Working Dog Forum Forum Index Working Dog Forum
Working Dog Discussion for PPD, Sport and K9
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Defense table
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Working Dog Forum Forum Index -> Training Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Thomas Barriano
Puppy


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 21
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado

PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:40 pm    Post subject: Re: Duplicate posts etc. Reply with quote

Stacia Porter wrote:
Thomas, I mean this with all due respect, but if you have no interest in discussion of working dog training methods and related subject, why are you here? And while you believe your comment concerning Aristotle to be humorous, I don't find it as such. I am never amused by insulting education.

>Hi Stacia,

>My comment was aimed at one individual. I am very interested in
> "discussion of working dog training methods and related subject"
>I am not interested in long winded "debate" with more attention to
>how clever we can be, than in listening to other ideas or opinions.
>I'm sorry you didn't see the humor. Aristotle Onasis is as relevant to
>a discussion of dog trianing as the philosoher is? I an not amused by
>people who insutl the "education" that someone gains through
>experience, as opposed to formal education. Some of the most
>educated people I know, never graduated from High School. Conversly
>I've known doctorate candiddates who were certifiable idiots.

For those who have seen dogs injured during courage tests: I don't doubt it. I've just never seen it. To me, there is more risk of damage to a dog on the table (and with other training methods not discussed here) than on the field with an experienced helper. Nowhere in this thread have I deemed the table abusive or trainers who employ it lazy or even wrong. I have simply stated that it is not a method I would choose to employ. I also do not use the e-collar; it doesn't make it a bad thing, and it doesn't mean I won't listen to discussion. It just means I don't use it.


>the whole idea is "experience" I see less risk of injury on a table than
>on a courage test with an experienced decoy. The experience for the
>courage test is more mechanical (timing, moving iwth the force and
>diretion of the dog) the experiece with the table is more in "reading"
>the dog. Knowing when to challenge and when to reward.
_________________
Regards
Thomas Barriano
Dubheasa \"DoDah\" Germania (BD 11/05/99) SchH III IPO III Mondio Ring
Brevet AKC WDM III CD CGC WAC ATT TT
Ascomannis Jago (BD 06/20/03) Dodah Son SchH I ATT WAC YTT CGC
Belatucadrus (BD 08/14/05) Dutch Boy
Devona (BD 05/07/05) Dutch Girl
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Lou Castle
Teething


Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 75
Location: Los Angeles, CA

PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thomas Barriano wrote:
the whole idea is "experience" I see less risk of injury on a table than on a courage test with an experienced decoy. The experience for the courage test is more mechanical (timing, moving iwth the force and diretion of the dog) the experiece with the table is more in "reading" the dog. Knowing when to challenge and when to reward.


I agree. I recall many years ago seeing a great photo on the cover of a magazine, I think it was SchH USA, of a dog about to make contact with a decoy during a SchH championship. It was awesome. The dog had all four legs off the ground and was about to make contact with all four legs and his teeth at the same time.

I was told that dog was injured during that hit and was not able to work any more. The collision between a decoy and the dog during the courage test can be very tricky. If the decoy's timing is off, it's not hard to injure the dog.
_________________
Regards,

Lou Castle, Los Angeles, CA
Uncllou@aol.com
www.loucastle.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Andres Martin
Puppy


Joined: 19 May 2006
Posts: 29
Location: El Salvador

PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let me summarize:

1) A table is about as dangerous to a dog as a bunch of other things.
2) An idiot trainer will more likely ruin a dog on the ground than on a table, simply because there are more idiot trainers with access to a leash and a tree.
3) Dogs don't fall off tables.
4) As a means of elliciting more intense behaviors, a table is a good tool. Don't think for a minute the following is not true: ALL street dogs get strong CIVIL agitation to get STRONG aggression in return, by using many different means.
5) Those more intense behaviors are not necessary for the general public.
6) Yes, they can also be obtained by other means.
7) Working a dog in defense (or fight) is only for experts.
8 ) A dog does not view a table as equipment. Sheeesh. It views sleeves, suits, tugs, as equipment. Many dogs have told me this. (Humor...although not so good).
9) A table is not the end, it's ONE of the means. The end is to bring intensity TO THE GROUND.

Slightly off topic...and perhaps the subject of another thread...but by jove I COULD NOT LET THIS PASS... (sarcastic humor)

I don't know the age of the poster but it could have something to do with the wazoo comment that follows: (sarcastic humor)

"It's a bit off-topic but I don't see the need for a dog to "engage" someone in an attic. It's a dangerous place for a dog. He's lost his advantage of speed and agility. There are toxic substances present in many of them. And there are dangling wires and ducting that can easily entrap him. And there's always the very possible, seen it several times during training, of him breaking through the ceiling and being injured during the 7' fall."

All of us that use dogs on the street know the aforementioned to be illogical and delusional...maybe senile (some more sarcastic humor). There are a BUNCH of tactical scenarios that call for a dog to go into the "dangerous" place and not the human handler.

By the way, a table helps with elevation and foot placement (regular humor).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gregg Tawney
Puppy


Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 34
Location: California, United States

PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Cant we all just get along?" Laughing ......It is amazing how dog training is such a personal thing....I get caught up in it too but we all have 2 things in common.....we love dogs and love training so lets put the other stuff aside and "talk dog".

First off, I am glad to see that I am not the only one that posts things three or four times!! Cool

Lou, In response to your questions....

Yes, it is obvious to the dog that he is on a table (I think all of us can agree on that one! Surprised ) ) When I said equipment I was refering to prey attractions such as sleeves, hidden sleeves (because they are not so hidden) and anything else that would elicite prey.

When I was talking about channeling dogs back and forth I meant that the table allows me to do this easier because the dog looks at me as a threat....why?....because I was able to "cross that line" on a few occassions and actually grab his paw or other part of the dog which I can not do on a back tie. So when the dog has had a few sessions on the table I can show him a prey attraction such as a sleeve and put him into prey and then take it away and show him confrontation and the dog channels into fight. I sometimes tell the handler to shut his eyes and listen and by the tone of the bark the handler will tell me when the dog channels into a different drive. Good learning experience for the handler.

The dogs that benifit the most from the table are the dogs that have fight drive but have not used it (it has never been tapped into). In other words it is genetically there but the dog is not confident in the drive. So, my job is to tap into it, let the dog display it and then reward the dog for it. Thus the dog becomes stronger in that drive. Compare it to prey.....a dog comes out initially and shows prey drive...we show him that it is okay to bite, how to bite full and we reward the full bite with a carry. The dog naturally becomes stronger in Prey with repetition. Well, I do the same thing with fight drive on the table.

Now having said that, some dogs have fight and genetically have no issues with biting and fighting a human without much training. Those dogs would receive less benifit from the table then the other that I just mentioned.

Since so much of our bite work training is with equipment I try to balance the dog with some table work occassionally. I want a police dog operating around 75/25 prey/fight.

As far as the atic insertions. How do you handle looking for a wanted subject in a house if you believe he may be in the atic? If you are not sure then it is a waste of time for SWAT (they would be called out every week for an atic search), so the other alternative is to send an officer or let the guy stay up there and leave. It is an officer safety nightmare so we opt not to send one up there. Our dogs have found guys hiding under insulation. An officer would almost have to step on him to find him. In my training group (four agencies) we probably do one atic insertion per week. Most of the time no one is up there but on the few occassions there was someone hiding it was a great deployment. Wink



Gregg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Woody Taylor
Moderator


Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Posts: 625

PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Move Attic Insertions to a thread in the Police section...go check it out! Looks like a good discussion brewing.
_________________
Defending n00bs everywhere since March 2006
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
susan tuck
Young Dog


Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Posts: 213

PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lou, I saw that cover shot, too & heard the same thing. In fact, as I recall there was an idea being kicked around to stop doing the courage test, & one of the reasons was because of the damage that can be done to a dogs' back. Of course the other reason was because of public perception.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gregg Tawney
Puppy


Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 34
Location: California, United States

PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you remove the "courage" test in Sch. then you are watering down an already watered down sport. I for one would hate to see that.

I would be interested in hearing about any dogs that are injured in KNPV. A sport that is ALOT tougher in the frontal attack then any other in the world....and produces the toughest dogs in the world.....just my opinioin of course. Cool Those of you that have seen it know that there is little give by the decoy upon the entry of the dog. You here a loud "thud" and maybe the decoy's grunt as he is slammed by a dog.......it is a beautiful thing!!!!!!!

It is my understanding that they did away with the upper body bites on the bike due to decoy injuries as opposed to dog injuries. A competetor stated that they put the docoy's safety above the dog's. That is a fundamental difference in thinking then I have seen here in the U.S..

Sorry Woody....maybe this is another thread too. Confused

Gregg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Andres Martin
Puppy


Joined: 19 May 2006
Posts: 29
Location: El Salvador

PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gregg,

I think in KNPV there are less injuries in the stok attack due to the mechanics of the bite plane...

The bite surface does not protrude from the "backstop". When using a sleeve, if the dog is coming in fast and the decoy slams the dog, the dog´s head stays at least 12 inches behind where the body slams, and can hurt a dog´s spine. In KNPV the entire dog flattens out against the decoy´s body...a beautiful thing.

With a sleeve and a fast dog...if the decoy is good, and allows the dog´s kinetic energy to dissipate slowly up through the tail pointing up to the sky...another beautiful thing...but the dog doesn´t bite down hard, the covers on the sleeve can snag the canines and dogs loose teeth.

hmmm...instead of watering down schutzhund, why not use suits instead of sleeves...? Twisted Evil

and...teach the schh crowd to ramp up their dog´s fighting ability!!!! Twisted Evil Twisted Evil tables anyone??

just to get back on subject Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Woody Taylor
Moderator


Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Posts: 625

PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gregg Tawney wrote:

Sorry Woody....maybe this is another thread too. Confused
Gregg


Well yeah, but in a good way. Twisted Evil Don't take it personally if I ever pull one of your posts into another thread. There are two things going on there: 1. you made (to me at least) a relevant post that was off-topic but interesting enough (to me at least) to warrant discussion and 2. this can let you burn the argument candle on both ends because god forbid you all actually use the day to train your dogs or anything. Wink I just wanted to prune and water a bit, definitely because you are doing something right. If it bugs you, PM me. But not tonight. You guys ran me through the ringer today. Evil or Very Mad

I would encourage any of you to prune threads when interesting stuff comes up. That's the point, in my mind...beating each other up on table training is bound to yield some additional thoughts about whatever we can build on somewhere else. It's pretty neat how it works, in my opinion.

Good day today, thanks to everybody for participating and keeping their heads on at the end of it.
_________________
Defending n00bs everywhere since March 2006
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jeff Oehlsen
Young Dog


Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Posts: 230
Location: Aurora Colorado

PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:Like Jeff said previously...."the dogs learn that you are not able to cross a line", which would have been true if the dog was on a tie out. This dog looked away for a second which allowed me to grab him. (not hard, just sudden).

If a dog looks away from you while you are aggitating, it is a form of avoidance, or possibly you suck at it. Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil

I can grab a dog without a table just fine. Wink

Maybe this will get posted 40 times like all the others!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andres Martin
Puppy


Joined: 19 May 2006
Posts: 29
Location: El Salvador

PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Are you grabbing the two legged variety? Twisted Evil
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gregg Tawney
Puppy


Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 34
Location: California, United States

PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jeff -

Really....................where have you grabbed dogs while on a tie out?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Connie Sutherland
Moderator


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 1242
Location: North-Central Coast of California

PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Woody Taylor wrote:
.......You guys ran me through the ringer today. Evil or Very Mad.......Good day today, thanks to everybody for participating and keeping their heads on at the end of it.


Ditto. That's all the typing energy I have left.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lou Castle
Teething


Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 75
Location: Los Angeles, CA

PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Earlier I wrote: "It's a bit off-topic but I don't see the need for a dog to "engage" someone in an attic. It's a dangerous place for a dog. He's lost his advantage of speed and agility. There are toxic substances present in many of them. And there are dangling wires and ducting that can easily entrap him. And there's always the very possible, seen it several times during training, of him breaking through the ceiling and being injured during the 7' fall."

Andres Martin wrote:
All of us that use dogs on the street


Just so you know, I worked a dog "on the street" for over five years. After he retired I was the in-house K-9 trainer for the department for the most part for the next 15 years. I'm not some theorist with no experience.

Andres Martin wrote:
know the aforementioned to be illogical and delusional...maybe senile (some more sarcastic humor).


Ya'see calling someone names is just rude and shows how limited is your ability to deal with others. There's a difference between saying "I don't think that what you're doing is correct." or "I think there's a better way to do it." or "What you're doing doesn't make sense to me." and saying that someone is illogical, delusional or senile. I don't appreciate being called names especially by a . . . well, I'll just let it go. I can see that you've chosen to join the ranks of those who can't stay polite and professional in a conversation where people are disagreeing with you.

I just talked to a friend of mine who is a trainer for LAPD. They're doing in the vicinity of 5,000 searches per year with 1,200- 1,400 finds in those searches. In the past nine years they haven't put a K-9 into the attic once! I guess those guys are all "senile, illogical and delusional." LASD also doesn't put dogs into attics. But what do two of the best and busiest K-9 Teams in the US know? Obviously you should be training them!

But this difference could be regional. In this part of the world attics are not living spaces. They're not even storage spaces. They're strictly for insulation. The ceiling above my head is sheet rock nailed to the underside of joists. It's not strong enough to bear much weight. It's not strong enough to support the weight of a man so one couldn't hide under the insulation. In some parts of the US attics are living space, and the floors are plywood, often with a covering over it, but not always. Perhaps attics are different where you work and that could explain the difference in how we work. But how would I know since I'm illogical, delusional and senile? I doubt that you'd be so impolite so as to speak this way if we were having this conversation face to face. I wonder why you think it's OK to do it here?

Andres Martin wrote:
There are a BUNCH of tactical scenarios that call for a dog to go into the "dangerous" place and not the human handler.


I've only been training police dogs since 1979 but I've never thought that an attic, of the type that is common here, was an appropriate place to put a dog. It's something that people train for but I've never seen the need. Dogs should be able to make the find from the ground or at least be trained to alert from the entrance to the attic or a vent. Then it's up to the SWAT team to get him out. Dog are good at finding but not so good at apprehension.

So what other "dangerous places" do you think that a dog should go into but "not the human handler?" Generally I don't think it's proper to send a dog someplace that I wouldn't send his handler. Just a question, what do you do when your dog makes that find in the attic and bites the suspect? Do you call the dog off and then order the suspect to come down? Do you send the handler in? Oh no, wait you said it was too dangerous for him. What if the suspect refuses to come down? Do you redeploy the dog over and over and over until he does? Perhaps you do. I see that you're from El Salvador. I don't know if that's your birthplace or where you work now. But I'll assume the latter. Do they have lawyers down there? I know if you did that in the US you'd be looking at both civil and criminal liability.

And can someone tell me how it's impossible for a dog to fall off a table?

Gregg Tawney wrote:
"Cant we all just get along?"


Based on results I'd say not. But we really don't have to. It's fine to disagree. It's fine to defend a position passionately. What isn't OK is what several of forum members have done, get rude, call names and engage in flaming.

Gregg Tawney wrote:
When I said equipment I was refering to prey attractions such as sleeves, hidden sleeves (because they are not so hidden) and anything else that would elicite prey.


I get it, you're working the dog on the table and not wearing any equipment.

Gregg Tawney wrote:
When I was talking about channeling dogs back and forth I meant that the table allows me to do this easier because the dog looks at me as a threat....why?....because I was able to "cross that line" on a few occassions and actually grab his paw or other part of the dog which I can not do on a back tie.


I get this too. I do this on a bite with body language and eye contact. The table lets you do it without equipment. I can also do it while the handler holds the leash (if he's good) or with the dog backtied.

Gregg Tawney wrote:
The dogs that benifit the most from the table are the dogs that have fight drive


Where were you during the discussion of fight drive? LOL. Some list members don't think that it exists.

Gregg Tawney wrote:
Since so much of our bite work training is with equipment I try to balance the dog with some table work occassionally. I want a police dog operating around 75/25 prey/fight.


I use the muzzle to avoid the dog making associations with equipment. First he has to be desensitized to it so that he doesn't associate it with training. I don't use my prey work except to build up the bite or to use it for de-stressing and play.

Gregg Tawney wrote:
As far as the atic insertions. How do you handle looking for a wanted subject in a house if you believe he may be in the atic?


I life the dog into entrance to the attic and the vents. If someone is present the dog will alert. If he does it's either a SWAT call, depending on the crime or officers will make the entry. I've seen dogs crash through the ceiling boards probably six or seven times, each time injuring themselves. Never was anyone in the attic.

Andres Martin wrote:
3) Dogs don't fall off tables.


How is this possible? Perhaps if you were to describe the size and shape of the table it would be more clear.

Andres Martin wrote:
8 ) A dog does not view a table as equipment. Sheeesh. It views sleeves, suits, tugs, as equipment.


This is just a semantic difference. I define as "equipment" anything that the dog associates with biting or training. The table certainly would fall into that category.
_________________
Regards,

Lou Castle, Los Angeles, CA
Uncllou@aol.com
www.loucastle.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Connie Sutherland
Moderator


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 1242
Location: North-Central Coast of California

PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lou Castle wrote:

Andres Martin wrote:
know the aforementioned to be illogical and delusional...maybe senile (some more sarcastic humor).



****MOD NOTE******


I missed that; sorry.

Andres, that kind of "humor" isn't humor, sarcastic or not, and it's NOT OKAY. It's not okay from ANY forum member.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tim Martens
Young Dog


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 212

PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

one of your fellow so-calites, brad smith, would disagree with you on the use of dogs in attics.

***MOD EDIT***. You two, yes you guys. You two probably will be best off not addressing each other. Calling into question each other's work history, repetitively playing the ad hominem stuff, falling back on "I know you are but what am I " etc. is way off topic. Stop posting to each other because this is silly. Thanks. PM me if you have any concerns but please cut it out in the public forums. Or PM each other and get it figured out. Just not here. The exchange you two are having is disrespectful to the other people in this forum. It's disrespectful to the mods. Just...stop. I really, really do not want to have to address this crap again today.[/Woody]
_________________
if it ain't dutch, it ain't much...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jeff Oehlsen
Young Dog


Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Posts: 230
Location: Aurora Colorado

PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:Really....................where have you grabbed dogs while on a tie out?

How bad do you have to be at aggitating that the dog would look away? Looking away for a second is avoidance clear and simple buddy, love ya, but if you are working a dog and it looks away...........................well, pushing dogs into avoidance is one of the things a table can do for you.

I can, and have, pushed a dog into this same avoidance years ago. (I didn't need a table though Razz ) I grabbed him by the side of the head right below the ear. If they look away, it is easy. However, if they look away, you are "F"ing up.

Sorry not a NOOB, and have done this many years, and screwed up a few times. (times a 1000 Embarassed )
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gregg Tawney
Puppy


Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 34
Location: California, United States

PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jeff -

Again, I disagree. Not every dog that looks away for a split second is in avoidence. Have you ever heard of threat perception thresholds?

What about a dog that bates you?....I guess that dog is in avoidence also. Been there done that....got the scars to prove it.


Gregg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Woody Taylor
Moderator


Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Posts: 625

PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 6:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

***There is a new, seperate thread for attic insertions over in the Police K9 section. Please take that topic over there and out of this thread; it seems to be an interesting topic and there are already folks chatting it up there. Thanks! [/Woody]
_________________
Defending n00bs everywhere since March 2006
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andres Martin
Puppy


Joined: 19 May 2006
Posts: 29
Location: El Salvador

PostPosted: Tue Jun 13, 2006 8:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Lou,

I´m truly sorry if I offended you. I was simply using some humorous adjectives. Regrettably they were only humorous to me. It must be because I´m from this part of the world, and speak and write other languages better than English. Please accept my apology.

I was born in El Salvador, but was educated extensively the States. I see you´ve been training dogs since 1979. Thanks for sharing. When I recieved my MBA from a prestigious US University, one of my Marketing professors once said something I will never forget:

There´s a huge difference between having 30 years experience and having one year´s experience repeated 30 times.

Please bear that in mind. I´m glad for you that you have had such an illustrious career. Keep up the good work.

Yours Truly,

Andres
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Working Dog Forum Forum Index -> Training Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Page 9 of 11

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group