Training/"corrections"/collars

[Root Beer]

I've noticed that, Kristine. The information is all out there but needs to be found and tailored. I'm not normally a person who wants it all laid out (I'm not one to completely follow any one program or method but rather create my own hybrid), but I think it would helpful for many people.

 

I'm the same. I like to have the base skills and then figure out on my own how to apply them in countless ways, and tweak them, and arrange them to suit myself and my dog.

 

But there are a lot of people who really do need, or even just want, something clear, straightforward, simple, and complete from A to Z.

 

And for my own part, I really want something that I can recommend to those folks.

[GentleLake]

Most "dumb" dogs have spent their lives with people who have no clue how to communicate to a dog. And the "dumb" moniker turns into a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

Where's the Like button?

[CptJack]

I like the grocery store analogy for me, because while in daily life and hanging around the house there are times I want them to just stop doing something those times are much more rare than the periods when I want the dog to do something else, instead - both as a result of a behavioral issue, and in training.

 

And teaching the dog to do something is a lot easier for me than teaching a negative (A do, instead of a don't). It's wording and mentality, mostly, but it still applies.

If the dog is pulling, teaching the dog to stop pulling for me means 'teach the dog to keep slack in the leash' and/or 'walk HERE'. Teaching the dog not to door dash means that I teach the dog to stop and wait at the door. Teaching the dog not to counter surf means I teach a strong leave it, or a go to mat command or calling them to me or - whatever else.

 

There are times, yes, when all I want the dog to do is stop doing a thing and want to communicate "NOT THAT" and that's fine, but it's still a specific not that and almost always combined, as part of the conversation being mentioned, of saying 'do this instead'. I mean, yes, sometimes it's just a "ERGH, NO." but in those instances... it's just using something the dog already knows, rather than teaching anything new.

No IS a command in a way. It means 'stop doing what you're doing/do something else'. It's doesn't HAVE to be followed up with "do this instead" but most of the time, even in casual life situations, it is. "NO! Get out of that trash." "NO! COME BACK HERE!" "HEY! STOP THAT and chew this!" "You know you aren't supposed to be in here! followed by pointing at the door.

[Smalahundur]

Sekah's Canadian, so the jargon's spread across the continent.

Well I did type Americans...

But I´ll admit I didn´t know she was Canadian, and meant US citizens...

[Root Beer]

And teaching the dog to do something is a lot easier for me than teaching a negative (A do, instead of a don't). It's wording and mentality, mostly, but it still applies.

 

If the dog is pulling, teaching the dog to stop pulling for me means 'teach the dog to keep slack in the leash' and/or 'walk HERE'. Teaching the dog not to door dash means that I teach the dog to stop and wait at the door. Teaching the dog not to counter surf means I teach a strong leave it, or a go to mat command or calling them to me or - whatever else.

 

I am the same way. I tend to think in terms of what I want the dog to do and not "stop (whatever)" I know that I have cultivated this kind of thinking by the way I have chosen to train, but it actually is very natural to me now.

 

So, when a dog jumps up and puts paws on a door, I literally do think, "four on the floor" not "stop jumping". I train four on the floor. I can cue that. ("Off" is my "four on the floor" cue and I do train it, initially, in the context of a game).

 

I think in terms of keeping a J in a the leash. In terms of a reliable recall. In terms of a wait at the door. In terms of leaving something alone.

 

And I realize that not everyone thinks that way, but I actually do now. So training my dogs to follow directives, rather than telling them not to do things makes more sense to me.

[Eileen Stein]

Except if you're training them to follow directives, you have to be there to give the directive. If you're not conveying "No. Not that," why would the dog internalize the concept "No. Not that"? And if he doesn't internalize "No. Not that," why would it occur to him to refrain from doing that when you're not there to give the cue to do something else?

[CptJack]

No IS a command in a way. It means 'stop doing what you're doing/do something else'. It's doesn't HAVE to be followed up with "do this instead" but most of the time, even in casual life situations, it is. "NO! Get out of that trash." "NO! COME BACK HERE!" "HEY! STOP THAT and chew this!" "You know you aren't supposed to be in here! followed by pointing at the door.

 

That.

 

And also, frankly, I have never had a dog who would refrain from doing something they wanted to do if I wasn't there to tell them not to do it. Like, oh, ever. Every once in a while for some things, but something they find rewarding? ...No. I put a steak on the counter and leave the house, I'm not coming back to a steak still on the counter. REGARDLESS of method I use to teach them not to counter surf.

 

Not to pee in the house, sure, but a-) Peeing in the house isn't really all that rewarding and B, and the other aspect of internalizing is that IMO, anything 'internalized' in a dog really just means 'has become habit'.

[Sekah]

Well I did type Americans...

But I´ll admit I didn´t know she was Canadian, and meant US citizens...

It's a safe assumption that I was American. I don't mind.

 

 

Except if you're training them to follow directives, you have to be there to give the directive. If you're not conveying "No. Not that," why would the dog internalize the concept "No. Not that"? And if he doesn't internalize "No. Not that," why would it occur to him to refrain from doing that when you're not there to give the cue to do something else?

Part of the idea of reinforcement-based training is that you're allowing your dog to make decisions. You're not there to tell the dog what to do, but you are there to control the access to reinforcement after the choice. So, in theory, as dogs learn to be better decision makers, they will continue to make better decisions in your absence. Largely in part due to the dog having been more heavily reinforced for an alternate behaviour, and having its self control 'muscles' flexed over the years.

 

These conversations start to go around in circles after a while since participants begin to split hairs about the proper way to R+++++++++++++...~. I think after a certain point, just go outside and train your dog. Leave the hair splitting to the armchair trainers.

[D'Elle]

Eileen makes a good point about the grocery store analogy.

I was thinking primarily in terms of training a puppy when I said I liked it, because with a puppy there are so may things you don't want him or her to do, and you are always redirecting them. But I did not make that clear. With an adult, you should not always have to redirect.

[buckeyemanohio]

Rootbeer I want that DVD or book you suggested that doesn't exist yet!

[Root Beer]

Except if you're training them to follow directives, you have to be there to give the directive. If you're not conveying "No. Not that," why would the dog internalize the concept "No. Not that"? And if he doesn't internalize "No. Not that," why would it occur to him to refrain from doing that when you're not there to give the cue to do something else?

 

It doesn't end up that way, though. For example, at Thanksgiving my dogs don't bother the food in the kitchen, even when there is nobody in the kitchen to tell them not to bother it. We tell them consistently "off" when we are there (in the beginning with reinforcers, later just with praise for compliance) and they decide that counter surfing looks like fun. They learn that "off" is the default expectation. Consistency really is the key, even when a trained directive is being used to build habits.

 

I have accidentally walked off, at Agility trials, leaving Dean or Tessa, or both together, in a portable crate with the door unzipped, and come back to find either, or both, happily hanging out inside the crate, never having thought of going out to wander. How did they learn that? Really, only by getting treats for getting into, and staying, in their crates.

 

They learn, though the natural flow of life, what is expected, and where they need permission, where they are pretty much never going to get permission, and where even where permission is always given. I haven't found that I have to be with the constantly giving cues for them to make correct choices. Nor have I found that lack of telling them "No. Not that" has resulted in them thinking they are always allowed to do everything if I am not there to say what to do.

[Root Beer]

So, in theory, as dogs learn to be better decision makers, they will continue to make better decisions in your absence. Largely in part due to the dog having been more heavily reinforced for an alternate behaviour, and having its self control 'muscles' flexed over the years.

 

The thing that I find interesting is that I have found this to be the case in practice.

 

Would I deliberately leave a dog alone with a plate of fried chicken full of cooked bones easily in reach for hours on end? Of course not. That's borrowing trouble!

 

But I have honestly been surprised at times at the things they have left alone when we have left them access by accident.

 

These conversations start to go around in circles after a while since participants begin to split hairs about the proper way to R+++++++++++++...~. I think after a certain point, just go outside and train your dog. Leave the hair splitting to the armchair trainers.

 

Goodness, I have time for both in this horrible cold weather!!

[Eileen Stein]

It doesn't end up that way, though. For example, at Thanksgiving my dogs don't bother the food in the kitchen, even when there is nobody in the kitchen to tell them not to bother it. We tell them consistently "off" when we are there (in the beginning with reinforcers, later just with praise for compliance) and they decide that counter surfing looks like fun. They learn that "off" is the default expectation. Consistency really is the key, even when a trained directive is being used to build habits.

 

They learn, though the natural flow of life, what is expected, and where they need permission, where they are pretty much never going to get permission, and where even where permission is always given.

Mine learn through the natural flow of life too, but without reinforcers. To me, consistently telling them "Off" would be equivalent to telling them they are wrong, and I'm not surprised yours would internalize it as a No, and get the point that it's wrong to do that. I AM surprised that someone would think you can't train a dog not to countersurf when you are not there. In my opinion there are some things that most border collies readily grasp as having a special status, even a moral dimension, and rules surrounding food -- who is entitled to have the food or control the food -- is one of them. I have run into a store for something leaving my dog in the car with a rotisserie chicken in my groceries, and was not surprised to come back to find it untouched.

 

 

Part of the idea of reinforcement-based training is that you're allowing your dog to make decisions. You're not there to tell the dog what to do, but you are there to control the access to reinforcement after the choice. So, in theory, as dogs learn to be better decision makers, they will continue to make better decisions in your absence. Largely in part due to the dog having been more heavily reinforced for an alternate behaviour, and having its self control 'muscles' flexed over the years.

But how does the dog know that it's a "better decision" not to do X unless you have conveyed to him that X is wrong? For all he would know, X is okay and so is the thing you've told him to do instead of X. Unless you're saying that he would assume that anything you haven't rewarded him for is wrong? Surely not -- that would be too sad to contemplate.

 

But then, I shy away from dog training "in theory."

[borasaurus]

Sorry, I was unclear. He knows when he's corrected that it's something he's not supposed to do. However, ten minutes later he'll start doing it again. He just doesn't remember. Usually, I say there are no such thing as dumb dogs, but dumb owners. I'm undecided about her dog.

[Root Beer]

To me, consistently telling them "Off" would be equivalent to telling them they are wrong, and I'm not surprised yours would internalize it as a No, and get the point that it's wrong to do that.

 

Why would they think it is "wrong"? There is no "wrong" conveyed through an off cue. Not any more than "wrong" is conveyed through "sit", or "come when called", or "twirl". It's just a directive, one. But yes, when cued consistently, good habits will develop.

 

At plenty of other times I cue the dog "up up" to put paws up on me. I cue "off" to cue "four on the floor". Why would they see that as "wrong"? It's just the opposite of paws up. That would be a horrible message to send "up up" - now "wrong". They would stop responding to the "up up" cue altogether if they were reading "off" as "wrong". And that doesn't happen.

 

But how does the dog know that it's a "better decision" not to do X unless you have conveyed to him that X is wrong? For all he would know, X is okay and so is the thing you've told him to do instead of X. Unless you're saying that he would assume that anything you haven't rewarded him for is wrong?

 

The better decision is conveyed through reinforcement. It's the opposite of conveying that X is wrong. It is conveying that Y is right, is good, is desired, is the better decision.

 

Think of it this way. If the dog is out in the yard and I decide that I want him in the house, I go out and call him into the house. He is not going to assume that he is "wrong" to be in the yard because I call him. I am just calling him. And, if I go out every day and call him, he will probably learn that when I step out the door, I am going to call, so he may start to come running when he sees me step out of the house. He hasn't learned to do that because I have conveyed that he is "wrong" to be in the yard, he has simply learned that it is time to come in when he is out there and I step outside.

 

Same principle. Dog puts his paws up and I cue "off". I'm not saying he is "wrong" to have his paws up, just that it is time to put four on the floor. It's just a cue to do a trained behavior. And, if every time he puts paws up on the counter, I cue off, the counter itself is going become a cue for "four on the floor".

 

There is no wrong involved in either scenario. It's just behavior. Habits are formed. No theory required.

[Laurelin]

This is somewhat off topic but interesting to me anyways.

 

Mine learn through the natural flow of life too, but without reinforcers. To me, consistently telling them "Off" would be equivalent to telling them they are wrong, and I'm not surprised yours would internalize it as a No, and get the point that it's wrong to do that. I AM surprised that someone would think you can't train a dog not to countersurf when you are not there. In my opinion there are some things that most border collies readily grasp as having a special status, even a moral dimension, and rules surrounding food -- who is entitled to have the food or control the food -- is one of them. I have run into a store for something leaving my dog in the car with a rotisserie chicken in my groceries, and was not surprised to come back to find it untouched.

 

I have a dog that will not touch food at all unless told to- he's the mutt (cattle dog x terrier???). I have left grocery bags with him in the car just fine. I've left open bags of dog treats. Not intentionally at first but he has never touched them at all.

 

My papillon... she will go to extraordinary lengths to get into things while I'm gone. She climbed the steering wheel to get on top of the dashboard (turned on my brights, my blinker, and unlocked the window and rolled it down later) a couple days ago. Going after a bag I had thrown on the dash... She's also gotten food out of ziplocks that were in sipped up duffel bags that were locked inside a dog crate in the trunk of the car, used moving boxes to climb onto the countertop and eat all the food, etc. I actually saw the dashboard climbing in progress and the cattleterrier was just sitting there watching the pap go to town. He did not partake at all.

 

I have almost always considered this to be a sign that the papillon is the smarter of the two and that the cattledog mutt lacked the problem solving skills the pap has.

 

I know they're not border collies but still interesting to me the difference in the way you see it. Moral of this probably being I shouldn't leave food in the car in the dogs' reach because my dog is clearly morally suspect.

[Eileen Stein]

Why would they think it is "wrong"? There is no "wrong" conveyed through an off cue. Not any more than "wrong" is conveyed through "sit", or "come when called", or "twirl". It's just a directive, one. But yes, when cued consistently, good habits will develop.

 

At plenty of other times I cue the dog "up up" to put paws up on me. I cue "off" to cue "four on the floor". Why would they see that as "wrong"? It's just the opposite of paws up. That would be a horrible message to send "up up" - now "wrong". They would stop responding to the "up up" cue altogether if they were reading "off" as "wrong". And that doesn't happen.

 

IF you actually use "off" as a cue in neutral situations also, such as dancing, then I agree that it would not convey "wrong." Many people use "off" as a correction word only, in situations like countersurfing or jumping up, however, and in that case I think it does convey "wrong." I know you often employ a term -- "something-or-other directive" -- that I have difficulty seeing as functionally anything other than a correction that you don't want to term a correction. I took this to be an instance of that, but again, if you also use it in neutral situations, then I would expect it to convey a neutral meaning (as long as your manner is not different in the two instances, I suppose).

 

 

The better decision is conveyed through reinforcement. It's the opposite of conveying that X is wrong. It is conveying that Y is right, is good, is desired, is the better decision.

Think of it this way. If the dog is out in the yard and I decide that I want him in the house, I go out and call him into the house. He is not going to assume that he is "wrong" to be in the yard because I call him. I am just calling him. And, if I go out every day and call him, he will probably learn that when I step out the door, I am going to call, so he may start to come running when he sees me step out of the house. He hasn't learned to do that because I have conveyed that he is "wrong" to be in the yard, he has simply learned that it is time to come in when he is out there and I step outside.

Same principle. Dog puts his paws up and I cue "off". I'm not saying he is "wrong" to have his paws up, just that it is time to put four on the floor. It's just a cue to do a trained behavior. And, if every time he puts paws up on the counter, I cue off, the counter itself is going become a cue for "four on the floor".

 

There is no wrong involved in either scenario. It's just behavior. Habits are formed. No theory required.

But it's not the same principle. You have not conveyed to the dog that it's wrong to be outside in the yard, agreed, but by the same token he would not hesitate to go out into the yard if you weren't there (assuming he had a dog door) precisely BECAUSE you haven't conveyed that it's wrong to be in the yard. The fact that you call him in and reward him would not make coming inside a "better choice" for him when you're not there, because what you've taught him is that both things are acceptable -- being outside or being inside -- unless you tell him otherwise. One is not ipso facto better than the other. Surely you're not saying that if every time you call him in when he's outside, his being outside is itself going to become a cue for coming in? Or if you are, I don't buy it. He is in the habit of coming in when he's outside and you call him; he is in the habit of stopping when he's countersurfing and you say "off." I don't see how habit in either case is going to make him choose being inside over being outside (absent a cue), or choose keeping his feet on the floor over surfing the counter (absent a cue). If he in fact doesn't countersurf when you're not there, something else is in play.

[CptJack]

It has been my experience that some dogs are more inclined to take advantage of loopholes and opportunities than others, and that it has very little to do with being punished when they counter surf, or just being given an alternate command. I have dogs who can be left alone with food, I do, and they'll never touch it, but that's JUST HOW THEY ARE WIRED. They were given the same training from puppyhood that the dog who will, if we're not there and food is out, take full advantage and eat it.

 

They're not dumb. They know if you're not there they aren't going to be punished for it, same as you not being there means you can't give an alternate cue. Taking it or not is down to the DOG. I'd leave Kylie, Molly, or Jack with my dinner on the FLOOR and be confident. Thud or Bug? NOPE. They see it, they smell it, they want it, I'm not there for input either way (positive or negative) they're going to take it. And I have tried both corrections/punishment and alternate commands for hte issue with the same result.

 

Though frankly, in the absence of self-rewarding (EVER finding something up there or having an opportunity to do so), and the ability to practice (up being met with either an alternate cue or being told NO sternly), most behaviors will eventually self-extinguish.

 

Nothing, IMO, to do with the dog truly internalizing any kind of morality or issue about the action. I think most dogs are fundamentally the same, in that they do what works for them and gets them what they want. Some want approval, some want play, some really want food, some want a nice peaceful nap, but the reason we can train them is those desires and our access to them.

[Eileen Stein]

And also, frankly, I have never had a dog who would refrain from doing something they wanted to do if I wasn't there to tell them not to do it. Like, oh, ever. Every once in a while for some things, but something they find rewarding? ...No. I put a steak on the counter and leave the house, I'm not coming back to a steak still on the counter. REGARDLESS of method I use to teach them not to counter surf.

 

It has been my experience that some dogs are more inclined to take advantage of loopholes and opportunities than others, and that it has very little to do with being punished when they counter surf, or just being given an alternate command. I have dogs who can be left alone with food, I do, and they'll never touch it, but that's JUST HOW THEY ARE WIRED. They were given the same training from puppyhood that the dog who will, if we're not there and food is out, take full advantage and eat it.

??

[Root Beer]

 

But it's not the same principle. You have not conveyed to the dog that it's wrong to be outside in the yard, agreed, but by the same token he would not hesitate to go out into the yard if you weren't there (assuming he had a dog door) precisely BECAUSE you haven't conveyed that it's wrong to be in the yard. The fact that you call him in and reward him would not make coming inside a "better choice" for him when you're not there, because what you've taught him is that both things are acceptable -- being outside or being inside -- unless you tell him otherwise.

 

This actually happened once. Our side door wasn't latching properly and it ended up open one day when I was at work.

 

A neighbor found Dean outside (this was in the unfenced part of the property), right by the stairs . . . waiting . . . .

 

He definitely knew that he was supposed to stay close to the house until he got some release to do otherwise. He certainly made the better choice, even when I wasn't there and he could have chosen to roam the neighborhood. And he had never been "corrected" in any way for trying to leave. He had simply been taught that when we are out in that part of the yard he is to stay close unless released to leave the property. That was taught simply through whiplash turns (trained previously with food) on a "stay close" cue and praise.

 

 

I don't see how habit in either case is going to make him choose being inside over being outside (absent a cue), or choose keeping his feet on the floor over surfing the counter (absent a cue). If he in fact doesn't countersurf when you're not there, something else is in play.

 

I get that. But I do see it work. I see it work for all sorts of behaviors on a regular basis. And that's why it makes sense to me.

 

Something else is in play - learning.

[Eileen Stein]

This actually happened once. Our side door wasn't latching properly and it ended up open one day when I was at work.

 

A neighbor found Dean outside (this was in the unfenced part of the property), right by the stairs . . . waiting . . . .

 

He definitely knew that he was supposed to stay close to the house until he got some release to do otherwise. He certainly made the better choice, even when I wasn't there and he could have chosen to roam the neighborhood.

 

I don't understand why you see this story as bearing on what I wrote. Why did he go outside, if being inside was the "better choice"? Why wasn't he inside? That would have been the "better choice" according to your example -- the one he would have learned was better because you always called him in when he was outside. How does being outside by the stairs differ from being outside? All this illustrates my point -- calling him in from outside did NOT make him less likely to go outside when you're not there, because it didn't convey that being outside is wrong. Just as cueing a dog to do something else when he's countersurfing, without more, wouldn't make him less likely to countersurf because it wouldn't convey that countersurfing is wrong.

 

Did you train him to stay by the stairs when he's outside? If not, how was being by the stairs an example of being a better choice than lying under a tree?

[CptJack]

??

 

Not that complex.

 

Thud and Bug want the food. They're very, very food motivated. Food is king.

 

Kylie and Jack and Molly don't want it that much. Thud and Bug are more food motivated. Their versions of that would be leaving Jack with a rat and expecting him to not kill it, Molly with a ball and expecting her not to play with it, or Kylie with furniture and expecting her not to sleep on it.

 

What they want, what they value, varies by dog.

 

I can train them to stop taking advantage of some things that are reasonably low value to them compared to something else, by offering them something they want MORE, but I don't expect them to ever NOT do something they really, really want (or take it) when I'm not there to tell them not to do it, or to tell them to do something else.

 

The steak was an example. Not the ultimate thing of value for all my dogs, or all dogs in general.

 

And frankly I take how much drive the dog has for a given thing to be a major component into how likely they are to find the loophole. Or how much drive the dog has PERIOD.

 

Then there is the thing I mentioned about opportunity to self-reward and learn they can get the thing in set circumstances, which is the OPPOSITE of practicing and developing a good habit. MOST dogs don't pee in the house because they've learned it's wrong. They don't pee in the house because we've taught them that going outside is rewarding and taken away their opportunity to practice going inside.

[Eileen Stein]

I had understood your earlier post to be saying that if you left a steak on the counter, you've never had a dog who wouldn't take it while you were gone, but okay. I now understand you to be saying that three of your dogs would not take a steak off the counter, but only because they don't like steak enough to want it much. If they wanted it as much as your two other dogs do, you could not train them not to go up on the counter and take it. Right?

 

 

Nothing, IMO, to do with the dog truly internalizing any kind of morality or issue about the action. I think most dogs are fundamentally the same, in that they do what works for them and gets them what they want.

 

Yes, that is the sad reductionism of behavioral theory. I always advocate trying to learn from observing the dog rather than to learn from the theory.

 

 

 

[Gloria Atwater]

.... I do want to make clear that when I trained my lab I didn't start out correcting or yelling during our basic training. I would ALWAYS praise him with petting and words during the process. I was taught to use the correction ("pop" on the chain) when he "strayed away" from the lesson and then follow with praise. I thought it was strange but it worked. It worked very, very, well actually. I just wanted a very obedient loving dog and that is what I got with my lab. I don't think he was ever, ever scared of me. He was and still is (13yrs old) our family pet. But I am willing to use other methods first now before resorting to the training collar. Especially after learning from all of you about how sensitive a border collie can be. By the way the video I purchased years ago to train in that manner was Leerburg. Perhaps you have heard of them? Most of their training was for German Shepherds but could be used for all dogs, well most dogs I guess I should say.

 

 

Just don't look for that "pop" thing when training a border collie. Labs and German Shepherds have entirely different minds from border collies. Yes, they are just dogs and dogs all "speak dog," but they handle stimuli, pressure, sounds and activity in different ways. If you "pop" a border collie, you may end up with him flat on the floor staring up at you in horror, wondering what you want. Or he could just end up very tense and nervous from confusion.

 

Sometimes less is more.

 

EDIT to add: if my dog's attention has strayed from the lesson, I suspect I've been training too long. I'm pretty casual abut obedience training, since I really just want dogs who walk sanely on a leash and stay close beside me when I walk onto a trial field. But when it comes to training a puppy, I don't really do "lessons." Instead, training is an organic part of our everyday life. Many times a day, I'll call my pup to do three to five sits or downs or stays, and then I send them on their way. There's not even a leash involved and I don't demand their attention for minutes at a time. It's just a thing that happens during the day, along with waiting at the door or staying at an open gate. No lessons, just life lessons.

 

Actually, while everyone is debating training methods, I think Eileen said the most important thing of all:

 

...I'm a big believer in spending a lot of time observing the dog to decide what methods to use with him, and tailoring your approach to that. .... Try to be creative in response to what you see......

 

I think that's a good way to learn a lot about your particular pup/dog, without starting out with the assumption that he's going to be soft/scaredy or hard/insensitive. I do agree, though, that border collies are generally more sensitive than a first-time border collie owner is likely to realize. In fact, that's why I do this -- it's a way of learning how much your dog can comprehend and respond to when you use the most minimal of methods.

 

That's it. Learn your dog. Or puppy, as the case may be. Start off as light-handed as possible and watch him. Learn him. Study him. Find out what kind of puppy he is.

 

Even then, sometimes the things you think *should* work don't. My almost-5-month-old has developed a thing about dashing off in the opposite direction if I call when something more interesting has her attention. It looks like disobedience. It looks like she's being a very bad dog. But ... she's not. She's just a puppy captivated by something shinier than me. If I yell or holler or run after her, she just runs farther, faster, and when I get to her, she's all freaked out and doesn't understand why I'm thundering up behind her like a water buffalo.

 

So, I walk after her, saying nothing, and when she finally stops, I call her name sternly. The instant she looks at me, I lighten my tone of voice and make it really happy for her to come back to me - which she does, at the run. I pop a treat in her mouth, clip the leash on and off we go. The upshot of that tactic is that I don't get upset and she doesn't learn to make me chase her. The recalls are getting steadily better, too.

 

Border collies aren't rocket science. But they do require thinking outside the traditional training box, if one wants the best results. At least I think so.

 

~ Gloria

 

 

[Root Beer]

I don't understand why you see this story as bearing on what I wrote. Why did he go outside, if being inside was the "better choice"? Why wasn't he inside? That would have been the "better choice" according to your example -- the one he would have learned was better because you always called him in when he was outside. How does being outside by the stairs differ from being outside? All this illustrates my point -- calling him in from outside did NOT make him less likely to go outside when you're not there, because it didn't convey that being outside is wrong. Just as cueing a dog to do something else when he's countersurfing, without more, wouldn't make him less likely to countersurf because it wouldn't convey that countersurfing is wrong.

 

Did you train him to stay by the stairs when he's outside? If not, how was being by the stairs an example of being a better choice than lying under a tree?

 

I can't say why he went out. The door was open. Apparently it made sense to him to go out. But he did not leave the area where he knew he was allowed to be.

 

We did not train him to stay by the stairs when outside, but I have trained him to stay close when we are in the unfenced area. I have trained him to wait for a release before leaving the general bounds of our property. Whether he was by the stairs, in the house, or sitting in the middle of the driveway makes no difference. What matters is he stayed within the bounds where he had always been taught to remain. That is the better choice.

 

It's the exact same principle as the counters. He knows what is expected because I have consistently communicated what is expected. He has not learned to avoid something because it is "wrong", he has learned to do what is right.