German Shepherds Forum banner

1 - 20 of 46 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
850 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I like that he is spreading the word on clicker training under the alias of Leerburg 'Marker Training', but annoyed that he seems to be exploiting it a little too quickly after bad mouthing it for so long, in regards to his videos on 'Marker Training' that he is now marketing.
Anyone else care have an opinion on Frawley?
Image uploading. Refresh page to view
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,996 Posts
I like Ed's products and website, if you're looking for warm fuzzies and cutesy dialog on his website you'll be disappointed. Ed was talking about marker training years ago and took no issue with it. What he takes exception to is faddish training and positive training only methods. I've found most the people who are most vocal about Ed are disturbed or they are envious of his commercial success of his website and videos.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,058 Posts
I think he has a lot of good useful information, just like a lot of people. You do not have to agree with everything. Just a matter of taking what applies to your situation. If he has found the "marker training" has its place, good for him! I think the term marker refers more to a word then an actual clicker (I could be off base though) I use the word "yes" instead of a clicker, never could get that to work just right.
I think the sign of a good trainer is the ability to change the way you do things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tulip

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
27,461 Posts
Some of his info I really like and some I don't agree with. But regardless of my opinion, he has tons of followers.

Quote: exploiting it a little too quickly after bad mouthing it for so long, in regards to his videos on 'Marker Training'
I also find it interesting if he's got a new video based on marker training. But think it's a good thing cause it shows that he can change his mind about training methods (even if it takes awhile
). And ANYONE that's a proponent of positive based training (whether you call it clicker training or use a clicker) is a good thing!!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tulip

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,221 Posts
We bought the video and it's very good (there were some things I disagreed with, for instance, negative reinforcement -- with "no")

He states in the video that he was a huge opponent and that he was totally wrong and it was all due to ignorance on his part.

Gives credit to a lot of people there who converted him.

There is also a very touching segment there where he talks about the new/positive school and the old/compulsion school and where he apologies and expresses his regrets about hurting the dogs in the name of training!

Overall, I really liked how he presented the material and the key messages in the video!

Tanya
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tulip

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
27,461 Posts
Quote:He states in the video that he was a huge opponent and that he was totally wrong and it was all due to ignorance on his part.

Gives credit to a lot of people there who converted him.

There is also a very touching segment there where he talks about the new/positive school and the old/compulsion school and where he apologies and expresses his regrets about hurting the dogs in the name of training!
And I say GOOD FOR HIM! Think we shows we all can be a bit more open minded when it comes to new methods and styles of training.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
850 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Originally Posted By: caviewWe bought the video and it's very good (there were some things I disagreed with, for instance, negative reinforcement -- with "no")

He states in the video that he was a huge opponent and that he was totally wrong and it was all due to ignorance on his part.

Gives credit to a lot of people there who converted him.

There is also a very touching segment there where he talks about the new/positive school and the old/compulsion school and where he apologies and expresses his regrets about hurting the dogs in the name of training!

Overall, I really liked how he presented the material and the key messages in the video!

Tanya
Tanya,

Thanks for your reply! I guess I should watch the video! It definitely is impressive that he talks about regretting using compulsion training.
I don't think that because someone disagrees with him they are jealous, etc. though. And it looks like he is on the fad train now with clicker training, which is a good thing!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
850 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Originally Posted By: MaggieRoseLeeSome of his info I really like and some I don't agree with. But regardless of my opinion, he has tons of followers.

Quote: exploiting it a little too quickly after bad mouthing it for so long, in regards to his videos on 'Marker Training'
I also find it interesting if he's got a new video based on marker training. But think it's a good thing cause it shows that he can change his mind about training methods (even if it takes awhile
). And ANYONE that's a proponent of positive based training (whether you call it clicker training or use a clicker) is a good thing!!!!
Agreed! Hopefully his followers get into positive training! That is definitely a plus to his videos. I guess my annoyance just comes from people following some of his "old" stuff. Like not letting anyone pet your puppy, (which I know has been discussed enough times on this forum) but I went to see a dog today that was raised by a guy doing exactly this wanting his GSD he bought to be a Schutzhund, bought him from a breeder at 8 weeks, and by the time he was 4 months, rehomed him because he decided he didn't have enough time. So now the new family has had him 2 months and he barks at all strangers, and it is obviously fear driven. He barks and runs away, but did snip at my husband. I got him to take treats and let me pet him, but he was much better with his family, including their 4 year old son who he is very good with.
He hasn't been socialized like he needs to be because his new family seems to not have enough time/experience for him. They have good intentions, but he is outside alone with an underground electric fence, and only comes inside to sleep in the garage.
So we went to see him today, looking for a new dog for our inlaws, and obviously he was not a good match. I wish I didn't have 3 already or I would have brought him home. I think he would do well in an experienced home with some training and a lot of positive socializing.
I guess that just prompted me to look at the Leerburg website since the original owner was a "Follower" of Frawleys. But I guess everyone is ultimately responsible for their own actions really.
Sorry for the rant! Just bummed. If anyone is interested in a 6 month male supposed Czech line pup with some fear issues send me a pm!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,415 Posts
I'm not fond of Frawley, but maybe he's changed from his old "make the dog submit" methods. I hope so.

I haven't checked recently, but he had a page on his site about chows and how terrible they were - and how you should train them with a prong or shock collar because they were vicious animals. In one part he talked about "helicoptering" them around at the end of a leash. When someone is so blind about a particular breed, it just sets of many red flags about his abilities as a trainer. I don't have problems training chows. And I don't automatically classify a dog as vicious because of the breed.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,415 Posts
Originally Posted By: MaxGunnarI like Ed's products and website, if you're looking for warm fuzzies and cutesy dialog on his website you'll be disappointed. Ed was talking about marker training years ago and took no issue with it. What he takes exception to is faddish training and positive training only methods. I've found most the people who are most vocal about Ed are disturbed or they are envious of his commercial success of his website and videos.
Oh, and I find this to be ridiculous. People object to methods that are harsh, and that has nothing to do with being disturbed or envious. I SHOULD be bothered by someone who promotes harsh training techniques! It disturbs me that others aren't. And he DID make fun of positive methods in his page on chows. He mocked the woman on the radio who promotes positive training.

It's always been sad to me that he has such a following. While I'm sure he's got an occasional item on his website that is valid and helpful, overall he has been a blight on dog training (in my opinion). I truly do hope he's seen the light and taken a step out of the muck. It's about time. And I hope his followers see the light too, and realize that all that time that they spent thinking of him as "wonder-trainer" was wrong.

The ends do NOT always justify the means.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
850 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Originally Posted By: IliamnasQuest
Originally Posted By: MaxGunnarI like Ed's products and website, if you're looking for warm fuzzies and cutesy dialog on his website you'll be disappointed. Ed was talking about marker training years ago and took no issue with it. What he takes exception to is faddish training and positive training only methods. I've found most the people who are most vocal about Ed are disturbed or they are envious of his commercial success of his website and videos.
Oh, and I find this to be ridiculous. People object to methods that are harsh, and that has nothing to do with being disturbed or envious. I SHOULD be bothered by someone who promotes harsh training techniques! It disturbs me that others aren't. And he DID make fun of positive methods in his page on chows. He mocked the woman on the radio who promotes positive training.

It's always been sad to me that he has such a following. While I'm sure he's got an occasional item on his website that is valid and helpful, overall he has been a blight on dog training (in my opinion). I truly do hope he's seen the light and taken a step out of the muck. It's about time. And I hope his followers see the light too, and realize that all that time that they spent thinking of him as "wonder-trainer" was wrong.

The ends do NOT always justify the means.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska
Thanks for being honest! I didn't want to stir the pot! But this is kind of what caught my eye, not so much that he decided to really get into positive training, but a scrutinizing eye may see he is smart enough to know that it is another way for him to profit by regurgitating clicker training with a twist and immediately pumping out videos.
His free ebook on marker training isn't bad either. Although he has some conflicting info in it, like how he disagrees with "clicker purists" when it comes to training a dominant dog, but then says
"It is also a perfect way to retrain adult dog (even dominant dogs) because the consequences of a behavior are not conflict with the handler. So when it is done correctly it is a safe way to retrain the foundation of obedience work on a dominant dog."

I would be really convinced if he started pumping out Schutzhund training videos with clicker/"marker" training. Think he will?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,724 Posts
I use marker training with schutzhund, you bet!
Ed Frawley is a business man. Period. Good or bad. He has not trained or titled a dog for some time. Repackaged and marketed dog training.
His prices are a bit high for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,221 Posts
Quote: I didn't want to stir the pot! But this is kind of what caught my eye, not so much that he decided to really get into positive training, but a scrutinizing eye may see he is smart enough to know that it is another way for him to profit by regurgitating clicker training with a twist and immediately pumping out videos.
I am sorry, but I don't understand this bashing -- we all agree it's a good thing the man saw that "positive" is good.

Why bash and bash?

How about using the same "positive" approach when it comes to people?

Tanya
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
285 Posts
Originally Posted By: caview
Quote: I didn't want to stir the pot! But this is kind of what caught my eye, not so much that he decided to really get into positive training, but a scrutinizing eye may see he is smart enough to know that it is another way for him to profit by regurgitating clicker training with a twist and immediately pumping out videos.
I am sorry, but I don't understand this bashing -- we all agree it's a good thing the man saw that "positive" is good.

Why bash and bash?

How about using the same "positive" approach when it comes to people?

Tanya
Good post, Tanya


I am an "Ed Frawley follower", lol. I even got a dog from him. In fact, I can't imagine where I would be with my first dog if it hadn't been for his advice. Everything I have read or watched of his in the last couple of years states that he is not all about the "yank and crank" methods anymore. He even touched on marker training in his "Basic Dog Obedience" dvd, and that came out like 3 years ago, so it's not exactly a "new" idea for him.

I believe that it is important to study all the methods of training out there, whether you agree with them or not, to see what works best for your particular dog in a given situation. I don't follow Ed Frawley's methods to the letter, I pick and choose what works for me and my two very different dogs and use that. I use bits and pieces from several other trainers. I have also read Koehler, although I choose not to use that method. It is with this varied knowledge that I can distinguish good training from bad, and if I am not comfortable with something, or don't feel it is right for my dog at that point in time, I just don't use it.

I think it takes a big person to stand up and very publicly admit they have been wrong in the past.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,442 Posts
Quote:I believe that it is important to study all the methods of training out there, whether you agree with them or not, to see what works best for your particular dog in a given situation. I don't follow Ed Frawley's methods to the letter, I pick and choose what works for me and my two very different dogs and use that. I use bits and pieces from several other trainers. I have also read Koehler, although I choose not to use that method. It is with this varied knowledge that I can distinguish good training from bad, and if I am not comfortable with something, or don't feel it is right for my dog at that point in time, I just don't use it.
Excellent post!

I also want to add that I seem to remember there being an article on "marker training" on the Leerburg website about 4 or 5 years ago when I first found the website and read some of the articles. The big difference is that the marker talked about on the site (at the time - not sure if it has changed) was a voice marker, rather than a clicker.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
27,461 Posts
Quote:The big difference is that the marker talked about on the site (at the time - not sure if it has changed) was a voice marker, rather than a clicker.
I think he's still saying that the voice is can be used the same... but then has to continue with the explanation about how exact and specific and consistant and............you then need to always be so that it WILL be the same.

So I think that's a bit funny (and I do mean funny ha ha). Because though he's 100% behind the marker training ideas and philosophy. He's backing off a bit with the use of a COMPLETELY neutral marker like the clicker (I wouldn't care if he used a whistle or clapped or .... rather than the voice). He's telling us to be neutral if we use our voices but I think that's not taking into consideration enough that we ARE HUMAN. We do get frustrated and aren't always consistant, and that does come thru in our voices and tone and will affect the training.

It won't ruin the training. But just makes it a little less clear. I'd also say that because many of us talk too much in general in training, specially with a new behavior (even if it's with praise) that it muddy's the training waters. What I like about all the initial clicker training is we are supposed to shut the heck up (very hard for me BTW) and let the dogs figure it out and earn the 'click/reward'.

************ People on his site also used to use the 'click' and marker to mean to continue with the behavior with NO reward. As in say your dog was in perfect heel positioning going across the field, they used to say you could click click click during the walk and only reward when you finished at the end of exercise. Kind of a 'keep going' type of thing. Which was NOT my understanding of marker training. Wonder if that has changed or is one of his uses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,451 Posts
I've found that if I listen to or look into ANY trainer for long enough I start finding things that annoy me.

Whether or not I agree with all of Ed's ideas, I think he's a very experienced handler and trainer and appreciate that he offers so much information for free.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
285 Posts
Originally Posted By: MaggieRoseLee
************ People on his site also used to use the 'click' and marker to mean to continue with the behavior with NO reward. As in say your dog was in perfect heel positioning going across the field, they used to say you could click click click during the walk and only reward when you finished at the end of exercise. Kind of a 'keep going' type of thing. Which was NOT my understanding of marker training. Wonder if that has changed or is one of his uses.
This is the way I marker train: I use a terminal bridge to mark a specific behavior (yes) which always gets a treat, an intermediate bridge that says to keep doing that behavior (gooood), and a negative marker (oops). Although I do do some free shaping at the very beginning of a behavior, this is a bit different. It may seem that it is not as clear to the dog as an impersonal click, but if I may give an example? I am starting to teach Dutch to stay, so I ask him for a stand and started to walk around him(saying "gooood"). He moved to follow me, so I said "oops", asked for a front sit, then a stand again. The second time I tried to walk around him (saying "gooood") he didn't move at all. This was 5 days ago, and while I don't ask him to stay for more than a couple of minutes at a time, several times a day, he hasn't broken it since that first time.

I think the use of an intermediate bridge and a negative marker along with the terminal bridge (clicker) clarifies things for the dog while still allowing them to think for themselves and learn to problem solve to earn their reward.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
850 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Originally Posted By: caview
Quote: I didn't want to stir the pot! But this is kind of what caught my eye, not so much that he decided to really get into positive training, but a scrutinizing eye may see he is smart enough to know that it is another way for him to profit by regurgitating clicker training with a twist and immediately pumping out videos.
I am sorry, but I don't understand this bashing -- we all agree it's a good thing the man saw that "positive" is good.

Why bash and bash?

How about using the same "positive" approach when it comes to people?

Tanya
Why bash? I am not bashing, I am questioning! Because people need to be smart consumers, especially when it comes to training their pet. And to be honest, he has said some very concerning things about dogs and training in the past, and he should absolutely expect to be questioned in result.
I am a big fan of Karen Pryor, yes, but I am not a clicker purist and I am familiar with most training theories/methods, negative/positive. I have just recently left a military/police dog training kennel following his "old" stuff and I think I can say I am quite familiar with some of his "followers" (not anyone on this forum).
If you like Frawley that is great, please say so and why! If not, great, please say so and why!
If you don't like the fact that I am questioning him (and looking for constructive responses), please give me a reason beyond his latest marketing to not do so!
If you can't do any of these things, feel free to "bash" me back as others chose to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
229 Posts
I like Ed Frawley. After reading and watching many dog trainers (and going to classes with a trainer) over the past year, I have more respect for Ed than for any of the others so far. Why? Honesty. His honest and straight-forward approach comes through when I watch his videos. Even my wife said "I like this guy" the first time we sat and watched one of his videos.

Yes, he is a businessman and if there is one annoying quality to me, it is that he hocks his wares non-stop during his training videos (which, BTW I paid good money for and don't like the infomercials within)... but that is a minor annoyance and one I can overlook.

It is my responsibility as an adult human being and responsible dog owner to make some decisions with regard to which methods I adopt/attempt and which I do not. I realize that free will and the acceptance of responsibility is very un-American these days, but I do it anyway.

I have recently stuck my toe in the waters of clicker training, having tried many other methods (and doing a fairly good job at botching most of them). I bought the Karen Pryor book. I have read her website. I have also read Ed's thoughts on it, as well as the afrorementioned apology. I agree with a previous poster that it takes a big man to bluntly say "I was wrong, and I'm sorry". In the year or so that I have been reading this forum, I find many of its more active members to be much less open minded.

To answer the OP question - no, I do not find it annoying for a dog trainer of many years and much success to have a change of heart regarding a specific methodology and incoroporate it into his repertoire. I find that to be a sign of a trainer/instructor who adapts. If he is also attempting to "sell" that training and market products around it, I have no issues. Karen Pryor did not give me her book -I had to buy it.
 
1 - 20 of 46 Posts
Top