# Ethics of Dog Training



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Marsh Muppet said:


> Good job on dreaming the impossible dream (an off-leash Malamute). This further reinforces my contention that virtually any dog can be reliably trained for the basics.
> 
> The breed differences matter, though. My retriever was born to be by a human's side. It's printed right there on his DNA. I had 100% *functional* recall using only R+. He'd get a little hard of hearing beyond 300 yards, but still good. For the most part, he always wanted to know where I was. I used the e-collar to tighten that up to dead-reliable.
> 
> Even with an e-collar, YOU STILL HAVE TO TRAIN THE DOG.


Apologies for opening up with your post in Kobe's thread, but this is such an interesting subject to me that I'd be interested in hearing various opinions. So, brace yourselves. I get long winded when I'm talking about something I enjoy.

This is not really a discussion of how evil choke collars, prong collars, e-collars and so on are. I hope we can try to avoid that, there's plenty of other threads on that subject. It's more on the ethics of dog training. The large recurring cue to be used as an example is going to be the recall, for the sake of clarity and ease, but it will apply to any cue you ask of your dog.

So the contention is that any dog can be trained in the basics. It's clear by now that I'm a stickler for details, proper definitions, and clarity of intent. So my first thought is that I do not want to disagree. In fact, it goes against a lot of what I know of training to disagree. Given enough reinforcement, or punishment.. anything can be changed.

But it begs the question, just because it can be changed, should it be? In that regard, the best I can do is use my own dogs as an example.

Alaskan Malamutes and Siberian Huskies are notorious for their drive to run, and run for hundreds of miles before stopping. So what then, is my success in Kobe's recall founded on?

I have always believed that training is merely the manipulation of drive. So long as there is drive, we have the capacity to manipulate it to our advantage. That's the strength of Reinforcement based training. The success of Kobe's recall training is, almost in irony, in his lack of drive.

He has no food drive, no prey drive, no pull drive, no working drive. He is not reinforced by being by his pack, and has no scent drive either. The only resemblance of drive he has, is in playing with other dogs. Not quite something that can be easily manipulated. Learning Theory teaches us that Punishment based training reduces behavior, where Reinforcement based training increases behavior. So in a dog that has no drive, I have the choice of creating a drive, or reducing what little drive he has left.

As such, I went with creating a drive using Negative Reinforcement. In this method, and while I will define it a bit here, I urge anyone to consult a professional before even considering an e-collar, as timing and setting the collar properly is critical. In this use, the stimulus is applied as a continuous shock before the cue is given. As the aversive is introduced, the behavior of the recall is reinforced by the removal of the stimulus when he is by my side.

This was further reinforced with treats, which eventually (over the course of many months) was high enough of a reinforcement to be the primary reward. In this manner, a new drive was created in him, and the recall became self-rewarding, rather than a means to avoid punishment.

What then, if Kobe did have the typical Siberian Husky drive? To explore that, the best subject would be my heart boy Ollie.

To say Ollie had a pulling and running drive would be to ask if the sun is hot. The question is not "is the sun hot" but "how hot is the sun?"

So if I was to train Ollie in a recall, I'm faced with the same dilemma. How exactly do I compete with his desire to break the sound barrier towards Alaska, once he hears the leash click off? Again, I can attempt to reinforce or punish.

In a dog as drivey as Ollie, I don't think I could possibly compete with his drive to run, no matter how much I reinforced a recall. There would always be a lingering doubt that he might take off for an animal, for Alaska, for giggles, for another dog (he came to me DA). The alternative then, is to punish the drive.

And a whole another set of ethical question comes with that. The primary one being: why?

He's a Siberian Husky. I knew this when I adopted him. If I turn the e-collar up to the highest setting, and zap him so hard he jumps 10' in the air as a correction for not performing the recall... will he eventually do it? Yes, probably. But again, why?

Why make Ollie something he is not? Having a one size fit all rule for all dogs ignores what makes the dogs who they are. I view our relationships with our dogs as one of companionship, where each respects the other and allows each other to flourish, without restricting each other. Ollie is a drivey dog, and to whose benefit would it be to change that? It would only benefit me, when I can take simplier measures to manage it.

But if one is so determined to change it, it begs another question. Why, exactly, do you have a Siberian Husky? There's a million other breeds to choose from. German Shepherds, Labradors, Goldens.. the list goes on and on. 

Even moving away from breeds. Even if you have a German Shepherd... maybe you have the one in a million that doesn't listen to it's owner. That's how your dog is, why punish that? Why not learn to find a different challenge, a different opportunity to let the dog grow on his own strengths, and manage his weakness.

And it's not just about things like obedience. I've been trying to find Agility classes for Kobe. Why? Mostly for me. I'm wishing so badly for a dog that is as drivey as Priscilla was. My situation doesn't allow for it, so I try to do it with Kobe.

But Kobe, well trained though he may be, has no innate desire for things like agility or obedience. The only person who would benefit from his Agility is myself. So instead of trying to make him into something he's not, why not just respect him for the way he is? I run 8 miles a day, every day. During these runs, Kobe runs 6' behind me, pulling the leash backwards, trying to put as minimal effort into the run as possible. 

A far cry from Ollie, who would be so determined to run that he once made me do a face plant from trying to go 0 to 100 while I was not paying attention. So again, it begs the question of why am I forcing him to go on these runs with me, when he clearly vastly prefers going to the dog park?

Kobe is a fantastic dog, don't get me wrong. I adore him. He is, however, the wrong dog for someone like me at this time of my life. I would have been happy with him when I was 70 years old and could barely get out of my couch. He's what 99% of the dog owning world would consider the perfect dog.

I an using my own dogs as heavy examples, but it really applies to most dogs. So many times in the dog world do we try to change our dogs into something they are not. Is it worth it? There are some life-saving cues that every dog should know, but to what end? Where's the line drawn between what we, the owners, want... and what the dog wants?

I've seen some ingenious stuff... I read about a Beagle owner, and Beagles are also not known for their recall. Instead of punishing the dog for disobedience, she would, before every off leash trip, go and gather little ziplock bags of horse poop, cow poop, sheep poop, rabbit poop, dog poop, cat poop, you name it. And carry the stuff with her in a bag.

She would train the recall by opening the ziplock bag, and once the Beagle honed on the scent, asked for a recall. After many repeatitions of this, the dog had a 99% recall. Rather ingenious, and obviously gross and not for everyone. IF someone was not willing to do that, would it be ethical to use a punishment-based system on the beagle? It's a beagle, their most powerful drive is scent. Why punish that??

A lot of rambling, I know, but maybe some people have an interesting insight.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

I think it comes down to a continuum -- with "I'll let my dog do what ever he wants/I don't believe I should train my dog because it's against his will and I shouldn't manipulate another animal/PETA-esque stuff" at one end, "I'm going to make my dog do what ever I want, no matter how much he doesn't want to do it, and no matter how brutal the force I use" at the other, and common sense in the middle. 

I think it's all about making compromise.. I'm one of the people that believe that a dog and owner are a team. The human IS the owner and ultimately could/should control what does and doesn't happen, BUT should do so with kindness and 'respect' for what the dog wants to do as well. I think most training endeavors should be attempted provided that some drive is there (a dog like Kobe would frustrate me to no end and I really have no idea what my thoughts are on a challenge like that), and after a while if there is no improvement or willingness on the dog's part to continue, well, then it's time to look into something new.

IDK, my thoughts are kind of rambly and probably don't make full sense... it is an interesting discussion though..


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

I train my dogs to respond to cues I find useful. These cues are for my own convenience or the dog's safety. They may be counter to what my dog wants. Honestly and as callous as it sounds, I do not care. I DO care that my dog is obedient and a pleasure to be around. Now that I am competing in Obedience I want even more from my dog, no matter how counter it is to her nature. 

For instance, If I have a male dog and marking vertical surfaces is natural to my dog, and he wants to do it in the house, you can bet I will do what I need to extinguish it. I don't care HOW much it is stamped in the dog's DNA or gender. Thou shalt NOT pee on vertical surfaces in the house!!! 

Ultimately, getting the dog trained is the job. If you can do it all with a clicker and get it done in a reasonable amount of time, GO FOR IT. OTOH, if your dog's nature is less than tractable for some reason, you may need to up the ante to an aversive correction. 

The object of training is first and foremost to have a dog that is biddable and a pleasure to be around. Once you get those basics, and figure a way to humanely reinforce it, even by corrections, you have what you need.

There are those who will tell you ALL aversive corrections are inhumane. _If necessary_I prefer an aversive correction to get a recall than having the dog run for Alaska into the path of a truck so he dies a lingering painful death. And yes, even on a dog that is leashed most of the time.. leashes get dropped and break.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

RBark said:


> But it begs the question, just because it can be changed, should it be?


That's a fair enough question, and I'd say "not necessarily". I have personal limits regarding how far I would go to train a dog, but I do consider a reliable recall to be a matter of life or death for a pet dog. There are breeds I have zero interest in owning because anything I want from a dog can be had without ever visiting the spitz types or hounds. I've been out with a pack of Beagles, and recall is a simple matter of having a steady supply of wild cottontail rabbits at hand. With a typical retriever, reliable recall mostly requires that the trainer not screw things up.

When I say "basics" I'm talking about sit, stay, and come. "Reliable" doesn't mean competition performance. I think the vast majority of dogs can get there without resorting to abuse. I can't necessarily give an all inclusive definition of "abuse", but I know it when I see it. Mostly the dog gets to decide on that. There are things that wouldn't even get my dog's attention, but that might make someone else's dog hide under the bed and shake like a paint mixer.


----------



## ssg (Jan 1, 2010)

There are ways to build drive (food and prey) even in super low drive dogs, enough to use for foundation training without compulsion at first (say 6 months to a year). Once 80% objectives are achieved, then we can use tools for proofing.

Back tie with prey object and proper agitation technique will get even the most non interested dog show interest in the prey object, now it could be used for training. Strict feeding schedule will get even the most non food motivated dog to show eye sparkling interest in food and the ability to work to get to that food. Hard work though but very possible and doable.


----------



## KarenJG (Jan 31, 2010)

Great question! For me, the answer is to not adopt a dog that has a "being" that doesn't fit with us. Then I train the "safety" cues and the "manners" cues, and the "get some exercise" cues and leave it at that, except for the fun - a new "trick" each week. Not because I care whether they can do tricks, it's just a mental-stimulation thing. A new thing to learn, a new way to get treats.

None of my dogs would be agility or high-energy dogs, because I'm not a high-energy type of person. I have bad knees, and can't walk more than a few blocks a day. But I have a big yard for them to play in, and I try to get each of them "playing" in ways that involve them moving much more than I do. ;-) 

I adopted my second foster because, in trying to figure out what would be the perfect home environment for him, I realized that it would be *our* home - and very few others. He had so many specific requirements for a forever home that it would be hard to find one - separation anxiety, reactivity (with aggression) to high-energy dogs, no matter how friendly, could not be crated without danger of serious bodily harm, fearful to the point of running long and hard at the slightest "spook."

We were perfect for him, and since my other dogs weren't high-energy, it was a "safe" space. I've no doubt that we could eventually have found another home for him, but chances are by the time we did, he'd have settled in and felt "safe" here, only to have it ripped away from him. Talk about kicking up the separation anxiety to high-gear!

Now he can be left alone (but with the other dogs) for several hours without destructiveness, as long as it isn't done often. I don't know if you can even call that training - it was just many, many short trips out of the house (at first, just out of the room!), immediate returns stretching out into one-hour absences, which eventually blended into two or three hours and so on.

So, in a roundabout, running-off-at the keyboard kind of way, I'd have to say that, personally, my answer to your question is that no, it's not ethical to try to change a dog's very being. Manage it, sure, but change it? No. Find another home that will adore and appreciate that "being."


----------



## katiemay (Jan 30, 2010)

I believe owners should be a leader. Not dominate the animals.

There's a fine line between the two, but being a leader is earning the respect and trust of your dog so that he does and wants to listen to you. How can a dog trust you and respect you when he is being harmed when he doesn't do something correctly?

Every dog has something that drives them, whether it be food, toys, playing with other animals, or their senses. It's a matter of finding a way to use them to your advantage. I really like the story about the beagle and the poop, it's an excellent example of how you CAN use their drive to your advantage without reprimanding them or harming them.

My dog also had a hard time with recall when he was around other animals ( although he was food driven, other animals were much more interesting ). what I did was got a long leash and kept him on it while at the dog park. When I called him and he didn't come, he was removed from the other animals until he calmed down and could focus on me again. It was repetition and weighed my patience, he is very good about his recall now. 

while this may be seen as negative reinforcement I have a different view on it. Yes I removed something positive to correct a behavior but I also treated when he came to me. 

So what I am trying to say is, there are ways to curve any behavior using negative and positive that don't scare them into doing what you want.

Going against instincts are the hardest to do and take the longest to correct - but you don't have to go against them ( such as the beagle story ).

I hope I'm getting out what I'm trying to say lol. It makes more sense in my head


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Back tie with prey object and proper agitation technique will get even the most non interested dog show interest in the prey object


As much as I'm sure you would like it to, it really does NOT work for every dog. I've seen my share that have been properly agitated in prey work...and they stand there and yawn. They just don't care.



> There are some life-saving cues that every dog should know, but to what end?


To the end that the dog complies with the command as close to 100% as possible. Ignoring recall is one of the reasons I could not own a northern breed. Not only does it tick me off to no end, more importantly, I can't spend the next 15 years of my life wondering if my dog is going to get himself killed because I looked away for 2 seconds and he dug out or jumped over the fence and has disappeared.

I don't want to live my life in the paranoia of losing my dog every time we go out for exercise, or on a trip.

Recall is a non negotiable command, as is the random drop (Drop on recall).

Part of my job in caring for any dog that comes my way is keeping my dog SAFE, and if I squash some of the "essence" of that breed of dog while doing so, than so be it.

Strauss would LOVE to critter on rabbits every day of his life. It's natural to him. Prey drive. You can bet I've squashed it a bit to keep him safe (he has sailed over fences for rabbits). Could I ever fully extinguish prey drive in this dog? No. But I stamped on what I could to maintain his safety (and in part, my sanity).

I would STILL never trust him off leash in an unfenced area where rabbits are involved.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Elana55 said:


> I train my dogs to respond to cues I find useful. These cues are for my own convenience or the dog's safety. They may be counter to what my dog wants. Honestly and as callous as it sounds, I do not care. I DO care that my dog is obedient and a pleasure to be around.


My thoughts exactly.

And in my case (with a fearful/fear-tendency dog) giving him what he wants in some situations would be totally counter to building him up into a calm, confident dog.

He'd rather run or, if it came to it, fight back. I'd rather him stay put and look to me for guidance. The only reason I worry about what he wants is to try to understand what he's thinking/his processes in his brain, and try to wedge myself in there.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Elana55 said:


> The object of training is first and foremost to have a dog that is biddable and a pleasure to be around.



disagree. to me the object of training is first and foremost the dog be

1. safe.

2. content

3. biddable and a pleasure to be around.

in that order.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

MissMutt said:


> I think it's all about making compromise.. I'm one of the people that believe that a dog and owner are a team. The human IS the owner and ultimately could/should control what does and doesn't happen, BUT should do so with kindness and 'respect' for what the dog wants to do as well.


If I give Wally a direct cue - I expect it to be followed regardless of what he wants to do. Presumably, I'm giving it for a reason in a situation where it needs to be followed, so I want to follow the direction I gave. 

To me, this applies if we are playing fetch or running an agility course (not that he can, but you know what I mean). In fact, the more complex the activity (like an agility course) the more responsive I would want him to be, regardless if he sees some hottie female putting out one heck of a scent, or if a bird landed in the middle of the course or someone was eating a porterhouse steak in the crowd.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> disagree. to me the object of training is first and foremost the dog be
> 
> 1. safe.
> 
> ...



To me, the object of training is to achieve them all at once.

No need for an order or hierarchy because they all can be achieved at the same time.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

KBLover said:


> To me, the object of training is to achieve them all at once.
> 
> No need for an order or hierarchy because they all can be achieved at the same time.


not always. not with every dog. and imo safe and content should take precedence over biddable and a pleasure to be around.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> 3. biddable and a pleasure to be around.


Not this one KB. Unless you get a weird one, your chances of making a Husky or Mal "Biddable" is low. They are certainly trainable, but they are not inherently biddable. It is not in their nature to be so, and you cannot MAKE the dog be that way. They either are, or they're not.

For the right people they can still be a pleasure to be around, but biddable? I think not.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

KBLover said:


> To me, the object of training is to achieve them all at once.
> 
> No need for an order or hierarchy because they all can be achieved at the same time.


I'm mostly just reading responses at the moment, I will have more to say and respond later when I'm off work. But a quick response, and not to reiterate what Xeph and zim said, but that is mostly the basis of the discussion. 

A dog being biddable and a pleasure to be around can often contradict with what makes a dog content. An exaggerated example would be never allowing a Husky to pull, and having them in a heel. A pleasure to be around? Sure. Content? That would be the debate. Given the choice, most Huskies would prefer to be pulling than heeling.

Again, an exaggerated example. In heel, you can make it reinforcing through clicker training. And you can use that pulling drive in bikejoring, skijoring, rollerblading, carting, and so much more. I know both of that, so I'm not using that example as a debate. Mostly as a demostration of content and being a pleasure conflicting with each other.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

RBark said:


> A dog being biddable and a pleasure to be around can often contradict with what makes a dog content. An exaggerated example would be never allowing a Husky to pull, and having them in a heel. A pleasure to be around? Sure. Content? That would be the debate. Given the choice, most Huskies would prefer to be pulling than heeling.



Well, then how do you define a "content" dog?

That would need to be the first thing, and then second, how do you know if the dog is thinking/feeling "I don't feel very content doing this." 

For example, if I gave Wally a cue and performs it - is he content doing it or not? How do I judge his contentedness with accuracy? How would I even define that and then apply that to the dog knowing that I can't really be in his head/emotions to know what he's thinking/feeling with complete certainty?

Does a Husky pull because it makes him "feel content" or because of something else? If you let him pull - is he content or just "doing what I do"?


----------



## Luce (Jan 12, 2010)

I just want my dog to be happy. We've never had obedient dogs, but we've always had happy dogs! Sure, they only return the ball half the time, they whinge if you don't share your toast, and they think it's funny to steal socks from the washing pile while I'm trying to put a load on. Sure they get excited and jump and lick anyone who comes through the door, sure they zig zag all over the footpath sniffing anything they can and trying to say hello to every stranger they meet, sure they never let me sleep in, etc. etc. But they are just so damn happy!

Which of course isn't to say that super-obedient dogs can't be happy. Some dogs really love being work dogs. They race around and do their herding, or whatever and then come back panting and smiley. And then some dogs you see and they never smile, they're just so focussed and serious all the time, and if they didn't start out with that personality, it's pretty sad that someone took away their smile and made them that way. Not abusive, just sad.

So, I guess my position is: train your dog as much or as little as you like, but if your dog stops smiling, you've gone too far and you need to take a step back quickly, before your dog loses his smile forever!


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

i define content as

enough food, water, exercise, access to positive stimulation resulting in an air of general well being and a bright demeanor. what creates that is going to be different for every dog and there will be times where that conflicts with a dog being "biddable and a pleasure to be around"

like for example...sometimes i let bolo pull on leash. we have a cue for this of course but i know when she is feeling that urge to charge forward and sometimes i let her...even though it is distinctly uncomfortable to me to let her do so...it goes a long ways towards increasing her willingness to listen.

i approach dealing with my dogs as "there is a time and a place for most everything. if you trust me on these key points i will show you how and when to get away with MOST of the things you enjoy."


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> like for example...sometimes i let bolo pull on leash. we have a cue for this of course but i know when she is feeling that urge to charge forward and sometimes i let her...even though it is distinctly uncomfortable to me to let her do so...it goes a long ways towards increasing her willingness to listen.


Does this mean you're no longer glad to be around Bolo at that moment? If not, then she's still a pleasure for you to be with and even biddable because you have it on a cue (so she does it only when you "allow" it via the cue, isn't that the definition of biddable?)


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

KBLover said:


> Does this mean you're no longer glad to be around Bolo at that moment? If not, then she's still a pleasure for you to be with and even biddable because you have it on a cue (so she does it only when you "allow" it via the cue, isn't that the definition of biddable?)



no im not. im often not. doesnt make me love her any less on those occasions.

i also dont consider her a pleasure to be around on the (now rare) occasion that she goes off on a dog aggressive rant. i accept that this is an issue she will never be a pleasure to be around during nor an issue she will ever be totally "biddable" during. im cool with that. neither of us are content because the SAFETY issue comes into play. she isnt safe if she is seized for killing another dog.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> If not, then she's still a pleasure for you to be with and even biddable because you have it on a cue


Following commands still does not make a dog biddable (compliant, but not biddable), that makes the dog trainable (you CAN train it to do this or that).

Biddability is the DESIRE to learn and follow commands. Trainability is the ability to teach the dog a command, but a dog that is not biddable will choose to follow it or not.

Just because a dog is trained to do something and you see it comply at that moment it is not an accurate portrayal of whether or not the dog is inherently biddable.

Buddy is a highly biddable dog. He wants to please you. However, Strauss is not as biddable as many other GSDs are. While he is still FAR more velcro than independent breeds of dogs, compared to other Shepherds, he'll blow me off on a higher frequency. He is still highly biddable in comparison to a northern breed, but in comparisons to others, it depends on the day 

If any of that makes sense at all.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Xeph said:


> Following commands still does not make a dog biddable (compliant, but not biddable), that makes the dog trainable (you CAN train it to do this or that).
> 
> Biddability is the DESIRE to learn and follow commands. Trainability is the ability to teach the dog a command, but a dog that is not biddable will choose to follow it or not.
> 
> ...


winner winner chikin dinner


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I'd like to add that ANY dog CAN be trained (even Hulk's Brutus xD), but sometimes lack of creativity fails to bring out the best in a dog (that is why I have a push button breed...I have trouble being creative in training...thinking abstractly is extremely difficult for me).

Brutus certainly CAN be trained to do things, but lack of biddability (as is the general way of a Basset hound xD) combined with his SA makes him an extremely difficult dog to work with.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

I think it's a matter of balancing safety, your desires, and your dog's desires. I read a book review of "Dogged Pursuit" on the Team Small Dog blog. One of the points she raises is that she felt uncomfortable reading parts of it, because it was clear the dog (Dusty) did not really want to do agility but his owner wanted Dusty to play agility very badly. Personally, I've seen this more in Obedience and Rally than agility. People openly acknowledge that the dog doesn't like this sport, but they're going to do it anyways until they get their title. It seems to me that that is missing the point.

Safety is an entirely separate issue. It's a lot like kids. Kids aren't allowed to go off and make their own decisions because a lot of times they're going to make really bad ones and get themselves in danger. It's up to the parents, who have things like foresight and experience on their side to make better decisions. The kids might be unhappy for a while, but their parents are acting in their best interest when that say you can't go to the concert at midnight be yourself in the creepy part of town.

A lot of it has to do with the dog's ability to rebound. I've been reading a lot about hunting retriever training, specifically Tollers. One kennel that advertises as training non-traditional breeds makes a point that Tollers need a lighter touch than labs because they are softer. Labs can take a lot of stress and "get over it," while the same amount of stress will shut down a Toller. Trying to get the Toller to a point where it can take the same amount of stress might be possible, but it's a waste of time.

Because it's also a question of input/output ratios, or effort to return. Somethings are better compromised on in reality, while in theory it might be possible to work through. Sometimes management is a more practical solution than training out. An example of this might be crate and rotate. Is it possible two dogs might be safe again after a fight with constant supervision? Maybe. But it's going to be a long tense road for everyone involved, and crate & rotate might be a better expenditure of resources.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

Great Topic RBark.

I want my dog to be responsive to my cues. Training does that. I would love to try agility but if she didn't enjoy it, I wouldn't either...because it's for HER first and for me second. If I had a kid I'd love that kid to enjoy basketball because I do, but if the kid didn't like it or didn't have an "affinity" for it, and wanted instead to learn cello I'd give her cello lessons. Her happiness and satisfaction creates mine. Would I find Cello boring? Damn right. Would I be proud of the accomplishments or enjoyment she got from it. Damn Right again.

As for training in dogs (back on topic)...the biggest mistake I see people make is an expectation they have of what their dog finds motivating and rewarding. If the dog finds running more desirable than the roast beef in your hand, you find a way to incorporate the running as a REWARD for training. If I have a dog that likes to fetch (I work with all kinds as a dog walker) then that dog is cued to sit or down or SOMETHING before that chuck it makes the throw. For Cracker is was squirrels...I worked on her recall diligently with lots of food rewards (she LOVES food) but squirrels were the be all and end all. So, we worked on the squirrel chasing being the reward (controlled by me as to when it was safe, for dog and for squirrel). It's the premack principle.

So you don't have to 'change' your dog. You use your brain to observe what is rewardable/important in your dog's personality and use that particular thing to train. Premack all the way baby.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> Personally, I've seen this more in Obedience and Rally than agility. People openly acknowledge that the dog doesn't like this sport, but they're going to do it anyways until they get their title. It seems to me that that is missing the point.


That would seem to be a function of human ego. I'm sure there are (or have been) huskies and coonhounds that love to compete in obedience trials, but they are a poor choice generally. 



RaeganW said:


> A lot of it has to do with the dog's ability to rebound. I've been reading a lot about hunting retriever training, specifically Tollers. One kennel that advertises as training non-traditional breeds makes a point that Tollers need a lighter touch than labs because they are softer. Labs can take a lot of stress and "get over it," while the same amount of stress will shut down a Toller. Trying to get the Toller to a point where it can take the same amount of stress might be possible, but it's a waste of time.


This is why Labs dominate retriever trials. They drink pressure like mother's milk. My Golden is from trial lines, and he is very Lab-like in that way. Chessies make top notch fowling dogs, but you mostly have to work on their terms. Many people get behind the 8-ball with Chessies because they make the mistake of thinking hard-to-pain is the same thing as hard-to-pressure. Chessies are typically physically very tough, but quite sensitive.


----------



## ssg (Jan 1, 2010)

Xeph said:


> As much as I'm sure you would like it to, it really does NOT work for every dog. I've seen my share that have been properly agitated in prey work...and they stand there and yawn. They just don't care.


It works enough to make training possible (if done right is the key here). Off course it will not build enough drive to say train for Schutzhund but just enough to make work fun for the dog "enough" so it works for reward. Have seen it happen many times


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Xeph said:


> Biddability is the DESIRE to learn and follow commands. Trainability is the ability to teach the dog a command, but a dog that is not biddable will choose to follow it or not.


How do you know the desire level of a dog to follow a command? How can I tell if Wally has the "desire" to follow the command even though he follows it? How do I know he's not thinking "ok fine" or "Yes master! Anything for you!"

You're obviously a better trainer (or bidder I guess?) than I because I can't get inside Wally's head to know which one he's thinking.

All I can work off of is: Did he do it or no? If he didn't that I try to figure out why. If he did, then all is good.

I can't get in there and see whether or not he was doing it "grudgingly" or with eagerness unless it's obvious (like let's go eat!)


----------



## BrittanyG (May 27, 2009)

RB, I'll gladly take Kobe if you're thinking of rehoming him.  I've always wanted a Northern, but they are just too much dog for me.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

KBLover said:


> How do you know the desire level of a dog to follow a command?


when she's looking at me solidly as opposed to shooting side glances at cozy bed/running cat/etc because whatever i have got is waaaay cooler. she's not a "biddable" dog. like when you put certain kinds of collars and harnesses on her and she wont budge and the only way to get her to move is to take it off. not food, not toys, not even the ultimate of prey games will sway her and if you try aversion she'll go dead weight. there are certain things i wanted to train her to do but she had the same reaction..so i turned to other things because if she doesnt want to do it that badly and its not a life or death issue, im not gonna sweat it.



> And it's still confusing. How can a dog be trained if he doesn't follow your directions? He had to follow the direction at least once in order to reinforce it and form the connection between the signal/cue/command and the behavior?


so how would i train Bolo to accept one of those harnesses? mmm...force her to by introing aversion until she moves. but im not going to do that. i can trick her with a little ingenuity but if its not really that big of a deal like a particular harness...im just going to drop it. *shrugs* if her safety is concerned, then i start looking into tricking the behavior out of her and then reinforcing it. if its an IMMEDIATE life or death situation..i will use just enough aversive to get her going and then happy talk her into continuing.

its a matter of degree of situation i think...



> How can a dog that follows your directions not be biddable? If he wasn't - why did he follow it in the first place? If the dog isn't biddable - why does the dog ever listen to what his handler would tell him? Wouldn't such a dog always "blow off" the handler?



degree of enthusiam would be key in determining "biddability" Bolo is decidedly unenthusiastic about certain things...to the point where an outsider might think she was dead. others things she is bouncing off the walls to try. because she wants to.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> when she's looking at me solidly as opposed to shooting side glances at cozy bed/running cat/etc because whatever i have got is waaaay cooler. she's not a "biddable" dog. like when you put certain kinds of collars and harnesses on her and she wont budge and the only way to get her to move is to take it off. not food, not toys, not even the ultimate of prey games will sway her and if you try aversion she'll go dead weight. there are certain things i wanted to train her to do but she had the same reaction..so i turned to other things because if she doesnt want to do it that badly and its not a life or death issue, im not gonna sweat it.



Wow, I've seen Wally be "stubborn" like that in fear situations (i.e. whatever the situation is triggered some fear/inhibition response in him) but not quite to THAT level (usually I can do the happy talk you mention later to get him moving...or not moving depending on the case).




zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> so how would i train Bolo to accept one of those harnesses? mmm...force her to by introing aversion until she moves. but im not going to do that. i can trick her with a little ingenuity but if its not really that big of a deal like a particular harness...im just going to drop it. *shrugs*


Yeah, I can understand that for sure. No sense ruining any relationship or causing distress if it's no biggie for either of you. 

There's been some things I've dropped, but I never thought about it being an issue of "biddability". I just figured it was something he's not understanding and/or something I don't know how to teach to him so that he can understand.




zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> degree of enthusiam would be key in determining "biddability" Bolo is decidedly unenthusiastic about certain things...to the point where an outsider might think she was dead. others things she is bouncing off the walls to try. because she wants to.


Okay, that's one thing that I could use in actual practice to see biddability and judge it. 

That said, a lot of times he's not showing TOO much enthusiasm if he's intent and focused on something. When his mouth closes and those ears fan out, he's alert and aware, but not tail-wagging bouncing around. Does that count?


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

BrittanyG said:


> RB, I'll gladly take Kobe if you're thinking of rehoming him.  I've always wanted a Northern, but they are just too much dog for me.


Fat chance!!!

Okay, I had some time to digest all this and revise my thought so as to hopefully make things more clear.

Most of my discussion has little to do with how biddable a dog is. Indirectly, yes. But I am considering the ethics of Reinforcement vs Punishment vs Management. 

The responses are interesting in that we all place value in different areas, for whatever reason. For instance, Elana's response is a clear cut "The dog does it because I said so." While I hold myself to a high training standard, the values I would place on training would ultimately be different than Elana's. 

As such, when encountering the same dilemma (where reinforcement fails), Elana would be more inclined towards Punishment, where I would be more inclined towards Management. 

For an example, using once again recall (and intentionally disregarding some people's view that it's mandatory to train at all costs) would be that if I had a German Shepherd with a high prey drive.

All available methods of reinforcing a recall have failed, and no matter how hard I try, I simply cannot offer a reinforcement that is more rewarding than prey drive. At such point, I would be more likely to accept the dog as she is, and manage the situation by keeping her on leash or long lead at all times.

Others, however, would go on to use Punishment based training to earn a recall. I would not take this step because it seems odd to me to punish a dog for being a dog.

In explaining that, I thought of a few more examples. There are people who use ear pinching to teach a dog to pick up and drop articles on cue. They do so in order to teach a retrieve for hunting, or for competition. The argument is not whether ear pinching is cruel or not (again, millions of threads for that if you want to discuss it) but whether that's an required step.

To me, if I had a Retriever breed that did not retrieve (horrifying thought, I know, but it exists more commonly than one would think). I would first, of course (being a heavily +R trainer) try to shape one. If that failed, I would be confronted with two choices: to accept that my dog will not retrieve, or to use punishment to teach the retrieve. 

I would choose to accept my dog for what he is, and discontinue teaching the retrieve. Better luck next time!

There are countless examples. But hopefully my question is more clear: when Reinforcement fails (whether by owner failure or otherwise), would it be more ethical to go with Punishment or Management?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

RBark said:


> There are countless examples. But hopefully my question is more clear: when Reinforcement fails (whether by owner failure or otherwise), would it be more ethical to go with Punishment or Management?


the talk about biddability is kind of a side note to this question imo. with my dog i feel it is more ethical to choose sticking with training and then either dropping the issue if it doesnt concern safety or management because the amount of pain involved in making her move or to tear her off another dog is astronomical. her tolerance for pain is ridiculous. 

generally speaking i tend to follow that model as well. with some adjustment bearing on situation and individual dog.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

RBark said:


> In explaining that, I thought of a few more examples. There are people who use ear pinching to teach a dog to pick up and drop articles on cue. They do so in order to teach a retrieve for hunting, or for competition. The argument is not whether ear pinching is cruel or not (again, millions of threads for that if you want to discuss it) but whether that's an required step.
> 
> To me, if I had a Retriever breed that did not retrieve (horrifying thought, I know, but it exists more commonly than one would think). I would first, of course (being a heavily +R trainer) try to shape one. If that failed, I would be confronted with two choices: to accept that my dog will not retrieve, or to use punishment to teach the retrieve.


I don't think I'd go to punishment (and certainly wouldn't for Wally), but I'm not sure I'd give up totally, at least not permanently. 

In fact, Wally didn't retrieve. Didn't care about it, didn't know the first thing of how, but after working with it and (thanks to zim's advice back then) getting him really into an object, and then using that object for the retrieve, I started getting the wheels going, so to speak.

Also, before giving up completely, I let it "lay low". I read about this on some site somewhere (sorry, it was in the phase where I was in extreme knowledge-absorb mode), that by leaving the subject for a week, the dog actually can "learn" it or something. I've done that and it seemed to work for him.

So I'd try that as well and go back to my R+ tactics.




RBark said:


> I would choose to accept my dog for what he is, and discontinue teaching the retrieve. Better luck next time!
> 
> There are countless examples. But hopefully my question is more clear: when Reinforcement fails (whether by owner failure or otherwise), would it be more ethical to go with Punishment or Management?



I don't think it's so much "changing the dog that he is" to teach him something he might not readily take to. 

But as to the question, I would Manage...while trying to teach with R+ (just to distinguish it from R-, which isn't punishment). Like zim, unless it was an issue of absolute safety, either for himself or others, I wouldn't go with P+ methods. Now P-, sure, that's the other edge of my "training sword" so to speak.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

RBark said:


> For an example, using once again recall (and intentionally disregarding some people's view that it's mandatory to train at all costs) would be that if I had a German Shepherd with a high prey drive.
> 
> All available methods of reinforcing a recall have failed, and no matter how hard I try, I simply cannot offer a reinforcement that is more rewarding than prey drive. At such point, I would be more likely to accept the dog as she is, and manage the situation by keeping her on leash or long lead at all times.
> 
> Others, however, would go on to use Punishment based training to earn a recall. I would not take this step because it seems odd to me to punish a dog for being a dog.


To my way of thinking, keeping the dog on a leash for the rest of his life is punishing the dog for being a dog. I consider the other thing to be reminding a dog that he is answerable to a higher authority than his prey drive. Aversive correction (properly employed) is momentary and infrequent. Ultimately, it goes away.



RBark said:


> In explaining that, I thought of a few more examples. There are people who use ear pinching to teach a dog to pick up and drop articles on cue. They do so in order to teach a retrieve for hunting, or for competition. The argument is not whether ear pinching is cruel or not (again, millions of threads for that if you want to discuss it) but whether that's an required step.
> 
> To me, if I had a Retriever breed that did not retrieve (horrifying thought, I know, but it exists more commonly than one would think). I would first, of course (being a heavily +R trainer) try to shape one. If that failed, I would be confronted with two choices: to accept that my dog will not retrieve, or to use punishment to teach the retrieve.
> 
> I would choose to accept my dog for what he is, and discontinue teaching the retrieve. Better luck next time!


"Force Fetch" is a different matter. It is not purely about the retrieve. If I get a retriever pup who has zero interest in retrieving, he goes back to the breeder or he assumes the honorable duty of warming my couch. You can force virtually any dog to retrieve, but some dogs will never be any good at it. For a dog with no drive, a forced retrieve is nothing more than that. For a high drive retriever, the FF training will go miles toward directing that drive. Not everybody does it and it is controversial.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

Honestly, if R+ methods were not sufficient (most likely due to trainer error , not lack of learning on part of the dog) and we were talking about something possibly unsafe (ie recall) I would resort to management rather than punishment. I also would continue to try and figure out a creative solution to the problem. 

Just to stick a bug in the works...using the ecollar as R- is still technically using P+ as the stim has to be applied (plus) in order to removed (-). The intensity is not the same as using it firmly as P+ but it is still an aversive. This is a trade off that, given yours and your dog's enjoyment of the outdoors, could be worth it.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Cracker said:


> Just to stick a bug in the works...using the ecollar as R- is still technically using P+ as the stim has to be applied (plus) in order to removed (-). The intensity is not the same as using it firmly as P+ but it is still an aversive.


I think we've been down this discussional road before. Whether R- is functionally the same as P+, I agree it is ethically the same.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

> There are countless examples. But hopefully my question is more clear: when Reinforcement fails (whether by owner failure or otherwise), would it be more ethical to go with Punishment or Management?


I would consider it more ethical to go to management, but it is not unethical to go to punishment. 

Otherwise I am in almost complete agreement with Cracker. 

Going Pure Clicker (by which I mean the entire paradigm of the R+ training philosophy, not just using the clicker to mark things) is a little like going pure mathematics. Crazy useful, almost magical, if you can hack it, but most people are better served by a balanced approach (leaning heavily to the math and clicker side, because those are both awesome things )


----------



## Corinthian (Sep 21, 2009)

KBLover said:


> How do you know the desire level of a dog to follow a command? How can I tell if Wally has the "desire" to follow the command even though he follows it? How do I know he's not thinking "ok fine" or "Yes master! Anything for you!"


Excellent point, which is why I find the whole idea of biddability to be more a projection by the trainer than an actual trait of the dog. This assumes the trainer has some telepathic abilities that exceed that of a Vulcan Mind meld

And as far as ethics in training I follow the LIEBI (The Least Intrusive Effective Behavior Intervention)
Principle 8. Aversive Stimulation: Professionals do not condone or endorse aversive stimulation that cannot be justified via the LIEBI model and do not endorse, condone or affiliate with organizations that actively promote unjustified aversive stimulation.

8.01. Professionals do not use, condone or endorse aversive tools such as, but not limited to choke chains, prong collars, electronic invisible fencing or electronic shock-collars in contravention of the LIEBI model. 

8.02. Professionals do not use, condone or endorse aversive behavior change methods such as but not limited to leash corrections, helicoptering, hanging, alpha-rolling, scruff-shaking, spraying the animal in the face with fluid, throwing things at the animal, hitting in any way or otherwise creating fear or pain in animals in contravention of the LIEBI model.

8.03. Professionals do not condone, promote, endorse or affiliate with organizations that actively promote unjustified highly intrusive/aversive methods or tools, unjustified meaning in contravention of the LIEBI model.

​
Though as RBark mentions in a previous post this is for behaviour problems. If I was an obedience competition and because of my failure to reinforce I could not train X, then I would find another sport that didn't require this skill.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Corinthian said:


> Excellent point, which is why I find the whole idea of biddability to be more a projection by the trainer than an actual trait of the dog. This assumes the trainer has some telepathic abilities that exceed that of a Vulcan Mind meld
> 
> And as far as ethics in training I follow the LIEBI (The Least Intrusive Effective Behavior Intervention)
> Principle 8. Aversive Stimulation: Professionals do not condone or endorse aversive stimulation that cannot be justified via the LIEBI model and do not endorse, condone or affiliate with organizations that actively promote unjustified aversive stimulation.
> ...


all training involves projection by the trainer. all of it. you absolutely cant escape it because no one speaks dog. you can only surmise, guess and project your interpretation of any given behavior onto the situation..


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

> Just to stick a bug in the works...using the ecollar as R- is still technically using P+ as the stim has to be applied (plus) in order to removed (-). The intensity is not the same as using it firmly as P+ but it is still an aversive. This is a trade off that, given yours and your dog's enjoyment of the outdoors, could be worth it.


Again, work, not much time on my break to type so more to follow later. But wanted to make a quick note on this.

I hear this a lot, it seems to me to be a fairly common misunderstanding. Positive Punishment isn't just the introduction of an aversive. Positive Punishment is an introduction of an aversive to reduce the likelihood of a behavior occurring in the future.

When the aversive is applied, there is no behavior I am trying to reduce. The way you define it, all -R must begin with +P. That seems to ignore the Reinforcement/Punishment part of the equation. When the aversive gets applied, I am not punishing Kobe for any behavior, only setting a condition to reinforce a behavior with the removal of a stimulus.

A classic example of it is when they put a mouse in a box. The bottom of a box is electric. The mouse learns to get off the bottom via -R. It doesn't begin with +P because nothing is being punished (punished as in, behavior reduction, not what is the typical use of it by most people)


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

I went off somewhere else while all this developed.. LOL

First addressing Zim's hierarchy of 1.) Safe 2.) content and 3.) Biddable and a pleasure to ba around...

I keep my dog safe. It is a "given" and assumed. 



> i define content as
> 
> enough food, water, exercise, access to positive stimulation resulting in an air of general well being and a bright demeanor.


I presume this also to be a given. 

At times _content_ will conflict with training.. some things I need my dog to do she is not terribly thrilled about doing. It is my job to get her thrilled.  When I introduce the "unthrilling" thing it may mean for a little while my dog is doing it because I require it.. but my next challenge will be to get the dog happy to do it and wanting to do it. That is the training challenge. Of course I always try to have her happy to do it in the first place.. but if it is a behavior I require, we may need to change approaches.. and then build her backup.. to doing the behavior brightly and eagerly. 

In my dog's case she is unthrilled about retrieves. Taking an object I have thrown and bringing it back and sitting in front of me and holding it until I ask her to give is just plain NOT something she wants to do. I started this with little steps.. just having her take the "thing" from my hand and then hold it and me taking it back. Eventually we built on this and got a full retrieve. She did it.. at a walk.. so NOW my job is to make it fun.. build up 'style'.. get it exciting.. and to limit her exposure to doing the behavior.. (quitting when she still wants more). 

To that end we have played "keep away" with the dumb bell and we have added a jump.. she loves to jump.. can't wait to jump.. so I had her sit and wait. I went on the other side of the jump and put the dumb bell between me and the jump. She had to jump, take the dumb bell and then come to front. She loved this. I also have had her do the "hated take it" (not really hated.. just unthrilling) after which she jumps.. and then come to front. The dumb bell was her door to jumping. Now the dumb bell had become a desirable object. 

After that we went to retrieves on the flat. They have become a LOT more fun. 

So, initially the retrieve behavior was not biddable and did not make her content. Now she looks forward to it.. and I am sure in another week it will be better and better to 'can't wait' to do it. Will she be a ball or retrieve nut like some dogs? No. Is she happy to do it? Yes. Were corrections involved? Intially.. after trying 6 ways from Sunday to not use them. Finally I did and that was the end of the nonsense of not doing it. Now it was my job to create desire and, yes, to an extent, biddability on this behaivor. 

My thinking on training is that if a dog is no fun to be around.. is jumping on people, stealing food off the table, pooping in the house and all the rest he is probably a very happy dog that is going to end up back at the shelter and maybe PTS. OTOH, if the dog is trained to do basics and poop outside and not counter surf, he is likely going to have a good life living with the people who own him. 

I believe the second situation will lead to greater over all contentment for the dog than the first situation. While training the dog to get to situation #2 may not always make the dog happy or content, the ultimate outcome will lead to a content and happy dog. 

If you can get the second situation with Pos. Reinf etc. GREAT. However, if the dog is 5 years old and still jumps on everyone, still counter surfs, pulls your arm out when you walk him etc. and still does not get better using Pos. Reinf. then something is very wrong. Either bad training, bad choice of reinforcers or a variety of other reasons. IF you as the owner can live with all this and don't care, fine. 

OTOH, if you are like me and find all this objectionable, you may find you need to use a different method, get the job done and then move on. 

There is something here that has not been brought up.. *IF the dog is behaving in a manner that makes HIM content but drives the owner up the wall, will not the stress of the owner eventually affect the contentment of the dog? *

The stress may damage the realtionship to the point where neither dog nor owner are capable of contentment. It may actually end up with the dog very much in a stage of discontent (from not connecting with his owner to being rehomed or sent to a shelter or rescue). 

A dog that is a pleasure to be around can increase the contentment of both owner and dog. 

What a "pleasure to be around" means depends on personal preference. RBark thinks a dog on leash is acceptable for safety and the dog's contentment rather than use an aversive to reinforce recall and have the dog off leash. That is not as pleasurable for me and so I would up the ante. 

FWIW I have never owned a dog that was not off leash and would not happily come when called and I have not had to resort to E collars etc. to get it.. and of those dogs, mostly mutts, two had considerable Husky in them. I expected a dog that would recall and be off leash and I got a dog that would recall and be off leash. My experinece is limited to those dogs.. and it does not range into the hundreds.


----------



## Corinthian (Sep 21, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> all training involves projection by the trainer. all of it. you absolutely cant escape it because no one speaks dog. you can only surmise, guess and project your interpretation of any given behavior onto the situation..


Which is why talking in terms of biddability makes no sense. It's best if we stick the barest essentials of the dog's mental states. And why I prefer to analyse behavior not mental states.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Elana55 said:


> My thinking on training is that if a dog is no fun to be around.. is jumping on people, stealing food off the table, pooping in the house and all the rest he is probably a very happy dog that is going to end up back at the shelter and maybe PTS. OTOH, if the dog is trained to do basics and poop outside and not counter surf, he is likely going to have a good life living with the people who own him.
> 
> I believe the second situation will lead to greater over all contentment for the dog than the first situation. While training the dog to get to situation #2 may not always make the dog happy or content, the ultimate outcome will lead to a content and happy dog.
> 
> ...


If someone is inappropriately or poorly applying R+ training methods, I would doubt their ability to apply R-/P+ methods. If R+ isn't working because of the trainer, why would another method?

The fallout of a poorly timed click is one point for the dog. The fallout of a poorly timed correction can shut down a dog. (That said, I have heard of dogs so anxious that they shut down when NOT getting clicked, but that's a separate issue.) In my opinion, delivering a proper correction is a more difficult skill for a trainer to master than delivering a well timed click, and the fallout while learning is greater.

Is there a time and place for corrections? Whether choke, prong, or e-collar, I think so, under certain conditions. Certainly in some cases it is faster, especially if you know what you're doing and that's the way you've always trained dogs. But I'm not sure there's a training issue that simply CAN'T be solved with R+ and some ingenuity. Whether that's worth the mental and physical effort is a matter of personal comfort. It's an input/output equation. Assuming you can use a tool with skill and finesse, of course.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> But I'm not sure there's a training issue that simply CAN'T be solved with R+ and some ingenuity. Whether that's worth the mental and physical effort is a matter of personal comfort. It's an input/output equation. Assuming you can use a tool with skill and finesse, of course.


FWIW I do not describe nor subscribe to corrections on a public dog forum. You are correct... if the person using a correction misapplies it you cause more damage than you can ever cause with a clicker. 

HOWEVER, the wholesale rejection of corrections as a tool is removing from your hands something that may be useful. 

It is like having a 3/8ths inch tubing wrench in your tool box. You may use it very seldom, but when you need it, it is the only tool that will do.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

As a professional trainer, I don't give dogs a choice, I just train them.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Perhaps I misspoke. Would aversive be a better term?


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

wvasko said:


> As a professional trainer, I don't give dogs a choice, I just train them.


Yes. This.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> Perhaps I misspoke. Would aversive be a better term?


Aversive corrections is *one* of the tools in the corrections tool box.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> (That said, I have heard of dogs so anxious that they shut down when NOT getting clicked, but that's a separate issue.)



That was Wally. He would get all freaked out if the clicks weren't coming. (Shaking, panting, moving really slow, tail looks like it got cut off).

It's why shaping went NOWHERE with him when I first tried it, because he was too anxious/inhibited/scared to just up an offer a behavior. 

Fortunately, he's gotten "tougher" I guess for the most part (though -P still makes an impact with him, and I have to be careful not to push too far with it or I can trigger those same responses). 

But, why would it be a separate issue? Is it not, technically, a correction to withhold the click? You're basically saying, "Sorry, bub. You're wrong. Try again." 

Obviously, to Wally, it used to have the same impact as a "traditional" correction, given his reaction to it.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Corinthian said:


> Which is why talking in terms of biddability makes no sense. It's best if we stick the barest essentials of the dog's mental states. And why I prefer to analyse behavior not mental states.



biddable is not a mental state. its a posture.


----------



## Corinthian (Sep 21, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> biddable is not a mental state. its a posture.


Akimbo is a posture.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Corinthian said:


> Akimbo is a posture.


missing the point...as usual. 

i see my dog animated and showing enthusiasm to perform...ie. tail wagging, full attention, relaxed yet animated stance...i know she's in the mood and enjoying her work. 


i see my dog drop dead weight, ears flat back on her head, sharkeyed and stiff to the touch when i introduce a new behavior....i know this to be an objection.


this isnt a dog i can just go "hey do this" and she'll pop right to it. that would be the biddable dog. this is a dog that i have to make it worth her while or she aint playin. 

im done.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

RBark said:


> Again, work, not much time on my break to type so more to follow later. But wanted to make a quick note on this.
> 
> I hear this a lot, it seems to me to be a fairly common misunderstanding. Positive Punishment isn't just the introduction of an aversive. Positive Punishment is an introduction of an aversive to reduce the likelihood of a behavior occurring in the future.
> 
> ...


This is a very good point. Point taken. You are a very articulate person and I find this very helpful in clarifying my thoughts on this.

So, I PERSONALLY would find it objectionable to apply an aversive such as an ecollar stim in order to use it as R-. We use a leash settle in puppy class, and some puppies in the beginning find this very aversive and some do not. I participate in this particular exercise because it is my job as the assistant and because it IS an effective exercise, but if it were my class I would _most likely_ not use it. Personal preference, only.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> this isnt a dog i can just go "hey do this" and she'll pop right to it. that would be the biddable dog. this is a dog that i have to make it worth her while or she aint playin.


If that's the definition, then Wally isn't biddable either.

Sometimes he'll do that (jump right to it). Sometimes he won't (he might have his reasons, so to speak - scared/uncertain, would rather offer something else, etc)

Are there degrees of biddability - or is it an all or nothing thing (either a dog is or isn't)?

As it is, it seems like it's more situational than an overall "is or is not" thing.


----------



## Corinthian (Sep 21, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> missing the point...as usual.


If you can't communicate in a clear manner, don't blame the audience.


> i see my dog animated and showing enthusiasm to perform...ie. tail wagging, full attention, relaxed yet animated stance...i know she's in the mood and enjoying her work.


As have been explained, that's not biddability.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Disclaimer 1st, (I, not brightest bulb in box) I always thought of a "biddable dog" as a "wants to please dog" I always preferred a not so bright dog that wanted to please than an intelligent dog that did not. When you're not the brightest bulb intelligence in a dog is a problem

Obviously it would be great to get the intelligence and biddable traits in one dog but then they don't need a trainer.

This has nothing to do with ethics thread just dumping it in.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

wvasko said:


> Obviously it would be great to get the intelligence and biddable traits in one dog but then they don't need a trainer.


I don't know - if you have a dog that's smart and wants to do stuff for you, he might start "inventing" stuff to do for you. 

I imagine there's more dogs out there that would like to please but have people that don't know how to train them (so they "invent" or find other outlets for that energy), than people that have dogs that just don't care what they are being told to do. Either way, you still need professional dog trainers!


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Corinthian said:


> As have been explained, that's not biddability.



we are looking at frequency of the one behavior vs the other. as in degrees.


----------



## Corinthian (Sep 21, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> we are looking at frequency of the one behavior vs the other. as in degrees.


Frequency of behaviour is also not biddability. It can be a sign of poor training.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Corinthian said:


> Frequency of behaviour is also not biddability. It can be a sign of poor training.


I think it's a given, for purposes of discussion biddability, that we can only evaluate it for learned behaviors. How to evaluate a behavior as learned is another issue, and another area where we all have our criteria and based on how we communicate with our individual dogs.

That said, it's still getting into a gray area as to trying to interpret "why" a dog would refuse/not perform a cue. However, even with good training, it does add something into the mix.

For example, when doing the "random drop" training with Wally, at first he didn't do it. Does that mean he was being "unbiddable" or does he not know how to do the drop while on the move? He knows how to do the foldback drop, so was he unbiddable, or just unaware of "how to get there from here" sort of thing.

Now that's he's better and "knows how to get there from here" he's eager - but is it just "Yay, I'm out in the world with my person!" eagerness, "I can't wait to do the drop training" eagerness, "I can't wait for what good happens after I do this" eagerness, or "I'll do anything to make you happy" eagerness?

And then, which of those indicates biddability instead of just being happy to be with me/out of the house or anticipating the possible reward at the end of the "job", or even the next behavior in the chain (as it's one step closer to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow)?

To me, it's a lot of estimating and guessing with this - while looking at behavior in and of itself can be evaluated clearly (either he did it or he didn't), but trying to figure how much desire a dog has and why he has that desire (it could be nothing to do with the "job" the dog is being asked to do - it could be the dog is in a good mood, or feeling fiesty, or just glad to be in a social interaction with you - none of which necessarily have anything to do with the cue or work).

Biddability is a mental state - or rather a personality trait - based on how I've seen it described/defined here. The posture comes from the body language - but we're assuming why the dog is eager ("eager to please", "eager to do the job", etc) and assuming that's why the dog is displaying the body language that indicates eagerness/alertness/ready for action.


----------



## Corinthian (Sep 21, 2009)

Everything you describe falls under good training and proper motivation. The way biddability has been described so far would lead me to believe that every dog I ever trained*, every stray, every competition dog and every club dog I've ever worked with was eventually biddable - with me and their owners. Many of these owners were complaining about the dog not being so. The more parsimonious explanation is that they had no idea how to motivate and reward the dog and were blaming the dog's personality for their own failings. The "Biddable" dog is a well trained, well motivated, well rewarded dog.







* except one that we later found out had a brain tumour.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

KBLover said:


> I don't know - if you have a dog that's smart and wants to do stuff for you, he might start "inventing" stuff to do for you.
> 
> I imagine there's more dogs out there that would like to please but have people that don't know how to train them (so they "invent" or find other outlets for that energy), than people that have dogs that just don't care what they are being told to do. Either way, you still need professional dog trainers!


You realize if their that smart you would not even realize you're being manipulated in any way, (that is a little scary)


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Corinthian said:


> Everything you describe falls under good training and proper motivation. The way biddability has been described so far would lead me to believe that every dog I ever trained*, every stray, every competition dog and every club dog I've ever worked with was eventually biddable - with me and their owners. Many of these owners were complaining about the dog not being so. The more parsimonious explanation is that they had no idea how to motivate and reward the dog and were blaming the dog's personality for their own failings. The "Biddable" dog is a well trained, well motivated, well rewarded dog.




Perhaps, then, the biddable trait is for that "initial meeting" so to speak. I.e. you meet dog for the first time and ask him to do something - if he doesn't, or doesn't even seem to acknowledge you - perhaps that's where it matters.

A non-biddable dog would be like "I hear you talking, but I'm not listening" where a very biddable dog would already be focused on you and react to your every move and sound you make. A dog basically waiting for instructions on what to do and takes your movements as what to do (i.e. go where you're going). The first dog would be harder to get yourself wedged into his brain to begin with while the second dog has basically already put you in there.

Once you've built a relationship and communication with the dog, the trait perhaps matter much less - which is why every dog, eventually, becomes more biddable (though there's still differences in personality so one dog may be comparatively "less biddable" than say a "glued to his person" dog). A combo of motivation (which is where training can come in, or let the side down) and innate personality (how strongly the dog holds to his "reasons" for not wanting to do something or wanting to do something other than the direction)

Of course, that's why I don't think there's a "global" biddability on a dog, but rather a situational one. I.E. He's biddable in this, this, and this case, but less so if this happens, or in this situation (lots of unknown people around him, for example, in Wally's case). Wally isn't "non-biddable" just because of one situation, but, to me, it just means in that one situation his "reasons for rejecting" are at least as strong as "desire to please". So he's in emotional conflict (wants to get away, but wants to sit because that's been well-rewarded) and that might be what he manifests as fear/anxiety (doesn't know what to do) given his own personality/expression.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

wvasko said:


> You realize if their that smart you would not even realize you're being manipulated in any way, (that is a little scary)


That's true - and yeah, that's scary 

Of course, it's said that some dogs "train their owners" - might in the same vein perhaps (and the owners may not realize it).


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Here's the thing

the idea of a dog that snaps to it immediately...bores the crap out of me. thats not something i want in a dog. i dont need a fawning slave, i need a partner and a friend. 

my dog is not biddable. she is however very highly trained, on some things she makes her distaste for the idea very very obvious. if there is no saftey concern...i dont care..ill drop the issue.

i dont like the term biddable..but in general it works to describe a dynamic between dog and owner that sort of starts with the dog's personality. its a dynamic of give and take as opposed to the human making every call every time no room for leeway this is the way it is dangit dog and you WILL OBEY..and dog hops too it joyous as ever.


i dont want that. i want the challenge that an intelligent and expressive and strong willed dog offers. that is the unbiddable dog, the one who *can* be trained to do things most dogs will go "durruhhh wha?" at but wont do it just cuz owner says so.


and just as a side note..l often have to fumble my way through explaining things because i am admittedly both scatterbrained at times and have a hard time explaining myself when i feel like ive been insulted because i have something of a fiery temper. perdoname.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

I believe that biddability is directly relatable to the motivation (reward) inherent in the behaviour. If you are the most rewarding thing, than maybe you can say your dog is "biddable" from the get go. I have a velcro dog, so that could mean I have an incredibly biddable dog...but I truly am a far second to chasing the squirrel or the piece of natural balance I have in my treat sac.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

KBLover said:


> Of course, it's said that some dogs "train their owners" - might in the same vein perhaps (and the owners may not realize it).


That may actually be more common than t'other way around. I see lots of dogs who have their owners extremely well trained, where said owners are completely unaware of how much control their dog is exerting on them. Not so many truly well trained dogs. All of which begs the musical question: _Who's Zoomin' Who?_

When people brag about how well they've trained their dog, I often challenge them to unclip the leash. I've gotten a lot of strange responses--up to and including: "It's cruel to let a dog off leash" (don't ask me)--but not so many people are willing to give it a go.


----------



## KarenJG (Jan 31, 2010)

I've always thought "biddable" meant "willing to be trained." But I don't know if there's a professional meaning that I'm missing here. And, to dig deeper into that, I guess by "willing to be trained," I mean a dog that looks to a person as a source of "stimulation" (whether intellectual challenge, or amusement or just playtime) as opposed to looking to the environment. I'm currently working with a Basset Hound foster dog. I wouldn't call her biddable, because she's way more interested in scent trails than anything I have to offer her - outside, at least. 

Yet, she IS trainable. We've done a lot of work inside, and have done some outside. I can occasionally get her attention off of whatever trail she's following, and I'm working to increase the frequency of that, and I expect that I will be able to do so. But, that won't make her "biddable" in my mind. That will just make her trained.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

I am not a professional trainer... I train a great deal and I think about and study training even more, but I do it because I love it. I am blessed in that my dogs also love it, though it has taken a great deal of time and energy to get them to that point. 

Personally, my dogs' personalities are part of who they are. Training helps me bring that out and gives them the maximum potential to explore the world...for instance Kim and Webster are two of the only dogs I know of who are permitted in a store near my house, simply because they have proven themselves to be polite in public no matter what happens...from having a fish dropped on them to a child zipping around a corner and throwing herself on them...this obviously took training which results in their acting contrary to their natural inclinations. If they are safe (via management or training) I am happy. They seem to find exploring off leash and visiting new places/people extremely joyful experiences...so a level of training which enables them to do these things is worth pursuing to me, even if it infringes on their natural behaviors.

Any training is done using choice...it's just a matter of framing those choices and reducing options. I recognize that my methods of training are not foolproof, mostly due to my own shortcomings, and take steps to manage situations in which I am either not confident in the reliability of their responses or _in which I do not find "fixing" the behavior important_. I don't try to fit the dog to the mold...heck I don't have a mold and don't care to. 

My dogs do things which make no real sense to them because I ask them to do them...I make sure they have the chance to do things which make no sense to me but are important to them. If that means releasing them to roll in something truly nauseating on occasion...well so be it. Premack principle lets me do this in the context of training but that's beside the point.

Hopefully this makes some degree of sense...I gotta pack up the dogs for class so I give up on better the coherency at this point lol


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> i dont like the term biddable..but in general it works to describe a dynamic between dog and owner that sort of starts with the dog's personality. its a dynamic of give and take as opposed to the human making every call every time no room for leeway this is the way it is dangit dog and you WILL OBEY..and dog hops too it joyous as ever.


What term/description would you give the dynamic if you could and the term biddable didn't exist?

As far as wanting a dog that would jump to me - I don't know. I do like how Wally will try to work with me to learn something, though it doesn't mean he's my slave either (and I don't think the two have to go together - "slavery" would mean more about how the dog is treated [no freedom, no chance to express his own personality, etc], imo, than his own personality), and I don't try to squash is personality to get to biddable (if anything I've been trying to bring it out - and boy it's quirky LOL)


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Marsh Muppet said:


> That may actually be more common than t'other way around. I see lots of dogs who have their owners extremely well trained, where said owners are completely unaware of how much control their dog is exerting on them. Not so many truly well trained dogs. All of which begs the musical question: _Who's Zoomin' Who?_
> 
> When people brag about how well they've trained their dog, I often challenge them to unclip the leash. I've gotten a lot of strange responses--up to and including: "It's cruel to let a dog off leash" (don't ask me)--but not so many people are willing to give it a go.


You would be surprised the amount of people through the years that inquire about training and explain that their dogs can sit and stay etc and they just want to brush them up on things. It did not take me very long to ask them into the training bldg as I wanted to see how the dogs would work etc before I started training. I think they believed if they say the dogs are partially trained the fee will be more reasonable. It doesn't work that way. I actually did see a couple of the dogs sit after the owner screamed at them 5 or 6 times. Those were the better dogs.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

wvasko said:


> I actually did see a couple of the dogs sit after the owner screamed at them 5 or 6 times. Those were the better dogs.


People are relentless about making excuses for their dogs. I'm sure you heard them all, from: "He's usually very good, but he's too excited...there are other dogs around...he doesn't know you...etc...", all the way up to: "Well I don't want a _robot dog_ who can't think for himself....".

If more people understood that the fault was theirs, and not the dog's, I bet the excuses would get really creative.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

I did this.. when talking about my dog to an On Line Friend and experienced dog trainer. 

The response was it sounded like I was making excuses for my dog's behavior.... and you know, he was RIGHT. I was so annoyed with myself. I hate to have someone whine and make excuses instead of facing something and dealing with it. 

I stopped doing that and just _trained the dog._ If I make excuses for my dog again, I hope someone whacks me upside the head.

BTW the results of knuckling down and doing the work INSTEAD of making excuses has actually WORKED and I broke thru the problem and the dog and I were (are still) on our way!


----------



## Corinthian (Sep 21, 2009)

Elena, I find that excuses like claiming the dog is _stubborn, not biddable, independent, difficult, etc, _, are really excuses for lack of action. When I hear this, invariably the person has made at best a half-arsed approach at training the dog.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Marsh Muppet said:


> People are relentless about making excuses for their dogs. I'm sure you heard them all, from: "He's usually very good, but he's too excited...there are other dogs around...he doesn't know you...etc...", all the way up to: "Well I don't want a _robot dog_ who can't think for himself....".


Well, then I'm guilty of the "he doesn't know you" because with Wally - he doesn't know someone, he's not going to be like OOOOH YAY LOOK AT THAT UNKNOWN PERSON!

He's got fearful tendencies - that was clear. He's getting better, but he may well always be this way. I don't believe I'm making an excuse for him - I'm just noting an observed behavior. He doesn't know someone, and they approach him - he's going to back away, be on the anxious side (curve around them, probably throw signals), and sit close to me.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

KBLover said:


> Well, then I'm guilty of the "he doesn't know you" because with Wally - he doesn't know someone, he's not going to be like OOOOH YAY LOOK AT THAT UNKNOWN PERSON!
> 
> He's got fearful tendencies - that was clear.


I was talking about the "Marley" type disobedience.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Ah - I see what you're saying now. 

Oh man, that would be a challenge to have a dog like the way Marley was.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

I think when using the word biddable, whatever anybody's personal read on the word is, I don't think dogs that have been badly treated etc enter into it. These types of dogs just carry too much extra baggage at least that's my personal experience. 

In training I have had some intelligent/biddable types that when working them and just watching them on stay work, you can almost see the wheels turning inside them and they are not thinking about ways to get out of training but how they can enhance the training. I know this may sound silly but every once in a while I will tell the wife I got me a "thinker" and it's usually within 3 workouts that I know that this dog will be what I call a brag dog. If this sounds confusing I'm sorry, sometimes the thoughts in my head don't look so good when trying to explain them online.

Trust me on this, I'm old school and I can make dogs biddable. That's not the type of dog I'm talking about.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

KBLover said:


> Oh man, that would be a challenge to have a dog like the way Marley was.


Nah, Marley was fine. 90% of Labs will act like that if they have a putz for an owner. BTW, that Grogan character was on an episode of the Dog Whisperer. They have an adorable, young, female Lab who was acting like an outlaw--killing their chickens, not coming when called, and etc. This family lived with Marley for 13 years and he probably spent a year writing the book. Probably spent another year doing readings and book signings. In all that time, it never occurred to him or his wife to investigate why dogs act that way? Neither Grogan nor his wife are stupid people, and they are both trained journalists. I just don't get that.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

wvasko said:


> In training I have had some intelligent/biddable types that when working them and just watching them on stay work, you can almost see the wheels turning inside them and they are not thinking about ways to get out of training but how they can enhance the training. I know this may sound silly but every once in a while I will tell the wife I got me a "thinker" and it's usually within 3 workouts that I know that this dog will be what I call a brag dog. If this sounds confusing I'm sorry, sometimes the thoughts in my head don't look so good when trying to explain them online.


If it helps I TOTALLY get this. I love the dogs I work with that are like this and enjoy making the "puzzles" of training special skills just hard enough that the dog gets his "wheels spinning". This is part of why I enjoy shaping with a clicker, though I'm not that good at it yet. I just recently was working with Cracker on retraining the crate (I got a new nylon portacrate) to be able to take her to class with me and for ongoing work with the SA issues. She FINALLY is calm enough to do shaping and to see her figure out when I raised the criteria and how to "earn" her click was amazing. She would do the movement and freeze, looking at me like "is this what you wanted? Yes! Woohoo a click!". Getting her confidence to the point where she could start to offer new behaviours was a huge breakthrough for us. I hope that she will become that "thinker" instead of the dog with "baggage" you described, with continued practice and continued building of her confidence. 

Sorry that was a bit off topic, but my crate phobic dog is now going in and sleeping in the crate voluntarily at night all through shaping and ten or so fifteen minute sessions. I woke up one morning, saw her in there and almost got up a did a happy dance! We are still working on closing the door etc. but progress is progress no matter how small.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> Sorry that was a bit off topic, but my crate phobic dog is now going in and sleeping in the crate voluntarily at night all through shaping and ten or so fifteen minute sessions. I woke up one morning, saw her in there and almost got up a did a happy dance! We are still working on closing the door etc. but progress is progress no matter how small.


No need for sorry when explaining dog issues, the thread has gone off topic a tad anyway, but it's been interesting to say the least.

I do believe with the proper length of *time* that a thinker can be developed out of a troubled dog, especially if it's a labor of love.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

The thread's moved quiet a bit away from original topic. On this new topic, about a dog's biddability.. I have no opinion on the matter. I understand what people are trying to imply by "biddable" but it is not a definition I would use.

Priscilla is what anyone would call a "biddable" dog. She's eager as hell to work, and quick on the uptake. Strap her to a harness, put her in front of my bike, and she would suddenly not appear "Biddable". She would have a hard time learning stuff, and it's not as rewarding for her.

On the other hand... place Ollie in front of me for a training session. I'll probably get blown off. Big juicy piece of steak? Meh, maybe worth doing a couple sits for, but that's it. Also what most people would not call a "biddable" dog. However... place him in front of my bike... he learned over 25 directional commands in under a week without any food, praise, tug, etc as a reward. No clickers, no aversives either.

Which one is "biddable"?

If I took Ollie to Petco, compared to most of the well trained dogs here on the forum, he would appear completely untrained. Not out of control, just not trained. Would I make excuses for it? Probably. I'm more likely to say "sorry" without saying why. Yeah, he might not be perfect. But you try putting your dogs in front of a harness and having your dog pull you without a break for 10 miles while following every directional command (faster, slower, stop, left turn, right turn, U turn to the left, U turn to the right, slightly left, slightly right, and a dozen more) in under a week.

Most dogs wouldn't because it's not 10% as innately reinforcing as it is for him.

So biddable? Not really a useful definition for me. I don't care if they are biddable. I care what their motivations are. What their drive is. Anything else is basically anthropomorphisizing. That their motivation might not be what someone calls the perfect well trained dog means little to me. It's not lack of training ability (though that said, it's amusing that most of the people who say that own goldens and GSD's) Priscilla was well trained. She wanted to be, and enjoyed it. 

But I'm not going to force Priscilla to pull me on a bike any more than I'm going to force Ollie to be a model dog out in public. Sure, some obvious stuff like dont jump on people, don't pee inside... beyond that, *shrug* if someone's uncomfortable with Ollie's behavior, there are two choices... That person can remove themselves, or I can remove myself. But I had no issues with Ollie being the way he is.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

That's a good point. A thoroughly biddable (in his normal sphere) dog could very well appear difficult and stubborn if pushed to do things he's got no talent or drive for. You can train a typical Husky to come and sit on command. Getting into high level obedience titles with that dog is a decidedly iffy proposition. A lot of dogs will enthusiastically pull a load, but most will have lost much of that enthusiasm before an hour has passed. When dogs become bored with what they are being tasked to do, they have a number of strategies to avoid doing it.

So, biddability is somewhat situational.


----------



## winniec777 (Apr 20, 2008)

I don't think in terms of biddable (or eager to please) vs non-biddable. It's too dependent on other variables like the quality of training applied, the juiciness of the treat used, the level of distraction, etc. to be a useful way to describe a dog. I think motivation is a more accurate scale to use, is the dog motivated, is this reward motivating, etc. Are well-trained dogs more biddable to begin with and are therefore easier to train or are they made that way by the training? Dunno. Don't care.

I care about having a dog that doesn't chew up my house or use it for a bathroom and that doesn't attack things she shouldn't or generally make a nuisance of herself around other people. And that's what I have. She's not what most on DF would call an obedient dog but that's fine with me. I appreciate her because she's amusing and interesting and I hope she finds me amusing and interesting. The rest is all management. But that's my preference and all I require. Dogs trained for specific jobs must meet higher requirements. And that's fine, too.

For me, ethics don't come into play unless the aversives are used (a) exclusively, (b) when more positive methods haven't been tried, or (c) to get a behavior that really is not all that important just because THE OWNER SAID SO. For example, my dog likes to shred paper towels and if we're not looking, will snatch one and run merrily off to tear it to bits somewhere. We spent a lot of time early on trying to get her to stop doing this to no avail. Then it hit me - who gives a rat's bottom if she shreds a paper towel now and then? In fact, I started using paper towels in training as rewards. The world will not end if my dog shreds a paper towel so using an aversive to get her to stop sneaking paper towels would, IMO, be unethical. It's using a fifty buck punishment for a two-bit crime. Using an aversive to keep a dog from running into the street is a whole 'nother matter, as long as it's applied by a skilled trainer. Use by an unskilled trainer it's just as unethical.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Marsh Muppet said:


> So, biddability is somewhat situational.


Yeah, I agree that biddable in the definition people on this thread are using it is situational.

I look more to it as... Priscilla is highly food, praise, and tug motivated.

Kobe is highly motivated for dog interaction.

Ollie is highly motivated for pulling, and mildly motivated for food.

That tells me everything I need to know about a dog. I can look at Priscilla and go, "Hm, it would be pretty easy to use those to reinforce stuff." I look at Kobe and go "Wow, that would be tough and require a fair bit of creativity and premacking to train, it will likely be long and slow." Then I look at Ollie and go "I can definitely use Pulling to reinforce a lot of stuff. And food will probably work so long as I don't train too much and use high value rewards."

And so on.



> The world will not end if my dog shreds a paper towel


Global Warming would like to have a word with you, missy! Tsk tsk. Now I know who to blame when the sky falls.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

After reading this entire thread I am sorry I ever used the word biddable...


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

There is a tendency, on this forum, to over analyze .

Biddable: (2.) willing to do what is asked; obedient; tractable; docile: a biddable child.


----------



## winniec777 (Apr 20, 2008)

RBark said:


> I look more to it as... Priscilla is highly food, praise, and tug motivated.
> 
> Kobe is highly motivated for dog interaction.
> 
> ...


If more people understood this, there would be a lot more happy dogs in the world. How you work with your dog is entirely about knowing the dog and what will work/not work.



RBark said:


> Global Warming would like to have a word with you, missy! Tsk tsk. Now I know who to blame when the sky falls.


I confess! I'm the cause of Global Warming! It feels so good to admit that to Al Gore and the world! **grabs a couple of rolls of paper towels to go train a husky mix on recall** HA!


----------



## winniec777 (Apr 20, 2008)

Marsh Muppet said:


> There is a tendency, on this forum, to over analyze


Is there? I'm shocked! And now that I think of it, slightly disturbed, at the notion that I may have been over analyzing what it means to be biddable vs. not biddable. My psychiatrist says I do this sometimes, but I think she is a butt head. She does have a point about the voices, though, so who knows. Thank goodness they're pretty biddable and go away when I tell them to. I don't know what I would do if my voices didn't listen to me. Aversives just wouldn't work on them, you know? I mean, like, they're just _voices_ so it's not like I can helicopter or alpha roll them or anything, now can I?


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Cracker said:


> If it helps I TOTALLY get this. I love the dogs I work with that are like this and enjoy making the "puzzles" of training special skills just hard enough that the dog gets his "wheels spinning". This is part of why I enjoy shaping with a clicker, though I'm not that good at it yet. I just recently was working with Cracker on retraining the crate (I got a new nylon portacrate) to be able to take her to class with me and for ongoing work with the SA issues. She FINALLY is calm enough to do shaping and to see her figure out when I raised the criteria and how to "earn" her click was amazing. She would do the movement and freeze, looking at me like "is this what you wanted? Yes! Woohoo a click!". Getting her confidence to the point where she could start to offer new behaviours was a huge breakthrough for us. I hope that she will become that "thinker" instead of the dog with "baggage" you described, with continued practice and continued building of her confidence.


Yeah, I'm loving that too - Wally's calmed down to where he can be willing to think and observe during shaping instead of spazzing because he didn't get the click. It's funny watching him like running through some list of behaviors in his head - and in some kind of order. He and Cracker shared that trait in common, and, like you, I was like OMG you offered a behavior!


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

winniec777 said:


> Is there? I'm shocked! And now that I think of it, slightly disturbed, at the notion that I may have been over analyzing what it means to be biddable vs. not biddable. My psychiatrist says I do this sometimes, but I think she is a butt head. She does have a point about the voices, though, so who knows. Thank goodness they're pretty biddable and go away when I tell them to. I don't know what I would do if my voices didn't listen to me. Aversives just wouldn't work on them, you know? I mean, like, they're just _voices_ so it's not like I can helicopter or alpha roll them or anything, now can I?


Your voices _go AWAY??????????_


----------

