Two training questions

[Eileen Stein]

is there any chance you are misinterpreting the owner's statements that s/he's training in a way that will utilize the dog's desire to please, as a perception on the owner's part that the dog's being dragged through the tunnel reflects the dog's desire to please?

 

I don't see how. The statement, "I want my dog to do "xyz" out of desire to please me" is pretty straightforward. And seeing the handler turn around and do something like drag the dog through a tunnel is pretty obvious.

 

I don't really see what is there to misinterpret. . . .

 

I don't consider a dog being dragged through a tunnel or held at the contact point or pulled over a piece of contact equipment by the collar to be the dog learning because of "desire to please". . . .

 

I disagree specifically to citing wanting the dog to do something out of "desire to please" and then proceeding to drag the dog through the motions in some way. The dog is doing nothing to please anyone in that situation.

 

Okay, I see what's going on now. It's much as if a doctrinaire "positive reinforcement" dog owner came to my (hypothetical) class and told me she didn't want to train with corrections because she wanted her dog to do things for the joy of working with her and not out of fear. I watch her introducing her dog to the tunnel, and report to the Boards: "And then this woman turns around and starts giving her dog treats like a pez dispenser! She proceeds to manipulate the dog all the way through the tunnel, click and treat, click and treat, click and treat, and all the while she's thinking the dog is going through the tunnel out of the joy of working with her! It's like she doesn't even see what's going on with the dog. Like she can't even see that the dog went through because of the food! I don't consider a dog being manipulated through a tunnel with treats to be a dog that's doing it out of the joy of working with its owner."

 

I could make that woman look pretty ridiculous -- I could make her look totally out of touch with reality -- but it wouldn't be a fair portrayal of her and her views, would it? Any more than it's fair to portray a person who introduces her dog to the tunnel by physically manipulating him through it as believing the dog went through the tunnel at that stage of training out of a desire to please.

 

In any case, thanks for continuing to answer my questions, so that I could get an accurate picture. I'm reassured that your clients are not actually delusional.

[Root Beer]

Okay, I see what's going on now. It's much as if a doctrinaire "positive reinforcement" dog owner came to my (hypothetical) class and told me she didn't want to train with corrections because she wanted her dog to do things for the joy of working with her and not out of fear. I watch her introducing her dog to the tunnel, and report to the Boards: "And then this woman turns around and starts giving her dog treats like a pez dispenser! She proceeds to manipulate the dog all the way through the tunnel, click and treat, click and treat, click and treat, and all the while she's thinking the dog is going through the tunnel out of the joy of working with her! It's like she doesn't even see what's going on with the dog. Like she can't even see that the dog went through because of the food! I don't consider a dog being manipulated through a tunnel with treats to be a dog that's doing it out of the joy of working with its owner."

 

Correct. In the situation that you describe - where the dog is being introduced to the tunnel and is going through it to get the treats (which is often a great starting point for teaching a dog a skill needed for a game like Agility), the dog is not going through solely "for the joy of working with it's owner" any more than the dog being dragged is doing it out of a "desire to please".

 

Eventually that dog probably will go through the tunnel motivated more by joy of working with the owner, as well as out of an enjoyment of tunnels - at least that has been my own experience and what I have seen happen many times over with others, but at the moment the dog is doing it for the food. And to a "doctrinaire positive reinforcement trainer", that is perfectly fine when the dog is learning a new behavior or concept. That is typically how we begin, exceptions of course being made where appropriate.

 

The thing is - I don't actually run into anyone who is using food to introduce behaviors and concepts to a dog who does not call it just that. Hence the phrase brought up earlier in this discussion - the dog "working for pay". You hear that a lot. Of course that "pay" can be more than just food treats. Food, toys, environmental reinforcers, praise, kleenex tissues, etc - whatever the dog is motivated by. But people who use those things say plainly that they are using those things.

 

Sometimes when I am working with Maddie on a particularly challenging handling maneuver in Agility class, I will pull out food and use it to get her into the right position at the right time so we can successfully carry it out until we both get the hang of it. I will say flat out to my instructor, "I'm going to use food here". Maddie doesn't need food to do Agility - she has learned the game and plays it out of the joy of working with me, and out of enjoyment for the game (although she is more of a teamwork girl than an Agility driven dog). But food is still very helpful when we are working on something new that I want us to master quickly. In those instances, she goes back to "working for pay". We both get the idea and then that "pay" is not needed for that anymore.

 

I could make that woman look pretty ridiculous -- I could make her look totally out of touch with reality -- but it wouldn't be a fair portrayal of her and her views, would it? Any more than it's fair to portray a person who introduces her dog to the tunnel by physically manipulating him through it as believing the dog went through the tunnel at that stage of training out of a desire to please.

 

I don't really see anything ridiculous about painting a clear picture of what is going on. I very firmly believe (to the point of being doctrinaire) that the more an individual handler understands about what is actually going on with the dog, the better that person is going to train. And that the more an individual handler understands about the training choices that he or she is making, and the mindset that drives those choices, the better that person is going to train.

 

Even if it is only at a particular stage of training, I think that everyone benefits from learning to recognize what is truly going on. If the dog is holding a contact, going through a tunnel, moving through weave poles, etc. only because the handler is dragging the dog through the motions, he or she should be well aware of that fact - even if the handler hopes that the dog will do those things out of a "desire to please" later on. I would say that there are some important things to be learned from acknowledging what is actually happening.

 

In any case, thanks for continuing to answer my questions, so that I could get an accurate picture. I'm reassured that your clients are not actually delusional.

 

No problem! And I'm glad about that!

[bcnewe2]

I *did* note that for some dogs, corrections just escalate things. Ranger's littermate is one such dog. So her handler has to come up with a different method to get in her head and get her focused while still including the human in the picture and not letting her run wild among the stock.

 

Yes I think we are saying the same thing, I was just going at it from a different word version.

 

Mick is a dog like that, it's a shame he was my first real stockdog cause I had no idea how to go about getting in his brain without making things worse. It's a hard row to hoe if your dog is abusive (to stock, not humans) and corrections make it worse. But in the end it opens up a lot of doors into training ideas that if working with an easier dog would never be encountered.

 

Really the bottom line to me, is that I will use what ever methods work for me, excluding abuse to dog or stock. If tossing treats out to my dog would do anything while working stock, then by golly I'd be out there tossing steak. But on the same hand if corrections are what's helping the dog to see what is needed, then I'm all for that too.

It seems a shame that some handlers will limit their ideas to only "one" way of training. There's so much more out there if you open your mind to possiblities that you aren't familar with (I'm not refering to Julie here). No tried and true methods for me, it's a dance that we make up as we go along.

[Root Beer]

It seems a shame that some handlers will limit their ideas to only "one" way of training.

 

Hmmmmmm . . . what appears to be a limit to one person can be a world of limitless possibilities and opportunities to another.

[shysheperdess]

I've never trained a dog to an advanced level in agility...but some very brilliant well respected trainers/handlers whom I know in agility always recomend phasing out food very early on. Food is used to introduce a new concept if it's required, or a toy, etc. and used intermitently from then on...and the #1 thing they stress(and this crosses over into competitive obedience as well) is you should NEVER bribe the dog to do anything once the dog understands the exercise and what is expected...this requires a great deal of skill, understanding of behavior, creativity and an excellent relationship with there dog...

 

Anybody and by anybody I mean the flood of "pet dog trainers" can put food in front of a dogs face and get results almost right away with most dogs...the real skill of a trainer and there relationship with there dog is doing it without...

 

I still chuckle at the episode with Victoria Stillwell(is that her name??)where she is dealing with an un-ruly boxer?? She says "watch me" and puts the food right in front of her face...what do you think the dog does...looks at her face...there is food there..and people are like WOW look at that dogs attention....now take the food away and try it...think that dog is going to be watching her..nope..

 

Using excessive food, relying on it to much or continuing to use it as a "bribe after the dog has learned will inhibit any further advancement beyond "pet dog training"....

[brndlbc]

This will hit home for many......

 

[Blackdawgs]

I have a rescue Border Collie, who I have written about before. She obviously spent the first 1.5 years of her life doing whatever the hell she pleased. The dog is very very environmentally orientated, partly from anxiety and partly because she gains an enormous amount of internal reinforcement from just watching stuff. On stock, I couldn't do much with her--she flies solo. Same around the house. She is mostly well-behaved;however at times, the lights were on, but she wasn't always home. She has been described as "hard headed", "bossy", and "dominantly submissive" by stock dog and pet dog trainers.

 

She was a candidate for Susan Garretts Ruff Love program, but I could never bring myself to stick her in a crate for months and take everything away from her, but me.

 

In the beginning, she didn't give a damn about toys...and I tried them all. I eventually got her interested in a ball using a clicker+ food, now she likes playing with a wubba thing at times.

 

She likes food and will work for food, but she doesn't turn herself inside out for food. Many times, I went into the grocery store and pulled things off the shelves in the hope of finding the magic type of food that would somehow draw her attention from other stuff to me.

 

We went thru periods in our relationship in which I would pretty much cease training her and leave her alone thinking that when she was ready, she would let me know.

 

After many months (years), she started letting herself in the back door and nudging me at the computer desk(i work at home)--"come outside with me, mom, let's do something!!"

 

Although she has improved greatly over the years, I didn't think that she would ever be reliable enough or motivated enough to compete in agility. I began putting out feelers for a puppy.

 

On Sunday, I took her to a run thru and set her up at the starting line. I did a small lead-out---and she broke her stay and took off like a bat out of hell towards the first obstacle. Around the course, all my command were late, leading to several off courses, because I never expected this enthusiasm.

 

And the instructer said to me, "you don't need a new agility dog, you already have one"

 

In the end, the dog has to WANT to work with YOU and the food and toys are just the icing on the cake.

 

My experience with this dog has been very much like Eileen's with her sheepdog. For whatever reason, the dog just woke up one day and decided that working with me had value.

[topnotchdog]

Using rewards in training does not have to equal bribery. Bribery is not training, it's just bribery. Just (not sure if this is perfectly analogous) as randomly yanking a dog by the collar is not a correction, it's just yanking. And it is a bummer when tv people do it (as in that Stillwell example), because it may give the impression that using food in training is always going to mean bribing the dog.

 

Strategic application of rewards is training. To me there is a big difference. In the example of food, instead of luring a dog into a tunnel with a cookie or waving steak in front of his face to get him to come to me, it would be my preference to reward him with those things after he's done part or all of what I'm looking for. With understanding and learning, not being led around by the nose, comes reliability and the need for fewer, and then no, food rewards.

 

Can dogs learn things they are initially bribed to do? Sure, particularly if someone bribes/lures only one or two times and then switches to rewards, that can work just fine. Sometimes that's a very quick way to grease the skids and then switch over to rewards (the person or the dog may actually make better initial progress this way). I completely agree with you, shysheperdess, that continuing down the path of bribery will only get you so far. And I don't know that I'd even make a distinction for pet dog training, I'll have to think on that. My initial reaction is that in pet dog training it could be incredibly important to get good results that stick. Sometimes there is a lot a stake (no pun intended).

 

Blackdawgs, I think that is very cool that that happened for you and your dog. I was struck by the comparison of that experience to Eileen's story about Spot. I would not have thought these two things were similar at first glance, since I interpreted her showing the dog that she was struggling to move the stock the thing that transfered their already-established partnership to the sheep work. But now I wonder if there was an element in each instance of a combination of seeing some value in the activity (built up over time), trust in the person, combined with lack of social pressure (I read it that Eileen was experimenting in the spur of the moment, and you may have had no particular expectations on Sunday). Interesting. Probably lots of things at work we'll never be privy to.

 

B.

[shysheperdess]

Yes I couldn't agree with you more TopNotch...I am all for using motivators, I am all for making training fun...but once the dog has learned the exercise/behavior than rewards need to come intermitently or when least expected so the dog isn't working FOR the toy/food or being lured...hide the food, reward in the right place, hide the toy, play with your dog, release and break/play at different times...

 

I actually went to a clinic by the woman who won the National Obedience title and other than using food for pups..she doesn't use food in her training AT ALL...

 

What I find is that most "pet dog trainers" use excessive food because they get fast and good results...the dogs are happy..it's easy to teach..and generaly most pet people and students can get by with it....where holes show up and real theories get tested is when you actually compete and there is no food/toys allowed...I find it personally extremely interesting from a training perspective to see and discuss advanced training concepts and ideas when things get interesting at an advanced training level..

 

I find that most people who start to obtain a higher level of training truly understand the value of building that respect and relationship with your dog...because it is tested and tried over and over and over with no food/toys involved...the dog accepts there job and loves working with and for there person..

 

I am sure the work of this woman whose seminar I attended, her dog prancing in perfect heel position, motivated soley by the respect and love for her handler can equally be compared to some of the amazing open sheepdog trial runs I have seen....that love and respect for there person and the work..

[Root Beer]

Strategic application of rewards is training. To me there is a big difference. In the example of food, instead of luring a dog into a tunnel with a cookie or waving steak in front of his face to get him to come to me, it would be my preference to reward him with those things after he's done part or all of what I'm looking for. With understanding and learning, not being led around by the nose, comes reliability and the need for fewer, and then no, food rewards.

 

Can dogs learn things they are initially bribed to do? Sure, particularly if someone bribes/lures only one or two times and then switches to rewards, that can work just fine. Sometimes that's a very quick way to grease the skids and then switch over to rewards (the person or the dog may actually make better initial progress this way). I completely agree with you, shysheperdess, that continuing down the path of bribery will only get you so far.

 

Honestly, from my own experience, I have to disagree. The approach that I took with Maddie, in teaching her tunnels, is exactly what you describe as only getting you so far. I lured and "bribed" the heck out of her for quite a long time. She seriously did not like tunnels.

 

Granted, now I probably would take more of a shaping approach - I have learned a ton of skills since then that I did not have at my disposal when she and I were first learning. I think she would have learned a lot faster had I known then what I know now, but I didn't - and treating the heck out of her for going through tunnels ultimately did the job just as well as the best method out there.

 

But what I did then was to show her treats, have her go through, give her treats. Show her treats, have her go through, give her treats. I did this with her for months - probably close to a year! She really didn't like tunnels. It took quite a long time for her to like them enough to choose to go through them without some extra impetus. Still, she got there! And once she got there, she became 100% reliable.

 

According to the theory that not weaning the dog off quickly, she should not have a reliable tunnel, without food present today. 50 Q's in competition and 10 Titles later, I'd have to say that her tunnels are highly reliable and she does not need food present in any way to complete tunnels successfully in competition. Based on what you are saying, she should have NQ'ed 50 times and not have earned any titles because every time she saw a tunnel, she should have stopped and looked at me for food and refused to go through when she saw I didn't have any. She doesn't do that - she's too busy driving through the tunnels to bother with any of that. With 50 Q's under her belt, she has successfully completed over 100 tunnels in competition, no food on me or in the ring. I don't think anyone would seriously say that she did not learn what to do with a tunnel. And yes, she also goes past them when she is directed to do so through my handling!

 

And that is not the only piece of equipment that she learned that way. Her table was taught because I sat her on the table when it wasn't our turn and I fed her treats at random while she sat there. The table, with no other training than that, is actually her favorite Agility behavior and she does it completely independent of food. I haven't fed her on the table in years.

 

I always cringe a bit when a statement is made that would dictate that a dog *cannot learn* through a certain mode of teaching. Especially a mode of teaching that I've used with success and seen used by others with success. It would actually be quite difficult to prove that a dog *cannot learn* through a certain mode of teaching, particularly when there are those who have done so successfully.

 

I don't worry so much about fading food quickly as others. I use it until it is obvious to me that the dog no longer needs it. Like training wheels on a bike, once the dog doesn't need it anymore, he actually becomes a bit impatient with being made to wait around for it! That's where I go to a variable reinforcement schedule and bring in more environmental reinforcers.

 

And I don't know that I'd even make a distinction for pet dog training, I'll have to think on that. My initial reaction is that in pet dog training it could be incredibly important to get good results that stick. Sometimes there is a lot a stake (no pun intended).

 

I would agree with that. Pet dogs learning manners and the behaviors and attitudes that they need to navigate the human world safely is every bit as important - if not more important - than dogs learning to do tunnels without the handler having food on his person.

 

I think it is important to keep in mind that Agility is a game. It is supposed to be enjoyable for both the dog and the handler. If a dog needs the handler to have food on his person for a full year before the dog is going to perform independently on the Agility course, what, really, is the harm in that? It's a game. If that's the way the dog and handler want to play until the dog is ready for more of a challenge, I'd say it's all good. I've traveled that road and was pleasantly surprised at the result.

 

Thats the thing about Agility - if you get too hung up on how you should be training and take your eyes off of what the dog needs to both enjoy and master the game, it kind of defeats the purpose. (Yeah, I've been there and done that!) Of course the end goal is to have a dog who can run full courses without the need for external reinforcers in competition (if the handler is inclined to compete!), but getting there is as much a part of the game as the game itself. Some dogs seriously enjoy having treats, toys, and environmental reinforcers incorporated as part of the game for quite some time as the dog is learning the skills needed to enjoy the game in competition. And it is a game, so really - what is inappropriate about including those things if the dog enjoys them, and they help the dog learn effectively?

[topnotchdog]

And it is a game, so really - what is inappropriate about including those things if the dog enjoys them, and they help the dog learn effectively?

 

Not a thing (I hope I didn't imply anything was inappropriate about it). I do think you've hit the nail on the head when you say the approach should help the dog learn effectively. In other words, speaking about the 'average' dog, a year seems a bit long to learn to enjoy going through a tunnel reliably. But as you say, you have different skills now and would likely approach it differently. And, naturally, we can find plenty of exceptions to anyone's most favored approach, including if there is some physical, mental, or temperament reason for going a more creative route. To me that is part of the "art" in the art and science of dog training. I am glad you both ended up where you wanted to be, and enjoyed yourselves getting there!

 

Barbara

[Root Beer]

Not a thing (I hope I didn't imply anything was inappropriate about it). I do think you've hit the nail on the head when you say the approach should help the dog learn effectively. In other words, speaking about the 'average' dog, a year seems a bit long to learn to enjoy going through a tunnel reliably.

 

True. She takes her sweet time learning new things, so she is not "average" in that way. Still, it is often the case that most dogs have some sticking point or other. Hers is a bit unusual, but in a lot of ways the fact that she needs an extremely high amount of reps before she masters certain skills to a point where she can do them independently is an easy peasy learning quirk compared to some of the anxiety related challenges I've run into with Dean, or the stimulation issues that Speedy has had to work through.

 

Maybe that's part of the reason why I am a little more laid back about pulling back the rate of reinforcement after any set number of reps. If the dog is ready for variable reinforcement after two or three reps with food - great! If it takes five - nice! If it takes 100 - fine. The important thing is to do what it takes to help the dog get there, not to use the number of reps that it takes for anyone else.

 

When it comes to people, we all know that different people learn at different paces. Some pick things up like lightning and some need to study on them longer to really get it. Some remember things after one glance, some need to repeat something over and over and over to memorize it.

 

Why would it be different for dogs? Why do some trainers (this is rhetorical, not directed at anyone here) expect that any and every dog would learn after being reinforced just one set number of times? Doesn't it make sense that some will pick things up almost intuitively and some will need to study on it longer? Doesn't it stand to reason that some dogs need more repetitions in order to "memorize" new skills?

 

But as you say, you have different skills now and would likely approach it differently. And, naturally, we can find plenty of exceptions to anyone's most favored approach, including if there is some physical, mental, or temperament reason for going a more creative route. To me that is part of the "art" in the art and science of dog training.

 

One thing that really strikes me is that I wouldn't have the skills that I have now had I not been willing to do all of those reps with Maddie and take her from not knowing to having learned. That process gave me training experience, and it gave her learning experience.

 

I think that is critical to everyone's development as a handler/trainer. Yes, our instructors guide us, but ultimately we learn by getting in there and training. By failing and succeeding. That is, as you said, the "art" part! You can't perfect an art without practice. Without making your own mistakes to learn from, nor without forging your own success to keep your heart in it. I've found success through a lot of approaches that "they" say can't work. That has taught me something that I actually treasure about what can and can't be done with a dog.

 

I am glad you both ended up where you wanted to be, and enjoyed yourselves getting there!

 

Thanks! I appreciate that. I will always be proud of my girl for her Agility. She took me from Agility flunkie to an eager student of the sport. She will always be the dog who earned my first Agility Q's and titles. No matter how much better I train my future dogs, that will always belong to her. And I am glad for that.

[Eileen Stein]

Blackdawgs, I think that is very cool that that happened for you and your dog. I was struck by the comparison of that experience to Eileen's story about Spot. I would not have thought these two things were similar at first glance, since I interpreted her showing the dog that she was struggling to move the stock the thing that transfered their already-established partnership to the sheep work. But now I wonder if there was an element in each instance of a combination of seeing some value in the activity (built up over time), trust in the person, combined with lack of social pressure (I read it that Eileen was experimenting in the spur of the moment, and you may have had no particular expectations on Sunday). Interesting. Probably lots of things at work we'll never be privy to.

 

FWIW, there is no doubt in my mind, based on what happened that day and what had been going on in prior days, that what made Spot work for me on that occasion was his perception that I was struggling and needed his help. This is not the sort of thing you like to relate, because you know people are likely to think that it's impossible and you're a sentimental idiot, but it was just very clear at the time. I got the spur-of-the-moment idea of trying that based on my understanding of Spot's nature, and the fact that I had actually seen this motivation on occasion in other contexts with previous border collies. I watched it play out just as I had thought it might, and I feel I've ruled out any other interpretation. That explanation is the only one that fits the facts as I saw them.

 

Blackdawg's experience rings true to me, and I've had a couple of similar experiences of that kind also. In those kinds of cases it's harder to put your finger on what made it happen. I think you're probably right that it's a matter of several things like the ones you list combining, and producing a breakthrough where the dog just assents to you -- chooses to accept what you've been offering.

[Blackdawgs]

Blackdawg's experience rings true to me, and I've had a couple of similar experiences of that kind also. In those kinds of cases it's harder to put your finger on what made it happen. I think you're probably right that it's a matter of several things like the ones you list combining, and producing a breakthrough where the dog just assents to you -- chooses to accept what you've been offering.

 

Yes, I think that it was multiple factors in my case. I'd gotten the sense from her that I had to wait her out and let her decide that it was time. I only hoped that she would live long enough for that time to come.

[topnotchdog]

FWIW, there is no doubt in my mind, based on what happened that day and what had been going on in prior days, that what made Spot work for me on that occasion was his perception that I was struggling and needed his help. This is not the sort of thing you like to relate, because you know people are likely to think that it's impossible and you're a sentimental idiot, but it was just very clear at the time. I got the spur-of-the-moment idea of trying that based on my understanding of Spot's nature, and the fact that I had actually seen this motivation on occasion in other contexts with previous border collies. I watched it play out just as I had thought it might, and I feel I've ruled out any other interpretation. That explanation is the only one that fits the facts as I saw them.

 

I can definitely see that. (It is how I read it the first time through, then I guess I was thinking out loud about it in relation to the other post.) And I didn't see anything sentimental or haphazard about it. It makes total sense to me that what contributed to that day was that you understood him (and border collies), and he understood what was needed right then, and it came together. And it is telling that he worked well from then on.

 

B.