My reasons for "positive" training

[PSmitty]

What's the record for the longest thread again?

 

Carry on. Talk amongst yourselves.

[juliepoudrier]

Eileen says they tend to peter out around 250 posts, and we're only at 176!

 

J.

[Sue R]

We've only just begun...

[Root Beer]

I wouldn't say that a soft dog is most desirable for a handler who trains through a reinforcement based approach. In fact, I'd say that a soft dog is more challenging in many ways than a dog that is tough, independent, and has a no-quit attitude. Strength of will and a desire to have some independence is an asset in a dog that is being trained through reinforcement.

 

Reinforcement based training requires that the dog develop independence and mental strength through the training process, especially if the dog is going to be participating in performance sports.

 

It can be done with a soft dog, but the dog being soft makes it more challenging in a lot of unexpected ways.

[Sue R]

I wouldn't say that a soft dog is most desirable for a handler who trains through a reinforcement based approach. In fact, I'd say that a soft dog is more challenging in many ways than a dog that is tough, independent, and has a no-quit attitude. Strength of will and a desire to have some independence is an asset in a dog that is being trained through reinforcement.

 

Reinforcement based training requires that the dog develop independence and mental strength through the training process, especially if the dog is going to be participating in performance sports.

 

It can be done with a soft dog, but the dog being soft makes it more challenging in a lot of unexpected ways.

Maybe that's why I have a dog that can go head-to-head with a mother cow but is scared of the teeter . And he's a weak, soft kind of dog. Thank goodness I didn't get him for performance sports but just for working cattle!

 

But maybe it's just different when a dog has a natural interest in something, like livestock, and natural instincts that prompt the dog to want to work stock usefully, compared to performance sports which, after all, don't have that same element of built-in instinct. Dogs may enjoy performance sports and grow to be obsessed with them (or parts of them) but they aren't born (IMO) desiring to jump over jumps, weave, do the dog walk, do long downs or sit-stays, run flyball, or dock dive. I think those are learned pleasures whereas working stock has got to be a hard-wired ability and desire or it's not really going to happen, at least not at any sort of high or very useful level.

 

Again, just my opinion.

[MicheleS.]

I wouldn't say that a soft dog is most desirable for a handler who trains through a reinforcement based approach. In fact, I'd say that a soft dog is more challenging in many ways than a dog that is tough, independent, and has a no-quit attitude. Strength of will and a desire to have some independence is an asset in a dog that is being trained through reinforcement.

 

Reinforcement based training requires that the dog develop independence and mental strength through the training process, especially if the dog is going to be participating in performance sports.

 

It can be done with a soft dog, but the dog being soft makes it more challenging in a lot of unexpected ways.

 

Having had 3 dogs that were tough and independent and the 4th one came along and is very soft, I'd say this statement rings true to me. Initially I couldn't use any aversives like I could with my other dogs, it forced me to look for others ways to help Chase develop mental strength and independence. It's worked, it's been very rewarding and he doesn't fall apart anymore when I look at him cross-eyed

[airbear]

I am one of those who awkwardly straddles both worlds, I suppose. I do dog sports and I compete in herding. I currently am training my youngest for agility, and I have decided to try to lay a foundation using shaping only. What this means is that when I am asking Rex to offer me a behaviour, there is no "wrong" answer. I am to reward heavily anything that is remotely close to what I want, and ignore anything that isn't. I occasionally give a no reward marker (NRM) ("oops!) which he takes to mean "not that, what else ya got". Incidentally, the NRM is itself quite a controversial thing amongst the clicker trainers.

 

The reason I'm not correcting him is not because he can't take a correction, or because I am inherently against correcting my dog, but because the point of shaping is for the dog to offer you behaviours. Let's say I want him to pass between two upright poles (the basis of 2x2 weave pole training). For the first session, if he so much as glances at the poles, I mark and reward. Even if he bumps into them with his great fluffy tail, I am going to mark and reward (C/T). Soon, he is actively interacting with the poles, and I am going to be a little more selective as to what I C/T. If I gave him an "ah ah" or a "no", I don't think he would shut down or anything tragic like that. I think he would sit politely and wait to be shown what to do, which is not the goal of our training session.

 

Admittedly, we haven't done much training so far. He's had a couple shaping sessions with jumping, and we're on Day 1.5 with the 2x2 weave pole training. I am finding the whole process of shaping to be quite interesting for training unnatural behaviours ('cause let's face it, there's nothing natural above weave poles!). Here's a little video from last week of a brief training session. Yes, his tail is that happy!

 

Is this at all practical for herding? I don't think so, but then in herding one is not trying to tease bizarre behaviours out of the dog but rather working with a dog's natural instinct. I have no problem correcting Rex when we're working sheep (please reference shrieking admonishments in my Calgary Stampede video). I will use anything from a mild verbal to walking him down and inquiring as to what he thinks he's doing. Of course, the correction is dependent on the infraction in question.

 

Rexxy doesn't seem to be confused by the different training methods for the different activities. Poor little guy, he's my personal experiment in canine learning theory!

[juliepoudrier]

Kristi,

Do you think it would make a difference if you started out with the shaping and then later tried to train him for stockwork? Just curious, because as he's already trained for stockwork he's already got the foundation for taking corrections in that context, so going the shaping-only route isn't going to have any real impact on his stockdog training. But if he had been raised from puppyhood using only shaping techniques, do you think it would then be harder for him to accept corrections when he was finally exposed to stockdog training? (Maybe that's an experiment for your *next* dog!)

 

J.

[rushdoggie]

But if he had been raised from puppyhood using only shaping techniques, do you think it would then be harder for him to accept corrections when he was finally exposed to stockdog training? (Maybe that's an experiment for your *next* dog!)

 

I'm not Kristi, nor do I play her on TV, but I don't think shaping makes a dog who can't take a correction. In fact, shaping makes a dog more confident, having to work through, mentally, what is now the criteria and not be frustrated by not getting clicked for what earlier earned the click.

 

And unrelated to the topic, Kristi have you seen the 2x2 tape? SG starts with a lure and doesn't use a clicker. I was surprised when I saw it...

[Dixie_Girl]

Kristi,

Do you think it would make a difference if you started out with the shaping and then later tried to train him for stockwork? Just curious, because as he's already trained for stockwork he's already got the foundation for taking corrections in that context, so going the shaping-only route isn't going to have any real impact on his stockdog training. But if he had been raised from puppyhood using only shaping techniques, do you think it would then be harder for him to accept corrections when he was finally exposed to stockdog training? (Maybe that's an experiment for your *next* dog!)

 

J.

 

 

Since Jackson is the only dog I have trained to work stock, I can tell you that it is like I own two different dogs in the same body! If Jackson is working, he takes any correction in stride, even when my trainer accidently hit his nose instead of the ground in front of him. He takes the correction and goes on, never breaking stride. At home, however, if I'm on the phone and raising my voice or even if I just enter a room and in a stern voice say, "What's going on in here?", he immediately runs for his "den", (under the bench seating). He didn't go on stock until he was around 10 mos. and up until then I was teaching him all the basics, heel, sit, stay, lie down, don't get in the garbage, etc. I learned very early that just talking to him in a normal voice worked best for corrections. He learned everything he knows with out a single treat or click. So, I don't know if you can really "carte blanc" determine what a dog will react to on stock vrs at home or vice versa. JMO, however.

[rushdoggie]

I have cattle - if my dogs can't take a correction from me for what it should be - constructive and instructive - then heaven help them when a mother cow decides to give a correction of her own.

 

I think that animals are much better at communication with one another than we are with them...and I know thats a wide reaching assumption. As humans, we rely so strongly on our verbal language that we as a species can be pretty slow at reading body language.

 

Dogs, sheep, cows, horses, they don't verbalize a lot. And even though dogs are a lot different than the livestock they move they have that intuitive understanding, especially your well bred working Border Collie.

 

I also think that's why you meet certain people, including long time dog handlers are often able to work with so many dogs so easily. I don't know many stock dog handlers but I would bet that the experience of working stock for a long time teaches them a lot about reading animals and it shows in the way they handle dogs

 

For me, the advantage of minimizing corrections, for me, goes along with the idea that I could read a dog wrong and if I choose to correct him for something that I misread, its damaging to my relationship with my dog. If I reward something I shouldn't have, it can be less damaging.

 

In the 1st post I talked about Lacey-Roo and how I often butted heads with her...she was a well-behaved dog, a dog with some impressive credentials as a therapy dog and who earned a CD with ease. When I tried training more complex behavior, she refused, or shut down and because she wasn't a soft dog in the slightest her version of shutting down was t ignore me. When I cut the corrections and started focusing on different things, it was amazing how much my " hard-headed, stubborn, pushy" dog became calm, compliant, agreeable, happy.

 

As always, YMMV.

[Sue R]

For me, the advantage of minimizing corrections, for me, goes along with the idea that I could read a dog wrong and if I choose to correct him for something that I misread, its damaging to my relationship with my dog. If I reward something I shouldn't have, it can be less damaging.

On stock or off, I think the goal of good training is always "minimizing corrections". Like any other "tool", they are best used when they are needed and not when they are not needed. Fortunately, when most trainers make mistakes (as most all will do) most dogs will forgive them and work on.

 

It's just apparent than stockdog people in general find corrections as part of a constructive, successful training strategy, while some other folks try to avoid any and all corrections (or whatever they view as corrections). And if they are getting good results, that's wonderful. Stockdog people, I think, just don't like feeling vilified or looked down on because their approach is different - not less good, not less righteous, not less productive - just different.

 

Again, the training needs to suit the handler, the dog, and the activity - and produce good results - so just about everyone's mileage will vary as just about everyone's personalities and situations will vary.

[airbear]

But if he had been raised from puppyhood using only shaping techniques, do you think it would then be harder for him to accept corrections when he was finally exposed to stockdog training? (Maybe that's an experiment for your *next* dog!)

My reticence for training agility/freestyle/tricks/obedience before stockwork isn't that the dog couldn't learn to take a correction and work through it, but that the dog would be too handler-focused! Maybe it's a superstitious thing, but it seems to me that dogs who are trained up first in agility seem to have a hard time not staring at their handler. That would be my main fear.

 

I don't think shaping makes a dog unable to take corrections. I think jollying a dog who sulks, being afraid to hurt the dog's feelings, and/or just being overall too permissive creates a dog that can't take a correction. BTW, my dogs are corrected in the house and in everyday life if they're being naughty <glares at Wick>. I do not shape "get the eff out of my garbage".

 

And unrelated to the topic, Kristi have you seen the 2x2 tape? SG starts with a lure and doesn't use a clicker. I was surprised when I saw it...

Yes, I've got the DVDs. SG doesn't use a clicker, but she doesn't lure. At the very beginning of Chapter 1, Building Value for the First Two Poles, she says "Anytime she looks at the poles, I'm going to reward her. Then very quickly, I am going to raise my criteria so she has to do something more". SG would never LURE! She has self-help groups for People Who Lure and the Dogs Who Love Them. In fact, just prior to Chapter 1, she stresses that your dog should understand shaping, exhibit self-control, and have body awareness prior to starting the program. So no, she doesn't use a clicker, but she ain't luring!

[topnotchdog]

I'm not Kristi, nor do I play her on TV, but I don't think shaping makes a dog who can't take a correction. In fact, shaping makes a dog more confident, having to work through, mentally, what is now the criteria and not be frustrated by not getting clicked for what earlier earned the click.

 

Yes, in fact I'd add with a lot of dogs it actually teaches them how to get frustrated and deal with that frustration, to work through problems in order to solve how to get the reinforcement. With shelter dogs, for eg, it is generally speaking very enriching for them to have this kind of training---the shelter environment can be full of arousal and frustration, and shaping can give them an outlet where they can have a happy experience with frustration and learn how to deal with it.

 

And unrelated to the topic, Kristi have you seen the 2x2 tape? SG starts with a lure and doesn't use a clicker. I was surprised when I saw it...

I'm not Susan, but she definitely does not lure in the 2x2 training, and does no luring on the DVD, either. She emphasizes the importance of the dog thinking and making choices and learning from successes as well as failures, right from the very first lesson. FWIW my understanding is she now reserves the clicker for particular exercises and favors a verbal marker instead. End of tangent.

 

Barbara

[topnotchdog]

But if he had been raised from puppyhood using only shaping techniques, do you think it would then be harder for him to accept corrections when he was finally exposed to stockdog training? (Maybe that's an experiment for your *next* dog!)

 

I'd be interested in hearing if anyone's done this! It does seem like it would kind of be springing it on them to never do it until they were on stock. But then I wonder if it also about temperament, and about how keen the dog is to work stock.

 

Another related question: How do you all find a dog's off-stock temperament correlates with how he or she will be on stock?

 

Barbara

[rushdoggie]

Stockdog people, I think, just don't like feeling vilified or looked down on because their approach is different - not less good, not less righteous, not less productive - just different.

 

Totally understandable, in the same way that I don't like my training philosophy defined as "quasi-religious" and "hocus pocus" (or whatever someone called it, the reason I started this thread.

[rushdoggie]

I'm not Susan, but she definitely does not lure in the 2x2 training, and does no luring on the DVD, either.

 

Really? I only watched it once but I swear I saw her toss a toy or cookies between the 1st 2 poles to get the dog started driving through them...

[juliepoudrier]

I'm not Kristi, nor do I play her on TV, but I don't think shaping makes a dog who can't take a correction. In fact, shaping makes a dog more confident, having to work through, mentally, what is now the criteria and not be frustrated by not getting clicked for what earlier earned the click.

In general, I would agree that shaping and similar training approaches should create a confident dog. This isn't about lack of confidence--it's about being able to accept a correction and keep trying, which is a bit different than not getting a reward and still trying. I was thinking in terms of a dog who's never had a correction up to the point it is started on livestock. I've had a few dogs come here who have not been corrected in any of their training (or lack therof) up to that point, and when they do something like try to bite my sheep and I correct them (voice, body pressure, much more rarely a bop with a stock stick) they pretty much turn off and sulk.

 

I don't think shaping makes a dog unable to take corrections. I think jollying a dog who sulks, being afraid to hurt the dog's feelings, and/or just being overall too permissive creates a dog that can't take a correction. BTW, my dogs are corrected in the house and in everyday life if they're being naughty <glares at Wick>. I do not shape "get the eff out of my garbage".

 

Yep, which means they are getting corrections in their everyday lives outside of whatever training you're doing for sports. And I agree with you on jollying them along, etc. In fact, I've gotten to the point that if I am faced with a dog to train that needs a lot of jollying or who sulks a lot, I'm not likely to pursue training for stockwork. One of my first dogs was one that lacked confidence and whom I pretty much got around a trial course through sheer force of will, and that's just no fun. Of course, I did learn a lot about handling through adversity, but it's not something I'd want to do now....

 

I still wonder, though, if a dog that has been raised without ever being corrected would be willing/able to work through the corrections that are necessary for stockdog training *without* sulking or needing some jollying. I just don't want to do that experiment myself, lol!

 

(Just this afternoon I sent Pip into the ram paddocks to get the big ram because I wanted to let them into the yard for grazing. The two younger rams were in the paddock by the gate and came on out, but adult ram was in the middle paddock and stood there calling for his buddies but not bothering to walk out of that paddock and into the one that would let him into the yard. So I sent Pip for him. The ram was standing just outside the stall he had been lounging in, and as Pip came along the side of the barn, instead of moving on out into the paddock, the ram turned around and went back into the stall. So I gave Pip a flank to take him into the stall and bring the ram out. Only the ram had other ideas--he's been getting a bit aggressive lately, I suspect because his hormones are surging as breeding season approaches. Anyway, the next thing I hear is some banging around, and I know it means the ram has slammed Pip. I walked around to where I could see what was happening in time to see Pip get shoved out of the stall by the ram, none too gently. Of course Pip chose to protect himself by grabbing the ram on the nose, which is exactly what he should have done, but he had already been hit a time or two--and this is a 250-lb ram vs. a 42-lb dog. This is where one wants a dog who doesn't shrink in the face of adversity and who won't quit even when the other "guy" has nailed him but good. And this is also where I wonder if a dog who's never been corrected or had any real adversity in its life would stand up to the situation, similar to what Sue mentioned with cow-calf pairs. Of course most dogs in pet or sport homes would never be tested quite that way either. <--And a dog doesn't have to be punished or harshly corrected to learn to deal with such adversity; it just needs to know that a correction, whether it comes from another animal or a human, isn't the end of the world.)

 

ETA

Another related question: How do you all find a dog's off-stock temperament correlates with how he or she will be on stock?

 

I don't know that there's a direct correlation. I suspect that it's a combination of the dog's temperament and its training (with the latter either improving or worsening what's already there). But there are dogs who would fall at the extremes of temperament (way too soft or way too independent/hard headed <--and a dog could be either of these things and still be quite keen; it's just a keenness that doesn't brook human intervention/direction) for whom training might just be an exercise in futility.

 

J.

[geonni banner]

My very first training client was a Mexican-American family with a Dalmation. His name was Malachite.

I thought that the training Gods were having a little joke at my expense when they sent me a Dal for a first client. I didn’t know the half of it.

Malachite was a nervous wreck. At 10 months he was afraid to ride in the car. He was a fear-biter. They had had him from the age of 6 weeks. The family was four, a 9-year-old girl and a 12-year-old boy.

After a “get acquainted” visit with the family I asked if I could interact with Malachite for 10 or 15 minutes without the family present, just to see how he was away from them. They agreed, and Malachite and I went out in their fenced back yard. I let him cruise for a few minutes and then called him. He came to me and I petted and talked to him for a few minutes. He seemed calm, fairly relaxed and happy. I had a six-foot leather lead and a choke chain. I slipped the choke over his head. No problem. He wagged. He licked. And then he decided to investigate a clump of grass 4 feet away. I gave him most of the lead, and he trotted gently away. The choke tightened ever-so-slightly, and the dog went insane. He threw himself on the ground and screamed as if I’d shut his tail in the door of a ’56 Buick. He writhed. He thrashed. All this on an almost completely slack lead.

I looked up at the family, who were watching through closed windows - silently by request - with large, round eyes. Each held their mouth in the shape of an “O.”

I stepped over to the dog, thinking, “So ends the career of the dog-trainer.” I petted the hysterical Malachite, and he calmed down enough for me to remove the choke. Then we went back in the house. Amazingly, the family did not set upon me with knives and pitchforks. They were a bit shaken, but game to work with me.

 

I worked with Malachite and his family for 16 weeks. I gave them an extra 4 weeks for free. I never again worked with a family so dedicated to training a dog.

We worked for two weeks on a flat collar, on “sit” “down” and a recall. Then we began using the choke on the dead ring. Two weeks later we introduce the live ring. At the end of our work, Malachite would recall promptly for each member of the family. He sat, he downed, he rode quietly and calmly in the family van and two other vehicles. He learned to greet strangers with a wagging tail, and a wet kiss. He worked on a steel choke, and took corrections without a blink. That family loved that dog, and each and every one of them worked every single session, and at least two sessions every day – each – for 16 weeks.

 

My point is this. I cannot (now) think of a dog that I would be less likely to train by correction-based methods. But Malachite, his family and I were blessed with complete success. The 9-year-old went on to compete successfully with Mal in obedience. I worked hard with that dog, we all did. But it was his family’s love for him that pulled him through. He loved and trusted them. And he learned and grew well, and lost his fear.

 

Yes, different techniques work better with some dogs than others. But bottom line – it’s the relationship between a dog and his handler that makes the training work. Mal worked harder than any of us. He learned to respond reliably to commands, and he learned to overcome his fear. He taught me more than I would have believed any one dog could. He made us all better dog handlers. So do what works for you – what you believe in - and listen to the dog.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

When I get a manuscript back from the copyeditor (second to last step before publication), I will have rewritten some pages between four and thirty times: commonly the latter. Despite this, every page has little squiggly marks. No page is immune and some are blackened. Rude remarks are appended, here and there and oft repeated at every single goddmaned instance of a perceived fault. Typically some stranger will have urged several thousand corrections.

 

It is annoying and I am grateful. The stranger has taken time and thought for what has become our common work.

 

The work is better for these corrections.

 

Dog training discussions often assume that training is all about ME and THE DOG; that what matters is how I treat him, training tools and how he learns to more or less do as bid.

 

I think this underestimates us.

 

Dog training is about and for the work, whether the work be bulletproof mannerliness, achieving an obedience title, making a clean run, bringing down a fleeing thief, detecting a cluster bomb or gathering several hundred pregnant ewes without mishap.

 

We share the work: my dog and I. I am as responsible to it as he is. If I fail to focus or lose my temper or cannot subordinate my ego to the work, I have failed as surely as he should he ignore a proper request or lose his temper or fail to be completely present to our agreed task.

 

In what we do well together my dog and I become one creature: sometimes beautiful and on very very good days, transcendent.

 

Donald McCaig

[juliepoudrier]

Dear Doggers,

Rude remarks are appended, here and there and oft repeated at every single goddmaned instance of a perceived fault. Typically some stranger will have urged several thousand corrections.

 

Donald McCaig

Well, we have to earn our keep!

 

J.

[topnotchdog]

Lovely post (not to mention food for thought).

 

Barbara

 

Dear Doggers,

When I get a manuscript back from the copyeditor (second to last step before publication), I will have rewritten some pages between four and thirty times: commonly the latter. Despite this, every page has little squiggly marks. No page is immune and some are blackened. Rude remarks are appended, here and there and oft repeated at every single goddmaned instance of a perceived fault. Typically some stranger will have urged several thousand corrections.

 

It is annoying and I am grateful. The stranger has taken time and thought for what has become our common work.

 

The work is better for these corrections.

 

Dog training discussions often assume that training is all about ME and THE DOG; that what matters is how I treat him, training tools and how he learns to more or less do as bid.

 

I think this underestimates us.

 

Dog training is about and for the work, whether the work be bulletproof mannerliness, achieving an obedience title, making a clean run, bringing down a fleeing thief, detecting a cluster bomb or gathering several hundred pregnant ewes without mishap.

 

We share the work: my dog and I. I am as responsible to it as he is. If I fail to focus or lose my temper or cannot subordinate my ego to the work, I have failed as surely as he should he ignore a proper request or lose his temper or fail to be completely present to our agreed task.

 

In what we do well together my dog and I become one creature: sometimes beautiful and on very very good days, transcendent.

 

Donald McCaig

[topnotchdog]

Really? I only watched it once but I swear I saw her toss a toy or cookies between the 1st 2 poles to get the dog started driving through them...

 

Not a single lure, I promise!

 

B.

[Smokjbc]

can't find the delete button, sorry.

[Root Beer]

Not a single lure, I promise!

 

True. She very deliberately waits to throw the toy until the dog makes the choice to move through the poles. She doesn't use the toy as a lure, nor her body. She gets the dog right up at the poles and waits him out.