Oh GOD, a Ceasar wanna be

[Sue R]

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

It may or may not stop the behavior at that given time - it may or may not require repetition, or pressure/release if it is not effective. Dogs are like small children - they may pick up the idea and give the more desirable behavior with one or with multiple, fair, understandable corrections.

 

A dog doesn't need to hear that every acceptable step is "good dog" - continuing on conveys that. The dog certainly needs to know when a choice is not acceptable, so that it can think, choose another behavior, and find out if that is the right choice. And, of course, there's nothing wrong with appropriate positive feedback - but for animals that can read stock, we'd be foolish to think they can't read people also and know when they have done well.

 

One could say, couldn't they do the same and know when their behavior is unacceptable without a verbal correction (or physical correction)? It's often a matter of timing, to get that correction understood in the time frame that it will be useful.

 

There have been some wonderful posts from differing points of view in this discussion, giving us all things to think about. I think there is more than one way to accomplish training goals, but differing ways that are more or less productive in different training situations. IE, clicker training is great for pet, performance, and companion training but it's not suitable for stockdog work. Some methods that I find perfectly acceptable (not mean, not cruel, not harsh) for stockdog training I would consider counterproductive for pet, performance, or companion dog training.

 

I think that choosing the methods that work for the situation, the handler/trainer, and the individual dog is appropriate and determined by what you are trying/needing to accomplish.

[mum24dog]

(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.)

J.

 

Are you sure you don't reward your dog for appropriate behaviour?

Simply being allowed to do what it finds rewarding is a reward in itself. It doesn't necessarily involve anything that comes directly from the handler.

In fact, in the jumping up situation I don't normally ask for all 4 feet on the ground - I want it to be a default behaviour and not conditional upon a cue from me. If it's offered a reward of some sort follows depending on context.

 

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.

 

But it isn't comparing like with like. You and your fellow stock dog trainers are working towards a specific goal with dogs that hopefully have an aptitude for the job and which would put up with all sorts of treatment to be able to be allowed to do it. The sorts of dogs people like Kristine and I deal with can be any breed or background and with a whole shed load of hang ups. To fix a lot of those dogs properly it does take time, effort and patience - a simple correction and moving on wouldn't do it.

I'll make a confession here - when we got our BC I did wonder whether the more authoritarian approach that I see many BC owners using might work since he seemed to be pretty impervious to most treatment. I tried corrections that I wouldn't have used on my other rag bag of dogs and all I got was a battle of wills. As soon as I reverted to my normal training methods a relatively peaceful coexistence returned.

 

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.

 

It certainly is - when properly applied.

 

Pam

[stockdogranch]

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.

It *does* stop the behavior at the time, and generally, from then on (not just "I hope" and not just this one time). I give my dogs credit for being able to understand that an "acchht" means not to do that--ever. As for telling the dog what to do in pace of the unwanted behavior, frankly, that's up to the dog to choose something, anything, that is within the boundaries of what's allowed. I think the main difference here may be that for dogs who will be working stock, we need them to be able to think, as Julie says, and not just when they are out of out sight. I like for the dog to understand what the job is that we're doing, say, bringing them out of a pasture (but there's only one gate, and it's way off in a corner, so that the route from stock to handler is not in a direct straight line), and for the DOG to figure out how best to accomplish that job. In this case, the dog has to figure out how to get the stock through that gate. Now, I could go in there with the dog, and use lots of flank commands or body positioning to let the dog know where the gate is, and that that is the place to bring the stock, OR, if I have taught the dog properly, that is, to use its brain, then I can stand anywhere, send the dog in, and it can figure out what it needs to do. So the dog has to be reading the stock at all times, and making decisions based on 1) what the stock are doing (or thinking about doing), 2) what his/her understanding is of the job at hand, and 3) what are acceptable approaches to that particular job and stock at that moment (based on earlier training and scenarios). So, if I have started this pup and allowed it to become a thinking dog, I have allowed it to develop some problem-solving capabilities. If I am always having to tell it what to do, then I am micromanaging, and the dog could be useful, but not as useful as one who thinks,

A

[mum24dog]

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.

 

I was just going to post something of the sort.

We all have our own ways of letting the dog know the choice it has made is not the one we noted but "No" is a dangerous word as its negativity so often leads the handler into the frame of mind where they blame the dog for their own failure.

If the dog goes wrong, the first thought should always be "What did I do wrong?" not "The dog did something wrong".

The dog is rarely wrong - it's either poor handling or poor training, both of which are the handler's responsibility.

 

Pam

[juliepoudrier]

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.

Do you really, truly believe that saying "no" isn't effective communication? I've explained at length why we want the dogs to make choices for themselves rather than be told exactly what to do every time. Am I not explaining myself well? Sure, I could say, "No, lie down" and the dog should generalize that when it's doing X and I say no, then the proper response is to lie down. BUT (and it's a HUGE, BIG-A$$ BUT) when my dog is working stock and I say "no" I DON'T want the dog to generalize that when it does X and I say "no" it MUST do Y. There are other animals involved, and while Y might be the correct response in one instance, it might be absolutely the WRONG response in another. I understand that you don't work stock, but I don't know how else to help you understand. We don't always want the exact same alternate behavior. If my dog goes to jump on me and I say no, I don't CARE what it does as an alternative (within reason) as long as it doesn't jump on me. This allows the dog the creativity to come up with its own ideas--an EXTREMELY valuable trait in a dog that needs to work other sentient beings who have minds of their own.

 

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

 

It would teach me what was not wanted. In my daily life if I had a goal to accomplish and I heard the word "no" when I tried a means to that goal, I would then try a different means to that goal. If I heard "no" again, then I would try plan C. As I stated in my earlier post, we don't set our dogs up to fail. We set them up to make the right choices, but the whole goal is to still give the dog a *choice.*

 

Too many "Nos" and you run the risk of a dog (or human) being afraid to try anything.

 

For some who have a need or desire to be shown exactly what to do, that might indeed be the case. For some who prefer a little freedom for creative thinking, it might not. I could counter your argument by stating that it must be a pretty dull life to lead when one's choices are taken away completely and one must always follow the set rules A = B and X = Y.

 

For some people they're happy for that sort of relationship with their dog - I'm not.

 

And once again you're assuming that we all have bad relationships with our dogs simply because we choose to train by a method that you do not understand and apparently have no wish to try to understand.

 

J.

[stockdogranch]

and which would put up with all sorts of treatment to be able to be allowed to do it.

I can't help but read that as an assumption on your part that we all (stockdog trainers) beat and abuse (physically, verbally) our dogs all the time (thus turning them into quivering masses of shut down helpless yadda, yadda), and can get away with it only because the dogs are so drawn to the stock that they would put up with anything.

 

Please, I find that sweeping generalization/assumption pretty offensive,

A

[PSmitty]

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.

 

Yes, good point. The classes where I was not allowed to give a verbal correction were lower level classes with green dogs and/or handlers. I am comfortable now, at this stage, to let Alex know he's not done what I've asked (for example, pulling out of the friggin' 10th weave pole! ), when I know for certain that he understands what I wanted in the first place. It works for me, now. It might not for everyone, as you said.

[Eileen Stein]

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.

 

Telling you what I didn't want you to do would be telling you something useful, wouldn't it? Why do you think it's different for your dog? If I had a cake on the kitchen counter and I didn't want you to eat it, seems to me it would make sense for me to give you that information directly, rather than telling you to go somewhere else and sit down. If I don't particularly care what you do as long as you don't eat the cake, why should I make something up for you to do instead?

 

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.

 

I love it that your mindset to avoid corrections is the conscious following of a prime objective, while my mindset to teach through correction is a knee jerk reaction.

[Sue R]

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.

You hit on a very important point (and maybe back to the Cesar connection) - you can't let your emotions take charge. A correction may be more "forceful" but when your emotions take over, you are running on anger or frustration, and that is counterproductive and takes the place of a thoughtful correction.

 

That's one thing I see with JK or KK (and other excellent handler/trainers) - the corrections fit the incorrect behavior and the training level/expectations of the dog. They are not emotional corrections - they are suitable, appropriate corrections. And that's why they work so well for them, and why many handlers (and their dogs) would benefit from emulating them.

[mum24dog]

So, if I have started this pup and allowed it to become a thinking dog, I have allowed it to develop some problem-solving capabilities. If I am always having to tell it what to do, then I am micromanaging, and the dog could be useful, but not as useful as one who thinks,

A

 

Well we're in agreement there - the main reason why I favour clicker training. It produces a thinking dog rather than a robot.

Having said that, I rarely use one for agility training. I may use it for specifics but as a general rule for a dog that is really into the sport it doesn't add much to the equation IME. I guess stock work is pretty much the same - the chance to do the job is sufficient reward in itself.

 

Pam

[Sue R]

I guess stock work is pretty much the same - the chance to do the job is sufficient reward in itself.

 

Pam

I think you will find a great deal of agreement with this, at least in regard to those who use their dogs in stockwork. And I do think that dogs that enjoy agility or other pursuits will find a similar pleasure in doing the activity they enjoy.

[juliepoudrier]

I can't help but read that as an assumption on your part that we all (stockdog trainers) beat and abuse (physically, verbally) our dogs all the time (thus turning them into quivering masses of shut down helpless yadda, yadda), and can get away with it only because the dogs are so drawn to the stock that they would put up with anything.

 

Please, I find that sweeping generalization/assumption pretty offensive,

A

Thank you, Anna. That was my thought exactly on reading that post. "Yep, those stockdogs are bred to take abuse because that's how they're trained. So I tried that with my dog, but soon came to the conclusion that my kinder, gentler way was better." Wow.

 

Pam,

You live in a part of the world where this amazing breed was developed and some of the best and most knowledeable breeders, trainers, and handlers of stockdogs live. How about actually going out and watching some training?/ Heck, you could probably even rent or borrow DVD like Derek Scrimgeour's good ones on starting a pup and training a dog. Instead of just making assumptions about the way these dogs are treated, why not go see it for yourself, either in person or on DVD? You might just be pleasantly surprised (and perhaps a bit less offensive to those of us who do work our dogs).

 

J.

[topnotchdog]

There have been some wonderful posts from differing points of view in this discussion, giving us all things to think about. I think there is more than one way to accomplish training goals, but differing ways that are more or less productive in different training situations. IE, clicker training is great for pet, performance, and companion training but it's not suitable for stockdog work. Some methods that I find perfectly acceptable (not mean, not cruel, not harsh) for stockdog training I would consider counterproductive for pet, performance, or companion dog training.

 

Exactly what I have taken away from this discussion as well. Now I have loads more to ponder, observe and do...

 

Barbara

[PSmitty]

I was just going to post something of the sort.

We all have our own ways of letting the dog know the choice it has made is not the one we noted but "No" is a dangerous word as its negativity so often leads the handler into the frame of mind where they blame the dog for their own failure.

If the dog goes wrong, the first thought should always be "What did I do wrong?" not "The dog did something wrong".

The dog is rarely wrong - it's either poor handling or poor training, both of which are the handler's responsibility.

 

Pam

 

Oh, geez. Me and my big mouth. Sorry, but my use of the word no, is simply a marker that tells the dog that whatever he just did wasn't what we were looking for. It in no way puts ME into a frame of mind that I'm going to blame my dog for my own failures (a little credit, please). It's not even about blame or who is at fault. (and yes, I'm well aware that most of the time, it is handler error, but not always) It just signifies that whatever happened wasn't the intended outcome, and we're going to try again. I could say "oops!" instead of "no" and the meaning is the same. Do dogs have a negative connotation with the word "no" if it is not used harshly?

[Grizel]

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.

 

I mean they were more regressed in their training. I was watching the final week of an 8 week class. The "advanced" dogs were not heeling as well or staying as well and were generally more unruly. The only training interventions I could see were constant, hard corrections.

 

Judging by the way the owners were looking nervously at the instructor, I suspected that they hadn't been practicing as much as they had in the beginning. The instructor himself has been doing this for a long time, and was once quite the AKC obedience rockstar, so I think it's safe to assume that his methods work when they are actually employed.

 

The whole technique emphasized the "don't" instead of the "do" - and in this situation, there were a lot of don'ts. I think the dogs generally learned, a ) when you are moving, go slow and b ) when in doubt, stay. Perhaps these are not unuseful things for a pet to think, but I wondered how it would impact my stockdog-to-be.

 

I found another obedience instructor (with over 30 years of experience training border collies) who blends clicker-type training with a few corrections. That has worked out very well for me and my dog. He has become confident in his ability to communicate and can work his way through mistakes and corrections. I think this training has been an asset to his stockwork. I'm not really a disciple of any particular training method (except maybe traditional stockdog training), so I have the freedom to mix and match as I see fit.

 

Julie is very right in that these are different worlds that we are talking about, and each world presents limitations and opportunities. Agility and obedience don't offer the instinctive satisfaction of stockwork to use as a reward, and using food is not a remote possibility with herding. I guess you have to work with the environment. I would say the one constant is pressure.

[mum24dog]

Telling you what I didn't want you to do would be telling you something useful, wouldn't it? Why do you think it's different for your dog? If I had a cake on the kitchen counter and I didn't want you to eat it, seems to me it would make sense for me to give you that information directly, rather than telling you to go somewhere else and sit down.

 

Leave is a positive command, not an absence of one. It should be sufficient in itself, and generalised to all circumstances, not just cake on the counter.

 

my mindset to teach through correction is a knee jerk reaction.

 

You may not think like that, and from reading this board I doubt that many people on here do either. Most seem to think about what they do carefully, and that's to be expected on a board that is primarily aimed at those who work dogs. I may not agree on detail, but

However, I am not limiting my comments to board members. In every day life knee jerk corrections are very common, whether amongst those whose only information on how to handle a dog comes from TV or amongst those training for various sports, particularly competitive obedience.

 

Pam

[Eileen Stein]

Well we're in agreement there - the main reason why I favour clicker training. It produces a thinking dog rather than a robot.

 

So you're saying that telling the dog not to do X produces a robot, whereas telling the dog not to do X but to do Y instead produces a thinking dog? Interesting perception.

[juliepoudrier]

Do dogs have a negative connotation with the word "no" if it is not used harshly?

I think all connotations throughout this thread are human ones. Humans place value judgments on terms like "No," "correction," "positive" and so on. Dogs do not. While "no" may mean "don't do that" to a dog, the tone it's delivered likely has a much greater bearing on the dog's reaction. IOW, I think dogs are much more sensitive to tone than they are to a specific word said in a neutral way.

 

J.

[Eileen Stein]

Telling you what I didn't want you to do would be telling you something useful, wouldn't it? Why do you think it's different for your dog? If I had a cake on the kitchen counter and I didn't want you to eat it, seems to me it would make sense for me to give you that information directly, rather than telling you to go somewhere else and sit down.

Leave is a positive command, not an absence of one. It should be sufficient in itself, and generalised to all circumstances, not just cake on the counter.

 

Hmm. Okay, let's say the cake is now on the coffee table. Your dog approaches with interest and you say "Leave" and the dog moves away. How is that different from my dog approaching with interest, me saying "Ahhp" and my dog moving away?

 

But I'd still like you to answer my basic question, if you would: Do you agree that if I tell you what I don't want you to do I am giving you useful information, and if so, why am I not giving my dog useful information when I tell him what I don't want him to do?

[mum24dog]

Thank you, Anna. That was my thought exactly on reading that post. "Yep, those stockdogs are bred to take abuse because that's how they're trained. So I tried that with my dog, but soon came to the conclusion that my kinder, gentler way was better." Wow.

 

Pam,

You live in a part of the world where this amazing breed was developed and some of the best and most knowledeable breeders, trainers, and handlers of stockdogs live. How about actually going out and watching some training?/ Heck, you could probably even rent or borrow DVD like Derek Scrimgeour's good ones on starting a pup and training a dog. Instead of just making assumptions about the way these dogs are treated, why not go see it for yourself, either in person or on DVD? You might just be pleasantly surprised (and perhaps a bit less offensive to those of us who do work our dogs).

 

J.

 

I don't make assumptions - except that people who work their dogs are no different from anyone else - some harsh to the point of cruelty, hopefully most not. Saints and sinners in any walk of life.

I never said that they were bred to take abuse - I said that they would put up with all sorts of treatment to be given an opportunity to do what they love, which is true.

 

It is a fact that a lot of people (especially in the sport world) are harder on BCs than some other breeds because there is a perception that it is necessary - I've seen it time and time again and I can't ignore the fact that it happens. My own experience was that I kept an open mind and tried it to some extent and found it counterproductive for my dog. Nowhere have I given any reason to extrapolate from that the idea that I think that all people who work their dogs are unnecessarily cruel.

 

However, I do know the various reputations of some the sheep farmers around here, some good, some not so good, and some bad. Just because I don't work my dog doesn't mean that I am totally divorced from the working world.

Derek Scrimgeour is only 45 mins from here and the Longtons only 20 mins. (The last time I saw Thomas Longton at a mutual trialling friend's funeral he was threatening to try agility.)

 

I have no intention of being offensive. Some people are reading more into what I have said than was ever meant.

Any group will work within the norms and preconceptions of that group. It doesn't hurt to have those preconceptions challenged from time to time and that applies to me too. It's an unfortunate fact of internet forum life that people take things personally. Because I know that certain things happen shouldn't be taken as an accusation against any individual on here.

 

To put the record straight, I do not talk about training methods in stock work because they are outside my experience. I can, however, talk about general training principles. On this board I guess that most of us, whatever our field of experience, are looking to discuss best practice, but that shouldn't lead to ignoring the fact that best practice isn't always applied or indeed that it is necessarily always the norm.

 

BTW - "pressure" is frequently brought up. I guess it has a specific and mutually comprehensible meaning to you but the word itself is vague. It has been used not only in relation to stock work but also other areas of dog training. What do you mean by it?

 

Pam

[mum24dog]

But I'd still like you to answer my basic question, if you would: Do you agree that if I tell you what I don't want you to do I am giving you useful information, and if so, why am I not giving my dog useful information when I tell him what I don't want him to do?

 

It depends on what you consider useful.

I consider it useful to the dog to know what I want it to do, not just what I don't want. I appreciate information as to what I should do rather than an instruction simply to stop what I'm doing in the majority of situations.

If your lifestyle is such that "Stop and go and do whatever else you want" is adequate for your purposes, then it works for you and your dog will eventually grasp that that is what "No" means in that case.

If you actually want a different behaviour in place of the unwanted one, then the dog needs to know what it is.

Too many people forget that, for example, that giving a leash pop and saying "No" to a dog that puls is not telling the dog what the desired leash walking behaviour is. It has to work that out for itself to avoid the corrections.

 

Pam

[geonni banner]

Oh, geez. Me and my big mouth. Sorry, but my use of the word no, is simply a marker that tells the dog that whatever he just did wasn't what we were looking for. It in no way puts ME into a frame of mind that I'm going to blame my dog for my own failures (a little credit, please). It's not even about blame or who is at fault. (and yes, I'm well aware that most of the time, it is handler error, but not always) It just signifies that whatever happened wasn't the intended outcome, and we're going to try again. I could say "oops!" instead of "no" and the meaning is the same. Do dogs have a negative connotation with the word "no" if it is not used harshly?

 

One of the things I used to ask my training clients was, "What do 'Bad dog!' and 'no' mean to you?" They nearly always said, "The same thing."

 

That is where the trouble began for many of them, IMO. "No" just means "That's isn't what I want." The implication is "Try again - something different." This indeed encourages the dog to think, rather than to wait passively for more detailed direction. Of course, If the dog doesn't come up with what you want on it's own, then you can help it out before it gets frustrated and quits trying. "No" should not imply that you are angry or that the dog has done something bad. It may have done something wrong - but not bad.

 

I told my clients that their dog should rarely hear "Bad dog!" Save it for harm/ peril situations. "No," on the other hand is a quick, clear indication of an undesirable action on the dogs part. The only time that word carries negative freight is when it has been used inappropriately - as in it's interchangeable use with "Bad dog!."

 

Dogs are capable of intuitive leaps. They are also capable of problem-solving behavior. I have no problem with "shaping" behaviors, but I'd rather give the dog a few hints and see if he can work something out for himself. In my experience, the dog that does this gets a bigger bang out of the whole experience of training and is avid to work as much as it can - with or without treats. Call me anthropomorphic, but I believe dogs can have pride in accomplishment, and a dog that learns to think, solve problems by thinking on its own has pride of accomplishment in spades. It also has something else. It has dignity - and a strong sense of self.

[juliepoudrier]

In simple human terms if I stare at you, lean over you, step into a space you might have been planning to step into, or just make myself appear bigger when I am around you, then I am putting pressure on you. If I raise my voice, I am putting pressure on you. In stockdog training it might be something as simple as leaning toward the dog, which applies pressure even if the dog is a good distance away on the other side of the sheep from me.

 

It can be a difficult concept if you are new to stockdog training, and especially if you come from a different venue, like agility. I have a student who comes here now and has done agility training with his dog. When he wants to send his dog around the sheep, he tends to step toward the dog and sweep his arm out in the direction he wants her to go. It's counterintuitive to him--because of his previous experience--that by stepping toward his dog he's actually putting pressure on her, which will then result in the dog running out tight (you can see her thinking "I need to get away from this and get to those sheep as fast as possible, which actually sets her up to run wide at the bottom, where he's applying pressure, but then come in tight at the top). If he would step *away* from the dog--releasing the pressure of his presence--before sending her she'd run out more nicely.

 

ETA: I should add that the reason pressure/release works is because these dogs also sense pressure from the stock and have an innate ability to respond to that pressure in order to control the stock. So by using pressure/release we are simply using a technique the dogs are genetically prepared to deal with, since stock also apply and release pressure. The stock do so as prey animals simply while responding to the dog's presence and attempt at control; humans do it deliberately to gain a desired result. This pressure from stock thing is another reason why we try to train creative/thinking dogs. I might [oops, the word "not" should have been here] always be able to sense the pressure the stock is putting on the dog and so may give a command that is counter to what the dog feels from the stock and so the dog has the choice to obey the command and lose the stock or disobey the command and keep control of the stock. Yes, there are times when we want obedience, but there are also times when we rely on our dogs to be able to read the stock better than we can and save our butts by doing so.

 

J.

[mum24dog]

So you're saying that telling the dog not to do X produces a robot, whereas telling the dog not to do X but to do Y instead produces a thinking dog? Interesting perception.

 

No, no, no all the time without any positive assistance does run the risk of shutting a dog down to the extent that it is afraid of making a mistake. Micromanagement can have a similar result.

I appreciate that with the sort of dogs you are likely to come across you probably won't have seen it as often as I have.

You have the X Y scenario wrong.

Going back to the OP's video, if my dog was jumping up I would click and treat the moment all 4 feet were on the floor. I wouldn't give a command for it. The dog figures out what it has to do to get the reward. The information as to the correct behaviour is in the click and reward but the choice to do it is the dog's. It becomes the default behaviour - no need for a command, click or treat.

 

Pam

[flyer]

Dogs are capable of intuitive leaps. They are also capable of problem-solving behavior. I have no problem with "shaping" behaviors, but I'd rather give the dog a few hints and see if he can work something out for himself. In my experience, the dog that does this gets a bigger bang out of the whole experience of training and is avid to work as much as it can - with or without treats. Call me anthropomorphic, but I believe dogs can have pride in accomplishment, and a dog that learns to think, solve problems by thinking on its own has pride of accomplishment in spades. It also has something else. It has dignity - and a strong sense of self.

 

I believe this too and so I try to train in a way that fosters this good sense of self. The opposite of this is what I saw in the OP's vid.