# Formal Obedience.. Group stays



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Mods, if this is not allowed on the Dog forums, please remove. I am posting this because I think it is worth reading and, perhaps, worth discussing. I have been given permission to cross post. 

In AKC Novice and Open Obedience, groups of dogs are brought back to the Obedience ring for long sit/stays and long Down/stays. In Novice the owner remians in the ring across from their off leash dog. In In Open the owners mucst LEAVE the ring and the exercise is referred to as the Out of Sight Stays (sits and downs).

Recently there has been MUCH heated discussion regarding elimination of these exercises as occiasionally a dog will break its stay and attack another dog. Such attacks have been known to set back or even ruin a dog's show career (we are talking about the dog that is attacked.. the attacker is removed and usually banned depending on the individual incident).

One side says, "Keep the Stays and TRAIN your dogs!" and the other side says, "Not Everyone WILL train their dog and I do not want my dog in danger!" 

In response to this discussion, the Editor of Front and Finish magazine wrote the following and not only did he permit me to cross post, he requested cross posting when I asked him. 

This is, I believe, truly worth reading:

_"I'd like to express my opinion if you'll permit... 

In judging I keep coming across frustrated exhibitors who are having a number of problems with exercises in the ring. From my perspective most of these issues are related to the fact that few exhibitors seem to understand or have trained for voice control and attention. The basic objective of our sport is to demonstrate that dogs can be trained to behave in public. If exhibitors don't have voice control over their dogs inside a relatively controlled environment such as the show ring, how can they ever exercise any command over their dogs in public? In my opinion training any dog requires a certain degree of compulsion that the trainer must exercise over the dog. In short the dog must do what you say simply because you will demand no less. The stories I hear from the exhibitors lead me to believe that many instructors today are using methods of training which attempt to "encourage" desired behaviors from dogs. While this is appropriate in some situations, many trainers are entirely avoiding physical corrections touting that these methods are inhumane. Showing a dog is compulsory simply because an exhibitor decided to do so. Exhibitors are the ones requiring the dog to go to the trial. I've yet to know of any dog who entered it's handler.

One set of obedience exercises that are certainly compulsory are the groups. Dogs must stay in one place because they are mandated to do so. With much of what I call "encouragement training," teaching stays is inefficient, ineffective, and unnecessarily difficult if not impossible.  I haven't seen many dogs stay in one place because they were "inspired" to do so. If training methods today are so superior then why is obedience diminishing in size at such a dramatic rate? And more... why are so many exhibitors wanting the group exercises eliminated? Simply said, handlers just can't trust that the dog next to them has been trained to stay in a manner that mandates he will be obedient.

In addition to ineffective training methodologies there are a number of other issues causing a great debate about the group exercises. To name a few... a judge's attention to, and control over dogs during the groups; instruction regimes, handler knowledge and ethics in entering dogs inadequately proofed to stay, and inconsistencies in the regulation of our sport.

In the next issue of F&F Online we would like to explore exhibitor feelings regarding the group exercises. There are certainly diverse opinions on the subject and we want to hear from you! We will publish ALL comments received in July/August Online issue as long as the submission demonstrates RESPECT for the sport and is accompanied by the contributor's FIRST NAME, LAST NAME, and the CITY and STATE where they live. Contributors are welcome to include their email address if they wish, but it is not mandatory. Email addresses will not be included unless it is included with the text of your message. We have set up a special email address for everyone's submissions. Email your comments regarding the group exercises to [email protected].

Please pass the word! We would like to have an excellent response to this important debate!

Respectfully,
Robert T. Self
Editor
Front & Finish"_

My opinion? If I enter a class and I feel my dog might be in danger from another competitors dog, I will say something to the Ring Steward. If I really believe a danger is real, I will NQ my dog and walk as NO ribbon or point is worth endangering my dog. It is, after all, only a dog trial.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Oh My, this could get interesting. 


> One set of obedience exercises that are certainly compulsory are the groups. Dogs must stay in one place because they are mandated to do so. With much of what I call "encouragement training," teaching stays is inefficient, ineffective, and unnecessarily difficult if not impossible. I haven't seen many dogs stay in one place because they were "inspired" to do so. If training methods today are so superior then why is obedience diminishing in size at such a dramatic rate? And more... why are so many exhibitors wanting the group exercises eliminated? Simply said, handlers just can't trust that the dog next to them has been trained to stay in a manner that mandates he will be obedient.


I say dumb it down, give everybody a trophy and send them home. Isn't that what we do with kids now. In the "old school days" this wasn't as big a problem. I don't know why, just lucky I guess.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

I actually come down on the side of "Keep the stays and TRAIN your dog." I think they serve an important function and even if they are not perfect representations of a real life scenario (like hell I'm going to leave my dog out of sight in a line of nine other dogs in the middle of a busy building for three minutes), they are symbolically relevant. Will your dog stay in place if you aren't there reminding him?

That said, there needs to be some way to make sure the dogs doing the exercise have a reasonable chance of doing so, ie are sufficiently trained to that level, and if something does go wrong or slips through the cracks, that it is safe. 

I've heard leaving leashes attached and I like that idea, I also wonder if changing the shape from the straight line of dogs might be a good idea. Perhaps an outward facing circle?


----------



## Maliraptor (Mar 6, 2009)

I have not done AKC obedience, but I have had my dog attacked while on the long down on a schutzhund field, by the dog in motion. The handler just stood there and screamed.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Elana55 said:


> My opinion? If I enter a class and I feel my dog might be in danger from another competitors dog, I will say something to the Ring Steward. If I really believe a danger is real, I will NQ my dog and walk as NO ribbon or point is worth endangering my dog. It is, after all, only a dog trial.


I'm with you on that, no reason to get rid of group. If you don't like it don't enter.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I say keep them. I hate them, but not because they're dangerous. I hate them because they're boring.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Gertrude, get the popcorn!


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

I don't really think it's fair to blame the school of positive-only trainers for problems in the obedience ring. To me, that's what part of this letter seems to be doing. I know people on both sides with uncontrollable dogs. I know people on both sides with good dogs as well. 

If the risk in a group stay is too great for a particular person, they shouldn't do competition obedience. It's one of many reasons why I do not do it. There are risks in every kind of dog performance activity.


----------



## Bordermom (Apr 28, 2010)

I think using some sort of tie system would be ideal, so there is no chance of a dog breaking a stay and getting to another dog. Or change the test so that the 'stay' is still tested but in a form that doesn't requre 10-12 dogs to be loose and in the same area at the same time. Maybe an 'honor' while another dog does it's routine. Could be interesting, the dog doing a stay could be tied to something so it couldn't get far but expected to maintain the sit/down while another dog does it's heelwork, recalls and retrieves - and the dog working in the ring could be tested as well on it's ability to work with another dog in the ring too. 

Perhaps in novice the rules could at least be altered so that the dogs are nowhere near each other, I have been in trials where my dog was so close to the next dog that if he was slightly crooked when he went down, he'd hit the next person (he always rolled flat on his side, no matter how we trained it). I think the dogs should be around the outside of the ring, or split into smaller groups, or whichever needs to be done so there's at least 10 feet between dogs for safety. Yes, train your dogs, totally agree, but not everyone does and it's not usually the untrained dog who suffers.

Lana


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

MissMutt said:


> I don't really think it's fair to blame the school of positive-only trainers for problems in the obedience ring. To me, that's what part of this letter seems to be doing. I know people on both sides with uncontrollable dogs. I know people on both sides with good dogs as well.


I agree. It's like anything else...people taking dogs into public places that have no business being there. Shame (and by "shame" I mean severe consequences) on anyone entering a dog with aggression issues and/or one without distance voice control. I don't care if you train with a jar full of marshmallows or a baseball bat, if you enter an ill-prepared or otherwise inappropriate dog, then you are asking for trouble. 

I think this (from the article) is the biggest problem:

_...handler knowledge and ethics in entering dogs inadequately proofed to stay, and inconsistencies in the regulation of our sport._​


----------



## melgrj7 (Sep 21, 2007)

Why not tie the dogs just beyond the length of their leashes, so if they do break they cannot actually reach another dog. At least for the lower levels of competition.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

Bordermom said:


> I think using some sort of tie system would be ideal, so there is no chance of a dog breaking a stay and getting to another dog.


I don't know about yours, but my dogs definitely know the difference between whether they are leashed/tied and when they are not. 

The honor dog is essentially what UKC does for the down, though they still do group sits.


----------



## MegaMuttMom (Sep 15, 2007)

Nothing made me more upset than when I first took Cherokee to a beginner obedience class and the competition obedience dog owners would stand in the way with their dogs and meanly scowl and hiss to not let my dog say hello to theirs. I always wondered, if their dog is dog aggressive, maybe they should part the waters so the dogs who haven't learned their manners could get by. I don't think anyone who works an obedience dog should be proud to have a DA dog and I certainly don't think any dog with aggression issues should be allowed to be off leash in a group of dogs, I don't care how "proofed" they think the dog is. It is just irresponsible.


----------



## melgrj7 (Sep 21, 2007)

I don't let other dogs say hi to Lloyd in class, but its not because he is DA, its because he is working, not there to play.


----------



## MegaMuttMom (Sep 15, 2007)

melgrj7 said:


> I don't let other dogs say hi to Lloyd in class, but its not because he is DA, its because he is working, not there to play.


If you are milling about in the entrance that others have to go through to get to the ring and if a beginner class is coming in, I hope you get out of the way. I did my best to contain him but, we were there for a reason, to learn how to control his desire to wiggle up to every dog he saw. If they were lying about their dogs being DA, it did not help the situation 

Now we are in agility and I do not let him play while in the ring. That, I understand.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

MegaMuttMom said:


> Nothing made me more upset than when I first took Cherokee to a beginner obedience class and the competition obedience dog owners would stand in the way with their dogs and meanly scowl and hiss to not let my dog say hello to theirs. I always wondered, if their dog is dog aggressive, maybe they should part the waters so the dogs who haven't learned their manners could get by. I don't think anyone who works an obedience dog should be proud to have a DA dog and I certainly don't think any dog with aggression issues should be allowed to be off leash in a group of dogs, I don't care how "proofed" they think the dog is. It is just irresponsible.


This is interesting, owners, one new and others supposedly experienced competition owners/handlers. MMM is it possible since you were new, maybe the handlers were leery of your new dog to area. Did any of their dogs show any aggression towards your dog. Just curious.


----------



## Bordermom (Apr 28, 2010)

Shaina said:


> I don't know about yours, but my dogs definitely know the difference between whether they are leashed/tied and when they are not.
> 
> The honor dog is essentially what UKC does for the down, though they still do group sits.


True, my guys know when they're tied or not as well. But I think in the long run the 'work' would be very similar (remain sitting or down while owner is not standing there) and clubs could certainly invest in light lines for trials. I think the safety 'increase' would far outweigh any ease in the actual test for the dog. I know my guys would have a hard time sitting still in a ring when the dumbells start getting tossed...

Lana


----------



## Bordermom (Apr 28, 2010)

MegaMuttMom said:


> Nothing made me more upset than when I first took Cherokee to a beginner obedience class and the competition obedience dog owners would stand in the way with their dogs and meanly scowl and hiss to not let my dog say hello to theirs. I always wondered, if their dog is dog aggressive, maybe they should part the waters so the dogs who haven't learned their manners could get by. I don't think anyone who works an obedience dog should be proud to have a DA dog and I certainly don't think any dog with aggression issues should be allowed to be off leash in a group of dogs, I don't care how "proofed" they think the dog is. It is just irresponsible.


I would be one of those 'mean scowlers' too. I have very social dogs. Very. I mean go out of their way to meet and greet everyone, their dog, and anything else in life. When I do classes I'm there to work, and my dog is there to work, not to meet up and party, so yeah, I don't let them meet other dogs and say 'hello'. When we're done, if I know the dog and owner, maybe. But for the most part with my guys it's to keep them focused on what we're doing, and not who wants to party and blow off their owners.

Lana


----------



## MegaMuttMom (Sep 15, 2007)

wvasko said:


> This is interesting, owners, one new and others supposedly experienced competition owners/handlers. MMM is it possible since you were new, maybe the handlers were leery of your new dog to area. Did any of their dogs show any aggression towards your dog. Just curious.


None of them showed any sign of aggression, it was just people with snotty attitudes....... The set-up to enter our facility is not great, sometimes you can't help but be nose to nose with another dog if it's crowded. 
Currently, we have puppy class entering at the same time as our agility class, so, just to stay out of the way, I come in the back entrance. It's just too much excitement to start off a training session. Every time he gets to the top of the A-frame he stops to look down into the other ring at the puppies. He adores puppies........


----------



## MegaMuttMom (Sep 15, 2007)

Bordermom said:


> I would be one of those 'mean scowlers' too. I have very social dogs. Very. I mean go out of their way to meet and greet everyone, their dog, and anything else in life. When I do classes I'm there to work, and my dog is there to work, not to meet up and party, so yeah, I don't let them meet other dogs and say 'hello'. When we're done, if I know the dog and owner, maybe. But for the most part with my guys it's to keep them focused on what we're doing, and not who wants to party and blow off their owners.
> 
> Lana


This was NOT in CLASS, it is in the entrance between 2 rings where they stand around while dogs are trying to walk past them to get to their class ring. I do not let my dog behave poorly. I was coming to BEGINNER obedience and they were standing in the way, in a place they did not need to be standing and snottily telling people to not let their dogs say hello. I am not they only one in my class who was upset by the situation. I doubt their dogs were very well behaved before they had their first obedience class.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

I'm not sure leads left on dogs would in reality stop anything because of dogs on sits or downs are right next to each other.

As a young person the 1st time I watched a licensed AKC Obedience trial I was amazed at off lead work. The handlers leaving their dogs is an awesome exercise and on-lead stays would definitely detract from that. One of the assets of obedience trials is so Joe Six-Pack can see what really can be done with a dog. 

How about by making those exercises easier maybe future trainers getting even sloppier and lazier with their work. I think the quality of work goes down.

How could you possibly tie dogs, have a bolt every 3 feet to clip the lead to. Let's go further if you had a 6 ft lead that would mean each dog would have to be 12 ft apart because they would have length of their leads that they could feel free to move around on. Think about how these dogs could be attached so they could not harm each other.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

I agree with the concept that an extended down stay with owners/handlers not in sight can be a great test of obedience, but if there have been a number of incidents of aggression I too would be hesitant to participate.

How long are these down stays meant to be? Do they immediately NQ (I think that is the term, no?) if they break in this one exercise? Are the dogs separated by sex, size or breed at all? A fight between two intact dogs of the same size/breed type is a hell of a lot fairer fight than between a 90 lbs breed and a 12 lb papillon.

I'm afraid I don't know a lot about competitive obedience so I may just be prattering on here but I would think the dog's collective safety would be more important than a few points towards a championship.

I also have to say that, from reading about this same letter on several other forums, that several people have seen fights initiated by dogs traditionally trained, not just non-compulsion trainers...so the point about training METHODS as opposed to QUALITY of training seems like a biased and non salient opinion.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

melgrj7 said:


> Why not tie the dogs just beyond the length of their leashes, so if they do break they cannot actually reach another dog. At least for the lower levels of competition.


Because of this:



Shaina said:


> I don't know about yours, but my dogs definitely know the difference between whether they are leashed/tied and when they are not.





MegaMuttMom said:


> Nothing made me more upset than when I first took Cherokee to a beginner obedience class and the competition obedience dog owners would stand in the way with their dogs and meanly scowl and hiss to not let my dog say hello to theirs. I always wondered, if their dog is dog aggressive, maybe they should part the waters so the dogs who haven't learned their manners could get by. I don't think anyone who works an obedience dog should be proud to have a DA dog and I certainly don't think any dog with aggression issues should be allowed to be off leash in a group of dogs, I don't care how "proofed" they think the dog is. It is just irresponsible.


Dogs entering a class or a trial and milling around outside the ring are NOT there to play with other dogs.. yours or anyone else's. They are there to work. Your dog getting in their dogs face is rude of you, as the handler. 

My dog is not DA and most dogs working are not DA. However, ANY dog sticking its face in another dog's face can create a situation. Dogs greeting face to face on leash is a good way to start an altercation with a dog that has never shown signs of DA. In fact, Face to Face greetings (the ony kind you can manage on leash in a crowded area) are considered a challenge and rude by MOST dogs. 

You were/are in the wrong. The rule is, at a trial or any place with strange dogs, NEVER let your dog go up to other dogs on leash. Doing so is considered extremely bad manners. 



MegaMuttMom said:


> If you are milling about in the entrance that others have to go through to get to the ring and if a beginner class is coming in, I hope you get out of the way. I did my best to contain him but, we were there for a reason, to learn how to control his desire to wiggle up to every dog he saw. If they were lying about their dogs being DA, it did not help the situation


The ones rolling their eyes were the other handlers. Your behavior was bad manners. What I AM disappointed in is that no one told you this. 

People were not being "snotty" and their dogs are not DA. They acted like people do when someone around them has bad manners. 



Bordermom said:


> I would be one of those 'mean scowlers' too. I have very social dogs. Very. I mean go out of their way to meet and greet everyone, their dog, and anything else in life. When I do classes I'm there to work, and my dog is there to work, not to meet up and party, so yeah, I don't let them meet other dogs and say 'hello'. When we're done, if I know the dog and owner, maybe. But for the most part with my guys it's to keep them focused on what we're doing, and not who wants to party and blow off their owners.
> 
> Lana


Yup. This. 



MegaMuttMom said:


> None of them showed any sign of aggression, it was just people with snotty attitudes....... The set-up to enter our facility is not great, sometimes you can't help but be nose to nose with another dog if it's crowded.
> Currently, we have puppy class entering at the same time as our agility class, so, just to stay out of the way, I come in the back entrance. It's just too much excitement to start off a training session. Every time he gets to the top of the A-frame he stops to look down into the other ring at the puppies. He adores puppies........


Then he needs more focus work. No matter how much he adores puppies his focus whould be on YOU. 

Entrance ways to shows, matches and classes are often less than ideal (including at my club). Short leash and, if necessary, a Gentle leader. Do not let your dog go up to other dogs. Train him. 



Cracker said:


> I agree with the concept that an extended down stay with owners/handlers not in sight can be a great test of obedience, but if there have been a number of incidents of aggression I too would be hesitant to participate.
> 
> How long are these down stays meant to be? Do they immediately NQ (I think that is the term, no?) if they break in this one exercise? Are the dogs separated by sex, size or breed at all? A fight between two intact dogs of the same size/breed type is a hell of a lot fairer fight than between a 90 lbs breed and a 12 lb papillon.
> 
> ...


Novice stays are 1 minute sit, return to do, dow the dog and then a 3 minute down IN SIGHT. 

Open stays are 3 minutes sit and 5 minutes down OUT OF SIGHT. 

A truly trained dog will acually not breka the stay even if another dog comes over, sniffs him or even pees on him! 

TRAIN, don't COMPLAIN is one motto of obedience. 

Now, here is something to add. In real life, as a farmer, I often had to have my dog do out of sight stays. These were invoked if I was calving a cow (cow will get upset at sight of dog), moving machinery in the yard, and sometimes going to get another piece of machinery. Sometimes the dog had to stay where a calf went to ground so I could find it when I got back with the loader to bring it to the barn (fi dry cow calbved WAY outy there and calf refused to follow the cow and to walk). I truly USED out of sight stays. 

Now I still use out of sight stays when I need to move the car or trruck here at the house or if I am going in the house to go to the batrhroom or get a drink and I do not want the dog to wander for a few minutes. 

I think the point of the editor is that the pendulum on training does not swing entirely one way. If you never use compulsion, there will come a time when the dog will say, "Whatever" and break the command. OTOH if you never use shaping you have missed out on a good training technique. 

I believe he is saying that you need both to get a reliably trained dog that understands even tho it may be boring or inconvenient to the dog.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

Cracker said:


> Do they immediately NQ (I think that is the term, no?) if they break in this one exercise?


Yes



Cracker said:


> Are the dogs separated by sex, size or breed at all?


No, only by class (Novice dogs are only with other Novice dogs, Open only with other Open). For large shows they can be broken into multiple sets but it should be random draw besides the class level.



Cracker said:


> I'm afraid I don't know a lot about competitive obedience so I may just be prattering on here but I would think the dog's collective safety would be more important than a few points towards a championship.


It's not about points...it's a matter of maintaining criteria. If your dog can't do the OOS or even the Novice sits/downs without you being absolutely sure that s/he will, at the very least, not cause a disturbance, then there are other activities available in the meantime...I don't think the rules of the game should change because a few people are idiots...I think the consequences for being irresponsible should be strictly enforced and people held to a certain ethical standard.



Cracker said:


> the point about training METHODS as opposed to QUALITY of training seems like a biased and non salient opinion.


Agreed!



Elana55 said:


> Dogs entering a class or a trial and milling around outside the ring are NOT there to play with other dogs.. yours or anyone else's. They are there to work. Your dog getting in their dogs face is rude of you, as the handler.
> 
> My dog is not DA and most dogs working are not DA. However, ANY dog sticking its face in another dog's face can create a situation. Dogs greeting face to face on leash is a good way to start an altercation with a dog that has never shown signs of DA. In fact, Face to Face greetings (the ony kind you can manage on leash in a crowded area) are considered a challenge and rude by MOST dogs.
> 
> ...


Honestly I think this is unnecessarily harsh and a rather idealistic view of "open-to-the-public" training facilities. 

Yes having a dog who is getting in the face of another dog is rude. Obviously. Yes, you are responsible for where your dog sticks his face.

That said, we're talking about BEGINNER OBEDIENCE dogs. Have you spent much time around these classes? They usually are composed of dogs and owners who need help with their dog...usually young dogs with more energy than they know what do to with and owners who do not know how to channel that energy. That's why they are in class...they want help and they don't know where to go. 

They know they are not ready for trials, and most of them would avoid crowded areas if they had a choice in the matter. 

IMO the experienced handler who is at the facility to train should either accept this or wait to enter/exit through tight areas until the unruly beginner fiends have gone from point A to point B. It's one thing if these dogs enter your ring...another entirely if you can't be bothered with waiting for them to pass and jump into the fray.


----------



## MegaMuttMom (Sep 15, 2007)

Shaina said:


> Yes
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you Shaina. Cherokee was 8 months old and we had just rescued him a few weeks earlier. For goodness sake, of course I had no handling skills and he had no manners. That's why we signed up for beginner obedience! It is not helpful at all to just tell people their dog has bad manners. It makes you sound like a snot and, if you have such an obedient dog, move out of the way of people trying to get to class.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

I agree with you, Shaina. MMM, what you did was NOT rude. If people didn't get out of the way to let beginner dogs in, and then got all mad when the beginner dogs tried to say hello, then THAT is what is rude. If it was a trial setting, that'd be different.. but at a training club where someone does not know any better? 

I really don't like when competition people (of any sport) get all high and mighty around beginner people. Really very uninviting and detrimental to the sport of dog showing, IMO.


----------



## poodleholic (Mar 15, 2007)

MissMutt said:


> I don't really think it's fair to blame the school of positive-only trainers for problems in the obedience ring. To me, that's what part of this letter seems to be doing. I know people on both sides with uncontrollable dogs. I know people on both sides with good dogs as well.
> 
> If the risk in a group stay is too great for a particular person, they shouldn't do competition obedience. It's one of many reasons why I do not do it. There are risks in every kind of dog performance activity.


I SO agree! Rather than blaming training methodology, I'd blame the owner/handler. 

I haven't gone the competitive trialing route with my dogs, and all of them are trained only with +R . I KNOW Maddy can hold a down-stay with me out've sight for at least 35 mintues . . .because she was with me when I was injured, and had to go to the ER. I put her in a down/stay while they took me to x-ray, and was told by hospital staff that she hadn't moved at all, and totally ignored everyone who went by or went up to talk to her. Good Job, Maddy my girl. But, one of the things I do with my dogs is daily 30-min. down stays, which I enforce - NO getting up, down and stay means exactly that. lol Works for me.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

poodleholic said:


> I SO agree! Rather than blaming training methodology, I'd blame the owner/handler.
> 
> I haven't gone the competitive trialing route with my dogs, and all of them are trained only with +R . I KNOW Maddy can hold a down-stay with me out've sight for at least 35 mintues . . .because she was with me when I was injured, and had to go to the ER. I put her in a down/stay while they took me to x-ray, and was told by hospital staff that she hadn't moved at all, and totally ignored everyone who went by or went up to talk to her. Good Job, Maddy my girl. But, one of the things I do with my dogs is daily 30-min. down stays, which I enforce - NO getting up, down and stay means exactly that. lol Works for me.


I second that also, I really don't care how people train their dogs, but train your dogs so silly, possibly dangerous stuff does not happen. I have no trouble suspending an owner from AKC for life if their dog is the aggressor. I'm sorry life is short then you die. 

The amount of time needed to find a dog with the proper mindset to be a competition dog of any kind is long. Now add to that the time/hours/days/months and years to attain a championship/title of any kind is serious time.

Then have that setback when your dog finally has the proper amount of dogs entered in a match/trial etc and it's absolutely your dog's day. Your dog is mistake free and is performing with the style and panache needed to finish. You have 30 seconds left on a down stay and the dog next to yours decides to jump up and run around the ring and your dog goes with him or worse launches an attack on your dog. 

Well at the least maybe 4 yrs (or more) of work down the drain, at the most a damaged dog.

Then the new handler comes up to you later and says well I thought maybe he wasn't quite ready but I thought the experience for him and me would be nice. Oh then handler adds the now trendy "My Bad" I'm just sayin'....

Now I wonder if the above stuff could really happen in competition, it can.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

At the FIRST class in a Beginner training group (puppy or otherwise) the face to face dogs on leash thing should be *explained* and enforced. I said this here:


> The ones rolling their eyes were the other handlers. Your behavior was bad manners. What I AM disappointed in is that no one told you this.


ABSOLUTELY someone should have SAID something OR the rules should have been posted about the face to face dog on leash contact. 

If they did not, bad on them. I SAY SOMETHING if I am coming thru and there are puppies and beginners coming thru. It is a SAFETY issue not because dogs are aggressive, but because dogs WILL be dogs.. and prevention truly is 9/10ths of the cure. If I have to ask the owner to take the dog's collar to control them, I will say it. 

It seems that this is a common issue.. dogs leaving and dogs arriving for the next class. The facilty should, IMO, make the rules about dogs not interacting on leash clear. Fact is, also IMO, this rule (along with potty clean up rules etc.) should be explained and posted on ALL class material.

I found the editorial refreshing. The point is that enforcement of the cue, even when it is something the dog is less than interested in doing (we have all been ther have we not? Doing something we must which we would not?). 

I agree that if you cannot trust your dog to maintain the stays, regardless of why, the dog should not be entered in the class. It is all about the training. 

Train, don't Complain!


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

melgrj7 said:


> I don't let other dogs say hi to Lloyd in class, but its not because he is DA, its because he is working, not there to play.


100% agree. Training class for me isn't for socializing. I get kind of PO'ed when someone lets their dog rush up to Tag to "say hi", and I simply walk away and call Tag with me, and they follow me to continue letting their dog say "hi". If I want my dog to play with yours, lets set up a play date. Until then, class is for that--class


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

^^^^^^^^^ Yes.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

I always find it frustrating when the new people (even the not so new people) come to puppy class and mill about letting their pups play on leash with each other while we are doing sign ins etc. I realize this is a puppy class (not an "obedience" class) but it simply sets the pups up to be over excited and hard to settle down to start class. Puppy play time is at the END. I actually had a client from the class tease me and call me "Sarge" because I spend the first part of the sign up process herding people and their pets around to "walk laps" in the large room rather than have them milling about. I liken it to running warm up laps at bball practice. If you want the fun stuff to happen the work has to happen first. We often have shy or very tiny pups getting overwhelmed right off the bat by the people with the larger breed, more gregarious pups...this sets NO ONE up to succeed in the already stressful new environment. 

The difficult thing is that it is not "my class". I'm not the lead trainer so I'm limited as to how "sarge ish" I can be. This all gets added to the list in my head of what I will do when I eventually run classes of my own. These folks simply don't know what is expected of them. Informing them is important.

Okay, that was somewhat off topic, but I wanted to address the "class" thing.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

Intentionally allowed one's dog to socialize with other dogs in the training facility (before, during, or after class), especially when the other dog or his/her owner doesn't want to socialize, is entirely different. 

You can talk until your blue in the face and every handler in the room can be committed to keeping their dog until tight control going into and out of the ring...but you know, if the area is crowded (and it often is) even a dog who is being held back by the collar can sniff another dog or convey social pressure by body stance/expression. 

The whole point is that these are adult (or adult-sized) dogs with minimal training. They don't know what is expected of them and the handlers usually don't know how to tell them or how to enforce it. If they could learn those skills by being lectured at for one class period or by reading posted rules, they probably wouldn't need the class. These are the dogs whose owners come on DF asking about pinch collars, choke chains, gentle leaders, and various other devices because they can't even walk their dogs down an empty sidewalk without being dragged. _That is why they are taking the class_. So if you can't wait a few minutes for the hallway to clear so these poor people and their dogs can get safely into the ring or outside, then shame on you for griping...you put yourself and your dog knowingly into that situation, and being snarky with someone who is already stressed and struggling with their stressed/overstimulated dog is hardly helpful.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

Don't mean to sound like an echo, but amen to that, Shaina!


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Well this thread has taken an entirely different direction because originally it was an article about dogs that are entered in licensed obedience trials and aggression accidents etc and not about beginner training facilities and problems with brand new handlers/dogs.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

wvasko said:


> Well this thread has taken an entirely different direction because originally it was an article about dogs that are entered in licensed obedience trials and aggression accidents etc and not about beginner training facilities and problems with brand new handlers/dogs.


Don't they ALL take a different direction? 

And hey, it's better than yet another argument over CM or Pit Bulls..


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

MissMutt said:


> Don't they ALL take a different direction?
> 
> And hey, it's better than yet another argument over CM or Pit Bulls..


Boy, you absolutely got that right. I wasn't complaining, I just thought my dementia program had kicked in.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

The issue that I had with the Face to Face that MMM was discussing is it sounded like the dog was STILL DOING IT. She is now in agility and comes in another door, rather than learning how to train the dog. And.. the dog CAN be trained to NOT rush up to other dogs. I know.. I have the worlds friendliest German Shepherd... and I have trained her (took no little time).

Here is the thing... If dogs go face to face either by accident or ignorance and there is a dog aggression situation, that can be VERY bad. People or dogs or both can be hurt. Far better to PREVENT a dog fight than to HAVE a dog fight. 

Now two wrongs do not make a right. Of course the beginners are their to learn.. and because this can be a serious issue it needs airing and training. Of course people who come to class who have dogs and littile knowledge need to be taught. 

The point is two fold. 

First, no one of the experienced handlers said anything. They scowled because they felt the F2F dog on leash thing was rude. Someone should have EXPLAINED what to do, and why etc. 

Second, MMM assumed the rudeness was due to the Obedience dogs being DA and you know what we do when we assume... and then continued without asking about the problem in the class and, to this day, does not seem to have addressed the problem with training. I have never found AKC Competiton Obedience ppl to be high and mighty and I have been welcomed and encouraged by them all.. even as a beginner. IF I felt I was being treated poorly I did not assume.. I ASKED... and learned. 

The bottom line is this. F2F contact between dogs on leash is not a good idea. I do not think MMM realized that.. and with this thread perhaps she does now. More importantly, perhaps someone stumbling on this thread will also realize it. If my "harsh" comments wake up one person and prevent one dog fight, I have done OK IMO. 

If I had a highly trained Obedience dog in a tight situation, she would be under complete control. If someone else came up to her with an poorly controlled dog pushing into her face, I would certainly say something AND offer help if they did not know. I have done so. It was not always welcomed by ths person handling the poorly controlled dog. 

My FIRST concern is MY dog (as it should be). My dog is not aggressive. I do not know about the DA status of the poorly controlled dog. Prevention is 9/10ths of the cure and my job is to take care of my dog first and foremost. IF that is offensive to someone, too bad.. so sad. 

As to the rest... *the discussion really is about Out of Sight Stays and whether or not they can be trained reliably using 100% positive Reinf. and NO Positive punishment or avrersive corrections. *


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

Interestingly enough, the class I work at introduces a leash settle in our first class to help teach control of the pups during class (cuts down on barking, whining etc and as the head trainer says "teaches the pups, that it is not all about THEM"). We then, when teaching stays, eventually use the leash settle as a way to correct the breaking of a stay without recuing verbally. So technically the stays are NOT taught using only R+, but are reinforced/controlled through R-. 

I have not taken a pure clicker class, am hoping to do so this summer or in the fall as we now have a KPA certified clicker with a school not too far from me..and would be interested to see what they do with their duration exercises using the clicker. I do know that many R+ trainers (who are not pure clicker) do not use a clicker for long durations...


----------



## MegaMuttMom (Sep 15, 2007)

Elana55 said:


> The issue that I had with the Face to Face that MMM was discussing is it sounded like the dog was STILL DOING IT. She is now in agility and comes in another door, rather than learning how to train the dog. And.. the dog CAN be trained to NOT rush up to other dogs. I know.. I have the worlds friendliest German Shepherd... and I have trained her (took no little time).
> 
> Here is the thing... If dogs go face to face either by accident or ignorance and there is a dog aggression situation, that can be VERY bad. People or dogs or both can be hurt. Far better to PREVENT a dog fight than to HAVE a dog fight.
> 
> ...


Elana, you are making many assumptions here. First off, my dog is trained and can make it through the room without saying hello. He can heel off-leash when passing other dogs and people. You are not the only person who works hard with her dog. He can down stay in the agility room with other dogs that are not crated. This is in spite of the fact that he is a high energy gregarious, very dog-oriented dog.

I choose to go in the back to make it easier for both himself and THE OTHER DOGS who get excited with dogs walking through. I am mindful of how difficult it is for newbies to control their dogs, there is no point to me sauntering through their gathering. I have respect for other's trying to keep their dogs below threshold. Apparently, you don't get that!

We are talking about walking through a gaggle of PUPPIES. You are well aware of the issue of threshold and, in my instance, I chose to arrive in the ring without the distraction of all that happiness. I work with the dog I have and what is best for him. 

And, by the way, my dog never came face to face with that dog, and guess what, he is so dog savvy, he never approaches another dog face to face. He is smarter than that. There has never been anything close to a dog fight at my facility when I have been there. That woman was a snot, wether you believe it or not. I am not the only person at my facility who thinks so.

You are being both rude and presumptuous on this thread and I take great offense.

And, my dog has been taught a reliable down stay with positive only training.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Elana55 said:


> The issue that I had with the Face to Face that MMM was discussing is it sounded like the dog was STILL DOING IT. She is now in agility and comes in another door, rather than learning how to train the dog. And.. the dog CAN be trained to NOT rush up to other dogs. I know.. I have the worlds friendliest German Shepherd... and I have trained her (took no little time).
> 
> Here is the thing... If dogs go face to face either by accident or ignorance and there is a dog aggression situation, that can be VERY bad. People or dogs or both can be hurt. Far better to PREVENT a dog fight than to HAVE a dog fight.
> 
> ...


The above reply says it all and the problem is that all over the country there are obed. classes going on with some very competent trainers and for lack of better words the exact opposites. There are beginners going to all these classes.

I'm just adding this, yes there are probably snobs all over the country too.


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

I doubt that I have the skills to use only pos reinforcement to build a reliable out-of-sight stay. Any corrections I give are mild, as my dogs are soft, but I do correct my dogs for breaking a stay.

I am scared to death of the out of sight sit/stays. I have an amstaff. He's awesome. He doesn't start anything and he isn't reactive. However, at a show a couple of weeks ago, a belgian tervuren that NQed early and was a total spaz kept staring at my dog and lunging. The dog was barking at children spectators and the owner told the parents that their kids were acting strangely, eliciting the bark. I was forced to do my sit-stays next to that dog. 

I almost withdrew and I had had a very nice run. If I would have been in open, I would have withdrawn. I was afraid that the Bel terv was going to jump my dog, and I am relatively sure that my dog would have responded very poorly. As it was, the dog held and I had nothing to worry about. It's just, with my breed, I am very concerned. I trust him to hold as long as he isn't being bitten. But if bitten, he's plenty of dog.

I am preparing for open. I will do the exercises. But I will be very careful when watching the groups of dogs that I will be leaving my dog with. If any seem highly unreliable AND edgy, I will withdraw.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

On another list, someone suggested doing a "bank account" system. If you want/need to enter your dog in the group stay exercises you have to put a deposit down. If your dog breaks to go at another dog the breaker loses the deposit, if your dog remains you get your $ back. Any kept money is then used to go towards veterinary care if necessary on the dog that has been jumped. The idea is to discourage the "I think he can do it" people from entering until they "KNOW he can do it". The ones who have put in the appropriate amount of training and proofing are confident they will get their deposit back, the others may think twice before putting anyone elses dogs in danger. 

It's an interesting thought.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

If you are in a BIG show, and you withdraw before the OOS, you may get poor treatment form those trying to go for their OTCH points.. which are based on placing and # of dogs defeated. 

BTW I would PREFER to withdraw than have my dog hurt etc. so I would accept the poor treatment by the OTCH contenders.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I'm remembering more and more why I'm an agility nut and not an obedience nut.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

The OOS groups is a big controversy over and over and over on Obedience Group forums. 

In all reality, the frequency of breaks and attacks in this situation is quite small.. most NQ's in groups are from a dog getting up and going to the owner (or trying to) or changing position (going down from sit or going to sit from down). In one class I saw a dog get up from the down, walk forward 4 steps.. suddenly remember.. 'Oops.. I was supposed to be staying" and go back and lie down precisely where he had been. 

Most NQ's over all in Open are from other things with mistakes in the drop on recall being a huge NQ'er. 

I absolutely love formal obedience because of its training demands and requirements for precise work while maintaining dog drive. VERY challenging to do it correctly. I work hard with my dog (hours and hours). I am having the time of my life. Everyone has been helpful and supportive and it seems to matter not if the are mutliple OTCH folks or if they are other beginners. 

Oh you always run into a few people who are not nice.. but you do in every day life no matter what you do. I ignore them. In my limited experience, they are not the majority. 

To match the statement of "Train don't complain" I do. The idea Cracker has is interesting. I still say that you should not live your life in fear.. and to that end it is important to train really well and lead by example. 

And yes.. while I use a lot of Positive Reinforcement, I find that sometimes I need to toss in corrections to get the point across.. to be sure the dog understands "have to." 

Ultimately, I thought the Editorial by Mr. Self was pretty good. No one need agree!


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> "Train don't complain"


This is why I'm not a huge fan of obedience. It's a presumptuous statement, as if you're not training hard enough because you can't find a solution to a problem you're having. I've never been one for the "shut up and deal" approach. It's too frustrating.

When somebody comes to me with that response when I'm having an issue with one of my dogs, quite frankly I want to smack them. In my opinion, it's a rude assumption to think that I'm not working hard because I am lodging a complaint that I can't solve the puzzle.

Plus, obedience is just so rigid. Very sorry people, but there is no way stays will ever be "fun". You stay in one spot for 3-5 minutes. How riveting. I work it for the titles, for versatility in my dogs, but I'd be just as happy if it didn't exist  (Oh no! My dog sat a 1/4" out! Whatever shall I do?!" *DEATH!*).


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Elana55 said:


> As to the rest... *the discussion really is about Out of Sight Stays and whether or not they can be trained reliably using 100% positive Reinf. and NO Positive punishment or avrersive corrections. *


I don't have the answer to that, but it is an interesting question. It would be fair to assume the editorial's author has some personal experience on which to base his opinion, but that doesn't dispositively answer the question.

My *feeling* is that it's true. Not because it validates my choices, but because I get the impression that "positive" trainers trust their dogs more than those of us who use correction. I often say: "It's never a good idea to rely on a dog's better nature", and many of the R+ people I talk to think that's a terrible thing to say. To me, it's just obvious. It's just as important to me that my dog wants to obey; I only administer corrections to remind him that he does.

All the field trial and hunt test gurus I've talked to say that you should train a dog to one level higher than the competition you are entering. That seems pretty sound. They are also emphatic that you need to train with a group.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

I've got to be honest here. I'm a positive trainer, but early on when I got my dog, there WERE some times that I used corrections to train and proof things before I knew a lot about positive reinforcement. BUT, stays were NOT one of those things. 

I am extremely confident that my dog would not break an out-of-sight stay in a competition, if trained adequately with only +R before hand. In the out of sight and long stays that we've done thus far, her only big problem is dropping down into a down from the sit, but NOT getting up to go see other dogs or anything like that. I guess what I mean is that I think using positive methods only is absolutely enough to get it done safely.



> I'm remembering more and more why I'm an agility nut and not an obedience nut.


I'm tempted to put this in my signature.. LOL. I guess we'll see Mirada on course then. Exciting!


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> Plus, obedience is just so rigid. Very sorry people, but there is no way stays will ever be "fun". You stay in one spot for 3-5 minutes. How riveting. I work it for the titles, for versatility in my dogs, but I'd be just as happy if it didn't exist (Oh no! My dog sat a 1/4" out! Whatever shall I do?!" *DEATH!*).


Well I always thought force-breaking a dog to retrieve and steady to wing-shot and kill were a real pain in the butt, If you wanted a champion that's what had to be done.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Oh yes. I am titling in Novice and have titled my dog. I am working her (and have been for quite awhile) on Open and Utility exercises. Yes.. I am training well above where I am showing. 

And because I know where she is in her open and utility training, I know I am not ready for open MATCHES until fall and likely not ready for Open Competition until next spring. 

Ultimately, I have never put a truly reliable Stay on a dog w/o any corrections. I will qualify this by adding that I have trained about 20 dogs and every one had a reliable OOS because I needed them to have one in working situations.. not the show ring. 

Xeph:
No one would suggest you are not training hard. The statement of "Train, don't complain" does not imply you are not working hard. It _might_ suggest you are not working effectively if you are failing at something (and why we all need to get advice, suggestions or classes). 

I have seen any number of people working animals ineffectively... mostly horses on the trail, in the hunter ring and often in dressage. Every once in awhile someone would ask for help and I might even get the privilege of getting on that horse's back and giving it 15 minutes in Elana's Horse Training school to show by example what they needed to do. 

In the case of dressage, you are judged on a 10 scale and a 6 or 7 is a stellar performance. It is HIGHLY demanding and a good horse/rider team is a beautiful thing to watch (ever see a Grand Prix level kur?). I feel the same way about formal obedience. HUGELY challenging. Have you seen the videos of Petra Ford and Tyler? It is a truly lovely thing to watch.. and that is the look I want.. and why I work hard. I admit it is not for everyone (and so the advent of Rally). 

I will repeat, No one would suggest you do not work hard with your dog.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Here is a question off the rest....

IF you have trained your dog to do a reliable stay, regardless of method, woud your dog STAY (not go down from sit or up from down) if another dog came over and started to sniff your dog? Would your dog stay if someone walked past and dropped a clip board? 

Would your dog stay if you rolled a ball on the floor in front of your dog? 

Would your dog do this in any location you put him/her in???? Could you train it using R+ only? If yes, I will add, that is really great. 

Oh yes.. and if you could train this with R+ only, do you believe the same R+ results for stays would be possible on any dog you trained?


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I admit it is not for everyone (and so the advent of Rally).


To be fair, I don't like Rally either  I put on Strauss's RN, said "This is boring" and decided not to go on with it. I only finished the title because he already had one leg and I couldn't leave the title "incomplete".

Mirada will be doing Rally simply because, again, it can get her into the shows at 6 months and used to the atmosphere. I might even do the RA with her...I'd never do the RAE.

When I put Strauss in his first trial, he was ready (I mean he was READY). We had proofed for everything and all of my trainers told me he was ready.

I took him to the trial and he did BEAUTIFULLY....until the stays. His sit stay was absolutely fine. His down stay however....

The Doberman bitch we were next to had JUST come out of season (and yes, we had worked with bitches in and just out of season) and Strauss was just too tempted. He eventually got up >.<

You know what sucked most?

He was in 1st place until he broke that stay.

Part of the problem in training is that dogs do generalize. Not the same way we do, but they do. Strauss learned "Oh, I can't bother THESE bitches!" but the Doberman bitch didn't make it into his little brain. She "didn't count". That is one downfall of training at a club. They see and work with the same dogs all the time. They learn not to bother THOSE dogs.



> if another dog came over and started to sniff your dog?


Small dogs, yes, including intact dogs. Large bitches and neutered males...yes. Another big boy? Strauss wouldn't have a chance to get up because I would be on him and removing him so fast, the Earth would be spinning the other direction.



> Would your dog stay if someone walked past and dropped a clip board?


Yes.



> and if you could train this with R+ only, do you believe the same R+ results for stays would be possible on any dog you trained?


No, I don't. Every dog is different.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

> IF you have trained your dog to do a reliable stay, regardless of method, woud your dog STAY (not go down from sit or up from down) if another dog came over and started to sniff your dog? Would your dog stay if someone walked past and dropped a clip board?


I will say no to these, but not because of the failure of +R, but because of my dog's temperament.



> Would your dog stay if you rolled a ball on the floor in front of your dog?


Absolutely. Dropping treats while I am out of sight would take work for sure, but I think we could pull that off, too. She will not touch her food if I leave her in a stay and exit the room.



> Would your dog do this in any location you put him/her in???? Could you train it using R+ only? If yes, I will add, that is really great.


I think this is starting to stray away from the question of a reliable COMPETITION stay (perhaps you are alluding to farm/service work?), but I really do believe it can be done. 

I am not the type of person who gets upset with people for using negative methods. As Xeph said, every dog is different, and I am sure there are some that need corrections to be successful at obedience competition (whether I agree with that or not, depending on the severity of the training methods used, is a different story). What I do NOT like is when people start talking about positive reinforcement as if it is ineffective. There ARE obedience trained dogs out there who are winning who have been trained with +R. Maybe they are not the majority, not NEARLY the majority, but that does not make +R ineffective.

This editorial is blaming +R for the problems in the obedience ring. I feel that he has absolutely no justification for saying that. Besides, if there are dogs who are constantly getting corrected for breaking their stays, is it not feasible that THEY are the ones breaking their stay in the competition? 

It's all a matter of proofing. The problems in the OB ring stem from dogs who have not been adequately proofed, REGARDLESS of training method. There is NO reason why you cannot train a dog to stay put when another dog comes to visit using +R. You proof the hell out of it. You do it step by step. If one does not have time for that sort of thing, well, I guess that's their prerogative.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

FYI.. I'm not sure if I made this clear.. I am not including a verbal no-reward marker as a correction. I DO agree that those will likely need to be used by all dogs when proofing a stay. That may change (collective) your understanding of my argument.


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

The verbal "no-reward" marker is something that I consider a correction... I have never used more than that. I do return the dog to the original position as well. I also consider that a correction.

Otherwise, I have used all positive in teaching and proofing stays...


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

the only thing im going to say on this thread is

a. positive in no ways means permissive. nor does it mean complacent. positive only indicates that you make an effort to avoid using aversives unless there is no other choice. i am a positive only trainer and i dont 100% trust any dog, ever. because i know what dogs are like. not because of what kind of trainer i am. you know who you are whose comment i found really insulting. that's all ive got to say on that..soo..


b. i hope they keep them. im not a competitor yet but i feel like in anything like this with dogs...you take away challenge and you do the dog world extreme disservice. people use these contests to help evaluate breeding stock as well as for fun....


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

MissMutt said:


> FYI.. I'm not sure if I made this clear.. I am not including a verbal no-reward marker as a correction. I DO agree that those will likely need to be used by all dogs when proofing a stay. That may change (collective) your understanding of my argument.


This is where is gets very, very tricky to define "positive methods." I've been trying to find a strictly positive trained OTCH dog and it's difficult, everyone has a different idea of "no corrections."

Theoretically, I'm pretty sure the strictest form of R+/P- would produce a competitive dog. For extremely clicker-savvy dogs that "get it" I think it would work beautifully. BUT, in practice I'm not sure there's a trainer skilled enough to do it with a wide enough spectrum of dogs to be considered more than a fluke. 

So I don't know if the purest forms of positive training are really practical. At the same time, I don't think "I'm not a good enough trainer" is a reasonable excuse for using corrections.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> I am extremely confident that my dog would not break an out-of-sight stay in a competition, if trained adequately with only +R before hand. In the out of sight and long stays that we've done thus far, her only big problem is dropping down into a down from the sit, but NOT getting up to go see other dogs or anything like that. I guess what I mean is that I think using positive methods only is absolutely enough to get it done safely.


Ok now I'm confused, above would not break stays in competition. Below you say dog would not stay because of your dog's temperament



> I will say no to these, but not because of the failure of +R, but because of my dog's temperament.


One of the things I have always found interesting is I have met people through the years that mention how good their dogs would do if they ever entered them in competition. There were always a myriad of reasons as to why they never got around to it. The only way to really understand what any dog is capable of in competition is to try it. 

When I'm sitting in my recliner I have often thought how good I would look diving off the cliffs in Acapulco, Well maybe not.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

FWIW Xeph.. in my first show there was this little dog who was doing gret. I thought they had me beat and he broke his stay.. in novice... so NQ'd. Next day they Q'd. 

Go back and do it. I have seen UDX dogs NQ in open and utility. Every dog will at some point NQ. Ugh. LOL

I agree that going to the same place with the same dogs just won't always cut it. This is why matches are so important. That being said, I know that not every area is match-rich and I am fortunate in that. However, the match can be simulated at a dog park.. or just outside a dog park.. or any place there are a lot of dogs and activities. 

It is ALL proofing. 

MM.. No.. I was referring to a competition OOS. The reason for ANY location is that doing this should make staying for competition "easy." 

Again it is to be remembered (not by MM or Xeph, they both know this) that competition stay requires NO signals or words from the handler. You put your dog in a stay and do not say another thing.. no hand signals etc. and after the stay you return to your dog., walk around the dog to heel position and the dog is not released until the judge tells you the exercise is finished. 

At some point in proofing you will need to treat it like a competition stay. At some point it will be a competition. 

I was talking about aversive corrections (ya know.. the 'old way' of doing things), not a no reward correction.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Zim.. now that AKC is recognizing Mixed breeds in the Obedience ring, you have NO IDEA how MUCH I would like to see Pits in there and doing really well. It would do WONDERS for the stigmas IMO (including the stigmas I have heard from Breed ppl who I thought would know better). 

Seriously.. get some Pits out there in the OB ring doing open and utility and kicking everyone's butt.. be wonderful for the breed. ESPECIALLY solid OOS. 

That being said, I will also say I do not want them all doing better than ME  (kidding)


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Marsh Muppet said:


> My *feeling* is that it's true. Not because it validates my choices, but because I get the impression that "positive" trainers trust their dogs more than those of us who use correction. I often say: "It's never a good idea to rely on a dog's better nature", and many of the R+ people I talk to think that's a terrible thing to say. To me, it's just obvious. It's just as important to me that my dog wants to obey; I only administer corrections to remind him that he does.


I don't know if you folks will label me a "positive trainer" (I don't really get into the labels and terms for stuff like this) but I taught Wally to say with R+ and P- techniques.

To me, technically, P- is a correction (which is why that whole "100% positive thing sound like a myth, the minute they withhold a reward - you're not R+) as it's applied to reduce the likelihood of a behavior being offered (in this case, releasing from the stay on his own).

Wally has a pretty strong in sight/out of sight stay. I can leave him on the front porch and go into the backyard and there's a dog that lives 3 houses down. He'll look at the dog, watch its every move, but not move himself. 

Once he was in a down stay and a loose dog was moving around sniffing like 2 feet from him and he didn't move. He looked at the dog and back at me, but did not change his position or location. 

He's not 100% but he wouldn't run up to another dog. If that other dog came close to him, that is probably where it would break down as I haven't had much chances to practice that with him.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Oh Strauss Q'd the next day and took 2nd place (much to my shock). But the Dobe bitch had NQ'd before hand. I can admit that if she had been in again, I don't think he would have Q'd.

I'm still working on his CDX (no legs). We're retraining everything again, but unfortunately I don't think we'll ever get the title. He does beautifully at home/club, but there is something about the show atmosphere that gets to him now. He won't perform, and that is not something that is easily fixed (if ever).

I get great attention outside the ring, but like most dogs, he is leash wise, and the moment that leash comes off, he will no longer follow commands. We did not have this issue with the CD. He was totally up for it. Now he vocalizes incessantly and appears super stressed out.

Not much I can do about that :-/

Also, while AKC does not require you to say anything, I certainly tell my dog to stay before I leave him!


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

I know of no OTCH dogs that were trained under strictest R+ methods.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> Theoretically, I'm pretty sure the strictest form of R+/P- would produce a competitive dog. For extremely clicker-savvy dogs that "get it" I think it would work beautifully. BUT, in practice I'm not sure there's a trainer skilled enough to do it with a wide enough spectrum of dogs to be considered more than a fluke.


Why would it be a fluke?

If someone was going to use R+/P- on a dog, wouldn't step one be charging up the reward marker and then using it constantly on easy stuff so the dog would then become marker savvy, and THEN you can just use click or silence/no-reward marker to communicate "yes" and "no" to the dog?

Doesn't sound like it would be much of a fluke and is pretty much just using CC to OC principles.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Elana55 said:


> Zim.. now that AKC is recognizing Mixed breeds in the Obedience ring, you have NO IDEA how MUCH I would like to see Pits in there and doing really well. It would do WONDERS for the stigmas IMO (including the stigmas I have heard from Breed ppl who I thought would know better).
> 
> Seriously.. get some Pits out there in the OB ring doing open and utility and kicking everyone's butt.. be wonderful for the breed. ESPECIALLY solid OOS.
> 
> That being said, I will also say I do not want them all doing better than ME  (kidding)



i know a few who are ILP'd and competing as amstaffs...

We'll see how it plays out but i think i could get competition level performance using positive. i think it would just take some creative proofing and judicious use of subtle redirects...i bet there's a way to condition the dog to redirect to a default behavior when breaking another behavior....ill have to play around with it....when i get my puppy...


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

When you leave your dog you are allowed to double signal with a hand and a word. I always do both. No points off. 

In a show, KBLover, the dogs are 4 feet from each other. Of course, all stay perfectly... 

If a dog next to yours were to get up and BOLT, would your dog stay? (that is very hard for most dogs to do and we have practiced this at class with alternate dogs being recalled while other dogs stay.... or are supposed to stay...).


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Zim.. let me know when you do this. 

If I can be there when you are Novice A I will be cheering you on!!! 

(so much for those pretentious show ppl... LOL).


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

KBLover said:


> Why would it be a fluke?
> 
> If someone was going to use R+/P- on a dog, wouldn't step one be charging up the reward marker and then using it constantly on easy stuff so the dog would then become marker savvy, and THEN you can just use click or silence/no-reward marker to communicate "yes" and "no" to the dog?
> 
> Doesn't sound like it would be much of a fluke and is pretty much just using CC to OC principles.


What I meant by fluke is even if it works for THAT trainer with THAT dog, doesn't make it sound training practices. While yes there's complete acres open to individualization to the trainer and to the dog, in order to really be useful to the competitive training community at large, it has to be replicatable by other people. 

It's like, let's say you're a psychic moon person with a familiar you have a telepathic link to. You might win up a storm at obedience trials across the country, but it's still a fluke because it doesn't really help any one train better dogs. 

I am REALLY intrigued by the marker-savvy idea, it hadn't occurred to me. It isn't STRICT R+, but it might be the least... invasive? aversive? adversarial? approach.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Elana55 said:


> If a dog next to yours were to get up and BOLT, would your dog stay? (that is very hard for most dogs to do and we have practiced this at class with alternate dogs being recalled while other dogs stay.... or are supposed to stay...).


I'm uncertain because there's not much situations where I can practice with him with dogs running around. 

The incident with him and the loose dog shows me he might be able to, though that dog was doing nothing resembling bolting.

The closest things I've done to practicing what you've describe was:

-having Wally sit and stay while watching a family play with their dog (which includes chasing and fetching of course  ). I put him in a sit and give him a stay cue. Every 5 seconds or so, I'd c/t him. Almost like the Look at That game, with a stay component attached.

-having Wally sit-stay while another dog and his owner was playing fetch about I guess 6-8' away. Wally was doing fine until the other dog evidently took issue with having an audience and stood all erect and stared. He stood up and took a step but stopped and I redirected him back into a sit-stay and c/t him for sit-staying while the dog stared at him.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> I am REALLY intrigued by the marker-savvy idea, it hadn't occurred to me. It isn't STRICT R+, but it might be the least... invasive? aversive? adversarial? approach.


Invasive sounds cool. 

It's pretty much how I "crossed over" Wally and got him into being a "clicker dog" as my mom calls him (Wally's her dog - I just watch, train, and keep him company  )

I did it by charging up the clicker (and a second reward marker like "good boy" in case I don't have my clicker). And then took stuff he knew how to do, like sitting. 

I picked out a no-reward marker - also a sound that I could repeat consistently (I use the good old fashioned Aaaaaaaat LOL or ah-ah) and combine with with me withdrawing my attention from him for a little while. 

So if he sits - c/t. Gets him used to the R+ marker.

If he doesn't - then ah-ah and I turn my back on him for 10 seconds. That gets him used to the P- marker.

To get him used to P- marker meaning like "listen up, I'll tell you again" I redirect him to what I wanted. Then repeat the above. (sit, c/t, no sit, ah-ah, turn back, redirect)

That got him understanding my right/wrong communication and it's basically all I have to do/say to him anymore during training - or in "regular life". Say he's about to pee on something some kid left behind, I say ah-ah, he stops, looks at me, then I redirect him to a place to pee. He pees, c/t.

c/t = actually c/t or using the reward marker and rewarding him. 

I'm open to idea on how to improve this as well.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

> I've been trying to find a strictly positive trained OTCH dog


I've been trying to do some digging around as well. Someone I know said they know UD and OTCh dogs trained using +R, but did not give any names. I did hear the name of someone - Sheila Booth - who apparently uses a +R program with her Schutzhund dogs. Could not find too much on her, though, except for her books.



> Ok now I'm confused, above would not break stays in competition. Below you say dog would not stay because of your dog's temperament


Perhaps you are right. There are large holes in my dog's socialization and training from her undesirable puppyhood that could hinder her in competition. If a dog were to get up and go sniff her in competition, she would move, and if someone were to drop something in front of her face, she would likely startle. But, the point I was trying to make is that these problems are due to her OWN makeup, not the makeup of my training program. I think that correcting her in those situations, given her fears, would be a very bad decision and could likely lead to aggression (in the case of being forced to stay in a situation with a dog she was uncomfortable) or heightened object fear issues (in the case of the clipboard). I think you can condition a dog to not get up in those scenarios.. just not so sure of my own.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

MissMutt said:


> I've been trying to do some digging around as well. Someone I know said they know UD and OTCh dogs trained using +R, but did not give any names. I did hear the name of someone - Sheila Booth - who apparently uses a +R program with her Schutzhund dogs. Could not find too much on her, though, except for her books.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you are right. There are large holes in my dog's socialization and training from her undesirable puppyhood that could hinder her in competition. If a dog were to get up and go sniff her in competition, she would move, and if someone were to drop something in front of her face, she would likely startle. But, the point I was trying to make is that these problems are due to her OWN makeup, not the makeup of my training program. I think that correcting her in those situations, given her fears, would be a very bad decision and could likely lead to aggression (in the case of being forced to stay in a situation with a dog she was uncomfortable) or heightened object fear issues (in the case of the clipboard). I think you can condition a dog to not get up in those scenarios.. just not so sure of my own.


I did touch on finding a dog to compete with because of some of the problems your dog might have and other dogs with problems. Not all dogs are competition dogs. When we have kids we want them to grow up to be lawyers, doctors or NBA stars. Not trying to compare just give you a rough idea. Then add to that the right trainer with the right dog.Then the actual handling of the dog in a trial.

It's hard work and that's the last thing to add to the title hunt. Please keep up the hunt for positive trained OTCHs or any obedience titles.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

> I did touch on finding a dog to compete with because of some of the problems your dog might have and other dogs with problems. Not all dogs are competition dogs. When we have kids we want them to grow up to be lawyers, doctors or NBA stars. Not trying to compare just give you a rough idea. Then add to that the right trainer with the right dog.Then the actual handling of the dog in a trial.


Yep. She is not an obedience dog, and I have no aspirations to make her one because I feel that it would be unfair to both of us. She is an agility dog, through and through. And she is damn good at it. LOL

If not for her fears, I think she'd make a great obedience dog. She is very attentive and learns quickly. But, due to the precision involved, it stresses her out. I have no experience training formal-o commands, so that would make it even worse.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

That is true. You can usually train a dog to do most things. Doing it so the dog wins is something different. 

I have heard of Novice dogs being R+ trained but not so much at higher levels... and no OTCH. I almost think no UDX. The issue (I have heard) is the lack of consistancy of the performance in the more difficult exercises.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> lack of consistancy of the performance in the more difficult exercises.


IME it's usually the retrieves.


----------



## MegaMuttMom (Sep 15, 2007)

I am not well versed in the different titles but here is a page from the facility where I train.

http://www.masterpeacedog.com/Sugar.html

Is that the level of accomplishment you are talking about? If it is, I can talk to people there and see if she truly is a positive only trainer or if she uses any negative type reinforcement at all.

I have met her and her dogs. She is wonderful.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

So it's looking like to be good at obedience trials to the point of picking up awards/titles, you're "forced" to use P+/R- techniques to get the level of skill required at the title level of the sport?

If so, I don't know if I'm in same boat as Miss Mutt. Wally's fears are waaaaay down, but I don't want to risk bringing that mindset back, not after this long of beating the fear dragon. I don't want to hatch a new one.

If not and P- would be effective, then there's a chance. I'd just have to learn how precise and such the exercises are so I can focus the training. We were practicing heeling again with eye contact and the talk of staying got me practicing that again. I tried to get out of sight, but it was playground and nearby field so kinda hard  He did get to practice very long distance stays - probably about 50 feet - though.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

KBLover said:


> So it's looking like to be good at obedience trials to the point of picking up awards/titles, you're "forced" to use P+/R- techniques to get the level of skill required at the title level of the sport?
> 
> If so, I don't know if I'm in same boat as Miss Mutt. Wally's fears are waaaaay down, but I don't want to risk bringing that mindset back, not after this long of beating the fear dragon. I don't want to hatch a new one.
> 
> If not and P- would be effective, then there's a chance. I'd just have to learn how precise and such the exercises are so I can focus the training. We were practicing heeling again with eye contact and the talk of staying got me practicing that again. I tried to get out of sight, but it was playground and nearby field so kinda hard  He did get to practice very long distance stays - probably about 50 feet - though.


You definitely have to go to some trials to see what is needed. 



> So it's looking like to be good at obedience trials to the point of picking up awards/titles, you're "forced" to use P+/R- techniques to get the level of skill required at the title level of the sport?


Not really, the jury is still out until somebody finds a titled dog trained with all positive program. If not then the answer is obvious, some aversives may have to be used. I believe you are correct in your assumption. 

Then titled dogs are different than actual Champions a comparison would be the neighborhood guys going out to shoot some hoops and the NBA players.


----------



## MegaMuttMom (Sep 15, 2007)

MegaMuttMom said:


> I am not well versed in the different titles but here is a page from the facility where I train.
> 
> http://www.masterpeacedog.com/Sugar.html
> 
> ...


I don't know if you saw this, but does this dog count as a titled dog? The link is the page announcing the title earned.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

KBLover said:


> So it's looking like to be good at obedience trials to the point of picking up awards/titles, you're "forced" to use P+/R- techniques to get the level of skill required at the title level of the sport?


I don't believe that question has been settled. There are some dogs who would never get an OTCH whether you love-bomb 'em or dynamite 'em. Probably half the battle with any kind of competition is knowing how to pick a promising prospect. To win consistently, anyhow. It wouldn't hurt to have your own breeding program, with whole litters to pick from.

I've read of a couple of very successfull theatrical dog trainers who get most or all of their stars from shelters, but that doesn't mean you can walk into a shelter, go "eenie-meenie-mynie-moe", and walk out with Wishbone or Lassie. There's a talent to identifying star qualities.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

MegaMuttMom said:


> I don't know if you saw this, but does this dog count as a titled dog? The link is the page announcing the title earned.


Yes That would indeed be a titled dog.


----------



## MegaMuttMom (Sep 15, 2007)

wvasko said:


> Yes That would indeed be a titled dog.


Thank you for your response  I will ask some questions to see what amount of correction she uses, if any. I know in agility, we are not even allowed to ah ah our dogs. All mistakes are taken as our mistake in communicating with the dog or losing their attention. It is a very joyful way to train.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Well, joyful is good bordering on great. Remember the competition program of any kind is done partially for breeding. If your looking for a good working dog or companion buying a pup from parents with titles may just get you a nice pup if the parents throw some of their abilities to the offspring. 

The reason to produce a Bird-Dog champion is when bred not all pups will be competition dogs but should make excellent bird dogs for the average hunter. 

If an Obedience champion or titled obedience dog has the stability etc to do the job. Then the pups in reality should also make other obedience trial dogs and some good home companion dogs. 

This does not mean that there are not good untitled dogs having good pups it just ups the odds a tad.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

This is one Schipperke dog with a Utility dog title (BTW only 10% of dogs started and titled in Novice ever get their UD title). 

Now, to get an OTCH this same dog has to win that same blue or Red ribbon against many many other dogs in different trials under different judges to garner 100 OTCH points. In fact, the NEXT thing for this dog to accomplish is to qualify 10 more times under various judges (you have to go to the AKC website to see the particulars in the Obedience Rules) to go for his UDX. 

OTCH is a long ways off after earning a UD. Of course, with a 199.5 score this dog is well on it way. 

The question is not how they are training NOW, but how this particular dog was trained over its life time. BTW I train with a couple of Schipperke dogs. Nice little dogs and very smart. 

So, the question still remains: Are their any 100% R+ trained OTCH dogs out there? I believe not but a good part of me would like to see it. 

WVasko.. A bit OT, but MY goal, should I EVER breed GSD's would be to produce physically solid and sound dogs that are mentally capable of titling and working. Everyone who is titling in trials tells me that getting an American Bred GSD and getting an AKC champion on this dog in Breed is exclusive of a dog that will also work and trial over the years required to do so. One of my trainers is a GSD person. She gave up on American Breed GSD's when her 4th one was lame and could no longer compete at age 6. 

Meanwhile, I would LOVE to Ch. a GSD in AKC AND take that same dog to a UD or UDX. Personally, I cannot afford to go for an OTCH. Too many shows and too many dogs to beat to be able to make the personal economics work out.


----------



## MegaMuttMom (Sep 15, 2007)

That's Esther's third titled dog so, I will do some asking around at the club and see if they can help answer this question. I am certain she has positively trained her dogs from puppyhood simply because she is a trainer at my facility and they are fully invested in their philosophy.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> WVasko.. A bit OT, but MY goal, should I EVER breed GSD's would be to produce physically solid and sound dogs that are mentally capable of titling and working. Everyone who is titling in trials tells me that getting an American Bred GSD and getting an AKC champion on this dog in Breed is exclusive of a dog that will also work and trial over the years required to do so. One of my trainers is a GSD person. She gave up on American Breed GSD's when her 4th one was lame and could no longer compete at age 6.


The above has not changed one iota in the last 30 years. Old school police dogs 30 or more years ago were basket cases(not all but a bunch) They were not the type of dogs you took to a school to show the kids. When German import stock and training started to appear in the states the craziness started to slowly fade.

One of the knocks was in Germany they had what they called the "a stamp" this was a hip x-ray given when dogs were a yr old. Problem was that by age 2, 3 out of 10 dogs could turn dysplastic mild/moderate. My personal thoughts was that I would rather have a dog with a minor hip problem and brains than good hips and lack of smarts.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Meanwhile, I would LOVE to Ch. a GSD in AKC AND take that same dog to a UD or UDX.


We share the same goal, Elana  I'll never do a UDX or an OTCh because I can totally admit I'm too lazy to do it. But a UD? Scent articles = super fun!


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Elana55 said:


> So, the question still remains: Are their any 100% R+ trained OTCH dogs out there? I believe not but a good part of me would like to see it.


And my follow up is, why not?

What about obedience practically REQUIRES the use of aversive techniques making a R+/P- training method not be possible?


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

One word: Consistancy.

Consistant performance, no matter what, no matter where.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Consistency is unattainable unless using aversives?

So if I want Wally to consistently do something, I have to use an aversive on him?

Won't that risk bringing back his fearful nature considering he's a very soft dog, even now?


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Elana55 said:


> One word: Consistancy.
> 
> Consistant performance, no matter what, no matter where.


I am unsure what that has to do with either reinforcement or punishment.

Its a long held myth that R+ training is inconsistent and generally is due to the failing of the trainer not the method.

When it comes to competition the only reason to go to aversives is for the Handler's benefit, not the dog's. A CD titled dog is far better behaved than 99% of the dogs out there. There is very little reason to go beyond it for most, except for enjoyment of the sport. And I'll tell ya, the dog doesn't care if it has CD or OTCH.

Not to forget that most R+ trainers are going to gravitate towards the more innately reinforcing sports like Agility. Patricia McConnell's success with R+ herding dogs speaks for itself, so ill throw that in there too.

So I am unsure why people want an OTCH for the sake of getting it. If you gotta make your dog do it with aversives, what are you proving about a dog's eagerness or capacity to learn? If your dog can't do it consistently for a reward, then maybe he doesn't deserve the title (I'd be more compelled to say that the title is needlessly difficult but, whatever) and maybe he's not quite the breeding material you're looking for.

Some look at it as a failing of R+, I would see it as a failing of common sense and people's competitive spirit getting the better of their relationship with their dog.

Just my two cents!


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

I will point out though, that Service Dogs require more consistency, precision and motivation than most OTCH dogs. After all, they work 16 hours a day, not just at a trail. And the vast majority are trained using R+ methods and raised using Ian Dunbar's methods.

The difference between a SD and an OTCH, however, is that very few SDIT's make it to SD status. If they aren't completely perfect, they are eliminated from the program amd breeding stock. Competitors, on the other hand, (if this thread is any indication) resort to forcing the dog to win it. That appears backwards to me, and sounds like SD breeding programs are doing something right.


----------



## MegaMuttMom (Sep 15, 2007)

I asked at the club today and the woman behind the desk said she knows a number of dogs with UDX titles that train at the facility with purely positive training. She's not sure about OCH but she will ask. Her response was that she didn't know many people with the time, money, and inclination to go past UDX.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

I don't really want to turn this into a discussion of whether or not an OTCh is worth trialing for. I have often heard this same argument on R+ sites/forums.. essentially negating the goal because it seems unattainable by a particular methodology of training. 

I have a good relationship with my dog and continue to have a good relationship with my dog even while training for higher titles in trials. 

FWIW you cannot go far in obedience with a dog that does not have a good relationship with its handler. Dogs working out of fear or always because they believe they have no other choice do not go far. 

The top obedience dog in Open is Tyler, a lab owned by Petra Ford. Please watch her U tube vids at the international obedience competition at Crufts and her National Champion win (second year in a row.. which is HUGE) and get back to me about the bad relationship she has with her dog.... (I have NEVER seen a dog perform so consistantly or happily BTW). 

I am waiting for someone who is far more proficient than I to train R+ and get an OTCh. I am not saying it cannot be done. I am saying it has not been done _yet._ I believe the editorial says something similar while taking it further and saying it cannot be done. 

Train, don't Complain! 

IOW's instead of R+ folks putting down the title or its value to anyone, I wish someone who is an R+ trainer would step up and *do it using R+.. * and if it cannot be done because of methodology break downs, SAY IT (and WHY).. (AFTER trying to get it done) instead of trashing the title and saying "oh that is just _so_ not important...." 

Getting a recall on a husky may require some aversives.. does this mean the recall is not worth it? Does this mean the owner has a lousy relationship with their dog? I doubt it. It means the owner needed a recall on their dog. 

***BTW by consistancy I am referring to conisistant and equal response to a given cue (not inconsistancy in training or results). IOW's at a trial you need to dog to come front and sit facing you.. centered and straight. It costs you 6 points in Utility when he does not and there are several times the dog must "front." It can be a real point eater so the dog needs to know to come to "front" and be straight and be perfect and do it every blessed time it is asked. That is what I mean by consistancy. 

I have been training "front" with R+ (FWIW) but I am not a 100% R+ trainer. For this exercise I am getting consistant results using R+. I cannot do that with every exercise. I blame ME not the dog or the method. Just so you know.


----------



## txcollies (Oct 23, 2007)

Kuds to Mr Self for posting it to F&F. I agree with him totally. 

Keep the stays, I say.. Yes they are tough, but keep them... No more dumbing down of obedience.


----------



## MegaMuttMom (Sep 15, 2007)

Elana55 said:


> I don't really want to turn this into a discussion of whether or not an OTCh is worth trialing for. I have often heard this same argument on R+ sites/forums.. essentially negating the goal because it seems unattainable by a particular methodology of training.
> 
> I have a good relationship with my dog and continue to have a good relationship with my dog even while training for higher titles in trials.
> 
> ...


She didn't say anything about the OCH title being un-attainable. And she certainly didn't say that it was not a worthy goal. She said she didn't personally know anyone motivated to spend the time and money. Those are very different statements. She is going to ask Esther if she is aware of anyone who has earned OCH with positive methods. If anyone in our area has, Esther would likely know.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Only 10% of the dogs who get their CD ever get their UD (let alone UDX or OTCh). Most dogs in Utility at a show NQ. to get a UD you need three legs under 3 (maybe two these days) different judges with scores of 170 or higher. To get an OTCh you need to win in addition to qualify. 

No dog that goes far does it due to force. In Service dog training the dog may wash out as noted and be removed from the program. In obedience the same thing happens. The dogs are washed out by means of competition. 

In Novice, my dog has been winning in addition to getting Qulaifying scores. I am very proud of her. She sure acts like she loves it. You know the part she REALLY likes? going back in the ring at the end and getting ribbons. She goes nuts for the clapping and, after 5 shows, she has the routine down. She appears to EXPECT to win (and so she has.. 4 blues and a red).


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Elana55 said:


> ***BTW by consistancy I am referring to conisistant and equal response to a given cue (not inconsistancy in training or results). IOW's at a trial you need to dog to come front and sit facing you.. centered and straight. It costs you 6 points in Utility when he does not and there are several times the dog must "front." It can be a real point eater so the dog needs to know to come to "front" and be straight and be perfect and do it every blessed time it is asked. That is what I mean by consistancy.
> 
> I have been training "front" with R+ (FWIW) but I am not a 100% R+ trainer. For this exercise I am getting consistant results using R+. I cannot do that with every exercise. I blame ME not the dog or the method. Just so you know.



First, I don't think there is a *100%* R+ trainer. If the dog does something and doesn't get the reward - that's P-, and no longer R+. So if I was training Front and he came to the side - I wouldn't reward that - but it's not R+ either. So I wonder about *100%* R+ methods. I don't think I've ever SEEN this in action in or out of a competition ring or even "real life".

But I do think consistency in response can be achieved with R+ - and you're seeing it with your Front practice. To me, consistency in response comes from the dog being told consistently what you want and don't want, regardless of method, which is why the aversive = consistency implication caught me off guard a bit.

The question I'm wondering is not if you can't do it with 100% R+, but can I use R+/P- to get it done or would I need to go the aversive (i.e. R-/P+) route. I understand that question, so far, either seems to be answered as "Yes" since it seems that no known dogs have been done without it, or "We don't know yet" for the same reason.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> I will point out though, that Service Dogs require more consistency, precision and motivation than most OTCH dogs. After all, they work 16 hours a day, not just at a trail. And the vast majority are trained using R+ methods and raised using Ian Dunbar's methods.


I believe the reason they are all of the above is actually because they do it 16 hrs a day, every day.



> If they aren't completely perfect, they are eliminated from the program amd breeding stock. Competitors, on the other hand, (if this thread is any indication) resort to forcing the dog to win it. That appears backwards to me.


I surely have no argument with the above. Look at a hard running bird dog that points with style. It's manmade rules that want the dog to be steady to wing, shot and kill. The pointing is the stop before the kill as a cat stalks to get closer to prey to eventually leap on the prey. A pointer is bred to find the bird and pin it so that owner may walk up and flush bird so he can kill it. The natural instinct for the dog is to chase the bird once it is flushed. It's the manmade rules that add the other stuff.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

MegaMuttMom said:


> She didn't say anything about the OCH title being un-attainable. And she certainly didn't say that it was not a worthy goal. She said she didn't personally know anyone motivated to spend the time and money. Those are very different statements. She is going to ask Esther if she is aware of anyone who has earned OCH with positive methods. If anyone in our area has, Esther would likely know.


She just got a UD on a dog. I would not EXPECT her to say the OTCh is not worthy of being attained. It IS freaking EXPENSIVE to attain.. you have to show a LOT and be #1 or #2 with a LOT of dogs in the class.. so you have to travel to big shows. 

I HAVE seen the put down of the title (and formal obedience in general) on other sites and forums touting R+ as the only way to go. I do not think it helps the R+ cause. I think it is unnattractive actually. Don't trash the title or the competition.. even if it is not your cup of tea. I am not much on Rally but I do not trash Rally as being "unworthy." 

I agree TxCollies.. Keep the stays and train for it.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

When I refer to R+ training I am including P- as part of that on the "correction" side of R+ training. 

When I refer to a 100% R+ trainer I am referring to someone who does us P- and does not use physical corrections such as collar pops, prongs, and on up the scale to E collars and the rest.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Elana55 said:


> I don't really want to turn this into a discussion of whether or not an OTCh is worth trialing for. I have often heard this same argument on R+ sites/forums.. essentially negating the goal because it seems unattainable by a particular methodology of training.


You're using methodology and philosophy interchangeably. Anything that requires aversives to attain that is not a survival requirement is redundant. That is a philosophy many R+ trainers hold, not a method. Blaming the method because it's based in a different philosophy is incorrect. A Positive trainer would answer your challenge of "Don't complain, do it and prove the method" with "What's in it for my dog to prove the method to you?"

The answer to that is nothing, and it's not a cop out. It's a point being made. A OTCH titled R+ dog is not proof of the method, it is proof of the dog's intelligence and the handler's ability.



> I have a good relationship with my dog and continue to have a good relationship with my dog even while training for higher titles in trials.
> 
> FWIW you cannot go far in obedience with a dog that does not have a good relationship with its handler. Dogs working out of fear or always because they believe they have no other choice do not go far.


The use of aversive is to avoid punishment. So they believe they have no other choice. That's why punishment works, I'm unsure why you would argue that. I'm not telling you that using aversives is the worst thing in the world, I'm just pointing out that accusing a methodology of a failing due to it's philosophy is incorrect. 



> The top obedience dog in Open is Tyler, a lab owned by Petra Ford. Please watch her U tube vids at the international obedience competition at Crufts and her National Champion win (second year in a row.. which is HUGE) and get back to me about the bad relationship she has with her dog.... (I have NEVER seen a dog perform so consistantly or happily BTW).


Which really doesn't mean much, because aversive trainers use aversives to train their dogs to walk and act flashily to impress. And that there are R+ trained dogs that act meek. Neither is a representation of the relationship with the handler. 




> IOW's instead of R+ folks putting down the title or its value to anyone, I wish someone who is an R+ trainer would step up and *do it using R+.. * and if it cannot be done because of methodology break downs, SAY IT (and WHY).. (AFTER trying to get it done) instead of trashing the title and saying "oh that is just _so_ not important...."


Like I said, you're attacking a methodology due to it's philosophy.



> Getting a recall on a husky may require some aversives.. does this mean the recall is not worth it? Does this mean the owner has a lousy relationship with their dog? I doubt it. It means the owner needed a recall on their dog.


A life or death cue (recall) is incomparable to a title that no one _needs._



> ***BTW by consistancy I am referring to conisistant and equal response to a given cue (not inconsistancy in training or results). IOW's at a trial you need to dog to come front and sit facing you.. centered and straight. It costs you 6 points in Utility when he does not and there are several times the dog must "front." It can be a real point eater so the dog needs to know to come to "front" and be straight and be perfect and do it every blessed time it is asked. That is what I mean by consistancy.
> 
> I have been training "front" with R+ (FWIW) but I am not a 100% R+ trainer. For this exercise I am getting consistant results using R+. I cannot do that with every exercise. I blame ME not the dog or the method. Just so you know.


Correct, that's mostly what I am saying. People are consistently blaming the method for the failings of a trainer or because of a philosophy it was based on. Neither one of them has anything to do with the methodology, only the choices made in the implementation.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

> I HAVE seen the put down of the title (and formal obedience in general) on other sites and forums touting R+ as the only way to go. I do not think it helps the R+ cause. I think it is unnattractive actually. Don't trash the title or the competition.. even if it is not your cup of tea. I am not much on Rally but I do not trash Rally as being "unworthy."


This really goes back to what I'm saying. It goes both ways. Look at the article you posted, and many posts in this thread. You're trashing R+ method by using the OTCH title as proof. What kind of response did anyone expect from R+ trainers? Of course they are going to say that OTCH is pointless, it's not in their philosophy. Yeah, R+ Trainers are going to be more attracted to Herding, Flyball, Agility, and so on because it's more catered to R+ training *philosophy*.

If the R+ method wasn't attacked using OTCH as proof of it's failing, then there would be no reason for R+ trainers to dismiss the OTCH.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

I am not blaming the METHOD for failure. I am simpy saying that I would like to see it employed to gain this objective. Does it prove anything? No.. unless it produces the desired result and other trainers say, "Wow.. it CAN be done" and then use it to the betterment of dogs being trained to that title. 



> A life or death cue (recall) is incomparable to a title that no one needs.


A trial or a title is not a necessity.. but there are parts of the trial title that are part of what we certainly DO need in real life. 

This started with OOS stays. In a trial they prove a dog will stay no matter what. I cannot tell you all the times in REAL LIFE on my farm I NEEDED a reliable OOS stay for the dog's absolute safety and well being. Life and death? Yes. 

Hand signals.. drop on recall.. In a trail it just proves the dog will do it. In real life that drop on recall can keep a dog herding animals from taking 'em over a cliff (yeah.. I have been there) or from crossing something dangerous. 

Obedience, while it has segued away from its origins, is based in real life things you may need a dog to do. It was originally for hunting dogs.. retrievers and the like. The glove exercise was to represent a bird retrieve (so a dog that grabs the glove and shakes it like he is killing it gets points off.. he just damaged 'dinner'). Directed jumping and go outs were originally part of sending a dog out (like you do hunting) and directing him the route back (perhaps to not disturb other hunting). 

In this day and age we are a LONG way from the roots of obedience. An obedience trial is a test. Many (not all) of the things in that 'test' I actually use or have used in real life. The title may not be important. The training underlying that title, at least in part, is (or is/has been to me).

BTW I am a lousy philosopher. I hated it in college and HS. Give me math or physics.. as I prefer measure and rule.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Elana55 said:


> I am not blaming the METHOD for failure. I am simpy saying that I would like to see it employed to gain this objective. Does it prove anything? No.. unless it produces the desired result and other trainers say, "Wow.. it CAN be done" and then use it to the betterment of dogs being trained to that title.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm going to just make this one point clear, it was never my intention to make it appear as though the people who earn, or desire to earn, an OTCH are bad people who are wasting their time at the dog's expense for a shiny title. 

If someone wants to work at getting an OTCH, then whatever. I may not agree with the method but, I certainly won't be calling cruelty. It's still a better life than most dogs live.

My response here was mostly at the implication that R+ is inconsistent or not as good as P+ methods. That is obviously incorrect, as R+ trainers dominate many other venues of training (Agility for instance). That's all the proof the method needs. OTCH is just one of the many things that can be done, and one that does not cater to the R+ crowd.

All dogs need a recall, but not all dogs need a OTCH style recall. Most owners are content with a dog merely turning, happily trotting over dilly dally sniffing around to the owner's proximity. That's why I say a OTCH and a "recall" is incomparable. There's no points for anything in a regular recall, they just ask that the dog turns around and runs in their general direction.

Someone with a R+ philosophy might work to tighten it up. A better front, a better response speed, a better line. If his front is off, and the trainer can't get it to be perfectly lined with you.. well, so what? The front doesn't matter except in OTCH. The part that mattered was that the dog turned and ran towards you. After that point it's not life or death, it's just scorekeeping. A R+ philosophy trainer would see no point in the scorekeeping aspect because it does not benefit the dog, only the handler.

OTOH they would excel in Agility, because going through the courses correctly DOES innately benefit the dog. So there is a reason to work at tightening up all their twists and turns to get it juuuuuuuuuust perfect.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

The R+ folks attack the Correction based methods quite vigorously... (not that I have EVER seen evidence of THAT...) (on this forum for example...) (Ok.. I am whistling past the graveyard now).  

The editorial says something to that.. but I would just like to SEE someone do this with R+. Not to verify or villify the method.. but to attain this title so that more might find ways to use R+ methods. _ I am saying this and saying I have not been able to train exclusively R+ and get results.. it does not mean the method is bad.. it means I have not figured out how to use it more effectively. I think?_

OTCh is a huge accomplishment. IF someone gets an OTCh other people in Formal Obedience sit up and take notice.. they watch their methods and adapt those methods to their own dog as the pursue the OTCh. My goodness, if OTCh titles CAN be trained for and attained using R+ would that not be a good day for dogs? Would we all not learn something? 

And, in the end, is that not what we want to see in competition? A well trained dog that happily does what we ask regardless of the goals we set (OTCh, FTC, fly ball, agility, Rally etc.)?

And if an OTCh cannot be obtained w/o aversives, do we not learn something from that as well? Don't we add to knowledge base either way? 

Oh my.. I think this is philosophy so you probably have me beat w/o even using a correction.....


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

RBark said:


> I'm going to just make this one point clear, it was never my intention to make it appear as though the people who earn, or desire to earn, an OTCH are bad people who are wasting their time at the dog's expense for a shiny title.
> 
> If someone wants to work at getting an OTCH, then whatever. I may not agree with the method but, I certainly won't be calling cruelty. It's still a better life than most dogs live.
> 
> My response here was mostly at the implication that R+ is inconsistent or not as good as P+ methods. That is obviously incorrect, as R+ trainers dominate many other venues of training (Agility for instance). That's all the proof the method needs. OTCH is just one of the many things that can be done, and one that does not cater to the R+ crowd.


I am simply wondering if it CAN be done with R+. 



> All dogs need a recall, but not all dogs need a OTCH style recall. Most owners are content with a dog merely turning, happily trotting over dilly dally sniffing around to the owner's proximity. That's why I say a OTCH and a "recall" is incomparable. There's no points for anything in a regular recall, they just ask that the dog turns around and runs in their general direction.
> 
> Someone with a R+ philosophy might work to tighten it up. A better front, a better response speed, a better line. If his front is off, and the trainer can't get it to be perfectly lined with you.. well, so what? The front doesn't matter except in OTCH. The part that mattered was that the dog turned and ran towards you. After that point it's not life or death, it's just scorekeeping. A R+ philosophy trainer would see no point in the scorekeeping aspect because it does not benefit the dog, only the handler.
> 
> OTOH they would excel in Agility, because going through the courses correctly DOES innately benefit the dog. So there is a reason to work at tightening up all their twists and turns to get it juuuuuuuuuust perfect.


Agility titling is no more benefit than obedience is what I am getting out of this.. If you want an obedience title you work to perfect performance. If you want an agility title you perfect preformance. The benefit is to the handler. I know of dogs who do not enjoy agility and do enjoy obedience.. so the benefit to the dog is hardly measured? I may have missed something here.

I think you are may be comparing apples and oranges. What a pet dog owner wants and accepts is different. Heck.. most people can never let their dog off leash and get ANY recall. I understand that. Most pet owners do not perfect performance.. not even close. That is not part of this (or the letter originally posted). 

What a competiton dog owner wants is vastly different. 

What a working dog owner wants is also different.. be it service dog or cattle dog... 

And to those ends we train dogs. ???


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

I know that R+ people attack correction based methods. Which is basically my point here. It goes both ways.



> And if an OTCh cannot be obtained w/o aversives, do we not learn something from that as well? Don't we add to knowledge base either way?


It adds knowledge but, the issue is _what_ do we learn from it? It's easy to point it as R+ not being as reliable as correction based. But that's looking through a very very tiny tunnel at a big picture. There might be a million reasons for this, which is the point I'm trying to make. If the R+ philosophy encourages R+ trainers to ignore the OTCH, then the reason R+ trainers are not winning OTCH's is because very few of them are competiting for it versus correction based trainers.

If we are desiring to learn whether the method works in OTCH or not, then you're going to have to do one hell of a survey. You're going to need to find out how many correction based trainers are competing for OTCH, and you'll need to find out how many R+ trainers are competing for OTCH, and you'll have to break it down to percentages. If there's 1 R+ trainer competing for every 500 P+ trainers, and only 1 in 200 overall trainers win OTCH, then there's a 1 in 100,000 chance of finding a OTCH titled R+ trainer. This is assuming there is not one already.

So what would we learn from there being no OTCH R+ trained dogs? That there's no interest in getting it, not that R+ can't do it. So the lack of R+ OTCH trainers doesn't really say anything.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

> Agility titling is no more benefit than obedience is what I am getting out of this.. If you want an obedience title you work to perfect performance. If you want an agility title you perfect preformance. The benefit is to the handler. I know of dogs who do not enjoy agility and do enjoy obedience.. so the benefit to the dog is hardly measured? I may have missed something here.


I'm not saying agility titles have more value than OTCH. The point I'm making is that Agility, as a sport, is set up to encourage R+ training. That's a generalization, obviously, because not everyone in agility uses R+. It is one heck of an accomplishment to get the very top title in it, and just like in OTCH, very few dogs get it. Why is this? Because the sport provides an environment for R+ training to thrive where Obedience does not do so.



> I think you are may be comparing apples and oranges. What a pet dog owner wants and accepts is different. Heck.. most people can never let their dog off leash and get ANY recall. I understand that. Most pet owners do not perfect performance.. not even close. That is not part of this (or the letter originally posted).


Right, they want the basic essentials, they want a sit, they dont care HOW a dog sits. They want a down, but they don't care if it's tucked. And so on. I'm not comparing basic obedience to OTCH, I'm explaining why I say OTCH is not needed, despite having basis in life skills. OTCH cares about how a dog does things, basic owners don't. How a dog sits is not needed, even if the basic skill is.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

RBark said:


> *If the R+ philosophy encourages R+ trainers to ignore the OTCH, then the reason R+ trainers are not winning OTCH's is because very few of them are competiting for it versus correction based trainers.*
> 
> ...
> 
> So what would we learn from there being no OTCH R+ trained dogs? That there's no interest in getting it, not that R+ can't do it. So the lack of R+ OTCH trainers doesn't really say anything.


The bold is a big thing for me. The field is heavily biased towards R-/P+ and yes I know that a good many people are incorporating R+ into the early stages of their training but still. Have you seen the people at an obedience trial? These are predominately people who have been training, showing, and winning since long before I was even born. 

"If you keep doing what you've always done, you get what you've always gotten." What these people are doing _works_ for them. Of course they aren't going to change their methods! There's no need for them to. I don't know, maybe it's just my area (apparently Wisconsin is super competitive for Obedience?) but it's an old boy's club. Well, lady's. I'm not trying to say they're wrong in what they're doing, just that it's not really a center of innovation. Compare the newer sports, where the metagame is still evolving.





RBark said:


> If we are desiring to learn whether the method works in OTCH or not, then you're going to have to do one hell of a survey. You're going to need to find out how many correction based trainers are competing for OTCH, and you'll need to find out how many R+ trainers are competing for OTCH, and you'll have to break it down to percentages. If there's 1 R+ trainer competing for every 500 P+ trainers, and only 1 in 200 overall trainers win OTCH, then there's a 1 in 100,000 chance of finding a OTCH titled R+ trainer. This is assuming there is not one already.


I've actually toyed around the the idea of a survey, but I've come to the conclusion I wouldn't be able to conclude anything from it without funding and support, maybe from the AKC itself. 



Elana55 said:


> The editorial says something to that.. but I would just like to SEE someone do this with R+. Not to verify or villify the method.. but to attain this title so that more might find ways to use R+ methods. I am saying this and saying I have not been able to train exclusively R+ and get results.. it does not mean the method is bad.. it means I have not figured out how to use it more effectively. I think?


I would really, really like to do this. To me, dismissing Obedience titles because they don't cater to R+ methods/philosophies IS a cop out. It feels... fatalist? to say, "Oh, in this area it's impossible to succeed your way, you must do it mine." And I just don't buy that. For me, the argument goes something like this:

Why do you administer a correction? Because the dog did not do what I asked.
Why did the dog not do what I asked? Something else was more reinforcing than doing what I asked.
Why was something else more reinforcing than me? Because I failed to make myself more reinforcing.
So it doesn't seem fair to me to correct the dog for MY mistake.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

> "If you keep doing what you've always done, you get what you've always gotten." What these people are doing works for them. Of course they aren't going to change their methods! There's no need for them to. I don't know, maybe it's just my area (apparently Wisconsin is super competitive for Obedience?) but it's an old boy's club. Well, lady's. I'm not trying to say they're wrong in what they're doing, just that it's not really a center of innovation. Compare the newer sports, where the metagame is still evolving.


I wonder if this is why the agility crowd relies much heavier of R+ than the obedience crowd does. I do think that agility is self-reinforcing, which makes using R+ easier, BUT I also see an age difference between people at OB trials and people at agility trials, AND agility is newer than obedience and therefore a different set - a "new breed," if you will - of dog trainers are the ones who got involved with it.


----------



## MegaMuttMom (Sep 15, 2007)

Just one funny side note. In our very first obedience classes, the trainer was mystified and thrilled that Cherokee has a natural come to front and sit on recall. It's nothing I taught, it's just the way he does it. He still does it to this day. Off leash in the woods, in the house, in agility, if I ask him to come he comes to front and center and sits. He probably would love doing obedience, he loves knowing exactly what I expect but, I didn't find it fun to do with him. I am a fast moving person with a fast moving dog, agility just fits us both.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Elana55 said:


> OTCh is a huge accomplishment. IF someone gets an OTCh other people in Formal Obedience sit up and take notice.. they watch their methods and adapt those methods to their own dog as the pursue the OTCh. My goodness, if OTCh titles CAN be trained for and attained using R+ would that not be a good day for dogs? Would we all not learn something?
> 
> And, in the end, is that not what we want to see in competition? A well trained dog that happily does what we ask regardless of the goals we set (OTCh, FTC, fly ball, agility, Rally etc.)?
> 
> And if an OTCh cannot be obtained w/o aversives, do we not learn something from that as well? Don't we add to knowledge base either way?



Agreed - confirming or denying that R+ can work to reach this level in the sport would help clear up the picture. 


BTW - for some reason I can picture you using Atka's whole name when you correct her.

"Flaglerhaus Atka GSD, get your fuzzy rear in gear and get it right!"


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> apparently Wisconsin is super competitive for Obedience?


*EXTREMELY!!!!* And some of the best competitors have come from my club over the years xD


----------



## melgrj7 (Sep 21, 2007)

I am pretty sure I have never given Lloyd a correction on stays (in other things I have). He will stay with dogs running in heel around him while I am out of the room, with balls being rolled past his face, with a kid jumping over him, with a metal chair being knocked over. He will stay while I have Nash use him as a jump. He will stay as I fling pieces of meat and cheese around him. He will stay as I run back and froth next to him. He will stay if I leave the room and several other people enter and exit the room while I am out of sight. He will stay if anyone he doesn't know tries to call him (anyone other than family, I will not teach him to not come when family calls him).


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

> ReaganW said:
> I would really, really like to do this. To me, dismissing Obedience titles because they don't cater to R+ methods/philosophies IS a cop out.


Train, don't complain!!! 

That is my point. The editor of F&F is saying that R+ is too permissive and that is why so many more dogs are breaking OOS in group. While I think it goes beyond that to a cultural thing (people not wanting to work as hard as the need to to get it done) it would be NICE to have someone go ALL the WAY using R+ _if it can be done._

And yes, MM there is an age diffeerence, but not always. My last trial I had to beat a kid.. maybe in her teens. I was HOPING she would kick my butt.... you have NO idea how much I wanted HER to get the blue. She Qual'd but did not place. 

Meanwhile, my dog would like agility. I am not sure I could keep up as she is like lightning. I have one knee missing parts and arthritis and bone spurs enough we could probably make a whole 'nother skeleton with the extra! There are days when walking is just a painful call. I limp and roll when I walk which can mess with my dog in obedience. Trainers are forever telling me to move faster and I do hike it along.. and I hike it along as fast as I can. The Fast (where I need to run) is not so good because I cannot REALLY run. I used to LOVE to run but those days were done in 1986 when a horse kicked me and I had to have knee surgery.. and a second one in 1989. There may be a reason I do obedience.. and there may be a reason "older" ppl are doing it. 

We may be YOUR competitive future <GASP>.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Will Loyd hold that stay no matter where you go with him? 

BTW that is a lot of distractions and it is good he will stay like that. My question is essentially one about proofing.


----------



## melgrj7 (Sep 21, 2007)

Elana55 said:


> Will Loyd hold that stay no matter where you go with him?
> 
> BTW that is a lot of distractions and it is good he will stay like that. My question is essentially one about proofing.


So far he has held it in many places (this is after lots of work). The longest I have ever had him do an out of site down stay was 10 minutes, in petsmart. The employees helped me by trying to bribe him with treats and balls (this dog is ball _nuts_, he literally vibrates when he sees a tennis ball), and walking up to him to pet him. He held his stay though We also practice heeling through tennis balls on the floor, and along the cages of the small animals in the store (he also has a very high prey drive, this is hard for him). We stay far enough away so I don't give the rabbits heart attacks, but still. In class he will hold a down stay while dogs heel around him. He even once held a down stay at work while a new puppy was jumping around on him. The puppy was a bit shy, so I brought Lloyd in and put him in a down stay to the make the puppy feel more comfortable. He held that down stay with a puppy jumping on him and biting at his ears!


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

THAT folks, is REAL proofing. OOS at petsmart is most excellent. 

My next question....
So are you going to get Lloyd a number (if he is Mix breed or rescue etc.) from AKC and come on over and try for some titles? Come and kick some butt!!! 

A title on a dog is really honoring the dog. It is a permanent record of the dog's accomplishments. We can write our dogs in our hearts, which we all do... but a title will out live the dog and us. 

I do it because it is fascinating to train the dog (we have a LOT of fun getting it right and I enjpoy trying to figure out how to communicate to the dog what is needed... once you get the communication down the dog will usually do it). I also do it because it is a lot of fun. Last.. I do it because it honors the dog and leaves a record that can outlast both hers and my time.


----------



## melgrj7 (Sep 21, 2007)

Elana55 said:


> THAT folks, is REAL proofing. OOS at petsmart is most excellent.
> 
> My next question....
> So are you going to get Lloyd a number (if he is Mix breed or rescue etc.) from AKC and come on over and try for some titles? Come and kick some butt!!!


Lloyd is a mixed breed. Yes I am planning to compete with him. Hopefully we will get our CD this summer or in the fall, it depends on $$ and where/when trials are that allow mixed breeds. We will probably enroll him in the mixed breed program next month when we are a little more caught up $ wise (we just paid of the last of our debt, so we are pretty sort for the next couple of weeks). I hope to trial him to as high as I can. He does an _excellent _heel, this dog actually loves to heel, its kinda weird, lol. He does all the sits downs and stays. He does the broad jump (with me next to it), he does send aways and directed jumping. Great figure 8's, we practice them with the posts being handlers with dogs in sitting heel position. We still have to get a better retrieve, but he does retrieve and give a nice straight front. He has great drop on recalls. The main thing we have a problem with is the stand for exam, he tends to move at least one foot slightly. We have been working on it though using opposition reflex to get him to plant his feet, it seems to be working well. It think he will do well in competition (he loves showing off for a crowd too), I might mess up though, lol.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

We have a woman in class with a mix breed she is going to put in Novice. 

So come on out and KICK BUTT! 

(Oh wait.. we "obedience" people are supposed to be all uppity and stuff..... LOL)


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

When did mix breeds come into this?


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

April 1. The AKC board changed it last winter or fall. 

There is a thread on this site somewhere about it. I am not FOR it (AKC is to promote pure bred dogs). But, like many things, someone else decided it regardless. 

To that end, my attitude is FINE. Thems the rules, bring it on all you mix breed folks! Get a rule book and run with it. And if you can do it with a clicker, then DO IT. If you have a better way, SHOW IT to everyone! 

And if you beat my score in the ring, then I have to work harder and GOOD 4U cuz obedience isn't 'zactly easy.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

Yeah all I'm saying is that in the context of this thread, mix breeds have been competing, and very successfully, in formal obedience for years. This is nothing new and hardly something that still needs to be proved. The American Kennel Club's interest in their entry dollar is the only new factor there.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

NO one said they have not been competing. They have not in AKC under AKC judging. That is the only difference. 

Never said they had anything to "prove." Just inviting them to join the party and have some fun. <shrug>


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Elana55 said:


> There is a thread on this site somewhere about it. I am not FOR it (AKC is to promote pure bred dogs). But, like many things, someone else decided it regardless.


Well, if AKC recognized the same dogs as UKC...

The fact I would have to register Wally like he was a mix (no offense to mixes - but he's pure bred) rubs me the wrong way a bit.

Anyway I've been considering it - I need to get the rules again and whatnot.


----------



## pamperedpups (Dec 7, 2006)

Here's an excerpt from an interview at http://www.clickersolutions.com/interviews/spector.htm with Morgan Spector:

"I know there is at least one clicker-trained OTCH dog, not including Patty Ruzzo's dog Luca (I would call Patty, like Dawn Jecs, an operant trainer who doesn't use the clicker and so I include them in our community)."

Perhaps, Elana, you should contact Mr. Spector for more specifics in your search for clicker trained OTCH trainers and dogs?


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

Thank you. I will give that a go. My intent is to then put this up for a look see by the ppl who have said "no OTCH Pos. trained dogs." 

My point in all this is to find out what actually works in the ring, in reality and if it has been done.. and how.. what age the dog was started etc. 

The thing is this... As a former horse trainer and a former dairy farmer I found a lot of "we ain't never dun it like THAT b4..." and so a refusal to try anything new. I also ran into the "Hey its NEW so it MUST BE BETTER" folks and they would try anything. BOTH trains of thought can be detrimental in those situations. The first line of thought actually held back those folks from advancing their training (or their finances.. in the case of dairy farming). The latter often wasted a LOT of time and money and got very little back. 

This is not to suggest that Operant conditioning does not work. Obviously it does. The question is (for me) has it been tested and tested successfully in the obedience ring? Did it take longer to make that dog/ same amount of time to make that dog as it takes someone with other methods of training? I would like to know how that trainer trained that dog and if they believe it would work for dogs in general or if they believe that is not the case? What do they do so it does not fall apart in the ring and under stress? 

We can argue theory till the cows come home (or not). At some point the theory needs to be put to use in real life situations. Learning theory has been tested many times and I know this but has this specific area been tested and what were the results with Pos reinf. training? Has it been untested due to the "ain't never dun it like that before" thinking or has has it been tested and shown a high fail rate? 

Mostly my curiosity and most of that is because I have heard it said many times "doesn't work.." with only the explanation that the trainer could not get a consistant performance from the dog. 

Just looking for more "ring tested" tools in the dog training tool box. Just looking to see if I can do something different with my dog to get what I want.


----------

