Eileen's Question

[Pam Wolf]

Eileen writes:

 

"Another issue I have been thinking about recently -- and which may deserve a thread of its own -- is the mushrooming popularity of all-positive, c/t type training. It is my impression (and I hope people will correct me if I am wrong) that this method of training has taken the sport world by storm and is now the near-exclusive method of training agility dogs. I assume that the dogs who will come to be considered the top agility dogs, and the ones from which agility breeders will breed, will be dogs who are trained in this pressure-free way. If so, I think agility breeders will be selecting against dogs who respond best to training with pressure and correction. And since I know of no way that stockdogs can be trained without pressure and correction, the future generations those agility breeders produce will almost certainly be less amenable to training for stock work.

 

There are probably more ways than these in which selection for agility will undermine the working ability of the dogs that result.

I think Root Beer is right on both these counts. Which means that agility breeding is almost certain to increase to the point where it might well produce numerically more "Border Collies" than any other. That's why I feel it is best for the traditional breed, bred for work, to be kept strictly separate from the KC (show and sport) dogs, and why ultimately it will be necessary to change our dogs' name in recognition of the fact that the dogs the KC will persist in calling "Border Collies" have become a different breed. "

 

 

Pam Writes:

(footnotes at the end)

 

I think agility is well on it's way to producing more of their breed. However, I am not sure c/t will affect their breed 1 in many ways. It will work for pig heads also and pigs too! You simply cannot compare the unnatural training 2 of agility or other doggie sports 3 to the training for stock work. Sure you could use clickers, but treats don't work for an efficient working dog, and clickers often tend to overstimulate and soft clickers are too soft to be heard over the sheep. IOW, treats don't work well with working dogs unless you consider asheep poo as they do.

 

So, I don't think c/t will alter their breed overall as much as say those trainers who always start/use shock collars on their dogs. However, agility training/breeding WILL alter thier form of Border Collies in that they will loose focus for the most, have many examples of dogs which have no self control and are more concerned with a tug toy than a relationship with their humans. (but, hey, isn't this already happeninga-go ahead agility folks flame away) 4

 

 

1(I hesitate to call sport dogs the same breed)

2(call it what you want, it isn't shaping a natural behaviour in the sense of stock work)

3(excluding sports designed for a breed e.g. hunting or coursing)

4(I do know a couple of rational/sane agility trainers, but they are rare)

[Root Beer]

I'm not going to flame, but how about a nice rational discussion?

 

You simply cannot compare the unnatural training 2 of agility or other doggie sports 3 to the training for stock work.

 

Why is training for Agility unnatural?

 

One would have to pay me an awful lot of money to go into a fenced area with sheep on a regular basis. It's not my cup of tea. For me, that would be extremely unnatural because it is something that I really don't like.

 

I'm not knocking it for those who enjoy it. But it's not something that I'm going to do willingly on a regular basis.

 

However, I do enjoy - very passionately, actually - training my dogs using clickers and other forms of reinforcement, training for sports, and competing in sports.

 

Natural for me? Definitely sports!

 

However, agility training/breeding WILL alter thier form of Border Collies in that they will loose focus for the most, have many examples of dogs which have no self control and are more concerned with a tug toy than a relationship with their humans. (but, hey, isn't this already happeninga-go ahead agility folks flame away) 4

 

Nobody who is serious about Agility wants a dog with no self control. A dog who does not have self control won't qualify often, if at all.

 

Yes, some sport breeders have gone that way, but they aren't going to sell to an educated Agility clientele for long.

 

And yes, we use tug toys to build drive and as reinforcement. That does not mean that the toy takes the place of a relationship with the human. A tug is a tool. It can be used well or badly. If one is putting it in place of a relationship with the human, he or she is using it badly.

 

(Really, this isn't a flame!!)

 

4(I do know a couple of rational/sane agility trainers, but they are rare)

 

That's a shame. Must be something in your area. I know a few who are out in left field, but most are rational, sane, normal people who enjoy a sport with their dogs.

[Sue R]

Why is training for Agility unnatural?

 

One would have to pay me an awful lot of money to go into a fenced area with sheep on a regular basis. It's not my cup of tea. For me, that would be extremely unnatural because it is something that I really don't like.

 

I'm not knocking it for those who enjoy it. But it's not something that I'm going to do willingly on a regular basis.

 

However, I do enjoy - very passionately, actually - training my dogs using clickers and other forms of reinforcement, training for sports, and competing in sports.

 

Natural for me? Definitely sports!

But the question of "natural" is referring to the dog. Take a dog that has been bred for stockwork for generations, even a young pup, and put it in a paddock with sheep and you will see instinct kick in the dog/pup go to "work". You, as the handler, probably don't have to do a thing. The dog/pup has programming hard-wired in. Natural.

 

Put a dog or pup in a paddock with agility equipment - will it scoot through the tunnel and out the other end? Will it weave? Will it choose to cross the teeter, dog walk, or a-frame (I know it might but how likely is it without any encouragement?)? Will it jump the jumps, or go around or under? While an agility course employs natural physical movements (running, jumping, turning, and so on), for a dog/pup to select to "do" any of the obstacles on its own and with no prior training or enticement, is highly unlikely and most likely due to an interest in investigating something "novel". Unnatural.

 

Dog sports and stockwork are two different activities at which Border Collies, with intelligence, athleticism, biddability, the ability to read body language, and stock sense (applies only to stockwork, of course) excel - but the ability to do stockwork must be bred in and developed through training. It is natural to the dog that has the right stuff. I can't envision that agility is natural to a dog, but can become a passion for the right dog with the right training.

 

JMO, and not a criticism of agility because it is the one dog sport that I have enjoyed and have had an interest in. It is also a dog sport that well-trained dogs absolutely seem to love, with few exceptions. I don't think you can equate working stock with running agility, even though doing either at a higher level is a challenge and a focus for the dog that is suited and trained for it.

[Eileen Stein]

Pam, you might want to look over your original post and edit it. I'm having trouble understanding what's a quote and what isn't, as well as what you're trying to say. In particular, I can't follow the reasons you're giving for why c/t will not change their dogs, and I'd like to.

 

So, I don't think c/t will alter their breed overall as much as say those trainers who always start/use shock collars on their dogs.

 

Interesting you should give this example. It is one that has figured in my thinking on this subject. Just as one of the biggest objections of good stockdog trainers to the use of shock collars is that training with them will select against dogs who can be trained by traditional methods which produce more sensitive, responsive dogs, my fear is that all-positive, c/t training will -- for exactly the same selection-based reasons -- result in "softened" offspring who cannot be trained by traditional methods, or indeed by any effective stockdog-training method at all.

[Root Beer]

But the question of "natural" is referring to the dog. Take a dog that has been bred for stockwork for generations, even a young pup, and put it in a paddock with sheep and you will see instinct kick in the dog/pup go to "work". You, as the handler, probably don't have to do a thing. The dog/pup has programming hard-wired in. Natural.

 

Put a dog or pup in a paddock with agility equipment - will it scoot through the tunnel and out the other end? Will it weave? Will it choose to cross the teeter, dog walk, or a-frame (I know it might but how likely is it without any encouragement?)? Will it jump the jumps, or go around or under? While an agility course employs natural physical movements (running, jumping, turning, and so on), for a dog/pup to select to "do" any of the obstacles on its own and with no prior training or enticement, is highly unlikely and most likely due to an interest in investigating something "novel".

 

No argument there.

 

This might just be me, but I think of "unnatural" as more contrary to something's nature, not just that something isn't there naturally.

 

So, I wouldn't say that it's unnatural for a human to do a handstand in a gymnastics competition (although that isn't something that a person is really hardwired to do and must learn and practice a lot), but I would say it is unnatural for a human to go everywhere on all fours.

 

It's definitely not contrary to a Border Collie's nature to learn to play a sport, so I wouldn't call it unnatural. It's not an innate set of skills, but it is perfectly natural for the dog to learn those skills.

 

I may be nitpicky here and if I am, I apologize. Whenever I read that Agility or other sports are unnatural to the dog, it is sounding to me like something "unnatural" (contrary to its nature) is being done to the dog!!!!

 

JMO, and not a criticism of agility because it is the one dog sport that I have enjoyed and have had an interest in. It is also a dog sport that well-trained dogs absolutely seem to love, with few exceptions. I don't think you can equate working stock with running agility, even though doing either at a higher level is a challenge and a focus for the dog that is suited and trained for it.

 

I'm not equating it at all. Although from the human perspective it can be a completely different story. And since the human is half the team . . . well, that does make a difference!

 

A Border Collie turned loose with sheep with no handler at all probably couldn't get much done that you actually want done!

 

My point is that if the human's heart is not in stockwork, but is in Agility or other sport, then I think Agility or other sport is actually a better choice for that particular dog and handler team - even if the dog does need to learn a set of totally new skills!!

[Sue R]

...My point is that if the human's heart is not in stockwork, but is in Agility or other sport, then I think Agility or other sport is actually a better choice for that particular dog and handler team - even if the dog does need to learn a set of totally new skills!!...

I will give you no argument there! As far as a team goes, both must be on the same page (or learn to be on the same page) to be successful and happy in what they do.

 

As for "unnatural", I would say it's not a "natural" thing for a dog to do agility on its own but it's not an unnatural thing to learn to do it and to love doing it. But to me, a "natural" thing is simply something that the animal is programmed to do innately, like respond to stock and have instincts that are useful (even if they need to be refined with good handling).

[Dixie_Girl]

Dang!

[sweet_ceana]

I found this portion of Eileen's comment the most intriguing:

this method of training has taken the sport world by storm and is now the near-exclusive method of training agility dogs. I assume that the dogs who will come to be considered the top agility dogs, and the ones from which agility breeders will breed, will be dogs who are trained in this pressure-free way.

 

My question for those that train agility in the method described above is simple and needing a bit of clarity. If you train with the 100% positive method, do you not use any type of pressure in training? By pressure, I am referring to using your body to fill the space the dog is thinking about occupying. I had never thought of pressure as a "negative," until I read Eileen's comment. I have always assumed that pressure is neutral. I am here and you cannot be. Both of my dogs and every one of my fosters have responded incredibly well to pressure. Every border collie I have been around has been keenly aware of the space that they occupy and the items and creatures in the space surrounding them.

 

Now a question to those who work their dogs on livestock, do you see the pressure that your dog applies to the animals it is working as a negative correction from the dog to the livestock? I am not referring to a difficult run in with a particular sheep; I have understood that to be more force than applying pressure, but when the dog is moving the flock/herd with what looks like mental nudge. Do you consider that nudge a negative correction? Am I completely off base on what pressure is in regards to a working dog? I am a super novice, but when my dogs were first put on goats it seemed like even their inexperienced presence and movements directed the sheep. Is that pressure or am I getting my terms mixed up?

 

If my understanding of the definition of pressure is correct, and sport trainers of this particular method are not using any pressure in their training methods, how can the lack of pressure in training not be detrimental to the Border Collie when pressure is instinctively such a massive chunk of everything that makes a dog a Border Collie?

 

ETA: I have been meaning to ask all you grammar people... do you capitalize Border Collie like a name, or leave it lower case, border collie, as a description like grandparents?

[Freeman 101]

Pam,

 

Will you please explain what you mean by "pressure free".

Since I don't work stock, I'm not sure my understanding of "pressure" is the same as yours.

 

I do use a clicker in some areas of training, but not all areas.

I am not purely positive,

And, I also use pressure in my training. I'm just not sure if my idea of pressure is the same as yours?

 

Here's a simple example of my meaning of pressure. I do use the clicker to initially teach sits and downs. However, when I work on stays I use pressure. If the dog gets up, I move into the dog (applying pressure) until the dog gets back into position.

 

I can think of many more examples where I would use pressure, but I won't bore you. I think adding and releasing pressure makes sense to dogs, and the results are usually immediate.

 

Pressure is also used on the agility course when teaching the dog to move away from the handler.

 

What is your meaning of pressure?

[Root Beer]

My question for those that train agility in the method described above is simple and needing a bit of clarity. If you train with the 100% positive method, do you not use any type of pressure in training? By pressure, I am referring to using your body to fill the space the dog is thinking about occupying.

 

Hmmmmmmm . . . .

 

I guess it would really depend on the dog, but I don't think really in the same way.

 

One of my dogs LOVES contacts and really struggled for a while with discriminations, so my instructor used to sit on the upside of the contact to block her path, but I don't think that's quite the same thing. For one thing, I wasn't taking up her space and for another, she was sitting there more like a gate. The idea was that she had the chance to learn that going through the tunnel was rewarding when I cued the tunnel at a discrimination. But, she couldn't take the contact because the instructor was there, though. I guess that's sort of similar. Of course, the stinker used to run around the instructor and dive UP the board to get around the instructor!! I ended up using hand targets to teach her discriminations instead!!

 

One would not, for instance, teach a discrimination by setting out a tunnel and a dogwalk side by side, cueing the dogwalk, and then walk into the dog's space to pressure the dog into taking it instead of the tunnel. You would run the risk of demotivating the dog, of teaching the dog that something might be wrong with that picture, or of confusing the dog completely.

 

Another thing about Agility, and other sports, is that the dog needs to feel very comfortable coming into your space. Say I'm going to cue a turn and I'm going to be right at the edge of the post of the jump to give the cue at the correct time. The dog needs to feel comfortable running straight toward me, and entering my space and then running out of my space to execute the move.

 

At the same time, I think there might be an element of what you are talking about in handling. There are times when the line that the handler is running says something to the dog about where he or she needs to be. If a jump and a tunnel are side by side, I can use my body position to sort of "block" the line to the tunnel to give a clear signal to the dog that I want her to take the chute.

 

I don't really think of that as pressure, but I guess it can be.

 

Now if you mean pressure, as in, giving some sort of correction when the dog is not doing exactly what you want, there are plenty of Agility trainers who still do that. But as you define it, that's not really something that I see.

 

None of that, though, has much to do with reinforcement based training. It's just handling.

 

I had never thought of pressure as a "negative," until I read Eileen's comment. I have always assumed that is neutral. I am here and you cannot be. Both of my dogs and every one of my fosters have responded incredibly well to pressure. Every border collie I have been around has been keenly aware of the space that they occupy and the items and creatures in the space surrounding them.

 

That's one of the things I enjoy most about running Dean in Agility. He can read where I am even when I am 10 feet behind him. It's incredible. That's why he and I enjoy running NADAC. He likes those biiig, open courses. I'm amazed when he's way out ahead of me and I turn and he reads that, but somehow he can.

 

Again, though, that really has nothing to do with any particular training method. It's more of a handling thing and capitalizing on the dog's innate skills.

 

If my understanding of the definition of pressure is correct, and sport trainers of this particular method are not using any pressure in their training methods, how can the lack of pressure in training not be detrimental to the Border Collie when pressure is instinctively such a massive chunk of everything that makes a dog a Border Collie?

 

Border Collies are incredibly capable of learning in more than one way and every one that I've ever worked with has responded remarkably well to reinforcement based training. I know it's not everyone's cup of tea, but no Border Collie that I've ever worked with has proved a dunce at reinforcement based learning. In fact, they are among the best at it from what I've seen.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

Pressure is when a dog runs into an obstacle to what it's doing (extinction) and must come up with another answer. I've seen dogs fall to pieces when they have to start juggling the sheep/handler/environment pressure points on the nicest sheep, in the round pen, because the dog was never told "no." Dogs of really nice breeding.

 

I do see (I think) what Pam's getting at. Breeding for a "game" where problem solving under pressure isn't life or death, could select for dogs that find it easier to "opt out."

 

When I say, not life or death - I mean, there's a limited number of ways that you can dial back the pressure and break down or back chain training, when you are dealing with a third species rather than stationary obstacles or set tasks. Eventually the dog will have to be allowed to make mistakes and has to deal with the consequences. Like Karrin's dog that spent several lessons on a long line so he wouldn't have to be "corrected" as much. It's like playing tic-tac-toe with only X's.

[sweet_ceana]

Here's a simple example of my meaning of pressure. I do use the clicker to initially teach sits and downs. However, when I work on stays I use pressure. If the dog gets up, I move into the dog (applying pressure) until the dog gets back into position.

 

This is how I understand pressure as well.

 

Border Collies are incredibly capable of learning in more than one way and every one that I've ever worked with has responded remarkably well to reinforcement based training. I know it's not everyone's cup of tea, but no Border Collie that I've ever worked with has proved a dunce at reinforcement based learning. In fact, they are among the best at it from what I've seen.

 

I agree completely, that is one of my favorite things about a Border Collie. But, if a sport breeder were to breed against pressure sensitivity and the resulting off spring were now unable to learn in many ways (ie.. responding to pressure) would that dog still be a border collie? If a dog is unable to learn through pressure, can it be taught to work live stock? (Root Beer, I am not inplying that you think border collie's should be sport bred, I am just posing an at large question.)

 

ETA: I should throw in here that I am going off of the premise that training a dog to respond to the 100% positive no pressure will mean that pressure sensitivity (in a useful way, not over sensative) is a trait that will fall to the way side in resulting off spring. Once again I will quote Eileen who has summed it up better than I could above:

 

Just as one of the biggest objections of good stockdog trainers to the use of shock collars is that training with them will select against dogs who can be trained by traditional methods which produce more sensitive, responsive dogs, my fear is that all-positive, c/t training will -- for exactly the same selection-based reasons -- result in "softened" offspring who cannot be trained by traditional methods, or indeed by any effective stockdog-training method at all.

[juliepoudrier]

Kristine,

Re: the natural vs. unnatural semantics, would it help if we defined things this way: natural = genetically programmed or instinctual or innate, and unnatural = not genetically programmed but rather largely taught?

 

So we would say that a young working bred pup put in with sheep will naturally (instinctually) try to gather those sheep (the most basic move), whereas a young pup put in a field of agility equipment will not instinctually start using that equipment, but must be taught even the most basic moves.

 

I understand your point about unnatural, but I really think the point folks are trying to make is that the ability to read and react appropriately to stock is included in the genetic package of the border collie. The ability and willingness to learn and work with a human partner is also included in that package. It's the latter ability that is capitalized on by the sports folks. I think Eileen's larger question is that if breeders focus on the ability to learn (and speed and whatever else might be needed strictly for sports) at what point do the genetics that code for the ability to read and react appropriately to stock start to be lost? It may not be immediately obvious to many that the ability to read and react to stock probably also transfers over to the ability to read and react to humans, as you've noted Dean is so good at on the agility field, but I wonder if sports breeders actually pay attention to that, or if you've just been exposed to it because you've been working with a dog who still contains that particular genetic capability (and you're observant)?

 

J.

[Root Beer]

. . . . but I wonder if sports breeders actually pay attention to that, or if you've just been exposed to it because you've been working with a dog who still contains that particular genetic capability (and you're observant)?

 

I'm guessing, but I would imagine that some pay attention and some don't.

 

It seems to me - and again, I'm guessing - that some of these breeders are trying to retain some working ability to some degree. You know - the ones whose websites get posted on here all the time advertising that their dogs work, do sports, etc. etc. etc.

 

I'm not saying it's right or good or effective or anything like that. Just guessing based on what I see advertised.

[Pam Wolf]

First, to answer Eileen: In "My World" of dog training, there ARE consequences so even though behaviours are taught with c/t the dog still learns there are consequences for improper responses. I guess that is because it follows learning theory. But I did forget that many trainers today don't add reprecussions-had this discussion a while back on a training list.

 

W/o meaningful consequences for improper response (and failure to get a food bite to a well fed dog just doesn't cut it sometimes) there are problems that arise with the dog's behaviour in a situation where the dog doesn't get what he wants. I am not sure how this would affect Border Collies any more than any other breed as we can see it already does.

 

Thing is, with c/t training, you may not notice you have a hard dog UNTIL you add some reprecussions, so softness or hardness is not judged by c/t methods (when the method is done well/properly). So, to answer your question, I don't think c/t in itself will soften the dogs. That aspect will be a total unknown as is working ability when it is not tested.

 

I recently worked a dog I wouldn't call soft at all. In fact he was a rather nice dog. His owner was a very good c/t trainer. However when we applied a little pressure to this dog, he took the pressure well. In fact he took a good deal of pressure. However he became disobedient for the first time in his life. He did start to get cheeky with his owner when off the stock for the first time also. He was no problem on the stock and a rather nice dog (he was working bred).

 

Even though the owner thought he was a very soft dog as he appeared off sheep, he wasn't when on sheep. He wasn't a killer either, just a rather nice dog with a good strong temperment on sheep.

 

Now, with shock collars it is different since pain is involved. We DO know from field retrievers that there are few lines that can be trained w/o shock collars anymore C/t doesn't involve pain, it is a motivation to do something, not a motivation NOT to do something the dog already wants to do. An innate motivator is the highest. When selecting for the negative the dogs with low pain tolerance would be ruled out quickly. When offered something good, almost any temperment would work for it (provided the motivator was meaningful to the animal)

 

C/t has been proven to work on a variety of species whereas shock collars don't work well on say killer whales. Would you get back into the tank with a whale you had just shocked(BTW, whales have good memories) In fact, early whale trainers did use prods and with bad results and developed good c/t methods.

 

Many owners of soft dogs that cannot handle 'harsher' methods do resort to c/t for the reason their dog can't handle other types of training, but c/t will work on a wide variety of temperments. I suspect softer temperments would be more likely to result from a high incidence of c/t training, but it would be more likely due to the harder dogs getting fed up and never having learned reprecussions that were meaningful and those dogs getting PTS for bad temperments. Just as early show breeders in GB reccommended not breeding from dogs that were high energy.

[Jumpin Boots]

It seems to me that the majority of agility people on this board have rescued border collies I could totally be incorrect, maybe it just seems that way. But assuing that this is the case I find it hard to try to put myslf in the shoes of the 'agility world' to consider how my method of training would impact the breed, thus far my border collies are rescues so I had no control of what brought them to be and even if they were the top agility dogs, they could not pass on their lines (whatever those may be). I think this is possibly also the root of why some of the agility people on this board feel attacked at times; or this has atleast been my feeling, until I realized that the stockdog people of this board (I am generalizing the community as a whole) is not pointing fingers at agility competitors, but at those that breed for agility. For the rescue border collies who may not be able to handle working stock, I think that agility if a gift to give them a job. Boots loves agility, overtime I have been able to get him to relax in the field w/sheep, but for the first few years, if you brought him into the same pasture as our sheep he was stressed and looking for a way out. Agility has given him stress release and purpose to life; when we started out if he had too many days between practice he would become destructive.

 

As far as seeing c/t as taking over the 'agility world' I'm not so sure, maybe? But that is not my (nor the people I train around) main method. Yes, I use clickers for some of my agility work, mainly contact equipment, but my dogs know that there are consequences for ill behavior. For me the main issues I see w/ agility people is dogs that don't have basic manors. Whether this is due to people not correcting their dogs, people treating their dogs like kids instead of dogs, or people being lazy and not teaching their dogs basic manors I don't know. Interestingly enough, Boots who is so sensitive around stock often must be 'talked to' on agility courses if he gets it in is mind that he knows that he knows better than me.

 

I absolutely use pressure to work w/ dogs in agility, if I relax my pressure I expect them to work closer to me, if I add more pressure I expect them to work further away and layer obstacles. Do I correct them for not layering, depends on the skill level of the dog. Renoir is just being introduced to layering so I am not going to correct him; Boots on the other hand is to the point where we are layering 2-3 obstacles between my path and his, so if he flips me the dew-claw on a single layer, he is going to be told to knock it off. guess I'll quit rambling now

[Caroline Reichard]

I've seen dogs fall to pieces when they have to start juggling the sheep/handler/environment pressure points on the nicest sheep, in the round pen, because the dog was never told "no." Dogs of really nice breeding.

 

Not to get all anthropomorphic here, but I have seen young children raised by very indulgent parents do exactly the same thing.

[Caroline Reichard]

Why is training for Agility unnatural?

 

Back in my horse days I was taught that dressage moves were movements that a horse exhibited naturally, shown perfectly balanced under saddle. Ie, dressage moves are developments of movements that you see a horse spontaneously doing on its own, but it takes extensive training to have those movements balanced under the weight and direction of a rider. These were contrasted with circus movements: movements that a horse would never do on its own, but that it could be taught to do. Both agility and herding behaviors would be natural behaviors in the sense that they both represent developed versions of things that a dog will do spontaneously on its own.

 

Perhaps the difference between agility and working livestock is more a matter of which natural behaviors are being developed. It seems to be that working livestock requires a broader set of behaviors, many of which are specific to Border collies. Border collies may do agility better than other breeds, but other breeds can't really work livestock at all since they lack the factory-installed herding behaviors for the trainer to develop.

[Root Beer]

Not to get all anthropomorphic here, but I have seen young children raised by very indulgent parents do exactly the same thing.

 

The comparison between reinforcement training and a parent being very indulgent is weak at best. Training through reinforcement only is not the same thing as being very indulgent, and it does not mean that the dog is never told "no". It doesn't mean that the dog gets to do whatever it wants whenever it wants, nor that there are never consequences for things in life.

 

Someone who never says "no" to their dog, provides no structure, and lets their dog do whatever isn't a reinforcement trainer. Reinforcement training is actually very structured, very disciplined, and puts a high level of responsibility on the dog.

 

I know I've said this before and I don't mean to sound like a broken record and I'm not trying to quibble, but when I hear that comparison, it's like nails on a chalk board to me!!

 

In fact, this . . .

 

when a dog runs into an obstacle to what it's doing (extinction) and must come up with another answer.

 

. . . . absolutely happens in reinforcement based training. What is distinct is the means by which the handler communicates to the dog that he or she must come up with another answer, and the way that the handler communicates to the dog that he or she has accomplished the correct task. Extinction is definitely a part of reinforcement training and the dog must be able to handle that process.

[Brad]

I currently train for agility, and both of my personal definitions of pressure apply. 1, pressure as in body pressure, taking space or using my presence. 2, creating a pressured situation for my dog whereby he is forced to think through a problem. If he fails at a task he should be able to perform, I do not back off and make it easier for him, I force him to think about what is required. You can see his gears gringing upstairs as he works through the issue until he gets it right. The positive part comes in at reinforcment points, say if he stumbles doing his second set of 2x2s, I am positive in my reaction to the first successful set, creating a happy dog that is then more willing to continue working through to the second set.

Now, I'm relatively new to dog sports, but am looking for my second BC next year. I am not looking to sport breeders, but rather breeders of working border collies. If you're going to the Metchosin trial next week and some guy is asking too many questions, that's me

I am fairly serious about agility and take private lessons. My trainer is primarily a stockdog person, and encourages a self thinking, self controlled dog, ideally from good working lines. Mnay of her top dogs come from Martha McHardy's lines, and perform brilliantly in agility.

While I can see breeders selecting for sporting ability may inadvertantly (or intentionally) move away from herding instincts, I don't think that is an instinct top traillers hope to remove. Again, I'm new and could be wrong, nd perhaps the majority of sport breeders do in fact want to get away from that, but in my local circle of serious agility enthusiasts, we strive to get "real" border collies. Many of my friends perform in agility, flyball and stockwork. The dogs do well in all three venues.

So perhaps I'm off track, and the breed is separating, but I think that would be due to false assumptions made by sport breeders. It doesn't have to go that way, IMO. A well bred stock dog is also a well bred agility dog, the dog just does different things when it gets up in the morning.

For the original point of C/T, I think this is just a method like any other of a marker for success. It doesn't create a soft or coddled dog that is otherwise mindless with out a clicky noise. It just signals the dogs neurons for a successful action. An example of where it comes in handy is getting the dog to keep looking straight ahead coming off a contact. I'm not sure how better to train that. I don't use a clicker for most agility work, but rather isolated actions that are tough to otherwise communicate success.

For most work, a mistake is met with a happy "nuh-uh, try again" and this brings out the border collie's true willingness to work through a problem. You can see the excitement once they figure it out, as if they truly appreciate the challenge.

So sport breeders may be harming the breed intentionally or not, but that would be independant of any clicker training, IMO.

 

EDT: I' m reading a lot above about dogs that never hear NO. This is not what "positive training" is about. Every other word my dogs hear from me is no. What I think PT does is teach the dog how to deal with a NO. No doesn't mean bad dog and run away, it just means don't do that. Then your happily positive trained dog just thinks "ok, it's a no. I'll do something else then". Now some people might take the concept of positive training wrong and never chasitse their dog, but I believe they have taken the whole concept out of context. Positive means keep it upbeat, success and failure alike. It's not yelling or hitting your dog, and it's about not expecting rocket surgery from your dog. He's a dog, he's going to mess up, and you just need to deal with that in a positive constructive manner. My guy thinks, works and does not cave under pressure, he keeps going until he gets his task right, because he knows I support him regardless of outcome.

To equate this to children, these would be the kids that excel at everything, because their parents were always standing behind them, willing to let them learn lessons, let them fall down, and teach them how to get back up and try again. Not snivilly(sp?) little whiners that cry at the first encounter with failure. Positive training, properly applied, creates strong confident, thinking dogs. Again, IMO.

[Shetlander]

So, I don't think c/t will alter their breed overall as much as say those trainers who always start/use shock collars on their dogs. However, agility training/breeding WILL alter thier form of Border Collies in that they will loose focus for the most, have many examples of dogs which have no self control and are more concerned with a tug toy than a relationship with their humans. (but, hey, isn't this already happeninga-go ahead agility folks flame away) 4

1(I hesitate to call sport dogs the same breed)

2(call it what you want, it isn't shaping a natural behaviour in the sense of stock work)

3(excluding sports designed for a breed e.g. hunting or coursing)

4(I do know a couple of rational/sane agility trainers, but they are rare)

 

How much time have you spent around agility people and dogs, I wonder. I would hope you have trained and competed in that world to come to your sad conclusions rather than drawing assumptions based on observations from the periphery.

 

As Kristine points out, an agility dog with no self-control would be a disaster in the sport. I am not defending sports breeding, but really the majority of sports bred dogs I've seen are not monsters. They are in fact rather delightful dogs which is why, after being around my agility friends' dogs, I ended up with a sports bred Border Collie. I agree working ability is seriously compromised in a dog like Quinn who comes from working, sports and conformation lines. And while one of the earliest photos I have of him is him at 5 weeks tugging on a little girl's shirt, he only engages in the activity (admittedly very enthusiastically) when I offer him a tug.

 

Again as Kristine points out, the majority of agility people are not all positive reinforcement with their dogs. Certainly they are not at the levels I competed in and the Big Dogs I knew were a mixed bag when it comes to training techniques. From all positive to a mix of methods to harsh techniques that made it hard for me to even look at them without feel a little sick.

 

It isn't easy to be positive reinforcement (with minimal negative punishment) only. It takes talent, skill, creativity and lots of thought at times. In my experience, the average dog owner, even the average agility trainer, won't be able to do it completely or well. They won't have the patience or motivation to do so. I admire someone like Kristine who can train successfully at all times in this manner. And done well, positive reinforcement only dogs will have as much self-control, good manners and smarts as you could want.

 

Based on my very limited understanding of training stock dogs, I agree that positive reinforcement only would not be feasible. Quinn is a different dog on sheep than he is anywhere else. He takes corrections and pressure well at his lessons because whatever his weaknesses as a sheep dog, he's still immensely keen to work. Nothing means as much to him as the opportunity to do so. Or as Bill Fosher amusingly responded when I wrote about my amazement at the transformation I saw in Quinn the first time he saw sheep, "There's a Border Collie underneath his bandana."

 

As an aside on positive only and hard/soft dogs. I find clicker training to be a wonderful confidence booster for soft and/or shy dogs. I also find it to be the tool of choice for a really hard dog. My Lhasa (and if you don't know the breed, sure, go ahead and laugh, but they are tough, pushy, relentless little dogs) is hard physically and mentally. His obedience instructor commented that Chili has a difficult time understanding what punishment even means. Clicker training has been a saving grace with him because he is easily motivated by the tiniest treat and sharp as a tack when it comes to trying to manipulate his environment. I get much farther, much faster taking a positive only approach with his behavior than I would using punishment unless I was willing to use methods I find completely unacceptable. I can be much lazier as a trainer with a dog like Quinn who is softer and responds easily to a mild correction.

 

And no, I am not saying if you train using corrections or pressure, you are a lazy trainer. What I am saying is there are many ways to successfully train well-behaved, thinking, all around nice dogs for sports and day to day living. I don't see only ONE way to do it and if you don't do it that ONE way then you are irrational and/or permissive.

[Northof49]

Training for agility or any other dog sport, puts a lot of pressure on a dog - just different. Maybe not always physical, but mentally; particularly when using freeshaping. As you up the ante as to what your dog is expected to do, you are applying mental pressure to the dogs, and if you don't do it right for each dog, that dog can fall apart. My friend had a great little dog years ago. Allie would simply fall apart when you added another step to her obedience training. Then once she was very confident about it , she was fine. You then added the next step in the traiing program and she would fall apart again (omg - you're changing the criteira again) BUT she didn't do that on her stock work. She was bold, pushy and didn't take any flack from them at all.

 

Agility people certainly use negatives - if you don't want to listen, you don't get to play. If one of my dogs decides to be a bit of an idiot, I have no problems to tell them to "knock it off and quit being an idiot". But 99.9% of the time that is all I have to do. I don't have to resort to anything else, because they want to play the game - and they know if they don't play by the rules, they don't get to play at all.

 

 

Some dog's progress is very slow, as they can only take a bit of pressure at a time as you up the ante and requirements to be rewarded. Others can take a lot and rise to the occasion - the more you push them, the more they respond. You have to really undersatnd how your dog learns and processes information - you have to be a good team in order to be able to advance in your training. THose that do not create a good bond with their dogs don't get very far. I have seen lots of teams like that - no connection between the dog and handler at all, and they all get stuck in a rut, because the relationship isn't there.

 

 

I find that training my dogs for working sheep and for dogsports, which I classify as mechanical training are so different. Molding that instinct in a dog is different that teaching them to do a dog walk etc.

[Lenajo]

I think the image that "c/t has taken the agility world by storm" is wrong.

 

It's really no different than those reading the General Forum here decide that all pet Border Collies have behavior problems (Didn't we just go through this?)

 

There a certain, very er..verbose...trainers that use click and treat and sell it as the one and only method. Oh yes, they have major success in Agility, as do students, but they never mention the highly successful people that won't work with them, those who are no longer working with them, because Sea World training only works absolutely when you're working with a trapped animal.

 

Of course you can trap your dog like a tank orca....there are even books about it. For those that like that method I suggest you go to www.flyingdogpress.com and read Suzanne Clothier's article titled "Of Hostages and Relationships".

 

If you base your opinion of the Agility world by what you read on agility forums and magazines then yes, it is an easy conclusion that c/t must be the be all, end all.

 

Yet many, many successful agility people, even those at the world team level teach their dogs using all 4 parts of operant condition, not just 1 or 2. Many of them have no need, frankly no use, for a clicker.

 

Some of the best weavers I've ever seen were taught by taking them by the collar, putting them in the weaves, and saying This. Is. What. I. Want. It looks a lot like when I take a young dog by the collar in the barn and take him to the wall behind a group of packed sheep. This. Is. What. I. Want. (followed by, "shut your mouth and do it"). Interestingly, these people tend to favor working bred collies.

 

There is nothing *wrong* with using a clicker to train agility. It is unnatural behavior, as other than to run and jump (over an obstacle in one's path) there are no genes for it to explain to the dog what might be wanted.

 

The problems I see in Agility dogs and self control is part owner - because of lack of expectation mostly, and that comes from social pressure that is cascading down through others with the same problem who excuse it with "Border Collies are like that" and the like.

 

I agree there are now lines with these issues of course, but that's been tried with every breed of performance dogs from poodles to goldens. I suspect it will die it's own death. People are already becoming aware that those dogs have the other problems that result from such breeding - poor temperaments that are virtually impossible to live with in particular.

 

Are these lines a threat to the working dog? To a degree, yes. The greater threat is the versatility dogs though - these and other lines bred back to working dogs to "get a dose of working" back in. There are many, many breeds that the only working lines left are those mishmash lines.

 

I have no problems with those that use the clicker. I'm pretty good with it myself, and there are facets of training for unnatural behavior that it is a invaluable tool. TOOL. As in should be part of your training arsenol, not all of it. Those that limit themselves to only clicker will get the dog they create - right or wrong.

 

Interesting discussion.

[shysheperdess]

What's interesting to me as a newer bc owner is the fact that there are very rarely border collies out there that can succesfuly compete in more than one venue and be succesful on the herding trial field and an AKC herding championship does not count. I am talking about the ultimate test of a stockdog, an USBCHA open course. Now this could largely be the fact that most owners/trainers who compete in agility/obedience/flyball don't have the interest in training to that level. And I am not demeaning in any way the few people who have managed to breed the dogs whom have showed that they can compete succesfully in an agility trial and have what it takes to compete on an ISDS style course. I find though, the few dogs that can are dogs that are from working lines who are capable of working a USBCHA course AND compete succesfuly in agility. Where it is a rare thing to find the latter in a dog bred from a sport kennel. Why is that?

 

I also know it common thought amon many herding trainers/handlers that the qualities encouraged to make a good sport dog, are for the large part not necessarily the ones encouraged in working stock other than the desire for that dog to work for there handler. For instance in obedience the dog, especially for heeling, needs to be comfortable with being right in your space, to be not only be attentive and responsive but to be looking at you ALOT! When working stock it is important that the dog work with it's handler and respon to commands but independent thought on the part of the dog seems to be a huge need and asset. The dog cannot be constantly looking to it's handler to guide him, and certainly not looking at them! Pups being trained for sports are started off learning to tug, to be close to you to "watch" you. From what I have learned at herding clinics from many "big hats" is that they encourage the exact opposite from puppyhood. To teach the pup mostly to respect there space, not to say they don't want the pup to develop a good working relationship with them it's just very different. Just some observations on my part I guess.

 

I also know that of a sire that could probably be considered the top producer of succesful agility dogs who is from %100 working lines. His owner doesn't compete with him in herding, but his litter-mate is a succesful USBCHA trail dog and has produced countless amazing stockdogs. I just find it interesting that the qualities that people have chosen to make great working stockdogs also turn out to make great agility dogs, whatever they may be beside the obvious talent on stock(the ability to handle pressure, to think independently, biddability, work ethic). It's obvious that the latter can not be said about sport bred dogs but maybe it isn't just the fact that they aren't being bred for there stock ability? I think it seems the sport bred dogs seem to be more "co-dependent" if you will?

[Shetlander]

It's obvious that the latter can not be said about sport bred dogs but maybe it isn't just the fact that they aren't being bred for there stock ability? I think it seems the sport bred dogs seem to be more "co-dependent" if you will?

 

I'm not sure about co-dependent, but I agree sports bred dogs do seem not to have the same working ability as working bred dogs, by and large.