In a recent discussion, I noted that there are widely different views among trainers as to which training system should be employed. IMHO, there is no set answer to this, but I have conversed with others who feel that there is only one proper way and anything else is wrong, so I am interested in seeing some feedback from a diverse group, such as this forum.

Do you adhere to a single system and idealogy, do you draw from several that you like and ignore any outside suggestion, or do you draw from many to create your own training system? How do you determine if the system you are using works, or which system works best?

In the circle that I train with, as well as my acquaintances and friends, there is sharing of information from many sources. One will see a video or go to a seminar by a given trainer and relate it to the group, which generally results in a discussion where alternatives and other techniques are discussed. I, and most of my colleagues, take this information and the techniques that I prefer, and incorporate them into my own system.
I feel that this works better for me than any prescribed methodology and allows me to draw from the strengths of many good trainers and systems. It also allows me to be flexible and adapt when it comes to dealing with individual dogs and challenges

good thread duane . . .

henry is my third working BC . the first i trained using my own instincts which ironically were pretty close to marker training although i didn't know anything really about any method . i just knew that for things to work , the dog had to like me ,and that there had to be sufficient incentive for the dog to want to play and work with me . the first toy i had for him was a rubber ring , which was something that we could play with together and it could be used as motivation for other behaviours . i found a ball to be a nuisance because there was always some conflict : either he had it , or i had just taken it away from him .

i took what i learned from that dog , and then applied what i could learn about flinks methods here on leerburg . that produced a dog that was pretty happy to play with me , but his OB was just not as " happy " as i wanted it .

this third dog i did a lot of research with respect to training and with the encouragement of some of my colleagues in my SAR association made the decision to go see ME .

my beliefs fall into the " whatever works for ya " category , but i keep in mind that the handler/trainer is ultimately responsible for how the dog turns out . i keep my mind wide open to new ideas but will consider outside advice carefully before i would institute it into my dogs' training program .

i feel like i'm on a good path with reward based training and i think it fits well with the breed i work with . i think it is important to fully understand the primary method you are going to go with so you can grasp how other ideas may complement or conflict with what you are doing . being inconsistent in your application of methods could make things difficult for the dog in the long run .

I've trained and titled a number of dogs with a number of "methods" from Blanch Saunders, Koehler, all the way to clicker (marker)training. I've used choke collars, pinch collars, throw chains and more then a little ass kicking.
In the almost 9yrs I've trained with markers it's convinced me it's the way to go. It doesn't mean I'll toss those other methods from my tool box. They work! It just means until I need the other tools, markers will be my method of choice.

There is only one way to train a dog. What approach does THIS dog need, at THIS point in time, at THIS point in it's life, at THIS point in it's training, at THIS point in the exercise, so he learns and understands what it is that we require of him. We know we are correct when the dog performs reliably, willingly, joyfully, and without stress, WITH us.

A good trainer (or any kind of good teacher, for that matter), conforms his approach to suit the individual dog, in that moment, and not force the dog to conform to his rigid, inflexible ways. No forcing square pegs into round holes.

If the only tool you have in your toolbox is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail. With just a hammer, it's going to be awfully hard to reglaze a window, never mind painting the house. Or changing the oil in the car.

nice post and some good analogies in there sal . . .

Good post Sal. The problem is that to many "trainers" do cookie cutter training for no good reason other then "That's the way I was taught to do it". That includes every manner of training.
Just to many with either a hammer or a treat in an otherwise great big old empty tool box!

I'm another one who doesn't believe in a one-size-fits-all approach. Dogs are individuals and dog trainers are individuals, and I believe a lot of thoughtful adaptations must be made in order to be successful.

I would no sooner stick stubbornly to the exact methods of one particular trainer or training style than I would follow 100 percent someone else's taste in music, their dietary habits, their exercise preferences, and so on and so on. I listen to a lot of music and decide what I like, I learn about good nutrition and decide how I can apply it to my own lifestyle, I try different exercise methods and decide what works best for me.

Likewise, I study different dog training philosophies and methods. I go to seminars, I read books, I learn from observing and/or working directly with experienced trainers, I belong to forums like this one, and from all of those sources, I decide what works best for me and for the individual dog I am working with. I do not copy any one method 100 percent, and I do not use the same exact method with each dog I'm working with.