When should you lie to your Border Collie?

[Maja]

I have (and it shivers me timbers ) - It gets exponentially more complicated. (And in livestock work, there are also emotions that I have not seen elsewhere in dog training.)

 

In the treat/toy and other methods there is also another difference, probably obvious to everybody - the expert is the human, whereas in livestock training the expert is the dog. The dog has to have certain amount of know-how which is only channeled and developed by the handler, and I think that this, to a large extent, necessitates a different view of the relationship with the dog. I find it interesting that I find common language more easily with people who have hunting dogs that work in field trials, than some people who have border collies that don't work.

[Pippin's person]

In the treat/toy and other methods there is also another difference, probably obvious to everybody - the expert is the human, whereas in livestock training the expert is the dog.

 

or perhaps the stock.....

[Root Beer]

In the treat/toy and other methods there is also another difference, probably obvious to everybody - the expert is the human, whereas in livestock training the expert is the dog.

 

As a +R trainer of over 10 years, I would say wholeheartedly that my dogs put just as much of their expertise into their training as I do mine. They have input - a lot of it. Sometimes about what is taught (if we are talking something like a Freestyle move that doesn't have to be anything specific). Sometimes I am the one determining what will be taught, but the dog has a lot of input into how we are going to get there. Often what the dog brings to the table isn't what I would have originally chosen, but I've been at this long enough to know that it's a give and take.

 

No, it's not the same as operating off of instinct, as in stockwork, but I consider my dogs 50% - 50% equal partners in our training endeavors. I take criticism for it at times - almost exclusively from the correction using crowd - but I consider this particular type of give and take in training absolutely essential.

 

Bottom line - there are as many differences between individual +R trainers (aka "treat trainers" or "clicker trainers"), as there are between people in any discipline. Often the very things that it is said that "we do" or "we don't do" are the things that many of us are not doing (as opposed to doing) or are doing (as opposed to not doing).

 

I know I'm always changing and growing as a trainer. I don't do things exactly as I did 10 years ago, or 5, or 3, or - sometimes even a single year, even within the context of +R based training.

[Maja]

Robin,

 

A shortcut it was . I meant the expertise in what needs to be done, or how it needs to be done - whatever - you know what I mean .

 

Kristine,

I agree with a lot of what you have written, but not this: "I would say wholeheartedly that my dogs put just as much of their expertise into their training as I do mine. They have input - a lot of it. No, it's not the same as operating off of instinct, as in stockwork, but I consider my dogs 50% - 50% equal partners in our training endeavors."

 

There is a profound difference in the nature of dog's if input into e.g. dog dancing and in livestock. There is a lot of initiative and creativity in the dog's input in training, which is of great value particularly that it is part of the bond and interaction with the handler. But what is happening in livestock work is fundamentally different. I am not saying it is "better", but it is very different in its nature.

[Mark Billadeau]

There is a difference between teaching the dog the proper way to carry a dumbbell from point a to point b vs teaching the dog the dumbbell is to be moved from point a to point b and allowing the dog to figure out how it wants to get this task accomplished. How much expertise the dog brings to the table for the latter is much more than in the former.

[Root Beer]

Kristine,

I agree with a lot of what you have written, but not this: "I would say wholeheartedly that my dogs put just as much of their expertise into their training as I do mine. They have input - a lot of it. No, it's not the same as operating off of instinct, as in stockwork, but I consider my dogs 50% - 50% equal partners in our training endeavors."

 

There is a profound difference in the nature of dog's if input into e.g. dog dancing and in livestock. There is a lot of initiative and creativity in the dog's input in training, which is of great value particularly that it is part of the bond and interaction with the handler. But what is happening in livestock work is fundamentally different. I am not saying it is "better", but it is very different in its nature.

 

Yes, there is a difference - I wholeheartedly agree with that. I said as much (see the quote you quoted above - "it is not the same").

 

But the degree to which my dogs are active participants in the training process who bring as much as themselves to the endeavor as I do . . . really only I, and the people who work directly in person with me, would truly be the judge of that.

[geonni banner]

All this dissonance between the click-and-treat crowd and the more traditional trainers reminds me of something. One of the things I hear most often when I voice doubts about the whole "positive only" paradigm is, "You just aren't doing it right."

 

I hear the same thing from people who love to eat liver. When I pull a face and say, "Yuk!" They always say, "Oh, you just haven't had it cooked right!"

 

Not true. I have been at dinners where the liver lovers were groaning in ecstasy over the liver and onions. It was fixed right and I still hated it. I took a taste and quickly retreated to the green peas and mashed potatoes.

 

Traditional training works best for me in most situations. I am perfectly capable of employing other methods if the dog isn't responding well, but that happens infrequently. I think people use training methods because they are suited to their sensibilities as much as they are the dogs. While I am happy to put away the choke-chain and get out the liver treats (eeewwwww, liver!) for a soft or fearful dog, (or if I'm training something "frivolous" like tricks,) I know few positive only trainers who will administer a sharp correction to an obstreperous yahoo of a Lab.

 

For those who insist that traditional training doesn't work as well as the all-positive, click-and-treat techniques, I could say, "Well, you're just not doing it right." But I don't, because I know that would be pointless. If a person is temperamentally unsuited to use traditional methods, they will telegraph their doubts to the dog. So no matter how hard they try, it won't work for them. The dog will be uncomfortable, and therefore not learn well, because the trainer is uncomfortable.

 

For such people I say, get that clicker and get cracking. If it works for you, it works for you.

[rushdoggie]

. As that happens, it's possible that the dogs as a whole may move away from the biddability (meaning working solely from a desire to please) that has been a hallmark of the breed.

Anyway, when some of us say pleasing the human should be enough, it's this POV we're coming from. I don't believe treat/clicker training somehow ruins or cheapens a person's relationship with their dog, and in fact I think such training methods have enabled many people to do things with their dogs they might never have done before, simply because they find that they can easily train that way, but I do worry that in all of this is a kernel of going down a road where we start to lose the type of border collie that has that strong desire to work for the human just because it pleases both to do so.

 

Yes, thank you for that clarification. I have found that many people including friends who play sports with their Border Collies really lack an understanding of what "biddable" means and its nuances and complexities.

 

 

Is the success of clicker training due to the rate at which dogs learn with it or due to the rate at which dog owners learn to train their own dogs with it?

 

I often wonder if those dog trainers that are successful with clicker training would also be successful with other training methods because they know dogs.

 

In my experience/opinions, the good and effective dog trainers are those who have excellent mechanical skills and excellent observational skills. Its the ability to read the dog and context, and apply the reinforcement (what ever it may be) with excellent timing and delivery.

 

..I think that this, to a large extent, necessitates a different view of the relationship with the dog. I find it interesting that I find common language more easily with people who have hunting dogs that work in field trials, than some people who have border collies that don't work.

 

Also people who track...

[Eileen Stein]

As a +R trainer of over 10 years, I would say wholeheartedly that my dogs put just as much of their expertise into their training as I do mine. They have input - a lot of it. Sometimes about what is taught (if we are talking something like a Freestyle move that doesn't have to be anything specific). Sometimes I am the one determining what will be taught, but the dog has a lot of input into how we are going to get there. Often what the dog brings to the table isn't what I would have originally chosen, but I've been at this long enough to know that it's a give and take.

 

 

But the degree to which my dogs are active participants in the training process who bring as much as themselves to the endeavor as I do . . . really only I, and the people who work directly in person with me, would truly be the judge of that.

 

I'm not sure your "last resort" rejoinder works here. Maja was talking about expertise. What expertise do your dogs bring to training?

[Root Beer]

Maja was talking about expertise. What expertise do your dogs bring to training?

 

Going off of the definition: Expertise - special skill, knowledge, or judgment

 

Each and every dog brings special skills into a training partnership.

 

One of the clearest examples I can give in a sport context - Speedy had an innate sense of rhythm. He moved, naturally, exactly to the beat of the music as we moved together, actually landing his front footfalls to the beat. This was not something that I trained - it was a particular skill of his. As the handler, I could design routines that would showcase that, but the special skill was his. And having known and performed with him as long as I did, and with the experience of working and performing with other dogs in contrast, I would certainly classify that special skill as his expertise.

 

Very interesting topic, actually. I'd like to ponder it and write about it in more depth. Could make for a very interesting reflection.

[Maralynn]

I totally get that one doesn't often *need* extra paraphernalia to train a Border Collie. What I don't get is the sweeping statement -

That's why I don't like treat/clicker training a Border Collie. It's an unnecessary waste of time and may be (cf Pope Francis and the NYT article) corrupting.

 

 

 

I knew very little about dogs when I got my first and "trained" her by telling her what I wanted. She learned quick and wanted to please. The interspecies communication was amazing.

 

But then she was followed by 2 other dogs that weren't quite the same. It really threw me for a loop at first. I had the "total package" in my first dog and I didn't know how to work with a dog who didn't want to work with me. If I had trained Kipp primarily for stock work instead of SAR then I probably would have stuck with my original methods and probably would have had decent success. But I wasn't sure how to motivate a fairly ADD, disconnected Border Collie how to do something besides work stock. So I discovered things like schutzhund style drive building and clicker training. But I looked into these methods with one thing in mind - to develop a working communication system with the dog in front of me. The methods were never an end to themselves but steps in the journey to building a strong working relationship.

 

For me, clicker training is another tool in my toolbox. It's not exclusive by any means, but it is a pretty clear form of communication for training some things. It's fun for both me and the dog. And having that tool available has taught me about timing and clear communication (which has carried over into other aspects of working with my dogs) and seems to aid me in my end goal building a strong working relationship.

 

With Kolt, I'm using a blend of just telling him what I want, using a clicker for fun and I've also thrown a few corrections in the mix (nope, mister, you're not going to growl at the other dog to get the toy she has). With puppy runaways for SAR I'm discovering that so far he wants to find the person for the sake of finding the person and interacting with them. So I'm certainly not going to try and improve on that by adding in treats and toys.

[mum24dog]

IME those who are most dogmatic on the efficacy / necessity (or not) of any training method tend to be those who not only limit their experience to one breed, but also to a particular sub section of that breed.

 

All training methods work after a fashion. Some are more widely applicable and some are unacceptable on ethical grounds to those of us who prefer usenot to inflict physical or mental harm on our dogs, especially when there is an alternative.

 

Anyone who believes that all BCs should be satisfied with praise simply because of their breed is living in cloud cuckoo land.

[Maja]

What I meant by the dog's expertise is that there is a thing in their predator DNA that is tuned in to the sheep's prey DNA in ways that have nothing to do with the skill/creativity/initiative of bringing a dumbell to the handler. The nature of these two things is fundamentally different. A dog that can recognize the names of a thousand toys is a genius, but still, this skill is profoundly different in nature when the dog shifts slightly while the flock seems to be motionless because he anticipates something in the flock, body language, look, smell, who know what.

 

You can take a so-so worker and its skill is so-so, and it needs a lot of help from the handler. And you take a super dog-dancing dog full of creativity/intelligence/etc, and it still makes no difference, because I am talking about quality not quantity. It is the difference between working with the behavior that is part of the biological make up of the species, versus teaching arbitrary behavior.

 

That's my opinion of course

 

P.S. One thing I would like to mention is that we are discussing here that there is a variety of methods in training, among which a trainer can choose. However, in training a dog to work livestock - here comes an obvious statement - the trainer has no choice but to use a methods that does not utilize toys or treats. Every person that has ever trained a sheepdog to work livestock has walked the walk of training a dog based on their willingness to please the owner. There is no other way (experienced stock dog trainers correct me if I am wrong) - we do have a choice but only within these limits. There are generations upon generation of sheepdogs trained that way and bred in that direction.

[Maja]

Anyone who believes that all BCs should be satisfied with praise simply because of their breed is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Wow. What a sweetie

 

And it has been such a pleasant and fascinating discussion.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

I've no opinion whether all Border Collies should be satisfied with praise. In my experience, their reaction to praise has differed. Like Ms. Maya, I have found this a fascinating discussion and am grateful to those who've participated. Why our dogs do what they do, how they think, and what world they inhabit is complex and mysterious. What better venue to ask these questions and who better to argue them than you?

 

Because they bear on the presumptions that underlie different training "methods" I hope you'll consider the following questions I'm puzzling over:

 

In what ways is/are your Border Collie(s) wiser than you are? When, if ever, is their understanding greater than yours?

 

Donald McCaig

[Blackdawgs]

Dogs, like humans, have different levels of motivators. Although praise may be enough motivation for some dogs, the response/ behavior may be faster and more enthusiasic with a different motivator. One doesn't know until they try different motivators--the dog gets to decide what is reinforcing to it, not the trainer. In the case of the working Border Collie or even a pet dog, one wants the dog to be in a calm state of mind, so praise may be good enough. On the other hand, sports people want the speed, enthusiasm, and "drive", so we want a reinforcer that is very motivating to the dog.

 

There seems to be a perception among some folks that any obedient dog can do agility-- the dog and handler jog along side of each other while the handler points and says "hup". Although there are still people in competitions with this mindset, agility got away from the obedience-over-obstacles mentality a long time ago. As we have gotten better at training and motivating dogs, competative course times are now 6-7 yards per second. That can't be achieved using verbal praise as the sole motivator and training tool. Of course, the trick is finding a balance between speed, drive, and enthusiasm and keeping the dog in a thinking state. So, the motivator will vary depending on whether one wants the dog to be higher or lower and to work close to the handler or far away.

 

Anyway, in terms of wisdom or expertise, dogs are good at being dogs. Fundamentally dogs are preditors (although this has been bred out of many dogs), so dogs are good at hunting and chasing things. Dogs have evolved (been selectively bred) to read humans very well. Maybe they are better at reading us than we are.

 

As a former academic, I think that expertise is acquired through years and study and practical experience. Typically, the more one learns, the more one realizes what one does not know. I've rarely heard someone who is at the top of the game refer to his/herself as an "expert" . In fact if one does call him/herself an "expert" I usually run in the other direction.

 

Expertise, lying, corruption, and wisdom are human notions. Dogs are much more simple than that.

[Maralynn]

 

However, in training a dog to work livestock - here comes an obvious statement - the trainer has no choice but to use a methods that does not utilize toys or treats. Every person that has ever trained a sheepdog to work livestock has walked the walk of training a dog based on their willingness to please the owner. There is no other way (experienced stock dog trainers correct me if I am wrong) - we do have a choice but only within these limits. There are generations upon generation of sheepdogs trained that way and bred in that direction.

I would argue that pleasing the owner is not the only intrinsic reward that a Border Collie gets from stock work. They were created for the job and find great reward in the job itself. Working the sheep is incredibly rewarding to the dog. I only had a few lessons with my dogs on sheep but what was told to me was "reward the dog by letting them do the work". My dog took my command, I let them use their instincts. My dog didn't take my command, I insist on it and prevent them from working. I mean, I know bidability figures into the total package (in a significant way) and that some dogs listen well and work to please the handler from the get go. But I would also suggest that there are many other dogs whose bidability blossoms as they mature and learn the reward of being a team player. And that in the beginning they learn to listen and take commands more because those are the rules they need to follow to be allowed to work the sheep.

[juliepoudrier]

Wow, Pam, are you truly trying to insult all the people who use our dogs for stock--that subsection of a breed that is *our* breed of choice? For crying out loud, this is a border collie forum, and this is the breed we should be discussiing. But for you to perpetuate the fallacy that stockdog trainers are abusive (inflicting physical and mental harm) is truly shocking, given the amount of time you have been on this forum. And thank you for calling all of us crazy. I have lost all respect for you. I hope you feel good about yourself for posting something like this.

 

J.

 

 

IME those who are most dogmatic on the efficacy / necessity (or not) of any training method tend to be those who not only limit their experience to one breed, but also to a particular sub section of that breed.

All training methods work after a fashion. Some are more widely applicable and some are unacceptable on ethical grounds to those of us who prefer usenot to inflict physical or mental harm on our dogs, especially when there is an alternative.

Anyone who believes that all BCs should be satisfied with praise simply because of their breed is living in cloud cuckoo land.

[Maja]

I would argue that pleasing the owner is not the only intrinsic reward that a Border Collie gets from stock work. They were created for the job and find great reward in the job itself. Working the sheep is incredibly rewarding to the dog. I only had a few lessons with my dogs on sheep but what was told to me was "reward the dog by letting them do the work". My dog took my command, I let them use their instincts. My dog didn't take my command, I insist on it and prevent them from working. I mean, I know bidability figures into the total package (in a significant way) and that some dogs listen well and work to please the handler from the get go. But I would also suggest that there are many other dogs whose bidability blossoms as they mature and learn the reward of being a team player. And that in the beginning they learn to listen and take commands more because those are the rules they need to follow to be allowed to work the sheep.

Of course it is not the only motivation . It is the only motivation that makes the cooperation between human and canine at all possible in these circumstances.

 

The fact that in many excellent, driven dogs it takes time for biddability to manifest itself does not mean it is not there. This is what I was writing about in the beginning - that even if I am in the middle of a chaos a sheep crazed pup, I work on the assumption that deep in that pup there is a desire to work with me.

 

That is why everybody talking here about it uses words like cultivate, develop, grow. Just because ultimately the dogs make a decision to please the handler does not mean that it all happened by magic. A lot of careful, thoughtful, hard work goes into it to balance these two drives and developing both desires: to work sheep and to work for he handler. And that's why it is advisable to, in my opinion to cultivate it from the beginning, before the pup even gos to the sheep.

[amc]

In what ways is/are your Border Collie(s) wiser than you are? When, if ever, is their understanding greater than yours?

 

I thought of Pete, the first Border Collie pup we bred and trained (born 1995). He was surely not everyone's type - grumpy with dogs and many people, happy to give a little nip where he thought it necessary, but he became my heart dog over our years of partnership. He was one of those 'old soul' dogs and he knew so much more than I did. He was not a good sheep trial dog because he hated micromanagement; he was a pretty good cowdog for the same reason. But he really, really was good at setting sheep. For 12 years we set sheep together at many trials including the third Soldier Hollow trial. He taught me about quiet control of stock, about patience, and to pay attention to details. He was so wise about stock, we often called him the St. Francis of Border Collies.

 

One time when he was still quite young, maybe around 2 years old, I had him bring in our flock in very bad weather. I couldn't see well but I knew where the sheep were, as did he. I sent him about 350 yards for them, not far, and I could see them starting in. After a short time, I realized Pete was not behind them. Whistling, yelling, no Pete. Great. Up the pasture I trudged, to find him lying down next to a chilled lamb with a broken leg. He just gave me that 'look' that I came to understand to mean "Pay attention; I'm trying to teach you something".

 

He's been gone since 2009. I've had some good dogs since, but none quite like him.

 

Amy

[Eileen Stein]

IME those who are most dogmatic on the efficacy / necessity (or not) of any training method tend to be those who not only limit their experience to one breed, but also to a particular sub section of that breed.

What an odd thing to say. There are so few people who limit their training experience to a particular subsection of one breed, and so many, many people who are extremely dogmatic on the efficacy/necessity of one training method.

 

Then too, in most fields of endeavor we generally find that those who specialize in a relatively narrow area tend to know more about their area of specialization than those who don't. Why wouldn't we expect that a trainer who specializes in a particular dog breed or subsection thereof would know better what works for dogs in that category than those who don't?

All training methods work after a fashion. Some are more widely applicable and some are unacceptable on ethical grounds to those of us who prefer usenot to inflict physical or mental harm on our dogs, especially when there is an alternative.

But none of us in this discussion are advocating methods that inflict physical or mental harm on our dogs, are we? So I wonder what your point in saying this might be?

Anyone who believes that all BCs should be satisfied with praise simply because of their breed is living in cloud cuckoo land.

You see how a statement like this begets other unpleasant personal characterizations in return, right? Please don't do it. State your own views, don't insult those whose views are different. And Julie, please avoid the temptation to respond in kind. If you want to tell Pam what you think of her, please do it privately.

[juliepoudrier]

Maralynn,

Please read my previous post regarding this topic. Yes, working sheep is rewarding, but there's way more to it than that. The stock in and of themselves are not a reward in the same sense that a click, treat, praise, etc. are.

 

Yes, if a dog is working correctly, you let it keep working, but it's not nearly as much "if A, then B" because the stock play a huge role, one that the third party, the human, can't as easily control. You can certainly try to set up situations for the dog's success (i.e., reward), but you can't manage the reward in the way one can manage a click or treat. That third "unknown" influence has a very large part to play too.

 

J.

 

Working the sheep is incredibly rewarding to the dog. I only had a few lessons with my dogs on sheep but what was told to me was "reward the dog by letting them do the work".

[G. Festerling]

One thing I would like to mention is that we are discussing here that there is a variety of methods in training, among which a trainer can choose. However, in training a dog to work livestock - here comes an obvious statement - the trainer has no choice but to use a methods that does not utilize toys or treats. Every person that has ever trained a sheepdog to work livestock has walked the walk of training a dog based on their willingness to please the owner. There is no other way (experienced stock dog trainers correct me if I am wrong) - we do have a choice but only within these limits. There are generations upon generation of sheepdogs trained that way and bred in that direction.

 

I am apparently not smart enough to get the quote right. Quoted from Maja as a hook for my comment.

 

I am a traditionalist. I grew up in horses and in a very, very structured Dressage environment. Although with one of the best horseman I know. And then I found myself in TX learning things that are so far removed as to almost not be the same. Yet they are.

I see trends coming from people that have NO ties to what a horse was meant to do. They love their horses. But in their attempts to not ever impose on them...they do a lot of harm as well. Not because they intend to but because they reject any method that may appear as force or pressure. IN MY MIND, I can not produce a pleasant result with any pressure that is not balanced with reward. The shape the reward will be depends on the team. I always chuckle at the whole toy/treat thing. There is no bigger treat for my dogs than to work. Now I will preface this with saying, I have very narrowly working bred dogs. NO showline or sport anywhere! And not trying to imply that it makes a difference. Although, again, IN MY MIND, when genetics are mixed, the pull towards a very clear job description almost may or may not be a bit unclear. I have a GSD female from a german kennel that was heavy into tending. This dog would not even look at a decoy for protection work. Sheep or livestock....oh heck yes. But I digress....

 

My dogs love the work. It is their reward. I can shape their behavior by setting up situations where I can teach them, their choice. And this is where I think the biddability is by many so misunderstood. I don't think for a second that the dogs work to please the owner soley. I think that is a nice myth. They work because genetics tell them to do a job. Yes, this job includes working with a person. But, as with so many interpersonal work relations....those persons are often a means to an end. Not sure if I put this right. Working with them efficiently is what allows access. Now, I 1000% (and I hate people that use the whole 1000% to make a point!) believe that the emotions (happiness, joy), the rewards (pet on the head, a gentle roughing of the head) are detrimental. Because they are genuine. As are displeasure, anger or punishment. A confident, reliable, happy, trustworthy worker is not created by the later taking over. But in order to be able to correct and refocus, the dog has to be biddable. And he has to know how to be. I believe that is genetic as well as taught. Shaped if you may.

 

So, to wrap it up, I think, the pleasure in the work can be equal to treat/toy. I think it depends on the application and on the trainers skill. Things are a lot more challenging when the "treat" is not in your pocket but out in the field. With its own agenda no less. But with clever positioning, clear communication and expectations, a treat does not have to be food. Now, note, I am staying away from the word toy as I don't want anyone trying to tell me that sheep are no toys....I know that! Although....there again, the association between what is a reward can be created by us.

 

To get back on the traditionalist thing....I hate a person that wants to poopoo traditional methods. Not all traditions are good of course. And yes, there are so many advances in training made in the last 20 years....a true trainer would be silly to ignore them. However, take the old greats in any animal related activity and sit them down....you will find that many things are not really all that new. Those guys already knew them. They lived and worked them. They just did not market them as it is done today. But the reasons why things work and how....they don't change. We as humans just get better at presenting them.

 

 

How come things always read different then they are in my head????

[toney]

"..an unnecessary waste of time and may be corrupting " was probably meant in the narrow context of dogs that Mr. McCaig uses on the farm, at trials and recently in book signings, not for the general public facing a border collie with social and behavioral issues. Although McCaig's Fly, by his own words, has some issues she has learned to deal with, apparently without clickers or treats. One method does not suit all dogs. And often the efficacy of ANY training method lies more in the trainer and their ability to utilize the method to its fullest potential, rather than the method itself.

[GentleLake]

One method does not suit all dogs.

 

And I would add that not all methods suit all trainers. And that's OK, as long as the methods aren't outright abusive.

 

What I can't wrap my head around is the compulsion to denigrate methods you don't choose to employ, and by extension, the people who choose to use them.

 

This whole debate reminds me very much of the gay marriage issue. Whatever your (impersonal you throughout) personal views on either subject, I really don't see any logic in insisting that others conform to your worldview when it doesn't affect you personally. How does it threaten or harm you that someone else chooses to train in a different way than you do?