Oh GOD, a Ceasar wanna be

[Root Beer]

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

 

I like "Ninja". I could go with Ninja. That is catchy. Better than Fred.

[Guest echoica]

I like "Ninja". I could go with Ninja. That is catchy. Better than Fred.

 

just swap out the katana blade for a clicker

 

 

casey is on board!!

[flyer]

Yes, I read Debbies' post and thought oh good I'm on to something. Since I only started Colt with a clicker a few months ago and don't use it much I would say he is a naturally sulky dog, not something I put on him.

 

I took him to sheep when he was 8 mos old and he did shut down for the instructor when she slapped her crook on the ground to stop him from chasing too closely. She couldn't get him interested again so she left the pen and he went back to work for me. (Now I use the term "work" very loosely). Very sensitive dog who is wary of a lot of strangers so it made sense. She suggested I bring him back when he was a year old as he did seem keen. We'll see. I think agility may be more his thing. Bea, my new pup, on the other hand has enough eye and boldness for both of them.

[Lenajo]

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.

 

I'm a good clicker trainer, but I've stopped using it so much for things like you describe because I have found the "old" (pressure/release) way as used in stockdog raising/training results in a much better working partner for me as our lives progressed beyond puppy and house skills.

 

therefore I would have regarded the refusal to get into the tub as a chance to teach. Teach, that is, that I would apply pressure until I got the behavior I wanted, then the release of pressure would be part of the reward. I might use a physical or food reward at the end if I thought it would accentuate the pressure release reward. I'd certainly want to set the dog up to have a way to win. What I don't want is to leave the dog floundering (pun so not intended) to figure out what I wanted during the learning process.

 

A dog that learn his basics in a more real-life way (pressure/release) is ime in for much less of a shock when he hits the real world. Imo that results in an overall kinder life for the dog - less confusion, less back-tracking to teach the dog how to work through a problem under handler guidance. You can't leave a stockdog, or a schutzhund dog, or a gundog... alone to figure it out (unless you want poor results, or a dead prey individual in the first two). So why not teach him from the beginning how to deal with instruction under control? Get your hands on him, puts some leash pressure on as appropriate, use that body language...*teach* him. Don't just shape him like you're training a pigeon to blindly ring a bill.

 

Now if you aren't ever going to leave a controlled environment - sport, or companion - it might not matter. It's a choice then...and for me I would still want a dog that had less limitations than only learning through clicker/reward based shaping or capturing.

[geonni banner]

just swap out the katana blade for a clicker

 

 

casey is on board!!

 

Hey! What about DOG-FU?

 

Owner and leashed dog descend sand dune w/cool, arty lens-flare, approach trainer with looks of awe and curiosity. We see that the trainer has all-white eyes, and carries a staff.

Owner: “This is your master. You will learn the way of the enlightened dog from him.

 

Dog: “But master, you are blind! How can you teach me the way of the dog?”

 

Trainer: “Ah!, young ball-chaser, close your eyes and tell me, what do you hear?”

 

Dog: (listening intently) “Master, I hear the clicker.”

 

Trainer: (smiling) “And what do you smell?”

 

Dog: (wagging his tail and twitching his nostrils) “I smell yummy kibble-bits, Master.”

 

Trainer: “You must learn to concentrate, ball-chaser. Now, open your eyes.

 

Dog opens his eyes to see trainer standing with hand outstretched with a kibble in the center of his palm. Dog licks his lips.

Trainer: “When you can snatch the kibble from my hand, it will be time for you to sit.”

 

Dog tries ineffectually to grab the kibble. Trainer easily eludes his clumsy efforts. At last dog stops trying to grab the treat and sits to think about the situation.

The instant his butt touches the floor, he hears the clicker, and the treat, as if by magic, is in his mouth.

 

Dog ponders the mystery of Dog-Fu.

 

And so it begins…

 

Sorry... Couldn't help it...

[Debbie Meier]

Hey! What about DOG-FU?

 

Owner and leashed dog descend sand dune w/cool, arty lens-flare, approach trainer with looks of awe and curiosity. We see that the trainer has all-white eyes, and carries a staff.

Owner: “This is your master. You will learn the way of the enlightened dog from him.

 

Dog: “But master, you are blind! How can you teach me the way of the dog?”

 

Trainer: “Ah!, young ball-chaser, close your eyes and tell me, what do you hear?”

 

Dog: (listening intently) “Master, I hear the clicker.”

 

Trainer: (smiling) “And what do you smell?”

 

Dog: (wagging his tail and twitching his nostrils) “I smell yummy kibble-bits, Master.”

 

Trainer: “You must learn to concentrate, ball-chaser. Now, open your eyes.

 

Dog opens his eyes to see trainer standing with hand outstretched with a kibble in the center of his palm. Dog licks his lips.

Trainer: “When you can snatch the kibble from my hand, it will be time for you to sit.”

 

Dog tries ineffectually to grab the kibble. Trainer easily eludes his clumsy efforts. At last dog stops trying to grab the treat and sits to think about the situation.

The instant his butt touches the floor, he hears the clicker, and the treat, as if by magic, is in his mouth.

 

Dog ponders the mystery of Dog-Fu.

 

And so it begins…

 

Sorry... Couldn't help it...

 

Oh wise one...tell us more...

[Anda]

LOL Lenajo, I agree with your entire statement. And that's exactly what I did with my dog and the tub

[Guest echoica]

Hey! What about DOG-FU?

 

Owner and leashed dog descend sand dune w/cool, arty lens-flare, approach trainer with looks of awe and curiosity. We see that the trainer has all-white eyes, and carries a staff.

Owner: “This is your master. You will learn the way of the enlightened dog from him.

 

Dog: “But master, you are blind! How can you teach me the way of the dog?”

 

Trainer: “Ah!, young ball-chaser, close your eyes and tell me, what do you hear?”

 

Dog: (listening intently) “Master, I hear the clicker.”

 

Trainer: (smiling) “And what do you smell?”

 

Dog: (wagging his tail and twitching his nostrils) “I smell yummy kibble-bits, Master.”

 

Trainer: “You must learn to concentrate, ball-chaser. Now, open your eyes.

 

Dog opens his eyes to see trainer standing with hand outstretched with a kibble in the center of his palm. Dog licks his lips.

Trainer: “When you can snatch the kibble from my hand, it will be time for you to sit.”

 

Dog tries ineffectually to grab the kibble. Trainer easily eludes his clumsy efforts. At last dog stops trying to grab the treat and sits to think about the situation.

The instant his butt touches the floor, he hears the clicker, and the treat, as if by magic, is in his mouth.

 

Dog ponders the mystery of Dog-Fu.

 

And so it begins…

 

Sorry... Couldn't help it...

 

 

LOL!!

[juliepoudrier]

Kristine,

Thanks for the clarification. I must have missed Debbie's post or just had a middle-aged moment.

 

J.

[flyer]

I look forward to Dog FU, The Musical.

 

That was fun Geonni.

[urge to herd]

I look forward to Dog FU, The Musical.

 

That was fun Geonni.

 

Coming in late to the last half of this thread:

 

Dog FU On Ice

 

Ruth

[geonni banner]

Ok... One more...

[flyer]

Ok... One more...

 

 

Priceless!!

[Grizel]

Interesting conversation...

 

I don't see traditional stockdog training as being the polar opposite of "purely positive"/nonaversive training, or whatever you want to call it. In behavioral terms, it is usually a combination of negative and positive reinforcement, with positive punishment judiciously added at key moments, usually to put the kibbosh on something the stock shouldn't have to deal with. I think it can be very stressful for a dog when a new handler is learning the subtleties of pressure. In the hands of an experienced trainer, it is the ultimate in clear communication, with lots of rewards and a few punishments that are easy to learn from. To me, it is like the purely positive approach in that the dog is encouraged to be an active thinker.

 

I recently audited a basic obedience class that I saw as the true opposite to the purely positive. There, the method relied on nothing but very hard leash corrections. The dogs seemed to learn through a process of elimination. Eventually, they all shut down, and that was considered good. What was so interesting was the fact that the dogs in the advanced class were much worse than the dogs in the beginner class. I think it was because the owners didn't want to keep up with this method of training their pets. Still, my vet loves this trainer and feels that the dogs who have been through these classes are the best behaved in his practice. Apparently, they weren't all permanently traumatized. Personally, I went elsewhere.

 

 

I'm a good clicker trainer, but I've stopped using it so much for things like you describe because I have found the "old" (pressure/release) way as used in stockdog raising/training results in a much better working partner for me as our lives progressed beyond puppy and house skills.

 

This has been my experience too. I still use my clicker quite a lot, but once you understand a little bit about pressure, it is indispensable. However, I have to admit it has taken me years to scratch the surface of how it works.

 

KelpieGirl, I agree that the man in the video was a Cesar wannabe. The lady singing his praises in the background didn't help. The dog was a good little sport.

[geonni banner]

Interesting conversation...

 

I don't see traditional stockdog training as being the polar opposite of "purely positive"/nonaversive training, or whatever you want to call it. In behavioral terms, it is usually a combination of negative and positive reinforcement, with positive punishment judiciously added at key moments, usually to put the kibbosh on something the stock shouldn't have to deal with. I think it can be very stressful for a dog when a new handler is learning the subtleties of pressure. In the hands of an experienced trainer, it is the ultimate in clear communication, with lots of rewards and a few punishments that are easy to learn from. To me, it is like the purely positive approach in that the dog is encouraged to be an active thinker.

 

I recently audited a basic obedience class that I saw as the true opposite to the purely positive. There, the method relied on nothing but very hard leash corrections. The dogs seemed to learn through a process of elimination. Eventually, they all shut down, and that was considered good. What was so interesting was the fact that the dogs in the advanced class were much worse than the dogs in the beginner class. I think it was because the owners didn't want to keep up with this method of training their pets. Still, my vet loves this trainer and feels that the dogs who have been through these classes are the best behaved in his practice. Apparently, they weren't all permanently traumatized. Personally, I went elsewhere.

This has been my experience too. I still use my clicker quite a lot, but once you understand a little bit about pressure, it is indispensable. However, I have to admit it has taken me years to scratch the surface of how it works.

 

KelpieGirl, I agree that the man in the video was a Cesar wannabe. The lady singing his praises in the background didn't help. The dog was a good little sport.

 

When you say, "the dogs were so much worse in the advanced class than in the beginner's class" do you mean they were more shut down or they were learning less, or more slowly, or what?

I'm imagining that these dogs were getting a lot of leash corrections.

 

It has always been my understanding that leash corrections (I'm assuming a choke-chain) should be hard enough for the dog to feel it - but more importantly to hear the sound of the chain ratcheting near its ear. But they should not actually choke the dog, partly because the pain will distract the dog from thinking about what he's supposed to be doing with his body and feet, and partly because it is simply not right to repeatedly hurt the dog. But if the handler is having to do more than one or two leash corrections in a few minutes, the dog is not being handled correctly. A behavior must be demonstrated to be understood by the dog in order for the dog to receive a correction for doing it wrong. A dog receiving many leash corrections in a short time either doesn't understand his work, is badly distracted or upset, or unusually willful. I have never seen a class of dogs where all or even most of the dogs fell into these categories. Were the dogs being taught behaviors by getting leash corrections?

 

If the "advanced" dogs were being handled this way as well, it is small wonder that the owners were getting reluctant to jerk their dogs constantly. Even for a trainer of traditional leash-correction techniques this is very bad training! Constant leash-jerking is as exhausting for the handler as it is for the dog, and serves no purpose but to make the dog either frantic or oblivious after awhile.

 

Also, timing is absolutely critical with leash corrections, which is one reason I only taught one-on-one when I was using mostly old-style training methods. My work was mostly to make sure that the corrections being delivered were fair, of an appropriate force, and timed properly. That requires extremely close attention to the dog/ handler team. Maybe some people can monitor a whole class of dogs that closely - but I certainly never could.

[mum24dog]

The corollary to my gut reaction for the reinforcement trainer would be to immediately picture me hitting or being mean to my dog whenever I use the word "correction." In this same example, if the dog tried to jump up on me, I'd give a correction "Ahht!" and then expect the dog to offer some other more appropriate behavior. When the dog complied, it would get the attention it was seeking by jumping up in the first place.

 

But that isn't what Angelique said she would do.

She said that she would deliver a correction and move on. Nothing about giving the dog any information about what she wanted it to do - just what she didn't want, which tells the dog nothing useful.

I wouldn't even say that in your description "Ahht" was a correction, merely an interrupter.

I can't see anything in what you would do that differs from what I would do if the circumstances were appropriate.

 

My approach to training is what is necessary, effective and what is ethical treatment of the dog. The vast majority of corrections I see are not necessary and most are not effective. Ethical is debatable since treatment varies in harshness.

 

I make no comment on what I would consider acceptable if I were to work my dog on stock since I don't and never have done, but I would still work to the same basic principles.

 

Positive training is more a mindset set than a method. Rather than using corrections (of any level of intensity) as a first resort, a positive trainer will have avoidance of corrections as a prime objective. That does not mean never, it means that other ways are considered first rather than using a knee jerk reaction.

 

TBH I don't know what "purely positive" training is supposed to be. I have never come across a competent trainer who claims to be purely positive - most are honest and admit to using negative punishment at the very least. I know trainers who almost never use aversives or other positive punishment , but none who would claim that it is humanly or practically possible never, ever to use them, or even desirable to refuse to countenance occasions where they might be appropriate.

Anyone who advertises themselves as "purely positive" either doesn't have a complete understanding of what they do or is being dishonest.

 

Pam

[stockdogranch]

She said that she would deliver a correction and move on. Nothing about giving the dog any information about what she wanted it to do - just what she didn't want, which tells the dog nothing useful.

I've stayed out of this one so far, as others have succinctly stated my basic position. However, I can't understand how the dog gets "nothing useful" out of "Acchht!" If I use a verbal correction such as this to stop an unwanted behavior, is it not useful if the pup from that point on understands that I do not want it pulling my pantleg, or nipping my heels, or taking a sheep down? What's "not useful" there?

A

[juliepoudrier]

Pam,

I'd be willing to bet that what Angelique meant with her comments translates into what I described. "Correct and move on" is pretty common parlance in stockdog training circles. I consider the "Ahht!" a correction. Most stockdog trainers would consider it a correction. (That's been my point all along: most of the time, when we say correction we mean a verbal correction, followed by body pressure if warranted. The only time a physical correction would be administered would be an instance like I described with my pup earlier. So by my definition, correction-based training isn't mean or abusive. I'm sure many folks who work with pet people hear the term correction-based training and immediately think of leash pops and choke chains--as decribed by Kristine in the classes she sees--a whole different world, really.) That's the information I give the dog: "Don't do that." I don't then tell it to sit, lie down, or anything else (that is, I don't direct them to an alternate behavior, I expect the dog to *choose* an alternate behavior). The *dog* chooses what to do after being told "Don't do that." The point is that you give the dog information (don't do that), let the dog make a choice, and then move on from there, depending on the choice the dog makes. I don't see how you can say I'm giving the dog information and Angelique is not when in fact we're likely taking the exact same approach. (I should note that I don't praise or reward every time the dog responds appropriately to "don't do that," so if you're thinking that my comment about praise is giving the dog information, then maybe that's where the disconnect is.)

 

It's a simple process, but does require good timing. In fact, good trainers read the dog and will give the verbal correction when they see that the dog is *thinking* of doing something wrong, not wait till the dog is actually doing the wrong thing. For example, if my dog is flanking around the sheep and I see it drop its shoulder to the inside, maybe its tail comes up slightly and its demeanor may even change--all this information is taken in in a *split second*--then I *know* the dog is thinking about diving in and gripping, and so I issue a correction: "Ahht!" or "Hey!" The dog can then alter its course (based on the information I gave, which was "don't do that") and continue on with a proper flank or choose to ignore the correction and dive in, at which point it would recieve another correction, maybe another verbal, probably body pressure, but of course depending on exactly what the dog was doing at the time. The reason for always allowing the dog a choice is because there will be times when I can't see what's going on and can't help the dog make the right choice and so the dog has to have a learning paradigm that enables it to make the right choices even when I am not up close and personal.

 

I think many stockdog trainers look at all the steps a positive trainer might go through, some of which has been detailed here, and think, "Oh dear doG, it's so convoluted and time consuming." Because in our world we do correct and move on. Many of us operate under the rule "make the right easy and the wrong difficult" as well. This means that at least early in training that we don't set up or allow situations to develop that will allow the dog to make bad/wrong choices (e.g., I wouldn't set things up so that a pup is expected to pull sheep off a fence, as that's a recipe for diving in and biting). I assume that this is a similar philosophy with positive trainers--don't set the dog up to fail.

 

I think these training philosophies are in some instances rather similar, but folks get caught up in preconceptions related to terminology and make all sorts of assumptions that aren't based in reality (or are based in a reality that isn't the same as the one the other trainer is coming from). I will admit that most stockdog trainers aren't going to clicker/treat train a dog to get into a tub (just an example, since it's already been used here). We are as a group no-nonsense people. If the shearer is here and waiting for me to bring the next sheep for shearing, he's not interested in waiting for me to coax the little dear over to me and then finesse it over to him. If I'm trimming feet on the entire flock, I don't have time to teach the sheep to lie down and tip themselves up on their bottoms in the proper position for foot trimming. We just do it. And, yes, we take a similar approach to our dogs. If I can teach the dog to get in the tub by using body pressure or simply picking it up and putting it in while putting a command to that activity, that's what I wil do. That's not being mean or abusive; it's just doing things differently. And maybe taking a little less time to do so.

 

I personally see nothing wrong with clicker training. But it really doesn't have a place in stockdog training, and since stockdog training methods use correction (or pressure/release if you prefer) then it makes sense to start the training that way from puppyhood, for the reasons already mentioned in this thread. If I just want to train my dogs to do tricks, I'll likely use what would be considered positive training methods. For basic manners, I use a combination--whatever makes the most sense for the dog and situation. For stockdog training it's correction/pressure/release.

 

EAT: I see Anna said it much more succintly than I, per usual!

 

J.

[PSmitty]

GREAT post, Julie.

 

I used to be one of those people who thought telling a dog NO (ahhhtt! or whatever), wasn't teaching them anything. I don't know if it was learning to work stock or just a general attitude change, but I completely agree with your way of thinking now. Letting the dog know he's made the wrong choice, and to try something else. And it's not just stockwork...I used to take agility classes where we were not allowed to say NO (or any sort of verbal correction) to our dogs. OK, so at what point do you allow them to take the wrong obstacles, or blow you off before you say "No. That's not what I'm asking for, try something else."? I now use NO in agility training. Not harsh, I simply say "No. Try again." I'm grateful for an instructor who believes in that, too. Nothing wrong in telling the dog that he made the wrong choice (NO) and see if he can get it right (Try again).

[Debbie Meier]

All the extra steps are great when your looking for something to do with your dog, it's great bonding along with some mental and physical stimulation, but it is not practical for some trainers or training situations.

 

 

Just putting more thought into this, some of the disconnect may come from the way people think about teaching.training, I see people get hung up on teaching a dog to sit or lie down, I don't think about teaching my dog to sit, come, lie down, etc. The dog already knows how to do those things, it's just a matter of making what I want at the time the most obvious choice and labeling the action. So, once the dog understands the action that goes with the word it's either one of two things when you get the wrong action, either a mistake or a disobedience. I don't like it when people want to take me back and reteach an entire concept when I make a mistake, just correct me and let's move on, same is true if I decide to disobey. And in all reality going back over the concept won't prevent a future mistake or disobedience, that moment is now gone. Now if I continue to go wrong then it might just be that I have the wrong concept, but if we are good trainers this should not be the case.

 

 

Anyway, just some other thoughts.

[Laurae]

Excellent post, Julie.

[Maralynn]

GREAT post, Julie.

 

I used to be one of those people who thought telling a dog NO (ahhhtt! or whatever), wasn't teaching them anything. I don't know if it was learning to work stock or just a general attitude change, but I completely agree with your way of thinking now. Letting the dog know he's made the wrong choice, and to try something else. And it's not just stockwork...I used to take agility classes where we were not allowed to say NO (or any sort of verbal correction) to our dogs. OK, so at what point do you allow them to take the wrong obstacles, or blow you off before you say "No. That's not what I'm asking for, try something else."? I now use NO in agility training. Not harsh, I simply say "No. Try again." I'm grateful for an instructor who believes in that, too. Nothing wrong in telling the dog that he made the wrong choice (NO) and see if he can get it right (Try again).

 

Yup!! I don't understand an aversion to telling the dog he made a wrong choice - you're providing helpful feedback to the dog.

 

As for the video, I wasn't terribly impressed either way. He was just a guy who managed to get a smart, responsive dog to calm down a bit around him. If the lady with the camera thought he was a miracle worker, she must not have much experience with energetic dogs.

[mum24dog]

I've stayed out of this one so far, as others have succinctly stated my basic position. However, I can't understand how the dog gets "nothing useful" out of "Acchht!" If I use a verbal correction such as this to stop an unwanted behavior, is it not useful if the pup from that point on understands that I do not want it pulling my pantleg, or nipping my heels, or taking a sheep down? What's "not useful" there?

A

 

Useful to you in that it stops the behaviour at that time (you hope) - not in terms of teaching the dog what behaviour is acceptable in its place.

Imagine if all you heard was "No" in any given circumstance. Would that teach you what was actually wanted?

Too many "Nos" and you run the risk of a dog (or human) being afraid to try anything. For some people they're happy for that sort of relationship with their dog - I'm not.

 

Pam

[Maralynn]

Useful to you in that it stops the behaviour at that time (you hope) - not in terms of teaching the dog what behaviour is acceptable in its place.

Imagine if all you heard was "No" in any given circumstance. Would that teach you what was actually wanted?

Too many "Nos" and you run the risk of a dog (or human) being afraid to try anything. For some people they're happy for that sort of relationship with their dog - I'm not.

 

Pam

 

I didn't see where "no" was the only command being given, just that it had a place with other commands that were used. I'm not sure why you think it needs to be all one way or all the other. On any given day I use "yes" "no" and "good" several times with my dogs. I provide feedback and they adjust their actions accordingly.

[MaryP]

And it's not just stockwork...I used to take agility classes where we were not allowed to say NO (or any sort of verbal correction) to our dogs. OK, so at what point do you allow them to take the wrong obstacles, or blow you off before you say "No. That's not what I'm asking for, try something else."? I now use NO in agility training. Not harsh, I simply say "No. Try again." I'm grateful for an instructor who believes in that, too. Nothing wrong in telling the dog that he made the wrong choice (NO) and see if he can get it right (Try again).

 

You have to assume the handler knows what they are doing, though. I'm not opposed to telling a dog no in agility, if that dog is simply blowing the handler off or not paying attention. But, I've seen plenty of handlers get very exasperated with their dogs and telling them "no" and even getting angry because the dog is supposedly not doing what the handler has asked. But, many, many, many times the dog is doing exactly what the handler has asked. The handler just doesn't realize that the message that they gave the dog was not the message that they thought they had given the dog. I feel very bad for those dogs and I could see why so many trainers discourage using "no" in agility, especially with green handlers.