what do you use for treats?

[Root Beer]

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.)

 

Because statements have been made about the end results of a type an approach to training with which I have extensive experience that do not line up with what I know to be true.

 

If you wish to take that as some proclamation that I somehow know everything about your own area of expertise, there is not much I can do about that. That is not something that I have ever said, nor held to be true. What I am saying is that there are aspects to reinforcement based training of which some of the posters in this thread are very obviously unaware.

 

I'm sorry if you find that offensive.

 

Now my turn for some questions! Why would the idea that you might not know everything there is to know about reinforcement based training bother you? Why would the idea that I, who use this type of training, might actually have learned some things about it along the way that you have not bother you? (Please answer in simple terms)

[Shoofly]

Because statements have been made about the end results of a type an approach to training with which I have extensive experience that do not line up with what I know to be true.

 

Perhaps for the sake of us numbskulls who have gotten lost in the torrent of words and shifting definitions, you could state in simple terms what you're talking about. And maybe try to keep it brief and offer what *your* definitions are to go along with it because it seems your definitions are different than others' (or at least it seems that way - as i said, it's gotten pretty wordy in here).

[Root Beer]

Perhaps for the sake of us numbskulls who have gotten lost in the torrent of words and shifting definitions, you could state in simple terms what you're talking about. And maybe try to keep it brief and offer what *your* definitions are to go along with it because it seems your definitions are different than others' (or at least it seems that way - as i said, it's gotten pretty wordy in here).

 

Definitions of what, specifically?

 

For the record, I consider nobody here a numbskull.

[Shoofly]

Definitions of whatever terms you use to explain whatever it is you're getting at.

[Denise Wall]

Now my turn for some questions! Why would the idea that you might not know everything there is to know about reinforcement based training bother you? Why would the idea that I, who use this type of training, might actually have learned some things about it along the way that you have not bother you? (Please answer in simple terms)

 

Let's take me out of it. Why are you assuming you know more about reinforcement based training that anyone who disagrees with you?

 

In every, or nearly every conversation I've ever been involved in about clickers the clicker training, advocates imply that if you don't support it, it's because you don't understand it, or the learning psychology involved. As if to understand it is to naturally agree with it.

[Root Beer]

Definitions of whatever terms you use to explain whatever it is you're getting at.

 

If there words you think I'm using that are different from others, what are they? Otherwise, I don't have enough information to answer the question.

[Shoofly]

If there words you think I'm using that are different from others, what are they? Otherwise, I don't have enough information to answer the question.

 

I'm just asking you to clearly state what your point is. I am not understanding, it has gotten lost in all this back and forth, for me.

[Withzia]

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

 

Trust me, no way was I asking that. I wouldn't think that either.

 

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.

 

In your post before this one you stated that you had a qualitatively better relationship--one you hadn't imagined--once you went into stockwork with a traditional stockwork training approach. My question--and I apologize for not being clear enough--was whether you attribute the difference to the activity (obedience versus stockwork) or the training method (treats as rewards versus the different techniques you use in training stockwork). Which, the different nature of the activity or the different training method, do you see as responsible for this qualitatively better partnership?

[jdarling]

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?

 

I think this is exactly part of the disconnect. Denise is talking about stockwork. To equate stockwork with "traditional correction based training" to teach dogs to do unnatural (no more definitions please) behaviors is short-circuiting this part of the conversation.

 

I used to trick train my dogs. I used a clicker. Yeah, I did. I shaped and lured and all kinds of fancy things, and I thought I was it on a stick. I had it all. Stockwork? Piece of cake. Yeah ... right. I had no idea. The relationship with my dogs went to a whole new level, but there wasn't any way anyone was going to convince me beforehand of that.

 

It comes down to: You don't know what you don't know.

 

Put your fancy little spin on that and define all the words you want, but it won't change the meaning in any way.

 

At best, you're minimizing the experience level of those you're having this discussion with ... again. And why everyone, including myself, keeps getting sucked into this same conversation again and again is beyond me.

[Eileen Stein]

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.

 

Well, I think you did interpret it as disparagement. You wrote, "I guess "mechanical" would be the dog doing as he or she is told, devoid of relationship between dog and handler." If you interpreted the term "mechanical" to mean that, then how could you not be taking it as a disparagement of the relationship between you and your dog? I OTOH don't understand the term "mechanical" as meaning "devoid of relationship between dog and handler," and tried to explain that it didn't mean that. You also wrote, "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." That also sounds like you took what was said as a disparagement. I wrote about the divergent meanings I saw in the use of various terms as an effort to clarify, to show that what you were taking as disparagement was not in fact disparagement. I will also comment now on the term "impoverishment," which I was the only person to use. I never said that your dogs were impoverished. What I said, way back in post # 26, was:

For what I want to do with my dogs, treat training makes no sense. 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.) That's so much the essence of the enjoyment I get from working with these dogs that bypassing it seems like an impoverishment to me. But I can see why it doesn't seem like an impoverishment to them. They are as fascinated by developing their skills in c/t as I am in developing my skills in communicating without c/t. To each his own, I guess.

By impoverishment, I meant I would be throwing away something of value -- voluntarily choosing not to benefit from a valuable thing I had access to. That's all.

 

As for "lack of ability to see the big picture," I suppose it's natural to think that someone who disagrees with you does so only because they lack ability to see the big picture. All I can say is that whenever you've said something to try to explain the big picture that I supposedly don't see (for example, saying that I only see "the tip of the iceberg" and not that "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"), you are stating things that I in fact do see. I fully understand what you're saying there. I just see other things too.

 

I'm sure you know that there are many pet owners who have never trained their dogs beyond basic manners, if that, who think that their relationship with their dog is as rich and deep and fulfilling as yours with your dogs -- in fact, as rich and deep and fulfilling as it's possible to have with a dog. They honestly believe it. Do you believe it?

[Root Beer]

Let's take me out of it. Why are you assuming you know more about reinforcement based training that anyone who disagrees with you?

 

I'm not assuming anything about you. You were not the one who made statements with which I did not agree.

 

In every, or nearly every conversation I've ever been involved in about clickers the clicker training, advocates imply that if you don't support it, it's because you don't understand it, or the learning psychology involved. As if to understand it is to naturally agree with it.

 

I never said that you didn't understand the psychology behind it. In this thread I haven't been talking about the psychology behind clicker training at all. I've been talking about the fact that use of clicker training is not an impediment to a working partnership, and it does not produce dogs who are mechanical or unnatural. Those of us who choose to use them are not somehow creating mechanical and unnatural dogs who cannot experience a working partnership with their handlers.

 

Now, I have answered your questions, and I would really appreciate it if you would answer mine:

 

Why would the idea that you might not know everything there is to know about reinforcement based training bother you? Why would the idea that I, who use this type of training, might actually have learned some things about it along the way that you have not bother you?

[Root Beer]

I'm just asking you to clearly state what your point is. I am not understanding, it has gotten lost in all this back and forth, for me.

 

See Post #62 in this topic. It's in bold.

[Withzia]

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.

 

Maralynn, thanks so much for this informative reply. I've been really curious about this, given my SAR experience and the fact that I've got one pup in very beginner herding lessons right now.

 

I do have a hunch that there is something qualitatively different about the kinds of work that require the dog to take initiative and use their own judgment and other activities. Plenty of dogs, including my current border collies, can be content without the "thinking" work, but I felt as if it was really important for my search dog, Zia, to have an activity where she was in charge like that. She was both an extremely responsive and a shy dog, and the search work seemed to fill a psychological need for her--a part of her life where she was taking in information and making judgment calls that didn't depend solely on what humans wanted of her at that particular moment. Maybe I was reading too much into it, but she seemed healthier and happier when she was searching regularly.

[Root Beer]

I'm sure you know that there are many pet owners who have never trained their dogs beyond basic manners, if that, who think that their relationship with their dog is as rich and deep and fulfilling as yours with your dogs. They honestly believe it. Do you believe it?

 

Who am I to say it is not? I don't know what that dog and person have been to each other. It just might be.

[Maralynn]

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

 

Missy is the farm dog. She seems to be able to understand just about everything I ask her to do and I haven't used a clicker with her for anything - I just told her what I wanted and that she was good. With her I've done basic obedience work, a few dog demos at a local school and she's been through therapy dog training/passed the testing. Her willingness to try and desire to please is incredible.

 

Kipp is working bred dog who I originally got for stock work, then switched him to SAR work. I've had him on sheep occasionally and he does have talent (a lot more than I do as a trainer), but I've never needed him for farm work because I have a small flock and Missy can handle anything I need. I haven't pursued stock work with him outside of a few lessons and a clinic. I've done clicker work with him pretty much just for training tricks when we were both bored on winter evenings. He loved it - he caught on fast and learned things quickly with a clicker. He seemed more focused and ready to learn in general after I did clicker work with him for a few weeks. It's a fun activity to do with him, so I'll continue to dabble in it with him and will try it with other dogs.

 

Personally, I don't see a correlation between their learning styles and the work they do. Missy learned like that from when I got her as a 3 y/o even though I didn't start using her on stock for a couple of more years. Kipp had been started on stock before I got him when he was 1 1/2 y/o. I think it has more to do with their personalities and learning styles.

[Mark Billadeau]

Personally, I feel clickers, treats, (all training tools) etc are more about training handlers than training the dogs. These "tools" help teach handlers how to communicate consistently and concisely with dogs; dogs do not leave their littermates and mother already knowing the language of these methods. None of these methods are more effective than the others; the effectiveness is all about how well any of these methods/tools are applied by each human trying to communicate with a dog.

 

I like Terrierman’s take on this:

Your Dogs are a Mess (and your kids are no prize)

 

Mark

[Denise Wall]

In your post before this one you stated that you had a qualitatively better relationship--one you hadn't imagined--once you went into stockwork with a traditional stockwork training approach. My question--and I apologize for not being clear enough--was whether you attribute the difference to the activity (obedience versus stockwork) or the training method (treats as rewards versus the different techniques you use in training stockwork). Which, the different nature of the activity or the different training method, do you see as responsible for this qualitatively better partnership?

 

Okay, Sorry. I see the nature of the activity (stockwork) as taking the relationship/partnership to a level I had never imagined. As has been said, you don't know what you don't know.

 

I certainly didn't click and treat my horses but I was also not training them to do things they would have for the most part done on their own unless I asked/made them. I did jumping, dressage, and three day eventing. Although some had more aptitude and talent for these activities than others, these activities were not born into them like working stock is to talented working bred border collies. I think the horses on occasion felt joy and exhilaration in the jumping and the satisfaction of doing something beautiful in dressage. We had a relationship and there was satisfaction on both parts.

 

But it was an entirely different ball game training dogs bred to work stock to work stock. There was just more in them from the beginning to work with. No motivation involved. A dignity of purpose the dog understood in its genes.

 

It's all been said and better than I'm saying it so I'll just stop here.

[Eileen Stein]

Who am I to say it is not? I don't know what that dog and person have been to each other. It just might be.

 

Okay, thanks. It wasn't a rhetorical question -- I just wanted an honest answer. I didn't know whether you might think that ""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" would necessarily enrich and deepen the relationship between a person and her dog, or not.

[juliepoudrier]

Who am I to say it is not? I don't know what that dog and person have been to each other. It just might be.

Really? I can't help but wonder if Eileen had asked you that same question not in the context of this thread that your answer wouldn't be different. But to have a different answer would mean having to admit that other people might in fact have a "better" relationship with their dogs than you might have with yours, based on activities pursued.

 

No doubt you'd give the same answer if Eileen had asked about the pet who stays in a 10 x 10 kennel in the back yard and is occasionally let out to play. And if you answer as you did here, I'd have to think you weren't being truthful.

 

J.

[Root Beer]

Okay, thanks. It wasn't a rhetorical question -- I just wanted an honest answer. I didn't know whether you might think that ""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" would necessarily enrich and deepen the relationship between a person and her dog, or not.

 

I do, in fact, think that. And my answer was not rhetorical.

 

There is a lot more to life with our dogs than training. And this is coming from someone who loves training and does a lot of it.

 

If you had asked if I thought there would be something lacking in a relationship between dog and handler where the dog was tied out in the backyard 24/7 and had no contact with his or her humans other than to get his bowl of food every day, I would have said yes.

 

But when it comes to a "pet dog", I really don't know what goals the dog and handler have worked toward, what they have learned together, and what bond has developed. Those things happen in life, as well as in structured training.

 

So I cannot make value judgments about a "pet dog" offhand.

[Denise Wall]

Why would the idea that you might not know everything there is to know about reinforcement based training bother you? Why would the idea that I, who use this type of training, might actually have learned some things about it along the way that you have not bother you?

 

It doesn't bother me. You obviously have endless confidence that your way is best. Knock yourself out.

 

It bothered me that you said others here did not have the ability to see the "big picture" regarding treat based training. That's a pretty big assumption considering the expertise of many of the people replying on these threads. It pissed me off. What can I say?

[Root Beer]

Really? I can't help but wonder if Eileen had asked you that same question not in the context of this thread that your answer wouldn't be different. But to have a different answer would mean having to admit that other people might in fact have a "better" relationship with their dogs than you might have with yours, based on activities pursued.

 

You know, Julie, I have never had the least interest in determining whose relationship with their dog is "better". Nor have I been interested in trying to determine what activity is the best for any particular person.

 

My interest in this discussion has been on the use of treats in training.

 

No doubt you'd give the same answer if Eileen had asked about the pet who stays in a 10 x 10 kennel in the back yard and is occasionally let out to play. And if you answer as you did here, I'd have to think you weren't being truthful.

 

Well, prior to reading your response, I had already given such an example, and said that in that case I would have answered differently.

 

But "pet dog" is a very general term. Without specific information like that, I can't say what life experience and partnership a "pet dog" and handler might have.

[Root Beer]

It bothered me that you said others here did not have the ability to see the "big picture" regarding treat based training. That's a pretty big assumption considering the expertise of many of the people replying on these threads. It pissed me off. What can I say?

 

I get that. I appreciate that you took the time to answer my questions.

[JohnLloydJones]

I like Terrierman’s take on this:

Your Dogs are a Mess (and your kids are no prize)

Nicely said, but he omits the important corollary: No method is so good that it can't fail miserably in the wrong hands. I often think that 90% of the reason that Cesar Milan, Karen Pryor, Ian Dunbar etc. succeed is because they know dogs, understand what they are doing and can communicate with dogs; people who try to follow the current fad method blindly will usually fail because they don't understand what they are doing.

[Jedismom]

Ok I'm sure my little post will get lost in the battle of the giants but I thought I'd stick it in here anyway. I'd like to say that most of my learning on this board happens during discussions like this. So please don't ever think your words are wasted. There are alot of us out here paying attention.

 

I believe that there are different levels to be achieved in building a relationship, whether it's between humans or dogs. When you work with your dog in an occupation that requires that your partner dog have the skills and ability to work independent of you, well that is a working relationship that is on the highest level. IMO. Not every dog can do this and not every person can do this with their dog. I absolutely do not have a problem with that. I think when we start talking about whether it's a better relationship in general, then it becomes more subjective. If a person has great satisfaction in their dog as a companion and the dog is satisfied too, well that's better for them personally.

 

I have used all kinds of training methods on my dogs. I'm embarrassed to admit that sometimes I forget about just asking for a behavior. I'm very glad that Mr. McCaig brought that up. I tried it the other day with Jedi on loose leash walking training. I remember thinking as I was doing it, that it really can't be that simple. When he pulled, I stopped walking. When he looked up at me, I gave him a gesture that meant come closer. He did. I've never used that gesture before. I said, Good Boy..Close. We resumed our walk. He pulled again. I did the same thing. He did not pull for the rest of our walk!!!!!! All I had to do was ask. I must say though, that I've had Jedi for about 2 yrs. now and have built a solid relationship with him. I don't think it necessarily would have worked otherwise. From now on, I am planning on asking for things more often first and not automatically going to the treats for training. I believe the treats are valuable for desensitization purposes however. Jedi and I are going to start a Control Unleashed class on Sat. It's with a trainer I admire and trust so I'm looking forward to learning what I can.