Training aids

[Pam Wolf]

Is the dog trained if training aids are still needed to get the proper behaviours?

[shysheperdess]

I would say in the context with which I use said aids no....I train for competition with a Prong, teaching and shaping position,attention,etc. but the goal obviously is to not need it. You can't use a prong in the ring, etc...I don't use a prong or training device on my dogs in any other circumstamce(leash walking, going to the store/vet, etc)..if I had to, I would consider my dog un-trained. He doesn't KNOW how to walk on a leash properly..

 

Having said that I'm really not one to judge other people who choose to use aids like the prong/head halter for there pets on a regular basis. My experience with working at an obedience club that MOST people, are not going to spend the time training there dogs. The people on this board and other trainers I know are awesome and dedicated to the teaching/learning process that is training. Just the fact that they are looking on this board shows they are seeking out info and want to learn and put the time and effort in. Most pet people are busy, have kids, families, work, hockey practice...whatever....they just want there dog to not bark, be able to take it on walks and enjoy it's company. If a "training device" helps them achieve that and keep the dog outta the shelter...then more power to them. Just pray they at least put the time into learning how to use it...(ps-I don't agree with pet owners using shock collars)..

[Echo]

I don't think so...My Border chases cars, and if I use a shock collar he will stop, but if I walk him without it he will go back to chasing, which isn't trained in my opinion

[Debbie Meier]

Well, depends on how you look at it, the trainer I work with tells me that my dog is fully trained, he understands the commands but he does not execute them with 100% reliability because sometimes he wants to do something different. Basically he lacks obedience.

 

In the case of Echo's dog, I would say that the dog is fully trained to stop when the e-collar is used but that it has not been carried through to being taught to stop with a voice command in replacement of the e-collar or to even another level which is to be taught the proper place to be instead of chasing cars with the verbal stop being used as a safety mechanism. To a degree a verbal stop command when the dog leaves a place without authorization they were trained to be could be considered a aid, unless the stop is applied in a correction tone and the dog voluntarilies goes to where they should be, then the dog is fully trained but lacked obedience.

 

How confusing is that?

[Maralynn]

No. And IMO the dog isn't completely trained if the behavior isn't reliable in a variety of situations. IE, the "but he sits, downs, comes, etc, just fine at home" scenario.

[MaryP]

What does "trained" mean? I consider my dogs trained, well, except for Skittles. But he's not a dog. He's the love child of Steven Segal. My dogs will all follow voice commands and can be trusted off leash. But, if I were to take them somewhere where there could be a risk to their safety (e.g., walking down a busy street), I'm going to have them on a leash to be safe (Plus, people tend to get really snotty about a dog that is off leash, even if it is under control). Does that make them not trained? Can ANY dog be trusted 100% of the time in every single situation? I highly doubt it. They are, after all, living creatures and living creatures sometimes make errors in judgment.

[Gloria Atwater]

Is the dog trained if training aids are still needed to get the proper behaviours?

 

 

In a general sense, let's say I train my dog to sit in the kitchen for bits of cheese. He may get really good about sitting for cheese, but if I take him outside and ask him to sit with no cheese in hand, and he just looks at me like I'm a Martian ... then I'd say he's not trained. When he gets to the point he'll sit simply because I ask him to, with no cheese to be had, then I consider his "sit" as trained.

 

Likewise, with sheep on livestock: if I start a pup using a stock stick and my body positioning, and he flanks or lies down each time I give the command and use the stick or move to cue him, he's not really trained. When he can give me the flanks, stops or whatever when I simply ask for them, hands in my pockets and no physical cues, then I consider him trained.

 

~ Gloria

[Maralynn]

But, if I were to take them somewhere where there could be a risk to their safety (e.g., walking down a busy street), I'm going to have them on a leash to be safe (Plus, people tend to get really snotty about a dog that is off leash, even if it is under control). Does that make them not trained?

 

No, you have the leash there as an extra safety measure.

 

Can ANY dog be trusted 100% of the time in every single situation? I highly doubt it. They are, after all, living creatures and living creatures sometimes make errors in judgment.

 

In every single situation? no. In the situations that are trained for? Yes. One of the common themes for the FEMA USAR dog handlers after 9/11 was how well the dogs performed. Off leash, no collar, just voice control and training. They had never been exposed to that type of situation before - no training could completely prepare them for it. But they had been exposed to numerous types of rubble in a wide variety of situations. And they just went with it.

 

That said, the dogs were leashed going back and forth and crated at night for safety purposes. That's just common sense in many situations.

[Maralynn]

In a general sense, let's say I train my dog to sit in the kitchen for bits of cheese. He may get really good about sitting for cheese, but if I take him outside and ask him to sit with no cheese in hand, and he just looks at me like I'm a Martian ... then I'd say he's not trained. When he gets to the point he'll sit simply because I ask him to, with no cheese to be had, then I consider his "sit" as trained.

 

Here's a question then - can you take that "sit" to the next level? or is it just situational? ie you standing up, facing the dog, dog within a few feet, give the command, dogs sits.

 

One class I went to a gal was there doing some advanced training in the background, proofing her dog on "sit" She'd give the command, sitting down, lying down, halfway across the room, with her back turned, etc. The guy teaching our class explained that if we always ask for it in the same manner, it doesn't mean that the dog understands what the command means, just what it means in the context of the situation.

 

It was an interesting thought to consider. Just because WE think it's trained (because we're hearing the word and fully understanding it), doesn't mean it's fully there for the dog (because the dog is also looking at the visual cues all around/body language and has not yet generalized the command)

[Pam Wolf]

Mara. that is the type of thing I do when I work with my 4H kids. The dog should understand it NO MATTER what you are doing-one reason I like to advocate Freestyle for pet owners.

 

As for the FEMA dogs that would be very similar to highly trained BC's working sheep. But when not working, the FEMA dogs are usually on a leash, correct?

 

A leash can be a safety measure if the dog is trained, but if the dog is pulling or the handler has to jerk the dog to get the sit or use multiple signals to achieve the behaviour, then IMO the dog is not fully trained.

 

If the dog still needs to wear a pinch collar, or no pull harness or gentle leader when walking, or a dummy collar (for those who use shock collars) then the dog is NOT trained IMO, and either the owner has stopped the training due to 'aid' working to solve an immediate problem (until the dog starts to pull on the pinch, then where do you go?)or the dog is still in training-again just my opinion.

[Maralynn]

As for the FEMA dogs that would be very similar to highly trained BC's working sheep. But when not working, the FEMA dogs are usually on a leash, correct?

 

 

Yup. Leashes are safety measures. Very prudent safety measures for dogs in a wide variety of situations trained or not.

 

If the dog still needs to wear a pinch collar, or no pull harness or gentle leader when walking, or a dummy collar (for those who use shock collars) then the dog is NOT trained IMO, and either the owner has stopped the training due to 'aid' working to solve an immediate problem (until the dog starts to pull on the pinch, then where do you go?)or the dog is still in training-again just my opinion.

 

I pretty much agree with this.

[MaryP]

Not everything is a matter of training, or lack there of. Not all dogs are created equal. I have a dog that can be fear aggressive towards strange people. His fear and reaction to his fear is not a result of lack of training. With him, it's a matter of trying to work with him to overcome, or at least, work through his fear without reacting. Saying that someone who uses [non-abusive] training aids to help achieve a goal or manage an issue has somehow failed to successfully "train" their dog is parochial mentality, IMO. That's like saying that a parent with a learning disabled child that uses special tools to help their child achieve the same goals as a non-learning disabled child has somehow failed to properly teach ("train") their child. Or, that the child that needs those special tools is somehow less learned than the child who doesn't need the tools, even if they both achieve the same goal in the end.

[Lewis Moon]

I'll probably get skewered for this but...

While I believe there are commands and behaviors I want Cerb ALWAYS to perform, I value the fact that he can think for himself, and does. This is certainly a two edged sword and means he sometimes "questions" my call, but it also means he will often do what I want him to even if I fumble the call or haven't even trained him for it yet.

I firmly believe that you can train a dog too well. While I demand that Cerb obey in situations dealing with the safety of himself and others, I value his input and autonomy. In the past I've admired dogs that seem to sit and wait for the next command, but I've come to notice that some of them won't (or can't) do much outside of that envelope.

[juliepoudrier]

I think it's possible for a dog to be trained for most or all situations and for the human to choose to use an aid as a "safety net" in situations where the human is uncomfortable with the safey aspects of that situation. All of my dogs have off leash recalls. All will stick with me when we go walking. A woman at a trial recently marveled to me that I could walk seven dogs off leash and that they all behaved themselves, stuck fairly close to me, and didn't go running up to other dogs or people in the area (she later commented about how nice it was that they remained quiet when she came by my van). We were on a farm. As someone else noted, had I been in a public place where *my* perception of the risk to my dogs was greater, I would have leashed them. The leash doesn't mean they're not trained to recall or stick with me; it's an acknowledgment that I could be distracted and in a moment of distraction, something could happen to one of my dogs.

 

I do believe that some people come to rely on training aids as a crutch. But if their use of those aids isn't harming the dog, then I don't really worry about it. I figure it's better for people to have their dogs under control than running amok. (Note I am not including folks who use those aids abusively.)

 

J.

[SecretBC]

I think some people get comfortable or perhaps lazy in the use of aids and never work to move past their use.

 

I admit to being that way in the use of a prong with my biggest dog, Luke. He is rarely on leash, but on the occasion that we do take a leashed walk around the neighborhood it is fairly common for me to grab the prong for him. Why? Because he walks like a gentleman when it is on with absolutely no effort from me. On a flat collar he leans (not pulls, just leans) and I find it annoying to constantly correct him -- especially since I have three leashes in my hands. Putting the prong on is just "easier" and since he is so rarely walked on leash I see little value in working with him to stop the leaning in a flat collar.

 

On the flip side, I used an E collar on both Luke & Secret for different reasons and the goal was to stop using it as soon as possible. For Luke I used it to stop his barking in the car. One correction was all it took and then so long as he was wearing the collar he wouldn't bark. I had him wear it for some time to more or less break the habit, then started to wean him off the collar -- If he barked, the collar went back on (and simply by wearing it he wouldn't bark). Now he hasn't worn the collar for a very long time, probably getting close to a year.

 

Secret went through the very common "I don't need to listen to you" phase around a year old. She's off leash 98% of the time and is perfectly well behaved, but during that time she'd get a bee up her bonnet and flip me off on the recalls if she found something she thought was more interesting than me. I used the E collar to remind her that I do still have a say in what she's doing, even if she is 100 yards away from me. Sensitive as she is, it was always on a very low setting (a tingle, more or less) and I *always* followed up the correction with a reward on recall. I weaned her in a similar fashion by bringing the collar back out when she had a couple of "bad" days in a row. Again with her, we probably haven't had the collar out for about a year. I'm not even entirely sure where it is at the moment....

[Root Beer]

Is the dog trained if training aids are still needed to get the proper behaviours?

 

If the dog:

 

Knows what you are asking for

Is capable of doing what you are asking for on whatever cue you've chosen to teach (the cue can be a "context" cue, such as being on a leash)

Is capable of doing that in various contexts (which would include any desired context)

Knows what you are asking for and is capable of doing what is asked without use of the training aid

 

Then, yes. The dog is trained.

 

Example - I taught Dean to lie down and put his chin on the floor using a target, clicker, and treats. Now I can say "chin" and he will lie down and put his chin on the floor. He knows what I want, he does it on cue, he does it in various contexts, he does so without the presence of clicker, treats, or target.

 

To say he's not trained to do that because I used training aids to teach him would be utter nonsense.

 

Of course it is possible to remain dependent on a training aid. I'll admit there are behaviors I've started to train with an aid and have never completed to fluency. That was my choice. Those behaviors are not fully trained. Not because I used a training aid, but because I never finished training them.

 

But there are plenty more that I've started with training aids (lures, treats, clickers, peanut butter on a spoon - Tessa's particular favorite, targets galore, toys, mats, ring gates, laundry baskets, chairs, pylons, various and sundry pieces of PVC, toe boards, hoops, planks, platforms, cushions . . .) OK, I adore training with stuff like that!! I've trained many of those behaviors to fluency and the training aids are no longer part of the picture. I am talking specifically here about using those things as training aids.

 

And yes, the dog is really trained to do those things.

 

ETA: I guess I misread the question - LOL!! I missed the key word "still" when I first read the question.

 

So, my answer would be "not yet" if the aid is still needed.

 

Of course, there are times when it may be perfectly appropriate to stop at a certain point in training and not train the skill to fluency due to other priorities, time constraints, personal interest, etc.

 

But I don't consider the behavior fluently trained until the aid is no longer needed in the picture.

[Root Beer]

Not everything is a matter of training, or lack there of.

 

No, not everything is.

 

Recently someone told me that the fact that my dog has arthritis is a training issue.

 

No, not that his arthritis had somehow been caused by training (like too many A-Frames or something), but that I could basically train it away. And no, the person was not saying that physical exercise would help improve flexibility. Literally, he could be trained through it.

 

I think the notion that everything is a training issue is being taken too far in some cases. I'm used to people not understanding that noise phobia is not a training issue. The arthritis thing took the cake.

 

Believe me, if it could be trained away, I would have done it long ago.

[Maralynn]

Not everything is a matter of training, or lack there of. Not all dogs are created equal. I have a dog that can be fear aggressive towards strange people. His fear and reaction to his fear is not a result of lack of training. With him, it's a matter of trying to work with him to overcome, or at least, work through his fear without reacting. Saying that someone who uses [non-abusive] training aids to help achieve a goal or manage an issue has somehow failed to successfully "train" their dog is parochial mentality, IMO.

 

I guess I look at this like not all dogs can be trained to the same level depending on a wide variety of situations. No big deal in that, it's part of who they are. Using something to work through just means the dog is still in the training process.

 

You train them as far as you can, then you keep them out of situations that they just can't handle. But if you constantly need an aid for a dog to be in a situation then it's either a training error or handler error in pushing the dog past it's ability/coping point.

 

This isn't directed at what you're doing with your dog Mary, just my observation/opinion of this type of situation in general

[ejano]

Here's a question then - can you take that "sit" to the next level? or is it just situational? ie you standing up, facing the dog, dog within a few feet, give the command, dogs sits.

 

One class I went to a gal was there doing some advanced training in the background, proofing her dog on "sit" She'd give the command, sitting down, lying down, halfway across the room, with her back turned, etc. The guy teaching our class explained that if we always ask for it in the same manner, it doesn't mean that the dog understands what the command means, just what it means in the context of the situation.

 

It was an interesting thought to consider. Just because WE think it's trained (because we're hearing the word and fully understanding it), doesn't mean it's fully there for the dog (because the dog is also looking at the visual cues all around/body language and has not yet generalized the command)

 

I thought this a pretty interesting parlor trick when it was first introduced and over the past year I tried it every now and again with Robin (with someone else as a "spotter") -- first I'd turn my back, have him lie down. Go out of the room, call "lie down". Me upstairs, he downstairs, "LIE DOWN! Lately, I've found a practical application.

 

It transfers to stock work! (Duh!) I'm a bit of a klutz at walking backwards (understatement) and even worse at walking with my head swiveled around so lately, now that we've gotten the hang of wearing the sheep, every now and again,I walk straight ahead and when I feel the sheep clicking at my heels, Robin gets a "Lie down" command. I take a quick peek (yup, he did it!)... then he gets a "walk up".... He's raw and eager, which is why I have to peek and he for darn sure wouldn't be doing it with any other than our own familiar flock at this point- and I only ask him at points when he's not overly concerned with pressure, but I can pretty much trust that he will do it under these circumstances and we'll be working to broaden our horizons.

 

You know, life is just getting interesting...it would have to snow six inches up in these mountains tomorrow!

[Lewis Moon]

I actually kind of take this for granted. If I whistle a down or tell Cerb to sit, I expect him to do it wherever he is, no matter how far away. And he does with very few exceptions. I started early on this, at around six months, by asking him to stop, sit and down in the middle of a "come" from a good distance. Then I moved on to a "hold" then a down when he was on his "outrun" (OK, not really an outrun) to get his ball. It's weird, but the other night he was intently looking for a lost ball in the weeds and, it being behind him, I yelled "look back" and he did. I probably made some body gesture that indicated where he was to go, but I thought it was pretty cool. Too bad he's afraid of sheep.....

 

I've worked hard with Cerb and I firmly believe there is a bond that makes training/communication easier and mutual. This bond takes a commitment of time and mental energy to build but makes further training easier. It also helps that I view everything as a teachable moment and am always "on". To an extent, that may take care of context.

I'll admit I stumbled into this, and I had a LOT of help from the folks here.

[Maralynn]

I actually kind of take this for granted. If I whistle a down or tell Cerb to sit, I expect him to do it wherever he is, no matter how far away. And he does with very few exceptions.

 

In that case I think you need to add a second dog!

 

Not trying to downplay the relationship you have with Cerb, because it is truly awesome and amazing.

 

IME, I felt like a training genius with Missy. I said something she'd do it. Across the room, across the field, my wish was her command. Then I got Kipp. Um, yeah... He is smart has become a team player (that only took 1.5 years....) and is willing to learn, but he is a dog that asks "why" a lot...

[Lewis Moon]

In that case I think you need to add a second dog!

 

Not trying to downplay the relationship you have with Cerb, because it is truly awesome and amazing.

 

IME, I felt like a training genius with Missy. I said something she'd do it. Across the room, across the field, my wish was her command. Then I got Kipp. Um, yeah... He is smart has become a team player (that only took 1.5 years....) and is willing to learn, but he is a dog that asks "why" a lot...

 

 

Of course you're correct....