# Gonna quit or minimize use of Treats for Training



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Yup. Me. The Original "make your own treat person." 

I have always used a lot of food for training. No more. Still will use them to start a behavior and to randomly reward the dog for just hanging out with me. Recall work.. 

But I am done using treats as a paycheck. 

Here is what I am thinking. I am into AKC trials. Treats and toys are NOT allowed in the ring. 

What IS allowed in the ring? Voice. Posture. Hands. All three between exercises. 

Also allowed are the leash (beginning and end) and flat collar. 

Those are my Five training tools. Three are me and two are purchased tools with limited influence in the ring. 

Voice, posture and hands are the things I need to get my dog to focus on. As a trainer, it is those things I have to use as reinforcers. It is those things I need to use to get my dog interacting and motivated. It is those things she needs to WANT more than anything. 

I know a lot of people who train with food.. dog is less than stellar in the ring because the dog knows there is no food IN the ring. They figure this out very fast. 

I know a lot of people who take a dog in a class and then AFTER the class the feed a jack pot OUT of the ring.. maybe even back at the crate. What IS that teaching the dog? The BEST stuff is NOT in the RING! 

So, that is my new challenge. Training my dog.. having her love it.. and making the things I can take in the ring her primary reinforcers. 

I think this is going to be pretty difficult because I need to come up with fresh and new ideas. I think it may way fun and it will be very very challenging.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Wow, don't know if I could do that. Wally's NUMBER ONE ABOVE ALL motivator is food. Nothing else is even close.

Voice is like a "secondary clicker" for me and we know what that means - where's the reward...which leads back to the above sentence 

I don't know if he considers being pet a reward. He might, though. Never really decided to find out. I know he doesn't mind being pet but does he consider it a "good enough" reinforcement for a behavior. Same with voice - "good boy" will make him repeat the behavior, but is he doing it because he thinks the reward AFTER is coming or because my voice marker is a reward for him?

I guess, for Wally, I can get away with using the treats to drill the behavior in memory and once it's there - it's random (VSR with the rate reducing quickly). His behaviors don't seem to fall apart if I don't smell like a big beef liver, so there may yet be hope for us if we attempt this challenge (which is interesting). 

Posture wouldn't do much for me because that's as much a cue as it is a consequence. I think he's learned to read my body for clues on what to do next instead of as a "yes/no" indicator.

Think I'll still use it to teach him his directions, though. Still need very very clear yes/no indications for that.


----------



## LynnInTenn (Oct 9, 2009)

Elana, are you saying, knowing what you know now, that you would have never used food as a reward?


----------



## RedyreRottweilers (Dec 17, 2006)

I've never had any issue with lack of performance in the ring. Pretty early I start putting the rewards on a table or chair outside the ring. We work. I mark the best performances, and rewards are brought from outside the ring.

I work towards doing a full ring routine with rewards at the end after we come out of the ring.

If you have a dog who can be continuously reinforced without using food, that's great. I'm not sure I could get there with mine, except for Grace, who would work right now just to play with the toy. Even so, you still have to wean the dog down so that they can do their several minute routine and get their reward afterwards.

Keep us posted on how you are doing, I'm always interested in hearing how others do things.


----------



## Maliraptor (Mar 6, 2009)

IMO, food is an excellent motivatior to teach happy, correct obedience. BUT- you must finish and fade it. The dog must learn- "hey, there is not food here now, but when we leave the ring there might be"

I always use food with puppies. Then when there are 1 or so I switch it to the toy. My dogs, when they are finished, go out and perform because they know the toy will come out AT SOME POINT. Might be off the field, might be a couple of hours later.


----------



## Promethean (May 20, 2010)

I'm curious as why you are making this decision. The rationale seems flawed. There are a number of tools trainers use that are not allowed in the ring. Both posture and hand use would be penalized under the rules, so is the use of a leash. 

The simple fact is that whatever behaviour you want has to pay off (from the animal's POV), whether it is the avoidance of discomfort or to gain reward. However you slice it, the animal has to be paid.

The people/dog teams you describe only highlights the fact they didn't train properly and not that rewards do not work.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Elana55 said:


> Yup. Me. The Original "make your own treat person."
> 
> I have always used a lot of food for training. No more. Still will use them to start a behavior and to randomly reward the dog for just hanging out with me. Recall work..
> 
> ...


This is the way a dinosaur trains, I'm just sayin'..... Welcome to the dark side.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Elana and I are working the same things. Should I be concerned that we both own German Shepherd Dogs?


----------



## Maliraptor (Mar 6, 2009)

Xeph said:


> Elana and I are working the same things. Should I be concerned that we both own German Shepherd Dogs?


Hehehehehe....no comment.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

Eliminating a reinforcer on principle seems like a waste to me.

Making it one of several reinforcers...yeah makes sense
Inserting secondary and tertiary reinforcers to use in the ring...yeah makes sense

Quitting...not so much.

As to this comment: 



> I know a lot of people who take a dog in a class and then AFTER the class the feed a jack pot OUT of the ring.. maybe even back at the crate. What IS that teaching the dog? The BEST stuff is NOT in the RING!


I see this poorly done quite often, but I use this concept myself, _having built up to it_. IMO, if my dogs didn't understand delayed and indirect reinforcement, we'd be sunk anyway. It's just expanding on that concept. 

An agility example but still relevant...Kim has been running treat-less for many months now. She knows after the run we return to the crate and she is jackpotted there. Even on courses where we are running full speed toward the exit at the end, with her out in front of me, she's never tried to leave the ring whether I said anything or not.

Her reward for running the course the way I want it is to have the opportunity to be leashed and do a hand-touch at the end of the run. Her reward for the hand-touch and leashing is to return to the crate for her jackpot. She is nearly as excited about the hand-touch as the jackpot because I've trained the hand-touch as an in-the-ring reward that I use for rally, obedience, and agility. But it's not a stand-alone reward nor did I ever intend it to be...it's communicating that she will be rewarded for what she just did. It's essentially a 'click'.


Unless you have a dog who finds you to be a primary reinforcer, you will need to use primary reinforcers to build secondary and tertiary reinforcers. 

Then again, you have a GSD so...yeah that might just work


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

KBLover said:


> Wow, don't know if I could do that. Wally's NUMBER ONE ABOVE ALL motivator is food. Nothing else is even close.
> 
> Voice is like a "secondary clicker" for me and we know what that means - where's the reward...which leads back to the above sentence
> 
> ...


I don't know if I could do that with Tag, either. The only option I'm using right now is I'm conditioning a "good boy" to mean "food is coming eventually, and you're on the right track. Go Tag!" I would imagine a good trainer could condition a certain subtle expression, or movement of the hand/arm, or your voice, to mean that a reward is coming for a good performance. Tags "good boy" has come in handy a lot, because he knows he's earned a reward, it's just not arrived quite yet. (It's no different IME than loading the clicker, just leaving variable time periods between the "good" and the reward, once they know what that word means).
I use a lot of variable reinforcement rates; and I don't keep food in my hand and lure him through with a bribe. Tag is learning that just because I don't have food on me at the moment, doesn't mean food might not appear out of somewhere. 
I've had people tell me I can't train agility unless I wear a bait bag. To me, that's a neon sign that tells the dog "FOOD", and the lack of a bait bag means "NO FOOD", and it would be harder for me to work past that than condition what I'm working on. 
I look forward to reading how this goes for you, keep us posted!


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

OK.. here is the philosophy of using food.. it is like a pay check. We have all heard that and there is NO DOUBT food works. I have been using it and it does motivate and it does work. 

BUT.. (and this is where it gets challenging) I am thinking of making the work itself the reward. I am thinking of ways to do that and I believe THAT would be even BETTER. 

We keep thinking of training dogs like it is a job for them and so they earn a pay check (food) for doing the work. 

What if we look at work and change the word to fun? IOW's we all go to school or work because we need a pay check (good grades to move forward of money to pay bills). Meanwhile, there are things we do OUTSIDE of work and school that we love to do. There are things we do which we don't get paid for and we don't need to get paid for to do. It can be hiking or biking or running or computer games or playing ball.. there are a myriad of behaviors we engage in because we love the activity and doing the activity is its own reward. 

What if we can do that with our dogs when we train them? This is not to say I will NEVER use food, but maybe only to lure and teach in the very very beginning. But after the idea is in the dog's head, what about training and motivating such that the dog finds going to Heel as much fun as I find in playing Scrabble? 

The object is to make obedience a game to the dog... so that the Game is the Reward and in order to play the game the dog needs you as the handler.. so you are really building a strong team. 

Attention and focus are what we need from a dog first and foremost. A lot of ppl get that with food. What if we get it another way? A better way? What if we get it and use our method to build a relationship with the dog? 

Right now I am trying something. My dog is in the house and I am in the house doing dishes, taking care of cats, reading etc. Normally we do our thing and the dog gets bored and goes and lies down. Instead of this, I have been periodically engaging my dog in a game. A little bit of tag. Maybe playing keep away with a bit of noisey paper. Anything to get the dog up and interested and interacting with me. Then I go back to what I was doing and ignore the dog. When I see her starting to lose interest I go back to her and jump around her.. do whatever to engage her.. then go back to ignoring her. 

Pretty soon I cannot get rid of my dog. She is hanging around and watching me.. waiting for the next sudden burst of craziness from me. She knows I have completely lost my marbles and must keep an eye on me in case I go completely nuts. 

The idea I have is to carry that over to training. Again.. food is around but randomly and NOT associated with a behavior. Dog does not EXPECT food associated with a behavior.. it is not a primary motivator and is moved to a secondary place. 

As to the comment that you cannot do some of this in the ring.. absolutely correct.. during and exercise you cannot.. but between exercises you have voice, hands and Posture and you can use them. Not to excess but you can use them. You can say, "Wow! you are so GOOD!" and put her hands up by your face when you are told exercise finished. 

And yes, WVasko.. a really good Dinosaur Dog trainer would do it about like this. I think.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

Sure and that's nothing revolutionary...I (and I am sure many other people) do this. The value of such training is increased exponentially key times: especially as soon as I get home, when simply receiving attention from me is a HUGE reward because they have been socially deprived. It is one way, at least, in which I can turn a negative (being away from others all day) into a positive in terms of training. The older two in particular shoot to front or heel (whichever I've cued) because they know they get attention by doing so. And by attention I mean getting to continue the "game" (heeling, retrieving the bumper, stationary front drills, whatever).



> The idea I have is to carry that over to training. Again.. food is around but randomly and NOT associated with a behavior. Dog does not EXPECT food associated with a behavior.. it is not a primary motivator and is moved to a secondary place.


And when using food, object play, social play...whatever your reinforcement is, this is where you use backchaining.

Reward reward I get a reward!
If I got to my crate I get a reward!
If I get leashed I get to go to my crate to get my reward!
If I do my recall routine I get to get leashed to go to my crate to get my reward!
If I heel I get to do my recall which is awesome cuz then I get to get leashed and go to my crate and get my reward!!!!!!!
etc.

Agility is based on this. It is very much so in the forefront because people think of agility as fun, which helps the dogs think of agility as fun. I do agree with you that it is mostly in the mindset of the human. By completing one task, your REWARD is that you get to go on to do the next one...and your reward for that is getting to do the next one!

Again, removing a primary reinforcer, which when used correctly _builds_ (not degrades) secondary/tertiary reinforcers, for the sake of principle and because you feel left out of the equation...I guess I would say that person probably does need to get rid of that reinforcer because they are either using it incorrectly or having a negative attitude about it, neither of which are helpful in training.


ETA: For what it's worth food is not a paycheck. It's a reinforcer. You're not rewarding the dog for past behavior per say...you are increasing the chance of that behavior being repeated in the future. Petty, maybe, but there is a difference.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Interesting ideas. 

I think I understand what you're going after. I'm not sure I could do it for everything (like I mentioned before, some of the stuff we are working on now, I want clear "yes/no" while also being in position to do the next repetition. I'm sure there's a way I could make learning that fun in and of itself, but it would be harder to give a clear indication of the behavior at least based on my limited skill set as an amateur trainer. I have a feeling it will be like:

Me: *sticks hand out* "Left!"
Wally (assuming he gets it right): *touches hand to his left*
Me: Good boy! *starts getting hyper*
Wally: GAME TIME!
Me: *sticks hands out* "Right!"
Wally: Huh? I thought we were going to play!

That said, if there's no food reward presented, he won't expect one, even if I have it on me (in my pocket or whatever) so perhaps it could be possible even during the learning phase.

But the jump around and such at random, I can see that working for me. Of course, Wally's already glued to my every movement - he doesn't want to miss anything I'm doing. I slide my foot on the ground - I have a pair of brown dinner plates staring at me, so it would seem he's either already gotten himself like that with me, or is a good candidate for the kind of things you did with your dog. (Of course, some of this could just be because things we do together tend to be rewarding for him, especially considering my first job was to get him to not be scared of me - which took food)

Still do wonder if this would be motivating enough for him (or if I could be demonstrative enough to be effective without being overboard or distracting him from practice - i.e. too much thinking we're going to play after just one rep and then spending a minute re-focusing him and that first rep probably got lost).


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

chained behavior? like the whole of the obedience routine= one single behavior in the eyes of the dog kind of thing? food and play to follow AFTER completion....just a thought,,,


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> chained behavior? like the whole of the obedience routine= one single behavior in the eyes of the dog kind of thing? food and play to follow AFTER completion....just a thought,,,



That's pretty much how I do it for known behaviors.

Like when I play "rapid cues" with him, I throw out lots of cues, then reward him for the end of the sequence (if he got them all right).


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

I've started moving towards using discs as rewards. Run an agility sequence nicely? Great - here's a disc. It works surprisingly well. I know that it won't be allowed in the ring and I'll eventually need to fade it, but at this point, I'm trying to get away from food. Fortunately, Kit thinks everything is great - food, discs, tugs, petting/praise, whatever.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

Okay, I have a question. I'm sorry if this is a little off-topic, but I think it applies to this thread. The way I see training in its very basic form is this: I want my dog to do a task. I need to show him how to do said task. Then I need to give him feedback and let him know if he's doing what I want or if he isn't doing what I want. 

An obvious, very easy way to give your dog feedback is to use treats and physical corrections. It's common knowledge that dogs like treats, and will repeat a behavior to earn a treat, so treat can be used to inform your dog that he's on the right track. The opposite applies to physical corrections. However, what if I don't want to use either treats or physical corrections? There needs to be another way to provide feedback. As humans, the use of vocal feedback is the most natural, so it seems the next step would be to transition to giving your dog feedback using only your voice. However, my question is, how does a dog know that it's getting positive feedback or negative feedback when you use your voice? How does he know "Good boy" means he's doing it right? How does he know "No!" means he's doing it wrong? Dogs do not use the same tone of voice that humans do, because they do not communicate the same way humans do. I guess you could condition your dog to expect a treat after you say a certain phrase, or to get startled when you say something loudly or sharply. But is that truly understanding? Is there a certain posture or expression you could use to give your dog feedback in a way that he understands naturally? 

Personally I like the idea of not having your dog "work for a paycheck," but rather do what you say because he understands you. You're not always going to have treats on hand be it a formal competition or a real life emergency situation. However, I have no idea how to get him to understand me! And does understanding me even mean that he will be willing do do as I say without a reward other than knowing he did something correctly? Am I making any sense? Lol!


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Nargle said:


> However, my question is, how does a dog know that it's getting positive feedback or negative feedback when you use your voice? How does he know "Good boy" means he's doing it right?



Charge it.

Make it a secondary reinforcer just like a clicker or light or a tch tch sound or "Yes!" or...whatever.

Do whatever. Give him a primary reinforcer. Repeat pattern. Dog starts to understand first thing represents second and invokes the same emotional response just like the bell did for Pavlov's dog.



Nargle said:


> How does he know "No!" means he's doing it wrong? Dogs do not use the same tone of voice that humans do, because they do not communicate the same way humans do.


Not entirely true. Dogs don't understand the sound "no" means anything in and of itself. They DO understand tone (pitch). They DO use pitch in their own communications. For example, Wally's play growl is higher pitch than his "Stay the %&#*( away!" growl. He whines at a higher pitch than he moans. A high pitched bark may mean he is scared or is a distress/I need help! call (like if I call him and he's behind a door and can't push it open, he'll eventually "squeak bark" if I keep calling him - which was the point - to get him to "talk" to me as well), while a mid-range bark of the same length might just be eagerness or trying engage my interaction for something (like for dinner or for offering a bark during shaping).




Nargle said:


> I guess you could condition your dog to expect a treat after you say a certain phrase, or to get startled when you say something loudly or sharply. But is that truly understanding?


Are you communicating something? Is that something being received? Is the reception creating the response you intended? To me, that's understanding. You're sending a signal and the dog is receiving and understanding the signal - sounds like understanding and communication to me.



Nargle said:


> Is there a certain posture or expression you could use to give your dog feedback in a way that he understands naturally?


Sure - there's postures we can emulate that have similar meanings to dogs. Body blocking is one (getting in the way of the dog and cutting him off). Calming signals we can emulate is another example (looking away, pretending to sniff, walking in a curve). Dogs also understand staring. They understand freezing and staring (I use this on Wally when I'm expecting him to do something else. I just stand there and stare at him like "and...? you gonna finish the chain or what?"). Looking away is both a calming signal as well as a "I'm not even acknowledging what you did there." (Another one I use on Wally a lot during shaping or as a no-reward marker along with freezing for a few seconds to further drive the point in his head).



Nargle said:


> Personally I like the idea of not having your dog "work for a paycheck," but rather do what you say because he understands you.


See, I don't even look at it like that. If Wally sits when I say "sit" then he obviously understands what I want (how else would he perform the behavior consistently enough to where he's just not guessing?). By contrast, when I say "left", sometimes he touches the wrong hand or uses the wrong paw - clearly not completely understanding yet.

The treat or whatever reward (and yes, you're still rewarding so, if you want to look at it, you're still giving a "paycheck", you're just changing the currency, so to speak, or have the work be its own reward...but it's STILL a reward on some level to the dog, so he's still getting a "pay off" - it's just more likely to be internal/emotional than food-based) is just there to keep the positive association refreshed (yep, this behavior is still "paying off" so keep it in memory) or for when I really engage him faster so I get to that "psycho" look where he's SUPER into it and SUPER intent - almost scary so, and really burn up his energy with that SUPER focus. 

It doesn't create his knowledge or desire for the behavior. I just want him to work at a SUPER highly driven level because it's fun for him and it seems to be like a branding iron on his brain during learning (he remembers strongly things that have high emotional impact so I want to drive that up as high as he can take it and make him focus all that energy on the task at hand - food does that more efficiently because I don't have to worry about resettling him after a quickie game plus it keeps him in the mental focus mindset since I can jump back to the task ASAP.)




Nargle said:


> You're not always going to have treats on hand be it a formal competition or a real life emergency situation. However, I have no idea how to get him to understand me! And does understanding me even mean that he will be willing do do as I say without a reward other than knowing he did something correctly? Am I making any sense? Lol!


That's why you eventually change up the reward schedule to where it's no longer 1 behavior = 1 treat, so that it doesn't become "where's the treat, or else I ain't doing it" 

This is also why it's good to get the dog used to performing more behaviors before getting even a single reward. Make him do 10 things in a row before a click. Just tonight before I put him to bed, at the end I made him do like 15 left-rights correctly in a row (and he had to get them all, including figuring out he had to sit and look at me or else he wasn't going to bed or getting that hot dog piece) before I gave him one piece of hotdog and sent him to crate. 

Things like that, imo, get the dog into the idea to where it's not just 1 behavior or even a few before reward. The reward comes when the job is done, so make the job more than just a few behaviors and it solves the problem, imo, until the job itself predicts the possibility of reward and then the dog keeps being eager for the reward while doing the steps of the job, keeping him performing eagerly. 

And then when the job is done and the reward is here - he jumps up and down and is uber happy and acts like he conquered the world.

At least it does for Wally. I don't claim to have any level of multi-dog experience or high-end training skills.  I think I've been told on this forum before that Wally isn't the typical dog so...

As far as understanding - well you have to read your dog's reactions and encourage communication with you in her own way. For Wally, he's vocal and has different "voices" along with consistently using various things in combination, so I wanted to encourage that. Training provided ways to create communication (if nothing else for the yes/no dynamic)

And I APOLOGIZE for what might be my longest post ever


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

> chained behavior? like the whole of the obedience routine= one single behavior in the eyes of the dog kind of thing? food and play to follow AFTER completion....just a thought,,,


Well, not really because FOOD is still in there and it is at the wrong time. What I am doing (or trying to do.. I am still figuring this out) is to use PLAY as a CORRECTION (bad word) which will INCREASE FOCUS. 

There is no harsh "No!" like so many people use (you can use it if you want). Instead there is a flatly stated, unharsh word like "wrong." I use "that's not it" stated in a very flat tone. Nothing harsh. Nothing loud. Just information to the dog. 

And the play is structured... not will nilly play.. but dog still is having fun. 

Say your dog is heeling and stops paying attention.. you break off the heel and have the dog jump up to your hand and touch it (touch having been previously taught). You have previously taught the dog this play series as play when working around the house. Now you go back to heeling and the dog is really paying attention because he is waiting for the game. It is a light bulb moment.. for the dog. He starts to relate you working around the house to the heel pattern. He realizes you might have a "spell" even in the midst of "work..." 

At the end of heeling you always play.. again.. structured touch of your hand or some other motivating playing. 

To teach it at the outset you might only heel one or two steps and then the game is on.. gradually building. The initial business of heeling (where the dog is placed next to you) is taught by luring and done one step, two steps, three steps and so forth. This shows the dog he CAN walk next to you with his head up and looking AT your shoulders or face. 

By having motivational play as a "correction" the dog looks at heel work as a game. You build a relationship with your dog and you CAN take this into the ring and use it BETWEEN exercises. Watch Petra Ford again. You might not like her "look" during exercises, but watch her DOG and watch him between exercises.. and tell me that dog is not having fun.. cuz if that ain't a depiction of fun I do not know what is. I believe that using play as a "correction" and making the "job" a hobby for the dog is what she does. 

At the end of your ring time, you put the leash on and the GAME IS OVER. Keep things FLAT leaving the ring and back to the crate. No food there. ALL the fun is kept IN the "working " environment. 

Remember.. I am exploring use of this right now. So the discussion should continue. 

The object in formal Obedience is to have a TEAM. It is supposed to look like a team.. like it is fun.. and so to look that way it needs to BE that way. 

Oh yes.. and I am dumping the clicker as well!  Yup. Done and Done.

The clicker was used on Marine Mammals. Do you know why? Not because it works BETTER as a marker than Yes or verbal rewards as markers. Nope. It was used because the Dolphins or Whales would work for one trainer one way and not the same way for another. They developed relationships with the trainers and would not perform evenly for an audience.

In seeking even performance between trainers (because it really is about the money), the clicker came into use. It made the same noise no matter WHO was using it. This generalized the behavior between trainers and removed some of the personal relationship the trainer had with the animal. Good for Sea World.. not so good for our individual dogs. We WANT our dogs to have a relationship with us. 

By removing the clicker and using a verbal marker (like yes) we can change the TONE of the marker to make the marker more exciting when the response is more exciting. A clicker makes ONE SOUND. Our voice can make a wide range of sounds.. even when using the same word.. from a soft and motivating yes to a really AWESOME and EXCITED YES!


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Oh! Oh! all these years not using a clicker. I always thought it just was not needed and very hard to explain as I have had dogs dropped off that were started in clicker classes but owners did not understand and got confused with the trainer's instructions. 

Use it or don't use it, in my line of work I was anti-clicker. My customers for the most part are not anywhere near hardcore DFers that will happily consume the many dog-training books and DVDs etc that are out in the world. Heel, sit, down, stay, come, no and handsignals for heel, down, and stay. The simpler the better because if it's possible for the average dog owner to get the basics down maybe interest will be tweaked and then they can jump in and continue training anyway they want. If there is no interest they still end up with dog that has basics.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Honestly, I have no idea why you are changing this. You seem to be misinterpreting the rationale behind just about everything in training. To be completely frank, it sounds like you're trying to blame your failings as a trainer, or your dog's limits, on something else, rather than trying to learn how to overcome the current challenges.

One saying I always like is, "The Holy Grail of behavior is for the behavior itself to be reinforcing."

I realize people who do mostly Obedience style competitions may have difficulty with this because the competition is not inherently fun for the dog. In many other sports, such as Agility, the opportunity to perform the behavior is the reward, regardless of location. Frankly that says a lot to me, but also besides the point.

The craziness may startle the dog now and get her attention but, she also may merely get habituated to it over time if she does not find the crazy inherently reinforcing. Most trainers, as Shaina pointed out, have primary, secondary, and tertiary reinforcement. 

As an example. Giving a "paw" to my hand has been reinforced so frequently, so often, that "paw" is a reinforcement. In another example, if I look over at Kobe at any time and give him a smile, however small, he will leap up at me and start bouncing around, trying to initiate play. My smile is a highly reinforcing state for him, because of a large history of various rewards (mostly food, and play as well).

Both of these have to do with a history of reinforcement and not much else. But generally the primary reinforcement is used to build up the secondary and tertiary ones. Taking that away, you're also taking away the others, or at the very least, dulling it's effectiveness.

As for removing the clicker, nobody said you had to use a clicker. And it certainly is used for far more than just what you said. It's used to remove anger, frustration from the training situation. It's used because it's faster, and more precise. It's used for the same reason e-collars are used for dog training, rather than cattle prods or stun guns. It's more consistent, more accurate, than verbal markers. 

And the suggestion that clickers remove the relationship between dog and handler is silly. Nobody said you can't use your voice as a secondary reinforcement while using a clicker. Heck, I use my voice too when I he does a extra-good job that deserved a click. He gets excited for my voice. But that doesn't change the fact that he knows that the click is where the correct action happened.

All said, it doesn't sound to me like you're trying to build a relationship with your dog, because relationships go both ways. It sounds like you're trying to build a relationship revolving around you, regardless of the dog's desires. *shrug*


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

Elana55 said:


> OK.. here is the philosophy of using food.. it is like a pay check. We have all heard that and there is NO DOUBT food works. I have been using it and it does motivate and it does work.
> 
> BUT.. (and this is where it gets challenging) I am thinking of making the work itself the reward. I am thinking of ways to do that and I believe THAT would be even BETTER.
> 
> ...


I think you've got a good point. I think using food to INTRODUCE Tag to agility conditioned agility to equal fun. During his early times, he would do jump, treat, jump, treat, tire, treat, tunnel, treat, etc. Usually now he does 6-8 obstacles, sometimes with NO treats until the very end. Occasionally I will stop in mid-course and feed him randomly, but I think agility=work=fun. For him, jumping and weaving and tunneling and climbing are self reinforcing, and using food very freely in the early stages helped condition it to be so.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

wvasko said:


> Heel, sit, down, stay, come, no and handsignals for heel, down, and stay. The simpler the better because if it's possible for the average dog owner to get the basics down maybe interest will be tweaked and then they can jump in and continue training anyway they want. If there is no interest they still end up with dog that has basics.


Actually, along with no longer using the food as a paycheck and the clicker as a marker due to its monotone I no longer use "Stay" or "wait." 

Here is the thing.. You tell your dog to "sit." Dog is supposed to "sit" until you give another command or a release. Why are we even using stay? We use Stay because we have not taught the dog sit! We allow our dogs to BREAK the sit cue (probably not you WVasko, but MOST people). 

So.. keeping to the keeping it simple.. I have dumped Stay and Wait which mean different things. They are unnecessary if you train Sit and Down. 



> Originally posted by *RBark:*To be completely frank, it sounds like you're trying to blame your failings as a trainer, or your dog's limits, on something else, rather than trying to learn how to overcome the current challenges.


While we are limited here by the written word and the interpretatin of the reader, be assured that I am NOT "blaming" anything. "Blaming" is the same as "making excuses for" and I neither blame nor excuse. In this case I am simply trying something different. 

I want to arrive at this: 



> One saying I always like is, "The Holy Grail of behavior is for the behavior itself to be reinforcing."





> And the suggestion that clickers remove the relationship between dog and handler is silly.


It does not remove the relationship between the animal and the handler. It generalizes the relationship with *one* handler to *many* handlers. I do not want this. And note I said *I.* 

Remember who is providing the roof, the dog food, the vet care and the entertainment... 



> All said, it doesn't sound to me like you're trying to build a relationship with your dog, because relationships go both ways. It sounds like you're trying to build a relationship revolving around you, regardless of the dog's desires.


To get focus you absolutely need to have the relationship build with you at its center. I will not deny that. The path to getting there is a two way street. In order for that to happen you need to make it worthwhile to the dog and that is a two way deal. 

The object is to build the relationship around the handler so that is WHAT the dog desires.. to focus on the handler. _It is a life long work.. it goes on for the life of the dog._

And.. in all reality.. if we have a job at hand (and it can be any job) and the dog desires to sniff the ground INSTEAD of the job, we redirect the dog to the job at hand. 

I know you won't like this much but the dog's desires the dog can do on the dog's time. When we are working it is my time and my desires that count. 

The work at hand is to make what I desire what the dog also desires. 

Is it more of an uphill climb with obedience? Perhaps.. until you get out on the agility course with a dog that focuses on the obstacles and goes into the tunnel _under_ the A Frame when the handler desires the dog to go over the A frame. The dog desires the tunnel and just went off course and NQ'd.

We are forever interfering with the dog's desires when we train (regardless of methodology or venue). If we did not dogs would counter surf the Sunday Roast, kill cats, and not have a recall. 

Yes. I want the dog to focus on me. To that end I am giving something to my dog to gain that focus. What I am giving her is just changing.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> All said, it doesn't sound to me like you're trying to build a relationship with your dog, because relationships go both ways. It sounds like you're trying to build a relationship revolving around you, regardless of the dog's desires. *shrug*


I do agree with the above because in the competition that I was involved the dog desires were secondary. There isn't a bird dog alive (bird dog explain more later)
that when a bird flushes that wants/desires/enjoys the steady no chase program in field trials as I knew them. No bird dog 400 yards away and a bird pops up wild and dog must stop to flush and remain standing tall till handler gets there and then heels dog off and casts off in a different direction, that is doing anything more than acceding to the handlers desires. 

The reason for bird dog in parenthesis is that because if a dog is a GSP or EP or any one of many hunting/bird dog breeds it does not necessarily make him a bird dog. The term bird dog is a compliment of the finest to dogs with extreme desire and much harder to steady to wing shot and kill. A dog's desire to chase must be quashed and relationship never comes into it. Amateurs and owners want relationships and that come with their territory.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

I'm unclear as to the reason for trying to reinvent the wheel. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding.

The methods for getting dogs to do what they wouldn't voluntarily do--and stop doing what they wouldn't voluntarily stop--are well known, and have been for a good long time. Just do that.

I use treats and praise (mainly praise, but treats more during the teaching phase) as a reward for doing what I want. I use correction for the other stuff. My personal belief (without scientific support) has always been that the contrast between reward and punishment increases the value of both. If you don't go overboard with either, dogs will just get into the habit of doing the job asked of them. Getting a dog to enjoy working for you is more a matter of building a solid relationship. Having a naturally enthusiastic mutt sure doesn't hurt.

Not being an especially demonstrative person, my dog has to mostly find his praise-reward in my facial expression. When my "all business" face softens into the "you're a good frakkin' dog" face, his tail starts to wag. A human observer would be unlikely to notice the change. Dogs notice everything.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

All this time I have looked forward to your replies with interest and respect. Now you mention you have absolutely no *scientific support* say it isn't so MM, say it isn't so. What I gonna do now? Hero hunting is such a chore.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

No reinventing going on at all.. not really.. just changing the correction to something a little different. 



> Dogs notice everything.


Until they are noticing something ELSE and not you..


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

wvasko said:


> Now you mention you have absolutely no *scientific support* say it isn't so MM, say it isn't so.


Scientific behavioral studies have great value. If nothing else, they are a cure for insomnia.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Marsh Muppet said:


> Scientific behavioral studies have great value. If nothing else, they are a cure for insomnia.


And rats very often predict human behavior..... 

Meanwhile, I am just trying to train dogs. The end result of this is most often several very amused cats.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Elana55 said:


> Say your dog is heeling and stops paying attention.. you break off the heel and have the dog jump up to your hand and touch it (touch having been previously taught). You have previously taught the dog this play series as play when working around the house. Now you go back to heeling and the dog is really paying attention because he is waiting for the game. It is a light bulb moment.. for the dog. He starts to relate you working around the house to the heel pattern. He realizes you might have a "spell" even in the midst of "work..."
> 
> At the end of heeling you always play.. again.. structured touch of your hand or some other motivating playing.


To me this is still a "pay check" to use the term used often so far. It's just not food.

Reminds me of one article I read where the trainer panned OC because of the use of food and used stuff like this instead. My thought the whole time is...it's still OC, it's still R+...just because the reward isn't food and the marker isn't a click doesn't mean you're not using OC and R+ and "paying" the dog.

You end the behavior and do something fun? Then the dog heels more in hopes of the fun happening? I don't see what's different - other than you're paying in fun instead of food?

Besides, isn't eating fun for most dogs? So food might do both? A fun prey action + food in the belly (which then releases chemicals that elevate his mood - I'm sure Cracker will come in here and straighten me out)



Elana55 said:


> By having motivational play as a "correction" the dog looks at heel work as a game. You build a relationship with your dog and you CAN take this into the ring and use it BETWEEN exercises.


How is me using a clicker and treats NOT building a relationship with Wally? Seriously, explain that because I think my relationship with Wally is very strong and we work well together.

Sure doing this can build a relationship but you seem to imply using a clicker isn't building a relationship.




Elana55 said:


> This generalized the behavior between trainers and removed some of the personal relationship the trainer had with the animal. Good for Sea World.. not so good for our individual dogs. We WANT our dogs to have a relationship with us.


Really, so why is it that Wally will perform behaviors for me and stick by me and come to me when he's scared, even over other people in the house he knows? I certainly didn't teach him to ignore everyone else, or to favor me above all, it was a choice he made. 

Again, how is training with a clicker removing the fact I'm building a relationship with Wally. The fact he used to "hate" me and didn't want to do ANYTHING with me to being borderline clingy to me would seem to indicate that a relationship and bond has formed that wasn't there before.

Maybe dogs and dolphins don't see things the same. Dogs might have something inside them that makes it more than just "generalized commands". I mean, dogs will form relationships with everyone whether they use clickers or not. 

I mean, if the whole concept boils down to play with the dog during training while in the training enviornment - you can do that WITH a clicker. Click and jump up on me. Click and run for 10 seconds. Click and tug. Click and go chase this ball.

ETA: Generalized commands does not mean no personal relationship, imo. It means just that. Anyone can cue the dog for a behavior and communicate to the dog he did it right. That doesn't mean the dog has a relationship with the other person or that the first person has no relationship with the dog. 

It's simply a sound that means "that's right" so that when the dog does something for anyone, that person can also tell the dog "that's right" whereas the human voice probably has subtle differences for every human, so the dog has to first learn what the human is saying (either explicitly from the other human or the dog figure it out on his own). In a training situation, I absolutely want to be able to tell a dog he did something right quickly and easily. That's what the click or any consistent sound does. I don't believe it destroys or prevents the building of a relationship with the dog.



Elana55 said:


> By removing the clicker and using a verbal marker (like yes) we can change the TONE of the marker to make the marker more exciting when the response is more exciting. A clicker makes ONE SOUND. Our voice can make a wide range of sounds.. even when using the same word.. from a soft and motivating yes to a really AWESOME and EXCITED YES!


Actually, my clicker can make three different sounds. I have this slider on the back that changes the pitch, I just never bothered with it.

But no one said that it's clicker OR voice. You can use either or and change on situation. In fact, the clicker helped me train voice to be a reward (like I answered to Nargle, I charged my voice by clicking, voice, treat. Saying "good boy" or "Yes!" meant NOTHING to him, until I taught him the meaning. Just like with "ah-ah", or "Nope, try again"


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Elana55 said:


> Actually, along with no longer using the food as a paycheck and the clicker as a marker due to its monotone I no longer use "Stay" or "wait."
> 
> Here is the thing.. You tell your dog to "sit." Dog is supposed to "sit" until you give another command or a release. Why are we even using stay? We use Stay because we have not taught the dog sit! We allow our dogs to BREAK the sit cue (probably not you WVasko, but MOST people).
> 
> So.. keeping to the keeping it simple.. I have dumped Stay and Wait which mean different things. They are unnecessary if you train Sit and Down.


Stay, I might can understand IF you have put the dog in a position. If he's assumed a position on his own (like, say, he's lying on the floor and I want him to stay put right there), I'll use stay to tell him, Don't move no matter what.

Wait is meaning, stop moving and wait for my next direction. I'm re-teaching it to stop moving so that I can eventually give him a string to directions to go in (like left, back, right, back, left, wait) and at the wait he'll stop and sit and look at me.

I can't teach those things (well may wait if I just cue the position, but it's not necessary since he did what I'd prefer on his own, so I just take his creativity and go with it). I mean...if I want him moving right...and don't give him another direction - ideally, he'll go down that path forever. If I want to stop it, I need to give a stop moving cue.


----------



## LynnI (Mar 27, 2010)

I am curious are you willing to crate your dog 24/7 except for the time you want to train /interact with it? And also be willing to remove and/or control all other possible reinforcers from the dog's life until such training is done?

Some people refer to it as dog deprivation training btw and it is not a new method by any means. It's all about contolling resources and what you want those resources to be. There is lots of books on it, one of them is Garrett's Rough Love. Actually it isn't an uncommon method for those that train for agility with the goals of going to the highest levels in the world.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

I have to go and help set up a Dog Show so I will be back at this later but here is the quick answer. 
KBLover, you can train wait if you want for whatever purpose you want. In fact, anyone can train anything they want... and I do with Atka as she does other things with me. 

We also do obedience. We do not exclude other activities such as hiking in the woods etc. No need to exclude everything in the dog's life to teach obedience. 

Fact is, my dog helps take care of mty elderly Father who has Alzheimer's. The other night he did not want to walk from the bathroom to the bedroom but he DID want to pet the dog. She picked up on this and walked backward (I kid you not) in front of him.. allowing him a pet here and there and then another step back. HE had to walk to reach her to pet her. We gopt him to bed in no time and then she loved him up like he wanted. BTW this was HER idea.. yup.. dog came up with that one. I was behind Dad hanging on to his belt. 

I have no desire so great for a title that I would ever crate a dog 24/7 exceptfor the time the dog is working with me. There is no title in the world WORTH that. My opinion only. 

Back later. I hope this discussion continues (politely). I am NOT saying no to R+ or no to P+... what I am working here is something a bit different incorporating aspects of both with R+ being the greater aspect. This is not magic or rejection of learning theory. It may be a different application tho I doubt it. 

What I am also trying to to gain focus and reduce my tools to the ones I can take in the ring with me and also use there. I am trying to get (manipulate?) spending time with ME a great big happy for the dog. I am trying to compouynd that by having time in the ring also be the high point for the dog. 

Like I said.. I think it might be an interesting concept and worth discussing (seems to be so far).


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

LynnI said:


> I am curious are you willing to crate your dog 24/7 except for the time you want to train /interact with it? And also be willing to remove and/or control all other possible reinforcers from the dog's life until such training is done?
> 
> Some people refer to it as dog deprivation training btw and it is not a new method by any means. It's all about contolling resources and what you want those resources to be. There is lots of books on it, one of them is Garrett's Rough Love. Actually it isn't an uncommon method for those that train for agility with the goals of going to the highest levels in the world.


That's all boarding/training is, dog comes to kennel is situated in a kennel run and then worked as necessary to accomplish whatever is needed. The dog's life is narrowed to training only. The highlight of the day is when dog is working. No It's definitely not a new method, just a form of brainwashing.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

KBLover said:


> Stay, I might can understand IF you have put the dog in a position. If he's assumed a position on his own (like, say, he's lying on the floor and I want him to stay put right there), I'll use stay to tell him, Don't move no matter what.
> *
> Wait is meaning, stop moving and wait for my next direction*. I'm re-teaching it to stop moving so that I can eventually give him a string to directions to go in (like left, back, right, back, left, wait) and at the wait he'll stop and sit and look at me.
> 
> I can't teach those things (well may wait if I just cue the position, but it's not necessary since he did what I'd prefer on his own, so I just take his creativity and go with it). I mean...if I want him moving right...and don't give him another direction - ideally, he'll go down that path forever. If I want to stop it, I need to give a stop moving cue.


For Tag, Stay means "don't move, and don't change position. I will come to you." Wait means "hold your position and hang on, because I'm going to ask you to do something". I NEVER call my dog out of a stay, and never go back to my dog during a wait. I don't care if he's sitting, down, or standing at the agility startline, I just tell him to wait and walk out to where ever I need to be to release him to start his course. 
If we ever go the competition obedience route, he'll understand that "stay" is for the group stays, and he'll never be expected to be called out of the stay. 
I do agree with Elana that a lot of people use stay and wait because they didn't train otherwise. Dude and Auz know sit means "sit stay", and Tag knows sit-stay, and sit-wait. I want other options than an automatic sit-stay. I want to be able to say sit-stay (_I'll_ come back to _you_, and possibly release you) or wait (so he knows he'll be expected to move TOWARDS me instead of me going to him for a release.) 

Sorry in advance, my post probably makes NO sense  But I'm having a hard time trying to explain what I mean.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

wvasko said:


> That's all boarding/training is, dog comes to kennel is situated in a kennel run and then worked as necessary to accomplish whatever is needed. The dog's life is narrowed to training only. The highlight of the day is when dog is working. No It's definitely not a new method, just a form of brainwashing.


No matter how (general) you train, I think it's brainwashing and/or manipulative any way you slice it. Even those who claim to be "positive methods only" (which a). I don't do and b). I don't believe exists) use manipulation to get what they want out of their dogs. (No sit? No treat/walk/toy, or add one leash correction/verbal correction/e-collar stim, etc). The odd thing that I've noticed is, the ones who claim to be the "positive training only" people seem extremely uncomfortable with the idea that they're manipulating their dogs. 
The idiot proof, PR based "Nothing In Life Is Free" is probably the most manipulative way of raising a puppy or training an older dog that I've practiced, but it works. (Susan Garretts Ruff Love is probably more manipulative, but I haven't read the whole book so I can't say for 100%).


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

LazyGRanch713 said:


> For Tag, Stay means "don't move, and don't change position. I will come to you." Wait means "hold your position and hang on, because I'm going to ask you to do something". I NEVER call my dog out of a stay, and never go back to my dog during a wait. I don't care if he's sitting, down, or standing at the agility startline, I just tell him to wait and walk out to where ever I need to be to release him to start his course.
> If we ever go the competition obedience route, he'll understand that "stay" is for the group stays, and he'll never be expected to be called out of the stay.
> I do agree with Elana that a lot of people use stay and wait because they didn't train otherwise. Dude and Auz know sit means "sit stay", and Tag knows sit-stay, and sit-wait. I want other options than an automatic sit-stay. I want to be able to say sit-stay (_I'll_ come back to _you_, and possibly release you) or wait (so he knows he'll be expected to move TOWARDS me instead of me going to him for a release.)
> 
> Sorry in advance, my post probably makes NO sense  But I'm having a hard time trying to explain what I mean.



It made sense to me, and I don't call out of Stay either. And I agree with a given position/location being held until call out otherwise.

I just disagree with the idea that the commands are pointless if you do train a position to have an "implied stay" built in. Perhaps in a competition setting, they would be unnecessary, but I can think of "real world" reasons of why you want an explicit stay command.

And, yeah, it's all manipulation or perhaps coercion/cajoling might be a better word. 

(using these definitions: Cajole - 1 a : to persuade with flattery or gentle urging especially in the face of reluctance
Coerce: 2 : to compel to an act or choice - I think both could be applied in using NILIF or other OC training methods)


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

Elana55 said:


> I have to go and help set up a Dog Show so I will be back at this later but here is the quick answer.
> KBLover, you can train wait if you want for whatever purpose you want. In fact, anyone can train anything they want... and I do with Atka as she does other things with me.
> 
> We also do obedience. We do not exclude other activities such as hiking in the woods etc. No need to exclude everything in the dog's life to teach obedience.
> ...


Very cool story about your dog and your dad 
I think it's an interesting concept and an interesting discussion. I think something can be said about a dog who's intuitive, and can pick up on the things that they feel are important to their owners, and act accordingly. Auz has always been my cat finder. A few strays have shown up and delivered us litters of kittens. A few years ago there was a litter in my barn, and I kept an eye on them for the first 2-3 days. The mother cat decided to move her kittens, and moved them in groups of 2, and was nowhere to be seen when I entered the barn to 6 screaming infant kittens. I found 2, but couldn't find the other 4. Auz went in the empty stall, sniffed around and started barking at the corner, looking up. She had plopped 2 of her kittens in an empty feeder a few feet off the ground. He found the other two by sniffing around the straw/hay bales and barking at them, looking at me, looking back at the bales, barking, etc. I have NO idea what his motivation was, except the heartfelt praise and thanks from me. I think some dogs DO work for praise, but they know the difference between praise for a nice heeling sequence and praise for a real job, well done.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

KBLover said:


> It made sense to me, and I don't call out of Stay either. And I agree with a given position/location being held until call out otherwise.
> 
> I just disagree with the idea that the commands are pointless if you do train a position to have an "implied stay" built in. Perhaps in a competition setting, they would be unnecessary, but I can think of "real world" reasons of why you want an explicit stay command.
> 
> ...


I think the "implied stay" depends on what the trainer expects out of a dog, and what job they're going to need/want their dog to do. I would imagine if I were competing in schutzhund I wouldn't want to be chanting "wait" all the time, I would train for an implied stay until told what else to do. 
For Auz, who's primary job is to help me keep boarding dogs happy, I rarely use sit. I use down a lot more, and I don't care if it's sphynx, rolled-onto-hip, or flat out of his side, as long as he stops moving. The most important commands he has are down, come (away from another dog), and get back (back off a dog, person, the fence, etc). Come for him means "get to me now", not "come to me and sit squarely, tucked, and neatly directly in front of me, watching my face". 
For Tag, come means just that (sit squarly, tucked, and neatly directly in front of me, watching my face"). Down (from a stand) I've taught as a fold-back down into a sphynx position, and anything less is non-rewardable. 
I don't have a use for implied stays, so I don't train them. I also don't have a use for training any of my dogs to retrieve dead birds, but if I were bird hunting, I would


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

An interesting aside.. an AKC judge I spoke to once said he wants to see a "down" with the dog going down level or front first. This means there will be NO forward movement. This had to do with a discussion of hand signals (utility) and drop on recall (Open). 

I have no need for stay. I can tell me dog to stand, down or sit. Stay is superfluous. 

Wait I can see a need for and I still use it sometimes, tho that can also be replaced with a sit, down or stand. 

Sit, down and Stand are all used in the ring. By dumping stay and wait we build a very very solid sit, down and stand. 

As to the crating 24/7 I am not sure I would have issues if the dog were in a kennel with an outside run (tho I like having my dog around and with me doing stuff). I would have serious issues with putting the dog in a crate (like a dog box of vari kennel etc.) like that. 

Tonight I was training very successfully without treats and using motivation thru play directly with me. I will have to keep on doing this and see if it sticks or not.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

An interesting aside.. an AKC judge I spoke to once said he wants to see a "down" with the dog going down level or front first. This means there will be NO forward movement. This had to do with a discussion of hand signals (utility) and drop on recall (Open). 

*I like to see that, too. I trained a down from a sit with Auz, and I trained down from a stand with Tag. Guess which dog wound up with a foldback down, and which one was accidentally trained by me to sit first and then "crawl" down? *

I have no need for stay. I can tell me dog to stand, down or sit. Stay is superfluous. 

Wait I can see a need for and I still use it sometimes, tho that can also be replaced with a sit, down or stand. 

Sit, down and Stand are all used in the ring. By dumping stay and wait we build a very very solid sit, down and stand. 

*I can see how that would work, but my dogs (Tag especially) anticipate the next command. I like that, because it (to me) shows that my dog is thinking. If I tell Tag sit and wait, he knows I'm going to be calling him, or sending him over a jump, etc, and he's ready for it. If I tell Tag sit and STAY, he knows there's a 100% chance I am NOT going to call him out of position, and I don't run the risk of anticipation muddying up the communication. Different strokes and all *

As to the crating 24/7 I am not sure I would have issues if the dog were in a kennel with an outside run (tho I like having my dog around and with me doing stuff). I would have serious issues with putting the dog in a crate (like a dog box of vari kennel etc.) like that. 

Tonight I was training very successfully without treats and using motivation thru play directly with me. I will have to keep on doing this and see if it sticks or not.

*I'm interested to see how this goes!! Please keep us updated.
Personally, I fade the clicker ASAP, and I fade non-stop food rewards as quickly as I can. (Same with a lure). I still occasionally jackpot for a great performance, because my dog likes it and it makes *me* feel great. But once my dog is doing something and doing it well, the rate of reinforcement becomes extremely variable. (Take heeling. Tag can heel very well for a one year old dog. I might treat him after 5 steps, then after 12 steps, then after 4 steps, then after 15, etc. I might do a heeling pattern and only treat him at the end, provided he's doing well.) I don't view it as a paycheck anymore, I view it as a lottery ticket, or a slot machine. It might pay off. It might not. Tag is an adrenaline junkie, and loves to play games. He makes me look good 
I've seen people training for obedience or rally who have dogs that ignore them until the food comes out. One person in particular has a dog who totally ignores her until she gets her attention with food under her nose. It's not the foods fault, it's just bad training. Predictably, when the food is gone (in the ring) the dog is sniffing, gawking, etc. *


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

LazyGRanch713 said:


> *I can see how that would work, but my dogs (Tag especially) anticipate the next command. I like that, because it (to me) shows that my dog is thinking. If I tell Tag sit and wait, he knows I'm going to be calling him, or sending him over a jump, etc, and he's ready for it. If I tell Tag sit and STAY, he knows there's a 100% chance I am NOT going to call him out of position, and I don't run the risk of anticipation muddying up the communication. Different strokes and all *



Same here - I like that anticipation but it's both a curse and a blessing to be sure!

I think for him, learning to wait for the cue to do a behavior that a) he knows is coming and b) can't wait to do is as much of a brain drain for him than actually learning the behavior. I think sometimes he's like "Why do you make me start over just to tell me to do what I was going to do before you told me to stop?"

Sometimes I wonder myself


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

KBLover said:


> Same here - I like that anticipation but it's both a curse and a blessing to be sure!
> 
> I think for him, learning to wait for the cue to do a behavior that a) he knows is coming and b) can't wait to do is as much of a brain drain for him than actually learning the behavior. I think sometimes he's like "Why do you make me start over just to tell me to do what I was going to do before you told me to stop?"
> 
> Sometimes I wonder myself


I love that anticipation  Even the few times Tag has apparently "ignored" the wait and did his first agility jump without me saying "OK, jump", I'd take it any day over a dog who is waiting at the start line, boredly sniffing at the grass or gawking at the people. I don't want to have to "get his attention" while he's at the start line. He sits, waits, and every muscle is tense, his eyes are boring holes in my head, he's all hunched down, just waiting for that cue so those back legs can spring out and he can be on the fly. I love it 
Also, looking back on the few times he's "blown off" the wait and done the first jump on his own, I wonder if I've actually cued it with my body. If I raise my arm, it usually means jump. If I'm walking away to set myself up for the run, and turn back and look at Tag (in preparation to release him), it's my opinion that in dog speak that means "are you coming?" (I see Auz doing this with other dogs. He goes ahead a few steps, stops and turns to look at them, and then turns away and goes another step, stops and turns to look at them. He looks like he's saying "are you coming?") 
When I'm walking out to the course with my dog at the start line, I'm usually scanning where I'm going to be going when I release my dog. I haven't been doing this that long, and I've got a lot to think about in the few seconds at a time we have on the field. It's completely possible that, in my OWN anticipation, I raise my arm an inch or two, my mind elsewhere, and Tag takes that as a signal to take the first jump.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

I know of a few old time people into comp OB that swear that the overabundance of food in training has definitely weakened scores in ob in the last decade. Not sure if this is true or the more pos approaches has just broadened participation.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

jiml said:


> I know of a few old time people into comp OB that swear that the overabundance of food in training has definitely weakened scores in ob in the last decade. Not sure if this is true or the more pos approaches has just broadened participation.


It's not true.

Everyone says that but nobody has any proof. So it's mostly a myth so that people can have a scapegoat.


----------



## pamperedpups (Dec 7, 2006)

I guess I don't see what the big deal is. If your dog finds attention from you and the opportunity to sit, down, or perform some other cue very rewarding, your plan will likely work if you are a skilled trainer.


----------



## LynnI (Mar 27, 2010)

LazyGRanch713 said:


> *Also, looking back on the few times he's "blown off" the wait and done the first jump on his own, I wonder if I've actually cued it with my body.* If I raise my arm, it usually means jump. If I'm walking away to set myself up for the run, and turn back and look at Tag (in preparation to release him), it's my opinion that in dog speak that means "are you coming?" (I see Auz doing this with other dogs. He goes ahead a few steps, stops and turns to look at them, and then turns away and goes another step, stops and turns to look at them. He looks like he's saying "are you coming?")
> When I'm walking out to the course with my dog at the start line, I'm usually scanning where I'm going to be going when I release my dog. I haven't been doing this that long, and I've got a lot to think about in the few seconds at a time we have on the field. It's completely possible that, in my OWN anticipation, I raise my arm an inch or two, my mind elsewhere, and Tag takes that as a signal to take the first jump.[/Quote/}
> 
> One of my students started having this problem but only at trials. Her dog had a rock solid startline stay that had been proofed,this is a very fast dog and he is very keen for agility. They have also trained with me since he was a pup. Because he is fast she typically has a very long lead out and so I videoed her and had it zoomed in on her for every run at the next trial.
> I must have watched that video a 100 times and finally I *heard* the cue that he was starting from. Everytime he broke, it was when she sighed just before she gave her verbal release cue. Easy fix, proofed him to her sighing lol.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

RBark said:


> It's not true.
> 
> Everyone says that but nobody has any proof.


"Unproven" is not the same as "untrue". I think broader participation is a plausible explanation, or a combination of the two. It's quite possible that there are factors--including intangibles not under discussion--that have resulted in lower scores.

Disclaimer: I don't even know that the assertion of lower OB scores is true, so I don't come down on either side of the question.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

RBark said:


> It's not true.
> 
> Everyone says that but nobody has any proof. So it's mostly a myth so that people can have a scapegoat.


What we need is one of these PC oriented young rascals on DF to see if there are OB score statistics kept and if so hunt them down for us. I don't know how we would find out what methods used during training so I suppose it's a lost cause. If the scores have dropped though we could blame the environment or terrorists.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Marsh Muppet said:


> "Unproven" is not the same as "untrue". I think broader participation is a plausible explanation, or a combination of the two. It's quite possible that there are factors--including intangibles--not under discussion that have resulted in lower scores.
> 
> Disclaimer: *I don't even know that the assertion of lower OB scores is true*, so I don't come down on either side of the question.


I'm not sure how to respond to this given the bold part. 

You're making an argument for the sake of an argument?


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

wvasko said:


> What we need is one of these PC oriented young rascals on DF to see if there are OB score statistics kept and if so hunt them down for us. I don't know how we would find out what methods used during training so I suppose it's a lost cause. If the scores have dropped though we could blame the environment or terrorists.


Common sense tells me there are just as many bad R+ trainers as there are P+ trainers.... A bad trainer is a bad trainer no matter the method.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

wvasko said:


> What we need is one of these PC oriented young rascals on DF to see if there are OB score statistics kept and if so hunt them down for us. I don't know how we would find out what methods used during training so I suppose it's a lost cause. If the scores have dropped though we could blame the environment or *terrorists*.


Please don't let it be terrorists. We don't need "Homeland Security" to come up with something else to burden us with that the terrorists can get around in like 20 seconds.


As far as food = lower scores, that sounds like a very simplistic explanation. All things being equal, if food trainers have lower scores than non-food trainers, then maybe it's a start, but we know all things aren't equal, there's too many variables to consider, so I don't see how "food = lower scores" can be 100% correct. 

If the food is used incorrectly in training, then that's a factor, but like RBark said, that's a trainer error, not that food is the culprit.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

RBark said:


> I'm not sure how to respond to this given the bold part.
> 
> You're making an argument for the sake of an argument?


I've been known to do that, but not in this case. I think it is an interesting and worthwhile question, so I'd like to see some _evidence_ (I have doubts whether it is completely provable/falsifiable) for either position.

I doubt you would be stunned to learn that I have an opinion on the matter, or that you would have any great difficulty guessing what it is, but without anything to go on I'm not comfortable making the case.

Besides, isn't giving people the ability to argue about nothing, world-wide and 24/7, the whole reason the internet was invented?


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

wvasko said:


> If the scores have dropped though we could blame the environment or terrorists.


Check out my new signature!


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Marsh Muppet said:


> I've been known to do that, but not in this case. I think it is an interesting and worthwhile question, so I'd like to see some _evidence_ (I have doubts whether it is completely provable/falsifiable) for either position.
> 
> I doubt you would be stunned to learn that I have an opinion on the matter, or that you would have any great difficulty guessing what it is, but without anything to go on I'm not comfortable making the case.
> 
> Besides, isn't giving people the ability to argue about nothing, world-wide and 24/7, the whole reason the internet was invented?


Well yeah, I'd like to see some evidence too. But I mean, the evidence is out there. Everyone is looking solely at Obedience for some odd reason, when they could be looking at, well, every other dog sport out there that R+ trainers are generally dominating.

From my perspective, since we're making baseless arguments, it appears as though the older trainers are stuck in their ways and desperately trying to stick to their guns, looking for every remote evidence they can that R+ training is failing and ruining the dog world. I could ask about P+ trainers at the top end of Agility and likely get little response.

*shrug* the baseless arguments go both ways. If you look at it through a tunnel, you'll see whatever you want to see. In the big picture, R+ is dominating in many ways, P+ in others. Whether one is right or wrong is a debate of humanity, not effectiveness.


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

There's little question that I over-used food when I started training my current two dogs. During the weaning process, I have found that one of my dogs works fabulously with minimal food and the other just quit and called Bullsh#t on me. The dog that quit also has a pretty substantial temperament problem: she's highly fearful. I think her food motivation pushed her past her typical comfort zone and without that as a distraction, she sees every possible monster or hazard. She is also a terrier's terrier and a bitch's bitch, and that doesn't help a ton either.

I don't think it was the food that was the problem, it was my inexperience. I will never eliminate food as a motivator, but I have blended it with with use of toys and to a lesser degree, praise. I also use very mild corrections now as well. My little female WILL work to avoid a correction almost as dependably as she will work for food. 

No doubt, obedience is MY game, not my dog's. However, it is something that I expect of them. We run agility and hike and play and do tons of purely fun things together. I don't feel guilty making them play the obedience game with me. I think it keeps them from being spoiled brats and keeps them trained enough (under pressure) to protect the fun and freedom they have access to away from the ring.

I am still such a student of the game. And I am constantly amazed by how different dogs are in their response to training. My two current dogs are close to polar opposites and it's a pleasure to have to deal with that challenge.

The tools are almost never the problem...


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

RBark said:


> Everyone is looking solely at Obedience for some odd reason, when they could be looking at, well, every other dog sport out there that R+ trainers are generally dominating.


I don't think it's a big secret that some techniques are probably better for training some behaviors, than are others.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Marsh Muppet said:


> Check out my new signature!


That's why I wait patiently for your replies, I never know what I gonna see next.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Well, then I guess terrorists are winning because I give Wally treats for following commands, especially during the teaching phase.

I better put him underground to save him (and me) from homeland security!


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Guess what my technique was that's working remarkably well?

My husband is taking Strauss through his CDX


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

KBLover said:


> Well, then I guess terrorists are winning because I give Wally treats for following commands, especially during the teaching phase.
> 
> I better put him underground to save him (and me) from homeland security!


You're so silly. Wally has special dispensation from the president's dog.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Xeph said:


> Guess what my technique was that's working remarkably well?
> 
> My husband is taking Strauss through his CDX


I like that plan. Outsource the easy stuff to the loving spouse, while reserving the more demanding jobs for yourself. "You train the dog, and when you're done, I'll teach him calculus."


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

LOL! The actual logic behind it is that I've become a less valuable resource. I'm with Strauss all day. Jon however is gone all week and so when he comes home "OMG DAD!" While Strauss is still rewarded for a job well done (especially considering he now has a new handler for show work), he works happily (even if it is noisily at this point) for Jon sans immediate reward.

Jon can leave the tug toy or frisbee behind, and Strauss will still fuss. Granted, I now have to teach the HUSBAND how to work the dog, but it's going very well.

It also relieves 99% of the conflict that I have working with Strauss in this particular endeavor. Jon has no disability, and can walk and run normally, no wobbles. Strauss is not getting competing information, so the leaning has already improved tenfold. Jon will not wobble or fall down during the long stays. There is no reason for Strauss to get up and break a stay. Jon can correct him for breaking, and it will not conflict with what I tell him to do.

It's great!


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

wvasko said:


> You're so silly. Wally has special dispensation from the president's dog.


Heh, if you think I was silly then, I originally had terriorists - like it was a covert ops terrier trained in terror operations.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

These new signatures are fabulous.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

KBLover said:


> Heh, if you think I was silly then, I originally had terriorists - like it was a covert ops terrier trained in terror operations.





> Codename: Wvasko, Special Canine DHS Agent.


I'm having a heart attack here, help I've fallen and I can't stop laughing.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

rewards never killed anyone. call me a terrorist all you like. doesnt make it true.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

Back to the original post by Elana.
It is perfectly fine to reduce or eliminate treats for training PROVIDING the dog finds something ELSE reinforcing, because eventually, without some variable reinforcement (unless it is SELF reinforcing) the behaviours fall apart.
Food is simply the easiest, easiest to deliver for many reps in a short amount of time to increase reinforcement rate. Using tug or a bite sleeve or a retrieve or whatever else the dog might find reinforcing is not as time efficient and does not allow for the same number of reps. Using the food in the beginning to get your basic learning and proofing done (while simultaneously getting the reward "off the body"), can CREATE the secondary reinforcement you need. But the reward history has to be there in the beginning to MAKE the behaviour inherently rewarding. Then you can back off the rewards pretty much completely and only reward at the very end with whatever your dog likes. You couldn't create a chain of behaviours at all if the dog didn't find at least part of the sequence to be rewarding in and of itself, but you create that with the reward history. 

And yes, I believe this is a chemical/neuro response..a classically conditioned response to a history of 'pleasure' based on previous rewards. As they say, Pavlov is always on your shoulder. Each repetition performed with a reinforcement creates neurological pathways, both conditioning a faster and cleaner response (muscle memory) and helping to burn a "permanent" softwired response to the cue. This is why self rewarding behaviours are so hard to extinguish without management. Each practice cements the behaviour, regardless of whether it is a "useful" behaviour or not.

So, go ahead and reduce the treats and work on focus in the ring...but don't be surprised to see SOME of the behaviours start to break down if there is not some sort of reinforcement offered at least occasionally. The one's she really enjoys naturally (or that have become secondarily reinforcing) will likely stay strong, but ones that she doesn't enjoy the same way may suffer.

It's like at bball practice. No way in hell I was gonna run twenty suicides with any sort of enthusiasm if I didn't have the opportunity to scrimmage afterwards. And I wouldn't have done them at all if I didn't get playing time at games. But I would happily shoot foul shots and run layups til my arms and legs fell off because THEY were inherently rewarding for me. They still are. I don't play anymore but I'm happy as a pig in poo to go shoot around all by myself as a form of stress relief and head clearing.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Tomorrow is my last show for awhile. I will be working this way and updating. I know someone who is doing this successfully (and has) with several dogs so I have someone to shoot ideas off of. 

Like I said.. the object of the exercise is to make what I am asking be what the dog wants to do so the work itself in reinforcing. Remember.. the breed I am working with LOVES to have a job and they think Job is just Fun spelled wrong. The only breed more obsessed with a job is the Border collie.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Oh yes.. and all this, terrorists be d*mned!


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Elana55 said:


> Tomorrow is my last show for awhile. I will be working this way and updating. I know someone who is doing this successfully (and has) with several dogs so I have someone to shoot ideas off of.
> 
> Like I said.. the object of the exercise is to make what I am asking be what the dog wants to do so the work itself in reinforcing. Remember.. the breed I am working with LOVES to have a job and they think Job is just Fun spelled wrong. The only breed more obsessed with a job is the Border collie.


Do you think it is possible for other breeds to find work in and of themselves reinforcing? For example, it STARTS as "where's my external reward?" but then develops over time into it being an intrinsic (so to speak) reward?

Terr(i)orists or no I like tweaking the "programming" of Wally, so this is of interest to me. 

Or does there need to be something inside the dog's...genes I guess it is that makes the dog that driven to do some kind of job/work?




Cracker said:


> Back to the original post by Elana.
> It is perfectly fine to reduce or eliminate treats for training PROVIDING the dog finds something ELSE reinforcing, because eventually, without some variable reinforcement (unless it is SELF reinforcing) the behaviours fall apart.
> Food is simply the easiest, easiest to deliver for many reps in a short amount of time to increase reinforcement rate. Using tug or a bite sleeve or a retrieve or whatever else the dog might find reinforcing is not as time efficient and does not allow for the same number of reps. Using the food in the beginning to get your basic learning and proofing done (while simultaneously getting the reward "off the body"), can CREATE the secondary reinforcement you need. But the reward history has to be there in the beginning to MAKE the behaviour inherently rewarding. Then you can back off the rewards pretty much completely and only reward at the very end with whatever your dog likes. You couldn't create a chain of behaviours at all if the dog didn't find at least part of the sequence to be rewarding in and of itself, but you create that with the reward history.
> 
> And yes, I believe this is a chemical/neuro response..a classically conditioned response to a history of 'pleasure' based on previous rewards. As they say, Pavlov is always on your shoulder. Each repetition performed with a reinforcement creates neurological pathways, both conditioning a faster and cleaner response (muscle memory) and helping to burn a "permanent" softwired response to the cue. This is why self rewarding behaviours are so hard to extinguish without management. Each practice cements the behaviour, regardless of whether it is a "useful" behaviour or not.



Based on this, it would seem to be possible. For example, if I give Wally a long string of known cues, he'll start getting "that" look in his eyes and be intent. 

Now, he might be intent because he's thinking that somewhere at the end of this, he'll get a reward, but maybe he's also getting some enjoyment out of it as well. 

To me, it's hard to tell because I can't get in his head and see if he's thinking, "I'm gonna keep going because eventually I'll win and get the prize!" or "I'm having so much fun doing this right now!"


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

Do you think it is possible for other breeds to find work in and of themselves reinforcing? For example, it STARTS as "where's my external reward?" but then develops over time into it being an intrinsic (so to speak) reward?

*Do you mean that certain breeds or breed types have traits that make having a job rewarding, or that you can condition a dog of any type to make a sport or job to become the reward itself? *

Terr(i)orists or no I like tweaking the "programming" of Wally, so this is of interest to me. 

Or does there need to be something inside the dog's...genes I guess it is that makes the dog that driven to do some kind of job/work?

*I think biddability is a big factor. When it comes to learning new tasks that seem pointless to dogs, I would consider Tag biddable, and Auz not so much. If the job is important to me, I think Auz is biddable in that sense. 
I doubt this makes sense, but I hope you can get a feel for what I'm getting at.
Some breeds dominate the agility ring and the obedience ring. Others dominate schutzhund. Others dominate herding, and others dominate hunting, lure coursing, sledding, etc. Different drives, different temperaments, and different things that are self-reinforcing to different breeds. I personally think it's more or less certain dogs have been bred for a long, long time to take direction from humans, and others have been bred to be independent and do their own thinking. The most interesting dogs (to me) are those who are encouraged to be "intelligently disobedient". Those dogs are a total joy to watch work! Interested to see what others have to say.*


Based on this, it would seem to be possible. For example, if I give Wally a long string of known cues, he'll start getting "that" look in his eyes and be intent. 

Now, he might be intent because he's thinking that somewhere at the end of this, he'll get a reward, but maybe he's also getting some enjoyment out of it as well. 

To me, it's hard to tell because I can't get in his head and see if he's thinking, "I'm gonna keep going because eventually I'll win and get the prize!" or "I'm having so much fun doing this right now!"

*I think Wally and Tag were separated at birth  I still think a lot of Tags love of agility is through conditioned reinforcements (jumping and climbing and weaving and tunneling, in the beginning, earned him LOTS of food, his absolute favorite motivator.) I think at first it was more or less "I'm gonna keep going because eventually I'll win and get the prize"...and after certain obstacles were reinforced enough they became fun in themselves. 
The perfect example, when speaking of Tag, is his contacts. 2 on, 2 off was the first thing I taught him (he was about 5 months old) by using a clicker and a book on the floor. They were HIGHLY reinforced, because I wanted good, reliable contacts for safety reasons. He then started learning jumps, and during the learning stages (teaching him HOW to jump correctly) he was treated after every jump. He was also treated after every successful run through the tunnel. But neither the jumps nor the tunnel was (probably) reinforced nearly as much as contacts. If I walk Tag into the agility field and let him do what he wants, he might take a jump or two on his own, but he ALWAYS has gone to the A-frame and backed up until he had 2 on, 2 off, and waited intently for his reward. It does make me think that a conditioned response has a lot to do with it, and isn't strictly "THIS IS FUN!", since I would imagine jumping, tunneling, and climbing would be a lot more fun for a year old adrenaline junkie pup than simply standing with his 2 back feet on a board. (Only speaking for Tag here).*


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> Do you think it is possible for other breeds to find work in and of themselves reinforcing? For example, it STARTS as "where's my external reward?" but then develops over time into it being an intrinsic (so to speak) reward?


It is possible for other dogs to find work reinforcing, keep thinking dog not particular breed. I once had a Weimie that went with me on the job, I would go from office to office in different businesses delivering or picking up Classified Ad copy in leather pouch type envelopes. If I visited the same office usually twice but sometimes it would take 3 visits the dog would take envelope to the proper desk and they(whoever) would give return envelope to him and off we would go. 

It was not any training I did other than force retrieve breaking for field trials, but when it started I would just let dog carry envelope and we would walk to the different desks and all off lead work. One day I walked in and for kicks just sent him and off he went to proper desk and that's how it started. He enjoyed himself taill wagging all the way and it was something done every day as it was a job (mine).

This dog was a scary type untrained protection dog also, pity anybody who came into home unannounced. He was a marvelous dog who traveled some miles with me. He also made top ten puppy/derby in field trials in the country but never finished as a champion. I had moved on too GSPs. he had moved on to couch potatoe.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Yes....there are many things Strauss finds intrinsically rewarding, namely, agility.

I carry a tug toy when Strauss and I train for agility, to reward him for NOT destroying a piece of equipment (jump demolisher extraordinaire, he is). But all in all, agility itself is SO incredibly rewarding for him, I really don't need the tug toy.

I often find the tug is of use more as a tension breaker (when we're both getting frustrated) than as an actual reward for anything, as taking a jump, or, even better, getting sent to a tunnel is so heavily reinforcing for him.

With obedience, he does not find heeling intrinsically rewarding at all. He "needs" an external reward, or the effort isn't worth it. We're bridging away from the immediate rewards extremely quickly now that Jon has taken over, but we're only working on heeling, and doing a LOT of control work.

Retrieves ARE rewarding to him, and his reward is earned not by actually retrieving, but for not chewing or tossing the dumbbell in his mouth. He gets to exercise his prey drive, and that is an extremely rewarding thing for this dog. Any time he gets to exert energy in a QUICK fashion, he's interested. Heeling and focus are "hard" for him because they are slow, take time, and he has no control over either.

With agility or retrieves, he can go as fast or slow as he wants....fast is just his consistent choice xD


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Yeah, if you want to see a happy dog, you need to see Rusty bringing in the groceries. He goes up to the street where my wife parks, she hands him a bag out of the back, and he brings it to me at the door. Then he goes back for another.

His main reward is just getting to do it. It would certainly be quicker to load the contents of the car into a cart and walk it down in one trip, but it would be borderline abuse to not let him do his job.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

LOL! I can see it now! "Rusty! Careful with those eggs! And don't mash the bread!"


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

He carries the shopping bags by the handles. Of course, he likes to carry the bottled water (purchased by the case) individually. The things we do to make our dogs happy.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

"Does....does that dog have a bottle of water in his mouth?"
"Leave him be! He's out for a jog! Maybe he wants to crack one open and take a breather!"


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Sounds like others that have dogs that love to work just to work have "working" or "sporting" dogs (as in the groups they'd be put into).

I don't have a "working dog" - not that AKC recognizes Cotons, but they'd probably be in the Toy or Non-Sporting Group if they were.

Is it still possible to develop this love of work (with our without using treats as a "bridge") in such a dog? I mean, do we hear of Chihuahuas or Maltese or pretty much any non-terrier small dog loving a job?


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

KBLover said:


> Sounds like others that have dogs that love to work just to work have "working" or "sporting" dogs (as in the groups they'd be put into).
> 
> I don't have a "working dog" - not that AKC recognizes Cotons, but they'd probably be in the Toy or Non-Sporting Group if they were.
> 
> Is it still possible to develop this love of work (with our without using treats as a "bridge") in such a dog? I mean, do we hear of Chihuahuas or Maltese or pretty much any non-terrier small dog loving a job?


There's absolutely no reason why it would not be possible. One merely has to reinforce a behavior to the point the behavior itself is self-reinforcing due to a long history of reward. Think of people who teach their dog to paw, and after some point, the dog will constantly paw for anything and everything. 

The method for training dogs to not chew on things is "trade", for instance. Many dogs, upon learning this game, will actively seek out items to bring to the owner (a good way to clean up the house!)

So yeah, it's entirely possible to do so.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

A woman back in WI I'm friends with has Papillons that LOVE to do agility and obedience 

And a few years ago I saw a Borzoi at an obedience trial in Utility!


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

The only thing to do is keep all this work secret, because sure as sh*t AKC will jump in and we'll have judges, stewards and entry fees.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

KBLover said:


> Sounds like others that have dogs that love to work just to work have "working" or "sporting" dogs (as in the groups they'd be put into).
> 
> Is it still possible to develop this love of work (with our without using treats as a "bridge") in such a dog? I mean, do we hear of Chihuahuas or Maltese or pretty much any non-terrier small dog loving a job?


Breeding matters. Even a comparatively young breed, like the Golden Retriever, was mashed up by combining breeds that had a combined history of several hundreds of years of serving man in specific tasks. Training one to do what he was bred for is not hard. It's more a matter of guiding the dog into doing what he already wants to do, in a way that you want it done.

This is why certain breeds tend to dominate different competitive milieus.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I LOVE the word milieu!!


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

Xeph said:


> A woman back in WI I'm friends with has Papillons that LOVE to do agility and obedience
> 
> And a few years ago I saw a Borzoi at an obedience trial in Utility!


I think if some of the papillon people on the board chimed in, the general agreement with them would be that 90% of the paps would be insane without some sort of job (thinking of Mia here, lol!) Even if the "job" isn't structured training for a specific task, I think some dogs take normal, every day things and turn them into "jobs" (evicting squirrels or cats from the yard, going for a walk, etc). 
I saw a husky kicking butt in the utility ring a few years back, it was cool


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I saw a husky kicking butt in the utility ring a few years back, it was cool


I bet it was Frankie xD


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

Xeph said:


> I bet it was Frankie xD


The handler was a very nice lady. Between exercises she would lean down and softly say something to her dog, and her dog would soften his eyes and put his ears back, tail wagging. I've no other way to describe how they interacted except for "it was sweet". (Tag spent the whole day at the agility trial yesterday watching the other dogs, then looking back at me with a big grin, eyes so soft they were half closed, and his tail never stopped thumping. It was so cute!!)


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

RBark said:


> There's absolutely no reason why it would not be possible. One merely has to reinforce a behavior to the point the behavior itself is self-reinforcing due to a long history of reward. Think of people who teach their dog to paw, and after some point, the dog will constantly paw for anything and everything.
> 
> The method for training dogs to not chew on things is "trade", for instance. Many dogs, upon learning this game, will actively seek out items to bring to the owner (a good way to clean up the house!)
> 
> So yeah, it's entirely possible to do so.


Funny you mention pawing because that seems to be the first thing Wally does. 

It seems he loves using his paws ever since I taught him that. Even now with me trying to teach left from right, he's grasping "left paw" vs "right paw" faster than learning the actual directions/turns left and right.

I will have to try the trade game, even though Wally doesn't really chew on "bad" items. Maybe I can work it in a different context.

Between teaching "shake" and giving him "paw intensive" "work" (like wrapping up his hard boiled egg and making him paw and "dig" and pull the blankets apart) he's like "wow these things are good for more than walking on"



Marsh Muppet said:


> Breeding matters. Even a comparatively young breed, like the Golden Retriever, was mashed up by combining breeds that had a combined history of several hundreds of years of serving man in specific tasks. Training one to do what he was bred for is not hard. It's more a matter of guiding the dog into doing what he already wants to do, in a way that you want it done.
> 
> This is why certain breeds tend to dominate different competitive milieus.



Makes a lot of sense. 

I guess Cotons were bred to be 'just' companions (though one site had listed them as Gun Dogs ). He sure is clingy these days anyway!


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

FWIW today I saw a Chinese Crested doing heel work to die for in the obedience ring. He beat me hands down. That dog was loving it too... and the motivational reward being used by the owner IN THE RING and between exercises was the touch game. She held her hand horizontal and the dog jumpe up to touch it. 

All her postures, voice and hand positions between exercises in the ring were designed to be very very motivating to bring the dog's attention to her face. She left the ring and stopped motivating the dog.. all the reward.. all the fun if you will, was left IN THE RING. 

Very interesting to see. Wish I had time to talk to her after but I was showing and working. 

My dog did well, High score GSD in Novice A. We are now through with Novice A and can never show in that arena again. We move up to B at this point but I am going to take a month off and work on this "stuff" I have brought up here in this thread. I will let you know my successes AND my failures. 

Tho today.. after getting home and unloading the truck..feeding cats and dog.. I put my dog back in the truck and took her for an ice cream cone. She knows all the ice cream places within 10 miles of the house and I pulled in and she was already whining. 

Small vanilla cone and she got to have her grown up dog pants on because I let her have her ice cream in a cone, not a dish (requires greater finesse to eat it in a cone). 

And before anyone asks, NO I did not have her do a single thing to "earn" that ice cream. All she had to do was stand there and lick....


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

I'm still kind of curious why you don't just use treats to build secondary and tertiary reinforcers that you can use in the ring. That's what most people do for rewards inside the ring. The example you gave, it's likely that those behaviors were built up as secondary/tertiary reinforcement using treats/toys (the primary reinforcement) to be able to utilize it in the ring. The primary reinforcement allowed those secondary/tertiary ones to become strong enough to be used in the ring without treats.

I mean, the idea of building up reinforcers you can take into the ring is nothing new, you just seem to be ignoring the method to build up the reinforcement history necessary to create a treat-free secondary/tertiary reinforcement.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Elana55 said:


> FWIW today I saw a Chinese Crested doing heel work to die for in the obedience ring. He beat me hands down. That dog was loving it too... and the motivational reward being used by the owner IN THE RING and between exercises was the touch game. She held her hand horizontal and the dog jumpe up to touch it.
> 
> All her postures, voice and hand positions between exercises in the ring were designed to be very very motivating to bring the dog's attention to her face. She left the ring and stopped motivating the dog.. all the reward.. all the fun if you will, was left IN THE RING.
> 
> ...



Very interesting - and good job on the success 

And LOL at the whining already knowing she's getting an ice cream. That's awesome. I love then dogs do stuff like that.

And yay for the Crested! Go little dog! 

Looking forward to hear how you do in the future. I'm curious. Good luck


----------



## poodleholic (Mar 15, 2007)

Interesting. 

Maddy (9 yrs. old) was trained without the use of food rewards at all. What turned her crank was me "throwiing a party" whenever she got something I was trying to teach her. For example, when I was teaching her to retrieve a toy I'd thrown, and give it to me, I'd clap and hoot and hollar GO MADDY! YAY MADDY! GO MADDY! Jump up and down and act like I'd lost my mind. When she didn't drop the item into my hand, I shut down and ignored her. She wasn't having any of that! lol She LOVED it when I acted goofy, and that required her doing what I wanted her to do, so, she just did it. 

Heeling was boring, but not when it was a game - Her focus was intense, because I'd mix it up, and do so fast. Forward, zig zag, backward, forward, fast bursts, slow . . .figure eights, and so on. To this day the word "heel" gets her excited, and much as I try, I can't trip her up! She's so _there_, that she's moving with my change of direction at the moment I'm doing it. Beau, too, and now, Lucia. Her focus on me is even more intense than Maddy's.

When Beau came along, I would occasionally use food treats, but not always. He's very food motivated, Maddy not so much. I think it's an individual thing. 



> Pretty soon I cannot get rid of my dog. She is hanging around and watching me.. waiting for the next sudden burst of craziness from me. She knows I have completely lost my marbles and must keep an eye on me in case I go completely nuts.


Maddy, Beau, and Lucia have their eye on me at all times, and are always in the same room with me (even the bathroom, sigh . . .unless I tell them OUT). They're so aware of me in the sense of how I'm feeling, what I'm doing, that when I decide I'm going to take them all for a ride to get a treat (frozen yogurt shoppe, or something), they're at the door lined up, sitting nicely with 4-on-the floor, before I've even gotten off the couch! HOW do they know?! lol They constantly amaze me. I think I'm being covert about something . . .hehehe NOT. Busted every time! 

Being "goofy" is what, in large part, stopped Beau's window terrorism. I'd tried all sorts of things, including calming signals (which did help), but what stopped him immediately was me acting goofy - making faces, noises, laughing, dancing/jumping around like I was missing a few marbles. Before long, instead of reacting to what/whoever was walking past the house by lunging and barking, he'd look at me, mouth open and ready to bark, but waiting. So, I took _my cue _and started dancing around acting goofy. He LOVED it, and this silly session ended quickly, with either butt scrathes, chin scrathes, and physical touch showing affection, or with that AND a food treat, along with a GOOD BOY! 

Throughout the day I'll be going about business as usual (chores), but all I have to do is cock my body in an exaggerated fashion, throw up an arm, throw back my head, or some such, and all three come lickity split to sit in front of me, eagerly waiting instruction! lol It's really funny.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

poodleholic said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Maddy (9 yrs. old) was trained without the use of food rewards at all. What turned her crank was me "throwiing a party" whenever she got something I was trying to teach her. For example, when I was teaching her to retrieve a toy I'd thrown, and give it to me, I'd clap and hoot and hollar GO MADDY! YAY MADDY! GO MADDY! Jump up and down and act like I'd lost my mind. When she didn't drop the item into my hand, I shut down and ignored her. She wasn't having any of that! lol She LOVED it when I acted goofy, and that required her doing what I wanted her to do, so, she just did it.
> 
> ...


Yes, but you are cheating by throwing poodles into this mix, as much as I say it's the dog not the breed and I'm not a poodle person by ownership. (whoops once had a toy poodle) I have trained a small number of standards and they were stunning and what I liked also was the agility and lightness on their feet(paws).

As a boy in Chicago at the Fullerton Ave Rocks (Lake Michigan) there was a gentleman with 2 standards that would throw dummies off the rocks into extremely wavy waters and when dogs came back he would have to wait till the waves rose up and he would grab dog's collar to bring him back onto the concrete. (hard to explain you had to be there) I was 15 had no idea of any future with dogs but any time the dogs were there I would watch until man/dogs were done.

So as I said above it is not fair to bring poodles into this and I hope this doesn't start a breed/dog war. I just thought it was interesting memory to share.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

I will second what WVasko says.. you are CHEATING Poodleholic because you have Standard Poodles. A more "human" dog is yet to be made. 

I have said it before and I will say it again here.. If it were not for the clipping requirement for the Breed ring I would have poodles. They are nearly human. I know a few Poodles at dog club (their owners too). Mostly Miniature, but the size makes not one iota of difference. They are so darn smart.. but beyond that it is their human-ness. 

I have had the joy and pleasure of sharing my life with 2 standard poodles. I cannot recommend them enough. Great as pets.. just bath and clip every month and you can clip close all over with a pom on the Head and tail. Their shedding is minimal.. more like humans in that regard (a few hairs here and there!). I cannot say enough good things about this breed. If the AKC would allow them to be shown in a Kennel Clip I would have Poodles.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

RBark said:


> I'm still kind of curious why you don't just use treats to build secondary and tertiary reinforcers that you can use in the ring. That's what most people do for rewards inside the ring. The example you gave, it's likely that those behaviors were built up as secondary/tertiary reinforcement using treats/toys (the primary reinforcement) to be able to utilize it in the ring. The primary reinforcement allowed those secondary/tertiary ones to become strong enough to be used in the ring without treats.
> 
> I mean, the idea of building up reinforcers you can take into the ring is nothing new, you just seem to be ignoring the method to build up the reinforcement history necessary to create a treat-free secondary/tertiary reinforcement.


The folks not using treats do sometime use them to capture the initial behavior but the treats and markers are quickly abandoned. The point is to make what you refer to as secondary/tertiary reinforcers _primary_ reinforcers. The point is to get off of food. 

There are not a few people who, upon arriving at a show (any sort BTW, not just obedience) who panic if they suddenly realize the treat bag has been left home. They also frequently have issues in the ring. Some of those will scratch. 

I had the pleasure of timing for the Rally Ring yesterday. This class allows talking to the dog and all kinds of body language that is obvious. Most of the people in the ring use their hands as if there is food in them.. and the dogs have various responses to that from ignoring them (because their is no food) to reducing their responses thru the class as the dog realizes no food will be forthcoming. It was very interesting to watch and very entertaining to see people practically do hand stands to get their food motivated dogs to pay attention. The winning teams do none of this. tTe simply do what it says at each sign. These dogs are also attentive BEWTEEN signs! 

BTW in this class the novice dogs are on leash and all others are off leash and you cannot touch your dog or tighten the leash. One person had their dog on leash and the dog was sniffing the ground very intently and the person popped their dog twice. Judge told 'em to quit and they did it again, right in front of the judge. They were excused and "abuse" was written on the judges score card. Not so good!!! 

I watched both formal obedience and rally obedience and the fails were pretty much for the same reasons. They were not ready for the level they were showing at and their dogs were inattentive. Most were food trained dogs. The winning dogs.. the ones that were happy to work and intent on working and attentive to their owners were dogs that were warmed up outside the ring with a minimum of food or no food. One person, famous actually both here in the US and internationally, had her young dog there. She had a lightweight bite sleep on her one arm and the motivation for her Labrador Retriever was to get permission to grab the bite sleeve (I put the breed in there on purpose). 

What I am seeing is that using food as a primary motivator causes many more problems than it solves when the food is not there. Better to get off the food ASAP as a primary motivator. The best dogs out there already are. 

BTW there is some venue.. UKC or CKC or something (I don't know what one) that actually ALLOWS food in the ring. Anyone who wants to train with food can show in that arena. 

I do not wish to.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

I am not sure why *other people's* failings as a trainer is your failing as a trainer.

What you are saying is like me saying that since there are many, many people out there who screw up dogs with coercion then coercion is a system that creates more problems than it fixes. Obviously that's not the case, given the number of people who use coercion in the highest stages of Obedience.

Regardless of what method you use, if you use it right, you'll be fine, if you use it wrong, you'll have troubles. The fact that some of the people you see did not build up secondary/tertiary reinforcement means they need a lot of improvement in both education and training. You are taking a completely different meaning from it.

Instead of trying to learn from the people who are doing it wrong, why not learn from the people who are doing it right? You do that for everyone other than reward based trainers.



> Most of the people in the ring use their hands as if there is food in them.. and the dogs have various responses to that from ignoring them (because their is no food) to reducing their responses thru the class as the dog realizes no food will be forthcoming.


Yeah, they did not fade the lure correctly, they did not create a secondary/tertiary reinforcement, they were not ready for the ring. Rather than learning from them, and I'm not trying to be egoistical here but, Kobe, the most food-UNmotivated, toy UNmotivated, play UNmotivated dog I know, can and will follow my commands for hours for nothing but the opportunity to hear me laugh and give me a paw, and even those are not done frequently. And he's a nordic breed, and was more difficult to train than Ollie.

The reason he is able to do this is because I faded my reinforcement, and because I built up a long, long, long, long, long, long, long history of reinforcement in the behaviors I was to use as secondary/tertiary reinforcement. 



> the ones that were happy to work and intent on working and attentive to their owners were dogs that were warmed up outside the ring with a minimum of food or no food.


And these successful people, you have absolutely no clue why they are able to do so. They may have warmed them up using secondary/tertiary reinforcers, leading to the illusion that they do not train with food. The long history of reinforcement, and properly faded lure, allowed them to use something they can carry into the ring, which was built up with their primary reinforcement (food, tug, play, etc). 



> The best dogs out there already are.


Really? You know all of the best dogs and how they were trained? Or are you just looking at the result in the ring and imagining the method that was used to get it?



> tTe simply do what it says at each sign. These dogs are also attentive BEWTEEN signs!


It's been a long, long time since I've had to use any form of luring to get Kobe to do what I say, and I've never had that issue whatsoever with Priscilla. Nor Ollie. I tell them to sit, down, come, whatever it is, they do so. When I release them, they do so.

That's the results of my training, the training I can take out in public where I can't always carry treats with me. If someone saw me doing all that, without ever using treats, they would grossly misunderstand how I train my dogs, because that is merely the result of the training, not the process. The process of my training leads to that result, not the other way around.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

I have only one question for you. 

Have you ever taken ANY dog you mention here into a show and actually done the routine successfully in that environment? 

Saying you can and doing it are vastly different. Trust me because I have. 

You can get a stay (for instance) or an attentive heel down the middle of main street and have it completely FAIL in the ring for a variety of reasons. You can have an attentive heel thru the middle of a dog park and have it fall apart in the ring. I have seen that too. I experienced it myself on Saturday (but on Sunday we were fine). I know why (another story for another thread). 

Heck.. I saw a dog with his UDX fail Open B on Saturday. Walking into the ring is like walking onto Mars.  

I did not believe it was Mars until I did it. My first time out the dog warmed up like a dream out of the ring. It was beautiful. We got into the ring and it was "hello Mars... and the Judge here is Chief Martian." I had been told this by experienced people, but I shrugged it off because _I KNEW BETTER_.. my dog was heeling down Main Street.. doing Open work.. training beyond where I was showing... NO problem. Then I went to Mars. I still Q'd, still got a first place ribbon, still won in a run off.. but by golly it was NOT like it was outside of the ring.. 6 feet away.. in a warm up. Yup.. those experienced folks were RIGHT. Mars..... (maybe the air has less O2 in the ring?)

Try it and then get back to me. I am sure there are up coming shows in your area and AKC now allows mix breeds and they have always allowed ILP. I know you are not interested.. I'm just sayin' and I am getting to be the person who has experienced it saying it too. 

For me? It is NOT nerves. For a lot of people it is.. but I just don't get nervous. Not like there will never be another dog obedience trial! 

I DO ask successful trainers what they do. Because I want to be successful I ask. Most are happy to talk about what they do. Some are not and that is OK too. 

I am going to give this a go. Why not? I bought the dog, I pay for her food, I pay for her vet care. I own her. I am not abusing her. _I am going to try something different and because of the above, I can and I want to. My dog. My property. _


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

I have to agree with competition not being in the real world. A person living with their personal dog/dogs 24/7 can do marvelous things with their dogs. Absolutely no argument from me. 

On my very 1st deer hunt I walked up on a hunter back to me. I was a stalk 10 minutes and then stand for 30 minutes. This was just my method. While looking at this hunter maybe 60 feet in front of me a big buck popped out and ran in front of this hunter, he had a lever action marlin and he fired this gun until empty missed the deer because he was watching deer and fired all shots into the ground and did not realize what he was doing.

That's pretty wild and I am not trying to compare that episode with walking into a ring but there is an Adrenalin charge no matter what dog competition you are in. I have always said there are good trainers and there are good handlers but at the top there are good handler/trainers lodged in one body. 

Then keep in mind at the start of any competition your dog is a winner but immediately dog and handler make the 1st move deductions start, which causes a lot of grief for some handlers maiking them nervous and then their dog nervous.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

The trick is to be so good as to not make any deductions. One team at our trial this weekend had a 199.5 out of a perfect 200 in Open. That team HAS gotten 200's. 

The adrenalin can kick in when you realize you have made no real flaws and are suddently going for a very high score.. and next are the Stays. Your dog may have never broken a stay.. but there you are and someone else's dog breaks the stay and goes over to your dog. Will your dog stay? trained well he will. 

Fact is, there is more than one story of a dog retaining his/her sit stay while a dog who broke went over and started to hump  the dog who was still staying. In one case the dog that did not break was also known to be very dog aggressive.. and that dog remained in a sit/stay. THAT is darn good.. because these were Open dogs and this was the three minute out of sight sit/stay.


----------



## LynnI (Mar 27, 2010)

Elana55 said:


> I had the pleasure of timing for the Rally Ring yesterday. This class allows talking to the dog and all kinds of body language that is obvious. * Most of the people in the ring use their hands as if there is food in them.. *and the dogs have various responses to that from ignoring them (because their is no food) to reducing their responses thru the class as the dog realizes no food will be forthcoming. It was very interesting to watch and very entertaining to see people practically do hand stands to get their food motivated dogs to pay attention. The winning teams do none of this. tTe simply do what it says at each sign. These dogs are also attentive BEWTEEN signs!
> 
> .


^^^ That is the lying to your dog and imo is worse than luring and I avoid luring like it is the plague. It is a perfect example of using food motivatiors wrong! Your blaming the reward and not the person training it. Another point to consider, many people leave their best performance OUTSIDE of the ring by practicing too much and by shoveling food into their dogs face. Again its not the reward that is the problem it is how it is used.

Curious what do you think of someone running an agility course with a toy/tug in their hand? Any differece between that and someone using food wrong?

I would also like to add, that too many people don't train a 'done/break'. And once the dog has been rewarded it has learned that they are on their own time and training/working is finished. Therefore the handler then has to 'get them back'.

A couple of months ago, my 7 month old jrt puppy could and did easily work a full rally course without being rewarded in between stations or after each exercise. Why? because we were chaining it together as a course and she wasn't done. I didn't have food rewards on me nor did I pretend to have any for her, big mistake to do so! The same with agility, once you have gone past a certain point in training and you are now chaining behaivours together by sequencing, you don't reward after each obstacle.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

LynnI said:


> ^^^ That is the lying to your dog and imo is worse than luring and I avoid luring like it is the plague. It is a perfect example of using food motivatiors wrong!


Oh I agree 100% Do not lie to your dog. 



> Your blaming the reward and not the person training it. Another point to consider, many people leave their best performance OUTSIDE of the ring by practicing too much and by shoveling food into their dogs face. Again its not the reward that is the problem it is how it is used.


Yes and no. I did not say I would NEVER use food. I am saying I want to relegate it to a lower position than primary. IOW's lower its value to the dog. Not have it be the primary payment for the job well done. 

Most people use food as a primary reinforcer and do exactly what you are saying.. stuffing their dog out side the ring and hoping it carries over to in the ring. Not gonna work well. Been there. 

It was very interesting to see that tactic not working well too. It was not just Novice or Rally dogs.. but I saw it in Open and Utility as well. Watching is very educational. 



> Curious what do you think of someone running an agility course with a toy/tug in their hand? Any differece between that and someone using food wrong?


As far as I am concerned if you bring a tug or toy onto the agility course it is every bit the same as using food in an inappropriate manner. BUT, that is my OPINION not based on any real agility experience. Most of the high placing dogs that I have seen in agility seem to get a lot of reward from the obstacles themselves. 

I have done some (minimal) agility training with my dog and she finds jumping and tunnels very self rewarding. If you stand on the course and do nothing, she will run the course with some obstacles getting 3-4 run thrus (tunnels and jumps) and other obstacles getting one run. BTW I do not let her on the Teeter when I have done this (she is not experience and no need to get her spooked by having the teeter hit her in the @$$ or something). 

What I am going to TRY to do is to make the Formal Obedience exercises self rewarding much like the tunnel and jumps are to her in agility. In all reality, she gets very excited about heeling now. I do things to make it so.. and (interestingly) few of those things are food related.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

LynnI said:


> ^^^ That is the lying to your dog and imo is worse than luring and I avoid luring like it is the plague. It is a perfect example of using food motivatiors wrong! Your blaming the reward and not the person training it. Another point to consider, many people leave their best performance OUTSIDE of the ring by practicing too much and by shoveling food into their dogs face. Again its not the reward that is the problem it is how it is used.
> 
> Curious what do you think of someone running an agility course with a toy/tug in their hand? Any differece between that and someone using food wrong?
> 
> ...


I don't understand agiliy, big reason I've never done it. Please help me. How does the 3 minute out of sight stay with one dog breaking a stay (and humping another dog on stay) handled in your opinion. There really is no comparison in my mind.

In bird dogs there have been many dogs on point that have had 2nd dog come into sight and instead of honoring 1st dogs point by stopping immediately and backing the pointing dog just cruise right on by and either bump bird and take off because 2nd dog had little manners to begin with and also taking your dog along for the chase DQing both dogs.

I won't get into how that is handled cause it's not necessary here. but I will say if lying to dog would have stopped my dog from following the ill-bred, ill mannered 2nd dog I would have lied a multitude of times. That's just me though. I suppose Pros view things differently.


----------



## LynnI (Mar 27, 2010)

Elana55 said:


> As far as I am concerned if you bring a tug or toy onto the agility course it is every bit the same as using food in an inappropriate manner. BUT, that is my OPINION not based on any real agility experience. * Most of the high placing dogs that I have seen in agility seem to get a lot of reward from the obstacles themselves. *
> 
> I have done some (minimal) agility training with my dog and she finds jumping and tunnels very self rewarding. If you stand on the course and do nothing, she will run the course with some obstacles getting 3-4 run thrus (tunnels and jumps) and other obstacles getting one run. BTW I do not let her on the Teeter when I have done this (she is not experience and no need to get her spooked by having the teeter hit her in the @$$ or something).
> 
> What I am going to TRY to do is to make the Formal Obedience exercises self rewarding much like the tunnel and jumps are to her in agility. In all reality, she gets very excited about heeling now. I do things to make it so.. and (interestingly) few of those things are food related.


I can tell you that the top agility gurus and others do not want their dogs on any level to be self rewarding for agility or any obstacle. And they work very hard to avoid that, they want the dog to find them and only them to be the most rewarding thing by usually playing tug and games with the dog.
My dog was self rewarding, he got his rocks off doing agility and couldn't have cared less if I was out there or not. Every peice of advice given by those guru's was to stop it and make myself the reward thru play.
I am not saying that the dogs don't enjoy/love doing agility because they have too, to be excellent at it but the ultimate is the reward of playing/being with their handler.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I can tell you that the top agility gurus and others do not want their dogs on any level to be self rewarding for agility or any obstacle. And they work very hard to avoid that


One of many reasons I'll never be a top agility competitor. Strauss was initially so motivated by the equipment that it is true he couldn't have cared if I was there or not. Now we work as a team.

However, agility itself is still inherently rewarding to the dog, and I don't really need any reward outside of access to the equipment for him. Heck, if I could have got him to quit knocking bars, we'd probably be running excellent


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

Elana55 said:


> Have you ever taken ANY dog you mention here into a show and actually done the routine successfully in that environment?
> 
> Saying you can and doing it are vastly different. Trust me because I have.


I have. Like you, I also have one dog who has gone through Novice A (UKC), earning her Novice Obedience title in her first three run attempts, earning first place in all three, with one score in the mid-190s and two in the mid-upper 180s. Webster is also ready to compete, and will likely be doing AKC...unfortunately I will be out of state at the Flatcoat nationals for the next local trial so it will be a while until he has his chance.

All I can say is that, having Novice dogs, I don't think either of use can speak with overbearing authority on what is and is not possible. As you pointed out, watching others compete and practicing outside the trial ring (as we both have done regarding Open and Utility) doesn't really count for much. In any case, CC and OC still apply, always and forever. 

IMO, it's obvious that in order to compete successful in the ring, any ring, you need to have prepared for the level of competition (and beyond that, preferably), have proofed as thoroughly as possible, created a situation in which the dog will willingly chose to do the work, and established some sort of communication you can use in the ring. How you do that is irrelevant to me...hence why I don't get the point of trashing food as an reinforcer. 



wvasko said:


> I don't understand agiliy, big reason I've never done it. Please help me. How does the 3 minute out of sight stay with one dog breaking a stay (and humping another dog on stay) handled in your opinion. There really is no comparison in my mind.
> 
> In bird dogs there have been many dogs on point that have had 2nd dog come into sight and instead of honoring 1st dogs point by stopping immediately and backing the pointing dog just cruise right on by and either bump bird and take off because 2nd dog had little manners to begin with and also taking your dog along for the chase DQing both dogs.


Not saying it's the same thing, but try sending your dog to a 12 pole weave along a flimsy snow fence and get a solid weave (any mistake is an NQ) with lateral distance so you can set up for the next sequence...while a screaming border collie is wizzing by over the teeter, slamming it to the ground with the handler yelling at him...all about 15' away from your dog. And of course there are dogs warming up all around the rings with their handlers revving them into insanity, random people shouting and laughing (agility trials are much louder than obedience and hunt trials from what I've seen), in-ring workers losing control of their umbrella as your dog goes by, EZ-Up popup canopies blowing over in the wind and sailing past the course, a bird flying in front of your retriever's nose as he exits the tunnel and needs to make a sharp turn in the opposite direction to avoid an off course...

I've only been to about 10 agility trials (either as a competitor or as a worker) and these are all things I've witnessed first hand so far.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

LynnI said:


> I can tell you that the top agility gurus and others do not want their dogs on any level to be self rewarding for agility or any obstacle. And they work very hard to avoid that, they want the dog to find them and only them to be the most rewarding thing by usually playing tug and games with the dog.
> My dog was self rewarding, he got his rocks off doing agility and couldn't have cared less if I was out there or not. Every peice of advice given by those guru's was to stop it and make myself the reward thru play.
> I am not saying that the dogs don't enjoy/love doing agility because they have too, to be excellent at it but the ultimate is the reward of playing/being with their handler.


This is why I said I did not do agility and it was just my OPINION. 

BTW this is what we are striving to do in obedience as well, but the exercise must also be interactive (yup.. even the Stays and that includes out of sight stays). People say "Heeling is boring" or "stays are boring.." and they are NOT and CANNOT BE if you want to succeed. 

Again, through play I am looking for the same thing in obedience, but w/o using a toy as a primary reinforcer (can use one but not as a primary reinforcer). Play directly with me.. interaction directly with me.. are what I am working to get as primary reinforcers. 

The point is, as you say, the team being the focus and that with the work being the reward. 

If I had the agility thing wrong it is because this is about obedience and I do not do agility (and I did say that). Sounds like Agility is about obedience as well. 

I think we agree but, again, I do not do agility with my dog. Maybe someday with some dog. Maybe someday with this dog. Right now I am putting my efforts into formal obedience.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> People say "Heeling is boring" or "stays are boring.." and they are NOT and CANNOT BE if you want to succeed.


Sorry, but I will always disagree with this. There is nothing in the world that I have tried (while proofing my dog) that makes overall standing in place for 1-5 minutes exciting. The only thing you may be doing, regardless of how you proofed, is stand there staring at the dog, or stand behind a barrier thinking "I did everything, absolutely EVERYTHING. Don't get up. Stay there. Don't you move your butt. " as you run over every proofing exercise you've ever done.

Agility is still about obedience, but the "perfection factor" isn't there. I care if my dog touches the contacts on the contact obstacle, but that's pretty much my only requirement for the contacts. In terms of judging, it doesn't matter if just a toenail touched that contact, or if the dog smacked his paw right dab in the middle of it, it's not scored any differently. The dog hit the contact, and that's all that matters.


----------



## LynnI (Mar 27, 2010)

Elana55 said:


> Sounds like Agility is about obedience as well.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Xeph said:


> Sorry, but I will always disagree with this. There is nothing in the world that I have tried (while proofing my dog) that makes overall standing in place for 1-5 minutes exciting. The only thing you may be doing, regardless of how you proofed, is stand there staring at the dog, or stand behind a barrier thinking "I did everything, absolutely EVERYTHING. Don't get up. Stay there. Don't you move your butt. " as you run over every proofing exercise you've ever done.


I don't know.

Sure, the act of lying on the ground for a minute probably ain't doing anything for the dog, but the anticipation of what's to come could make the dog more apt to lie down in the first place, and if that whatever your dog is dying to do (or get) is the result of lying down and NOT moving, then the dog might be anticipating that thing the whole time, keeping him in, basically, an excited and alert state. 

So the act isn't doing it, but the dog is in the excited state anyway (which then keeps him riveted to the ground because you've explained that getting up before I say so gets you jack and squat). And then when he's finished the job is released and gets the reward - the cycle is complete.

At least, that's the way Wally seems to think. 


As far as food vs no food, I still think the same way - if the food (or any reward) is the result of the action and not the cue for the action, then you're fine. When the reward becomes the cue, that's the problem, regardless, imo, of reward.

I think it's too much emphasis on the food itself. A reward is a reward, and any can become a cue for a behavior (i.e. bait) if not done right.

Someone could take Elana's idea and misuse it so that they have their hand up for the eventual jump-touch before the dog will even pay attention to the handler. It's not the food, imo, it's the application of rewarding. Elana is trying a different reward. For me, it would take longer to get that rewarding for Wally. Instead, I stick with what he dies for (pretty much doing the same thing, just with different programming - her dog is a breed that's born to work, I don't know what exactly Cotons were born to do, but I do know he would die to eat and I guess that's genetic somewhere) and up the challenge/requirements over time for him to get it and the reward doesn't come every time (no matter what it is)


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but during stays, I don't WANT my dog in an "excited/alert state". IMO/E it makes them more apt to get up.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Xeph said:


> Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but during stays, I don't WANT my dog in an "excited/alert state". IMO/E it makes them more apt to get up.


Probably.

I just know Wally is excited and alert when he's focused on doing anything, including making himself NOT move (I swear it's effort for him). He's staying, but his like waiting for the release with every fiber of his being. It's even worse if I delay it for another minute after coming back to him and standing on his right. He's like DO IT, JUST DO IT ALREADY COME ON DO IT I'M STARING A HOLE IN YOUR HEAD UNTIL YOU DO! And his ears are out, just waiting for any sound I might make. If my finger twitches, he's looking at it, eyes as big as dinner plates (the same psycho look he gets when he smells food, actually), etc.

To me, that's him being excited and alert. However, it's all directed to me. Dog barks - he doesn't care, he's riveted to me. Someone coming - if he sees it, he doesn't avert his gaze, etc.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Yeah, that's not what I want. It's probably the only exercise where I WANT my dog to be "flat". Doesn't matter how much training I do, I never feel I'm "in the clear" until Strauss puts his head down.


----------



## MegaMuttMom (Sep 15, 2007)

I've been reading this whole thread with great interest. I have a hound/ possibly husky/five hundred other breeds mix who is, after 3 years with us, is still uncomfortable with petting though he tolerates it if we just can't stand not to love on him. Putting his head on my feet is about all the cuddling he will muster. He is a dog who looks to me to tell him what to do and watches me with rapt interest but, in the agility ring, if I lose sight of him for an instant, a crumb on the floor becomes far more interesting than I am  

The only things that charge him up are food and other dogs. I would love to have the goal of playing with me being a primary reinforcer but, it is just not in his nature. He can now get through a sequence of 14 obstacles without any reinforcement but, if I stopped rewarding him with jackpots of food when we return to our seat, I believe I would extinguish his training over a period of time. He is really one who needs to know what's in it for him. He will work for a delayed reward but, I am not going to cut it as a reward, all by myself. 

The GSD in my class will do anything for her handler just so she can lean on her and be petted. She does get treats from time to time but they seem to be beside the point for the dog. So, Elana, I think you will be able to get what you want in time. I still don't understand why you want it that way, but I think it will end up working for you.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Xeph said:


> Yeah, that's not what I want. It's probably the only exercise where I WANT my dog to be "flat". Doesn't matter how much training I do, I never feel I'm "in the clear" until Strauss puts his head down.


Heh - I think Wally would still be alert even with his head down 

Either that, or I'd be standing there for an hour until he decides to take a nap while I decide whether we are going or not LOL

I don't think Wally has a "flat" setting - unless, nothing is happening, or he's tired. Someone left that knob off him when they were creating him. 

Wonder if I could "build" a flat setting. I remember when wvasko basically shamed me into building an "off" switch, and THAT took effort. Had to literally ignore him for like 20 minutes back then before he got the point that I'M DONE! YOU'RE DONE! SESSION OVER! LOL


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

KBLover said:


> I just know Wally is excited and alert when he's focused on doing anything, including making himself NOT move (I swear it's effort for him). He's staying, but his like waiting for the release with every fiber of his being.


I have one of those. Long stays are exhausting for Rusty. He's better now, but as a puppy he was pain. 

Slightly OT: On long stays--of random length--Rusty always seemed to know when I was 5-10 seconds away from releasing him. If he broke, it'd be at 04:55 into a 5-minute stay. That's a pretty simple problem to fix, but it does illustrate that even highly self directed dogs can read us like an X-ray. Watch that body language, boys and girls.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Yup. I really have to watch my body language on the return. At present I cannot look at or speak to my dog on the return, because he will, without fail, break before the judge says "exercise finished". Nobody can tell me why this is, they just say "Don't look at him" (this never occurred in Novice...I do not know what has changed so much that he will not continue on as normal in Open).


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Ok answer me this we have a dog that lays down flat on their side and does not move and is correct. Then we have another dog lays down haunches, belly, chest with front feet straight out in front with head up ears/eyes alert also like a statue, 2nd dog to me would be very stylish. Now neither dog moved but one while not moving looked great while other dog just just looked like a dog asleep on it's side. Are there points for style.



> I remember when wvasko basically shamed me into building an "off" switch,


Sure blame the old guy


> Not saying it's the same thing, but try sending your dog to a 12 pole weave along a flimsy snow fence and get a solid weave (any mistake is an NQ) with lateral distance so you can set up for the next sequence...while a screaming border collie is wizzing by over the teeter, slamming it to the ground with the handler yelling at him...all about 15' away from your dog. And of course there are dogs warming up all around the rings with their handlers revving them into insanity, random people shouting and laughing (agility trials are much louder than obedience and hunt trials from what I've seen), in-ring workers losing control of their umbrella as your dog goes by, EZ-Up popup canopies blowing over in the wind and sailing past the course, a bird flying in front of your retriever's nose as he exits the tunnel and needs to make a sharp turn in the opposite direction to avoid an off course...


Hey, I never said it wasn't difficult as a good agility dog is a thing of beauty/speed and intelligence. When you're in any kind of competition stuff happens. People not in competition just may not understand how hard all this silly stuff can be.

Through the years I have heard from many people that say "oh my dog could do all that work but I just don't feel like it" or something similar. When somebody said that directly to me, being the diplomat that I am, I always had the same answer "get off your butt and try it, might not be as easy as you think"


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

If your dog has lack of stay duration it is usually due to asking too much too soon. Reduce both time and distance. 

If your dog breaks the stay he does not understand the exercise and it is usually because we are sloppy somewhere else in our lives with the dog. 

I do not use Stay. I use down and sit. If I have my dog in a down (at home) and she moves I replace her and say Down. Every time. Same with Sit. I never allow her to break this command and then let it go. 

I do not make these cues locational but rather make them positional. "This is the sit" or "this is the down." I use opositional reflex to get the dog to lock in position. I push on her shoulder in the sit.. she is not to move but is to push back into my hand. Same with down. Same if the dog is on leash. I will pull her and she is to fight to stay in a sit or down. I will press down on her shoulders and pushon her butt.. and so forth. When she holds her position I Tell her what a great dog she is. 

Praise words need to be given while the dog is in a sit or down BEFORE you release. If the dog breaks with priase and b4 his release, re-set the dog and continue with the praise. Do not allow the dog to break the command. Never praise until AFTER the judge says "exercise finished." 

Xeph is noting that her dog is very observant. When she looks directly at the dog he has learned she needs him. Nothing worng with that in an SD.

Never have a release word that is the same as any of the praise words (this is why I NEVER use OK for a release.. I use "Go Ahead").


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

And no.. there are no points for style. There are points off for raising butt off the ground in a down stay aor a sit stay and for raising chest off the ground in a down stay (or lowering it to the gorund in a sit stay). 

Excessive sniffing where the dog "crawls and reaches" can be points off too. It can be an NQ if it is too much. 

Atka sits up on her chest.. but is over on one hip (preferred as it is harder for the dog to get up). In sits NEVER have the dog over on a hip or butt curled back. Dog should sit up and square on her butt. If she is over on one hip or curled, she will ahve a greater tendancy to lie down.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Elana55 said:


> I do not make these cues locational but rather make them positional. "This is the sit" or "this is the down." I use opositional reflex to get the dog to lock in position. I push on her shoulder in the sit.. she is not to move but is to push back into my hand. Same with down. Same if the dog is on leash. I will pull her and she is to fight to stay in a sit or down. I will press down on her shoulders and pushon her butt.. and so forth. When she holds her position I Tell her what a great dog she is.


This is really interesting!

I think I'd have to teach him not to move because I'm willing to bet he'll "give in" to my pressure because he thinks I want him to do whatever I'm pushing him towards (like if I push his butt while sitting, he'll probably get up thinking I want him to move).

What a cool way to train staying. They are position for me (well, technically, both position AND location - I want him to hold position AND not move location), but we never did anything cool like this!

Only thing we developed (I say we, because I didn't explicitly teach this - it just sort of formed) like this is for him to stop if the leash wraps around his legs. He'll stop and if I don't notice and keep walking, he'll do the oppositional thing and "pull" on the leash which gets my attention and then I can see the leash wrapped on his leg.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Elana55 said:


> If your dog has lack of stay duration it is usually due to asking too much too soon. Reduce both time and distance.
> 
> If your dog breaks the stay he does not understand the exercise and it is usually because we are sloppy somewhere else in our lives with the dog.


I was referring to my dog getting wobbly @ 04:55 on a 5 minute stay, and @ 02:55 on on a 3 minute stay. That tells me that the dog COMPLETELY understood the exercise, but something I was doing was signaling to the dog that we were nearly done. Even if he didn't break, he's start whining.

AFAIK, I was doing everything the way I always had, and never had the problem. Rusty is just one of those dogs who seems to think everyone and everything else moves too slowly. 

Ya gotta love that in a dog.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

KBLover said:


> I think I'd have to teach him not to move because I'm willing to bet he'll "give in" to my pressure because he thinks I want him to do whatever I'm pushing him towards (like if I push his butt while sitting, he'll probably get up thinking I want him to move).
> 
> What a cool way to train staying. They are position for me (well, technically, both position AND location - I want him to hold position AND not move location), but we never did anything cool like this!


The nice thing is that unless you've inadvertently trained it away, he should lean into the pressure as long as you take it slow...it's really just taking advantage of a natural opposition reflex. Incredibly valuable with horses too, fwiw.

It's also a great way to teach a solid stand stay, ensuring that the dog is not only standing, but consciously and deliberately fighting to maintain that stand position, with weight balanced on all four paws.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Shaina said:


> The nice thing is that unless you've inadvertently trained it away, he should lean into the pressure as long as you take it slow...it's really just taking advantage of a natural opposition reflex. Incredibly valuable with horses too, fwiw.
> 
> It's also a great way to teach a solid stand stay, ensuring that the dog is not only standing, but consciously and deliberately fighting to maintain that stand position, with weight balanced on all four paws.



I'm going to have to try this sometime today. 

Would be another way for him to try to grasp the concept.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Elana55 said:


> And no.. there are no points for style. There are points off for raising butt off the ground in a down stay aor a sit stay and for raising chest off the ground in a down stay (or lowering it to the gorund in a sit stay).
> 
> Excessive sniffing where the dog "crawls and reaches" can be points off too. It can be an NQ if it is too much.
> 
> Atka sits up on her chest.. but is over on one hip (preferred as it is harder for the dog to get up). In sits NEVER have the dog over on a hip or butt curled back. Dog should sit up and square on her butt. If she is over on one hip or curled, she will ahve a greater tendancy to lie down.


I think that's the reason I never really got interested in Obed. as the total judging is all negative. One dog could look like a wet noodle and another dog who looks like a marching drill sargent and as long as they made no mistakes they would score exactly the same. A dog that did a rocket recall and slid the last 4 ft on his butt to get a great looking perfect sit in front would score the same as a dog that walked or trotted across and just sat but all was correct/perfect would again score the same. It just doesn't make sense. But that's just me.

I have to commend you on trying something different as that's where a lot of training ideas/practises etc come from, by trying new things. You evidently must be doing something right. Being new to obedience trialing and placing in every trial as high as you did is quite an accomplishment with a dog that you built and are still building.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Agreed, wvasko.

I've seen SchH trained dogs lose points left and right in AKC obedience, because they forge and wrap around the handler in the heel. They'll also get dinged for vocalizing.

The expectations are different. A dog that lags is going to lose points in SchH heeling. A dog that forges and wraps, and even bumps may still lose points, but not nearly as many.

Can a dog be SUPER out of position? No. But they won't knock the dog as being out of heel position if his shoulder is ahead of his handler's hip. They want to see joy in the work, and it doesn't matter HOW precise a dog is if he's flat.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Xeph said:


> Agreed, wvasko.
> 
> I've seen SchH trained dogs lose points left and right in AKC obedience, because they forge and wrap around the handler in the heel. They'll also get dinged for vocalizing.
> 
> ...





> They want to see joy in the work, and it doesn't matter HOW precise a dog is if he's flat.


Say it again Xeph, say it again.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

They want to see joy in the work, and it doesn't matter HOW precise a dog is if he's flat. 



This is a dog I often like to cite, Lary von der Staatsmacht
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzIjMhZQa3Y&playnext_from=TL&videos=6QuVi-ECW4A

Beautiful work. An AKC judge would not like this dog, and he would lose a ton of points for "forging" and possibly crowding.

That left about turn is beautiful though

Here's an AKC perfect 200:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41lYXu27las


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Shaina said:


> The nice thing is that unless you've inadvertently trained it away, he should lean into the pressure as long as you take it slow...it's really just taking advantage of a natural opposition reflex. Incredibly valuable with horses too, fwiw.
> 
> It's also a great way to teach a solid stand stay, ensuring that the dog is not only standing, but consciously and deliberately fighting to maintain that stand position, with weight balanced on all four paws.



Just tried this and he did still give me some opposition. It was cool to feel him pushing against my hand and trying to stay in proper position. 

I'm glad I tried this. I will give a new way to practice positions and might even help his structure/form during the position which would be a great plus.

Woo. Thanks for this idea both you and Elana.


----------



## poodleholic (Mar 15, 2007)

> =wvasko;816507]Yes, but you are cheating by throwing poodles into this mix, as much as I say it's the dog not the breed and I'm not a poodle person by ownership. (whoops once had a toy poodle) I have trained a small number of standards and they were stunning and what I liked also was the agility and lightness on their feet(paws).





> I will second what WVasko says.. you are CHEATING Poodleholic because you have Standard Poodles. A more "human"


I know it's cheating, because I'm not really a good, much less great trainer. It's all the PooDells! lol Although I did have a young (under a year) Irish Setter named Molly B Good who placed third, so took the yellow ribbon. MY mistakes in the ring (including stepping on her foot) caused all the point losses. Molly was pretty awesome, but nothing like the Poodles to train. I whole-heartedly agree with Elana's thoughts about the ring being Mars. Man, I'm just not made for the show ring! And about Standards being close to human? Well, as my daughter always says, "those Poodles may not be human, but, they aren't dogs!" lol They give me goosebumps, and I'm often shaking my head in disbelief at some of the things that go on with my crew; I was there, it was real, but even I have a hard time believing it! 

I've sometimes felt bad that My Poodles aren't able to compete, because they are just amazing - in form, precision, style, and Pnache! They LOVE to show off. 



> So as I said above it is not fair to bring poodles into this and I hope this doesn't start a breed/dog war. I just thought it was interesting memory to share.


A trainer at an obedience class I'd enrolled Maddy in said that when he's got a Standard Poodle in class, he just does their certificate up the first night, 'cuz the Poodle will ace the class (and likely take over!). lol 

Well, Elana, it'll be interesting - and fun to see where this tweaking in your training will take you and Atka.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

FWIw the dogs with style are the ones that go far in the Obedience ring. Flat dogs often lose points in exercises. Points off for lagging on heel, points off for slow retrieves, slow sits, slow recalls.. all indicative of a "flat" dog. 

A dog can be over the top too.. and that can be points off as well. 

Dog and handler are to perform as a team.. and to pull that off you both need to have a similar attitude. Flat teams may qualify but do not score well. 

Remember that CD stands for "Companion Dog" and CDX stands for "Companion Dog Excellent." Precision and attitude do count.. even if the dog lays flat on his side in the down stay! Most do not do this BTW. 

Since starting the routine in the house, my dog keeps me in her sights. What she likes best is when I make a mistake and nearly fall over or some other stupidity. She never knows how entertaining this will be. 

Meanwhile, this morning I was walking with her and "lost in thought" and I suddenly came back to "reality" and there was my dog walking alone the road intently looking at my face. You can bet she got attention and play for that. I have no idea how long she was engaging in this (lost in thought thing going on) but I was very pleased she was. 

Time will tell if I have success with this change. If I don't I might have to get a Standard Poodle.... (and then, if nothing else, I will laugh a lot!).

I tell everyone that story Poodleholic tells of her dog leaving the ring to visit someone in the stands and then returning to heel position in the ring. NQ for sure but darn amusing.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Elana55 said:


> Time will tell if I have success with this change. If I don't I might have to get a Standard Poodle.... (and then, if nothing else, I will laugh a lot!).


I luv me some Standard Poodles, but I'm leery of owning a dog smarter than I am.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Marsh Muppet said:


> I luv me some Standard Poodles, but I'm leery of owning a dog smarter than I am.


Well I guess my problem/secret is out as most dogs I try to train are ahead of me.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

I had _COWS_ that outsmarted me so I probably don't have a chance with dogs.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

I wonder if anyone has ever trained a cow?

Or a pig? They say pigs are super intelligent (how do they figure that out?) so I wonder if anyone has ever trained them to do stuff (aside from that pig on Green Acres of course)


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Story time:

We had a cow.. name of Ayla. She was 1/2 Jersey and 1/2 Holstein (bred the heifers to Jersey bulls because the calves were smaller for a first calving.. no intent here to raise 'doodle cows'). 

Ayla was pretty smart. Our hired man used to ride her out to pasture to see how the pasture was doing and if we needed to change lots (she would notgive him a rid back tho!). She also checked the fences more often than we did and would fget out and graze along the edge of the dirt road. 

One day she got out and my then husband went to fix the fence where he thought she got out. So he put her back in the pasture and got his fence fixing tools and he is working on the fence. Ayla had gotten out another place and while he was fixing fence she got out again and wandered over to where he was working and stood there and watched him fix the fence (he did not see her). He gets done and turns around and she is standing there watching. The look on his face wwas a priceless moment. He started to chase her and she jumped the fence like a Thoroughbred hunter and left him with a fit of apoplexy in the middle of the road. 

Not sure who was doing the training there.. but the Cow won. 

It seems with most animals if you can explain what you want and make it worth their while to do it, they will. The trick is in the communicating and making it worthwhile. 

I never trained a pig. I had 10 one year and I helped slaughter them. I will never have pigs again after that experience. 

One of the things I will do when working with the dog is when I do not get what I want I will take a step back and ask, "Why would she do it?"


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

Elana55 said:


> I tell everyone that story Poodleholic tells of her dog leaving the ring to visit someone in the stands and then returning to heel position in the ring. NQ for sure but darn amusing.


Inga has a very similar story I adore regarding Inga the Rottie...except that hers also involves a hot dog theft between hopping in and out of the ring...


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

OMG I recall that story now that you mention it. LOL. 

So much for taking all the fun INTO the ring! 

Stolen food ALWAYS tastes better. My dog stole an Orange Peel and found it absolutely the BEST food she ever had and ate it completely. Later that day I put a small bit of peel in her dish.. and she wrinkled her nose. Yuk.


----------



## LynnI (Mar 27, 2010)

lol I trained a mule once and it was an experience, much different than training horses.


----------



## Maliraptor (Mar 6, 2009)

Xeph said:


> This is a dog I often like to cite, Lary von der Staatsmacht
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzIjMhZQa3Y&playnext_from=TL&videos=6QuVi-ECW4A
> 
> Beautiful work. An AKC judge would not like this dog, and he would lose a ton of points for "forging" and possibly crowding.
> ...


EEEWWWW...HATE that heeling. The focus is at a point in the air, not the handler, and the flashy prancing is not my cup of tea. Not to mention the incredible forging.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

LynnI said:


> lol I trained a mule once and it was an experience, much different than training horses.


How did the butt tagging to engage in play go for ya? 



Maliraptor said:


> EEEWWWW...HATE that heeling. The focus is at a point in the air, not the handler, and the flashy prancing is not my cup of tea. Not to mention the incredible forging.


Yeah. I agree. 

I saw a Golden retriever heeling this weekend that was just beautiful. The handler and dog were so connected and quiet.. relaxed. She was looking slightly at the dog but her body was in correct position and her head was not cranked around. Her dog was looking at her face and in perfect position neither lagging or forging. Just relaxed and lovely. No vid. sorry.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

KBLover said:


> I wonder if anyone has ever trained a cow?
> 
> Or a pig? They say pigs are super intelligent (how do they figure that out?) so I wonder if anyone has ever trained them to do stuff (aside from that pig on Green Acres of course)


Patricia McConnell (Other End of the Leash, For the Love of a Dog, etc) has a trained pig that she takes on walks.


----------



## pamperedpups (Dec 7, 2006)

KB: People have definitely trained cows, and pigs... even chickens... fish...


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

RBark said:


> Patricia McConnell (Other End of the Leash, For the Love of a Dog, etc) has a trained pig that she takes on walks.



That's pretty sweet 




pamperedpups said:


> KB: People have definitely trained cows, and pigs... even chickens... fish...


Fish, I know about - I used to have a betta I taught some problem solving and whether to swim between or nip my fingers.

Chickens? That's interesting.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

KBLover said:


> That's pretty sweet
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Years ago we had a pair of Oscars that when fingers were dipped in would actually rub against them, it was almost like petting a couple of wet Chihuahuas.


----------



## LynnI (Mar 27, 2010)

Elana55 said:


> How did the butt tagging to engage in play go for ya?
> 
> lol Ever seen a mule kick??? Buggers can kick the eyes out of rattlesnakes


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> EEEWWWW...HATE that heeling.


See, I love it. I HATE the wrap style. I find it to be very uncomfortable to work with, and extremely intrusive of my space.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

In the AKC ring they do not want the dog tightly wrapped. It is actually a little less intense and, of course there are points off for forging. 

Head up heeling is what you want because the dog is focused on the shoulder and face or head of the handler. If you get this you can cue the dog to your next move by moving your shoulder forward or back. Back for a left turn or circle to the left in the figure 8 and forward for a right turn or about turn (right). 

The Golden I previously mentioned did this without wrapping tight.. and looked so soft and natural. The team part really showed up and it was just real pleasant to see. It was like they were walking in a park. 

I have no video camera but it was worth taping as a comparison.. so you could look at YOU and then look at that and see where you were in the process. 

I think you would like what I am describing Xeph if you had seen it. 

One thing I do like in Schutzhund is the about left turn. I taught this to Atka some time ago and she gets off on doing that left about where the dog goes right and you turn left. 

Tonight after push mowing the lawn I took her out to the park and we did some work on various exercises with play and no food. She is getting into it and that is nice. We did not work long.. it is about 90 here and that is hot and hot very fast. Still we did some work... er... play....


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Elana55 said:


> Tonight after push mowing the lawn I took her out to the park and we did some work on various exercises with play and no food. She is getting into it and that is nice. We did not work long.. it is about 90 here and that is hot and hot very fast. Still we did some work... er... play....


I was doing some of this (well not PLAY per se, but just using voice and letting him jump up on me and stuff) and realized I've done this sometimes all along LOL

Did it more purposefully (or I guess I should say consciously) and he was watching me the whole time. 

Not that it helped him drop while walking  and then he would drop when I said sit  but...that's him - he's a crazy anticipator that LOVES to find and figure out patterns. Good when there is one - bad...when there isn't LOL

But it was still a pretty fun walk. He enjoyed it and got some stuff right  I think he needs work on "paw control" I guess you could call it. I think he KNOWS what I'm talking about, but can't stop fast enough, or get his paws synced so he can do it without taking three steps. 

But - anyway, that's another issue altogether!


----------



## poodleholic (Mar 15, 2007)

Maliraptor said:


> EEEWWWW...HATE that heeling. The focus is at a point in the air, not the handler, and the flashy prancing is not my cup of tea. Not to mention the incredible forging.


Interesting how perceptions vary. What I see in that video is a dog very focused on the handler! He looks like he's enjoying himself, too, and that flashy prancing is just frosting on the cake! lol I think he's just awesome!


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I think his "prance" is more a product of simple physics.

He has to crank his head up to stay in position, which means his butt drops, so his front feet go "up" and he looks like he's prancing.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> I think his "prance" is more a product of simple physics.
> 
> He has to crank his head up to stay in position, which means his butt drops, so his front feet go "up" and he looks like he's prancing.


All dogs have their own class/style, a good trainer/handler takes the dog and enhances the style. A bad trainer/handler destroys it.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

People have definitely trained cows, and pigs... even chickens.>>>>

go see the pet show at seaworld. amazing

rat runs across and up rope, cat chases the rat, dog chases the cat, A pig chases something all perfect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqI4uosX0DA -pig is about 5 min mark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jRgxRLkTIA&feature=related


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Maliraptor said:


> EEEWWWW...HATE that heeling. The focus is at a point in the air, not the handler, and the flashy prancing is not my cup of tea. Not to mention the incredible forging.


I don't hate it, it is very flashy.

I do question the sense of such a heel for a companion dog though. My dogs will never see a ring, they are simply companion dogs. I use heel when we are at places like petsmart, passing other dogs, at the park, at the vets, crossing busy streets, walking a trail if I think it's needed, when cars are coming...

Somehow I can't see the real utility in a totally flashy heel like that in my life with them. I would feel a bit silly with my dog prancing through petsmart like that.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

First of all, the pace which they are moving is much different than you usually have "taking a stroll." You need to really MOVE OUT when you are doing competitive heel work.... and not doing so will put your dog wide or lagging or forging. 

That being said, you probably need two cues for a companion dog. One is "By Me" which I used to put the dog within a foot or so of my left leg as I walk along. Dog is allowed to look at things but is NOT allowed to sniff or stop. Must be aware of me.

"Heel" OTOH is a different command requiring the dog to focus on your face or upper body and keep close to you (almost touching) and have your left leg next to the dog's ear. This cue would be used passing other dogs, in busy areas where you need your dog to focus for your (plural) safety or to go past something the dog might chase or past people you do not want the dog to interact with. 

The two cues are then asking for two different things.. with the second one asking for focus and accuracy. 

Just my thoughts.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

PS: While you would not want to move as fast or flashy as this dog in the video, getting that level of focus in Pet Smart would probably prevent excessive sniffing and doggy shoplifting....


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Elana55 said:


> PS: While you would not want to move as fast or flashy as this dog in the video, getting that level of focus in Pet Smart would probably prevent excessive sniffing and doggy shoplifting....


I think doggie shoplifting is built-in to their sales projections.


----------



## pamperedpups (Dec 7, 2006)

jiml - I LOVED the pets show at Seaworld! So awesome.

KB - Have you not heard of the famous Chicken Camps for clicker trainers?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP1e7jiKnQE


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

pamperedpups said:


> KB - Have you not heard of the famous Chicken Camps for clicker trainers?!
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP1e7jiKnQE



Never until this video!

That's pretty amazing!


----------

