Oh GOD, a Ceasar wanna be

[Debbie Meier]

I imagine that could be the case, and why I said manners likely set "the tone for the stock work in some ways." I will learn more about this as I go, but I cannot imagine it's helpful to have a dog dragging his handler toward the sheep or not coming when called in situations outside of stock work, and then be as good a partner as he could be with the stock. Don't really have enough experience to assess that, just my impression. It certainly holds true for other dog endeavors wit which I'm more familiar.

 

This is interesting, not all that long ago I had someone here that wanted to gain some stock time, the dog is used to be handled in an all positive manner and is kept in an upbeat happy puppy like state. Well, when the stock work began the dog went out to play and the handler got on the dogs case, the dog shut down immediately and went to eating poop, the handler then tried to get the dog back up beat and the dog went back to play just to get in trouble again. All the dog understood was full on play or full off sulk. I took the person aside and asked if the dog is ever corrected at home and I was told no that everything is to be positive, there are not defined personal space or requirement that the dog exhibit self control or discipline but rather distracts it via treats and praise. So I told the handler that I felt a choise would need to be made, either not try to train the dog in herding or change the way the dog is handled at home, but that it was not fair to be all positive in one place but then expect the dog to understand corrections and pressure in another. I've seen it many times, there is a conflict when you take an all positive handled dog and drop them into an enviroment where they need to learn via corrections to mistakes. They don't understand how to learn via making a mistake and getting a correction. In this case a positive trainer would see corrections as punishment, not due to the correction based training being bad but rather due to the dog not understanding that the correction is a vehicle of learning, to the dog it is punishment. But, once you get through it and the dog learns how respond to corrections properly it all changes.

 

Any way, just thought I would share an observation.

[flyer]

I laugh becuase it crosses the line that is polite with-in different training methods.

No matter what I say, Kristine is quite sold on her methods. No matter what she says, I'm quite sold on my methods. Not saying that we don't learn something from each other but, usually in the general camps of different training, it's an us against them theme. Like the AKC border collies and the working collies. Never gonna join up...never gonna happen.

I laugh because I'd never want to hurt Kristines feelings intentionly, but I'm sure I could offend her in the same way she could offend me with her opinions on my training. So I would not try to explain why it feels like it does in my "gut" for fear of not getting it worded right and someone I respect taking offence. Now I even feel confused...but still laughing.

 

 

I think Julie said it very well and I get it. She covered a couple of things I have misgivings about. I am, however, still too much a novice to make any sweeping comments about never the twain shall meet.

 

Most of the good trainers I see out there are very very similar regardless of what "method" for lack of a better word that encompasses the myriad of training I think most people use.

[Root Beer]

Well, what shorthand method of expressing it would you like? So many people advertise themselves as "purely positive" (and I know darn well that they are not including positive punishment!), that I thought it had become an accepted term amongst ____________________ trainers.

 

For short, I personally refer to the kind of training that is commonly called "purely positive" as reinforcement based training. Even simply "reinforcement" would be much better than "purely positive". Granted, there is more to it than that, but simply calling it reinforcement, or reinforcement training, is far more precise than "positive" or "purely positive".

 

Of course, that's my preference. I'm not saying that I think anyone else has to use different terminology. I know what you mean by "purely positive" even if it is like nails on a chalkboard to me!

[Guest echoica]

Yes!! I was expecting a very long post that began "Step 1 - Click and treat when the dog turns his head toward the bathtub."

 

This made me laugh out loud! Can you imagine!!!??? I mean, I am all for +R but a long drawn out process like that for a bath seems really silly. This is a perfect example where flooding is appropriate. No pun intended

[topnotchdog]

I've seen it many times, there is a conflict when you take an all positive handled dog and drop them into an enviroment where they need to learn via corrections to mistakes. They don't understand how to learn via making a mistake and getting a correction. In this case a positive trainer would see corrections as punishment, not due to the correction based training being bad but rather due to the dog not understanding that the correction is a vehicle of learning, to the dog it is punishment. But, once you get through it and the dog learns how respond to corrections properly it all changes.

 

Thank you, Debbie. Very interesting example and good food for thought. (As an aside, my instructor made a point to alert me to this phenomenon even before I got my pup. )

 

Barbara

[Debbie Meier]

This made me laugh out loud! Can you imagine!!!??? I mean, I am all for +R but a long drawn out process like that for a bath seems really silly. This is a perfect example where flooding is appropriate. No pun intended

 

 

Oy!

[Lenajo]

This made me laugh out loud! Can you imagine!!!??? I mean, I am all for +R but a long drawn out process like that for a bath seems really silly. This is a perfect example where flooding is appropriate. No pun intended

 

now now, must use correct terminology or somone will have a migraine. It's called "hosing" if you use the water hose outside, "saturating" if you use a tub, and only "flooding" if you wash them in a California river.

[Root Beer]

This made me laugh out loud! Can you imagine!!!??? I mean, I am all for +R but a long drawn out process like that for a bath seems really silly. This is a perfect example where flooding is appropriate. No pun intended

 

OK, now I'm half tempted to clicker train Dean to get in the shower on his own and then tell you all how fast it happened!

 

Just because I can . . . !!! :D

[juliepoudrier]

I think Julie said it very well and I get it. She covered a couple of things I have misgivings about. I am, however, still too much a novice to make any sweeping comments about never the twain shall meet.

Flyer,

I was going to respond to your comments about Colt being sulky when corrected, but Debbie has painted a very nice picture. By all means keep trying to teach him to take a correction. It will certainly pay off when you take him to stock.

 

Right now I have a dog who comes for training, and she's not really got what it takes to get far, but the biggest problem I have with her is that if she does something like dive in and try to grab a sheep and I give her a simple verbal correction (and note, I don't even really raise my voice, and I certainly don't sound angry), she shuts right down and goes to the gate or starts eating poop and I immediately have to try to "happy her back up," which generally means encouraging her onto her sheep, which of course sets up a situation where she might try to grip again. If a verbal correction weren't an end-of-the-world scenario for her to begin with, then we wouldn't even have to go through this vicious little cycle. It really makes training a lot less fun for both of us.

 

ETA: In answer to your question about whether I'd ever seen a good clicker trainer at work, the answer is no. (Just as I imagine many postive trainers have never seen a good stockdog trainer at work.) And that's one reason why I try to keep an open mind. Oh, and I should note that I do use some treat-based training myself, but don't use a clicker. My Phoebe went through a stage where she just didn't want to recall. I'd have loaded everyone else in the van and she'd start to come when called, stop and decide she didn't really have to, and then take off for the pond. Yes, it pissed me off. But in that case, I found using treats to reward her for coming when called to be a very effective method. Just because I hadn't needed them for my other dogs, including her littermates, didn't preclude me from trying it with her. Right now, I'm teaching Pip to sit up, since it's good for strengthening the back. And I use treats as rewards/reinforcers. But when I ask him up and he starts up and then leans forward and tries to put his feet on me, he gets an "ahht!" and when he does it correctly he gets a treat. A blend of correction and reinforcement....

 

But the main point is that if you're going to train a dog for useful stockwork they should be able to take a correction without melting into a little puddle of unhappiness.

 

J.

[Guest echoica]

For short, I personally refer to the kind of training that is commonly called "purely positive" as reinforcement based training. Even simply "reinforcement" would be much better than "purely positive". Granted, there is more to it than that, but simply calling it reinforcement, or reinforcement training, is far more precise than "positive" or "purely positive".

 

Personally, I do not find reinforcement any more appropriate than saying positive for your training approach. Because it implies you also use negative reinforcement (former) as opposed to positive punishment (latter). You strike me as a positive reinforcement and negative punishment gal? Which is what I promote as well in the main (although there are definitely uses for other approaches depending on the circumstances)...I just find (as someone who studied behaviorism formally) saying the aforementioned - either reinforcement or positive training way too simplistic and confusing. I think it is more useful to spell it right out IMO Better to sound all smart and confusing to the people that don't understand it, then to say it in front of someone that actually knows about the subject in depth and sound stupid. Worse case you will have to elaborate...but us +R/-P people are pretty good at that, no?

 

As a side, I really agree with much of what you said here. Even though you claim to be new at training you seem to be very knowledgeable thus far about these principles!

[Debbie Meier]

OK, now I'm half tempted to clicker train Dean to get in the shower on his own and then tell you all how fast it happened!

 

Just because I can . . . !!!

 

Betcha I can teach Jake to do it faster with a cord to prevent escape and corrections faster then you can do it with the clicker and when I'm done I will be able to send him to the tub from anyplace in the house.

[Root Beer]

Done.

 

Only took about 4 reps before the tail came out from between his legs. Only about 8 reps before the tail was curled up high.

 

Just for kicks, we trained a send from halfway across the bathroom. He liked that.

 

After that, Speedy wanted a turn, so factor that in. Then they did a few reps together.

 

Slow? Not for a clicker savvy dog.

[Debbie Meier]

Done.

 

Only took about 4 reps before the tail came out from between his legs. Only about 8 reps before the tail was curled up high.

 

Just for kicks, we trained a send from halfway across the bathroom. He liked that.

 

After that, Speedy wanted a turn, so factor that in. Then they did a few reps together.

 

Slow? Not for a clicker savvy dog.

 

 

But will he jump into any tub even when he wants to do something else?

[geonni banner]

now now, must use correct terminology or somone will have a migraine. It's called "hosing" if you use the water hose outside, "saturating" if you use a tub, and only "flooding" if you wash them in a California river.

 

No!, no, no, no, no! It's called immersion if you do it in the tub, and cold turkey if you do it outside with the hose - cuz you always get your shoes wet and feel like a turkey cuz you didn't put on your Wellies! You're right about the CA rivers though.

[Root Beer]

Betcha I can teach Jake to do it faster with a cord to prevent escape and corrections faster then you can do it with the clicker and when I'm done I will be able to send him to the tub from anyplace in the house.

 

Dean learned fast enough for me! And his send from halfway across the bathroom is plenty, as far as I'm concerned.

[Root Beer]

But will he jump into any tub even when he wants to do something else?

 

Oh, tubs are not a problem. He loves jumping into tubs. If there is water in them, all the better. It's only the shower. Or, I should say, was.

[Anda]

My dog loves water. Hates baths. He gets in the bathtub on command. Looks miserable but stays there until I'm done removing the half ton of dirt he usually drags in. I can tell him from dowstairs when I take his collar off - get in the bathtub, right now, and he does it - runs up up the stairs enthusiastically to one of the bathrooms - in case I didn't specify which one I plan on soiling - and gets in the bathtub. Only then he starts looking pathetic.

 

No clickers, no leashes or cords needed. Probably started with some body blocking, long time ago, explaining him there's really no other choice than to get in the tub and stay there till we make him look like a dog again, instead of a mud covered pig.

[Debbie Meier]

Kinda reminding me of the horse cliniciner training challenges. Select 20 trainers, let them each select a dog from a simular gene pool and then give them the same requirements to train their dogs in a certain amount of time to see whose method gets what done and how solid the dogs are. Then we really could find out who the real Dog Whisperer's are...

[Guest echoica]

It's only the shower. Or, I should say, was.

 

HA! Awesome

[juliepoudrier]

But if what you're asking is, what do I do about it from a training perspective, then I go back to my recall work. I go back to the first steps and "load up" the recall word using a high rate of reinforcement. Going back to that typing analogy, I want that recall word to be conditioned so strongly that the dog responds to it without thinking, just as I'm typing right now without thinking about it.

 

Kristine,

This comment was back on p. 4 of this thread and I meant to ask you about it. This is the discussion you were having with Debbie about what you'd do if your dog was heading for the A-frame and then suddenly took off after a cat/rabbit. You said you'd recall him and then redirect him toward the A-frame. A little later, you said the bit I quoted above, and I got a little confused. There was nothing from that discussion that implied the dog didn't recall him when you called, so I'm unclear why you'd go back and reinforce recall work? It seems to me that if the dog is running an agility course and takes off after some prey animal but comes back when called and continues the course then the problem wasn't a faulty recall but rather an issue with distraction. Did I miss something in the conversation?

 

The reason I'm curious is that at the few agility trials I've attended, I've seen dogs leave the course and go sniff, visit, whatver and I wondered what the handler was supposed to do about that. Actually I wondered if the dogs in question just weren't suited to or didn't enjoy agility. In these cases, a better recall might certainly have helped the handler get the dog back on track, but in the example you and Debbie were using, the assumption was that the dog came back and got redirected onto the A-frame, so I didn't understand why you'd go back and work on the recall.

 

J.

[Root Beer]

Personally, I do not find reinforcement any more appropriate than saying positive for your training approach. Because it implies you also use negative reinforcement (former) as opposed to positive punishment (latter). You strike me as a positive reinforcement and negative punishment gal?

 

Good point. I didn't think of that.

 

Maybe we should just make a generic name for it. How 'bout Fred? I train with Fred. We could start a whole training revolution and people could call it a fad. A Fred fad. But it would really just be what we were doing already.

 

I just find (as someone who studied behaviorism formally) saying the aforementioned - either reinforcement or positive training way too simplistic and confusing. I think it is more useful to spell it right out IMO Better to sound all smart and confusing to the people that don't understand it, then to say it in front of someone that actually knows about the subject in depth and sound stupid. Worse case you will have to elaborate...but us +R/-P people are pretty good at that, no?

 

Or that. I still like Fred, though.

 

As a side, I really agree with much of what you said here. Even though you claim to be new at training you seem to be very knowledgeable thus far about these principles!

 

That's all Speedy's fault. :D

 

Of course, I owe him a debt of gratitude that I can never repay. But it is all his fault.

[flyer]

wrong place.

[Guest echoica]

Maybe we should just make a generic name for it. How 'bout Fred? I train with Fred. We could start a whole training revolution and people could call it a fad. A Fred fad. But it would really just be what we were doing already.

Or that. I still like Fred, though.

 

I would love to go with something cool like "Ninja" training ...but "Fred" can be a placeholder until then tehehe

[Root Beer]

A little later, you said the bit I quoted above, and I got a little confused. There was nothing from that discussion that implied the dog didn't recall him when you called, so I'm unclear why you'd go back and reinforce recall work? It seems to me that if the dog is running an agility course and takes off after some prey animal but comes back when called and continues the course then the problem wasn't a faulty recall but rather an issue with distraction. Did I miss something in the conversation?

 

Yes, Debbie asked in a later post what I would do in a case where the dog did not disengage and continued to chase the rabbit when I called. (Post #69 in this thread)

 

That's when I would go back and rework recalls.

 

The reason I'm curious is that at the few agility trials I've attended, I've seen dogs leave the course and go sniff, visit, whatver and I wondered what the handler was supposed to do about that.

 

There's not a lot you can do if you want to be able to qualify. You can call, clap your hands, run anywhere you want to on course, but that's about it. In some venues even that would send you overtime very fast, but not in all of them.

 

If you need to retrieve your dog and the Q is no longer a possibility, then you can go get your dog.

 

Actually I wondered if the dogs in question just weren't suited to or didn't enjoy agility.

 

Sometimes. Sometimes it's stress or some circumstance that's in play just that day. Maddie loves Agility, but if we trial outdoors and it is really hot, she will break off and sniff when she's too hot. So, there might be something going on with the dog that isn't obviously apparent.

 

Some dogs disengage due to trial stress. Sometimes green dogs take a while to learn to stay connected in new places. And some just have "those days".

[Root Beer]

Kinda reminding me of the horse cliniciner training challenges. Select 20 trainers, let them each select a dog from a simular gene pool and then give them the same requirements to train their dogs in a certain amount of time to see whose method gets what done and how solid the dogs are. Then we really could find out who the real Dog Whisperer's are...

 

How fun would that be?