# controlled exposure to other dogs



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

Any suggestions for places to go for controlled exposure to other dogs? I've got pet store parking lots, some parks (depending on layout), and our training center around class change times, but wonder if there are other places I could be missing.

So far, the training center is likely our best option because I'll know when dogs will be around and we can stay at a safe distance and/or in the car.

Any general tips for DS / CC? I know the principles, but my mechanics are lacking.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

My favorite -usually- controlled environment is an urban downtown on a weekend. Weekdays, maybe not enough dogs unless you hit right around when people get home from work but its usually not to hard to do a little recon. The high car traffic, lots of pavement, high foot traffic tends to lend itself to on-leash only dogs that are well controlled by their humans.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

I am going to be honest and a little bit controversial:

Counter Conditioning did not work for me with Molly at *all*. The premise of counter conditioning still makes seeing other dogs a really big deal and an Event. You go out, you look for the dogs and you try and make it positive, but they're still this... Big Deal. You're still teaching the dog to scan the environment, you're still making seeing another dog a Production, and at least for my particular dog that just kept her on edge - it also kept ME on edge looking for the other dogs and if nothing else, that sure as heck didn't help her chill out. Plus it made her MORE excited about other dogs, I think, and that wasn't useful.

What I *have* had success with is making it a non-event. I don't seek out dogs. I don't look for other dogs. I don't scramble to get her attention ASAP. I don't shove food in her mouth when I see other dogs. I get somewhere near the vicinity of another dog and ASK HER TO DO THINGS. I reward her for doing those things, either with play or food, but I absolutely do not play LAT or reward her at a higher rate because the dog is there and she knows it. If we're startled by a dog, we end up too close, she reacts, I honestly just... mostly ignore it. Shrug my shoulders, create distance (or wait, depending on what I can do) and then resume what we were doing - walking or working on something or playing. 

I also work on voluntary attention/engagement in general, when other dogs aren't an issue but when other distractions are. 

Basically, the take-away I'm trying to get through to her isn't "Other dogs make good things happen". It's "That other stuff (dogs, kids, bikes, kites, horses, whatever) going on? It has no relevance to you (isn't a threat, and isn't a potential source of reward/a change in what's happening)." 

That said: She was first fear reactive and then just kind of ramped up, and she's Molly not Tyson or Katie. So while this is working GREAT for her, it doesn't mean it will for you. Also, she's just hitting one and for all I know she was never reactive, just having a weird phase that she's coming out of.

And, yeah, the training center is probably your best bet if you want to do focused work.

**ETA:** I will say that this is how I handled Kylie having Issues with People when she was a teenager. Ie: work around them as a distraction but nothing important to her.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

I don't think that is conterversial per se, CptJack. I just think it was what worked for your dog. I can also see it being more effective depending on the typical location, as in, more leashed dogs vs off leash or fenced dogs etc.

I did have success with the two particularly DA/DR fosters in using a form of LAT/BAT. I combined the aspects of asking the dog to do something like a sit or a down along with highly rewarding when the dog first saw another dog. I got their attention with the initial rewards but then asked a little bit more each time in order for the food rewards to keep coming. 

I don't have an issue with a dog scanning the environment as long as the dog reacts appropriately. I now have Chester and Eva who both only react to off-leash dogs and only then it is in a mild manner unless the dog gets in their face so I don't mind them giving me a head's up that a strange dog might be approaching,


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

There are many ways to desensitise a dog. Shoving food in the dog's mouth at the sight of other dogs is probably a good way to get started for most dogs. I did this with Obi when he started being reactive, but it got us so far, and then he stopped improving.

There's BAT, which I think is a great way to create positive experiences around other dogs, and also doesn't create the expectation of treats from the handler. But some people take it to an extreme where they can't ask their dog for any focused work around a trigger because BAT. So I prolly wouldn't use BAT exclusively, personally.

Then there's LAT, which is what I use the most, but I incorporate some BAT elements, which I think the inventor of LAT is now also doing. It's basically just like LAT, but when the dog looks at you, you move it away from the trigger before you give the treat. This is good when you actually want more focused work, because the dog learns to focus on you, and also you are not putting too much pressure on the dog. In another variation I've seen they put the treat on the ground instead of hand feeding. I'd be worried about the dog getting a bit sniffy with that one though.

Then there's a method Susan Garrett uses, I don't know if she thought of it or if it has a name. She basically doesn't just expose dogs to a trigger and then make them deal with it, she changes the dog's state of mind when she knows a trigger is about to appear. The idea is that a dog can't be scared and excited at the same time, so she makes the dog excited just before the trigger appears. This happens in short bursts, and inbetween she moves the dog away to give it a break. To get the dog excited she uses verbal triggers that has been taught outside of desensitising, or a tug toy, if the dog is a strong tugger. Other triggers can be words the dog responds really strong to, like the cue for dinner time, agility cues, and other exciting events. I think one she mentioned was "search", where you give the cue then drop some treats behind the dog so the dog has to turn away from the stimulus to get the treats.

What CptJack does is kind of similar, putting the dog in training mode changes the dog's state of mind too, and makes them more tolerant of stuff around them.

There are many options for desensitising, and I'd probably experiment with a bit of everything to find what works the best. Also hard to comment on mechanics when we don't know which method you're using.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

A lot of the reason I was careful to specify that Molly is Molly is that I know LAT works really well for a lot of dogs.

The problem I ran into with Molly was that Molly is, er, Molly ;-). Which is to say all it really took was the suggestion that I wanted her to be looking for other dogs and that was all. she. did. In training classes it wasn't so bad because they were there and we knew they were there, but out for regular walks or hikes or whatever she would literally do NOTHING but look for other dogs. Like it became her job (in her head) after about 3 days of rewarding her for spotting other dogs and not reacting, and after that there was not a chance in heck of me being able to get her to do anything BUT look for other dogs.

But she's a really tightly wound, obsessive, dog. If she's going to be obsessively, tightly focused on something, I'd prefer it be me/something I have control over than environmental stimulus.

*ETA:* And yeah, basically what Lil' fuzzy said about changing her state of mind. Twice. She's GOOD at training/working mode, so getting her there saves me a lot of grief. Play with it and see what works for your dogs.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

lil_fuzzy said:


> There are many ways to desensitise a dog. Shoving food in the dog's mouth at the sight of other dogs is probably a good way to get started for most dogs. I did this with Obi when he started being reactive, but it got us so far, and then he stopped improving.
> 
> There's BAT, which I think is a great way to create positive experiences around other dogs, and also doesn't create the expectation of treats from the handler. But some people take it to an extreme where they can't ask their dog for any focused work around a trigger because BAT. So I prolly wouldn't use BAT exclusively, personally.
> 
> Then there's LAT, which is what I use the most, but I incorporate some BAT elements, which I think the inventor of LAT is now also doing. It's basically just like LAT, but when the dog looks at you, you move it away from the trigger before you give the treat. This is good when you actually want more focused work, because the dog learns to focus on you, and also you are not putting too much pressure on the dog. In another variation I've seen they put the treat on the ground instead of hand feeding. I'd be worried about the dog getting a bit sniffy with that one though.


Can you expand on this a bit? I know the basics of BAT and LAT but they sound the same here. And what do you mean by "doesn't create the expectation of treats"? I was under the impression that treats were sometimes used in BAT.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

99% of our walks are on a public rail trail, where we might see as many as 5-8 dogs in an hour walk (usually not more than that though). The trail is about 20ft wide, with a little grass on the edge, so that's about how far we can get from them. At first I did a lot of shoving treats in his face so he couldn't stare at other dogs at all. Then when he was anticipating treats, I waited for him to look back at me first, then shoved treats at him right as we were passing the other dog. I also worked on "leave it" or calling his name so I could redirect if he didn't do it on his own. Mostly I try to keep him from staring. If we could stay far enough away I could just make him work with me, but since we only have 20ft sometimes I just had to shove food at him (and I still do, if the other dog is being really reactive and I know it could set him off). 

So I guess I use a combination of shove treats at dog to manage the behavior, and LAT where he can look at the dog and then I encourage him to look right back at me either automatically, with a leave it cue, or even by saying "yes" if he's looking calmly. I've never used BAT because 1) I can't really move away from other dogs on the rail trail, though we do naturally move away after we pass and 2) because mostly he's excited and not afraid, so I don't think moving away is meaningful to him (and I'm certainly not going to let him get close as a reward because I don't want him meeting other dogs).


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

Thanks for the comments, suggestions, and things to think about. I was feeling really horrible last night; this morning I'm feeling slightly less horrible, but more sore (my fingers and hand got caught in the leash when Tyson lunged; ice and ibuprofen are helping).

My plan is to start with classical conditioning: see dog - get food. Once Tyson is no longer freaking out with dogs at a reasonable distance, we can move on to something else. 

That approach worked well with Katie even though her problem was over excitement, not fear. It also had the serendipitous effect of reinforcing attention on me as she had to look at me to get the treat. Once Katie was no longer out-of-control, we moved on to training alternate behaviors and general good manners.

I do like CptJack's approach and the Susan Garrett method lil_fuzzy mentioned, but I fear it's too much to ask of Tyson right now; maybe in a few weeks we can try. He was pretty good at ignoring other dogs in class and working with me. He did well at the park with dogs at a greater distance. I think with some careful CCing we can get past the panic and into more focus and ignoring.

The training center will likely be the best place to work since I know there will be dogs there at specific times. And, I just remembered that I have Westminster conformation and agility shows on the DVR so we can work with them from the comfort of home.

Thanks! Now, back to icing my hand.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

I think CptJack's method and the Susan Garrett method work best for high drive dogs. If your dog is high enough drive that they can tune out distractions (at an appropriate distance) by tugging or working, then awesome. But that's just not going to work for a lot of dogs whose drive can't overcome the things they are interested or worried about, even at very long distances (like a dog who can't tug just because he's outside, even if nothing specific is going on). Definitely something to work up to though if he's not that high drive.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

I don't know that you really need high drive for it? Just highish handler focus. I mean Kylie definitely isn't high drive and she's still pretty spotty in playing places that aren't home (better now, thanks to work for the last year, but was non-existent at the time we were doing this) but it worked for her re: people. 

The key there, though, was a dog who was really, really, not highly stimulated by the environment but was 'worried' and on edge about things in it (in her case, strange people), but was generally willing to pay attention to me and enjoyed doing silly tricks. Definitely easier with Molly because she's got a lot of drive for everything and waving a frisbee or tug in her face makes her forget the rest of the world exists, but even Kylie was fully capable of actively ignoring things in order to perform. It just took getting her to the point where she was able to feel safer with strangers around and then teaching her to actively ignore to do stuff with me - basically turning them into background noise for our various activities. It takes SOME drive (at least for food), but mostly I think it mostly just takes a lack of the wrong kind of drive (for things you can't control, like wild animals and smells.) and a dog who's pretty into you/not prone to being super distracted anyway.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

elrohwen said:


> I think CptJack's method and the Susan Garrett method work best for high drive dogs. If your dog is high enough drive that they can tune out distractions (at an appropriate distance) by tugging or working, then awesome. But that's just not going to work for a lot of dogs whose drive can't overcome the things they are interested or worried about, even at very long distances (like a dog who can't tug just because he's outside, even if nothing specific is going on). Definitely something to work up to though if he's not that high drive.


Yeah. Katie I could see being high drive, I guess. When she's focused, she's focused and amazing (at least I think so). Tyson is more a goofy little boy who will do stuff when his head gets out of the clouds. I don't know that he'll ever be Katie-level focused, but I do think that helping him understand that he can do things (even sit and spin) with another dog across the street will help.

I'm kind of dreading Saturday's NW class just because we'll need to navigate around other dogs a bit.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I don't CC either, I just work through it. He's having some issues with losing it around dogs running fast so we wanted to work on it this weekend.

Like on Saturday I had Hank at an AKC trial that was indoors and very busy. We started outdoors working on tricks and I brought out the tug. He was in and out of the game whenever dogs walked past. By the end of the day we were inside about 25 feet from the ring tugging and he was making very good choices about staying engaged. 

Hank didn't come to me with toy drive high enough to do that. He had some- he would play hard in my living room and in the yard. But in class? Nope. Out at the park? Nope. It's taken a while to build but there was some foundation to build there.

When he was 'checking out' at the trial today my favorite thing to do was to toss the tug a few feet away and hang on to his harness. Really pull him back and rev him up then I'd let go and we'd race to get the tug. Racing really got him more into it.

I've been working drive stuff since September though. A good 'get it' and really revving him up. It takes time to get most dogs to work in all sorts of environments.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

> I think CptJack's method and the Susan Garrett method work best for high drive dogs. If your dog is high enough drive that they can tune out distractions (at an appropriate distance) by tugging or working, then awesome. But that's just not going to work for a lot of dogs whose drive can't overcome the things they are interested or worried about, even at very long distances (like a dog who can't tug just because he's outside, even if nothing specific is going on). Definitely something to work up to though if he's not that high drive.


I know I sound repetitive about drive building a lot. But for me I do really think if your training focus is drive building over most other things, everything else will fall into place because you've built up the leverage to get what you want from your dog. 

I think in both ways it tends to go with my dogs working drive in these situations really is the foundation work I need. Summer is not high drive and also is incredibly incredibly reinforced by people. So for her it's more of a distraction issue. With Hank it's often both- sometimes distraction about the environment, sometimes over arousal. It's taken since November for him to be mostly ok with working around running dogs. He still kind of loses it around lure coursing and some other situations. I was very proud this weekend when he only screamed at 2 very fast dogs running agility. And he calmed down in a split second, which was huge. It was right when we first entered the area and from a distance but we worked up to being decently close to the ring without any more issues from him.

One option to work with your dogs is always to go to trials and just work around the rings/in the parking lots/etc. I try to get Hank out at most of the nearby trials for a couple hours. I try to be as unobtrusive as possible and obviously be respectful of the people in the ring. But I've found it's a great, distracting environment and people are very supportive.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

Although I agree that "working through it" or using alternative behaviors right away could work best with some dogs, I don't see it working for Tyson. His first step really needs to be _don't panic_ when another dog appears. If we had a good set up where we could work 50' away from a cooperating dog and gradually move closer, I might try it. Unfortunately, we have to deal with dogs and owners doing their own thing while we do ours.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

I think, for me, there's kind of a spot in the middle where you're trying to just get through the dog's head that they CAN do things besides wig out in the presence of another dog *instead of panicking*, and that bridging the gap between panic and working in the presence of them can be really hard. I think that's where, to some degree, drive building comes in. It's not really any different than food, IMO, so using food to get the dog past that point can work as well as tug or ramping the dog up. Is food as useful as tug in all scenarios? No. Is it in this? I think it may be, and for some dogs may be more so - because for high drive dogs it helps ramp them down and let them keep their head, and sometimes that's important, and for dogs that are lower drive about play, or less confident about play, it's more motivating and lower pressure for them. Plus, you can pair food with play as you go on to build forward with playdrive, if you want.

That said, at some point the connection has to be made in their brain. Getting from panic to that can be hard. Maybe try practicing with Katie at home (working with Tyson while Katie does whatever she does but is visible) and then take both of them on the road, and see about, I don't know, wide open public parks where dogs MIGHT be, or the far edge of a parking lot at a dog friendly type place or the like. If he's willing to take food, believe it or not and no matter how bad it seems, he's probably not far off being able to do some simple stuff.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Maybe it doesn't require high drive, but it definitely either requires drive or handler focus and there are a lot of dogs who just don't fall into that category. I had to work up to having Watson work around dogs on walks, it wasn't something I could use in the beginning to distract him. Classes are a bit different, because the dogs don't change week to week and the dog learns how to work in that environment, but coming up to random dogs on a walk is a different thing (at least for him, maybe not for all dogs). If I had asked him to work with me or tug when he was staring at another dog, he would have blown me off rather quickly. To me they were two different skills. But Watson is certainly not a dog who would work with the Susan Garrett model of "just tug whenever the dog is nervous/distracted about something and then they will cease to be nervous or distracted about it!"

ETA: I think it also depends a lot on whether the dog stresses up or down. A dog who stresses up might be able to take that stress out on a tug toy and do much better. A dog who stresses down is going to have a hard time with that and the toy or food might be additional pressure.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> I know I sound repetitive about drive building a lot. But for me I do really think if your training focus is drive building over most other things, everything else will fall into place because you've built up the leverage to get what you want from your dog.


I guess I just don't see that as a realistic option for most people who own reactive dogs. People into dog sports? Sure. People who want to take their dog for a walk without it barking at other dogs? Probably not so much, unless the dog is naturally high drive/handler focused and will work or tug pretty much any where.

I've been working on drive building forever, but it was still not the main thing that got Watson over excited/reactive barking at other dogs on daily walks. It allowed him to function in a training class, and we were eventually able to bring some of that into walks, but there was no way that could have been the primary method to work on his reactivity. If I had to wait for drive building to kick in, he wouldn't be going for walks in public anymore because he would be a PITA.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

CptJack said:


> I think, for me, there's kind of a spot in the middle where you're trying to just get through the dog's head that they CAN do things besides wig out in the presence of another dog *instead of panicking*, and that bridging the gap between panic and working in the presence of them can be really hard.


I think that's also where LAT and BAT come in. All of the techniques are getting to the same place, but in different ways. Some will work better for different dogs. Having a dog who will look to you for treats when they see another dog isn't all that much different from doing "work" or tugging. It's just starting at a lower step for dogs who need to start there. Dogs who can start with advanced behaviors, tricks, or tugging can at that higher level.

I just don't think that drive building alone is the answer - it's a parallel activity and not something a lot of people are going to be interested in or skilled at. And a lot of dogs will be starting with so little drive that it's not going to be quick enough to be able to used for reactivity. The point of BAT, at least for nervous dogs, is that you don't need the dog to be interested in food or tug, just in relieving the pressure of being near another dog. Pressure relief is a big motivator for some dogs.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

I'm not doubting that it wouldn't work for all dogs, at all. I mean Kylie, admittedly, does not DO distraction. I don't think Kylie has ever blown me off in her life because of being distracted by anything. She's blown me off because she was freaking done with what I wanted to be doing, and just outright LEFT the training session because I was pushing too hard, but she's not an easily distracted dog. I mean she got pretty paranoid and reactive about people she didn't know for a while, but her base temperament was to pay attention to her people. I mean, seriously, first agility trial, first time with ring crew and a judge, rain, cops and guns and dummies and screaming kids and soccer games and other dogs running (and at one point a loose dog running) and she mostly laid in my lap and napped, slept in the car, and when actually in the ring did agility without batting an eyelash at anything else going on. That's not normal, I get that.

I also don't think 'drive' is the answer to everything, and I do not for one second believe the presence of drive really changes the way you deal with a situation/problem at its most basic. Which is to say, all drive is, is the desire for something. How strong that desire is, and how controllable are more important than for whether it's for food or toys in MOST situations. Dog sports benefit enormously from some toy drive, but throwing food works just as well. It every other situation whether you are tugging or shoving food at the dog, the basic strategy is the same: distract the dog from what is going on and ask for attention on something it likes. Having a dog tug versus be over the moon about a piece of food makes not one whit of difference in this particular scenario, and I don't much care what Susan Garrett says about it. The ONLY distinction is that if you're using tug and passively feeding instead of getting behaviors is that the dog isn't expending energy and can still be staring at the other dog while eating.

The key to dealing with this really is still, though, in bridging the gap between over-excitement or fear/panic and the dog being able to think and function in the presence of other dogs. Getting stuck with a dog who wants to tug when they're around isn't any better than a dog seeking out the other dog to eat - and most dogs won't do either one, I grant you, as long as you keep working on upping your criteria of expectation from the dog. Stage one: Use something the dog likes, no matter what, to distract the dog at whatever distance it is possible. Step 2: Make the presence of other dogs a non-event or a positive one. Step 3: Ask for mental engagement. Reduce distance at every step, as possible. 

I just... toy vs food drive and high drive vs. low drive in this seems completely irrelevant to me in this - and in 99.9 percent of training in general.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

What exactly does Tyson do when he sees another dog?

I'm trying to figure out how to word this and I'm not sure how to explain my point. I guess my training philosophy tries to be a lot like Silvia Trkman. She has an interesting article I found when I was looking into pyrsheps but I found it very helpful with Mia and also Hank. It's called Fearsheps. (EDIT: http://www.silvia.trkman.net/fearshep.htm) It's not breaking down anything in specific but it does talk about how a lot of people who consider their dogs fearful are really dealing with drive issues. It's interesting to me. 

To me it's just hard to do the 'don't be afraid' without the 'have fun with me'

Mia is pretty fearful and anxious in general. She absolutely does best if her fears are not made out to be a big deal. LAT made things more of a deal for her. I think LAT would have worked for Hank seeing as he's less on edge by a lot but using tug and play worked better for us. 

I do tend to approach most training like a sport if I can. To me its all just 'training' so my methods are the same. My end goal is always getting the dog to work with me regardless of the what that we are doin. It just makes the most sense to me. I don't passify with a tug especially not Mia who doesn't tug. But if I can focus on the dog having fun versus trying to calm the dog down it seems to go better. With hank for now it may take actually asking him to work when around fast running dogs while we get him able to move closer. My end goal isn't to HAVE to work him around that and in fact we sat ringside just chilling this weekend for a long time. But at first in November he had a really really hard time just being around that. I dunno. Any kind of reactivity takes time to work through. 

I also find that anything making me and the dog static takes longer than if I can keep my fearful dog moving and not focusing on whatever it is that is bothering them. 

But...my training philosophies aren't the most scientific. They just work for me. I'm not sure if I'm making any sense.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

elrohwen said:


> I think that's also where LAT and BAT come in. All of the techniques are getting to the same place, but in different ways. Some will work better for different dogs. Having a dog who will look to you for treats when they see another dog isn't all that much different from doing "work" or tugging. It's just starting at a lower step for dogs who need to start there. Dogs who can start with advanced behaviors, tricks, or tugging can at that higher level.
> 
> *I just don't think that drive building alone is the answer - it's a parallel activity and not something a lot of people are going to be interested in or skilled at.* And a lot of dogs will be starting with so little drive that it's not going to be quick enough to be able to used for reactivity. The point of BAT, at least for nervous dogs, is that you don't need the dog to be interested in food or tug, just in relieving the pressure of being near another dog. Pressure relief is a big motivator for some dogs.


LOL, I wrote a whole big thing while you were doing this, and basically yeah, agreed.

I can see drive building as useful, but it's mostly STILL JUST DISTRACTING THE DOG in this application. I mean, sure, having a dog who will play and tug is useful and handy, but you know for this if your dog will EAT you're pretty good and pressure release or whatever is effective and just. 

Toy/play drive is not the end all be all in dog training, I guess, is where I am going with this. I LOVE having toy drive, but it just isn't that big a deal and I don't see it as a lychpin to much of anything - even sports.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

CptJack said:


> The key to dealing with this really is still, though, in bridging the gap between over-excitement or fear/panic and the dog being able to think and function in the presence of other dogs. Getting stuck with a dog who wants to tug when they're around isn't any better than a dog seeking out the other dog to eat - and most dogs won't do either one, I grant you, as long as you keep working on upping your criteria of expectation from the dog. Stage one: Use something the dog likes, no matter what, to distract the dog at whatever distance it is possible. Step 2: Make the presence of other dogs a non-event or a positive one. Step 3: Ask for mental engagement. Reduce distance at every step, as possible.
> 
> I just... toy vs food drive and high drive vs. low drive in this seems completely irrelevant to me in this - and in 99.9 percent of training in general.


Totally agree with this. I only brought it up because I think it can be a lot easier to solve reactivity with a high drive dog, because if you always have a trump card that the dog is in love with, you're good to go. Just use that consistently and then wean off of it so the dog can function without shoving tons of food at him or tugging all the time. 

But I think there are some dogs who are so afraid of whatever it is that they aren't taking food or tugging, even at very low levels of the stressor. I think that's kind of the genius of BAT, in that you can start by just relieving pressure to reward the dog when that might be the only thing you can offer him that he wants.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

> To me it's jut hard to do the 'don't be afraid' without the 'have fun with me'


I guess that's the thing for me: I've had so little time with toy driven dogs that I don't see a connection between drive buildilng and having fun with me. And it's going to vary by dog.

For Kylie, 'have fun with me' was 'let's do some tricks!' Not tug, not super excited up behavior, or whatever, just me being willing to engage with her doing something she enjoyed. It's drive, for sure, but not traditional drive. Not tug or ball or disc or fast movement. 

Molly, it's tug and moving and I definitely get more from her if I keep her moving and that can be tug or it can be ball or it can be running, but. Both were equally effective in dealing with the situation.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

The one reason I prefer play to just food (but I'd say going through tricks for food is play and play =/= tug) is that it makes the handler more aware and actually work to hold the dogs attention vs just blindly dispensing food (which I've seen a lot)


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

I think what worked for Watson's reactivity was just brute force conditioning. Every single time we saw a dog on walks I called him, he got a treat, and there was a progressively higher rate of reinforcement as the other dog got closer depending on his threshold (originally that just mean having food in his mouth constantly, and then going down to less reinforcement). We did it so many times that now he's just conditioned to "I see dog, look at mom for food". Only after he got to that point (like 6-9 months after) was he able to think and relax and now he often passes by other dogs without even looking at them. And he can pass by trigger dogs with just a little reminder and one or two rewards. 

But there was really nothing special about what I did and why it worked, it just took a long time and a lot of consistency. And we couldn't really stand back and work under threshold because we had to pass dogs from ~20ft away (luckily he started with a threshold of about 30ft, so it wasn't that bad). It was much easier to deal with in classes or situations where I could control how close we got, put him behind barriers, back in the car, etc.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Oh yeah. You definitely have to keep active engagement going with the dog, if you can at all. Zoning out and handing over food wouldn't, I don't think, work with either of my dogs. Heck, any of my dogs. For anything. And I definitely agree that tricks, for Kylie, are food. It's just... using food drive instead of toy drive. Or, well, 'I BE WITH YOU YOU LOVE ME' drive.

ETA: I secretly think the real key to most reactivity is just brute force one way or the other. Not physical force but demand that NOPE, this is what we're doing now! and consistency and time. Like... no matter what the precise method.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

CptJack said:


> I guess that's the thing for me: I've had so little time with toy driven dogs that I don't see a connection between drive buildilng and having fun with me. And it's going to vary by dog.
> 
> For Kylie, 'have fun with me' was 'let's do some tricks!' Not tug, not super excited up behavior, or whatever, just me being willing to engage with her doing something she enjoyed. It's drive, for sure, but not traditional drive. Not tug or ball or disc or fast movement.
> 
> Molly, it's tug and moving and I definitely get more from her if I keep her moving and that can be tug or it can be ball or it can be running, but. Both were equally effective in dealing with the situation.


I didn't say anything about tug. Play is not limited to just tug. But I feel like if you can get your dog to play in a situation then you can get the dog to work in that situation. All I'm saying. 

By drive building I was including food in that. I do think its better if you can transition that to personal play. Personal play is my favorite motivator.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

I really think it's just down to knowing your dog and knowing what your dog likes and finds rewarding. Some dogs that's lots of things, some dogs not so much. I've worked for a year to get Kylie to have some toy type drive outside of the house and had pretty good success, but my biggest success with her, and the ace in the hole, will ALWAYS be: "HEY! Let's do some goofy tricks!". For Thud flat out rough-housing type play is always the trump card (at least of those things I can control). Molly doesn't care, as long as she's engaged and being reinforced. I can't rough house with Kylie and have it be a positive. I can't ask Thud to work with me and have it be a good thing or reward. I can't ask Molly to sit still when highly overstimulated. I can't ask Kylie to tear around like a loon if she is. 

But all of those are still, IMO, just fine details on the basic method.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I think y'all kind of assumed I meant tug in my post about drive building but I didn't really mean tug and tug only. 

Anyways, I took a class some time back with a dog that was extremely fearful and could not take food in that state even. That type of fear still in my experience works the same way and can be overcome, it can just take a long, long time as some forethought. It is still overcome by building up the dog's comfort zone and making the training/doing whatever fun for the dog (<==== I would call this drive building)


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> I think y'all kind of assumed I meant tug in my post about drive building but I didn't really mean tug and tug only.
> 
> Anyways, I took a class some time back with a dog that was extremely fearful and could not take food in that state even. That type of fear still in my experience works the same way and can be overcome, it can just take a long, long time as some forethought. It is still overcome by building up the dog's comfort zone and making the training/doing whatever fun for the dog (<==== I would call this drive building)


I didn't assume you meant tug at all. I just think that drive building itself isn't going to be the answer for a lot of lower drive pet dogs who just have a reactivity problem, especially with owners who don't really know what drive building is. I mean, getting your dog to do anything in life is in some way about drive, whether it's for food or toys or just pleasing you. But if a dog is reactive and someone needs specific ideas to fix it, I don't think that just "drive building" is the answer. It's something to do in parallel and will give you more to work with, but it's not going to fix the issue itself. A dog can have really high food or toy drive or whatever, but there's still the matter of how you actually utilize that in a situation where the dog will be reactive, and that's the tricky part.

ETA: Just from my point of view, terms like "drive building" can be very vague and aren't a concrete thing you can implement on a dog who is reactive today to lessen his reactivity. Not saying it's not ultimately true that being able to play with your dog anywhere will make him more confident and less reactive, it's still just too vague for me. Of course teaching my dog to focus on me and interact with me in all situations will solve all of our problems, but that doesn't tell me how to get started right now, KWIM?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Yeah. I did assume you meant play drive more than food drive, but I'm mostly with elrhowen. I just don't think it's always relevant to the situation at hand, particularly if the dog already has some kind of drive to work with. Ie: Tyson was working for food so he has some food drive, so therefore food is the thing to levee against this. If you can increase drive, yes, you can increase their resistance to distractions and things like reactivity and build confidence and value in you help builds focus on you and that's all enormously helpful in a lot of ways. 

But it doesn't really change the basic principals behind any training scenario. If the dog has some desire for something -anything- that you control then you have what you need to work with. Getting more of that really, probably, isn't hugely necessary but WILL sort of come along from the process of training, anyway. I mean likewise more drive built can = better training, and the two sort of feed into one another, but I don't think focusing on drive building is any more effective than using what drive is there and focusing on the training. The drive build will probably come along for the ride, anyway.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

Thanks for the continued discussion. Having read CptJack and Laurelin's additional comments I agree more than I initially disagreed. I think, too, that as much I want to think I'm doing straight up counter-conditioning, I'm doing a mix of CC and OC. If Tyson is aware that another dog is nearby and I'm feeding him treats, I'm also to some extent engaging with him by having him look at me, talking and interacting a bit. 

Again, that approach worked well with Katie. As Elrohwen saw on Sunday, she still needs a ton management: A dog's coming? Ok, off the path and look at me! Still looking at me? Great, here's a cookie! Sit! Good girl! Watch! Here's another cookie! He's moved on. Let's go. She's at the point where she probably would do tricks, but I'm not ready to mess with success. 

What sort of games and toys do you use? Neither of mine really like tug. They'll both chase a ball (Katie with far more gusto that Tyson), but that's not super practical for walks. Working on tug is on my looooong list of things to do.



> What exactly does Tyson do when he sees another dog?


He barks, runs to the end of his leash, and lunges. I'm assuming it's fear because he's generally more cautious and timid that Katie ever was. We also didn't have the opportunity for exposure to as many dogs as I would have liked when he was young.

What happened yesterday (as best as I can remember) was that we took a walk around the block (Katie and I went first to make sure none of the super fence-reactive dogs were out). I saw a man approaching us, but didn't notice the lab with him right away. As soon as I saw the dog, I walked Tyson into the middle of someone's yard to what I thought was a safe distance. He was turned so that his back wasn't completely toward the street, but he had to turn his head to see. I was talking to him, feeding treats, asking for sits, and everything was fine. Then, he saw the lab* and started barking and running to the end of his leash (that's when my hand / fingers got tangled). I was able to grab the leash and pull him back to me and started feeding again. He gobbled quickly (and bit my thumb in the process) and barked a little more, but by that point the lab was gone.

* Here is where I wasn't fast enough with treats or engaging enough to keep him focused.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Was there a way you could have kept walking with him, or is the street too narrow? I find that stopping and trying to get attention while stationary is way harder than just continuing to walk. At first I would ask for an initial leave it or reorientation to me, and then after he listened to that one cue it was just fast rewards as quick as I could go until we passed the dog. It often helped to have a bigger treat, like a piece of jerky 2"x2" and just let him nibble as we walked past. I only asked for behaviors when I knew we were far enough away that he could comply, and after that I just managed and stuffed food. 

Then I was able to ask for him to reorient to me, and then let him look at the dog again, and then reorient again if I thought he could do that, still stuffing food in his face when I knew we were getting too close for him to handle. And then I gradually narrowed down the distance where he could still think and listen to me until he could be across the trail from the dog and look at it, but reorient to me immediately if I asked. And finally by that point he was starting to look at dogs and look to me on his own without any cues.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

But I think that is the part that is most often ignored in my experience. There's a lot of 'dog sees a dog and gets a treat' but not much done to really try to change the dog's mental state... Or pet people really try to teach their dog a command or to behave without doing anything to get their dog motivated. It's seriously like 90% of the training issues I see day to day.

I feel like I'm failing at explaining this and people are mistaking what I'm trying to say. 

To me it made more sense to re-focus my training on motivating my dog vs 'don't be afraid' because then I had something to work through the fear with. If Mia is having fun with me, she's not going to worry about the stranger danger. etc The Garrett method is mostly what I do (though I didn't know she had a method, it's just the same/similar). Get the dog excited, dog can't focus on fear or distraction if dog is excited/happy. Work harder on keeping the dog excited through fearful things and honestly, it's just worked for me. But you have to have that exciting thing built outside of the fearful/overstimulating/whatever situation. You can't do both at the same time so well.

Maybe drive building won't fix everything but I have never seen it not help.

I feel like I'm probably not answering anything.

EDIT: Gosh darnit, three posts while typing this! This was to post 31.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

cookieface said:


> What sort of games and toys do you use?


For Kylie, it's tricks and games I know she enjoys. Patty cake (if we're sitting still/down), spin/twirl, nose-touches, jumping over a leg or arm, rolling over, walking games where I ask her for side changes or direction changes, sometimes I throw bits of food for her to sniff out, or let her chase my hand with food in it around - it really doesn't matter for her, as long as I'm asking her for behaviors and she's getting rewarded and has all of my attention on the 'game'. 

Molly it's more traditionally tug, or short ball tosses (ie: I throw 2 feet and she catches), or really high speed walking games with front/rear crosses, or take off running and have her chase me/her tug. Sometimes I push her around and she growls and bites and pounces on me in play. It's still just about engagement, but for her it's higher energy engagement because being still and calm is much, much harder for her than being a little bit fast and excited and not losing her crap.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> But I think that is the part that is most often ignored in my experience. There's a lot of 'dog sees a dog and gets a treat' but not much done to really try to change the dog's mental state... Or pet people really try to teach their dog a command or to behave without doing anything to get their dog motivated. It's seriously like 90% of the training issues I see day to day.
> 
> I feel like I'm failing at explaining this and people are mistaking what I'm trying to say.
> 
> ...


I guess I don't see how "dog sees dog and gets treat" isn't the beginning of all of this if you have a reactive dog who isn't high drive enough already to be able to play with you in those kinds of situations. Eventually, dogs coming predict that rewards are available, and I can move from just "leave it" to active heeling or tricks or whatever. But you have to start somewhere. And if you wait to work on reactivity until your dog will play with you anywhere at any time, you've already fixed the reactivity because your dog is playing with you next to another dog. But to get there you had to do something - what was it? I'm still not understanding the specifics I guess. Working on building drive at home, in training class, and in parks without dogs around isn't going to make my dog suddenly non-reactive when a dog shows up.

I think I kind of get what you're saying, but to me it seems like you're talking about the end behavior (dog who plays with you everywhere) and not what to do in specific situations, like when Tyson was approached by a reactive lab on a walk.

ETA: I will also say that we do a lot of games and play and fun stuff in training classes to get Watson focused on me and not other dogs. I can engage him through a whole class most of the time. But I really don't think it has changed his gut reaction to those dogs. It's still just management and as soon as I stop engaging him and ignore him, he's out at the end of the leash trying to check everybody out, or shrieking. I don't know what the better solution is to make my dog calm the heck down in class, but I've basically been doing drive building since I got him and he would still react to dogs in class if I gave him a chance.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Also a dog who will TAKE the treat *already has some drive to work with, that is being utilized in the training* and the process of feeding the treat when it is stressed and sees another dog/asking for calm behavior *is* drive building. I mean, yeah, you have to actually engage the dog and eventually you start asking for more behaviors and the criteria goes up and it gets harder to earn that treat (which increases the drive for the treat and decreases the stress level and reactivity all at once). You are literally playing off the dog's desire (drive) for the treat to make the presence of another dog positive. You're changing the dog's mental state by making it like the cookie and want the cookie and do some work for the cookie.

...I mean, I kind of get what you're saying, too, but aside from mechanically feeding the dog treats and never moving forward with asking for more and bridging that gap, the process is going on, anyway.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

CptJack said:


> Also a dog who will TAKE the treat *already has some drive to work with, that is being utilized in the training* and the process of feeding the treat when it is stressed and sees another dog/asking for calm behavior *is* drive building.


Yeah, that's what I was trying to say.

And to me, details about how to use that treat, and the timing, and specifics about what you should be doing are something I can implement. Just calling it drive building is not something I can implement. I really like specifics but I don't think everybody is like me.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

elrohwen said:


> Was there a way you could have kept walking with him, or is the street too narrow? I find that stopping and trying to get attention while stationary is way harder than just continuing to walk. At first I would ask for an initial leave it or reorientation to me, and then after he listened to that one cue it was just fast rewards as quick as I could go until we passed the dog. It often helped to have a bigger treat, like a piece of jerky 2"x2" and just let him nibble as we walked past. I only asked for behaviors when I knew we were far enough away that he could comply, and after that I just managed and stuffed food.
> 
> Then I was able to ask for him to reorient to me, and then let him look at the dog again, and then reorient again if I thought he could do that, still stuffing food in his face when I knew we were getting too close for him to handle. And then I gradually narrowed down the distance where he could still think and listen to me until he could be across the trail from the dog and look at it, but reorient to me immediately if I asked. And finally by that point he was starting to look at dogs and look to me on his own without any cues.


I probably should have just kept walking; I was taken off-guard by the man and lab, and a little uncomfortable with being half-way up someone's front yard. He was fine until he actually saw the dog, but we were too close and really both of us panicked. That's part of why I'm looking for more controlled situations for practice, so that we can get far enough away that even if he does see another dog we can move away safely and without encroaching on others' property.

I did try to give him a Stella & Chewy patty to nibble, but he grabbed and ate it in one gulp. 



Laurelin said:


> But I think that is the part that is most often ignored in my experience. *There's a lot of 'dog sees a dog and gets a treat' but not much done to really try to change the dog's mental state... * Or pet people really try to teach their dog a command or to behave without doing anything to get their dog motivated. It's seriously like 90% of the training issues I see day to day.
> 
> I feel like I'm failing at explaining this and people are mistaking what I'm trying to say.
> 
> ...


I apologize because I am having a hard time understanding to some extent. I get what you're saying about "dog can't focus on fear or distraction if dog is excited/happy" but you have to get the dog happy / excited. That's still counter-conditioning only with a secondary reinforcer rather than a primary one. 

Were I more experienced, I probably could have done that with Katie. She's confident, happy, exuberant. She could have learned see another dog, play with mom. Tyson is timid and more unsure. He's been ok in our house / yard when we see other dogs; I can call him to me, play, treat, whatever. Out in the world, though, he's more cautious and less apt to show his goofy side. 

The bolded statement: giving food _is_ changing the dog's mental state. It's Little Albert in reverse.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I'll be honest I train a lot based on feel and timing and its hard to really explain via Internet. Mia is dog reactive and also very worried in general. Hank is motion reactive and over excites to the point of losing it. I guess if I try to break it down into steps

1. Try my best to set up situations for success. I need I know what the threshold is and how the dog reacts. It may mean just not doing a specific walk for a while. I choose where we go carefully. 

2. If a mistake happens and my dog reacts I don't make it a big deal. I do what I can to calmly leave the situation. Just get out of the threshold that causes the reactivity. To me these are management situations vs training. Training happens when the dog is under threshold. 

3. I feel like drive is like a bank so to speak. If I've built up a lot of 'pay' for my dog elsewhere then I have a lot more to work with when things happen. Ex: if I make a nose touch really really rewarding and fun then I am more likely to get a nose touch from hank in a more distracting environment. 

4. As the dog gets more into training and more comfortable I up the ante. We start going places with more and more triggers. 

5. My goal going into places where I know the trigger will happen is to have the dog already excited and working pre entering said situation. I don't let them get to the point of reactivity if at all possible. 

I would treat the leash reactivity and situation where Tyson was reacting like a transport in agility. I know I know... Agility again. But the basic idea is the same. Distract and keep a fast pace and keep as much distance. I will even turn around if needed. Change directions so the dog has to focus on me. Basically be engaging as possible. IMO stopping and putting the dogs back to the thing causing reactivity is not so good. Especially with Mia, she wanted to keep an eye on it. Having her face away upped her nervousness. Hopefully if I have enough work in the 'bank' I can get the dog's attention. Transporting can even be Luring the dog from obstacle to obstacle. Feed from my hand as the dog ignores whatever it is. Etc. praise the good. Be exciting and fun. 

If its a bad no win situation I just... Manage it. If the dog is over the threshold it can't learn much anyways. Hopefully this happens as infrequently as possible. 

I am probably still not helping explain what I mean. 

For my dogs default behaviors i use in emergency (focus on me NOW) with hank its nose touches and barking and Mia and Summer it's high fives and spinning. Something easy that they love and do without fail. They picked those behaviors, not me. Whatever is their favorite.


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

I typically take CptJack's approach - when we meet/see other dogs, I immediately get her focus and we work on the most basic obedience commands she knows that are rock solid: sit, down, stay/wait, heel... and usually I'll take her near/walk by the dog(s) while doing this, and "heel" seems to be her best trigger. I'm sure each dog is different.
That said, my dog gets SUPER excited when she sees other dogs. Cheese is her "high value" reward and so that's what I'd use when working on commands near another dog. It works about 90% of the time so far.

This weekend was the first time I've ever seen my dog not love another dog. We had a visitor with his two dogs, one a blue heeler that has been known for being a bit of a trouble maker. She growled at my dog and my pup was like NO WAY not in MY yard! Haha!! So I just put her on a leash (other dogs were not leashed) and just took her around with me doing whatever I was doing at the moment - not making a big deal of getting near the other dog but also remaining aware. It didn't take long before she just flopped down and ignored her. I usually leash her whenever she meets a new dog and keep her separated until she starts ignoring them, then I'll do the introduction. I know not every situation has that much time to play with but it seems to do the trick.
In yesterday's case, once she was in ignore mode I let her off leash and they were fine until we all went inside the house and got into close quarters - then the snippiness started again. So we took all the dogs outside and I did lessons with her while walking near the other dogs and we had liberal use of "leave it" every time she looked over to them like she wanted to race off over there. LOL!


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

cookieface said:


> I apologize because I am having a hard time understanding to some extent. I get what you're saying about "dog can't focus on fear or distraction if dog is excited/happy" but you have to get the dog happy / excited. That's still counter-conditioning only with a secondary reinforcer rather than a primary one.
> 
> Were I more experienced, I probably could have done that with Katie. She's confident, happy, exuberant. She could have learned see another dog, play with mom. Tyson is timid and more unsure. He's been ok in our house / yard when we see other dogs; I can call him to me, play, treat, whatever. Out in the world, though, he's more cautious and less apt to show his goofy side.
> 
> The bolded statement: giving food _is_ changing the dog's mental state. It's Little Albert in reverse.


I guess what I am trying to say is that in general I see people wait till the dog reacts then give food. It's not so much proactive and thinking about how to set up situations for success and how to further things along past just food. I also think in general play is more powerful than food alone. 

If the dog is working with me before the reaction takes place then my work is to keep them working vs keep them from reacting. 

I really don't know that I'm making sense at all.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

I do seem some bad timing where h dog is being fed for reacting, basically. I think you have to ask for and get something before feeding. If you can't, create distance until you do. But that can jut be eye contact, or a pause in barking, or a glance at you, even if it's assists by getting in front of them and jumping up and down. Or waving the cookie in front of their face to distract them.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Ok, I think I understand now, and I think we're all saying exactly the same thing. lol Laurelin, everything you described is what I do. I just haven't called it drive building. But yeah, I ask for a behavior, I only ask for it if I can get it (I stay far enough away from the trigger), and if I know I can't ask for a behavior I use the agility transport thing you described where I have food for the dog to nibble as we walk past. Doing all of this Watson almost never reacts, unless the specific dog is just way too big of a trigger.

Personally, I don't see people wait for the dog to react and then feed, but I may not be paying attention. Most people I see don't have treats on walks at all, so they're just dragging the dog past and not even trying to train.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

There is this jrt in Molly's classes and the owner just...zones out until her dog hits the end of the leash snarling. The she feeds it a cookie.

It. Makes. Me. Insane.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

CptJack said:


> There is this jrt in Molly's classes and the owner just...zones out until her dog hits the end of the leash snarling. The she feeds it a cookie.
> 
> It. Makes. Me. Insane.


Hahaha. Yeah, I guess I've seen a couple of those.

Usually the dog reacts, and the people are just pulling at the leash and saying things softly like "no! stop now!" Or they just seem really embarrassed.

I have also had people stare at me with wonder and say "You bring treats? That's such a good idea!". lol Uh, yeah? Of course it is!


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

CptJack said:


> There is this jrt in Molly's classes and the owner just...zones out until her dog hits the end of the leash snarling. The she feeds it a cookie.
> 
> It. Makes. Me. Insane.


I see that a lot. I also see a lot of people trying desperately to get their dog to sit and wait while people pass. IMO that's a lot harder than keeping motion. 

I guess I see why the drive building is confusing but to me that's what I'd call it. I see too many people begging their dogs for behaviors when in actuality they have not worked that behavior up to be reinforcing. Can't expect the dog to do a you ask in high stress and distraction if that hasn't really been built up outside of the distractions.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Yeah, for me that's just training. All training comes with building value in the action and increasing performance and distractions and desire to perform. I guess it's technically building drive in some ways but in my head it is a very focused, separate activity when I talk about it. Building particular types of drives through specific kinds of activities. The other thing is just part of... Training anything.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

CptJack said:


> Yeah, for me that's just training. All training comes with building value in the action and increasing performance and distractions and desire to perform. I guess it's technically building drive in some ways but in my head it is a very focused, separate activity when I talk about it. Building particular types of drives through specific kinds of activities. The other thing is just part of... Training anything.


Yeah, agree with this. This is why I was confused by calling it drive building. To me that's just kind of basic training principles, and not part of what I do separately to build drive in toys or play or whatever.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

For me I kind of think of everything in terms of drive for the game. I find a lot of people generally don't think in terms of how to motivate a dog and build a working relationship with a dog. Or they only think of it in certain context (like using toys in agility) which is very limiting. 

In real life I feel like this is the foundation of dog training and one a lot of people miss or struggle with.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

I agree that motivation is the foundation of training and a lot of people do not think enough about it, or making it a game and fun and rewarding for the dog.

I just don't see any value in calling it drive building. What drive are you building, exactly? Drive for what? How are you building it, in what scenarios? How do ou apply that drive when you have it? Way does it look like in a given dog or scenario? What are you actually DOING to whatever drive you're doing?

It just raises more questions than it answers, and while "building value in x, y, or z" is fairly understood... Drive building had a pretty clear, concrete definiton in dog training, and so does drive. Working enthusiastically around distractions... Doesn't, IMO, fit either


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

CptJack said:


> I agree that motivation is the foundation of training and a lot of people do not think enough about it, or making it a game and fun and rewarding for the dog.
> 
> I just don't see any value in calling it drive building. What drive are you building, exactly? Drive for what? How are you building it, in what scenarios? How do ou apply that drive when you have it? Way does it look like in a given dog or scenario? What are you actually DOING to whatever drive you're doing?
> 
> It just raises more questions than it answers, and while "building value in x, y, or z" is fairly understood... Drive building had a pretty clear, concrete definiton in dog training, and so does drive. Working enthusiastically around distractions... Doesn't, IMO, fit either one.


Yeah, I would call it building engagement before I called it drive building. But even then I will build engagement in different situations differently so I would be more specific than just "engagement" - sometimes I want the dog to offer work, but other times in real life situations I need to cue him to pay attention to me or I know he probably won't (like if he's staring at another dog). 

Like you said, I consider drive building just building value for a specific thing, unrelated to how you might use that thing in your training in the future.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I'm building drive for the training game and for me.  

Honestly I can't figure out how it's NOT drive. It makes no sense to me that it's not building drive _for the training game_. I'm making me more valuable, playing with me more valuable. I want a dog where working is more valuable and more rewarding than everything else out in their environment. 

Isn't engagement a dog working in drive? To me it's the exact same thing.

Silvia Trkman explains my thoughts pretty well:

http://www.silvia.trkman.net/fearshep.htm 



> I have had many, many people explain to me that their PyrShep is just too worried about the surroundings to be able to work… And in every dog that I’ve seen with such a diagnosis, I saw something completely different: I saw a dog that was not having enough fun while working and was looking around for the excuses, barking at people, things and shadows. So my advice was always to stop worrying about their fears and do some serious work on their drive and try to make agility way more fun to them.


Pretty much the whole article though it is talking about a specific breed it is a problem I see a lot. And when I focus my training program on this:



> Instead of asking your dog to do what they’re not supposed to do as it’s written in their genes, just make them crazy about working with you. They’re supposed to be crazy about working with you. And I mean CRAZY. Happy is not enough.


Things fall into place.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

For me, I work on 'building value' in a lot of things - or making whatever rewarding for the dog. I get that, and I get in some ways it's very similar to drive building. Except... I build drive in a specific thing, in order to use that as a reward for other things that i'm building value in. Which is confusing, I guess, and somewhat circular but there you are. 

If I'm building drive for tug (or disc, ball, or food, or praise) whatever, I'm taking something the dog already likes and it making it the best thing in the universe for the dog. I'm doing so, probably, with the intention of using it as a reward for the dog, so it will be motivated and perform eagerly and happily and find whatever I'm asking them to do fun. The thing is? I haven't built drive in sit. I've built VALUE in sit, using what the dog has drive for. I've made it rewarding, and I've made it fun, but I have not developed the ability to ask the dog to sit and have the dog explode with enthusiasm and eagerness because OMG SIT!!!!

Dog's still working out of drive for tug (or food, or praise, or whatever). The dog's motivation/base desire/source of enthusiasm is that other thing. It's just formed an association of fun/happy/good times. 

I guess for me that's the line between the two.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> I'm building drive for the training game and for me.
> 
> Honestly I can't figure out how it's NOT drive. It makes no sense to me that it's not building drive _for the training game_. I'm making me more valuable, playing with me more valuable. I want a dog where working is more valuable and more rewarding than everything else out in their environment.


I consider drive to be more fundamental drives - the dog will jump off a cliff for XYZ. 

Training as play I consider engagement. To me, engagement is the total game we are playing with our dogs, the relationship we have that makes the dog want to work with us. Drive is the dog's drive to get some specific reinforcer like play or food that we can use to reinforce engagement. Maybe just different uses of the words, but that's how I've seen them used in most books and dvds. Like Michael Ellis has whole dvds about building food and toy drive, and then he talks about engagement in those same dvds - he is using drive and engagement the way I'm using them here.

Also Denise Fenzi talks a lot about building drive for food or toys or personal play, but then she talks about engagement as building the value to work with the handler even when reinforcers aren't obviously available.

ETA: I don't deny that Trkman will use the word drive in the way you are describing, but I haven't heard any other trainer use it in quite that way.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

I've read that article. I think motivation and rewards and making things fun is huge. 

I don't think it's drive. 

Drive is something you can use as a primary motivator. A STRONG primary motivator. Not something the dog has fun with and is enthusiastic about by virtue of association with a primary motivator, or because it's pleasant and fun and kind of rewarding. Or even pretty rewarding. 

With Kylie, I can use working with me as a primary motivator a little bit because she likes it. I *still* can't build enough value in sit to make sitting a primary motivation for doing things. I can not run her through an agility course and reward her with sit. And if I did it would take a lot more work with another motivator (food, play, whatever) before it was 'good enough' to overcome distractions or stress, and it still wouldn't be the primary motivator, really. The primary motivator would be the thing I associated it with for it to work as a standin.

Kylie has, eventually, come to LOVE agility. She finds it super, duper rewarding. She finds it super, duper, rewarding because she got tons of treat and play and had lots of fun for a long time doing it. Do I consider her primary drive to be agility? No. Because I had to use other things to reward her, and I continue to have to reward her with that other thing for it to stay rewarding for her. Therefore, even when she's 200% on and engaged and fast and LOVING IT and pulling to get on the field and barking and spinning in circles, I don't consider her to have any drive for agility. She has FUN with agility, but her DRIVE is... food and play with me. Those things that made it rewarding to her in the first place.

And she's the dog most likely to work with me for the sake of fun.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

CptJack said:


> I've read that article. I think motivation and rewards and making things fun is huge.
> 
> I don't think it's drive.


Denise Fenzi calls this a Conditioned Emotional Response (CER) a lot - conditioning the dog that training with you is fun fun fun and when they realize it's training time they are very excited. I think that's a good way to think about it too.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

elrohwen said:


> Denise Fenzi calls this a Conditioned Emotional Response (CER) a lot - conditioning the dog that training with you is fun fun fun and when they realize it's training time they are very excited. I think that's a good way to think about it too.


Yeah, I have a TON of this with Kylie. Like it's really, really clear with her. Dog has no actual drive to do agility, but she has been told it's fun and rewarded with so much food (which she is crazy about) so often and for so long she sees agility and goes WHEEE!YAY! I mean it started before that since most of the games we've always played have been training type things, and that's her primary method OF playing with me, so that adds in too, but it's really pretty unmistakable with agility. 

She's not doing it because she's driven to run the course, she's just had it associated with so many good things, so often, for so long, her default is "YEEHAW" not "I want to do agility forever and always and you can't stop me and I will go until I FALL OVER!" I know dogs like that. She isn't one. Great food drive though ;-)

(Ie: I would call whatever you use the dog to make it crazy about training with you? That's the drive.)


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I feel like you can build drive for the training game. But this is all probably semantics and not really important whether you call it engagement or 'drive for training'. Perhaps they are generally considered different things but I see them working in the same way with me and my dogs. I don't read too many dog training theory books (to be honest I've never read one). Maybe I should just call it 'crazy'. I like that.



> Instead of asking your dog to do what they’re not supposed to do as it’s written in their genes, just make them crazy about working with you. They’re supposed to be crazy about working with you. And I mean CRAZY. Happy is not enough.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I do not really understand why drive would have to be for a primary reinforcer only. We have talked about transferring drive from one thing to another and I have done so with my own dogs re: food and toys. Similarly my end goal is to transfer food/toy drive to the game of training with my dogs (or the agility game). If you have a dog out on the start line quivering and tensing... SO ready to GO and play the game, is that not drive for the game at this point?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Only if the dog needs no reinforcer/reward to continue to be that excited by the game, IMO. I DID create toy drive in Kylie again/transfer it from food drive, but at the end of the day I can *use toys to reward her* without further backup of food. I can not use an agility run as a reward and have her continue to find agility rewarding. Ergo, to me, no, that is not drive for agility. If I COULD reward her enough with something else that I could ask her for behavior and have her do it for nothing but an agility run, and no other reward after the agility run, and nothing else backing up agility as rewarding/reinforcing, then yes. 

That's not my dog. If I stop rewarding her for the agility run at the end, by feeding her or giving her a toy or being excited at her? I have maybe 2 runs because her enthusiasm drops and not too many before before she just doesn't care (I ran out of food in a lesson once and felt crappy) and leaves. To me that says she does not find AGILITY reinforcing on its own. She finds the food she gets and play with me reinforcing, and by association agility's good because she gets those things.

Meanwhile, as long as the reinforcement history for what she does want stays, she will sit on the startline and quiver with eagerness. Or lunge and bark and spin and jump and be excited by the prospect. 

But the "AS LONG AS" for me means nope, not calling that drive.

**ETA:** I might, someday. Maybe. I don't know that I'll ever get there, mind you, because I don't know that I'll ever want to risk it or see a point in risking it. Maybe I'll see hints of it and call it. Where she is now? No. But this is agility specific. I'm 200% sure it'll never work for any other training game.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Ok so if I'm building 'toy drive' in a dog I have a toy and I try to build the value and interest in that toy to the dog. I will use various methods and maybe other reinforcers to build the enthusiasm and value in that toy.

If I'm playing a game/training games then I am trying to build value and interest in that game to the dog. I will also use other methods and reinforcers to build the enthusiasm and value in the game.

I just don't know what the difference is? My methods are pretty much the same for both. If he's checking in and out on a toy, I play games to make the toy more fun, take him to a less exciting area, work faster paced, pair with other rewards, etc. By doing all this over time the toy ends up having more value than it originally did. If he's checking in and out on a training session I do the same thing. Yes I'll have rewards but the game and play is a part of that too. It's all very fluid and runs into itself.

Sorry for the thread hijack

EDIT: Not saying that all dogs get to the point where training is so rewarding (mine all will work decently well just for working's sake and personal play. Better and more accurate with other things included- yep. Hank will go and go and go and learn very well with no food or toy required but that's mostly him being wild). My point with the dog quivering on the start line raring to go is that the game wasn't a 'natural' drive for the dog but via food and toys I would say the dog has drive for the game now. They've learned the game is fun and rewarding and worthwhile to them. There are many dogs that play agility to play agility now, not for the cookie at the end of the run.

EDIT2: Maybe that's the point I was trying to make originally- personal play and working become one and the same. That's the end goal for me.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

Turid Rugaas methods for Tyson:
1. Teach Tyson to look at you when you click your tongue or say his name. Vaguely like clicker training, always treat when he looks at you.
2. Like you've already done, when you see a distracting dog, make the verbal cue to anticipate and distract him to look away, just as you already did (but include the verbal cue).
3. Continue doing this and in a few months he may learn to look away when HE sees the dog before you do, expecting a treat, rather than a fearful trigger.

"Counter Conditioning" using play:
Locate a stable, very socialized dog, probably a Lab. And, consider the following....
1. When we had fearful or shy dogs in my training classes, I put Shep into the fenced in play area. Then, I asked the owner to put the fearful or shy dog into the play area with Shep, and walk out. 
2. In both cases, Shep would go up to the dog, try to initiate play, playbow, and the 'play' bark.
3A. If the dog was shy, the dog would try to get away from Shep. Shep might try once or twice more, then he would go away. If the shy dog did not follow Shep, and continued to 'cringe' in the corner, we removed the shy dog. We repeated this process the next week. But, the second or third week, most shy dogs were overjoyed to see Shep and to play with him, understanding that Shep was not trying to eat him. We'd incrementally introduce one more dog at a time, which was as predictable as Shep .... resulting in a slow socialization for the shy dog. Clearly, this doesn't work for all shy dogs, but it's a start. Also, it hinges on having a solid, socialized dog to start. 
3B. If the dog was fearful, the dog would bark at Shep and maybe lunge. After some initial overtures (as described above), Shep would take the hint and go sniff some grass on the other side of the play area. This confused the fearful dog, who expected/anticipated aggression. When Shep ignored him, he didn't know what to do. When Shep found something interesting to sniff, the fearful dog went over and snarked Shep ('Mine!'). So, Shep walked to another side where the grass was even more interesting to sniff. Again, the fearful dog followed, maybe growling a bit and started sniffing next to Shep.
4B. In most cases, Shep would then repeat Step #2 . The fearful dog might freak out, and so Shep would go sniffing again, ignoring the fearful dog. Eventually the fearful dog would get a clue, and might play with Shep ... Or it might take the next time.
5B. To expand socialization, after this step, on the next week, we put another dog in with Shep to play with initially, rather than introducing the second dog after the fearful dog.
6B. With Shep and friend playing, the fearful dog is let into the play area. The fearful dog barks, and either Shep play barks back, or the two dogs will continue playing and ignore the fearful dog. Shep has already ignored the fearful dog before, so the fearful dog knows the drill ... 
7B. The fearful dog will play, will (relatively) calmly ignore the playing dogs, or will remain fearful and continue to bark. If he barks, then that training session ends for him for that week, and we might try again for a third week. Sometimes they get it....

I got this process from Turid Rugaas, and watched her do this during a training session, all in one day!

Of course, the hard part is finding friendly, stable, socialized dogs.... And, Shep is too old to help


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

Hi! Sorry for dropping out yesterday - Katie and I had heeling class and my bruised finger was too sore to type.  Thanks for the great discussion.

To answer the questions about why Tyson and I didn't continue walking when we saw the other dog, there are several reasons:
- I _truly_ thought that I had moved Tyson far enough away and could keep him focused on me enough that he wouldn't notice the other dog. 
- When we saw dogs at the park, he was fine with them at a similar distance. We watched the dogs and he ate treats, all was good.
- If I had kept moving along the same parallel path, we would have walked through someone's garden (or needed to move into their back yard). Both seemed excessively intrusive (more so than simply hang out on their front lawn).
- I had _no idea_ Tyson would react with such intensity. He was a little barky watching dogs at the park, was fine in classes (even during the CGC-style meet & greet exercise), and only flipped out when a woman and her "he's friendly" dog got into his space at the park. 

My biggest concern is that working with fear seems as though there's less room for error and you're working closer to a fight or flight response than when your dog is just over-excited or pushy and rude.



Laurelin said:


> I guess what I am trying to say is that in general I see people wait till the dog reacts then give food. It's not so much proactive and thinking about how to set up situations for success and how to further things along past just food. I also think in general play is more powerful than food alone.
> 
> If the dog is working with me before the reaction takes place then my work is to keep them working vs keep them from reacting.
> 
> I really don't know that I'm making sense at all.





CptJack said:


> I do seem some bad timing where h dog is being fed for reacting, basically. I think you have to ask for and get something before feeding. If you can't, create distance until you do. But that can jut be eye contact, or a pause in barking, or a glance at you, even if it's assists by getting in front of them and jumping up and down. Or waving the cookie in front of their face to distract them.


Ideally, yes, you are trying to prevent a reaction. However, in "classical" counter-conditioning, the good thing (that elicits a positive response) is simply paired with the scary or bad thing (that elicits an undesirable response) so that a new, more positive association is built. There is no asking for a behavior before feeding, playing, etc. If the dog (or other animal) is reacting or in an over-aroused state, it's unlikely learning is occurring anyway and the best bet is to pack up and try again later. Yin discusses it a bit in her "training aggression" video.

If I'm being honest with myself, I'm not really doing pure CC because I am asking for attention to me before feeding (or at the very least, he has to move his head towards me to get a treat). Again, ideally, we can work at a distance where he's not reacting and can look at me. Later, we can work on performing simple behaviors with other dogs in the vicinity. Eventually, we can begin working on DRI / DRO and slowly moving closer. That's why I'm seeking more controlled situations. If we're walking on the street, there are only so many options for creating space. If we're at the park, we may back away from one dog only to move closer to another. 

The discussion about drive and engagement was a fun read! I'll revisit when I'm not supposed to be working. 



hanksimon said:


> Turid Rugaas methods for Tyson:
> 1. Teach Tyson to look at you when you click your tongue or say his name. Vaguely like clicker training, always treat when he looks at you.
> 2. Like you've already done, when you see a distracting dog, make the verbal cue to anticipate and distract him to look away, just as you already did (but include the verbal cue).
> 3. Continue doing this and in a few months he may learn to look away when HE sees the dog before you do, expecting a treat, rather than a fearful trigger.
> ...


Thank you! Know of a young(er) Shep in SE PA?


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> Ok so if I'm building 'toy drive' in a dog I have a toy and I try to build the value and interest in that toy to the dog. I will use various methods and maybe other reinforcers to build the enthusiasm and value in that toy.
> 
> If I'm playing a game/training games then I am trying to build value and interest in that game to the dog. I will also use other methods and reinforcers to build the enthusiasm and value in the game.
> 
> ...


I don't know if it's technically wrong to use it that way, but I haven't see most trainers use "drive" to mean the process of engaging with the handler. Most dogs are still ultimately working for some other reinforcer, whether it's play or toys or food or praise and those are the things they have drive for, and you use those things to reinforce training. All of that is building together towards enjoying training with the human, but I think it's simpler to talk about drives as the reinforcers you are using to build engagement with the handler. A dog can have drive for personal play, and find that reinforcing, which I think is what you're talking about? I think that's probably the hardest drive to develop for most dogs (the not super handler oriented ones) and the last one people get. So again, it's like stating the final goal without mentioning how to get there, and there's a lot of stuff along the way.

But if someone asks the question "how do I build engagement with my dog" the answer is a lot longer and more complicated than just "build drive" if you want them to understand what you mean and what concrete things they should be doing. Most dogs are never going to be high drive, so how do you work with that? You can try to build drive until you're blue in the face, but at some point you need to figure out how to work with that dog with whatever level of drive you can get and that's where it gets complicated and individual. A dog with high drive will power through just about anything (bad training, scary stuff) but if your dog is not high drive, and will never be high drive, how do you work with the drive you have to build your dog up.




> EDIT2: Maybe that's the point I was trying to make originally- personal play and working become one and the same. That's the end goal for me.


I totally get what you are saying, but that's the end goal for any dog trainer and most don't get there. So I still don't think it's that helpful as the answer to "how do I deal with my dog's reactivity right now?" Knowing your end goal is important, but it doesn't tell you what to do right now today.


ETA: It's like saying "just build the relationship between dog and handler and you won't have any issues" but that's such a huge simplification of what goes into it. If it were that easy to just tell people to build their relationship and bond, the Fenzi academy wouldn't be so popular.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I would not call Summer or Mia high drive and Hank is what I'd call medium-high. I still do a lot of drive/engagement/whatever you want to call it building (toys, food, fast paced games, etc) with them and it helps immensely in training in general- including the reactivity issues with Mia and Hank. I feel like if you give up on a 'low drive' dog and just say 'Welp, this is all the drive I'll ever get' then you're limiting yourself a lot. It's a constant work in progress and no, they're probably not ever going to get to the level some specifically bred dogs have. But the more you build the more you have access to in your 'bank' to pay out to your dog. They are then more likely they are to play when you want to and to play when something is scary or overwhelming. And if you can get them to play then you're pretty well made as far as I'm concerned. 

All the 'stuff along the way' is hard to get into because it's never the same. It really depends on the dog, what they like, what we're training, etc. 

Honestly I'm very confused about what exactly the issue is? How do you build engagement with your dog? By being engaging. What is 'being engaging?' I don't know, I don't have your dog. In general, I'd say keeping up movement, being exciting, using whatever the dog finds reinforcing, having good timing and a good sense of when to reward and when to back off, when to ask for more. That's all pretty darn hard to guess at without having the dog in front of you. And it's all kind of hard to explain.

My point was that I found for me and the dogs I am around was sitting and feeding and having the dog look at me, which is what I see most people do did not work as well as me really focusing on being engaging, keeping the dog moving, and focusing on working with my dog on something else- be that tug, hand touch, whatever. I find a lot of people don't really even think to bring drive or engagement or whatever we want to call it into the picture when dealing with fear or a dog that 'won't work in distractions'. There's often a lot a handler can do to be better at engaging their dog. I don't know what those *are* for any dog, the handler would have to figure it out. 

Most dogs aren't so bad that there's nothing to work with. I've seen a couple that are very very shut down and won't even take food. That's going to take a long time to work through. And in those cases you essentially have to work by relieving pressure at the beginning. 





> If I'm being honest with myself, I'm not really doing pure CC because I am asking for attention to me before feeding (or at the very least, he has to move his head towards me to get a treat). Again, ideally, we can work at a distance where he's not reacting and can look at me.


I'm not a big fan of 'look at me'. I remember chatting with Sandy (PawzK9 if you remember) about it. We had a boxer x pit in class that lost his mind around other dogs.

The way she described it to me was imagine you have arachnophobia and someone puts a giant tarantula in the room. Then they tell you don't look at it and to look at them and calm down. Well I know most people are still going to be worried and trying glancing over their shoulder. It may even make things worse. I've noticed that with Mia. Maybe some other dogs would just see the trigger and think 'reward'. But Mia did not like turning away from things that worry her. 

So that was Sandy's reasoning for look at THAT versus look at me.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

I guess I'm mostly commenting on this thread. As a general principle, telling people that they need to build drive and engagement is fine. But when someone asks a specific question about "what do I do for reactivity with this particular dog in these circumstances" I find it too generic to be that helpful. There have been times I've asked for help from people online and got back "just train your dog" or "it's about feel" but that is extremely unhelpful to me. Not that it's not true at a fundamental level, but I don't find it helpful. Of course I need to train my dog, and of course I need to build drive, but how. What do I do? That's the point I'm trying to make I guess. This thread isn't about generic training principles and philosophy, it's how to help Tyson and what specific things cookieface can be doing.

And I never said "well the dog is low drive so just give up on it". My point is that a lot of dogs are lower drive and you need to know how to work with them right now. Of course it's extremely individual, but I thought that's what we were trying to figure out with Tyson. To say that your goal is to have dogs working for personal play is nice, but that might be a goal of a lifetime someone will never accomplish - what are the steps cookieface can take right now?

I don't disagree with any of the things you're saying basically, I just think it's too generic and hard to understand when someone asks a specific question about a specific dog. Does that make sense? If it were that easy to figure out there would be so many different FDSA classes geared towards different dogs and different handlers.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I guess so but 90% of the issues I see day to day in dog training would be fixed with better/more foundation work. I'm honestly not trying to sound like a snot but I do find a lot of dog training discussions miss the overarching idea of build engagement/motivation. People get hung up on the actions and the step by step for each problem that they miss the big picture. Cookieface and you probably have a lot better grasp on it than JQP but in general I think it's the biggest problem in dog training. And I'm not sure it's intuitive to a lot of people. It took me some conscious thinking for a long while to really 'get it' and implement it.

I was speaking about fearful reactivity in general though in my first post. I find not focusing on the fears, not making them a big deal, working on building engagement away from the fears, then coming back and trying to engage the dog at a good distance worked best for us. Because once you've got the engagement you've got a dog that is not caring about the fear at that point in time.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> I guess so but 90% of the issues I see day to day in dog training would be fixed with better/more foundation work. I'm honestly not trying to sound like a snot but I do find a lot of dog training discussions miss the overarching idea of build engagement/motivation. People get hung up on the actions and the step by step for each problem that they miss the big picture. Cookieface and you probably have a lot better grasp on it than JQP but in general I think it's the biggest problem in dog training. And I'm not sure it's intuitive to a lot of people. It took me some conscious thinking for a long while to really 'get it'.
> 
> I was speaking about fearful reactivity in general though in my first post. I find not focusing on the fears, not making them a big deal, working on building engagement away from the fears, then coming back and trying to engage the dog at a good distance worked best for us. Because once you've got the engagement you've got a dog that is not caring about the fear at that point in time.


I think people don't get it because it's the most difficult part of dog training. It's not something that most people are going to be ready to grasp on their first dog, or maybe even 5th dog. I know for me, I'm still in the mechanical stage of "how exactly do I do this" and just starting to get the hand of the feel and engagement skills that can't easily be put into words, and it's taken me 2.5 years and lots of reflecting and work. Like you said, it's not intuitive and I don't think people are ready to grasp it early on in training. Some people are just savants and they get this stuff very quickly, but we all work on different timelines.

I think it's like riding a horse. For the first couple years, you're just trying to figure out what the heck to do with your body and the mechanics of how it all works. At some point you have enough skill that you become more natural and have a feel for what that horse needs, but you can't start out just trying to "feel". You need that initial stage of just building skills and being told to do XYZ by a good instructor. I think most people training dogs are still in the mechanical stage of being told to do XYZ. Even people who have had multiple dogs and competed in sports are still working on that stage.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Leaving aside definitions (because I don't think we're going to agree and I don't think it matters, anyway, since we both/all know what we're talking about):

Building engagement through training and getting better training with engagement is a pretty fundamental part of dog training. If you train, you get better engagement and build value in you/training. As you have better engagement/build value (or drive or whatever you want to call it) you get better training, and have higher resistance to distractions. 

There are people who fall down on that front. People who's timing is off, people who are too robotic and people who haven't yet figured out what motivates their dog, but short of a dog who is so shut down it won't take anything, or someone who isn't using rewards, *it happens as part of training anyway*. It may not happen as fast as it would if someone were making a concentrated effort to achieve it, but it's *going to happen, regardless*. You can not reward the dog with something it likes and fail to build value into the activity. 

Do I think asking for nothing and just feeding the dog when it reacts is useful? No, not really. However, feeding the dog for any sort of behavior in the presence of another dog is building value(drive, whatever) into you and working with you around distractions/distressing things. It's inherent in all positive training. It's the basic PRINCIPAL of positive training. You get more exciting, more rewarding, more engaging (whatever that means for an individual dog and I admit that's hard to define or identify when you don't own the dog and it varies radically from individual to individual), you'll go further faster, but it's still the heart of what positive training is, and why it works. Going beyond that, requires really knowing your dog and being silly and frankly a lot of experimentation.

Which for me, I guess, is why I don't consider it much of a method or particularly actionable advice. "Reward your dog for working with you, and make it awesome for the dog/the dog crazy about it and you can overcome distractions/fears/whatever" is just... sort of like saying 'if you reward your dog for doing things you like, it will do them more.' (Hence all my faffing about here - It just seems really, really, blindingly obvious to me.) And it's hard to pin down and define WHAT or HOW that is going to play out for any given dog. 

Though I grant you most of my advice in my first comment to this thread was effectively the same - at least in final outcome, where your dog can work/play with you and the stressor is a non-issue.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> I'm not a big fan of 'look at me'. I remember chatting with Sandy (PawzK9 if you remember) about it. We had a boxer x pit in class that lost his mind around other dogs.
> 
> The way she described it to me was imagine you have arachnophobia and someone puts a giant tarantula in the room. Then they tell you don't look at it and to look at them and calm down. Well I know most people are still going to be worried and trying glancing over their shoulder. It may even make things worse. I've noticed that with Mia. Maybe some other dogs would just see the trigger and think 'reward'. But Mia did not like turning away from things that worry her.
> 
> So that was Sandy's reasoning for look at THAT versus look at me.


What you're saying makes sense, but _how do you get to engagement without the dog looking at you_? I mean, the first step in engagement (at least my understanding of the term) is that the dog is, IDK, looking in your general direction. 

We're not doing formal attention or using cues. For example, at the park, Tyson was sitting on the pavilion floor, I was sitting on the bench next to him, both facing the same direction. There were two dogs several yards away, Tyson was watching, I was feeding. In order to get the treats, he had to turn his head towards me. To get the treats faster, he turned towards me more often and with more focus, but he was always free to look back at the other dogs. 

This thread has been extremely helpful. It's allowed me to think through our issues, vent, synthesize what I know with your suggestions, rationally map out where to go from here, vent, and generally see things from a more level-headed perspective rather than full-on I've ruined my dog panic mode. That's what's great about this place.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

cookieface said:


> What you're saying makes sense, but _how do you get to engagement without the dog looking at you_? I mean, the first step in engagement (at least my understanding of the term) is that the dog is, IDK, looking in your general direction.
> 
> We're not doing formal attention or using cues. For example, at the park, Tyson was sitting on the pavilion floor, I was sitting on the bench next to him, both facing the same direction. There were two dogs several yards away, Tyson was watching, I was feeding. In order to get the treats, he had to turn his head towards me. To get the treats faster, he turned towards me more often and with more focus, but he was always free to look back at the other dogs.
> 
> This thread has been extremely helpful. It's allowed me to think through our issues, vent, synthesize what I know with your suggestions, rationally map out where to go from here, vent, and generally see things from a more level-headed perspective rather than full-on I've ruined my dog panic mode. That's what's great about this place.


I think the real difference is that if you just ask the dog to look at you and hold eye-contact, they've got this looming awareness of the other dog. They're ramped up and nervous and on edge and you're asking them to just... not look at the thing but look at you instead. I don't like Look at That, but I would use it before stopping at eye-contact with me. Ie: I'd ask for eye-contact and attention from the dog, but then I'd be asking for other stuff. Sit, down, play, running back and forth on leash, whatever. It's sort of like... really distracting the dog versus asking the dog to just sit there, feeling like there's a target on their back, you know?

If you can get watch me, you can get sit. If you can't get either, you may still get a dog willing to chase you around in circles. Or be interested when you jump up and down or wrestle with them or whatever your dog is into. If you can't get anything or panic/flail is already happen, move away if you can and move on if you can't. Just... activity (any activity) so their MIND is off the other dog, not just their eyes. I want the dog to stop CARING about the other dog, not just stop looking at it and reacting to it. Much harder when their attention isn't being grabbed fully by something else.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

cookieface said:


> This thread has been extremely helpful. It's allowed me to think through our issues, vent, synthesize what I know with your suggestions, rationally map out where to go from here, vent, and generally see things from a more level-headed perspective rather than full-on I've ruined my dog panic mode. That's what's great about this place.


We are always ready to talk people off the ledge!

Personally, I feel like most of the stuff our dogs do is just stuff they're hardwired to do and that most of the time we haven't messed them up. I see pretty clueless people with really awesome dogs, and really awesome people with dogs who are a mess, so I think the people are only a small part of the equation. The real challenge is taking what you have and then coming up with a plan to fix it - not always easy!


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Well obviously I'm trying to give helpful advice. To me it WAS helpful when it clicked and I realized 'oh wow, you mean I can really build on this engagement/drive/whatever?' It made dog training infinitely easier. It helped a lot more than 'give a treat now' 'don't give a treat for that' because I saw WHY I was doing everything. 

Ymmv. Was just trying to help. I'll bow out now.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to be as argumentative as I came across , I wasn't trying to say it was useless - or you were wrong. It was obviously useful to who it was intended for. I just got caught up in trying to figure out what the discussion was about and poking at definitions and principals and philosophies and my brain (especially since Elrohwen and I were coming at it from completely opposite sides!). No attack at all intended.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> Well obviously I'm trying to give helpful advice. To me it WAS helpful when it clicked and I realized 'oh wow, you mean I can really build on this engagement/drive/whatever?' It made dog training infinitely easier. It helped a lot more than 'give a treat now' 'don't give a treat for that' because I saw WHY I was doing everything.
> 
> Ymmv. Was just trying to help. I'll bow out now.


Sorry, I didn't mean to be a jerk. Really didn't. I've just been frustrated many times by needing specific advice for a situation and getting advice like "just build the relationship with your dog". The very specific mechanical stuff is not where people eventually want to be as a dog trainer, but it's where we all start and where most of us still are, and that's ok. I think cookieface knows what she needs to build engagement with Tyson but just doesn't know how to go about that.

ETA: I think there are also different learning styles. Personally, I get a lot of value out of the very specific "do this now" stuff, and then it ultimately gets incorporated into my training in a way that is fluid and natural. But personally I'm not good at coming up with what to do on my own if I only have an overriding philosophy of engagement/drive/relationship to guide me.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

elrohwen said:


> ETA: I think there are also different learning styles. Personally, I get a lot of value out of the very specific "do this now" stuff, and then it ultimately gets incorporated into my training in a way that is fluid and natural. But personally I'm not good at coming up with what to do on my own if I only have an overriding philosophy of engagement/drive/relationship to guide me.


Yes. I think you and I are actually extreme opposites (in this conversation), but in my case a good deal of it comes from having had dogs long enough that things seem blindingly obvious to me that maybe aren't really. My instructor tried a step by step to teach me how to do that bleeping switch (tandem turn, whatever) for MONTHS. In fact, if we go all the way back to the point where it was introduced, it was a year. I got absolutely nowhere until I started running full, more difficult courses, and saw what needed to happen and then, and only then, was I able to teach my dog how to do it. Without using a single one of her methods. I didn't need a method or a strategy or step by step, I just needed to understand what I was trying to accomplish and why. I got there on my own after it. Before that (with the instructor's step by step) I succeeded in teaching my dog to do a 180 degree turn and go back over the obstacle she'd just taken.

I think the instructor wanted to strangle me a little before it was over.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

cookieface said:


> What you're saying makes sense, but _how do you get to engagement without the dog looking at you_? I mean, the first step in engagement (at least my understanding of the term) is that the dog is, IDK, looking in your general direction.
> 
> We're not doing formal attention or using cues. For example, at the park, Tyson was sitting on the pavilion floor, I was sitting on the bench next to him, both facing the same direction. There were two dogs several yards away, Tyson was watching, I was feeding. In order to get the treats, he had to turn his head towards me. To get the treats faster, he turned towards me more often and with more focus, but he was always free to look back at the other dogs.
> 
> This thread has been extremely helpful. It's allowed me to think through our issues, vent, synthesize what I know with your suggestions, rationally map out where to go from here, vent, and generally see things from a more level-headed perspective rather than full-on I've ruined my dog panic mode. That's what's great about this place.


Omg I just deleted my post. Short version:

Not giving a cue to 'look at me' probably does change things a bit. Most people I see give an 'eyes on me' type command.

LAT: would be rewarding calm and not reacting. To me it is most helpful with dogs that have a very low threshold and are at a point they can take treats but not at a point they can work. For me and my dogs we didn't do that much because I had enough to work with to get them to work however minimally at a reasonable distance. Also when I try working with a reactive dog my first step isn't going to be calmly watch me, it's going to be something more engaging and exciting so to keep them more interested in me. Then I like to work down to calmly watching me. 

Basically this:



> I think the real difference is that if you just ask the dog to look at you and hold eye-contact, they've got this looming awareness of the other dog. They're ramped up and nervous and on edge and you're asking them to just... not look at the thing but look at you instead...It's sort of like... really distracting the dog versus asking the dog to just sit there, feeling like there's a target on their back, you know?


Now really bowing out. lol


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

I like LAT in some situations, but not in others. Any time I've tried to put it on cue it's just made him more excited about whatever it was. Maybe I'm not doing it right though. I know Leslie McDevitt suggests getting it on cue and doing it automatically.

But making it automatic has worked well. We were at a free for all trainers day thing and my friend next to us had a GSD, and Watson hates GSDs. The only rule was that he could not leave his mat, but he could look at the dog if he wanted. I just started clicking for looking at the dog and pretty quickly he was staring at me 90% of the time with quick glances to see what the dog was doing. I really like using it that way.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

CptJack said:


> I think the real difference is that if you just ask the dog to look at you and hold eye-contact, they've got this looming awareness of the other dog. They're ramped up and nervous and on edge and you're asking them to just... not look at the thing but look at you instead. I don't like Look at That, but I would use it before stopping at eye-contact with me. Ie: I'd ask for eye-contact and attention from the dog, but then I'd be asking for other stuff. Sit, down, play, running back and forth on leash, whatever. It's sort of like... really distracting the dog versus asking the dog to just sit there, feeling like there's a target on their back, you know?
> 
> If you can get watch me, you can get sit. If you can't get either, you may still get a dog willing to chase you around in circles. Or be interested when you jump up and down or wrestle with them or whatever your dog is into. If you can't get anything or panic/flail is already happen, move away if you can and move on if you can't. Just... activity (any activity) so their MIND is off the other dog, not just their eyes. I want the dog to stop CARING about the other dog, not just stop looking at it and reacting to it. Much harder when their attention isn't being grabbed fully by something else.


So, maybe I'm taking things too slow?? At a distance where Tyson isn't freaking out, work with him. Forget all the behaviorism stuff (gah, my profs would disown me) and just play / work with Tyson in the presence of the scary dogs. Forget Pavlov. Forget Watson. Just keep Tyson engaged and happy.



elrohwen said:


> We are always ready to talk people off the ledge!
> 
> Personally, I feel like most of the stuff our dogs do is just stuff they're hardwired to do and that most of the time we haven't messed them up. I see pretty clueless people with really awesome dogs, and really awesome people with dogs who are a mess, so I think the people are only a small part of the equation. The real challenge is taking what you have and then coming up with a plan to fix it - not always easy!


I'm an inch or two away from the ledge.  I do think Tyson's temperament is less confident, more timid than Katie's, so not entirely my fault. But, I'm sure there's so much more I could have done with him. Instructional plans are so much easier to develop when you don't have a vested interest. 



Laurelin said:


> Well obviously I'm trying to give helpful advice. To me it WAS helpful when it clicked and I realized 'oh wow, you mean I can really build on this engagement/drive/whatever?' It made dog training infinitely easier. It helped a lot more than 'give a treat now' 'don't give a treat for that' because I saw WHY I was doing everything.
> 
> Ymmv. Was just trying to help. I'll bow out now.


Your advice _is_ helpful. I just need more specifics, especially when I'm in panic mode. I've seen the results of building value in engagement. Your posts prompted me to look up the materials from the recall class Katie and I took. It was mostly about making yourself more interesting than anything else in the environment and I've seen huge improvements in her recall (hasn't been tested against deer, though).


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

CptJack said:


> Yes. I think you and I are actually extreme opposites (in this conversation), but in my case a good deal of it comes from having had dogs long enough that things seem blindingly obvious to me that maybe aren't really. My instructor tried a step by step to teach me how to do that bleeping switch (tandem turn, whatever) for MONTHS. In fact, if we go all the way back to the point where it was introduced, it was a year. I got absolutely nowhere until I started running full, more difficult courses, and saw what needed to happen and then, and only then, was I able to teach my dog how to do it. Without using a single one of her methods. I didn't need a method or a strategy or step by step, I just needed to understand what I was trying to accomplish and why. I got there on my own after it. Before that (with the instructor's step by step) I succeeded in teaching my dog to do a 180 degree turn and go back over the obstacle she'd just taken.
> 
> I think the instructor wanted to strangle me a little before it was over.


I'm totally the person in the class who nailed all of the crosses and exercises after one specific explanation from the instructor. But then my dog was the one who ran away from me 1/3 of the time because I don't have a good feel for how to get engagement all the time. lol I'm very good at following specific instructions, but it takes me a lot longer to get a feel for something. 

I know from playing cello and riding horses that it was probably 5 years of work before I felt like I had a "feel" for what I was doing a lot of the time, instead of working through specifics.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

> So, maybe I'm taking things too slow?? At a distance where Tyson isn't freaking out, work with him. Forget all the behaviorism stuff (gah, my profs would disown me) and just play / work with Tyson in the presence of the scary dogs. Forget Pavlov. Forget Watson. Just keep Tyson engaged and happy.


That would be my suggestion. Of course, if you keep him engaged and happy, you're still probably conditioning a response of sorts. Or at least changing his mental state around the other dogs. For me, you may be changing his mental state MORE/still using behavioral stuff because honestly I've seen dogs in the presence of other dogs, tense and growling and unhappy but taking the food. ...and barking and growling through having a full mouth, which is mildly amusing. Anyway, yeah. Can't hurt to try, right?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

elrohwen said:


> I'm totally the person in the class who nailed all of the crosses and exercises after one specific explanation from the instructor. But then my dog was the one who ran away from me 1/3 of the time because I don't have a good feel for how to get engagement all the time. lol I'm very good at following specific instructions, but it takes me a lot longer to get a feel for something.
> 
> I know from playing cello and riding horses that it was probably 5 years of work before I felt like I had a "feel" for what I was doing a lot of the time, instead of working through specifics.


Yep, absolutely my polar opposite learning style. I took a year with saxaphone to be not horribly awful. I picked up a clarinet a year later and was first chair after 3 weeks, my freshman year (in band) because I had melody with that, and was able to know what it was supposed to sound like and how the music moved. I tried to learn how to knit with instructions a dozen times, couldn't do it, and finally learned because I watched a gif for a while and I figured out the rhythm of the thing. 

I can not do ANYTHING without having a cadence and feel for whatever. Once I have that I can add in the technicalities, but without it I'm just clumsy and awkward and stilted and bad - with EVERYTHING. Crafts, music, dance, MATH, even. I'd probably prefer to be able to actually figure things out via detailed instructions, but grass is always greener or something or another.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Sorry guys, I just got frustrated. It all makes perfect sense in my head and I can't express it and it's frustrating. Why can't you all get in my head and understand what I'm saying? lol

I find step by step useful when teaching a specific behavior but not when thinking in a general sense. Like if I'm teaching weaves knowing to put sets of 2 and work around the clock and throw the toy is helpful. Anything dog vs environment falls under more general training though in my head. Similarly distractions and refusing to work in distraction falls under more general issues to me. If he's not paying attention to me regardless of why my answer is 'be more engaging'. But if he's missing poles, I'll start thinking of specific things to change with my setup.

I don't think I've ever followed any training by the book completely. If I know my dog can move faster then we go faster, if I know my dog needs another step then I add it. The people I really admire as trainers are people who put their relationship with their dogs first and you can tell their training revolves around it. I get absolutely nothing that is actually applicable to dog training from reading scientific articles or books about dog training. I have never thought 'I am going to use operant conditioning now' or 'I am going to use counter conditioning now' or 'is this really purely positive?' 

I feel like dog training is as much an art as a science, maybe more.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

CptJack said:


> Yep, absolutely my polar opposite learning style. I took a year with saxaphone to be not horribly awful. I picked up a clarinet a year later and was first chair after 3 weeks, my freshman year (in band) because I had melody with that, and was able to know what it was supposed to sound like and how the music moved. I tried to learn how to knit with instructions a dozen times, couldn't do it, and finally learned because I watched a gif for a while and I figured out the rhythm of the thing.
> 
> I can not do ANYTHING without having a cadence and feel for whatever. Once I have that I can add in the technicalities, but without it I'm just clumsy and awkward and stilted and bad - with EVERYTHING. Crafts, music, dance, MATH, even. I'd probably prefer to be able to actually figure things out via detailed instructions, but grass is always greener or something or another.


Even after 10 years of playing the cello, my music could lack real feeling or emotion a lot of the time. The music was so technically difficult at that point that it took all of my brain to do the technical part and the feeling part often got left out. On easier pieces, sure I had feel, but that's because my technical skills were so far advanced that I didn't have to think about them anymore on easier songs. But getting the feel for something is absolutely the last thing that comes. But if you can explain what to do, I can totally do it exactly like you say.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

CptJack said:


> Yep, absolutely my polar opposite learning style. I took a year with saxaphone to be not horribly awful. I picked up a clarinet a year later and was first chair after 3 weeks, my freshman year (in band) because I had melody with that, and was able to know what it was supposed to sound like and how the music moved. I tried to learn how to knit with instructions a dozen times, couldn't do it, and finally learned because I watched a gif for a while and I figured out the rhythm of the thing.
> 
> I can not do ANYTHING without having a cadence and feel for whatever. Once I have that I can add in the technicalities, but without it I'm just clumsy and awkward and stilted and bad - with EVERYTHING. Crafts, music, dance, MATH, even. I'd probably prefer to be able to actually figure things out via detailed instructions, but grass is always greener or something or another.


I get a lot of questions in art and dog training. 'How did you know to put that blue color here when the object is not actually blue?' or 'why did you reward that when he didn't do the thing you wanted?'

I can't ever explain beyond 'Because that's what the picture needed or that's what my dog needed.'

There's no real reasoning going into it, it just... works? and I know it will work? It is subconscious decision making. 

I can't even make it through reading instruction manuals for things lol. I get bored too fast.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> Sorry guys, I just got frustrated. It all makes perfect sense in my head and I can't express it and it's frustrating. Why can't you all get in my head and understand what I'm saying? lol
> 
> I find step by step useful when teaching a specific behavior but not when thinking in a general sense. Like if I'm teaching weaves knowing to put sets of 2 and work around the clock and throw the toy is helpful. Anything dog vs environment falls under more general training though in my head. Similarly distractions and refusing to work in distraction falls under more general issues to me. If he's not paying attention to me regardless of why my answer is 'be more engaging'. But if he's missing poles, I'll start thinking of specific things to change with my setup.
> 
> ...


I agree, I just think some us need more specifics to start  I think this is why I love Denise Fenzi so much. She understands that it's an art, and she puts relationship above everything, but she's able to break it down and explain how to build that relationship for particular dogs and handlers. I think that's what makes a good teacher. Some people are just good at things naturally and aren't that great at teaching. Others are very good at explaining no matter how clueless the audience. 

As far as reading stuff goes, I don't read much at all about behaviorism. But I do read books on ways to build engagement, ways to play with your dog, what to do when the dog is distracted, etc. It's helpful to get that specific information for me because there is often a ton that I haven't thought of. But I'm not thinking about what quadrant I'm working in or whether it's counter conditioning or not. I do find that stuff interesting on an intellectual level but it doesn't come up in training much.

And I will always be a more scientifically minded person than an art minded person - I need to understand why something works before I can do it correctly. Once I understand "why", I can modify it for my own uses, but I need to read that instruction manual. Haha


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Honestly, I disregard so much of the step-by-step teaching even in agility classes. They use a LOT of food targets at the end of obstacles to get the dog to drive through (or over) obstacles. Didn't work for me with either dog. Kylie didn't like the food, didn't like the instructor that close, and wasn't going to eat off the sandy ground, anyway. Molly does not need encouragement to drive more toward any danged thing. Teaching 2o2o when I needed it with Kylie as a separate cue and without the target worked fine, and it SEEMS to have worked for Molly. If it doesn't, I'll back up and try something else. 

It's at the point now, though, where even in class, they just pick up the target and move when Molly is running. They know I don't use it, they know she's doesn't need it, and thankfully they're pretty willing to let me steer my own ship. 

I'm teaching Molly weaves 2x2, but how I taught Kylie was basically a strange combination of luring, sharping, and a tiny bit of 2x2. I'm pretty sure my instructor would fall over and faint if she realized how I taught them, in spite of having a dog who weaves better than any novice dog in our club, and better and more reliably than many of the elite dogs. I don't know why it worked. I don't know what to call the method. I couldn't explain it again if my life depended on it. But it worked. 

And yeah, I don't read instruction manuals, either. Just give me the thing and I'll poke at it for a while and figure it out. I know what it's supposed to look like/do. Good enough to get there.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

elrohwen said:


> And I will always be a more scientifically minded person than an art minded person - I need to understand why something works before I can do it correctly.


This is actually very much my husband. He frequently wants to strangle me. We balance pretty well though! And usually cover most/all our bases. He's actually been really good at helping me with agility by providing feedback. Like what I'm doing and what it's making happen, now that he's watched me enough.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Does anyone read the Naughty Dogge blog or FB page? She is a prime example of the type of training advice that I hate. I mean, I think she's really cool and a good writer and I read her stuff all the time, but a lot of the time I come away from it thinking "All you did was talk about feel! I can't feel what you're feeling so that is not helpful! Tell what the **** you actually did!" LOL MrsBoats and I have conversations about this all the time.

Of course the people who just feel it are the best actual trainers, but I don't think they are necessarily the best teachers of humans. It's like the person who is awesome at math but can't teach a kid how to do fractions - it's so obvious to them that they can't break down what they are doing.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

I don't read her, but I'd probably agree with you. I mostly work by feel but I don't think it's useful in sharing information, necessarily? There's a reason I'm not a dog trainer and don't want to be, and also a reason I love my agility instructor. She'll break it down step by step and explain what and why and how. And then she'll, you know, get out of my way, pick up the targets, and let me do what is working for me.

I definitely agree though that there are some great trainers/doers who aren't great teachers, in almost all things. I really think they're two different skill sets.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I am actually a math major and I tutor my sister a lot and we run into problems because I can't explain things that are so obvious to me. I was originally going to be a teacher. That's why I'm now in data management and not teaching lol. I get to a point and then I can't explain. And then she gets frustrated because its not intuitive to her. 

I find in dog training a lot of exercises are things I have done and have been doing for many years without knowing it was a 'thing' or a method. I didn't know about positive reinforcement as a kid but I did it. A lot of the drive building games are things i did as a kid before knowing what drive was. Am I better at it and more efficient now? And do I now have more ideas on how to carry that concept further? Yes and i can explain it better now but the concepts were there before in the 'what just makes sense to me' category. I can't remember what the specific exercise was recently in an agility class but I had never heard of it before and yet it was something I had done forever. 

It is kind of frustrating because especially in my ring rental groups I get asked a lot why I do this or that specifically and not something else but I can't ever seem to explain it. I just kind of keep to myself because I just confuse people trying to explain. My art teacher used to let me just do whatever and he'd say 'I just never know what Lauren is doing but I just let her do her thing and it comes together'

Later on in art I realized that color theory was a thing and my color choices made sense scientifically but it was just something that 'was' to me. Dog training is the same. Theory has really reaffirmed and streamlined the things I've already been doing. 

I can't play a musical instrument to same my life. Fwiw


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

The flip side is things that don't make sense probably aren't going to ever make sense no matter how many times people take me through it step by step.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

It's funny because my husband and I are both engineers, both scientifically minded, but we both think the other is horrible at teaching. lol I know I am much better at explaining things that don't come naturally to me, like riding a horse or playing the cello. I am much worse at explaining math and science type things that are more intuitive to me. I'm also pretty good spatially (especially for a woman, since I do notice gender gaps there) but am apparently terrible at explaining spacial things. My husband always stares at me blankly until I draw a picture of what I'm talking about.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I am decent at science and math (obviously since I have a degree in math) but I'm an art person when it comes down to it. I'm kind of a hippy. I like feel and balance and energy. That kind of thing. 



> So, maybe I'm taking things too slow?? At a distance where Tyson isn't freaking out, work with him. Forget all the behaviorism stuff (gah, my profs would disown me) and just play / work with Tyson in the presence of the scary dogs. Forget Pavlov. Forget Watson. Just keep Tyson engaged and happy.


I would definitely forget Pavlov and all that. Or maybe just don't make it the focus so much. But like I said I'm a dog hippy, I think.


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

I definitely want the science and principles and the how and why does this work type of information, far more than feeling and art aspects. I completely understand that they're part of good training (and many other things), but until I have a solid grasp of the foundation, I'm not comfortable experimenting or following intuition. Some day I'd love to be the type of trainer CptJack and Laurelin are and just know what is needed for that dog in the moment. For me, I think that's a far, far distant destination.

So, closing the animal learning and motivation text and moving forward with more "art" in our training.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

I agree that I work much better when I know the whole picture so I can make decisions or tweak my technique toward the end goal. 

I find my work is much more awkward and sloppy when I'm just fed piecemeal instructions phase A phase B phase C. When I understand the end goal and overall process, I can string it together more effectively for a better overall result. VS missing things that aren't important now but might matter down the road.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

My agility instructor actually remarked about how much better I'd gotten all of the sudden, and all I could say was that it was because I finally knew what I didn't know. You can TELL me all the things in the world, but until I'm putting it into practice and really understand what I'm trying to achieve as a whole I just can't put it together as anything real. I mean for some of the pieces too (like I was talking about switches) but also just the whole. Probably really impacts my ability to effectively teach it to the dogs, too, though I had a really great 'get out' long before I learned how to effectively use that get out on a course (for something besides a barrel).

Also cookieface, I get wanting instructions and needing them but don't be too afraid to experiment. As long as you're using positive methods it's not like dog training is ever going to have big negative consequences. Worst case scenario really is you don't get anywhere and you have to start over.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

ireth0 said:


> I agree that I work much better when I know the whole picture so I can make decisions or tweak my technique toward the end goal.
> 
> I find my work is much more awkward and sloppy when I'm just fed piecemeal instructions phase A phase B phase C. When I understand the end goal and overall process, I can string it together more effectively for a better overall result. VS missing things that aren't important now but might matter down the road.


I am a big picture person, so I find that I grasp the overall picture and goal very quickly. But I am not going to figuring out the details on my own, which is where I tend to need help.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

elrohwen said:


> I am a big picture person, so I find that I grasp the overall picture and goal very quickly. But I am not going to figuring out the details on my own, which is where I tend to need help.


I think maybe I'm a bit of both? I can understand what someone is trying to actually say even if they're not explaining it well, and then reinterpret it to others in a way that makes things more clear. Especially for my boss. He is not good at explaining things. He often skips around, uses vague terms, etc.

I am very big on instructions. Like... following instructions to put together furniture or build Lego or following a recipe. I find the actual following of the instructions -fun-, sometimes moreso than enjoying the finished product.


----------

