Voodoo

[Root Beer]

I imagine these approaches are much more commonplace now? I would be interested to know what the trends are now, haven't been in that world for a good decade, do tell. Gee this is kinda making me miss obedience!

 

Barbara

 

Not as commonplace as you might suppose.

 

Using what the dog wants (the chance to look at birds, for example) to reward the dog for doing what the handler wants and using games to teach retrieves are still considered more "out of the box" approaches to the serious obedience folks that I know personally. Even a lot of the Agility folks still aren't really using the goldmine of environmental rewards that are available to them in Agility training contexts, although it is starting to become a little more common with Control Unleashed becoming more mainstream.

 

There are contingencies who are doing these things with great enthusiasm and success, but it is not really "the norm".

 

The cool thing is that it is in behavior modification where these approaches seem to have gained the most acceptance.

[MicheleS.]

I imagine these approaches are much more commonplace now? I would be interested to know what the trends are now, haven't been in that world for a good decade, do tell. Gee this is kinda making me miss obedience!

 

Barbara

 

Both of my dogs were taught the dumbbell retrieve exactly as you described, by shaping. Never a correction. Both are enthusiastic retrievers - both can hardly wait for me to throw it and get excited at the sight of the dumbbell.

Chase was taught to scent first using tea-balls with a treat in them when he was a puppy. Transferred that to scenting the leather and metal articles. He picked it up fast. I never corrected him for trying to figure out what I was asking him to do when it came time to transfer that behavior to the actual scent articles. Again, shaped those in a slow, methodical step by step method. The dog is right 99% of the time and he loves doing it.

The dogs of owners I know who have been learning scent articles for as long as Chase but taught in a different way (ear pinch and other corrections) cannot do a full set of articles and seem to backslide alot in their training.

I would consider myself in the minority as far as my training methods but it's getting better with more interested in how to keep it fun for the dog and get reliable and enthusiastic performances.

I don't consider myself, at this point, a pure positive trainer. But I've been as close as I could come to that with Chase because of his fear and sensitivity issues. I like the results with him.

 

Chase doesn't particularly work for food, although he will take it if it's there sometimes. He lights up with pride when I tell him how good he is. He gets no treats at all in his agility training, the running and the obstacles and the good boys are his reward. (occassionally he gets to play tug when working on skills but never while running a full course, he doesn't look for it and doesn't seem to miss it) I still can't believe that's all he needs. The dog actually looks like he's smiling.

[Maralynn]

With due respect, this familar "positive" mantra assumes a theory of dog pyschology which sounds self-evident but is an irrelevant oversimplification.

 

How so?

 

Training a dog through positive reinforcement teaches the dog that working with you is highly rewarding. I'm not talking about stock work as that is rewarding in itself to the dog - the dog has natural instinct and drive to do the work. I'm talking about training more unnatural behaviors like in SAR work competitive OB or protection sports.

 

You say a dog should love the work and feel satisfaction in it and I agree with this. In stock work that comes naturally. In other venues the dog needs to be taught that the work is good and rewarding and as this happens the dog learns to love the work itself.

 

I believe that Koehler and ecollar training can teach a dog to be compliant, but not necessarily to love their work.

 

Open sheepdogs get great satisfaction from their work and, I believe, are slightly more satisfied when that work meets the highest standards. (Dancers are happiest dancing well.) During the sheepdog's performances - good and bad - verbal and whistle corrections are frequent and the rewards a Behaviorist would recognize as such are rare to none. When I am working with such a dog, the notion that it is either "Looking for a reward" or "avoiding a correction" is meaningless.

 

This I agree with 110%. The dog is having it's deepest instincts and drives fulfilled through both the work and the connection to the handler. Anything you add to the situation would be pointless and get in the way.

 

But trying to compare this to training for other pursuits is like comparing apples to oranges. Dogs don't have the inbred desire/instinct to find a person in the middle of the woods, sniff through luggage for bombs or go through an obedience routine. But through positive reinforcement a handler can teach the dog that it is highly rewarding and it is then that the dog can find a joy and satisfaction in the work itself - It might not be the fastest way to train but, done right, it consistently yields the best results. FWIW, I do incorporate corrections into everyday living and have used an ecollar before to proof and as a long distance correction.

[topnotchdog]

I like the results with him.

 

I can see why!

 

The dog actually looks like he's smiling.

 

Sounds like the cherry on top of your good results. So nice to hear, now I am smiling.

 

Barbara

[ziggzmom]

Nothing that's considered too revolutionary nowadays (least I wouldn't imagine so). For the stays she rewarded with the dog's favorite things, one of which was the mere opportunity to chase a squirrel in her heavily wooded yard. If he'd stay a little longer than last time ('course she had to start indoors with the back door shut!), he'd get released to do his favorite thing.

 

A lot of people at the time were using the dog's favorite things to get him to fail (i.e. proofing) and then providing as a consequence something the dog didn't like. Then before the exercise at a show they might punish him pre-emptively, hoping to ensure the stay (and I suppose a lot of the time it worked). If her dog failed in training, she would just take him by the collar, put him back, and build back up and past the challenging point. (She used to say corrections should be thought of as the equivalent of what you would do to put a sail boat back on course.) So he was constantly being rewarded with the types of distractions other people were battling. One time there were a bunch of birds flying inside at an indoor competition, and the handlers were grumbling that their dog might have a hard time working through that. She walked in with her dog and started pointing the birds out to him.

 

For the retrieve, she shaped it (by successive approximation) starting with a rock solid hold, again rewarding heavily (might be a cookie, might be some funny game they had going together, etc.). Never used an ear pinch or the like. Provided increasingly difficult distractions, comparable rewards, and if the dog ever didn't pick up as fast or clean, etc. once he had shown consistent success/understanding, my recollection is she would just quietly take him by the collar and do it again (with the dog kind of looking like, "oh man, that's boring when that happens" ). She made a big game out of all the articles, etc. in a similar way, and strengthened each link of the retrieval chain separatel

 

He once started to refuse to pick up items in practice (he may have even had his OTCh at that point, can't remember). When her normal approach wasn't helping him figure it out, she took him to the vet. Huge ol' abscess on his molar. If you have any old Front and Finish magazines, it was written up there.

 

I imagine these approaches are much more commonplace now? I would be interested to know what the trends are now, haven't been in that world for a good decade, do tell. Gee this is kinda making me miss obedience!

 

Barbara

 

Thanks for the explanation Barbara=) I'm in N. CA and while there are still a few 'old school' trainers, most people that I know seem to use more of what you discribe. The people that I train with use a combination of methods, what ever works for that dog. We try to think outside the box and come up with creative ways to train and work through problems. It's sure a lot more fun than the old 'jerk and pull' method of training!

 

Janet

[martySQ]

Wow... I'm pretty novice to the dog world...and when I first got my dog, I didn't get her with the express intent to become a working sheep herding dog. So when I encountered obstacles in her training, I asked and was given appropriate advice by many posting here.

 

Why would I take my non herding dog to a herding trainer to fix a non herding problem? Herding trainers know herding training. Yes, they also know average dog behavior. If my dog was exhibiting non average dog behavior, I would look for someone who knew about non average dog behaviors and could help.

 

Not in any disrespect to any poster... but If folks knew the answers to the questions posted, they would have given an answer... they didn't, so they figured if the behavior was not average dog behavior, they should direct the question asker to someone who knew more about non average dog behavior than the average dog owner.

 

Donald... why didn't you give a different answer if you knew something different? It isn't kind of you to withhold information in that setting if you know better information and don't share it...although, you are not obligated... but if you did know an answer and didn't share...why bother with the original question you asked in this thread? That puts you at the cause of the 'potentially perceived problem'.

[mum24dog]

Sorry to drag this up but I couldn't let it go without saying that things are rather different over here in the UK. Wouldn't want to be tarred with the same brush.

 

Retriever and bird dog training: most of the top trainers use ecollars.

 

Nowhere near as much as in the past.

 

Sheepdog training: traditional sheepdog methods.

 

Probably right.

 

Search and Rescue: mostly Koehler based training.

 

Nope. Positive methods used.

 

Demining dogs: the ones I saw were trained by "positive" methods.

 

Given that shock collars are banned by the UK Armed Forces I would guess that similar methods to S & R and drug detection work would be used. Never heard any suggestion to the contrary.

 

Sled dog training: Dunno.

 

Me neither. Don't know any serious sledders.

 

Bomb detection dogs:the ATF dogs I saw were trained with ecollars.

 

Again - shock collars are banned by the UK Armed Forces.

 

Police dogs - ecollars.

 

Nope. Shock collars banned by UK Police Forces.

 

And to add that shock collars and invisible fences and shock mats and leads are illegal in Wales, use punishable by fine or imprisonment.

 

Hopefully England and Scotland will follow suit in the near future after a government report. The KC and all major animal welfare and training groups are campagning for a ban.

 

Prong collars were virtually unheard of here until the advent of the internet. I can't blame CM on this one because most people on here have no idea that he's using shock and prong collars in his shows since they aren't familiar enough with them to know what to look for.

 

Instead of asking why ditch methods that have apparently got results in the past, you might ask why stubbornly hang on to them when others have moved on and are continuing to get results but without the pain?

 

We still have too many die hards but their numbers are falling.

 

Pam

[rushdoggie]

Instead of asking why ditch methods that have apparently got results in the past, you might ask why stubbornly hang on to them when others have moved on and are continuing to get results but without the pain?

 

Why indeed.

 

(With the caveat that not all corrections = pain, however e-collars do)

[Tea]

I have taught all my sled dogs by hitching them to a trained dog, and depending on their personality and history either then run them with the team,6-8 dogs, run them with the dry rig, 2-4 dogs, or if the were shy a scooter or bike, one or 2 dogs..

 

BTW- 6 to 8 we would hitch them to something heavy, say a three wheeler or a car. I didn't run a huge team, but then my dogs were pretty big. Draft dogs.

 

Having a gee haw leader helped alot in this!

 

To train a leader I used a bike or a scooter and trails......just takes time to teach them gee, haw, whoa, slow, hike, gee over, haw over etc.

 

They only got me growling at them if they fought.

(I shook a scruff or two once or twice!)

 

Mostly they learned from your voice telling them good dog, and the example set by the dog they were hitched to.

[Maralynn]

Sorry to drag this up but I couldn't let it go without saying that things are rather different over here in the UK. Wouldn't want to be tarred with the same brush.

 

FWIW, the list is not really accurate for the US either. Many scent based disciplines are trained mostly through building/shaping/rewarding the dog's drives.

[mum24dog]

FWIW, the list is not really accurate for the US either. Many scent based disciplines are trained mostly through building/shaping/rewarding the dog's drives.

 

I would have expected that to be the case, but Mr McCaig posts with such conviction ....... Perhaps he would have been right once upon a time.

 

I don't think he does your country any favours. The US has been the birthplace of so much positive innovation over the last couple of decades, for which many of us outside the country are very grateful.

 

I don't hold up the UK as a shining beacon of righteousness; we are lagging well behind other mostly European countries that have already banned the shock collar which Mr McCaig mentions so often in his post.

 

Germany, Denmark, Finland (as long ago as 1992), Norway, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Slovenia and most States in Australia have got there before us.

 

It's worth remembering that what may be socially acceptable in one country may be viewed very differently elsewhere.

 

Pam

[juliepoudrier]

I have to say that I am not well versed in training for most other venues out there, since I haven't done that sort of training myself, but I'm pretty sure that at least for field retriever training, shock collars are still used. The way I understand it, they're not actually shocking the dog as in painful shocks, but rather using the lower settings are that buzz or whatever (clearly I don't really know how the things work) to signal the dog. Someone told me recently that the dogs are taught to look back at the handler so the handler can give them directions through hand signals, but I can't say how that fits in with the electric collar....

 

FWIW, I think in most venues of new techniques have come along and been proven successful for the desired outcome, they have largely been adopted. Even in the stockdog world, some of the outmoded ideas have passed the way of the dodo, at least among the newer generations of handlers.

 

J.

[Root Beer]

I have to say that I am not well versed in training for most other venues out there, since I haven't done that sort of training myself, but I'm pretty sure that at least for field retriever training, shock collars are still used. The way I understand it, they're not actually shocking the dog as in painful shocks, but rather using the lower settings are that buzz or whatever (clearly I don't really know how the things work) to signal the dog. Someone told me recently that the dogs are taught to look back at the handler so the handler can give them directions through hand signals, but I can't say how that fits in with the electric collar....

 

While use of shock collars is still the norm in field retriever training, there is a group that is using force free methods (including clickers, I believe). I am not acquainted with them firsthand but I hear they are gaining some momentum and rumor has it they are successful.

 

My neighbor has a pointer that he trained for field work with a shock collar. It's not what you describe. He set the dog up in a position and went "WHOA! WHOA!" If the dog moved, he got shocked. And it was not because he was giving directions.

 

I'm not saying that they don't do what you describe in addition, but that I have seen the shock collar used the way it is normally used in the field training context. My neighbor was actually regretful for doing it, but he really believed there was no alternative and he gave it his best shot. His peers in field training convinced him that it had to be done that way. In the end, he actually quit field work because he got tired of shocking his dog. He takes the dog hunting, but he doesn't train to trial anymore.

 

There is a group, I think they are called Positive Gun Dogs, and they have left the shock collars far behind. I give them a lot of credit. It can't be easy in a climate that is very pro-shock collar - I would imagine they take quite a lot of scoffing and naysaying, but they are not letting that stop them.

[juliepoudrier]

I'm not saying that they don't do what you describe in addition, but that I have seen the shock collar used the way it is normally used in the field training context.

As I said, I don't do the training myself and haven't seen it done; I was simply relaying information that was given to me by someone whose husband trains field retrievers and another friend who went to a field trial and talked to the folks competing. I don't doubt that there are all sorts of variations in the use of an e-collar when it comes to training hunting dogs.

 

Like the dry training conversation going on in another thread, I don't see why retriever trainers couldn't teach directions through dry training and then direct the dogs to downed birds that way (maybe retrievers simply aren't as biddable as border collies, though I find that hard to believe as a generalization). The one friend who went to the competition said as much--that she thought it would be more efficient of the dog didn't have to look back at the handler for hand signals but instead could just take commands the way a working border collie does. I certainly have used those commands to direct my dogs in the water; granted, sometimes that's because they're swimming after livestock, but at other times I have found those same commands useful for helping a dog to find a ball or stick floating in the water as well. And no e-collar needed.

 

J.

[jdarling]

Kristine,

 

From what I can see, "Positive Gun Dogs" is a book, not a group. Unless you've got some other information, it seems that using clicker training to train gun dogs is about as mythical at this point as using clicker training to train stockdogs. In looking at gun dog chat groups, the arguments are much the same as the arguments used in clicker training stockdogs.

 

Jodi

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

Ms. Pam writes (in part): “Instead of asking why ditch methods that have apparently got results in the past, you might ask why stubbornly hang on to them when others have moved on and are continuing to get results but without the pain?

 

We still have too many die hards but their numbers are falling.”

 

I’m afraid Ms. Pam has assumed as proven what she has asserted. In my first post I suggested that if voodoo dog training worked, we’d all be saving fingernail clippings. So: what works? I suggested that a fair test of training methods – since we’re mostly talking about pet training – would be achieving results at the top level of obedience trials which are publicly verifiable and a fairly good simulcrum of what might be desired in a mannerly dog. Ms. Pam names several of her countrymen who have done well in these trials using purely positive methods. I know of none here in the States.

 

Ms. Pam reviews my list of popular methods noting that ecollars are prohibited in Wales. She hopes they’ll be prohibited in the rest of the UK. The brits have severe breed bans, have outlawed fox hunting and allow dogs in their trains and buses. Like us, they have some good ideas and some bad ones.

 

Ms. Pam asserts that traditional training methods are being replaced by those she prefers. In this country, most effective pet dog trainers combine methods using treats, drive theory, vocal and mild physical corrections and ecollars. If there’s a “wave of the future” it’s probably ecollars for – I might add – mostly bad reasons.

 

Unlike too many critics I have watched top ecollar and top positive trainers train dogs. I have felt the shock an ecollar delivers and, on one occasion used the collar to my dogs’ advantage.

 

I think that confusing a dog about right and wrong, what works and what doesn’t, is abuse more severe and far more debilitating than one swift kick in the ass.

 

Sadists are sadists. Some brutes beat dogs to death in the name of “correcting” it. They are, however, rare and even rarer in the ranks of professional pet dog trainers. They make convenient scapegoats and excellent marketing tools Their existence doesn’t argue for any training method and legal banning of ecollars will not diminish their ranks.

 

The pet dogs I have seen trained by purely positive methods learned more slowly and were more confused and unhappy than those trained by experts with the ecollar.

 

That said: these were experts.

 

I do not think the ecollar should be available in every pet store. Positive trainers like to say that their method is less likely to cause severe emotional trauma than correction based methods. I think this is true. A single badly timed, mistaken, harsh correction can impair the dog’s working abilities for a long time. Ecollar training is sophisticated and requires dog savvy, understanding of the device, and good timing. An ecollar is too much tool for the novice. Although I own a good one and count some fine ecollar trainers as friends, my collar stays in the box.

 

I have other, more sophisticated quarrels with the ecollar but this is a very basic discussion. Ecollars are banned at sheepdog trials and almost never used by top sheepdog trainers.

 

“purely positive” methods work very well teaching pet tricks. Although I know less about agility than formal obedience, I believe most agility handlers train using positive methods.

While I don’t think positive methods are the quickest, most reliable or dog friendliest of training methods, I think that combined with additional management, they work well enough for most pet owners.

 

That “purely positive” training is morally superior to correction based training can be argued, I suppose. Like most faith-based notions, it hasn’t been proved.

 

Donald McCaig

[Root Beer]

I suggested that a fair test of training methods – since we’re mostly talking about pet training – would be achieving results at the top level of obedience trials which are publicly verifiable and a fairly good simulcrum of what might be desired in a mannerly dog. Ms. Pam names several of her countrymen who have done well in these trials using purely positive methods. I know of none here in the States.

 

I know this is off topic, but I find it incredibly ironic that your personal test of what is desired in a mannerly dog is high success in AKC sanctioned obedience.

 

So, if you want a well trained dog, folks, find someone who has paid the AKC a LOT of money to earn that almighty OTCH and proceed to pay that person to teach you how to train your dog.

 

To me that's neither here nor there. I wouldn't recommend someone who has earned an OTCH to someone who wanted to learn how to help their dog with a behavior problem because I don't consider earning an OTCH to be any more of a qualification in that instance than I would consider an Open stockdog trainer to be qualified to teach Agility.

 

But the irony of what you are advocating is interesting.

 

The pet dogs I have seen trained by purely positive methods learned more slowly and were more confused and unhappy than those trained by experts with the ecollar

 

That said: these were experts.

 

I don't really care one way or another if someone is considered an "expert" or not. If all of the dogs truly are learning slowly and are unhappy, then the method is not being used properly.

 

The results of reinforcement based training that I see with my own eyes, often with the most inexperienced of handlers, is a dog that is confident and understands what is desired very clearly. And, in the case of those with just a little experience, no more slow than the results that I see the correction folks having. Often, considerably faster.

 

Apparently, as was said in the sister thread to this one in the general section, we live in different worlds. You are seeing "purely positive experts" create confused and unhappy dogs where I see competent trainers who use a straight reinforcement based approach create confident dogs whose eyes radiate with joy when working with their handler.

 

That “purely positive” training is morally superior to correction based training can be argued, I suppose. Like most faith-based notions, it hasn’t been proved.

 

As in faith, when it comes to dog training one must follow his or her conscience. Or, in non-faith related terms, one must do what he or she considers to be best for the dog.

 

If some people are going to take that as some kind of declaration of moral superiority, so be it. It's not really about those who would make such an assumption. It's about the dogs.

[rushdoggie]

The pet dogs I have seen trained by purely positive methods learned more slowly and were more confused and unhappy than those trained by experts with the ecollar.

 

Really? Didn't you say that you had spent time with Pat Miller and observed her classes? So they dogs you saw in Pat's class learned slowly and were confused and unhappy?

[kelpiegirl]

I don't typically respond, but had to here, because of the tone Rootbear used in her reference to an "almighty otch". You know, it isn't all that easy to get an otch. Back in the dark ages, when I used to compete in obedience, and went with a friend who was competing in utlity (or futility as it can be called), I remember her dog having issues at the scent discrimination articles. Scent discrimination is not a parlour trick, and you cannot give any feedback (in fact, you don't know which dumbell the dog should be getting). Of course the dog can detect your scent, but working in a strange place, and with strange cues all over, well, it's not something to be smirked at.

 

I dabbled in rally for like, a day, and found it to be well, under whelming at best.

 

As to training my dog to behave, I would rather have a sheepdog person take the dog in for training, thusly teaching it some manners by default, then send it to a flavor of the month trainer, who may or may not have made real, longstanding changes in the behaviour, sans treats.

[rushdoggie]

I don't typically respond, but had to here, because of the tone Rootbear used in her reference to an "almighty otch". You know, it isn't all that easy to get an otch. Back in the dark ages, when I used to compete in obedience, and went with a friend who was competing in utlity (or futility as it can be called), I remember her dog having issues at the scent discrimination articles. Scent discrimination is not a parlour trick, and you cannot give any feedback (in fact, you don't know which dumbell the dog should be getting). Of course the dog can detect your scent, but working in a strange place, and with strange cues all over, well, it's not something to be smirked at.

 

I'm not Rootbeer, but I too object to the use of an OTCh as a useful reference of training good dog manners. It *is* very hard to attain, as I have said in another thread I was at a trial where a 198 did not place at all and recieved no OTCh points.

 

Using it as the "ideal" and saying that positive training doesn't work because there are not any proven "positive only" trained OTChs is a major strawman. There are many many reasons why its a poor comparison, but someone else said it better than I could:

 

There are at least two subcultures within this sport. One is comprised of people who train hard and title with qualifying scores between 170 and the low 190s. Another is made up of a smaller group of people whose lives revolve around training and competing for scores in the rarified air of the upper 190s. Remember, a perfect score is 200. Slightly out of position on the heel? That’s 2 points off. A crooked “front”? That’s another 2 points deducted. One more of those and you’re no longer in the running for the coveted score of 195 or above. Going for an OTCH, the creme de la creme of AKC obedience? Esther Zimmerman of Hopkinton, Massachusetts, has been competing since 1976 and has earned CH/UDs on two Schipperkes and a CH/UDX and OTCH points on another one.

 

“When the AKC conceived the OTCH, its intention was for there to be approximately 100 new OTCHs earned each year. And that has been the case, with the fewest being 79, and the most being about 115 since the mid 1970s.

 

“That’s a tiny percentage of all the people who compete in the sport. Those people have to be excellent trainers, regardless of the techniques they use. They have to have dogs that are healthy enough to train and compete for years, which is luck of the draw to some degree. They have to have time to train many hours every week. They have to have a lot of money to spend on training, entries, hotel expenses, gasoline, etc. They have to defeat other dogs to get placements and earn points. It is an amazing achievement to earn an OTCH.”

 

and else where in the article:

 

That is the challenge of this sport. Although many trainers start puppy training with mostly positives, many later resort to severe collar corrections, ear pinches (to cause sufficient pain for the dog to open its mouth into which a dumbbell is forced), hitting and slapping (e.g., under the chin to correct the dog for mouthing or dropping the dumbbell and on the head or nose for breaking a stay).

 

Much of this is done in the belief that there is no other way; after all, dogs are getting titles with trainers using these techniques. This is compounded by the fact that, unless you are an astute observer of canine body language, you might miss the stress signs that dogs in the ring are showing (yawning, lip licking, averting eyes from handlers, increased respiration, avoidance of handlers and their hands, flinching, and either slowing down or frenetic speeding up).

 

Additionally, old-time trainers who have been in the sport for many, many years point to the lack of advanced obedience titles in the ranks of positive reinforcement trainers as justification for their training methods.

 

Zimmerman, with Siesta Schipperkes, sees a progressive shift in the sport. “There have not been enough people doing clicker training for competition obedience long enough for the question to be fairly asked [about whether there are clicker-trained OTCHs]. Given enough time, there will be more! I have been competing since 1976 and have had the great good fortune to have two Schipperkes earn their UDs, and one who earned his UDX and 12 OTCH points. They were entirely trained with positive methods - not exclusively clicker training, but as positive as we could make it.”

 

I hope that clarifies my objection to using an OTCh as a marker of achievement.

 

 

link to article

[Maralynn]

I have to say that I am not well versed in training for most other venues out there, since I haven't done that sort of training myself, but I'm pretty sure that at least for field retriever training, shock collars are still used. The way I understand it, they're not actually shocking the dog as in painful shocks, but rather using the lower settings are that buzz or whatever (clearly I don't really know how the things work) to signal the dog. Someone told me recently that the dogs are taught to look back at the handler so the handler can give them directions through hand signals, but I can't say how that fits in with the electric collar....

 

I think they are still use in hunting quite a bit and I think it is due in part to the distance. But I really know very little about hunting dog training. I'm not anti ecollar myself. I used one with Kipp a bit to correct some search (or rather the sniff for poop instead of search) issues with him. I don't have a problem with ecollars in the right hands in the right situation.

 

But I do know in my limited experience with SAR work, the dogs I've seen are not trained with mostly Koehler methods. And in all the reading I've done the methods in the books I've read are mostly positive with hardly anything that would remind me of Koehler style training - and this is from people who are at the top of their game when it comes to SAR work. Maybe the OB end of things a bit, but successful search behavior comes through drive and motivation - not compulsion.

[Root Beer]

I don't typically respond, but had to here, because of the tone Rootbear used in her reference to an "almighty otch". You know, it isn't all that easy to get an otch.

 

No, it is not. And my intention was never to imply that it is easy.

 

That said, the OTCH is not the only truly difficult accomplishment in all of dog training and performance. It is one of many. And there are many accomplishments that one can have in training that cannot be measured by any title.

 

Someone who dedicates years and work to helping a reactive dog learn to interface with the world in a calm and confident manner may well put just as much work and dedication into that task as the obedience trainer puts into the OTCH over the long haul, and the accomplishment itself is no less because it is not measurable.

 

Nor was my reference to the money spent to earn the OTCH implied as a slam. It takes money to enter competitions. It takes a lot of money to compete to a high level. Anyone who has earned any high title or high level of recognition has spent a lot of money to get there. If one aspires to an OTCH, by all means, work with people who have obtained that title. If one needs help with a dog with a behavior problem, the OTCH means a lot less than actual work and success with dogs that have needed help with that problem means. Helping a dog overcome behavior problems can require a lot that obedience training does not even begin to touch upon. The idea that there is some de facto qualification because one has an OTCH is the idea with which I disagree.

 

Still, I am surprised to find people on this board who hold the OTCH - which, in addition to the training and work put in, has required a quite a tidy sum to be forked over to AKC in the process - to be the gold standard in selecting a pet dog trainer, or a trainer to help one to help a dog overcome a behavior process.

 

My qualifier of "almighty" was a slam, if you will, at the notion that obtaining an OTCH would render one an expert in any and every aspect of training - particularly when it comes to teaching others.

 

But no slam was intended at the work or training that one puts into training a dog to any level in any discipline.

 

As to training my dog to behave, I would rather have a sheepdog person take the dog in for training, thusly teaching it some manners by default, then send it to a flavor of the month trainer, who may or may not have made real, longstanding changes in the behaviour, sans treats.

 

If you mean to imply that training that incorporates treats cannot make real, longstanding changes in behavior, we will simply have to disagree. I've not only seen it but done it. Call it whatever you like. There are countless people who use reinforcement based training with their dogs and make real, longstanding changes in behavior.

[juliepoudrier]

Still, I am surprised to find people on this board who hold the OTCH - which, in addition to the training and work put in, has required a quite a tidy sum to be forked over to AKC in the process.

I think OTCH has been around long enough to be considered the "gold standard" of obedience training ETAoops, meant obedience competition (whether any of us disagrees with that or not). I don't think Donald is advocating that folks go spend money with the AKC (I think he would say the oppposite), but is simply pointing out that in his opinion, given that OTCH is considered a gold standard of obedience (feelings about AKC and any of its programs aside), then the methods used by those trainers are apparently effective (and I don't know if he actually agrees with those methods).

 

Frankly, I don't see how whacking a dog for not wanting to take a dumbbell or for mouthing it instead of taking it would be seen as something that would make a dog *want* to take a dumbbell, but maybe I'm missing something.

 

Personally, I feel that OTCH-style obedience has become so extreme in many of its facets as to be practically useless for the average pet.

 

And I also think that if one wants to excel (be on top) of any sport, one is going to have to drive a lot of miles and spend a lot of money. Unfortunately.

 

J

[kelpiegirl]

Root bear:

 

Say my uber keen sheepdog was pulling ahead of me to get into the sheep field. How would you suggest I handle it?

[Root Beer]

Root bear:

 

Say my uber keen sheepdog was pulling ahead of me to get into the sheep field. How would you suggest I handle it?

 

That question is about as relevant to this discussion as me asking you how you would help a dog who is unnerved by an audience perform a choreographed routine full of very technical movements to music in front of an audience with confidence.

 

In fact, it nicely highlights the point that I've been making in this discussion. I'm not the person to answer that question because it is not my area of knowledge and experience. If you have a stockdog question, ask a stockdog trainer. If you want to talk about something I actually have had experience with - like behavior modification or clicker training for pet manners or sports - I'd be happy to do that. I don't think that's really what you are interested in discussing, though. Why don't you just make the point that you want to make through the line of questioning that you started above?