I agree that we need to tone down some of the snippyness here. There is an arrogant tone to some of these posts. If anyone feels like they know everything then I guess there is no point in hangin' around here. We certainly can all have our own opinions but snide remarks only escalate into worst things. Let's tone it down or this thread will be history for sure.

Steve C. wrote: "You can call it fear, avoidance, or whatever you want to call it...it doesn't matter...what I want is nervous energy. Then I promote the nervous energy into an exercise and then I have drive."

Are survival behaviors drive? Pushing a dog into avoidance, with only one way out (going for the dumbbell) doesn't get you drive, you are still using escape conditioning. I guess you could call it driving the heck away from you, but that isn't what I would consider drive. Can you clarify that point, I think I am misunderstanding? And can you clarify "stimuli" in the retrieve? What specific "stimuli" do you use to get the dog into defense/fear?

Originally posted by Steve C:
Hey Michael, you're still in the kitchen but you have moved over to the stove. All that's left is to turn on the burners!

By saying this I mean that you have the concept of what I am referring to but I don't think you apply the needed degree of pressure that I do.

First off, we all agree with the positive and negative reinforcement. You can call it fear, avoidance, or whatever you want to call it...it doesn't matter...what I want is nervous energy. Then I promote the nervous energy into an exercise and then I have drive.
. I get what you want. I would not call it drive, but really the dog is in panic mode, from fear. This is for sure nervous energy. I agree with your description, but I feel that there needs to be some realease for the dog. I also understand that after the dog kinda goes down after you stress him, and he is no longer working in prey drive, you stress him some more in order to get a desirable response (for you). This I would like to say is not s pretty picture, but what I will say after the first few steps are done, it does produce very good results. After the foundation of avoidence is laid though and the dog is understanding what you want, there needs to be some drive put into the training (release), as if there is none the dog will at some point shut down. With the type of pressure that you are talking about the dog needs some kinda realease. This is only humane when you are talking about the kinda stress that is invovled when training like this for sport. I also feel the need to state that this type of training when applied to the right dog it produces a better end result then other methods. But it is not for every dog, and to apply it to certain dogs is cruel in my view. DO you agree. I also will say just to clarify this that this should only be done by trainers that know dogs very well, as if done wrong, will cause irreversiable (in most cases) damage to a dog's training and well being then most other methods.

Steve C.

Ever wonder why many of the top competitors are moving away from this type of training? Maybe it is because some thing works better?

Once explained most of us know what you are talking about now, we did it for years. In many cases we still use it when it is appropriate. There are many reasons why the Average Joe is going to have problems with this style of training, starting with the fact that there is a narrow margin for error. Your retriever example is a good case in point, if the dog is unloading on the dumb bell in aggression it will likely do the same thing on a bird. Leading to a "hard mouth". Now you have a new problem to cure, yes I remember how that was cured too, drive nails through a dummy so if the dog bites down the dummy.... The point people are trying to make is that there are better methods, with a wider margin for error, that can be used for a better result for most people.

Yes there are a half a dozen people in the world that can train with the "heavy handed" methods and get results... besides if it screws the dog up you can just dump it and get another one. If your reputation is good enough you may even get a good price. Many people don't have, or won't use, that option. Why not move to training methods that have a lower chance of creating problems and save the heavy handed stuff or people with more time, experience, and money for a new dog if they need to replace the one you just screwed up by over doing it?

If you are headed for the Nationals and the dog still needs to be hungry to work, you didn't finish the training and the dog isn't going to be entered any way. By that point you will have moved past needing food to get the dog to work, and it is being used as an intermittant motivator any way, just like the reduction in required corrections in the method you describe.

And I will add that there are 5-6 people that will close this thread rather than letting it get much uglier.

I never said that I keep the pressure on, and keep the pressure on, and keep the pressure on...there is always a release...but it is towards the work. Like I mentioned in the retrieves...the release is getting the dumbell. You can use any stimulis you want, it doesn't matter (whatever works for that particular dog). I use the juice (e-collar) to get fear/defense. Watch the old BSD tapes...on the long bite the handler is holding the dogs collar with the left hand and flanking the dog with the right to make aggression towards the decoy(this is the type of response I am talking about)...since the rules have changed and the dog now has to sit before the long bite you now see problems with a lot of dogs in the long bite. So, what's the problem, training or watered-down breedings? That's a whole different thread.

Van Camp, you keep asking what kind of stimulis I use...whaterver puts the dog into defense so I can make aggression towards the obedience. Let me go back to protection to explain it a little easier. When you went to defense with your dog what did you have to use to get it. Was it the whip, the stick, the prong, or was it a tree branch or trash can lid? You use whatever it takes to put the dog there. And yes, nervous energy is not a drive...it is just what you get from a stimulis. You have to direct it somehow into the helper or into the work...even then some will still call it drive. People always think that my dogs are heeling in 100% drive, instead, they are 100% full of energy.

For thoes who think that this only works for one type of dog...I have used this type of method for years on many different dogs. From show GSD to Dobermans to Mals to Dutch Sheps always with the same results...as someone asked earlier, I have never had one wash out and had to sell to some sucker.

A lot of people have P.M. me and asked me scores, etc... and do I also do this in tracking. Well, tracking is just obedience, but that again is another thread. As for scores, just did a 99 point FH a few months ago and just Ved the obedience with 96 points at a regional event with our president Mike Hamilton. I am willing to share my score book with anyone on here who has problems/doubts about these training methods.

Sch3Fh2, please do not take any of my posts as an insult, I apologise. This also goes for anyone who has taken this thread as such.

Steve C

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />
After all those explanation I again started to suspect that I was not so completely wrong...
Maybe I should have added that in the training I mentioned before (long and far ago) nobody heard about using hot dogs, all was pure avoidance training.
My another impression is that Steve is trying to reinvent a wheel...
Thanks God, if he says I know nothing it is actually true <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Mike has made a very good point. This type of training is avoidance, I call it escape conditioning. The "energy" that is used is intense because fear is intense and you are only giving the dog one avenue of escape and that is performing, either in protection or obedience.

I don't want to ask you about scores or your books, that is inappropriate and kinda rude, but I will ask if you will be at the nationals in any events so I can be on the lookout for your performance. I would enjoy looking at the dogs that you train to get a clearer picture of what can be produced using these methods.

So stimuli means any type of aversive that is going to push the dog into survival behaviors?

Last question, do you use any type of prey reward (ball, or even other non-stressful reward) to ease up on some of the pressure you create or do you consider the escape enough of a release?

Michael wrote:
"I do not agree though that this method can be applied toevery dog with the same or similar results within the different dogs."
"There is an ethical question invovled with this type of training when used on certain dogs."

Michael, I do agree that this method can be applied with similar results if done properly and only with the right level of pressure that that particular dog needs. I agree that not just anyone can train this way...you have to be able to read dogs very well and know when and when not to put pressure. All the dogs that I have trained are different...that goes without saying. Yet, they all have similar end results. I only apply the pressure that is needed to get the results from each particular dog. Some dogs do not need a lot of pressure to get the desired result (fear/defense)...some dogs just offer that behavior. I do not step onto the field and start banging away at my dog...that would be dominating him. That is not the picture I am talking about...I have very good working relationships with my dogs and dogs that I have trained. You brought up the question if this type of training is ethical. Why is it not ethcial for someone to do it in obedience but everyone is doing it in protection and it is called good training? Ed Frawley even sells a video on it. I believe it is called "First Steps of Defense Training". But you are saying that if this was done in obedience Ed would have called it "The First Steps On How To Scare Your Dog". NO OFFENCE ED. That again is another thread.

Van Camp wrote:
"So stimuli means any type of aversive that is going to push the dog into survival behaviors?"
"Do you use any type of prey reward (ball, ore even other non-stressful reward) to ease up on some of the pressure you create or do you consider the escape enough of a release?"

Van Camp, call it "survival behaviors" if you want, it is only avoidance training when it is done incorrectly. I make fear/defense to teach my dog how to put it into aggression. I would not call it avoidance training...that would be more like defense/fear/handler does not know how to respond/then all that drive you created goes right out the a$$ into avoidance. When I say avoidance I am talking about a dog acting like I am not standing there, will not look at me, sniffing the ground, etc... If you mean avoidance training by saying he is avoiding everything around him and directing all his energy to me you can call it avoidance. If that is the case then even the clicker people are training in avoidance.

Of Course, I use the ball, etc... for a release in my training in some areas. But, when I say fuss, my dog is healing with intensity/energy out of aggression. He is not waiting for me to throw the ball.

I know it is very hard for me to type and you get a clear picture in your head. By these posts it is clear that many still do not understand. You need to see it to understand. But, atleast you are listening.

This will be my last post. Would love to meet up with anyone who is interested at Nationals. I will be there competing.

Steve C

With this training it is my view that what Steve C has depicted is avoidence training, which gets very good results from certain dogs.

But, by applying stress I find it hard to picture a dog that if he looks like he is in drive but really is not in drive , then that energy that you are calling drive is a product of the stress that has been applied. It is nervous energy that is channelled towards the work, and then releived by performing the coorect task, and not getting the stress, and at some point getting the ball, to give the dog some release and free time and to spend some of the energy and make him happy. This type of training is drive training in one way, but it is trainig that the response comes from the nerves of the dog and is based on working the dogs nerves as your main training asset.

I will say that I find that with certain dogs you will either end up with a dog that is not focused and slow, and if you push the dog any further it is really not something I would want to do to a dog, just to get it to perform a task. I am sure that if I stress most dogs they will dislay the type of energy to some level that you write about, but this is really not a great thing to do......the dog is like oh please I will do what you want...... or the dog will respond to what you want it to do. I do understand that the dogs will be afraid, but how they cope with the stress is my view in deciding how to train a dog. This type of training requires alot of stres to make the do comply, and frankly some dogs are not capable of learning when under that type of stress. Just like people. Whatever level of stress a dog feels that it has to avoid something, certain dogs cannot handle working when they feel that fear. Certain dogs will not play after being stressed to that level. Alot of females will perform with this type of training but will always look like they a panicking a bit until a bit of time has passed and the training is imprinted. Maybe Steve has had good results in training many types of dogs, but this is what I have found, and what I have been told by others that have done it for the last 30 years or so.

While these methods are used by many top trainers, (in Europe) they have broken many dogs by doing it to get to the level that they are at today. I am a fan of this training but only when it is applied in a fair fashion to the right dogs. This is the same thing that I would say about stressing a dog that is not capable of doing defense work, I would not want to do it. It is simply not fair, and those dogs are better off working in prey. This would raise ethical questions as well, just like table training does in certain cases.