what do you use for treats?

[Eileen Stein]

I have to say I thought it was interesting how reluctant the c/t proponents were to address my question about using c/t on a toddler. (Or at least, that's how it seemed to me.) I tried to make my question very specific, and yet no one wanted to address it that way. The only substantive response, eventually, was this one:

 

Because we are talking about a human person. Even a baby/toddler is not a dog. I'd be preparing the baby/toddler to learn as a growing and grown-up human. At 9 years old, my older Border Collie is not going to start reading and writing and asking actual questions. He is not going to somehow develop the ability to talk in sentences. I would certainly hope that a 9 year old human would be doing those things! From the beginning, I would be preparing the child to learn as a human, not as a dog.

 

I have to say that, though I expected the "a human is not a dog" reply, I don't really find this very satisfying. If the toddler's level of development is such that c/t would be the most effective method for him/her at that time, why not use it then, and use different methods later as the child develops abilities that will make other forms of teaching more effective? Surely there are methods you WOULD use on a toddler that are different from what you'd use with an older child who is reading and writing and asking actual questions? I can't help thinking that the reasons why you would not use c/t on a toddler have not yet been identified and examined, and I can't help wondering what they are.

[Root Beer]

I have to say that, though I expected the "a human is not a dog" reply, I don't really find this very satisfying. If the toddler's level of development is such that c/t would be the most effective method for him/her at that time, why not use it then, and use different methods later as the child develops abilities that will make other forms of teaching more effective? Surely there are methods you WOULD use on a toddler that are different from what you'd use with an older child who is reading and writing and asking actual questions? I can't help thinking that the reasons why you would not use c/t on a toddler have not yet been identified and examined, and I can't help wondering what they are.

 

I know my answer to this might be roundabout, but bear with me because I will make the point!

 

In my classes, I use a reinforcement system with my students. From time to time when I see them doing something correctly - it might stand out or it might be mundane - I give that person a token. At the end of the session, those tokens can be turned in for prizes.

 

It was quite amazing to see the difference that happened almost immediately when I instituted this. It's not that those tokens are all that compelling. I think it just made people aware of the fact that I'm paying attention, and it reinforced the fact that trying the techniques that they are learning in class have a payoff. Once they actually try them, of course, they see how effective they are with their dogs, and they no longer need external reward. Now their own success is reinforcing. Win-Win! Love it!

 

You might argue that they should try those things because they want to learn as much as possible, and they should do it for their dogs. But is human nature ever perfect? Really? I've found that it isn't, and that providing external reinforcement as encouragement and to communicate my approval can be highly effective.

 

Why do I do this? Why don't I click and go around popping treats into people's mouths? First, it would be completely inappropriate. Just as I would not put students who don't follow my instructions into crates, I would not click and treat in that fashion. I would put my dog in a crate, and I do click and treat my dogs. There are some things that are appropriate for dogs that are not appropriate for humans. Second, it would be far to distracting to be effective, even if it were appropriate.

 

A toddler is not learning how to be a dog. The toddler is learning how to be a human. I would not teach a toddler to retrieve a ball in his or her mouth, I would teach the child to throw the ball for the dog with his or her hand. As far as teaching tools go, I would not use a crate to give a toddler a chance to relax and regroup and rest if play got too hyped up. I would use a space appropriate to a human child. It might actually be more effective to put a toddler in a crate sometimes, but it is never appropriate.

 

A clicker and treats are tools for training dogs. They are not tools used for humans. So, even if a clicker and food treats might be effective, I do not view them as appropriate teaching tools for humans.

 

So, if I were working with a child, I would adapt rewards to things that are human appropriate. Chances to earn extra play time, a special outing, access to certain toys (that are put up to keep them safe from the dogs), etc.

 

That does not mean that all good things would have to be earned. I'm not that way with my dogs. They get so many freebies, it's not even funny! But I would instill the concept of "certain privileges are earned" in a child very young.

[kajarrel]

What a great conversation - I don't know how I missed reading this. I have a one contributions to make:

 

I've come to think that the "treat (edited) based" and incremental training methods underestimate the dogs' abilities and desire to figure things out. My dogs don't need to have their behavior shaped incrementally, they make great leaps in understanding simply by trying to figure something out. I don't know if this is the best example, but I've been having Sputty help me out with feeding the sheep. One ram in particular, "Fluffy", would ignore her. When she finally found out that she was able to bite him and that he moved - the (her) excitement was palpable. This was clearly a situation where she generated great excitement in the learning itself and I, literally, saw the lightbulb come on.

 

Then she wanted to try her newfound power on other problem sheep/situations (generalizing her learning to other situations). The next step was learning when it wasn't OK (input from Kim) or necessary. She seemed to me to be thinking, "does it work here, what about there?!"

 

Kim

[ItsADogsLyfe]

I can totally appreciate that. Being more of an artist than an outdoorswoman, to me Musical Freestyle is much more of a partnership with my dogs than trying to work stock would be (would be for me - to be perfectly clear!). I don't have any affinity for sheep or working with them - working with my dog in that context would not be terribly satisfying, regardless of what capability my dog has. I would find it extremely unpleasant in many ways.

 

But getting up in front of people and putting on a show together - for me that's a partnership! Running Agility together - that's a partnership. Again, this is because of who I am, not because I think it's who anyone else should be.

 

I'm not saying that my partnership with my dogs is better or more satisfying than yours is with your dogs when you are working stock. But I'm not going to agree with anyone who would say that my dogs are mechanical, unnatural, impoverished, or not true working partners because we work toward different goals together and use a different type of training.

 

I don't think you are understanding my point. Musical Freestyle and agility may be a partnership, I don't know I've never tried either, but those are not necessities in life. You do them because you enjoy them, they are fun for you. You seem to be equating those acitivities with sheep work. I'm not a big sheep producer so I'm not now working dogs on stock that is in any way my livelyhood, but I did used to raise dairy goats and chickens in which to feed my family. I needed a good dog then to help make my job a bit easier. It was not always "pleasant" work, but the dogs do minimize the amount of work I have to do. I'm am an artist of sorts also but that has nothing to do with the basics of life which requires food on the table. Freestyle while a nice enjoyable activitiy to do with your dog, will not put food in your childrens mouths. I'm not trying to minimize the acitivities you do with your dog, I have done numerous activities with my dogs, but in regards to this conversation, I still feel the the training involved in creating a good freestyle or agility dog does make the dog more "mechanical (for want of a better word)" than the training involved in making a good sheepdog.

[Root Beer]

I've come to think that the "reward based" and incremental training methods underestimate the dogs' abilities and desire to figure things out.

 

I think that's a blanket statement that does not apply to all dogs in all situations.

 

Of course, there are things I don't teach incrementally. Of course there are things that certain dogs learn in one shot and know for life. But if it all came naturally in one fell swoop, would there even be a need to discuss training? We would all have been done with it long ago!

 

Choosing an incremental approach, where appropriate to the dog in the situation with a given behavior, the dog's ability and desire to figure things out is not circumvented. In fact, it is often utilized to it's fullest in those situations. It might be utilized quite differently from any way that you might expect, but it is certainly in play in a major way.

 

It would be like saying that learning to read music and play an instrument step by step underestimates one's musical ability. Sure, some people can play by ear the first time they sit down at a piano. Others need to learn the notes, learn how to play them, and practice the details of putting it all together extensively before they make good music. In the end, both are playing music. So, did the person who learned one step at a time underestimate his or her ability to play music?

[juliepoudrier]

Kristine,

I think the point you're missing in this part of the discussion is that when you are performing with your dog, which is indeed a partnership, your dog is still doing specific movements that it was taught in a specific order as it was taught to do by you. Your dog doesn't go out there and come up with its own routine based on the music that happens to be playing or the way the audience is reacting or anything like that. Sure you have a lovely partnership with your dog when you are doing these things. But as you note, it's not the same sort of partnership someone working stock would talk about.

 

As for the more or less, I think the different perspective comes from the fact that a human's partnership with a working dog can involve life or death (not trying to be overly dramatic here, but it's a real possibility) and so in that sense the partnership I rely on from my dog is more. If your dog messes up in a freestyle routine, there's not a lot to be lost--points, I presume. If my dog messes up while we're separating the ram from his ewes, it could mean injury to her or me, or worse. And yet it's a job that needs to be done and so we do it. The type of trust and bond that is created when you do these kinds of things with your dog daily *is* different, and more, and it *is* critical to the well being of the livestock. Yes, in both cases, the human/dog partnership is working toward an end goal, but in your case the goal is carefull prescribed and practiced beforehand whereas in my case the goal is prescribed but how we get there is fluid, and in the moment, and depends a lot on what they third species in the equation is doing to "thwart" the goal.

 

When I am trying to accomplish a task on the farm my dog needs to be able to assess the situation, figure out what it is we're trying to accomplish and then help me with that task when I may not be in a position to do any training or close directing. And there's no real practicing for some of the situations we encounter, so we train the basics, allow the dogs to learn to read and react appropriately to livestock and then expect that they will do the right things when faced with a new situation. (For example, the one night when I came home from dinner to find a first-time ewe with a newborn lamb and a mature ewe trying to steal the lamb from her. All this was out in the pasture in the dark. My focus was on getting the lamb and getting it to the barn. My dog was left to sort the ewes--push the pregnant ewe away and then bring the new mom to follow me and the lamb to the barn--with minimal direction from me. All in the dark. All with no prior experience doing that *exact* job.). This is the sort of partnership that I have with my dog and there simply is no equivalent to the partnership folks have with their agility, freestyle, frisbee dogs.

 

Yes, I've taught my dog certain things about the work, but ultimately the dog reads and reacts in the given moment, according to the changing circumstances of that moment, to help accomplish a goal, which isn't the same thing as performing a routine. Another example: the time I was at a friend's place working Twist and noticed the neighbor's cattle were out. I took Twist to go gather them up and bring them back to the gate to their pasture, only the gate I took them to was chained/nailed shut, so I had to move them through the neighbor's yard to another gate in the fenceline. In the meantime the bull had had enough and came after me. All I did was call my dog's name, no specific command, and she responded to the situation and came right to the bull's head and grabbed him, giving me enough time to get behind some farm equipment. To me that sort of understanding by my dog of my *need* is indeed a very different sort of partnership from the kind of partnership developed when training for games. (ETA: I should add that I don't raise cattle and although my dog(s) will work cattle, doing so is not within the realm of our daily existence. So the example given here illustrates a situation that was essentially unfamiliar to my dog from a working experience standpoint, and yet she was able to figure out what was happening and react appropriately just by me calling her name.)

 

J.

 

I can totally appreciate that. Being more of an artist than an outdoorswoman, to me Musical Freestyle is much more of a partnership with my dogs than trying to work stock would be (would be for me - to be perfectly clear!). I don't have any affinity for sheep or working with them - working with my dog in that context would not be terribly satisfying, regardless of what capability my dog has. I would find it extremely unpleasant in many ways.

 

But getting up in front of people and putting on a show together - for me that's a partnership! Running Agility together - that's a partnership. Again, this is because of who I am, not because I think it's who anyone else should be.

 

I'm not saying that my partnership with my dogs is better or more satisfying than yours is with your dogs when you are working stock. But I'm not going to agree with anyone who would say that my dogs are mechanical, unnatural, impoverished, or not true working partners because we work toward different goals together and use a different type of training.

 

It's different. But not less.

[Maralynn]

I can totally appreciate that. Being more of an artist than an outdoorswoman, to me Musical Freestyle is much more of a partnership with my dogs than trying to work stock would be (would be for me - to be perfectly clear!). I don't have any affinity for sheep or working with them - working with my dog in that context would not be terribly satisfying, regardless of what capability my dog has. I would find it extremely unpleasant in many ways.

 

The difference is you're relying on your dog for something that needs to be done as opposed to accomplishing something that is fun. If something happened to your dog tomorrow and you were unable to compete for some reason, you can just quit and that's the end of it. If it's unpleasant you can just quit. If the weather is bad you can stay in the comfort of home. I'm not trying to downplay your relationship with your dogs, or say it is not meaningful and fulling for both you and your dogs, but it's a whole different level. And I think it's hard for people who have never handled 30 sheep on their own including moving, vaccinating, sorting with just the help of a dog to understand the depth of the partnership. It's a whole different idea when you have something that needs to be accomplished and rely on your dog and your dog comes through for you.

 

I was very proud of my dog and felt we'd had a great accomplishment when we passed two levels of obedience classes and therapy dog certification. We had to work together to do this and success felt good! But it was no where near the feeling I get and see in her after doing a round of vaccination or worming chores. There is something in the real work that is ultimately satisfying and bonding.

[Root Beer]

I don't think you are understanding my point. Musical Freestyle and agility may be a partnership, I don't know I've never tried either, but those are not necessities in life. You do them because you enjoy them, they are fun for you. You seem to be equating those acitivities with sheep work.

 

I am not equating those activities with sheep work. I have said over and over that they are different.

 

I am making the point that the quality and quantity of the working partnership between dog and handler is not determined by one or another person's idea of what that partnership should be.

 

As far as necessity - some of the most satisfying things in my life are not necessities. Some of the most necessary things in life are things that I do not find terribly satisfying.

 

Freestyle while a nice enjoyable activitiy to do with your dog, will not put food in your childrens mouths.

 

I guess I'm just different. I don't consider the ability to make a living off of my bond and partnership with my dogs as a requirement for realizing the fullest potential of that bond, partnership, relationship, etc.

 

I am not saying that your dogs are not necessary to your work. Obviously, they are.

 

Most people who take part in art, sport, etc. do not make a living off of those things. That does not mean that there are not incredible rewards that go hand in hand with such pursuits. For some, those very things, from which they do not make a living, provide far more satisfaction than the "day jobs" that put food on the table do!

 

I'm not trying to minimize the acitivities you do with your dog, I have done numerous activities with my dogs, but in regards to this conversation, I still feel the the training involved in creating a good freestyle or agility dog does make the dog more "mechanical (for want of a better word)" than the training involved in making a good sheepdog.

 

And there we will have to agree to disagree. I simply disagree.

[Root Beer]

Kristine,

I think the point you're missing in this part of the discussion is that when you are performing with your dog, which is indeed a partnership, your dog is still doing specific movements that it was taught in a specific order as it was taught to do by you. Your dog doesn't go out there and come up with its own routine based on the music that happens to be playing or the way the audience is reacting or anything like that. Sure you have a lovely partnership with your dog when you are doing these things. But as you note, it's not the same sort of partnership someone working stock would talk about.

 

What I find interesting is that the original question, posed in this thread, was not "is the partnership between dogs and handlers who do not work stock the same as the partnership that someone working on stock would talk about?" The original statement that Eileen made - to which I responded - was this . . .

 

It leaves undeveloped one of the capabilities I value most in the border collie. (No, not the ability to work livestock -- though there's a parallel there -- but rather the willingness to work solely for the intrinsic pleasure of the work and the partnership.)

 

I don't really know where the comparison between the two types of partnerships came in, but that is not what I was talking about in any sense. I didn't bring stockwork into this.

 

I was referring to the working partnership to which Eileen referred originally.

[juliepoudrier]

What I find interesting is that the original question, posed in this thread, was not "is the partnership between dogs and handlers who do not work stock the same as the partnership that someone working on stock would talk about?" The original statement that Eileen made - to which I responded - was this . . .

I don't really know where the comparison between the two types of partnerships came in, but that is not what I was talking about in any sense. I didn't bring stockwork into this.

 

I was referring to the working partnership to which Eileen referred originally.

As you well know, these sorts of threads often take many tangents and the working partnership is just one of those tangents. And although you didn't bring stockwork into this, you have been addressing it in your comments, so it's a bit disingenuous now to answer with "I didn't bring stockwork into this." But it doesn't really matter I guess.

 

J.

[Root Beer]

I'm not trying to downplay your relationship with your dogs, or say it is not meaningful and fulling for both you and your dogs, but it's a whole different level. And I think it's hard for people who have never handled 30 sheep on their own including moving, vaccinating, sorting with just the help of a dog to understand the depth of the partnership. It's a whole different idea when you have something that needs to be accomplished and rely on your dog and your dog comes through for you.

 

The fact of the matter is, you don't actually know the level of relationship, partnership, etc. that I actually have with my dogs. You can say that you found another level, but that's you. I don't doubt that's the case - for you.

 

To say that bringing a smile and a bit of companionship to someone in a nursing home is less necessary than moving your sheep is really very subjective. Who is to say what actually has more worth? Who is to say what level of satisfaction and partnership my dog and I actually share? To say that the work that my dogs and I do together to help people who have reactive dogs, fearful dogs, and dogs with other issues (and yes, my dog actually does work with those dogs, and he does help them, and I do need him to accomplish what we accomplish together) is less necessary than moving your sheep is also subjective. Who is to say what actually has more worth? Who is to say what level of satisfaction and partnership my dog and I actually share?

 

The fact is, you might think you know - but you don't! I know that sounds like I've taken offense or something, but I haven't. I know this to be true not only for myself, but for others, as well.

 

Just some food for thought. Whether or not you believe that it is actually possible for there to be a whole level of meaning and fulfillment between dog and handler who are not doing something that is necessary for you is certainly your choice. It doesn't change anything, though, for those of us who have found that with our dogs in other areas of life.

[ItsADogsLyfe]

I am not equating those activities with sheep work. I have said over and over that they are different.

 

I am making the point that the quality and quantity of the working partnership between dog and handler is not determined by one or another person's idea of what that partnership should be.

 

But you are equating them when you say the following.

 

I can totally appreciate that. Being more of an artist than an outdoorswoman, to me Musical Freestyle is much more of a partnership with my dogs than trying to work stock would be (would be for me - to be perfectly clear!). I don't have any affinity for sheep or working with them - working with my dog in that context would not be terribly satisfying, regardless of what capability my dog has. I would find it extremely unpleasant in many ways.

 

You are clearly stating that you feel because you aren't an outdoorswoman that to you freestyle is more a partnership than stock work would be. It has nothing to do with what type a person you are, it has to do with the job. Subsitence doesn't depend on freestyle or agility. It's not my "idea" of what a partnership should be, or anyone elses idea, it is if the job gets done with the minimal of stress on the stock and no injuries to any parties involved. Sometimes things are as they are and we can't reword things to change the meaning. Work is work and freestyle and agility and flyball etc are games or sports.

I think its great that people do these things with their dogs. I'd rather see dogs enjoying themselves doing these activities than be tied to a chain a backyard, but they are different than working for a living. Doing sheepwork with a dog is more like working with another human getting the job at hand done.

As for the mechanical point. I would ask you this. Even if you don't want to see it that way, you have to admit that the training involved in freestyle and agilty is pretty much exacting. Sheepwork not so much exacting. To me this is mechanical and not very natural. If you are enjoying what you do with your dogs ie: freestyle, agility etc, and the training to do this requires the dog be precise in its movements when you tell it what to do, then what is so bad about being mechanical in freestyle or agility? Its not a bad thing if that is what you need.

[Root Beer]

As you well know, these sorts of threads often take many tangents and the working partnership is just one of those tangents. And although you didn't bring stockwork into this, you have been addressing it in your comments, so it's a bit disingenuous now to answer with "I didn't bring stockwork into this." But it doesn't really matter I guess.

 

J.

 

I don't think I have been disingenuous. The only place where I have remotely gotten into stockwork is with a comparison of the concept of "mechanical". And I was talking about the notion on the sport/pet side, and how that differs from the point of view expressed here by the stockwork folks.

 

Now it has moved into "which type of partnership is more satisfying". That's going to depend as much on the person as the dog. It's interesting to me that we are debating something that is so subjective!

[Root Beer]

To me this is mechanical and not very natural. If you are enjoying what you do with your dogs ie: freestyle, agility etc, and the training to do this requires the dog be precise in its movements when you tell it what to do, then what is so bad about being mechanical in freestyle or agility? Its not a bad thing if that is what you need.

 

It would not be a bad thing if that were what I needed.

 

Actually, though, mechanical and unnatural are the last things I need in those pursuits! I would be a dismal failure at those things if my dogs were mechanical and unnatural. I would be failing the dogs themselves most of all.

[juliepoudrier]

Now it has moved into "which type of partnership is more satisfying". That's going to depend as much on the person as the dog. It's interesting to me that we are debating something that is so subjective!

But from some of our points of view, it's not entirely subjective, which is what you seem to be ignoring (or something). It's what Joan (I think?) was attempting to point out with her "food in our mouths" comments. If you are out on the agility course and your dog knocks a pole or takes off to go visit or whatever, there is no real consequence, other than not qualifying. You may still be quite (subjectively) happy with your dog's performance overall. If your dog can't get the necessary certification to visit nursing homes, there is no objective consequence to that. The degree to which your visits enrich the lives of the denizens of the nursing home visits is subjective (though we'd probably all agree that such visit *do* enrich lives), but you're correct that there is no objective measure of your dog's effectiveness at that task (that is, you're not paid for performance). There is no real cost to you, other than in personal satisfaction, in any of these situations if you fail to do the task you've set or to do it properly.

 

On the other hand, if I have a person at my gate who wants to buy nine sheep out of my flock, I need to get the flock up, sort off those exact nine sheep, and load them on his trailer. My overall satisfaction with how my dog gets that job done is indeed subjective, but there's an objective component as well: the money I will be paid if we can complete the task effectively. A little more nuanced example would be if my ram breaks out and gets in with the ewes. There won't be an immediate objective pay off for getting him back out, but the objective ($$) pay off will come later in the fact that he didn't breed ewes that shouldn't have been bred, which will save me money (objective measure) down the line when those ewes don't lamb when they aren't supposed to. Or in the example I gave previously with the bull. There was no objective pay off for me to go get the neighbor's cattle out of the road except for the satisfaction of helping someone out. But, if I couldn't count on my dog to protect me, then I could have experienced an objective consequence: injury to myself costing money and time.

 

The end result to raising livestock is an objective one, generally: income. The end result to sports and games (and I will include trialing here) is generally not income but rather the satisfaction (subjective) of winning or a job well done. Of course there are exceptions, but most folks I know who are active in dog sports aren't making a living at it. Those of us raising livestock might not be making a full living (some are), but we certainly are able to supplement our regular incomes with the livestock. And that income is an objective measure. And it doesn't matter whether you personally don't like sheep or wouldn't raise livestock in a million years, the fact remains that the livestock are an *objective* source of income.

 

J.

[ItsADogsLyfe]

But from some of our points of view, it's not entirely subjective, which is what you seem to be ignoring (or something). It's what Joan (I think?) was attemtpting to point out with her "food in our mouths" comments.

 

That is exactly what I was attempting to point out. Attempting is also a good word here as I defintely don't have the ability to make my meaning clear as well as you do Julie.

 

But as with so many of these threads the original question gets lost in the numerous directions the conversation takes. I think that is a good thing though because I can learn so much from all these detours.

[juliepoudrier]

Actually, though, mechanical and unnatural are the last things I need in those pursuits!

Perhaps we're using different definitions of mechanical and unnatural? As I noted before, anything a dog wouldn't do automatically on its own (through genetics) and so has to be taught could be considered unnatural (and here everyone has to let go of the negativity associated with the word and take it entirely at face value). And I know this discussion has happened numerous times in the past. Put a dog who has never seen agility equipment in a field with agility equipment and the dog isn't likely to start taking the obstacles. It needs to be taught what to do with each obstacle. Doing the obstacles is not a natural behavior, although the obstacles represent things the dog could do naturally (running, jumping, climbing, tunneling). Put a dog in a field with livestock and the dog will likely try to do something to control that livestcok: a natural behavior. Put a beagle on a flyball course and it's not going to automatically run down the lane and jump the jumps, even though running and jumping are natural activities for a dog. Put the beagle in a field where a rabbit jumps up and the dog will naturally take off after the rabbit. In fact, it would be *unnatural* for the dog NOT to take off after the rabbit.

 

As for mechanical, I've already said that my definition of mechanical means basically controlling every step a dog takes. But I can see how some would consider the term mechanical to mean the opposite of natural and in that sense anything that has to be taught (that doesn't come naturally to the dog) is by definition mechanical. In this latter case, mechanical and unnatural would be equivalent terms. I think people get caught up in the negative meaning of unnatural when in fact in the sense of this thread I take it to mean teaching a dog to do behaviors it wouldn't consistently do on its own because its genetics tell it to do so. It's natural for dogs to jump, but not natural for them to jump through a tire ring standing in the middle of the yard unless they are taught to do so.

 

J.

[kajarrel]

I'm going to go out on a limb

 

I don't think people can have the same type of partnership with non-working dogs. (Please remember, many of us have both working dogs and pure pets). This is not a value judgment, it's based on the nature of the relationships. IOW, I'm not saying that my relationship with my pet dogs is of any less value than my relationship with my working dogs.

 

The reason is that in the working relationship (I will venture that this dynamic is similar in all working dogs), dogs have knowledge and skills that humans need but don't share (otherwise, why use a dog?). This means that in order to fully utilize the dog, man has to trust the animal. But the dog also has to learn to trust man. It's through this shared trust and mutual giving up of control that the partnership works and grows. I just don't see this same analogy with agility, flyball, obedience, etc.

 

Kim

[Root Beer]

But from some of our points of view, it's not entirely subjective, which is what you seem to be ignoring (or something).

 

No, I am not ignoring it. There's a big world out there and a lot of very different pursuits that bring people satisfaction and fulfillment. Just as there is not only one way to train a dog, there is not only one way through which a dog and handler team can find the fullest sense of working partner possible.

 

My neighbor milks cows for a living. I work a desk job. Who is more fulfilled? Who is really to say?

 

Does my regular job on which I depend for my *objective* source of income bring me more satisfaction and fulfillment than dog training? Who can really say that? Only I can.

 

So, I am not ignoring your point of view. I simply disagree with the notion that inclusion of one's dog in one's source of income is necessary for a true working partnership between dog and handler to exist

[Root Beer]

Perhaps we're using different definitions of mechanical and unnatural? As I noted before, anything a dog wouldn't do automatically on its own (through genetics) and so has to be taught could be considered unnatural (and here everyone has to let go of the negativity associated with the word and take it entirely at face value).

 

It could be. But in that case, pretty much everything that we as humans learn is, by that definition, unnatural.

 

Is it really accurate, though, to say that every behavior that a human has learned and based on primal instinct is "unnatural?" Would you really use the term that way?

 

While, in the strictest sense, one could say that anything that a dog needs to be taught is "unnatural", I see that as very imprecise. The "negative" association that people make with the word is actually quite reasonable.

 

Just for fun, I looked up the definition online and came up with this:

 

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.

 

Interestingly, I would say that use of the word "unnatural" to describe any and all behaviors that a dog (or human for that matter) must be taught does not fit in with any sense of the definition, except #5, but even that's a stretch.

 

I'm not saying that stockdog trainers don't use it that way. I'm saying that people at large do not use the word that way.

 

Let's use a simple example of a cued paw shake and see if this word really fits.

 

Is a cued paw shake really contrary to the nature of the dog? (I'd say "no)

 

Is a cued paw shake at variance with the character or nature of a dog? (I'd say "no")

 

Is a cued paw shake abmormal or unexpected for a dog? (I'd say "no")

 

Is a cued paw shake an indication of a "bad dog"? (I'd say "no")

 

Is a cued paw shake artificial or contrived? (I would say this is not the same as "learned", so again, "no")

 

Is a cued paw shake an illegitimate behavior for a dog to learn? (I'd say "no")

 

Normally, I wouldn't drag definitions into a discussion to make a point, but in this case I think it is important to do so.

 

Based on the definition of "unnatural", I would say that the word definitely does not fit - in ordinary, everyday human terms, I don't mean in stockwork vocabulary - to describe behaviors that a dog is taught. I might use "unnatural" to describe something like teaching a dog to bite on purpose (to inflict damage), or to pee on people's furniture while visiting. But I wouldn't use it as a catch all for any and all learned behaviors.

[juliepoudrier]

No, I am not ignoring it. There's a big world out there and a lot of very different pursuits that bring people satisfaction and fulfillment. Just as there is not only one way to train a dog, there is not only one way through which a dog and handler team can find the fullest sense of working partner possible.

 

But once again you're turning this into a discussion of subjectives. Go back and re-read what Kim wrote. I think her comments are spot on. I have a lovely relationship with my pet dogs, but it's not nearly the same partnership I have with my working dogs, as she described. It has nothing to do with feeling good or fulfillment. It as to do with working together as Kim describes for a common goal.

 

My neighbor milks cows for a living. I work a desk job. Who is more fulfilled? Who is really to say?

 

I'm not even sure what this has to do with a discussion about the level of partnership a person has with a dog. I've never said that you and your dogs aren't fulfilled in your relationship with each other. But I do believe, as Kim pointed out, that the partnership you have with your dog, fulfilling or not, isn't on the same level as the partnership one has with a dog with whom one works toward a common goal. And this isn't just limited to stock dogs. SAR dogs, bomb-sniffing dogs, sled dogs (used for transportation, not just for sport) and so on all have partnerships with their humans that have nothing to do with personal satisfaction and fulfillment, but with doing a needed job and doing it in a manner that is beneficial to everyone.

 

Does my regular job on which I depend for my *objective* source of income bring me more satisfaction and fulfillment than dog training? Who can really say that? Only I can.

 

I guess you're equating personal fulfillment with a high level of partnership with your dog, and as I've noted above, that's not what I'm talking about.

 

So, I am not ignoring your point of view. I simply disagree with the notion that inclusion of one's dog in one's source of income is necessary for a true working partnership between dog and handler to exist

 

And again, no one has said that no true working partnership exists between you and your dogs, just that the partnership is taken to another level when something beyond personal fulfillment is included, that something being necessary and needed work.

 

J.

[Root Beer]

But once again you're turning this into a discussion of subjectives. Go back and re-read what Kim wrote. I think her comments are spot on. I have a lovely relationship with my pet dogs, but it's not nearly the same partnership I have with my working dogs, as she described. It has nothing to do with feeling good or fulfillment. It as to do with working together as Kim describes for a common goal.

 

Julie - does the fact that you don't have the the same partnership with your pet dogs as you do with your working dogs mean that nobody who chooses pursuits other than stockwork can possibly have a depth of partnership with their dogs that goes beyond that which you have with your pet dogs?

 

And, do you really think that stockwork is the one and only way that any dog and handler team in the world can work together for a common goal?

 

If your answer to either question is "no", then the matter is, indeed, subjective.

 

We can sit here all day long and go back and forth about what constitutes a partnership between dog and handler, and the plethora of possible ways in which a dog and handler can work toward common goals.

 

But in the end, none of that really proves that dogs who are trained using food rewards are "mechanical", "unnatural", "impoverished", or in some way blocked from experiencing true partnership with their handlers.

[Eileen Stein]

Now it has moved into "which type of partnership is more satisfying". That's going to depend as much on the person as the dog. It's interesting to me that we are debating something that is so subjective!

 

I think the reason it veered of into this direction is that words such as "partnership", "thinking" and "mechanical" are being used in different senses by different people. You are defining partnership to be what a person and dog have when they participate together in some kind of activity. Therefore, you see both you and the stockdog people as having the same relationship of partnership with your dogs, and how could comparing them be anything but a subjective comparison of which one is more satisfying? To the stockdog people, a person-dog relationship is not necessarily a partnership, any more than the relationship you have with the child you're rearing is a partnership. How much of a partnership it is depends on mutuality of contribution and the seriousness of the endeavor. If one party is providing all the direction and decision-making, it's harder to term it a partnership. If either party can walk away without consequences, it's harder to term it a partnership. Thus, what I understand them to be saying is not that the agility or free-style person's relationship with their dog is not as rich and satisfying as a stockdog person's, but that it does not partake as fully of the qualities of a partnership. I think that's what Kim was saying explicitly, and the others were saying implicitly, even if the terminology used was not always consistent.

 

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 is certainly a thought process, and c/t training does not deprive him of that thought process, but that is not the kind of thinking a stockdog needs to do, and his person needs him to do. Or rather, it is one small part of it, but when stockdog people talk about "a dog that thinks," they mean a dog who can figure out what to do in a novel or changed situation, as in the examples Julie P described. Producing a dog like that, rather than a dog who makes the choice to obey commands, is the good stockdog trainer's goal. If instead she produces a dog that just obeys every command without thinking (i.e., without thinking how to interpret that command for the good of the enterprise, rather than simply thinking "should I obey, or should I visit with the sideline dogs instead?"), then she will be said to have produced a mechanical dog. To the extent that there is only one right response in agility (when you say "tunnel" the dog goes through the tunnel), then training for agility is, in this sense, training a dog to be mechanical. The use of that term does not imply anything about the richness and satisfaction of the relationship between the person and dog.

[juliepoudrier]

And, do you really think that stockwork is the one and only way that any dog and handler team in the world can work together for a common goal?

 

Nope, that's why I mentioned other jobs in which a partnership could take great importance and for which mistakes could have serious consequences. I acknowledge that you work toward goals in partnership with your dogs. What I don't agree with is your assertion that the partnership created in working toward those goals is equal to the partnerships created in working toward goals for which failure could have negative consequences. To me, that's a huge difference that has nothing to do with fulfillment or subjectivity.

 

If your answer to either question is "no", then the matter is, indeed, subjective.

 

Only when the goal is such that no real negative consequences come from not meeting it.

 

We can sit here all day long and go back and forth about what constitutes a partnership between dog and handler, and the plethora of possible ways in which a dog and handler can work toward common goals.

 

Exactly as we have been doing. I realize that you will never admit that a goal that has no real negative consequences when failed is not equivalent to a goal that does have negative consequences when failed, so I know I've been wasting my time here, but I think other folks at least might get what I've been trying to say.

 

But in the end, none of that really proves that dogs who are trained using food rewards are "mechanical", "unnatural", "impoverished", or in some way blocked from experiencing true partnership with their handlers.

 

And once again I have never said that training a dog with food rewards blocks any sort of partnership, just that the resulting partnership, even when goal oriented, is not on the same level as a partnership that is goal-oriented and for which failure has a negative consequence.

 

ETA: It seems Eileen has explained it more clearly than I have been able to.

 

J.

[Eileen Stein]

A clicker and treats are tools for training dogs. They are not tools used for humans. So, even if a clicker and food treats might be effective, I do not view them as appropriate teaching tools for humans.

 

Okay, but WHY? Why are they not appropriate for the toddler? I understand why you would not throw treats on the floor for a toddler, you don't need to explain that. I understand why you would not teach a toddler to retrieve a ball in his mouth. I understand why you would not pop treats in an adult's mouth. I understand why you would not put a toddler in a crate for a time out (although I'm not sure if you'd think it appropriate to put him in a playpen). I understand why you wouldn't give the toddler dried liver. Those are not the questions I'm asking.

 

I'm just asking about clicking and treating with a child-appropriate food treat. I know of no reason to think that the toddler does not process a click in the same portion of the brain as a dog does. Presumably, it would serve to mark the approved behavior with the utmost precision. Surely there's an age at which a very young child would quickly experience a food treat as +R, whereas "chances to earn extra play time, a special outing, access to certain toys (that are put up to keep them safe from the dogs)" would not be as readily understandable or rewarding. So why would c/t not be appropriate?

 

Sorry I seem to be harping on this, but I'd really like to know.

 

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.