Ed that is intesting. I do not like it but there are Schuthund trainers that are top trainers that will argue that this is the way to go in this country. I feel more needs to be said about this subject so people understand what it is about. This type or training is promoted in quite a few Schutzhund clubs in America.

It is only my peronal opinion but I feel the reason clubs use tables is because they lack skilled training helpers who can really recognize and train a dog in the different drives - or maybe they know what the drives are but they lack the skill to know how and when to put a dog in these drives.

If a club has a skilled training helper they don't need a a table to work their dogs on.

This issue is less about the fact that the dogs are "ON A TABLE" and more about working dogs in "Fight or Flight"

There is absolurtely no difference (not one bit) between working a dog on a table and tieing him to a fence and putting enough pressure on the dog that it goes into fight or flight and bites. It is exactly the same thing.

That is the way they trained dog 50 years ago - the only thing that Stve Leigh and his people do is put them up on a table and whine that those that have not done it should not bash it.

Tieing a dog to a fence (or putting him on a table) will work for guard dog trainers like Leigh because the dogs are in a controlled enviorment. He can teach them that they will either stand and fight or deal with the consequences - but take that same dog and try and make a police dog out of him that has to go out and do building searches or area searches and it is only a matter of time before they face a serious threat and look for the back door to let themselves out. Thats why these dogs can't hunt people - because it exposes the shit weakness in this entire concept of protection training.

Ed,
if you say "table trainer", do you mean that they do most/all/a lot of the protection work with the dog tied to the table?

What do you think of table training as another tool that may be used on occasion to achieve a certain goal? I have heard from some people that the table is similar to the e-collar in that it can be a legitimate training tool but it can be easily abused/misused. Two examples I remember were if you work the dog in defense you have the option to lower your body to below the body of the dog making yourself appear less intimidating (relieving stress). Another use of the table that was stated was that if you practice chest bites on a bite coat, you have have the option to easily show the dog the target area because you are more on the same level and you know exactly how far the dog can reach therefore by-passing any possible handler mistake that could have ugly consequences. In either case, the table is only used as a tool and is by no means the main training tool (and can still be easily be misused). Are those legitimate training uses for a table? I imagine that you would need an experienced trainer that wouldnt push the dog too far and of ocurse the risk may very well outweigh the benefits gained. Just wanted to know if there are any instances where the table can be beneficial at all.

The only time I have seen table work done is on weak dogs. Why would anyone put a weak dog on a table where they feel even more insecure then force them to bite. If the dog isn't strong enough on the ground to bite then he isn't going to get the confidence from being strapped to a table and forced to do something his nerves are not strong enough to take. This is survival drive and they can not think clearly when put in this sort of drive. Does anyone use the table on a strong confident dog? If so, why? Why does a strong confident dog need to be on a table to train? Like I said I have only seen the table used as a last resort to "try" and bring something out of a dog that clearly isn't there.

Karmen wrote: >>Does anyone use the table on a strong confident dog? If so, why? Why does a strong confident dog need to be on a table to train?<<

You raise excellent points. And you have exposed the fundamental flaw of this training methodology--a dog with sufficient nerve to do protection work has sufficient nerve to fight on its four feet. A dog that must be put into fight/flight before it will engage should not be doing protection work to begin with.

Thanks for phrasing this so eloquently.

Pete Felknor

Thanks Ed,

I have always been very uncomfortable with table training and never liked the idea of it. The methods I mentioned were presented to me at a seminar in a manner that made them appear very reasonable. But there is a lot of crap that one can make appear reasonable and thanks for clarifying this. That's why the board is nice because you can get so many takes on subjects and methods from experienced guys and you don't have to rely on only 1 or 2 opinions.

It's too bad because a lot of nice people are suckered into table training. I have friends (Steve Leigh is not one of them) that do it and we simply have to disagree on this area of dog training.

I think there are a lot of new trainers who get involved with this because they hear a good sales pitch and don't have the experience to knwo what is and is not good training. :rolleyes:

Removing the option of flight to a dog during protection training (regardless of whether you can acheive a goal with it) and placing the dog in the uncomfortable position on the table causing even strong dogs to slide into fight/flight behaviors raises ethical questions at the least. Those that strongly support this work will try to justify their method through their results. If the results are poor on some dogs they will say that they came further along than they would have via other methods and were simply poor candidates to begin with. It becomes an impossible argument. Since most people will not be able to read a dog well enough to see the fine line walked by skilled decoys who use this tool to train, it will stay in vogue for many. For the truly brutal, inexperienced, or ineffectual helper it is obvious when the dog is pushed over the limit and would flee if the option weren't scarier than fighting due to the environment. The table for defense is a slick way of applying this method for those that have no problem ethically with its use. For a poor decoy it is simply a good mechanical means of brutalizing a dog into survival based biting.
The promotion of this training often sounds like the hawker at the state fair selling some gadget of multiple uses for the amazing low price of........$$!!!!!!!!.
I will never say never to a technique. I may find some dog where the net result is important enough to engage in this work (or should I say engage in this again as my experience is limited but my conscience not quite clear yet).
If there are those that truly feel that they are not stepping into the bounds of old fashioned guard/sentry dog work with a new twist, good luck. I for one will place this technique of working on the "defense table" on a back burner and try to hone my helper skills so that I simply don't send a dog into flight/fight behaviors while developing the dogs skills, and if I do send the dog into survival I can scold myself for the error and not make the dog pay for it.

Ed

Is Steve Leigh on this list?
If not, why are you slamming him
when he can't defend himself?
I don't notice you posting on the protection dog list, where the conversation started. It is easy to win an argument, when your adversary isn't around.
If the table, is evil incarnate
why do you still sell the Tom Rose, Training the Forced Retrieve Video? The table is a wonderfull tool in the hands of
an expert, it's abusive in the hands of idiots, just like most any other training device.

Kevin S

If you think, table training is such a bad training etc. why didn't you state your opinion last February to Gene England when he was at John Oliver's place? I"m not sure if you were there, since I don't know you, but everything I saw Gene do, for the three days was positive and built confidence in every dog put on the table, including mine? If you are going to argue the pros and cons of table use, it sure seems like the inventor (innovator)- proponent of its use would be a logical choice to have the discussion?