Has dog training actually improved. - Page 2

Sorry stuck record: - what you say makes a LOT of sense, &
where's the 'like' button ?  (Have worked with dogs too; despair
of people sometimes ...)

First, let me sat that I have seen countless dogs worked with compulsion that were not browbeat into submission. This perception that compulsion always leads to depressed, robotic, uninspiring , dogs is passed along folklore usually used by people who haven't seen dogs trained with compulsion competently. Because some may have not seen it does not make it so. One last thing on compulsion training, the ratio of reward (whether it is praise, treat, ball, toy, or bond) to compulsion determines the outcome of the dogs appearance and performance......compulsion training is no more just yank and crank, than remote training is just frying a dog.....many people speak on these subjects with limited exposure and fixed mind sets not based in correct application.
There are many variations of police training that incorporates elements of balls, toys, even treats, nothing is a vacuum to say police training is this or that. The narcotic dogs we trained in the early seventies were trained with food and beanbags/towels incorporating prey principle....still there was some compulsion also....nothing is absolute. Good trainers in sport and police adjust approaches based on individual dogs as others have said, BUT in police training schools there are curriculums and methodology that is pretty much used to train all the dogs in the academies or schools, especially as you get into tactical training. Whereas in sport or pet, people are much more free to use whatever approach they deem best for their dog, or go to a seminar and see a different approach and change altogether, or follow the clud TD, or any combination of the above. 
@Hundmutter....one thing to remember in police training is that the dog must learn a prescribed amount of exercises competently in a short amount of time. Schools are typically 10,12,16 weeks in duration. This necessitates that the dog has to have the genetics, the handler the skill, and the methods used producing results expeditiously . That's not saying yank and crank, but it is saying that methods are used to ensure that the dogs reaches their goal in the time allotted if the dog and handler are capable. You can't take six months to get certain places just to use certain methodology.....it doesn't work that way. I hope this explains my first post, because people always take a general statement and extrapolate it to extremes.....which does a disservice to those really trying to learn....jmo!

Well Gustav I'm all for people using different methods for
different dogs, even when there are time constraints it
surely isn't too much to ask for the experienced to assess
which of various equipment and incentives is most use
in training a particular dog ?

So: nothing wrong with some elements of complulsion;
like eg you can have a dog whose being trained with reward
(food / toys, whatever) and coming along nicely with all
the heelwork and stays etc - but then needs to be taught
a forced retrieve, for instance, because you try teaching it
more naturally and the dog shows no interest / aptitude.
Horses for courses.

I normally do not 'knock' Police training methods;  a) I
appreciate they have a job to do and limited time to do it
in, & b) it has improved immeasurably over the past 40
years in the UK anyway.  None of which excuses what
happened in Essex Police only a few years back when a dog
was HUNG, does it ?

TY, Gustav, your earlier statement makes sense now! I can see that police training is like a school with a set curriculum, and well-defined methods for reaching the learning goals. There may be different methods for different dogs, but not as broad an array of choices as in civilian training.

Have you ever seen a dog hung or fried on a sport field?  Was it the norm or was it the exception. How much police training have you witnessed to form your opinions?  I can find exceptions in all facets of life, but many people throw out opinions not realizing that the larger body of work that opinion does not represent. I'm sure most people on this forum with strong opinions have them based in experience......I can't explain or condone any extreme measures in police training, though I have seen it just like I have in sport and obedience trials. BUT the overwhelming body of work that I have seen in both forums doesn't represent cruelty or ineffective training....and I think it is unfair to label something like compulsion, based on an extreme application....unless that application IS the norm......maybe you see this as the case and I have just been lucky to see this beat to submission compulsion infrequently. I appreciate your views and will look harder to find this, as I strongly advocate effective fair training.

@Sunsilver....I honestly feel there are many ways to train dogs, and the trainers ability and knowledge is far more important than the particular way....all of them can be highly successful in the right hands, and all of them can be disasters in the wrong hands. That's why you seldom see me make absolute statements.

Hundmutter,
I have no idea what happened in Essex a few years ago.  I will ask, what do you do with an extremely aggressive dog that comes up the leash at you and is in a rage?  One option is to offer praise, cookies and treats and hope that when you get out of the hospital the dog is no longer mad.  The other option is to control the dog.  I am not a fan of "hanging dogs" like Cesar Milan does on a regular basis;  I am also not a fan of being eaten.  

It's NOT always the method of training...but the experience of the trainer using the method...And in saying that...When you match up a dog that can blossom under the method you have something that is very NICE...Whether you use MOTIVATIONAL  Techniques or COMPULSION...

One of the best examples is the use of an E-COLLAR...I mean it's a tool...Only a tool...How it's used is up to the one behind it...

I had a great debate with a group of oldster dog trainers the other day.  Couple of interesting questions came up.

Are current dog training methods actually an improvement on the old ways?

I don't think we're doing anything that wasn't done 100 years ago, It's still about consistency and timing and not everybody trained the same way, "back then" just like they don't now.  They do have a lot of new "terms" for things people have been doing for a long time.  I'd say more people are open to them than before.
Dogs used to be titled in 2-4 months now it can be upwards of a year.

I say bullshit.  Firstly, no dog can trial at 4 months, and they all have some foundation before anybody goes to trial.  I've seen people rush a dog to trial in a few months and it's never very pretty.  It's not hard to train a dog to minimal levels with any method.  To put a good foundation on and trial confidently and legitimately takes time, with ANY method.

Dogs do not appear trained outside the ring.
Again, Bullcrap.  I train with a lot of people across a lot of venues.  how "trained" someone's dog is directly correlates to how much training the person does outside the ring, not the method.  A dog afraid to leave it's owner's side shouldn't be confused with a "trained" dog outside the ring.  My dogs go everywhere with me, and I do mean everywhere.  I've never had anybody come up and say, "Sir, your dogs are quite untrained aren't they?"  In fact it's quite the opposite.

Need lots more equipment.  Old days leash , collar and praise

More bullcrap.  I don't even bother to put collars on my dogs half the time other than bitework.  how does that require more equipment?  I still train with some who've been around forever.  They have prongs, flats, ecollar, neck and belly, switches etc and you're going to claim you need more equipment by "modern" training methods???  Ok

Can we say "all Training has generally improved"  without
recognising that for a lot of ppl it hasn't - because they were
doing it right in the first place years ago ?

Can we say "all Training has generally improved" without
paying attention to the fact that a dog handler in a position
of responsibility, who should therefore set a good example
to others, misused a check chain collar to the extent he 
hung his dog TO DEATH ? This wasn't 'helicoptering' btw; 
a wall or scale was involved.  Don't take my word for it, there
was enough info. flying around at the time.  GSD Welfare
put a block on rehoming to the Police until they were satisfied
methods had been reviewed and it could not happen again.
(All we seem to have to contend with now is officers leaving
their dogs to cook in their cars).  I honestly am not aware
whether that case involved the dog having to be stopped from
handler aggression - but it was not used as an excuse at the
time I believe, so maybe that is because it didn't happen.

We have seen on this board quite recently when trainers get
over confident about their methods of dealing with 'hard' dogs
- when someone inadvertently shows by their description of
events that they actually enjoyed to some extent kicking seven
kinds of shit out of a nasty dog, there is surely something
amiss in the relationship between man and beast ?  Arrogance ?

Yes shit happens, accidents happen, people lose their tempers,
and fortunately its only a minority out of thousands of training
relationships - but we do ourselves and our dogs a disservice
by sweeping it under the carpet with an "oh well, they're under
pressure" attitude.  Don't we ?

Besides which, Gustav, who said "putting more work in" always
equals taking a longer time to train something ?  Basic example:
It does not take any longer to lure a dog into a Down than it does
to push it into one.  So why won't some know it all old style trainers
use the lure method first, and often save  themselves some time ?
Many dogs who strongly object to having their opp front leg grabbed
or whichever method is favoured can learn Down very quickly with a
food lure.  Problems with the general understanding of methods
tend to arise when someone 'old school' is so entrenched in the
way they always did things, they are reluctant to try an alternative
method.  Which would just be between their dogs and them, if they
then didn't set themselves up as Trainers or mentors to newer
owners.  With the increase in people thinking they have a 'right' to
keep a dog, irrespective of whether they really have time to care for
its needs properly,  there are ample opportunities - still - for things
to go wrong.