Has Cesar turned over a new leaf?

[kelpiegirl]

I have a question- applying your principles/theory of training, what would you do with a dog that would not down when asked when working sheep?

[ItsADogsLyfe]

Bill, it is unfortunate that you got this from my posts... I wasn't trying to show off my knowlege or Imply that anyone was ignorant. Believe it or not many people don't understand training principles is there something wrong with that to bring it to the light to share it with people who don't have it... if you can't take anything from it don't.

 

This statement implies to me that you do think you know better than the others involved in this discussion and that if they don't listen to you they are ignorant. One thing I have learned, by listening to others, is that my methods for training/working with dogs may not be the be all end all. I've seen these discussions before, where people try to explain to the lowly sheepdog people the theories behind their training when all the sheepdog people are doing is going out and communicating with their dogs. I don't think about what I do, I just do it in the best way that works for each individual dog. If one way doesn't work I will choose another. I'm too busy doing it to theorize on why it might or might not be working. This thread has made my head spin with all the technical terminology being thrown around. Sometimes I can just look in a dogs eyes and it seems to understand what I mean.

[Shetlander]

Having not worked with abusive children but abused dogs, yes there are always kids and dogs that are resiliant and may just avoid not shut down with constant correction/punishment but I guess that I, ME this I state is a personal opinion.... still believe that this becomes abusive handling and there will be some consequence how extreme or how little. I tend to say to people 'bad handling' or 'man handled' as that seems to get less hairs up when talking to them.

 

Of course you can have your own personal opinion... has my enthusiam for training made me think you are being attacked? Seriously ?

 

Not sure if this is directed to me or not, but no, I personally did not feel attacked. I even have a feeling our training styles are more similar that different. I was trying to figure out what you were saying and trying to explain my position that punishment/correction does not NEED to be abusive, even if it is used repeatedly. I could see it simply being ineffective, poor training. And I don't think a dog needs to be resilient to "recover" from a correction. Dogs correct each other all the time and move on. It doesn't need to be traumatic. It can be, of course, but it often isn't.

 

And being super resilient can work against a dog, as in the case of my Lhasa. If someone was to take a heavily correction based approach (by which I mean mainly corrections, not heavy ones) with him, he'd learn very little. In the words of our obedience instructor, "he doesn't understand punishment" which at times can actually be a very hard way to go through life.

 

So, anyway, the reason I keep responding is I'm trying to point out that punishment/correction does not need to be harsh, much less abusive. And it seems that you keep giving examples of harsh and often terribly abusive punishments. And furthermore, no matter how mild a punishment may be you state that if it is used repeatedly to little or no effect, it must be abusive. I guess we're just not going to agree on that one. And yes, I can live with it. I trust you can too.

[mosstheboss2000]

And yes, I can live with it. I trust you can too.

 

YES!

[mosstheboss2000]

Sometimes I can just look in a dogs eyes and it seems to understand what I mean.

 

And that is because Bill you are a common sense trainer who has learned to train dogs through hands on experience...and I have no doubt like me you are very aware of your own personal boundries of what you are willing to do to make things happen. Sure we all do things that we might not 'feel' good about but you are not go to be influenced by watching CM to think that you should go choke out your dog for not listening or by me saying well I would prefer to take away something then add a punishment. You are not the general population.

 

I sometimes take for granted the things we naturally do with the dogs, it is not until you see that same dog in the hands of someone else or try to move it on and get some major behavior issues that you start to see this in the hands of someone who doesn't read things well.

 

I great example of this may be if you took a young dog out on stock you probably can see things WELL in advance and stop a rodeo type event from happening. Where a someone who doesn't have that ability to see or read this would think all was well till the rodeo hit!

 

And while 'terms' may mean nothing to you... because you just get it when working with the dogs some people just don't get it. There is a reason why the things you do work though..

[kelpiegirl]

1) Who is choking out their dog?

2) What do you do when the dog will not down when working sheep?

[Eileen Stein]

So I will just turn it all over to you guys then....

I am going out to work my dogs.

Enjoy the beautiful day.

Cindy

 

Thanks, I did. I hope you did too. I went to the Sheep and Wool Festival.

[mosstheboss2000]

I have a question- applying your principles/theory of training, what would you do with a dog that would not down when asked when working sheep?

Working Sheep?.....

 

If I was working a dog on sheep and they would not lie down I would walk through my sheep towards my dog and using my stick would stop my dogs movement till they lay down. This may include repeating the command or changing tone.

I 'personally' would refrain from hitting the dog with a object (not saying any of you do...) but would toss something down in the dogs path to deter the dog from moving in that direction if they got up. So YES I would use PP to suppress my dogs behavior.

 

When my dog lay down I would praise and let them have their sheep again OR if it was to get a hold of them and they didn't understand to come off/job done That'll do. I would walk over to them and pat and praise.

This is of course in a small area In a big field I would sure as hell hope that my dog listened at that point, so might try repeating my cue(whistle or verbal) again possible change of tone or this might end in me running down the field like a crazy lady. If they were still not listening a good choice here might be taking my dog of the field.

Again as I said I may not do this OFF the sheep. OFF the sheep I would go back and generalize and proof my behavior.

If I was at agility and my dog broke a sit. I would go back and re-train this what I don't have to worry about is the safely of my sheep which could be my livelihood and what I don't necessarily have working for me is fixed instinct for my dog to want to continue to do it, although at some point agility does become a very valuable conditioned reinforcer for some dogs doesn't it!

 

I also would probably not put a dog on stock unless I gave it at least a basic understanding of a verbal DOWN.

Not that it will necessarily mean they will actually lay down once out, but it would definitely help set them up for success. Also

as Bill pointed out Down doesn't always mean Lay Down. But our dogs do learn from our tones when we mean it don't they and we still rely on them in this environment to be working off their fixed instincts.

 

So questions for the poeple who work their dogs for a living or recreationally I guess.. do you work your pups off the sheep first giving them any skills? Do you think that working dogs need to learn to take a correction and this is why you would initially teach behavior with correction or would you? I have spoken to a number of people who work their young dogs and many do believe that puppies need to learn to take a smack get yelled at and keep going.

 

I guess because my goal is to have a dog that is focus and listening and wanting to work with me. I would like a relationship built on trust and I would try not to do things that might encourage my dogs to avoid me. Especially so that if I did use punishment that my I would not ruin my relationship/trust with my dog.

 

I also do not use my dogs to work sheep as my livelihood...

I know that some working trainers believe that a dog with too much focus on us will ruin them as a working dog as they will check in too much. I must say from what I have seen fixed instincts definitely come into play here... even a top obedience dog may not lay down or come when on sheep.

It almost seems like avoidance behavior to some degree in Working Dogs is a good thing to have???

[mosstheboss2000]

Cesar was choking out his dog! Read the first post... Has he turned over a new leaf?

[kelpiegirl]

I for one taught my dogs down before sheep. I don't correct my dog unless she ignores a command I gave her, or deliberately chinces on something- with a voice correction. I think dogs need to be keen enough to want the sheep more than food- pretty much, if you want a dog who will excel- and even do moderately well with a bad trainer (not to be read as abusive, but off on timing etc) I think most people know that no dog is perfect, but if you want to progress that dog just has to listen to you, for it's own good- both mentally (less stress than when fighting all the time) and in order to be able to progress to more difficult things like off balance work, or international lifts, ornery ewes with lambs or anything that takes real thought/obedience.

 

I guess because my goal is to have a dog that is focus and listening and wanting to work with me. I would like a relationship built on trust and I would try not to do things that might encourage my dogs to avoid me. Especially so that if I did use punishment that my I would not ruin my relationship/trust with my dog.

 

It goes both ways- that dog needs to trust my judgement, and I hers. Dogs will do the things that make no sense to them, if we have established with them, that there will be consequences. The thing about working stock- with dogs who are especially keen, is that if you a fair, and clear about what you want, they will begin to trust your judgement, and you can progress. They will also desire to please you, because what you have asked, will end up resulting in a calm, clear picture to the dog, which is what we want.

 

I also do not use my dogs to work sheep as my livelihood...

I know that some working trainers believe that a dog with too much focus on us will ruin them as a working dog as they will check in too much. I must say from what I have seen fixed instincts definitely come into play here... even a top obedience dog may not lay down or come when on sheep.

 

Checking in is not good. If the dog turns to look at you- he is not looking at the sheep. This can have major consequences, especially with ornery animals, who look at that as weakness. I see lots of checking in, as a sign of low confidence. That dog needs to listen to us on the fly- it is the ultimate obedience.

 

It almost seems like avoidance behavior to some degree in Working Dogs is a good thing to have???

 

Dogs will try to avoid a correction. Once you allow them to avoid it- say I am working your dog, and I chastise it about slicing in, and it runs to you for protection, and you give it- it has learned to avoid the correction. This is bad. The dog needs to know that the person working him/her, is the only thing that can offer correcton, or reward (sheep).

[juliepoudrier]

So questions for the poeple who work their dogs for a living or recreationally I guess.. do you work your pups off the sheep first giving them any skills?

 

The pups I've raised have all had basic manners taught off sheep. They learn a recall, sit, down. Maybe other stuff if I feel like training some tricks (you know simple stuff like "shake hands" and "roll over.") I use whatever method works for the individual dog. For Phoebe, who went through a very bad stage of starting to return on a recall and then turning in the opposite direction and running like hell, I used treats to reinforce the recall. For Lark, in order to stop her from hanging off the fur on the side of Kat's face, I redirected her attention to a leash she could tug on--mainly because Kat wouldn't correct her for the obnoxious behavior. If Kat had corrected her, then I would have left it alone. The other dogs did correct her, usually with a growl or a snap, so she didn't do it to them. I imagine you would call what the other dogs did "punishment" and yes it did stop Lark's behavior with them, but she certainly didn't generalize that correction (or shut down) when it came to Kat, who refused to stand up for herself. And the corrections given her by the other dogs, which were certainly more harsh than anything I might have done, didn't turn her into a quivering scared-to-death-to-do-anything mass. In general, I would have used a correction for such behavior myself, but since Kat is such a sensitve dog, any correction I gave to Lark would have been interpreted by Kat as also being a correction of her, so I used an alternative method (redirection). My first inclination, though, would have been to correct Lark for the behavior, just as the other dogs did. All of the interaction I have with my dogs/pups at this stage is about developing trust and partnership. I give corrections as needed, praise when warranted, and just let them be pups, free to explore and try things as much as I can. While I use corrections (voice, in general), I won't nag, and I don't usually direct another behavior in place of what I'm correcting. I don't consider this to be teaching a dog avoidance either, at least not in the way I understand the term "avoidance behavior" to be used. If, for example, the pup decides to chase a cat or a chicken, the pup will get a verbal correction "Hey!" or "Aaht!" Having lived with me for a bit, the pup understands that those words and my tone of voice simply mean "Stop what you're doing--I don't like that." If I teach the youngster to offer another behavior in the place of the one I'm correcting, then I am limiting the choices the pup has. This could cause a problem later. For example, if I teach an alternate behavior, say a lie down, every time I correct the dog, then when I'm working the dog on livestock and it starts to slice in at the top and I say "Hey!" I actually *don't want the dog to lie down.* I simply want it to recognize that what it's doing or thinking of doing *at that moment* is not acceptable, but then it's up to the dog to decide in that split second what it should do (and lie down isn't the answer) and do it. If the dog makes a correct choice we keep on, if the next choice is also incorrect, another correction is in order, perhaps followed up by some body pressure from me (i.e., stepping toward the dog). But note that the body pressure might actually come with me and the dog many yards apart, so while it's pressure, it's still very subtle pressure.

 

Do you think that working dogs need to learn to take a correction and this is why you would initially teach behavior with correction or would you? I have spoken to a number of people who work their young dogs and many do believe that puppies need to learn to take a smack get yelled at and keep going.

 

Well this is a difference of opinion. To me and many of the trainers I know, teaching a pup to take a correction means teaching it to take a verbal correction and maybe a body pressure correction. The only time I generally would escalate beyond that is if another animal's life were in danger, and even then we're not talking about the kind of punishment you refer to (hanging, shocks, beating). These dogs are smart enough to be able to read most of what they need to just by the tone of voice. Have I ever snatched a pup up by the scruff when the pup was intent on chasing and killing a chicken. You bet. But even that sort of punishment doesn't equate to the examples you've used for punishment. It's important to point out that such a correction (what I would use) lasts a second or two and then it's done and over with and life goes on. The pup has another chance to coexist with the chicken and not chase it. I don't teach the pup to come sit by me whenever it has the urge to chase. I want it to have that urge and simply decide not to chase. In my mind that's how a dog learns self control and impulse control. If I yell "Hey!" at a misbehaving pup and it cringes and acts as if the very act of me raising my voice is dire punishment, then I would take a different approach. But I really do want all my youngsters to learn that a voice correction simply means "You are doing something I don't like. Stop that and try something else." This will translate nicely to a dog who thinks when it's time to go to stock later.

 

I guess because my goal is to have a dog that is focus and listening and wanting to work with me. I would like a relationship built on trust and I would try not to do things that might encourage my dogs to avoid me. Especially so that if I did use punishment that my I would not ruin my relationship/trust with my dog.

 

I think where the misunderstanding comes in is your apparent belief that a correction (voice or body pressure) will somehow ruin the dog's trust or cause the dog to wish to avoid the human. That has not been my experience. The whole point is to set clear boundaries and then be consistent in enforcing those boundaries. That's how trust is built, at least in my experience. For the pup who wants to chase the chicken, the boundary is simply "you will not chase the chicken." It doesn't have to do something else specific instead--it just needs to not chase the chicken. By giving that freedom, I feel as if I am allowing the dog to think, be creative, or whatever other anthorpomorphic term works.

 

I also do not use my dogs to work sheep as my livelihood...

 

Sheep are not my livelihood either, but without a good dog, I wouldn't be able to manage my sheep. I can't afford handling systems and the like, so my dog(s) and I are the handling system. You can bet there's plenty of trust there. When I call on my dog, I expect her to be there--it's not something I even have to worry about. By that I mean if I'm in the ram pasture and a ram comes after me, I *count on* my dog to step in and stop him. I had an incident where I was staying at a friend's place and she was away and the neighbor's cattle got out. I went over with my dog to get them back up. During that process, the bull charged me and there was nothing I could put between him and me but my dog. She stopped him long enough for me to get to a place where there were farm implements between me and the bull. That kind of trust and working partnership comes from what I think is fair and consistent treatment of my dog. Yes, she's gotten corrections over the years, but as the corrections have been fair based on boundaries I've set and she's understood, the trust and partnership remain.

 

I know that some working trainers believe that a dog with too much focus on us will ruin them as a working dog as they will check in too much. I must say from what I have seen fixed instincts definitely come into play here... even a top obedience dog may not lay down or come when on sheep.

 

It's a very fine line I think. These dogs were bred to be working partners with humans, and I think a lot of their behaviors are directed toward that sort of partnership. It's why you'll often read on these boards things like "these dogs just want to be with their humans. It doesn't matter if you can offer acres and acres on which they can roam--they are happiest when they are interacting with their people." Some focus and a willingness to be a partner is quite necessary. What I don't want in a working dog is one that looks to me for all direction. While I can read livestock and react, frankly, these dogs can do the same thing, and do it much faster. I *rely* on my dogs to be able to read stock and react appropriately, with little or no direction from me. If I have a dog holding sheep in the corner and I'm catching and flipping them to give vaccines or trim hooves, my attention is largely on the sheep and not on the dog. The dog needs to understand the job and hold up its end of that job without constant supervision. This is the end result of what we call "teach the dog to think." Another example: if I send my dog out over a large field for sheep I can't see, I need to be able to count on my dog to bring *all* of the sheep. If there's a ewe with a newborn lamb, I need to trust that my dog will do the right thing by them when all are out of my sight. A dog that looks to me entirely for direction won't be able to do that. The whole way we raise these dogs is to set them up to succeed in such situations as I describe here. A dog that has been punished or is fearful or just plain doesn't want to work with a person isn't going to succeed in this sort of situation. A dog who understands what right (treating the sheep appropriately) and what's wrong (don't bite lambs) because it has been taught that way (and using corrections--not beatings--is a big part of that) will be the dog you will want at the end of the day.

 

It almost seems like avoidance behavior to some degree in Working Dogs is a good thing to have???

 

I really have no idea what you mean by this. If you think that by giving a verbal correction and then allowing the dog to choose to do something else is creating avoidance behavior, then I suppose this statement makes sense. But I view avoidance behavior differently, as in a dog who gives some other behavior to *avoid doing a behavior the dog doesn't want to do* and that's a huge difference. For example, by my definition, avoidance behavior would be if I asked Twist to roll over and she didn't want to so instead she flings her paw at me for a shake. She doesn't want to do the former behavior so she tries to avoid it by offering another in its place. When we give a correction and allow the dog to choose an alternative path, the dog is choosing to stop doing something it wants to do (i.e., dive in and grab) and choosing to do something else it wants to do (i.e., continue on around properly and manage the sheep). That's not avoidance behavior, that's choosing one behavior over another when both are pretty much equally appealing to the dog.

 

Excuse any typos--I don't have time to go back and read and correct.

 

J.

[Root Beer]

I really have no idea what you mean by this. If you think that by giving a verbal correction and then allowing the dog to choose to do something else is creating avoidance behavior, then I suppose this statement makes sense. But I view avoidance behavior differently, as in a dog who gives some other behavior to *avoid doing a behavior the dog doesn't want to do* and that's a huge difference.

 

The way I understand avoidance behavior is that it isn't so much the dog avoiding something that he simply doesn't want to do, but avoidance to alleviate stress. The stress could arise from confusion on the dog's part, or feeling too much pressure from the handler, or from the environment.

 

Speedy sometimes gives avoidance behaviors if there are dogs in the room that he isn't comfortable with yet. He will stop what he is doing and look at the wall - it gives him a way to cope with the situation, and to show me that he can't do what I am asking at the moment. A bit of desensitization to that particular dog usually solves the problem in that particular situation and he can function once he knows I've got his back and he can relax around that dog.

 

I saw some avoidance behavior with Dean in his freestyle competition last weekend. He was unnerved by the unfamiliar situation (placement of the judges, audience outside the gate, different sound system, etc) and, while he tried to carry out his moves on cue, he kind of "froze" and started to sniff and disengage. It wasn't that he didn't want to perform, but that he needed to decompress mentally.

 

Sometimes avoidance behavior is caused by use of correction in training. I've seen dogs go into avoidance behaviors as a result of correction - it's kind of a "I know I'm doing wrong, but I don't know what to do, so I'll just go sniff over here" kind of thing. (And then the dog ususally gets corrected for sniffing)

 

Not all dogs respond to corrections this way, but I do see it. I know an agility handler who is constantly correcting her dogs on the course, and every time she corrects, the dog goes into avoidance behaviors - and then gets corrected for it. He's a resilient dog and he doesn't shut down totally, but I've never seen his agility improve as a result of the constant corrections. He usually just ends up running around mindlessly - as an avoidance behavior.

 

Avoidance behavior isn't an emotionally neutral "do something else", though.

[juliepoudrier]

Kristine,

That makes sense, but I get the impression that Cindy is equating the kinds of behaviors you describe with a stockdog trainer correcting and then allowing the dog the freedom to come up with something else to do as being equivalent, and they're not. Giving the freedom of choice to the dog doesn't teach it or encourage it to develop avoidance behaviors as you describe them. In fact, I would think it would do somewhat the opposite. There are times when a dog is working that it will be faced with a situation where it has to choose what to do (like I described above), and the whole basis of the "correct the wrong and then give the dog the freedom to decide" methodology is to create an independent thinker who will choose to do the right thing (most of the time anyway) when there is no human in sight to enforce or reward a behavior. I'm sure the difference may well come from the fact that we are dealing with behaviors that are somewhat hardwired into the dog (i.e., control stock) that just can't be equated with behaviors that are needed for sports type activities. I don't do agility or freestyle or anything like that, so I could be way off base here, but I imagine that you want the dog to do what you say when you say it or stick to the routine as practiced--otherwise you're off course or whatever. Creative and independent thinking isn't necessarily something that will help you win at sports (even at sheepdog trialing, for that matter), but it is pretty necessary for every day work on the farm. And I think a training method that teaches (maybe allows is a better word) a dog to develop that initiative to do the right thing even when the person isn't right there is maybe not as useful when the training involves something with fewer shades of grey than stock work. Does that make sense?

 

ETA: In stockdog training, a dog eating poop or stopping to sniff at something would be considered avoidance behavior (in light of your definition). When that happens, it's up to the trainer to figure out why the dog is feeling enough pressure that it's exhibiting those behaviors and then go back and find a way to release the pressure (and this doesn't have to be pressure that's human-directed, the dog can also feel pressure from the stock) to keep the dog moving forward in its training. For example, when I was a novice handler training Twist to drive, she started sometimes snatching at sheep poop. I knew enough to know that she was doing this in response to pressure, but I was novice enough not to know exactly how to fix the problem (i.e., relieve the pressure). So I went to someone who was a more experienced trainer than I to help with the issue. Twist wasn't feeling pressure from *me* but rather from the whole effort of trying to push the sheep away (because border collies are gathering dogs and so gathering is a natural behavior whereas driving is a learned behavior and often more difficult for them to grasp) and we just needed to set up the situation so that driving the sheep away would be a little easier = pressure relief for the dog = no more poop eating/avoidance behavior. But there's no way I would ever contend that Twist eating poop because at that stage in her training driving was a bit too hard for her was a trained avoidance behavior brought about by being raised to respond to a correction by stopping what she's doing at that moment and being allowed to choose to do something else. The two are entirely different.

 

J.

[Jedismom]

I've really learned so much from reading this thread! I am just starting my training journey with Jedi, and by reading about the different methods and rationale, I am finding myself gravitating toward ways of thinking that I wouldn't have considered before. I hope that makes sense.

 

Ok, I have to ask this, and hope it doesn't start the popcorn popping but I just gotta know... Jedi is having his 2nd herding lesson next week and I am also doing training with a clicker. My local dog club has a class for clicker training and obedience which I am planning to sign up for, in hopes of becoming more solid in commands.

 

Is this type of training not compatible with what he needs to learn to be a good herding dog?

 

Thanks,

 

Georgia

[mosstheboss2000]

I really have no idea what you mean by this. If you think that by giving a verbal correction and then allowing the dog to choose to do something else is creating avoidance behavior, then I suppose this statement makes sense. But I view avoidance behavior differently, as in a dog who gives some other behavior to *avoid doing a behavior the dog doesn't want to do* and that's a huge difference

 

Yes... I am not sure what I meant by that either now...

 

Thanks for all the feedback!

 

Personally I don't know how doing any clicker work could hurt you when you go out to work sheep?

[Bill Fosher]

Personally I don't know how doing any clicker work could hurt you when you go out to work sheep?

 

Clickers tend to teach the dog to look to the handler for direction and guidance -- you want sheepdogs focused on the stock. Plus, how can you use a clicker to teach right from wrong at distance? Remember that the end product we're looking for is a dog that can read sheep and obey a whistle command that countermands its instincts from nearly a mile away. We are not -- despite what Jon Katz may think -- trying to shape behaviors and produce robots.

[Shetlander]

Clickers tend to teach the dog to look to the handler for direction and guidance -- you want sheepdogs focused on the stock.

 

I've done some clicker training and it's fun for lots of different tricks/behaviors. I don't think it caused any issues for Quinn at his sheep lessons. I also don't think he'd have given a rat's behind if anyone had tried clicking him while he was working. As far as using treats which generally accompany clickers, I think you could have tossed hot dogs at Quinn's head and he wouldn't have noticed as long as those sheep were around.

[Bill Fosher]

I suppose there's a difference between using a clicker for obedience or tricks and using it to try to train a sheepdog, and I suppose it's possible that doing a won't necessarily interfere with doing b, but I'll just say that clicker-trained dogs of my acquaintance are generally not the best sheepdogs. They tend, as I mentioned, to be more focused on the handler than I would like.

 

That doesn't mean that every clicker-trained dog is that way, or I suppose even that the clicker training is the reason that they are that way. It's just a strong correlation that I've noticed over the years.

[Marilyn T]

The problem with clicker training and stock work training is this. In clicker training, the only positive reinforcement for the dog is from the handler via food and clicker. In stock work, the stock are the positive reinforcement, and if a dog needs the clicker/food, it ain't much of a dog for stock work. Proper training methods on stock involve letting the dog work stock as its positive reinforcement. Clicking isn't going to help. The whole advantage for a clicker over simple verbal praise is the ability to pinpoint a behavior to reinforce. It started as a method to clear up the verbal garbage most folks throw at their dogs to something a dog could identify as positive. Most newbies don't even recogize a 'good' movement from their dog in the beginning on stock, so how can they click and treat it?

Just my 2 cents

[Lenajo]

I agree with your general comments about clicker training and stockwork (particulariliy the novice issues) but I have to comment that the clicker does *not* have to equal food. The clicker can mean anything you want it to mean - anything you condition the dog to expect. It can also be situational. For example in agility a "click" can mean access to a toy, in obedience food. There are also some really good sport trainers that use a single click to mean "you're right, keep going" and a double click to mean "you got it, get your reward!"

 

It's come a long way from click = treat and dogs staring at you.

 

I've been discussing the clicker with a UK shepherdess who's quite proficient with usings that method for non-stock work. She has found use for it in stock work as well, with the caveat that there is no substitute for good genetics, with the click equalling access to the stock. She trains with the method from John Holmes "The Farmer's Dog" (the sheep are penned) - which may be a necessary adaptation for someone who wishes to train without blocking gleeful charging after they allow access.

 

It's not right, or wrong, it's just well, different... better? hmmmm.... At this time I see the method as rather limited compared to having a physical (blocking, moving, releasing and applying) pressure training relationship. I would also prefer to use more tone. To each their own. As a friend once said, when we struggle in herding (as novices in particular) there are times that we'd wear an Austin Power's jump suit and carry a floor lamp if the dog would just do it right!

 

Would the clicker pre- herding training hurt? Possibly if it was the only method the dog knew. I would want to see some pressure/release training started so the dog had a broader idea of the real world before that. If I had to name a specific method for that I have to say like Elvin Kopp's flatwork for dogs in that regard - comes off the round pen work of good horse trainers. Old school, sensible dog training.

 

 

The problem with clicker training and stock work training is this. In clicker training, the only positive reinforcement for the dog is from the handler via food and clicker. In stock work, the stock are the positive reinforcement, and if a dog needs the clicker/food, it ain't much of a dog for stock work. Proper training methods on stock involve letting the dog work stock as its positive reinforcement. Clicking isn't going to help. The whole advantage for a clicker over simple verbal praise is the ability to pinpoint a behavior to reinforce. It started as a method to clear up the verbal garbage most folks throw at their dogs to something a dog could identify as positive. Most newbies don't even recogize a 'good' movement from their dog in the beginning on stock, so how can they click and treat it?

Just my 2 cents

[bcnewe2]

I think if you have a questionable stockdog in the first place you could run into issues. But with a good stock dog, they could easily tell the difference between clicker training time and stockwork time and never shall the 2 meet.

When not on stock, my dogs are my pets, they do stupid pet stuff all the time. Only difference for us might be that I really don't train for anything other than manners and stockwork. But my point is, my dogs can be pets, when they go to sheep and they are totally different. That's what I like about my dogs.

 

I just can't see a good stock dog being ruined by clicker training outside of stock work.

I also didn't take the post to mean clicker train on stock, but before ever going to stock. I could have mis read the post though.

 

Just my opinion and I can really only talk about my own dogs. I've never seen clicker only dogs put to stock.

 

Kristen

[NRhodes]

If I had to name a specific method for that I have to say like Elvin Kopp's flatwork for dogs in that regard - comes off the round pen work of good horse trainers. Old school, sensible dog training.

 

I'm going to put in a second for Elvin's methods. I didn't find much of his circle exercise stuff to be much use to him on most of my dogs (was useful on one) but the dry work is great. Elvin puts on a great clinic also, real nice guy, very informative and knowledgeable about dogs and stock work. Talk about someone who can read stock (and dogs), he can.

[Root Beer]

I think if you have a questionable stockdog in the first place you could run into issues. But with a good stock dog, they could easily tell the difference between clicker training time and stockwork time and never shall the 2 meet.

When not on stock, my dogs are my pets, they do stupid pet stuff all the time. Only difference for us might be that I really don't train for anything other than manners and stockwork. But my point is, my dogs can be pets, when they go to sheep and they are totally different. That's what I like about my dogs.

 

I'm glad you said this!

 

By the same token, my clicker trained dogs don't need a clicker and treats to function outside of the training context! They know when they are in a training and/or performance setting, and when they are not. I'm not saying that anyone here got that impression, but I do hear that concern voiced from time to time.

 

When Speedy took herding lessons, I did not take the clicker or treats or toys along because that was not what that sort of training called for. He definitely knew the difference between working with the sheep and Freestyle!

 

I see clickers/treats/etc. as appropriate (for myself absolutely necessary) tools for teaching basic manners, sport/performance behaviors, and for behavior modification. That's why I take issue with Cesar and his "way". If he were training stockdogs, I would not object to his methods because that is not the sort of training that I personally have knowledge of and experience with. Since he's putting himself forth as an expert on manners and behavior modification, not as a stockdog trainer, and I see the effect that his show is having on many pet dog folks, I feel it important to try to help those people know that there are effective and do-able methods for training their dogs that are not correction based and that Cesar's way is far from the only way or the best way.

[Smokjbc]

... Since he's putting himself forth as an expert on manners and behavior modification, not as a stockdog trainer, and I see the effect that his show is having on many pet dog folks, I feel it important to try to help those people know that there are effective and do-able methods for training their dogs that are not correction based and that Cesar's way is far from the only way or the best way.

 

 

I'm coming in a little late on this thread for sure- but I felt I had to pipe up for Cesar- who I like very much. He continually says his way is not the only way, and the PSA type messages often state that you should find a behaviorist or trainer that will work with you- he's not saying find a Cesar clone- just find someone that suits the way you want your dog handled.

 

When 99.9% of a time, I see spoiled pet that is spoiled due to lack of corrections and structure in its life, I find Cesar's approach to be appropriate for the current society that wants to turn every pet into a baby substitute.

[Root Beer]

When 99.9% of a time, I see spoiled pet that is spoiled due to lack of corrections and structure in its life, I find Cesar's approach to be appropriate for the current society that wants to turn every pet into a baby substitute.

 

Just as every person who trains with corrections is not a dog abuser, every person who does not use them is not trying to turn their dogs into baby substitutes. Those who do so are not spoiling their pets because of the training method that they have chosen, but because of their overall treatment that they are giving their pet.

 

The notion that a dog trained with positive methods = spoiled baby is quite a sweeping assumption which I have not found to be true at all among many dog owners that I know.