Can someone explain me what this master trainer and master decoy are doing ?? - Page 3

"The point of the post(s) was to bash someone while pretending to be asking a genuine questions and/or giving genuine advice"

Correct, Transparent like glass, and not stained glass.

In my post above where it says :
Another dog this one 11 mo during muzzle attack. Unedited training in progress. That is a wrong video. That video actually shows dog doing table work showing desensitization    of a civil dog to equipment. Here is a correct video working 11 mo old dog with muzzle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HbGdl7oJ9A

 

@Reliya

The person who is doing my videos took the video off as private. Since I have nothing to hide, I have put it back just now. Also I will say this.  This is a unedited raw video of training in progress. Most dogs   during first time doing muzzle attack will try to get rid of the muzzle as we see it on LuvLuv video. They will do it with lesser or greater intensity. That is not abnormal or unusual  that is very common or basically normal and anybody honest who attempted this more then once with different dogs will tell you the same. That is why I am nottoo concerned about dog's actions at first and am letting her to get it out of her system so that she can focuss which she have done as you can see later on in the video. At the start of such training the  dog is trying to get rid of muzzle in orderer to be able to engage. It only follows that civil dog does want to remove the muzzle from it's face before the bite.   People who do not understand that just judge this as some bad thing. Dogs are not stupid and know that muzzle is restraining them.  

Also OP is saying that the dog is frustrated which is true. Dog is frustrated. The point of the training is to frustrate the dog in order to increase  it's intensity. Many think  that muzzle attack teaches the dog to be civil which is totally false. The dog needs to be civil before you start  muzzle attack training. The muzzle attack does mainly brings up intensity of a dog  through frustration. Next thing it does is  it teaches the dog to hit into the middle of the mass but that comes later.   Anyway as I have said this is an unedited video of training in progress taken out of context which as all  such attempts are, it    tries to hurt someone in dishonest way.  

 

Bad dogs,bad training and bad handlers.. The common word is bad!!!! Hans has been tricking people for years..

@bubaboo -
Excellent knowledgeable posts and cracking vids, I hadn't seen the Polish one before.

Re the dog reverting back to business as usual post muzzle work, yes that is common.
In my experience that is more a consequence of dogs who have been proofed in the muzzle as opposed to trained over a period of time working the man in the muzzle.

Once again - excellent posts.

Regards
Gee

@roblev Very insightful. Thank you!!!

Hans you act like your Czech dogs are so REAL but they are mostly west working lines.....

I was debating ever posting on this forum but I can remain silent no longer. I don't know who the foreign guy who looks like a bald Santa Claus is that someone would characterize a critique of his "training" as an assassination. If someone posted a video of a dog being beaten with a crowbar no one would say that criticisms of the person beating the dog were an assassination. This video may not be abuse on that level but as far as training goes it is not above a negative critique. Yes, it is that bad. The people calling this an assassination are being overly dramatic and trying to deflect from the substance of the critique. This type of training, and I notice that there has been a bit of a debate on sport vs reality, civility, defensive training, man training vs equipment training, etc., is ineffective, inappropriate, ignorant, uneducated and will ultimately get a result, if adhered to, that is not what these owners want. This whole idea of defensive training is based on myths. I would say it's a fraud but that is a legal term and I am not a lawyer. The "logic" behind it seems sound but it's built upon a foundation of myths and unsubstantiated supposition.

The people who know, know, so this isn't directed at them. No, I'm speaking to those who are new to dog training and are susceptible to marketing disguised as result proven methodology. The first thing you need to ask is what verifiable results a trainer has achieved. Don't look at credentials because anyone can say he is a master trainer. Someone who has titled dogs can refer to the actual dogs he titled. Someone who has trained dogs for the police can refer to the actual dogs, departments and even handlers. He can tell you how they have performed on the street. Self-serving anecdotes and hearsay are not verifiable evidence. They are not verifiable results. Results are all that matters. Real trainers put results before methodology. They talk about WHAT they have done before they talk about HOW it was done. If all you hear from someone is HOW then move on because you need to know the WHAT, that is the proven results. The question then becomes, how many people have gotten real world results from this training? All I see is theory, I want to know the actual results. I see dogs being "trained" I don't see any dogs actually performing. I could go into more detail about the myth of this type of training and the falsehoods behind it but I won't for now. Just ask for proof when someone tells you something works and know that proof is more than an anecdote. Something these "trainers" do is sell themselves before they sell the product. You believe in them so you end up believing them.

What is really going on is marketing. This type of training is all about ego. The ego of the trainers and more importantly the ego of the dog owners. They are excited by the prospect of owning a dog who is civil, a "killer", a man stopper, or this term that is bandied about, type 1. They want a bad ass personal protection dog. Well, no. They don't. They think they do after the sales pitch they get but what they really want is a pet dog who will protect. The first step in getting that is genetics not some recycled, repackaged training methodology that by appearing different from what is typical today appears to be new. No, it isn't new and there is a reason why it's considered outdated. Remember the whole results thing? If trainers weren't getting better results with the newer methods they would never have adopted them. Things go extinct for very good reasons sometimes. And make no mistake about it, this is being sold to pet owners. The trainers who are using this method, and I doubt there are many of them, are not training dogs for actual work. They can say they are but I can say I invented the internet just as easily and with just as much proof.

These pet owners, who are the people I'm talking to right now, are intrigued by owning a dog who will fight to the death for them but the reality is their dog will most likely be playing with them and sleeping most of its life. You want a dog you can live with, who you can trust to not eat your neighbor's baby, who will be confident and obedient. You want a pet who will, if needed and it probably won't be, defend you. Well, this training won't get you that but what it will get is a dog that is nervous, overly defensive, weak, and even dangerous. Why? Because the foundation is all wrong. But that's another post.

If you say to me, "but I really want a personal protection dog," then my answer would be to go buy one already trained from a reputable source that can demonstrate how their dogs have performed. Now, you may say, "but I can't afford to buy a full trained PP dog." There a few answers to that. One is, if you can't afford one you probably don't need one. OK, that is a bit flippant but something to think about. Are you a target of hit men for unpaid gambling debt? Another thing to consider is that starting from a puppy means you will be without a PP dog for a good two years, or more. In the meantime what are you going to do? Are you safe now but predict that in two years time you will need extra protection? One more thing to consider is cost of a puppy plus training. It might not be cheaper to go that route after all and with the trained dog you will have a proven package and probably a guarantee to back it up. With a puppy you don't know what the finished product will be and I doubt you'll get the money you invested in training back if the finished product is lacking. Add in that this training we see here is all wrong and you'll have to pay to have it retrained, which might not work.

My final word on this is to return to results. If a police dept buys a dog they will test it beforehand. If they go ahead and purchase it they might realize while getting it ready for work that it isn't up to snuff and return it, or whatever options they have, but they won't put it on the street. If it makes it to actual patrol work and when the times comes it fails, they will evaluate what went wrong and see if it's something they can fix or if not, that dog will be out of a job. It's all about results. At some point the dog will have to prove itself. It's the same with any dog sport. At some point it will be on the field and the results will speak for themselves. How do you know if this "training" we see works? You have to "hope" that your home is invaded or you are assaulted on the street, things that are unlikely to happen. If someone approaches you and your dog and looks alert and serious and the person turns around and walks away, that's a good thing but was it training or simply the deterrent effect? So I would ask those who are selling this "new" defensive methodology that doesn't use equipment first (a lie and something that is impractical and even impossible) what are the real world results that can be verified? How many PET OWNERS have been saved by their dogs actually biting for real? I would ask about K9s and MWDs but we all know that you aren't training those dogs. Stop talking about methods and talk about results. The time for theory is over.

Well that was a breath of fresh air.
Thanks, 'noitsyou', very interesting post.

Hans, ta for resurrecting the original video. But honestly, now that I can look back to check, I would swear that AT THAT POINT WHEN IT WAS FILMED that was NOT a 2.5 yr dog; more like less than 1.5. So I 'm still wondering about your explanation/reaction.