what do you use for treats?

[Root Beer]

As an aside, I have to say that if I were a student of yours and you gave me a token for doing something right that I could later turn into a prize, I would have been outta there with a very sour taste in my mouth.

 

Eileen, you wouldn't be in my class to begin with.

 

What I saw actually happen when I instituted this is that handlers started to reinforce their dogs and the techniques that they had paid to take the class to learn started to work because they were actually trying them out. Before that, I had seen quite a bit of hesitation. In addition, I was asked for opportunities to earn more of the tokens.

 

Not everyone is the same. You might not like it, but the students in my class did. That's a fact.

[Root Beer]

You are defining partnership to be what a person and dog have when they participate together in some kind of activity . . .

 

You say your dog is thinking and making choices, and that's true, but basically he's making the choice whether to do what you're telling him to or not.

 

That's the way that you see it on the surface. There is, however, much much more to it than that.

 

I actually do not define "partnership" to be what a dog and person have when they participate together in some kind of activity. Now, that would be minimalist.

 

The activities pursued, and the training undertaken, the goals worked toward, the challenges met, the learning that goes on between dog and handler, the bond that develops and is tested and strengthened throughout the years - all of those things contribute to the building of that working partnership. Along with life experience itself.

 

The activity in which the dog and handler participate is only the tip of the iceberg.

 

I guess, though, that if the tip of the iceberg is the only thing of which one is aware, that is the only thing that one is going to perceive.

[Root Beer]

Okay, but WHY? Why are they not appropriate for the toddler?

 

I've already explained that as fully as I possibly can. I could repeat what I've said before, but I'm not going to.

 

My answer to that question is in the posts that I have written before. If my explanation wasn't clear, there's not much I can do about it. I've explained it as fully and plainly as I possibly can.

[Root Beer]

I could turn that around as a question for you - how do you know there is not a different level? For example how do you know that if you needed to train one of your dogs as an assistance dog for yourself that you wouldn't discover another level of partnership with your dog? Or do you think it would stay the same.

 

I'm not saying that there isn't.

 

And I would certainly agree that there is always a potential for a deeper level of partnership to form between any dog and handler.

 

What I am saying is that one individual cannot know the true depth of partnership that another dog and handler team have simply by basing that judgment on a particular type of training or activity.

 

Do you see what I mean? I am actually saying that I see far less limits on potential for dog and handler partnership. I would say that there is not any particular activity that imposes a limit on that potential. There is so much more to it than what others see at the surface.

 

In addition, I do not see "this partnership is needed to make a living" as a requirement for a true working partnership. That is not to say that a true working partnership is not there for those whose dogs help them make a living, but there are many factors that come into play, and I don't consider that to be an across-the-board requirement for a "real" working partnership.

[Root Beer]

I said that in response to Kristine saying she didn't mean to be so "politically incorrect" by bringing it up (money for grades).

 

LOL!! If I had said what I was really thinking there, I probably would have raised some hackles!! So, I decided to be more politically correct and simply say politically correct. That in spite of the fact that, by and large, I'm not one to bother with political correctness. But in this case it seemed most prudent.

[mbc1963]

An interesting aside, on the grading of students:

 

I teach 8th grade in a system notorious for pushy parents whose perception is that their children are "A" students. (So... I have to give your child an "A" no matter how poor her work is? Is that what you're telling me?!) I've tried very hard this year to turn an A or A+ into something exceptional: the kids have to know all the regular material, and they have to apply the regular information in a new way to solve a problem, or they have to produce a product that is much better than the typical one.

 

My kids just finished a planet project, designed to be evaluated by the other students. The important piece is the detailed peer commentary that's given. Kids are asked to give informed feedback about the projects they evaluate. And let me tell you, they are RUTHLESS. I chortled last week, reading one kid's comment next to the line where bonus points could be added for excellence: "No bonus points. There is no excellence here." Politically incorrect, sure... but utterly and completely true.

 

Kids know, truly and deeply, when work is good and when it is shoddy. Think back to when you were a child: didn't you know who was a truly excellent athlete or artist? Who sang well, as opposed to who thought they sang well? Who consistently got 100% on tests and quizzes? I remember knowing those "special" people from third grade on. I also remember knowing from that same age that I was lousy at gym, the worst at every sport. Had my mother tried to convince me or a coach that I should be a lead player on any team, both the coach and I would have known she was deluding herself.

 

Kids are honest and clear about how their abilities are stratified. Learning to play to our real strengths and manage our real weaknesses is what life is all about. Parents disable their children when they "rescue" them - they create young adults who have never learned to deal with frustration or disappointment.

 

Mary

[AmandaMJL]

And I would certainly agree that there is always a potential for a deeper level of partnership to form between any dog and handler.

 

What I am saying is that one individual cannot know the true depth of partnership that another dog and handler team have simply by basing that judgment on a particular type of training or activity.

 

Do you see what I mean? I am actually saying that I see far less limits on potential for dog and handler partnership. I would say that there is not any particular activity that imposes a limit on that potential. There is so much more to it than what others see at the surface.

 

In addition, I do not see "this partnership is needed to make a living" as a requirement for a true working partnership. That is not to say that a true working partnership is not there for those whose dogs help them make a living, but there are many factors that come into play, and I don't consider that to be an across-the-board requirement for a "real" working partnership.

 

Root Beer I find your arguments very thoughtful considering all levels of partnership, unfortunately in my very short time on this board, there are a few posters here that cannot see all sides of the coin and pass judgement, which is unfortunate. I truly think that not everyone has to agree on something but they should be able to see all sides of the story in order to make their judgment, but that doesn't always seem to happen here.

 

Back to reading now!

[Eileen Stein]

I actually do not define "partnership" to be what a dog and person have when they participate together in some kind of activity. Now, that would be minimalist.

 

The activities pursued, and the training undertaken, the goals worked toward, the challenges met, the learning that goes on between dog and handler, the bond that develops and is tested and strengthened throughout the years - all of those things contribute to the building of that working partnership. Along with life experience itself.

 

The activity in which the dog and handler participate is only the tip of the iceberg.

 

I guess, though, that if the tip of the iceberg is the only thing of which one is aware, that is the only thing that one is going to perceive.

 

Okay, that is a more complete statement of the view of "partnership" that I attributed to you. That's what I thought you meant by "partnership" -- I just didn't state it as expansively.

 

But do you see that the others were using a different definition of "partnership"? Do you see that in using that different definition, they were not intending to disparage the relationship between you and your dog? That was my point.

[Root Beer]

But do you see that the others were using a different definition of "partnership"? Do you see that in using that different definition, they were not intending to disparage the relationship between you and your dog? That was my point.

 

Oh, I never saw it as disparagement. Just as a lack of ability to see a bigger picture. Ability is probably not the right word to use there. I can't think of the best word to express what I'm trying to say there. I'm not saying that anyone is incapable of seeing the bigger picture, just that there is a big picture (regarding training with food) that I get the impression a lot of people are not seeing.

 

Examples have not served me well in this discussion, but I'm going to use one here anyway. Suppose I teach my Border Collie a recall using treats. For the sake of this discussion, let's say this dog has no natural recall when we start out. He's scattered and all over the place and off doing his own thing all the time. I know some dogs do recall very naturally, but the one in this example doesn't. So, I use a training process that involves mechanics (teaching the behavior, reinforcing the behavior with food, teaching the cue, reinforcing response to the cue with food, fading the food, using the environment to reinforce, etc.). And yes, at first the dog is working for the food, not simply for the pleasure of working with the handler. But once the dog knows the recall, has practiced the recall, and the recall is part of everyday ordinary life, food is no longer part of that picture and the dog does recall for the handler. Now suppose that I haven't used a treat to reward a recall in five years. The dog comes when called because he knows his recall and this has been happening completely naturally in real life. Now the dog is running toward a busy street, chasing a rabbit, and I call the dog, and he turns and runs back to me.

 

The idea that the recall, where the dog willingly chose to leave the rabbit and return to me, is somehow "mechanical" or "unnatural" (I know those were not your words) or is in some way indicative of lack of working partnership between dog and handler is simply not in line with the reality that I know.

 

A recall, especially in a case where instinctive drive is in play (like the rabbit example), is an expression of trust from the dog to the handler. I know we don't often think in those terms, but really I've found that to be the case. A dog who doesn't know me from a can of paint is not likely to call off of something under such circumstances. A dog with whom there is a bond of trust, a true partnership, and a substantial dog-handler relationship, is going to respond to that call.

 

The original means of teaching the recall (treats) does not cancel any of that out. The dog in that example is not looking for food. He hasn't been given a food treat for such a recall in years. He is also not responding in a mechanical or unnatural way. In fact, I think that most people would consider a dog responding to his handler's call under those circumstances as very natural (in the dictionary sense) and a sign of a very deep partnership between the dog and handler.

 

My point in that example is that when it comes to training with treats, there is a much bigger picture of what is going on between the dog and handler and their partnership and relationship that an outside observer really might not see. But the fact that it is not perceived by others does not mean that it isn't there.

 

It is impossible to say what the depth of any dog-handler partnership is if all that is taken into account are: type of training used; activities trained for; whether or not the dog actively contributes to the household income. There is so much more to it than that.

 

And really, I do think that is what I've been trying to say all along.

[jdarling]

The original means of teaching the recall (treats) does not cancel any of that out. The dog in that example is not looking for food. He hasn't been given a food treat for such a recall in years. He is also not responding in a mechanical or unnatural way. In fact, I think that most people would consider a dog responding to his handler's call under those circumstances as very natural (in the dictionary sense) and a sign of a very deep partnership between the dog and handler.

 

It's natural for the dog to chase the rabbit. The response to his handler's call is a habit that was created by repetition, originally started with very yummy treats. Very handy to have and an essential life saving "trick" ... yes. Natural? I don't think so.

[Root Beer]

It's natural for the dog to chase the rabbit. The response to his handler's call is a habit that was created by repetition, originally started with very yummy treats. Very handy to have and an essential life saving "trick" ... yes. Natural? I don't think so.

 

As I stated in my post, I am using "unnatural" in the dictionary sense, not the stockdog definition of "anything that is not instinctive".

 

I would say that the recall that I described does not meet these criteria:

 

1. contrary to the laws or course of nature.

2. at variance with the character or nature of a person, animal, or plant.

3. at variance with what is normal or to be expected: the unnatural atmosphere of the place.

4. lacking human qualities or sympathies; monstrous; inhuman: an obsessive and unnatural hatred.

5. not genuine or spontaneous; artificial or contrived: a stiff, unnatural manner.

6. Obsolete. lacking a valid or natural claim; illegitimate.

 

Therefore, while I would agree that the recall is, in fact, "learned". I would not agree that it is "unnatural".

[juliepoudrier]

Oh dear. Y'all made me go to both my handy Webster's, which sits by my computer, and to an online dictionary to look up the word "natural." I'm not pasting a bunch of definitions here, but according to both sources I checked, something that is natural arises on its own, without intervention. While Kristine says the recall doesn't match the definitions she posted for unnatural (although I could contend that a dog recalling to a human is at variance with the dog's essential nature--but see my penultimate paragraph for why this isn't true), it also doesn't match any definition I saw listed for natural. In the broadest sense, I would say that anything we teach a dog that goes against what it would normally be doing on its own, could in fact be termed not natural (sorry, don't want to get into all the ugly connotations of unnatural). In the beagle example, it is indeed natural for the beagle to chase the rabbit (being in accordance with or determined by nature--it's in the dog's genetics to chase the rabbit). Calling off the chase is not natural and is not "in the dog's nature." It is learned. I wouldn't say it is unnnatural (well, this example actually does fit defintion #3: at variance with what is normal or expected--we expect the beagle to want to chase the rabbit), but it's not natural either. ISTM if you take Kristine's first definition: "contrary to the laws or course of nature" then any time we ask a dog to do something that it wouldn't normally do on its own (innately, because its genetics tell it to) is in fact unnatural.

 

A good recall is essential for a dog to live safely in the human world, but I don't think it's natural to any dog to recall.

 

To recap, *anything* a dog does that dogs would do by nature (barking, chasing, scratching, sniffing, etc.) is a natural behavior. Anything we train a dog to do is then pretty much by definition an unnatural behavior. That doesn't mean that the unnatural behaviors we teach aren't valuable; it just means that they aren't behaviors the dog would naturally (in general) do on its own (i.e., that its genetics as a dog tell it to do). For working border collies, gathering stock is a natural behavior (they were bred to be gathering dogs; it's in the genetics). Splitting sheep up so we can sort off one or two or a few is not natural (generally--there are always exceptions to every generalized rule) and has to be taught.

 

The monkey wrench in the natural vs. unnatural discussion is of course that dogs have evolved in concert with humans, so in many breeds there is indeed that *natural* desire to work for or please a human. So when a recall is successfully taught, it could be viewed as natural in the sense of it's the general nature of dogs to want to please humans (and this would support Kristine's argument that the things she teaches her dogs are indeed natural).

 

And I swore I wasn't going to get sucked in today....

 

J.

[Withzia]

It's natural for the dog to chase the rabbit. The response to his handler's call is a habit that was created by repetition, originally started with very yummy treats. Very handy to have and an essential life saving "trick" ... yes. Natural? I don't think so.

 

I'm amazed at how individual words that Kristine is using are dissected in such a fashion. She was clearly responding to an earlier comment in this thread that behaviors trained with treats and clickers appear mechanical, as opposed to behaviors that have been instilled in different ways, such as how you work with your kids. The claim seemed to be that the demeanor of the dog in doing the behavior will be different if the behavior is trained with clicks and treats. Since the term "mechanical" sounds somewhat pejorative, I can see why she's working hard to try and explain why she doesn't believe her training methods result in a mechanical dog.

 

And while yes there have been some posters in this thread explicitly using "mechanical" to refer to any behavior that is not natural (meaning instinctive), I have seen none of them using the term "mechanical" to describe when their own stockdog lies down or recalls on command, which this definition would logically imply. In fact I've seen "mechanical" opposed to a "thinking dog." If your dog has a reliable recall, your dog does some "mechanical" behaviors and has been trained in part "mechanically," right? Is there anyone here who doesn't have a dog that is trained at least in part "mechanically"?

[jdarling]

[Comment deleted ... ]

[Withzia]

It seems as if in this discussion the term "mechanical" has ended up being applied to the behavior rather than to the training method, so I suggest taking a look at the implications of this.

 

Mechanical behavior is--in this discussion--behavior that is not instinctive. More specifically here, it seems to be behavior for which training has to provide even the very motivation, correct?

 

If so, I'd like to suggest that non-mechanical, or instinctive, behavior is not necessarily the hallmark of a thinking dog. When greyhounds chase the mechanical rabbit, that's surely instinctive behavior, isn't it? But is this an example of a "thinking dog"?

 

Conversely, when after locating the subject, my search dog left him/her and went back to get me to bring me into the subject, was that a natural behavior? I'd call it mechanical, since that was something I had to work hard to explain to her was necessary. But she had to think and take initiative to do it--she had to go back and locate me, she had to pick a route that a clumsy human like me could follow (not necessarily the same one she had taken), and she had to look back at regular intervals to make sure I was within eyesight and could see which way she was going. So there's an example of a thinking dog doing a mechanical behavior.

 

Looking at how illogical that sounds, I'd suggest just dropping the word "mechanical" and using instinctive/non-instinctive or natural/unnatural. Seems a lot clearer.

[JohnLloydJones]

To recap, *anything* a dog does that dogs would do by nature (barking, chasing, scratching, sniffing, etc.) is a natural behavior. Anything we train a dog to do is then pretty much by definition an unnatural behavior.

I'm not completely convinced by that argument. Dogs certainly have behaviours that are "hard-wired", or genetic. Even in nature, dogs add to those behaviours by learning. Hunting is a very natural behaviour for canids; still, a young dog will have to finesse those natural behaviours through learning from the pack. In the course of dogs' history have taken thise genetic behaviours and modified them, both through selective breeding as well as training, to be useful. In usurping the role of pack leader, we can form the intrinsic behaviours to be more valuable for us (and consequently for the successful dog, who gets to pass on its genes to the subsequent generation). Trained behaviours may be something less than purely natural but, in my book, aren't necessarily "unnatural".

[Denise Wall]

Oh, I never saw it as disparagement. Just as a lack of ability to see a bigger picture. Ability is probably not the right word to use there. I can't think of the best word to express what I'm trying to say there. I'm not saying that anyone is incapable of seeing the bigger picture, just that there is a big picture (regarding training with food) that I get the impression a lot of people are not seeing.

 

Okay. I take exception to this. There are plenty of people, including people who've participated in this thread and others like it, who've trained the way you do it *and* trained their dogs to a high level on stock. (For this post I mean food/treat based vs traditional correction based stockdog training.) When people who have the experience of both have replied and voiced an opinion different from yours, what I've gotten from your general response is you think they obviously don't have the same kind of relationship/partnership that you have with your dog.

 

Perhaps it's you who doesn't see the "big picture." I mean, people who've done both would have a better chance of understanding the "big picture" than someone who only has the experience you have, right? How can you see the "big picture" when you actually haven't experienced the "big picture" of training both ways?

 

FWIW, I've had border collies all my life. Back in the day, I used to show in obedience some and although I didn't use clickers, I certainly used food treats as rewards. I was also a horse trainer of many, many years.

 

At that time, I thought quite well of my training abilities and ability to connect with my dog. I thought there could be no better relationship/partnership than what I had. When I got into working dogs on stock I found out how wrong I was.

 

You may assume my level of expertise is not approaching yours with regard to treat training. And that *my* experience with *my* specific dog(s) cannot be compared to yours. Maybe you're right. But what if you're not? Maybe you should consider that it's *you* who doesn't see the big picture, not us.

[Withzia]

Okay. I take exception to this. There are plenty of people, including people who've participated in this thread and others like it, who've trained the way you do it *and* trained their dogs to a high level on stock. (For this post I mean food/treat based vs traditional correction based stockdog training.) When people who have the experience of both have replied and voiced an opinion different from yours, what I've gotten from your general response is you think they obviously don't have the same kind of relationship/partnership that you have with your dog.

 

.... FWIW, I've had border collies all my life. Back in the day, I used to show in obedience some and although I didn't use clickers, I certainly used food treats as rewards. I was also a horse trainer of many, many years.

 

At that time, I thought quite well of my training abilities and ability to connect with my dog. I thought there could be no better relationship/partnership than what I had. When I got into working dogs on stock I found out how wrong I was.

 

Denise (and others who have had both kinds of experiences), do you think the difference between these two things is the training method (click/treat versus another method) or the activity? I'm asking both because I'm curious and because I think that's where this discussion has gotten a bit confused, with people talking past each other.

 

And I'm also personally curious about whether anyone who's had experience in both stockwork and SAR sees a qualitative difference there. What is it that makes for a better, deeper, more meaningful partnership? Assuming it's the nature of the activity rather than the training method, is the crucial variable the instinctiveness of the behavior or the amount of initiative and judgment it demands of the dog?

[juliepoudrier]

Trained behaviours may be something less than purely natural but, in my book, aren't necessarily "unnatural".

I guess I don't quite follow you. If we accept that natural and unnatural are opposites by definition, then in the strictest sense something that is not one is likely the other. Of course I understand that nothing is quite that black and white in the real world, but again I think the real problem is the tendency of humans to assign negative connotations to the word "unnatural," when that's not how I'm using it. At any rate, I did go on to say that the dog's desire to please the human is natural, so in that all-encompassing way, anything we teach our dogs to do could be termed natural--an important point for folks who are for whatever reason uncomfortable with using the term unnatural.

 

J.

[Root Beer]

Okay. I take exception to this.

 

I figured someone would.

 

There are plenty of people, including people who've participated in this thread and others like it, who've trained the way you do it *and* trained their dogs to a high level on stock. (For this post I mean food/treat based vs traditional correction based stockdog training.) When people who have the experience of both have replied and voiced an opinion different from yours, what I've gotten from your general response is you think they obviously don't have the same kind of relationship/partnership that you have with your dog.

 

Their experience does not dictate the reality of my own, nor that of others.

 

Perhaps it's you who doesn't see the "big picture." I mean, people who've done both would have a better chance of understanding the "big picture" than someone who only has the experience you have, right? How can you see the "big picture" when you actually haven't experienced the "big picture" of training both ways?

 

Not necessarily.

 

I mean, I could go off this board and find a very large population of trainers who have trained using traditional correction based training and then crossed over to food/treat training and would attest to the fact that their experience has been quite different from yours. Does that change your own experience?

 

Bigger picture.

 

You may assume my level of expertise is not approaching yours with regard to treat training. And that *my* experience with *my* specific dog(s) cannot be compared to yours. Maybe you're right. But what if you're not? Maybe you should consider that it's *you* who doesn't see the big picture, not us.

 

Actually, I have never said that I have particular knowledge of anyone else's area of expertise. OK, I did comment on children, which I admitted was a mistake.

 

But the fact of the matter is that nobody's level of expertise dictates another person's experience. No level of expertise determines what reality is outside of oneself.

 

I am not claiming firsthand knowledge of you or your dogs. And your level of expertise does not somehow give you firsthand knowledge of mine, or anyone else's.

[JohnLloydJones]

...but again I think the real problem is the tendency of humans to assign negative connotations to the word "unnatural," when that's not how I'm using it.

 

Semantics: You use "Unnatural" and "Natural" as exact and complete opposites (i.e follow the Law of Excluded Middle).

As you yourself say, that is not necessarily the way people read this words.

[Denise Wall]

Denise (and others who have had both kinds of experiences), do you think the difference between these two things is the training method (click/treat versus another method) or the activity? I'm asking both because I'm curious and because I think that's where this discussion has gotten a bit confused, with people talking past each other.

 

I don't think border collies can be trained on stock correctly with a click/treat method.

 

I believe talented working-bred border collies are not hard to train on stock because for the most part you're only shaping and developing something already in them. It already makes sense to them on an innate level. You do not need treats, and treat based training actually inhibits the three way communication and relationship you're trying to establish between three separate species.

 

I also believe training them to behave appropriately within the structure of your home/farm situation is not very hard because it also makes sense to them due to the natural pack structure from which dogs evolved.

[Denise Wall]

But the fact of the matter is that nobody's level of expertise dictates another person's experience. No level of expertise determines what reality is outside of oneself.

 

I am not claiming firsthand knowledge of you or your dogs. And your level of expertise does not somehow give you firsthand knowledge of mine, or anyone else's.

 

Very impressive. But I'm asking once again, what makes you so sure that we're the ones who can't see the "big picture" not you? (Please answer in simple terms.)

[Maralynn]

Denise (and others who have had both kinds of experiences), do you think the difference between these two things is the training method (click/treat versus another method) or the activity? I'm asking both because I'm curious and because I think that's where this discussion has gotten a bit confused, with people talking past each other.

 

And I'm also personally curious about whether anyone who's had experience in both stockwork and SAR sees a qualitative difference there. What is it that makes for a better, deeper, more meaningful partnership? Assuming it's the nature of the activity rather than the training method, is the crucial variable the instinctiveness of the behavior or the amount of initiative and judgment it demands of the dog?

 

 

I do both farm stock work and SAR. There are many similarities in my relationship with my farm dog and my SAR dog. I count on both of them to know and do their job independent of me. Stockwork is a touch different because of the deep satisfaction I see in my dog as it utilizes every fiber and drive in her, but my SAR dog loves his job and is very content, satisfied and pleased with himself after he successfully completes a search. He gets a "life is good" look on his face, too. They both use their abilities to solve problems without my input. I feel the same type of working partnership with both.

 

 

I've also done both clicker work and just telling my dog what I want. Clicker work just got in the way when I tried it with Missy and it was pointless because I would just show her what I wanted and she did it (and remembered it), but Kipp enjoyed it I think it was a positive influence on our relationship. I'll continue to use the clicker to train certain things.

[Denise Wall]

I do both farm stock work and SAR. There are many similarities in my relationship with my farm dog and my SAR dog. I count on both of them to know and do their job independent of me. Stockwork is a touch different because of the deep satisfaction I see in my dog as it utilizes every fiber and drive in her, but my SAR dog loves his job and is very content, satisfied and pleased with himself after he successfully completes a search. He gets a "life is good" look on his face, too. They both use their abilities to solve problems without my input. I feel the same type of working partnership with both.

I've also done both clicker work and just telling my dog what I want. Clicker work just got in the way when I tried it with Missy and it was pointless because I would just show her what I wanted and she did it (and remembered it), but Kipp enjoyed it I think it was a positive influence on our relationship. I'll continue to use the clicker to train certain things.

 

Which one is your farm dog? Thank you for your response.