successful for this dog. This is not to say because I'm successful with aversive methods with this dog it should be justified or acceptable. To the contrary.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Adequate, as in meeting your criteria? Who develops the criteria?


My dog, my criteria. Who else's?

RBark: if you are suggesting that certain information is too dangerous to be posted on an internet forum, I'd politely disagree. I don't attempt to teach anyone how to use an e-collar, and I have cautioned several people to learn its proper use before attempting to train with one.

I doubt you have less faith in the competence of the average person than I do. However, there just is no good alternative to people having the maximum amount of information available to them, the maximum amount of freedom to make their own choices, and (in my perfect world) the maximum amount of accountability for their stupid decisions. If people are only exposed to the "only positive" philosophy, they may very well assume their dog is defective when they make poor progress. At any rate, the majority of damage done to dogs is (IMO) done by people who adhere to no theory of training. It is the people who take training advice from the next door neighbor with greasy coveralls and the 5 yard dogs, and those who react on pure emotion that screw up the most dogs. People who care enough to ask advice on an internet forum are probably way ahead of the curve.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

RBark said:


> That's not what I am saying at all. Yes, if a dog is destructive and dangerous, situations may call for need of punishment/correction/whatever you like to call it. However we are on a internet forum. When a person comes here and says that their dog is displaying aggressive behaviors, do you tell them to choke the dog, electrocute it, and so on? Even if they are not displaying detrimental behaviors, do you tell them to do that? What qualification does the person asking have in making this kind of judgement call?
> 
> If positive methods fail, and for the dog's safety some other method is needed. Go to a behaviorist or a trainer, not some people on the internet. Do you think you could explain how to do proper timing, show your experience, and demostrate what's correct and incorrect over the internet? I can't imagine anyone being able to do that.
> 
> ...


RBark if you were a dog Id click and give you a fat fillet mignon for this post.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Marsh Muppet said:


> However, there just is no good alternative to people having the maximum amount of information available to them, the maximum amount of freedom to make their own choices, and (in my perfect world) the maximum amount of accountability for their stupid decisions. If people are only exposed to the "only positive" philosophy, they may very well assume their dog is defective when they make poor progress. At any rate, the majority of damage done to dogs is (IMO) done by people who adhere to no theory of training. It is the people who take training advice from the next door neighbor with greasy coveralls and the 5 yard dogs, and those who react on pure emotion that screw up the most dogs. People who care enough to ask advice on an internet forum are probably way ahead of the curve.


I have no issue with the guy who puts on a e-collar and shocks himself for poops and giggles. I also have no issue with people doing stuff that get themselves hurt, physically mentally or emotionally. I don't encourage it, but I can accept that.

However that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about an innocent victim of our idiocy. The dog is always the one who pays the ultimate price, not the person. I don't really care about the person, it's the dog I care about. That's why I believe that there is a certain responsibility when giving some advice. But that's what I believe in, there's nothing in the world forcing you to believe that too.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

MMuppet

*I doubt you have less faith in the competence of the average person than I do. However, there just is no good alternative to people having the maximum amount of information available to them, the maximum amount of freedom to make their own choices, and (in my perfect world) the maximum amount of accountability for their stupid decisions. If people are only exposed to the "only positive" philosophy, they may very well assume their dog is defective when they make poor progress. At any rate, the majority of damage done to dogs is (IMO) done by people who adhere to no theory of training. It is the people who take training advice from the next door neighbor with greasy coveralls and the 5 yard dogs, and those who react on pure emotion that screw up the most dogs. People who care enough to ask advice on an internet forum are probably way ahead of the curve.*

I do agree with people having all the info and I have talked to people who think their dog's are stupid because (just mentioned today 3 dogs in the last 2 wks)they just did not get with the reward system and because they read the info or saw in on TV or on a DVD it was their dog that was bad. I will say that with every 10 dogs dropped off, I am told by owners that 6 are really stupid. This has nothing to do with any type of training they have tried, just the misreading/judging of their own dogs.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Marsh Muppet said:


> My dog, my criteria. Who else's?


My point was that you are responsible for your dog's failures, not a methodology.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

RBark said:


> However that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about an innocent victim of our idiocy. The dog is always the one who pays the ultimate price, not the person. I don't really care about the person, it's the dog I care about. That's why I believe that there is a certain responsibility when giving some advice. But that's what I believe in, there's nothing in the world forcing you to believe that too.


BSL, spay/neuter laws, and breeder licensing laws are other ways to protect dogs from people, and people from other people's dogs. We're all willing to go some distance down that road.

BTW, if you feel I've been irresponsible in giving advice, please be specific.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Marsh Muppet said:


> BSL, spay/neuter laws, and breeder licensing laws are other ways to protect dogs from people, and people from other people's dogs. We're all willing to go some distance down that road.
> 
> BTW, if you feel I've been irresponsible in giving advice, please be specific.


I didn't say you were being irresponsible. I don't look that closely. My comments are in regards to using leerburg's methods alone.

I'm not sure what your first paragraph refers to. But if I'm understanding it correctly, then my answer to that would be just because we do these other things do not mean we should ignore the training aspect.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> My point was that you are responsible for your dog's failures, not a methodology.


It's often more complicated than that. The dog's drive factors into the equation. No methodology will ever achieve satisfactory results if I wanted to teach my Golden to attack on command. No doubt he could be agitated to bite, but the results would be inadequate by my criteria. The training would stress the dog excessively for no practical benefit. I also wouldn't bother teaching a typical Siberian Husky to make triple, 400 yard blind retrieves. Not that it could never be done, but it's unlikely sufficient progress could be made while the dog was still young enough to physically perform the task.

Either of those examples would be my failure and not the dog's. On the other side of it, a dog with sufficient drive to perform either of those tasks would present challenges WRT controlling that drive. Especially when distances are great. Can you call back the Shepherd who's covered 100 yards to take down his perp? Can you call back the Chessie before he disappears into the fog, swimming after a not-quite-dead-enough goose? If you can't, it may be your failure for choosing the wrong training method.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Marsh Muppet said:


> The dog's drive factors into the equation.


Blame the dog for his nature = not taking responsibility for the dog that he is. 



> No methodology will ever achieve satisfactory results if I wanted to teach my Golden to attack on command.


Not understanding what you dog was bred to do = not taking responsibility in understanding the dog's breed.



> If you can't, it may be your failure for choosing the wrong training method.


And who chooses the method? That is my point. No matter how you characterize it, you are responsible for your dog's failures. Not a methodology, not the dog, not some squirrel running up a tree, you are.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Blame the dog for his nature = not taking responsibility for the dog that he is.
> 
> Not understanding what you dog was bred to do = not taking responsibility in understanding the dog's breed.


I believe I stipulated to those facts.



Curbside Prophet said:


> And who chooses the method? That is my point. No matter how you characterize it, you are responsible for your dog's failures. Not a methodology, not the dog, not some squirrel running up a tree, you are.


Of course, I choose the methodology for my dog, as you choose for yours. If you can't get a dog performing a specific set of tasks, with a particular method, you may decide the task set is not worth pursuing if it means treating the dog in a way you find objectionable. I will defend that choice from the hilltop of your choosing.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Marsh Muppet said:


> I believe I stipulated to those facts.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, I choose the methodology for my dog, as you choose for yours. If you can't get a dog performing a specific set of tasks, with a particular method, you may decide the task set is not worth pursuing if it means treating the dog in a way you find objectionable. I will defend that choice from the hilltop of your choosing.


I'm just going to go ahead and clue you all into this.

You and Curb have been agreeing with each other for the last few posts. Yes, really, you have. I know it sounds like you're disagreeing with each other, but you are not. 

Carry on.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

RBark said:


> You and Curb have been agreeing with each other for the last few posts. Yes, really, you have. I know it sounds like you're disagreeing with each other, but you are not.
> 
> Carry on.


Yeah, I get that. Just a couple of friendly Alphas workin' it out. Nothing to see here.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Marsh Muppet said:


> Yeah, I get that. Just a couple of friendly Alphas workin' it out. Nothing to see here.


d-d-d-d-d-dogman??? is that you????


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

RBark said:


> d-d-d-d-d-dogman??? is that you????


RBark
Are they really done here, I tried to stir pot yesterday but they would not hardly admit I was even here. Of course I don't blame them as there was nothing intelligent I could add to the debate. Besides I had to go out and work a Malamute that was teaching me how to down while I was teaching him how to down. It was so confusing.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

RBark said:


> d-d-d-d-d-dogman??? is that you????


If you are referring to this dogman:*(not having an easy time with the link function)*, then I am sorry to disappoint you, or happy to relieve your disquiet, as the case may be.


----------

