# Clicker



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

We've not had much discussion on this and I recently had a negative experience of it on a thread that has now been locked. No matter!

One thing that disturbs me is, that some trainers of Clicker tend to see this as a "trainings method" whereas I would say Clicker is a tool just as prong and e-collar are.
Whereas for me, neither Clicker, Prong or E-collar are methods and will never replace the knowledge of how the dog learns, I would be interested in the follwoing:

Tell me how Clicker works for you.


----------



## Chris Michalek (Feb 13, 2008)

my clicker says YES.

I did use a clicker for awhile but kept losing it. The clicker is a noise maker as much as my mouth. I like the method, hate the actual clicker.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Spoken from a true "Schnurregigele"!!!!


----------



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

After Ajay learned that the clicker meant food.....he grabbed my hand (and did some neat, bloody damage) after I clicked.....he was just excited to get food not aggressive at all......so I use "YES" now....LOL


----------



## Donna DeYoung (Jan 29, 2010)

the clicker sound is sort of addicting - to the human. sort of like bubble wrap. have used it w/ horses but haven't got it out w/ the dogs yet. have a hard time w/ getting the timing right and holding it and having it ready to ... wait for it ... click. ... see, I was late. click. and, oops, that was a mistake click.  Saying yes is easier but probably not as effective or addictive.


----------



## Ben Colbert (Mar 9, 2010)

I like the clicker for puppies. Its exact in its pitch, tone, and volume. As a dog gets older and becomes more fluent in the activity I move to a marker word "yes" or "ok"


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Ben, I wonder why you found "no" and "yes" as dificult with the pups.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

I found it made my dog high as a kite, exploding with behaviours and the more I laughed the more he offered. I think I need to spend time refining it a little, maybe I got off on the wrong foot with it. I laugh a lot whilst training.


----------



## Chris Michalek (Feb 13, 2008)

the last clicker I ever used was used on my wife. We were at a big outdoor dog event and petsmart was giving out free clickers so I took one because I like free shit. 

Everytime my wife said something nice or put her hand on my back, I would click and kiss her. The reactions out of the people who noticed were priceless until my wife grabbed my by the hair and yelled "KNOCK THAT SHIT OFF." Just like I do to the dogs.

Now when she complains that I don't mow the lawn, I tell her she was too hard on me and shut me down and I'm afraid to work.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Hoots mon! Maggie!


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Ben Colbert said:


> I like the clicker for puppies. Its exact in its pitch, tone, and volume. As a dog gets older and becomes more fluent in the activity I move to a marker word "yes" or "ok"


This is exactly why I use a clicker and even when I'm teaching new stuff to my adult dog. As to me being a male is a huge disadvantage using my voice. I have a big deep voice and it is hard to go 'YES' and make it sound all fuzzy and wooo hooo for the dog. I'm always jealous of the girls in my training group as they have that squeeky wooo hooo voice that makes dogs ears perk up. I suck at it big time that's why I use the clicker now for the terminal bridge ..

I follow Kayce Cover's Syn Alia method for the most part using the hard consonant "ggggg" as an intermediate marker that way I can load the clicker for the terminal bridge. 

I've trained with Marc Villain from France and he is the master of the clicker and a pup. He is who I aspire to be most like with my pup. 

Here is a great video of him with his Terv pup at 5 mos doing OB with the clicker. 

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xb5shg_eindien-fils-de-virus-du-musher-age_animals


----------



## Ben Colbert (Mar 9, 2010)

Gillian, 

Its not that I've found words difficult, its that I've found that the dogs learn quicker with the clicker. Like I said, there is no mistaking the sound of the clicker and the dog never hears it outside of training. How many times does a puppy here "yes" that may not even be directed at him in the first 6 months of his life ("yes, I picked up the laundry" or "yes its a German Shepherd"). I believe this exclusivity gives the clicker power.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

My dog is called Luc, hearing similar keeps him on his toes


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Ben 

Now that's something I never thought of! Truly!


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Maggie, when we mention Buster without thinking you can be sure that he's up near us! especiallly if it's "we have to take Buster out"


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Geoff Empey said:


> This is exactly why I use a clicker and even when I'm teaching new stuff to my adult dog. As to me being a male is a huge disadvantage using my voice. I have a big deep voice and it is hard to go 'YES' and make it sound all fuzzy and wooo hooo for the dog. I'm always jealous of the girls in my training group as they have that squeeky wooo hooo voice that makes dogs ears perk up. I suck at it big time that's why I use the clicker now for the terminal bridge ..
> 
> I follow Kayce Cover's Syn Alia method for the most part using the hard consonant "ggggg" as an intermediate marker that way I can load the clicker for the terminal bridge.
> 
> ...


Geoff, thanks for the video - good work.


----------



## Ashley Hiebing (Apr 6, 2008)

There is a saying in the clicker "community" that's something like, "There are clicker trainers and then there are people who use clickers." So, to make an analogy, there are people who use e-collars occasionally in training and then there are people who use them for everything. But I think the saying might be referencing trainers' knowledge of clicker training and not just how often they use it.

I don't see "clicker training" as being a training philosophy in itself. It's more a subgroup or a niche (a rather big one, though!) of the positive-reinforcement (or whatever you want to call it) community.

I do use the clicker as often as I can when teaching a behavior. Later on I transfer to a verbal marker. I like the clicker because it makes the same crisp sound every time, unlike the human voice, which has variations all over the place.


----------



## leslie cassian (Jun 3, 2007)

I started playing with clicker training at a time when I wasn't comfortable with the training methods that were being shown to me. Free shaping/clicker training a behaviour was totally new to me and I liked playing around with it. It was a lot of fun... and was a different head space for both me and the dog. Instead of me 'making' him do stuff for me, he was offering up to me. I liked the 'what do you want me to do next, super happy' attitude it brought out in him. The down side for me was that he will start to throw behaviours at me when he gets a bit spun up and impatient for a reward. Probably more a handler issue, than a dog one.

I still use a clicker. It's just one of the tools in my toolbox... I'm open to whatever works and still have lots more to learn.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

And what if the dog does something you don't want him to do - not looking at you in heeling, for instance?

I've only heard of clicker in positive senses.


----------



## Ashley Hiebing (Apr 6, 2008)

Depends on who you ask. I try to build up attention heeling one step at a time. If the behavior starts to break down at say, 20 steps, I will go back to 19 until we're solid enough to go higher. If we're changing up the exercise, like adding turns or changing speeds, I will lower the criteria and only ask for, say... 10 steps. It's something I'm still working with with my dog. I've been using the "300 pecks" method to teach it, and it's been going well so far.

Other trainers may choose to use a no reward marker like "no" or "eh eh" or whatever. Basically a word that the dog has learned means "nope, that's not right, try again." I don't use it because it seems redundant... the dog already knows he didn't do something right because he didn't get the click. And still other trainers might use a collar correction.


----------



## Kristen Cabe (Mar 27, 2006)

Gillian Schuler said:


> And what if the dog does something you don't want him to do - not looking at you in heeling, for instance?


You can either use a leash pop or make some subtle sound to get his attention back on you and then click/treat, or just wait until he finally does look up on his own and then click/jackpot.

I'm working on this exact thing with a showline male right now. He knows heeling already, but to him, it simply means stay in position - he was never taught to look up. I tried leash pops, but that only made him crowd me (I was popping straight up), and it was rather difficult to hold the clicker and leash in the same hand (treats are in the other hand) and do that, so I've started just waiting until he even flicks his eyes a little bit in my direction and click/treat that. It's not THAT big a deal, but I would like for him to look up at least some while heeling because it looks nice. :mrgreen:


ETA: This dog will sit in heel position and look up at me all day. As soon as we take one step forward, the head goes down, even if I am shoving treats down his throat to keep his head up. If I tried to get just that one step, I'd never get it. I have to get him moving first and then bring his head up.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Gillian Schuler said:


> Maggie, when we mention Buster without thinking you can be sure that he's up near us! especiallly if it's "we have to take Buster out"


You'd be surprised how often look comes up even on the training field...he's all ears, and they are enormous, what one may define as ugly even!


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Buster's ears are really ugly!


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

But I don't need clicker for this. I say "no" when he looks away and "yes" when he looks at me!

Hence the question, when can you use clicker negatively?


----------



## Chris Michalek (Feb 13, 2008)

Gillian Schuler said:


> But I don't need clicker for this. I say "no" when he looks away and "yes" when he looks at me!
> 
> Hence the question, when can you use clicker negatively?



you could throw it at the dog.


----------



## Ashley Hiebing (Apr 6, 2008)

I'm not sure what you mean by "can you use the clicker negatively?"


----------



## Eric Read (Aug 14, 2006)

why would you want to? it can't be something "positve" and something "negative" at the same time. You condition it to be whatever it is. 

So you could condition it to mean they were wrong and a leash correction is coming or something, but you can't also then use it to mean they did something correctly.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Gillian Schuler said:


> But I don't need clicker for this. I say "no" when he looks away and "yes" when he looks at me!
> 
> Hence the question, when can you use clicker negatively?


Isn't the whole idea of the clicker to be positive ? So as the dog offers a behaviour and continues to until the correct behaviour is offered and when correct, is marked ? Or something like that.


----------



## Ben Colbert (Mar 9, 2010)

In my mind there is a good reason to use the clicker in only a positive manner.

The purpose of the clicker is to teach a behavior. Once a behavior is fluent you should be fading the clicker (i.e. only clicking for the quickest downs, the most straight finish etc) as you increase the criteria. The reason you use a marker (either clicker or "yes") to mark a behavior is that it takes time to reward the dog and during that time the dog has plenty of opportunity to perform another behavior (i.e. sit or forge).

What I mean is that if you keep the ball in a pouch or your pocket and you are heeling. Suddenly there is a loud noise down the field and your dog never takes his eyes off you. You want to reward this behavior immediately. By the time you get the ball out of your pocket he does a quick glance behind him. Now its decision time. Do you forgo completely the reward or risk rewarding him for the glance? If you had marked the behavior (loud noise-dog keeps staring at you-click) then even with the 1 second lag he knows why you are rewarding him.

On the flip side most of us use corrective collars for positive punishment. If you are paying attention you can correct a dog almost immediately upon making a mistake. You can correct a dog wearing a well fitting prong or e-collar much faster then you can reward him. To me this makes a negative marker, though useful, far less important than a positive marker.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Chris Michalek said:


> you could throw it at the dog.


It wouldn't be the first time I threw a beer bottle at a dog, empty of course!

It stopped a dog fight between canine friends


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Ben, but I could reward him with my voice?


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Gillian, there's something about the clicker that seems to be quite unambiguous...like only a good thing comes from it, whereas the voice has so many variables, hence the enthusiastic offering of behaviours. That has been my experience of it, I believe there is quite a lot of learning involved in how to use it effectively.

I stumbled across laughing and expressing myself in a joyful manner whilst training horses, whilst I may initially have been relieving my tension or pressure, I received a response in kind from my charge. I kind of liken it to that in a way, it's kind of releasing pressure but maintaining focus at the same time.

That probably sounded a load of bollocks but it has worked for me.


----------



## Ben Colbert (Mar 9, 2010)

Gillian Schuler said:


> Ben, but I could reward him with my voice?


Gillian,

You're moving back and forth on two different topics:

1. Yes. You can easily mark a behavior with your voice (dog sits-"yes"-treat). In my own personal and humble opinion I find that this is less effective in teaching a brand new behavior for the reasons I posted above.

2. Yes. You could use a clicker to mark an undesired behavior. But once this door is opened you could never use it again to mark a correct behavior and I find a positive marker far more necessary than a negative one.


----------



## Anne Vaini (Mar 15, 2007)

Gillian Schuler said:


> Hence the question, when can you use clicker negatively?


Yes, absolutely. It is just a noisemaker that we give meaning to.

I have used it instead of a verbal "no" or "ot" in seriously messed up handler-sensitive dogs that would crumble with a verbal correction. It worked pretty slick. 

Clicker is a noisemaking tool. "Clicker training" and "marker training" are code for operant conditioning. Most people only think of this as reward based training.

However, strictly speaking, operant conditioning is the use of consequences to modify a behavior. I think all dog training can be described as operant condition - it entails positive punishment, positive reinforcement, negative punishment, negative reinforcement.

Clicker training as a method is a hands-off way to engage the dog in learning. Giving the dog freedom to make choices, marking and rewarding the behaviors we want repeated and manipulating the environment, placement of reward, withholding reward, etc to get the desired behavior. 

A textbook "clicker trainer" will only use positive reward and negative punishment. The way in which a clicker in clicker training can vary mostly depending on the trainer's answer to this question: Does the click end the behavior?


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

_"Hence the question, when can you use clicker negatively?"_

When I load (or charge) the positive marker, whether it's "yes" or a click or whatever, what I'm teaching the dog is that the marker means "Correct! Reward coming!"

So that positive marker would never be used "negatively" (except by withholding it, but I don't think that's what you meant  ); it would no longer mean what I taught the dog it means and what I want it to mean.

There's a separate, different, negative marker, as mentioned, such as uh-uh, nope, etc. This one means "Not correct; no reward coming."

You can see how you don't want to dilute either one. It's the clarity of the positive marker that makes it so efficient, I think, along with the instant timing that a marker can give compared with, say, getting a reward into place at the moment that the behavior you wanted happens.


----------



## Anne Vaini (Mar 15, 2007)

Ben makes a really good point about the value of a clicker (or verbal marker) for timing and giving an opportunity to reward good behaviors.

I choose clicker (vs. voice) when I'm training an precision behavior. If you teach someone how to use the clicker and their verbal cue and observe the person training, you will notice that the reaction time with the clicker is always faster than with their voice - assuming the clicker is in their hand.

Here is an example of me about 1/2 done FREE SHAPING a dog into a hand stand. I never touch her, lure her. I provide an environment that will make the behavior more probable, and I use the clicker to carefully select the behavior I want repeated. In this video I do something really idfferent from other "clicker trainers." I change my verbal markers in tone/pitch/enthusiasm to solicit a reaction from the dog. It was something I got into a habit of with that particular dog. I've learned to be a more hands-off, more scientific trainer since that video (2005 ?). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iih1k--6QA0 ETA: This is a bad example of clicker training, I was doing it poorly at that time! Please don't tell me about the mistakes - I am very aware. But my point in posting is to show how a clicker is beneficial for precise timing of a marker.

This video, is actually a blooper, but it shows how I can work with a dog without touching, treating, luring, or talking to get the response I want. This also shows more exact and finished behaviors. I LOVE the cocking her head behavior. That was a really fun one to train. It is the same dog in 2007 and I think it is very obvious how much more "clean" the training is and therefore the behaviors that I got. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUOAzsCbRno The behavior I was going for was the beg position + the head cock 3x in a row. She would give it in a stand position, but not a beg position at that time.

Clicker training a puppy. This video is 2007 also. The goal of the session was recall. BUT, you'll notice that I was able to catch a finish also. She offered, I rewarded, she repeated. Beautiful. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnOWFWQk9Aghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beSwqO1-Mn4

Here is one where precise timing is absolutely crucial and I couldn't have done it without a clicker. I'm working on the dog NOT giving to body pressure and not moving front feet while in a stay. Watch this one carefully. She does the correct behavior at 0:45 - 0:51, but she doesn't understand it. One perfectly timed click at 1:05/1:06 shows her the behavior I want, and then her next trial is perfect. End session! This one is 2008. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5cmrTRBYQ8

That's all for now.


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

Chris Michalek said:


> the last clicker I ever used was used on my wife. We were at a big outdoor dog event and petsmart was giving out free clickers so I took one because I like free shit.
> 
> Everytime my wife said something nice or put her hand on my back, I would click and kiss her. The reactions out of the people who noticed were priceless until my wife grabbed my by the hair and yelled "KNOCK THAT SHIT OFF." Just like I do to the dogs.
> 
> Now when she complains that I don't mow the lawn, I tell her she was too hard on me and shut me down and I'm afraid to work.


 
That's good! I love it.:lol:


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

Gillian Schuler said:


> It wouldn't be the first time I threw a beer bottle at a dog, empty of course!
> 
> It stopped a dog fight between canine friends


Gillian, This won't work on Rook as he would see as the new toy mom wants to play with. #-o


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

The clicker to my way of training helps me to isolate or pin point the behavior I'm looking for. After the dog has learned the behavior will add "Yes" as the verbal marker. I personally love this way of training as it's fast and easy once the dog learns the meaning of the click. what I most love about it is it teaches the dog to learn and think things through. 
The other reason I like and think marker based training is great is because my timing sucks big time. So the worst that can happen when I'm teaching or working a dog is he will get a treat or toy for the wrong behavior. As a posed to giving a correction at the wrong time which could set training back days, weeks, or months even and in some cases indefinitely. With operant conditioning a behavior that goes unrewarded will soon become exstinct. So honestly I don't see the need for physical corrections when teaching ob routines or behaviors. However do use non-reward markers(verbal and physical) to signal when the dog is wrong (no or asking what the crap was that while thrown up my arms) or when the dog is on the right track (good boy/girlie). 
I also feel it's important that after you tell the dog no for a wrong behavior to stop all interaction with him (mainly no eye contact) for a few seconds. This breaks the chain and the dog is least likely to link it to the right behaviors. Therefore doesn't accidentially get trained in when linking or chaining behaviors together.

If someone were to watch us when I'm training. It would look like we're just out there playing because for me it's all fun and games.


----------



## Jackie Lockard (Oct 20, 2009)

I use clickers for puppies and dogs that I haven't bonded with but need to train (client dogs). And also when the dog is having difficulty with an exercise and it would be a benefit to use a marker that is much faster than me spitting out words.

The clicker is much easier for dogs to understand and easily transferred from handler to handler, a plus for working with pet dog clients that need me to show them something a hundred times before 'getting it'. For dogs that I haven't bonded with, and need a bond, they tend to not give a crap about ME, but they learn the clicker (like Ben said - ONLY something heard in training) really fast. When first teaching a dog marker training I'll usually start off with the clicker as a marker and then transition to "free" as my marker once the dog understand the system.

Also, I remember reading some book and it said that the click goes through the SEEKING part of the brain. It's some fancy-shamcy scientific term that I can't remember what it stands for, but dogs learn with the clicker as the marker faster because it goes through that part of the brain, versus the 'normal' section that your verbal commands go through.


I don't think "clicker training" is a training philosophy at all, like Anne said, it's often mistaken for 100% "pure positive" "training". The clicker is a tool I use, just like my collars and leashes.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Gillian,

For me marker training is a communication tool. It lets the dog know without a shadow of a doubt what your perception of "right" is. I've seen dogs rejoice in that knowledge. Dogs are more confused than disobedience. Until I met Steve Pettit I used to joke that my GSD Teva and I were using reverse clicker. Say I asked for one thing and she did another, my response would be "not what I asked." Then she would offer up what I asked. This was all conversational between she and I but ultimately my "not what I asked" was the no reward marker. Its not a correction and the dogs don't see it as a correction. Khaiba is my dog that does not have a "because I say so" button. He was my purist dog. "No" to him means try again and that he guessed wrong. I'm also a big fan of Syn Alia and the IBs and know through herding that dogs understand a lot more verbally than what we give them credit for---particularly my almighty GSDs and that fuzzy butt of mine--Khira. Khira is the brainchild that outsmarted me and clicker for awhile. Most of traditional herding is because I say so. In October 2007 I decided to go totally marker having experimented with a previous dog. For me, behaviors taught through herding are more consistent and create less stress. A stressed dog cannot relax with his relationship with the stock. So, I pulled Khira from herding and along with Khaiba decided to clicker Sch obedience. For Khira in particular I decided to start with the retrieve since that's considered ultimate togetherness. Well, session one was a failure--she grabbed it and jumped on the bed and chewed the end before I could get it back. Where I back chained the behavior with Khaiba the little clicker genius, I couldn't get Khira to stand, sit, lay in one spot and hold that dumbell [take it from my hand and hold] for love or money. I decided that the whole thing was becoming a conflict. She knew I wanted her to do something but I was unable to shape the steps. Her instinct was to grab it and run with it. At that point, I thought crap, she's outsmarted the whole thing. The idea of shaping is lost when the damn dog is so intuitive they know what you wan them to do. Gone is the idea of them choosing a behaviour and shaping from there. She knew what I wanted and chose not to.

So, plan B: get her to pick it up from the floor. By now she was in sheer defiance. So I put out a bunch of toys in the floor with the dumbell and sat on the steps. Evil dog that she is, she went over to the dumbell stood and looked at me and then ran and picked up the ball and wagged her tail. I clicked and treated. We played this game for awhile and when I was sure I had the pick up, I faded the toys and all she had left was the dumbell. You should have seen her looking around for SOMETHING else. I sat there grinning. She growled and threw herself towards the dumbell and picked it up. I clicked and fell out laughing. Of course she got a jackpot. From there I began shapping her bringing it towards me instead of away from me. Before this whole process I called her resistant. By the time I trained this all the way through including the out and presentation, out training relationship changed. I then threw in attention heeling, the A Frame, etc. I don't use collars and physical stuff but I do have a because I say so. I trained basics [sit, down, recall] as a puppy with treats. From there it was because I say so. Before the clicker training I had a obedient dog. After the clicker training, I had a dog with the outlook---what can I do for you or as Steve Pettit always labeled---operant. This is what I like about clicker training--the what can I do for you attitude and a dog that's less conflicted and stress because he knows what right is.

All of Khira's herding trial work is through marker training. Her first trial run she put down the most textbook run I've had with a dog and I've had some great runs. This was a 92/100 and the overall high score of the day for that stock. That means she outscored the areas top BCs. She was consistent with all three runs and the 4th run she was in season and I ran into the prey aggression stuff. Prior clicker work wasn't done in that state of mind. I believe that if you want conrol in a particular state of drive, you need to have trained the dog in that drive. With the type of dogs that I work and because you can't train the dog to every type of stock mentality situation that will rear its ugy head, you are not going to have that absolute robotic control everyone seeks and I'm okay with that. I can't always control or predict the third variable--stock in the way that you can train for certain decoy behaviors. This is a constant challenge especially with the dog I work that doesn't generalize at all. I've trained things in her that she thought was specific to the geographic spot she was in. It gets mind boggling with her. But I would have never gotten as far with her as I have without the marker training and working these things through.

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Jackie Lockard said:


> Also, I remember reading some book and it said that the click goes through the SEEKING part of the brain. It's some fancy-shamcy scientific term that I can't remember what it stands for, but dogs learn with the clicker as the marker faster because it goes through that part of the brain, versus the 'normal' section that your verbal commands go through.
> .


 
I didn't read it in a book but when the dogs are on livestock, I've said that the clicker pierces their brain in a way that my voice doesn't. My dogs get off on my high picthed "yes" and "atta puppy." However, the clicker in certain instances and a sharper effect. Thanks for the book reference. When the dogs are in drive, handlers feel like they can't reach them---hence how loud we can get on the herding field. Using a marker, got me into the dog's head while he was in drive for the stock in a way that I hadn't been before.

Terrasita


----------



## Ashley Hiebing (Apr 6, 2008)

One nice thing I've also found about clicker training is that kids can be REALLY good at it. All those video games, you know, makes their hand-eye coordination better  I mean, some kids just like to click the clicker over and over again, but some older kids are able to do luring and even some simple shaping exercises. They're probably not going to be teaching an attention heel or a solid retrieve, but they can help train "stupid pet tricks" and bond with the dog.

ETA: The part of the brain that the click reaches is called the amygdala, a much more emotional and instinctual part of the brain. 
http://www.clickertraining.com/~c11cker/node/226


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I believe the clicker is faster on initial training but I'm more comfortable with a "yes" marker once the dog understands.
Clickers/markers can be used to eliminate negative behaviours but I've never really seen anyone use it as a negative in itself.
As far as what to do when the dog turns away. That has a lot to do with how the attention was originally taught. 
Oporant training calls for marking only when the dog offers a behaviour. If the dog isn't paying attention that could take forever. Some dogs will even learn that you have lost control if it starts sniffing (often stress) or it just doesn't pay attention.
Some dogs can be brought back with a negative marker (no"). Some may need a simple leash correction. 
Total focus from the dog is usually a learned behaviour. Some are quicker, some are not. Few are naturals at it.
Without focus on you is where the correction training comes in and that's often a trainer problem and not a dog problem.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Well, I'm not one for using corrections for while you're trying to teach something like attention. It was another step to get attention in motion vs. attention in a static position. I can remember building duration for the attention. If you are losing the dog, there's usually a reason. Watch the geographical pressures like walking toward things. For instance, I did a lot of training in my little bitty kitchen and discovered just how close a dog will let you walk him into something when walking toward the cabinets or heeling the dog where he is tight against the door frame or past a 25 lb bag of dog food. They do want to check into the environment. Also, the no reward marker isn't necessarily negative or corrective. Its just information. No punishment intended and on the dog's part, none taken. This is a tool that takes a LOT of patience and moving through very small steps to build the reliable chain of behaviors or response to command. Every dog isn't cookie cutter so what works for one in the shaping process doesn't necessarily work for another. 

Terrasita


----------



## Jackie Lockard (Oct 20, 2009)

Ashley Hiebing said:


> ETA: The part of the brain that the click reaches is called the amygdala, a much more emotional and instinctual part of the brain.
> http://www.clickertraining.com/~c11cker/node/226


Didn't check the link yet. I remember in the book I read (I believe one of Pryor's books :roll the author made a point to comment that "SEEKING" system iis an official term that stands for something, hence why it was capitalized. Not sure, might be part of the amygdala, wouldn't know. I'll have to dig up that book now to re-read.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Connie Sutherland said:


> _"Hence the question, when can you use clicker negatively?"_
> 
> When I load (or charge) the positive marker, whether it's "yes" or a click or whatever, what I'm teaching the dog is that the marker means "Correct! Reward coming!"
> 
> ...


Connie, some hours later, I realised what I had written and also realised the "negative" in clicker is withholding, so I did really mean this.


Can one train a dog with clicker for positive and "withholding" for negative? Guess your answers will help me most.


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Well, I'm not one for using corrections for while you're trying to teach something like attention. It was another step to get attention in motion vs. attention in a static position. I can remember building duration for the attention. If you are losing the dog, there's usually a reason. Watch the geographical pressures like walking toward things. For instance, I did a lot of training in my little bitty kitchen and discovered just how close a dog will let you walk him into something when walking toward the cabinets or heeling the dog where he is tight against the door frame or past a 25 lb bag of dog food. They do want to check into the environment. Also, the no reward marker isn't necessarily negative or corrective. Its just information. No punishment intended and on the dog's part, none taken. This is a tool that takes a LOT of patience and moving through very small steps to build the reliable chain of behaviors or response to command. Every dog isn't cookie cutter so what works for one in the shaping process doesn't necessarily work for another.


I agree every dog isn't a cookie cutter so what works for one in the shaping process doesn't necessarily work for another. But I don't agree that using some sort of correction in the shaping part hurts the process. 

i.e. Focus .. The dog would rather sniff some flowers but you reach over and tap the dog on the butt, it turns and engages you 'click' and reward. There is always a reason why you lose a dog the reason is 'you' as the handler is not as interesting as that flower. Hence the tap on the butt to realign the dogs cosmos. I'm not talking about taking the dogs head off with a prong collar but just communicating with the dog that it's behaviour is negative and point it in the right direction. 

People talk about corrections as being negative and in reality it is all part of the overall communication process in training.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

I think everyone has there version of how to get behaviors. Rather than lean over the dog and tap him [think of the doggie language perception of this], I'd rather get the dog's attention a different way. I learned alot from Kevin Behan and he is one that uses correction in a sorta proofing phase which is very last resort for me. But where he discusses becoming the source of the dog's prey drive and using the dog's prey drive to make the handler more attractive to him, I think he is very valuable. So, if my dog is not on me with the attention I do a LOT of moving around in that initial training to keep him on me so I can get that attention to build his focus to me. I learned very early on that standing around doesn't keep the dogs attention and doesn't do anything for keeping him in drive. Movement/prey, does. This was hugely important for my bouv.

Terrasita


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

Geoff Empey said:


> There is always a reason why you lose a dog the reason is 'you' as the handler is not as interesting as that flower. Hence the tap on the butt to realign the dogs cosmos.


But the dog has not decided to work for you or put another way is not choosing you over everything else going on. Which to me means the reward is not of high enough value and your no fun. Everyone likes to be around funny people including animals. I think the error is in believing one must become part of the dog's cosmos. I don't want to be in the dog's cosmos that implies leadership. Instead want him in mine and for this the dog must actively decide to become part of my world...willingly surrendering to my way of doing things.

I've trained three dogs this way and am now training my fourth. Those that know my dogs will tell you two things - they all give me excellent attention and personality wise are as different as night and day. For me the dog must actively choose me forgoing most everything else. Of course I make this easy by being the source of all good things and a blast to be around. But this type of willingness can't be had any other way then to wait on the dog to make the initial choice. Which when the dog does it's all gravy baby!! You don't ever have to fight that battle again unless of course you have introduce conflict into the training at some point. 

Anything, man or beast decides to do something will continue to do it even when it becomes hard to do. Because they chose to and were not made to. Think about it, what is your first reaction when someone forces you to do something you don't want to do? For most it is to resist or rebel. Animals are no different in that respect except that some will fight that which is trying to impose itself over them. 
Having picked a combative breed (AB) to work with I really don't think it wise to teach them to fight me.

In closing I don't believe the clicker is for everybody because it takes time and some thought which not everyone wants to invest. It's easier and quicker to make the dog to just do it. Even though the results gained that way often times aren't lasting. JMT


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

Geoff Empey said:


> Here is a great video of him with his Terv pup at 5 mos doing OB with the clicker.
> 
> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xb5shg_eindien-fils-de-virus-du-musher-age_animals


Finally was able to get the video to play... nice ... really enjoyed watching Marc's interaction with the pup and seeing the pup executing behaviors in a fun easy manner. This is how training should be.


----------



## Ashley Hiebing (Apr 6, 2008)

Lynda Myers said:


> In closing I don't believe the clicker is for everybody because it takes time and some thought which not everyone wants to invest. It's easier and quicker to make the dog to just do it. Even though the results gained that way often times aren't lasting. JMT


Very true, Lynda. I feel like that is a big part of what makes Kohler's books so attractive. He lays everything out step-by-step, do [this] 100 times, then do [that] for five minutes, etc. It's very much pick up and go, whereas it seems clicker training takes a little more planning/learning. I know there is definitely more problem solving going on when I am using primarily +R. It's much more proactive, IMO.

I've been wondering if it would even be possible to write a clicker book "Kohler-style." While it IS strange to me that people WOULDN'T want to learn about classical/operant conditioning and learning theory (because I am a dork.), there are a lot of people out there who don't want to, and maybe there should be a book for them, that lays a training plan on step-by-step? *shrug*


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I believe more and more people are using a bit of both to get what they want. 
Neither is the all serving answer.


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Bob Scott said:


> I believe more and more people are using a bit of both to get what they want.
> Neither is the all serving answer.



Yup I have no aversion to using a boot to the arse and a clicker within a 30 sec span.  If it is clear to the dog it's clear! :-D


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Geoff Empey said:


> I agree every dog isn't a cookie cutter so what works for one in the shaping process doesn't necessarily work for another. But I don't agree that using some sort of correction in the shaping part hurts the process.
> 
> i.e. Focus .. The dog would rather sniff some flowers but you reach over and tap the dog on the butt, it turns and engages you 'click' and reward. There is always a reason why you lose a dog the reason is 'you' as the handler is not as interesting as that flower. Hence the tap on the butt to realign the dogs cosmos. I'm not talking about taking the dogs head off with a prong collar but just communicating with the dog that it's behaviour is negative and point it in the right direction.
> 
> People talk about corrections as being negative and in reality it is all part of the overall communication process in training.


Now that I can relate to.

The video of the Terv pup was extremely good to watch.

I think what made me sceptical was when I first heard of it a good number of years ago was when a well known personality in our dog world called to his wife and said "Darling, fetch me the "Clicker", will you?"
Astounded faces all round as she came back with something that looked liked a small plastic frog. He then had the attention he wanted and with everything "new", everyone was agog!

Since then, it has become more or less a "love" or "hate" object for a lot of handlers. I've not immersed myself in clicker training so can't speak competently about it but from what I've seen and read, it can be a good thing if applied correctly as with any tool, be it ecollar, prong, etc. It can cause stress if used incorrectly just as e-collar, prong, etc.

I think the big rift comes from the fact that the clicker people say "compulsion" produces dogs that just function but without "Freude" (joy?) and the "compulsion" people say that dogs can't be trialled successfully, especially in bitework sports, just using the clicker and no compulsion.

I guess that the ability to read a dog and to be able to communicate with it, thereby being able to maintain its focus is a prerequisite to any method and knowing when to use "what" on each dog is probably a gift. And handlers who have acquainted themselves with "both" and if need, use "both" are clearly at an advantage.

Would also have liked to see answers from the "opposition" but in the meantime, my thanks to all of you who have answered - made me think it would be advantageous for my husband's dog. Toni's not very interesting on the training field :-\" and I'm not sure here "compulsion" is correct. I was able to watch from a distance and the dog's body language isn't what I'd like to see. On a neutral ground he's focused especially since I used the ball on a rope and not a tug to reward him. I think he needs more "time" and more sessions at the club as he is quickly distracted.


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

Ashley Hiebing said:


> Very true, Lynda. I feel like that is a big part of what makes Kohler's books so attractive. He lays everything out step-by-step, do [this] 100 times, then do [that] for five minutes, etc. It's very much pick up and go, whereas it seems clicker training takes a little more planning/learning. I know there is definitely more problem solving going on when I am using primarily +R. It's much more proactive, IMO.
> 
> I've been wondering if it would even be possible to write a clicker book "Kohler-style." While it IS strange to me that people WOULDN'T want to learn about classical/operant conditioning and learning theory (because I am a dork.), there are a lot of people out there who don't want to, and maybe there should be a book for them, that lays a training plan on step-by-step? *shrug*


Personally don't think it would be very effective because so much is in reading the dog and that's not something you can teach through a book. One must have a good understanding of the dog and what makes them tick and construct their training around that. Some dogs need to be taught using a lot of little steps. Where as others who are good at connecting the dots may be able to learn the same exercise in three - four steps. For instance Saturday I was working on some attention heeling while there was a helper on the field (which normally isn't a problem) and Rook just wasn't giving me his normal" what can I do for you today" look. But instead of getting upset with him i just grabbed a empty water bottle off the field(PSA training junk all over the place) and teased him up got him back on me.
Rook almost never acts like this so when he does I know there's an underlining cause for it. Which was he was hot and gassed from watching the other dogs work. Error on my part so can't really blame the dog.
You can learn the basics from a book and there are already many good ones out there.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Lynda said;
"One must have a good understanding of the dog and what makes them tick and construct their training around that." 


Amen!


----------



## Wawashkashi Tashi (Aug 25, 2009)

Chris Michalek said:


> Everytime my wife said something nice or put her hand on my back, I would click and kiss her. The reactions out of the people who noticed were priceless until my wife grabbed my by the hair and yelled "KNOCK THAT SHIT OFF." Just like I do to the dogs.
> 
> Now when she complains that I don't mow the lawn, I tell her she was too hard on me and shut me down and I'm afraid to work.


LMAO!!! Especially on the "shut down" part! :mrgreen:


----------



## Wawashkashi Tashi (Aug 25, 2009)

Geoff Empey said:


> Here is a great video of him with his Terv pup at 5 mos doing OB with the clicker.


That was fun! \\/

I use a marker (either clicker or verbal) to teach (or help fix) just about every behavior.. blind search, send away, tracking/articles, retrieves, bite placement on the sleeve, hardness of grip, food refusal, jumps, speed of these behaviors -the list goes on & on! And I'm training *mastiffs*... ](*,)
The only challenge I've had w/ clicker training the heel, is that I then have to later put some effort into teaching the dog the latency of the exact "heel" place. If I withhold the click for "too long" in trying to build the duration, the dog thinks that its position is incorrect & repositions itself to try to find the right place to make me click. I have some kind of breakdown somewhere.. 20 years later & I'm still trying to iron out the bugs with ME! :-\"
I did a Kayce Cover seminar a few years back & LOVED IT!! She does some kind of *crazy* training with all the various animals she showed. It was "knock you down" impressive. I keep meaning to try to employ her "keep going" type of marker (gggg), but so far I haven't really ventured out of my comfort zone to mess with it. I'm sure when I finally do & become effective with it, I'll regret dragging my feet as long as I have.


----------



## Mary Buck (Apr 7, 2010)

Lynda Myers said:


> .
> 
> . Of course I make this easy by being the source of all good things and a blast to be around. But this type of willingness can't be had any other way then to wait on the dog to make the initial choice. Which when the dog does it's all gravy baby!! You don't ever have to fight that battle again unless of course you have introduce conflict into the training at some point.


 

I use a clicker for many things..but have to disagree with the above. With some dogs waiting around for them to make the initial choice, just leads to conflict...which then colors the whole perception of training. I use lures and or modeling and get quick repsonse, full understanding and zero conflict. I wil also l go to the mat on believing I gain the upmost in willingness. 

Some trainers confuse that frantic offering with a dog that is fully engaged and "willing" I see a dog thats desperately asking the trainer what the heck the question is...so they can answer it. Never found a shaped behavior any stronger than a lured one....except manybe in the trainers mind...since they had to work so darn hard to get it . 

Clickers make terrific tools for alot of things...I have also had them undeniably screw up a dog when handled badly or with poor timing. Unless you have brilliant timing and a full understanding of the exercise and the finished product , scent articles are incredibly difficult to shape via a clicker. Add a little help...and it comes along very well.

Great tool and a valuable addition to many trainers bag of tricks.


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

Carol Boche said:


> After Ajay learned that the clicker meant food.....he grabbed my hand (and did some neat, bloody damage) after I clicked.....he was just excited to get food not aggressive at all......so I use "YES" now....LOL


I would consider the way a dog takes food from my hand to fall under manners and would correct for biting the hand that feeds ya.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Ajay would find that whole correcting thing amusing. He is a bit of a knothead.


----------



## ann schnerre (Aug 24, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Ajay would find that whole correcting thing amusing. He is a bit of a knothead.


yeah--what you said, lol.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Some of the BC people say that the sound of the clicker makes the dogs bonkers. As for the crunch part, I hate a correction in the reward phase. I'd either teach him to catch or drop it in a bowl if the marker sent him to gaga land. 

Terrasita


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

Mary Buck said:


> I use a clicker for many things..but have to disagree with the above. With some dogs waiting around for them to make the initial choice, just leads to conflict...which then colors the whole perception of training. I use lures and or modeling and get quick repsonse, full understanding and zero conflict. I wil also l go to the mat on believing I gain the upmost in willingness.


No you misunderstand me because I didn't make myself clear. I don't start to train anything until I have the dog's complete undivided attention.
For instance when I start a pup or dog I will take them out into the yard or on to the training field and reward everytime the dog looks me eyeball to eyeball or anytime I've regained his attention. I limit how far the dog can go on the long line but beyond that try not to have a lot of interact with them other then moving around. Unless they are giving me what I want...eyeball to eyeball attention. Then will mark and reward with food as well as playing a little bit with them. Ultimately I'm looking for the dog to stand or sit in front of me content and relaxed giving me that eyeball to eyeball attention (later under distractions). This is what I call choosing to work for me and it takes as long as it takes. The success or failure with this is in finding the right motivator. I try to find out what foods and toys makes the dog act like an addict fiendin for a drug. Then will fast the dog 24 hours or if it's a young pup will fast him one meal. If I'm using the special toy it only comes out on the training field. With lots of almost times at home ie teasing the crap out of the dog with it. In the beginning will only work for a couple minutes at a time depending on the animal and then build from there. It's so much easier when you have the dog's full attention. I also believe in rewards having different value levels. So will have several different levels of rewards on me when training the dog. 

My male has low food drive and high object drive so went to a toy early on. This made him a challenge to train in the beginning because I was also just learning the method and as we all know green handler with a green dog makes for some interesting stuff.:grin:




Mary Buck said:


> Some trainers confuse that frantic offering with a dog that is fully engaged and "willing" I see a dog thats desperately asking the trainer what the heck the question is...so they can answer it. Never found a shaped behavior any stronger than a lured one....except manybe in the trainers mind...since they had to work so darn hard to get it .



See I'm a little different then some as I don't see the offering of random behaviors as the dog choosing to work for me. What it signals to me is that they are beginning to understand how the game is played. They are showing me that they know certain behaviors bring rewards. When dog starts offering behaviors it tells me two things one he knows that the behavior is linked to the reward and two he's ready for me to tag the behavior with the command. But I will only do this when I'm certain that the dog will offer the behavior 8,9 times out of 10. When I'm sure of this will say the command wait a couple seconds to see if the behavior is given then click and reward. If the dog does not offer the behavior then it may be a little too soon to tag it. In the beginning you might lure the dog but I definitely try to wean it out by the second or third session. Otherwise the gesture becomes part of the command something I don't want.




Mary Buck said:


> I have also had them undeniably screw up a dog when handled badly or with poor timing. Unless you have brilliant timing and a full understanding of the exercise and the finished product , scent articles are incredibly difficult to shape via a clicker. Add a little help...and it comes along very well.


I feel this is incorrect...pure and simply handlers screw up dogs. I find the clicker a much safer tool then say correction collars. Because the worst thing that could happen is marking the wrong behavior. Ok so? It's a well known fact that behaviors that go unrewarded become extinct. Not so when using the more traditional tools. You can set training back days, weeks and even indefinitely by handling badly or with poor timing. 
While I can't speak first hand on teaching the scent articles the schutzhund I used to belongto trained all motivationally including bitework and tracking and to my knowledge training the scent articles wasn't a problem. May have to ask Bob about this as he would know more.


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Some of the BC people say that the sound of the clicker makes the dogs bonkers. As for the crunch part, I hate a correction in the reward phase. I'd either teach him to catch or drop it in a bowl if the marker sent him to gaga land.
> 
> Terrasita


Hehehehe I will correct for biting the hand they don't get confused at all. Of course the correction needs to hard and swift that way it doesn't have to be repeated. For me manners training trumps trial training everytime.O


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Lynda Myers said:


> Hehehehe I will correct for biting the hand they don't get confused at all. Of course the correction needs to hard and swift that way it doesn't have to be repeated. For me manners training trumps trial training everytime.O


This is interesting to me because I am not afraid to use a correction ie. not a motivational only trainer....... yet I will not correct for this, I also dont drop it, not a fan of that at all. I hold it in my hand and dont allow the dog to get it and if anything push my fist towards him or simply hold it very still. Never had a problem doing it that way. I don’t like to avoid the issue and do a round about (dropping) as that is not teaching them anything, its just going around it. No issue with the correction, but and this is where it is interesting lol…. I want the dog to figure out on his own what gets him the reward, so we are almost flipped on this one lol. They realize they will not get the reward until the proper behavior is executed, proper behavior does not include biting my hand. Of course you cant be a “sissy” about getting bit either lol.
t


----------



## Chris Daleo (Apr 22, 2010)

Agreed. You are going to get bit, especially with pups. I have learned to be very fast with my Mali & anticipate his rebite and his next move, not always successful. I think what this comes down to clicker/marker what have you, is consistency in the mark. I always use "Good Boy". Just last night while playing a little fetch, I wanted to teach him geblaut. In the prior few days everytime he barked I said "Geblaut" immediately after each bark in the exact same tone. As we were playing catch I typically have him come, sitz, platz, whatever before I will throw the ball. I had ball in hand and looked him in the eye and said "geblaut". He looked at me quizzically and immediately sat, then platz, trying to figure out what I wanted (I think they call this operant conditioning) getting s little furstrted because I didn't throw the ball and I continued to repeat "geblaut" I saw that he was beginning to chatter and offer a half ass bark...I helped him along by actually barking for him (that looks stupider written down then when I did it) Sure enough showed the ball to him and again "Geblaut" he let out a nice bark and immediately I said "good boy" & threw the ball. He got it after that. Thankfully I didn't have to show him where to go potty by getting that involved!


No issue with the correction, but and this is where it is interesting lol…. I want the dog to figure out on his own what gets him the reward, so we are almost flipped on this one lol. They realize they will not get the reward until the proper behavior is executed, proper behavior does not include biting my hand. Of course you cant be a “sissy” about getting bit either lol.
t[/QUOTE]


----------



## Mary Buck (Apr 7, 2010)

Lynda Myers said:


> No you misunderstand me because I didn't make myself clear. I don't start to train anything until I have the dog's complete undivided attention.
> For instance when I start a pup or dog I will take them out into the yard or on to the training field and reward everytime the dog looks me eyeball to eyeball or anytime I've regained his attention. I limit how far the dog can go on the long line but beyond that try not to have a lot of interact with them other then moving around. Unless they are giving me what I want...eyeball to eyeball attention. Then will mark and reward with food as well as playing a little bit with them. Ultimately I'm looking for the dog to stand or sit in front of me content and relaxed giving me that eyeball to eyeball attention (later under distractions). This is what I call choosing to work for me and it takes as long as it takes.
> My male has low food drive and high object drive so went to a toy early on. This made him a challenge to train in the beginning because I was also just learning the method and as we all know green handler with a green dog makes for some interesting stuff.:grin:
> 
> ...


Humpf just had a nice long rely and it vanished.........guess it wasn't all that worthy.

I think your method for attention leads to a dog that feels attention is optional. Its the way I start very young pups...but pretty quickly move to doing SOMETHING when the dog breaks off attention. In the very beginning I may use food and toys but fairly quickly stop that and move towards using ME as the reward. I can't have food or toys in ring, but I can use my hands , voice, body, energy and movement. I don;t want a cookie dependant dog, any more than I want a toy dependant one. Corrections are done motivationally...but I am really clear that breaking attention is not the gig and I am not going to wait around for my dog to refocus for a cookie. My dogs quickly volunteer attention..the only layer I add is making something happen when they break off.

Offering is not thinking. I don't want a dog guessing what earns the reward. I want them very clear on what behavior we are working..and what they have to do to earn the reward. The dog clearly knows the game is to do something and earn a reward...I just want them to be clear on what that something is. Offering is cute and entertaining...but completely useless in competition. For my dogs is a normal stage...but one I move through really quickly

Scent articles reply on a dog that is self confident and not handler reliant. Poor use of clicker can make the dog indecisive and waiting for handler input..which is a much harder nut to crack in the ring than simply making the wrong choice . There is alot worse that can happen than making the wrong choice..a dog that stands over pile...won't commit to a choice or looks back to handler for feedback they need to get it right. There are folks who have successfully clickers articles but they are apparently alot smarter than I am . 

Clicker is a great tool...the great debate is and always will be free shaping vs lure/model. I am all about erasing conflict from the dogs mind, as it has a nasty way of popping out in competition.


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

Mary Buck said:


> Humpf just had a nice long rely and it vanished.........guess it wasn't all that worthy. I think your method for attention leads to a dog that feels attention is optional. Its the way I start very young pups...but pretty quickly move to doing SOMETHING when the dog breaks off attention. In the very beginning I may use food and toys but fairly quickly stop that and move towards using ME as the reward. I can't have food or toys in ring, but I can use my hands , voice, body, energy and movement. I don;t want a cookie dependant dog, any more than I want a toy dependant one. Corrections are done motivationally...but I am really clear that breaking attention is not the gig and I am not going to wait around for my dog to refocus for a cookie. My dogs quickly volunteer attention..the only layer I add is making something happen when they break off. Offering is not thinking. I don't want a dog guessing what earns the reward. I want them very clear on what behavior we are working..and what they have to do to earn the reward. The dog clearly knows the game is to do something and earn a reward...I just want them to be clear on what that something is. Offering is cute and entertaining...but completely useless in competition. For my dogs is a normal stage...but one I move through really quickly Scent articles reply on a dog that is self confident and not handler reliant. Poor use of clicker can make the dog indecisive and waiting for handler input..which is a much harder nut to crack in the ring than simply making the wrong choice . There is alot worse that can happen than making the wrong choice..a dog that stands over pile...won't commit to a choice or looks back to handler for feedback they need to get it right. There are folks who have successfully clickers articles but they are apparently alot smarter than I am . Clicker is a great tool...the great debate is and always will be free shaping vs lure/model. I am all about erasing conflict from the dogs mind, as it has a nasty way of popping out in competition.


Mary all I can say is it all depends all the skill of the handler using the tool as well as the rapport they have with their dog. I have trained three dogs(2 ABs a breed noted for their stubbornness and 1 Pitbull) this way and now training my fourth an a AB. All are different as night and day personality and temperament wise. Almost never have a problem with conflict as the rules are crystal clear. I'm the keeper of all good fun things and I'm willing to share them with you. Showing them this is how you can get to play with them...no conflict at all it's fun and upbeat. If ever I run into a place where the dog is not giving me want I enlist the help of Terrasita or Bob to help pen point what I'm doing wrong. This is how I head off any conflict because I don't let it get that far before I seek advise from a more knowing person Terrasita and Bob.
And as a couple people have stated on other threads who have saw me start a dog/pup this way will tell you all my dogs give me that great attention and know its not optional. It doesn't stop at just attention either. ill execute the other behaviors quickly and correctly. Also need to to mention I only use a marker based method for competition training and none of them are cookie or toy dependent. The fact that you mention this makes me think you haven't been able to carry the clicker training to the next step with any success or you were just to impatience to see it through to it's natural end.
Dogs are only indecisive because the handler is unclear in what they want or don't know how to communicate in a way the dog understands.
I am of the opinion that anytime there's a problem or issue with the dog carrying out that which we have asked of it the handler is at fault because the trainer wasn't clear. I ask you this if the dog and handler have good relationship, trainer has something the dog wants more then life and the direct path to the reward has been shown why wouldn't he comply? When training is all fun and games with the one who is the center of all things great and wonderful what dog says hell with that I'm not going to play with my person! If a person has a dog like this then you may need to rethink your rapport with your pet/working dog.


I'm curious to know how you help the process along please elaborate on this.
Also wanted to add you can't your corrections in the ring either!


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Linda Myers: I feel this is incorrect...pure and simply handlers screw up dogs. I find the clicker a much safer tool then say correction collars. Because the worst thing that could happen is marking the wrong behavior. 

Linda,

Why should correction collar handlers have less intelligence than clicker handlers?


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

Gillian Schuler said:


> Linda Myers: I feel this is incorrect...pure and simply handlers screw up dogs. I find the clicker a much safer tool then say correction collars. Because the worst thing that could happen is marking the wrong behavior.
> 
> Linda,
> 
> Why should correction collar handlers have less intelligence than clicker handlers?


Please Gillian show me where I came right out and said or even implied that. You took a sentence of mine in reply to Mary out of context trying to make it into something different.[-X


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Quote: Linda Myers
Originally Posted by *Mary Buck*  
_I have also had them undeniably screw up a dog when handled badly or with poor timing. Unless you have brilliant timing and a full understanding of the exercise and the finished product , scent articles are incredibly difficult to shape via a clicker. Add a little help...and it comes along very well._

I feel this is incorrect...pure and simply handlers screw up dogs. I find the clicker a much safer tool then say correction collars. Because the worst thing that could happen is marking the wrong behavior. Ok so? It's a well known fact that behaviors that go unrewarded become extinct. Not so when using the more traditional tools. You can set training back days, weeks and even indefinitely by handling badly or with poor timing. 
While I can't speak first hand on teaching the scent articles the schutzhund I used to belongto trained all motivationally including bitework and tracking and to my knowledge training the scent articles wasn't a problem. May have to ask Bob about this as he would know more.

Unquote

What I'm trying to say is why should a collar correction be less accurate than a clicker? It has to do with the intelligence of the handler, or not?

Prong, e-collar, corrections are not always hard, just a reminder to the dog, that he should turn his attention to the handler!!!!

Why is always the e-collar or prong so often interpreted as "hard". It's just a reminder in many cases, i.e. Herr Hasso, benimm Dich!!! Schau mich an!!!!!


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

tracey delin said:


> This is interesting to me because I am not afraid to use a correction ie. not a motivational only trainer....... yet I will not correct for this, I also dont drop it, not a fan of that at all. I hold it in my hand and dont allow the dog to get it and if anything push my fist towards him or simply hold it very still. Never had a problem doing it that way. I don’t like to avoid the issue and do a round about (dropping) as that is not teaching them anything, its just going around it. No issue with the correction, but and this is where it is interesting lol…. Of course you cant be a “sissy” about getting bit either lol.
> t


For me there's manners and then there's training. Don't think it's being a sissy for making it clear that it is NEVER OK TO BITE ME! My attitude is you are welcome to go there but be prepared for what's to follow. Because depending on the reason for the infraction will determ the type and harshness of correction. Of course it will be appropriately scaled way down for young pups because they are little kids after all and get excited over stuff like really good treats:grin:

I purposely hold treats between my index finger and thumb with the rest of the fingers closed in a fist. This is so if I need to pop the dog on the nose can do so in one quick downward motion using the bottom of my fist. Size of the dog determs the force of the hit. Usually only need to do once maybe twice and then its over. Want to add also that they learn how to receive food from my hand while I'm loading the clicker.
Some worry about possible confuse but if you loaded the marker correctly then the dog knows the behavior executed was right because you marked it. Whats to figure out he knows what was marked? Also knows that the rap on the nose was for the wrong approach to the hand with food in it. So rarely ever need to correct beyond this stage in training.



tracey delin said:


> I want the dog to figure out on his own what gets him the reward, so we are almost flipped on this one lol. They realize they will not get the reward until the proper behavior is executed, proper behavior does not include biting my hand.


Hmm interesting...
Ok it sounds like you mark one behavior but expect for the reward to serve as a reward for the unmarked behavior as well. Kinda like two behaviors for the price of one. Do you ever mark the dog for taking the treat from the hand correctly? The reason I ask is because I was always lead to believe that once a behavior is marked it frees the dog up so anything after the mark doesn't count or is of no importance with regard to the behavior marked and reward that follows.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I agree that it's the handler that screws the dog up. Any method can be use improperly or with bad timing. 
With marker training bad timing usually only means the dog gets rewarded for nothing. Wrong? Yes! It can cause a setback but not the same way as a improper or badly timed correction. 
Poorly timed correction and you get a "WTF" from the dog and it that can start more confusion and a refusal to perform the behavior. to many people look at this as a refusal because they think the dog is stubborn. The correction then goes into a higher gear "because it stubbornly refused me." That leads to a dog that doesn't trust the handler. I also believe it the biggest cause of handler aggression. Then people blame that on having a "tough dog".
Next to just not knowing what they are doing, timing is responsibly for more poor training then method.


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

> For me there's manners and then there's training.


UH think I saw this somewhere before…. Maybe the gazillion times you have written it?? Lol



> Don't think it's being a sissy for making it clear that it is NEVER OK TO BITE ME!


Um didn’t say anything about YOU being a sissy, said if your gonna do it my way you cant be a sissy, wasn’t personal. [-(



> My attitude is you are welcome to go there but be prepared for what's to follow. Because depending on the reason for the infraction will determine the type and harshness of correction. Of course it will be appropriately scaled way down for young pups because they are little kids after all and get excited over stuff like really good treats


I find this interesting….no qualms with it except I find it confusing based on your other posts. Terresita seems more consistent in her methods with the dropping of the food TO ME….. I UNDERSTAND you think it’s a manners vs training thing… I get that, no need say it again. ;-)



> Ok it sounds like you mark one behavior but expect for the reward to serve as a reward for the unmarked behavior as well. Kinda like two behaviors for the price of one.


Not sure Im following you on this? Mark what two behaviors? 



> Do you ever mark the dog for taking the treat from the hand correctly?


Yes of course that is the whole point??? =D> I also will give them a verbal no if they need it. 



> The reason I ask is because I was always lead to believe that once a behavior is marked it frees the dog up so anything after the mark doesn't count or is of no importance with regard to the behavior marked and reward that follows.


What comes after the mark and reward? Im not following what you are saying here?  Maybe its just my "friday" and my brain is tired??? #-o

t


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

#1, I don't think you can compare other breeds to mals once they load into gaga land. #2 if I'm after a certain drive state with the marker training, why should I penalize the dog for it in the reward phase. How to eat from the hand can be taught separately. None of my personal dogs chomp my hand. But they aren't Mals either. If I'm working on building behaviors and having the dog in drive for obedience, I really don't care about a chomp if I haven't worked on that separately else where. Polluting the training in the reward phase screws with the purpose of it for me. As for holding in the hand or even a flat hand, was fooling around with Thunder and laughed at how he could take my entire hand in his mouth for a treat. Bob wanted me to say "easy" but I didn't want to. Wasn't a big deal. He didn't really bite down. We laughed at how he plays tug with me. Apparently I'm on the level of the itsy bitsy grandkids. 

I think with the mals if possible, you have to find something that has value as a reward but doesn't send them to gaga land. I don't believe you train a zillion things at once. Its one thing at a time. Its not avoidance. There's a time and a place for each lesson. I can't really think of actually going through teaching mine not to bite down on my hand. I think with Mals, gaga land is an issue so I might approach them differently like teaching them to catch, working with a lower value food reward, separate sessions with taking food from my hand, etc. It all depends on the dog. You can deal with this before you start your obedience behaviors. My bouv NEEDED to bite as a young dog. All the corrections in the world didn't really change that. It just stressed her. Sooooo, I decided to give her something other than my hand to bite. Wallah!!! She was so greatful. Now when she loads, she looks around for something to bite. With maturity, I think she has gained control of the trip to gaga land in a way she didn't have as a young dog. 


Terrasita


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

What comes after the mark and reward? Im not following what you are saying here? :confused: Maybe its just my "friday" and my brain is tired??? #-o
t[/QUOTE said:


> Tracy,
> 
> In theory, the mark is a release---FREEEEEEEEEEE!!!! Unless, you devalue it with commands and corrections following it. Mark---reward, reset the next behavior. It doesn't matter what you do AFTER the reward. However, if you clutter it with commands/corrections before the reward then you are lessening the effectiveness of the marker training---or so the theory goes.
> 
> Terrasita


----------



## Gregory S. Norton (Jan 17, 2010)

I believe clicker is just a novelty, a panacea for people who train foo foo fi fi dogs.Modifying behavior is only created by developing a bond wth your k9.That bond is developed in such a way as to create,you the pack leader.The k9 fulfills the desired behavior because he has to and then because he WANTS to.
Praise comes direct and correction indirectly.There is no substitute for the bond that praise creates.
Solid understanding of k9 behavior transfers directly to becoming a good pack leader.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

That's the glory of the marker/reward system. The dogs see it as pure unadulturated praise and indication that they have performed the desired behavior. Again another tool. What's a foo foo, fi fi dog?

Terrasita


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Creating a bond is a totally separate thing from training. 
YES! Training can create a great bond but that's still something between the dog and handler and not necessarily because of training methods.
Training methods used improperly can create a lack of trust in a dog also. 
I think I've got a pretty good bond with my clicker/marker trained foo foo, fi fi dogs. :wink:


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

> #1, I don't think you can compare other breeds to mals once they load into gaga land.


 I think its dog dependent……… not breed.



> #2 if I'm after a certain drive state with the marker training, why should I penalize the dog for it in the reward phase.


I agree



> How to eat from the hand can be taught separately.


Isnt that what we are talking about? or do you not teach that first and build?



> If I'm working on building behaviors and having the dog in drive for obedience, I really don't care about a chomp if I haven't worked on that separately else where. Polluting the training in the reward phase screws with the purpose of it for me.


Ok so you do build.... and I agree but I have worked on it separately so if we make a mistake and get overly excited and get the hand so be it, if it looks like a habit is forming back to base. I think marking then offering a reward and correcting without ever teaching it that would be unclear and confusing? Im finding this odd that anyone who promotes the building of behaviors would skip that step?



> I think with the mals if possible, you have to find something that has value as a reward but doesn't send them to gaga land.


I don’t think so. My current dog very easily goes into a zone, I call stupid drive. When we first started I never thought I would be able to get him to contain… but I have… its possible, I used the method above.



> I don't believe you train a zillion things at once. Its one thing at a time. Its not avoidance.


I don’t believe that either? I don’t understand do you work on commands, mark, and reward without teaching the dog how to take the reward first? 



> There's a time and a place for each lesson. I can't really think of actually going through teaching mine not to bite down on my hand. You can deal with this before you start your obedience behaviors.


Yes of course before?? I guess I haven’t had a dog with low food drive so I don’t see it as an option to not teach it prior to further work???

t


----------



## Anne Vaini (Mar 15, 2007)

Gregory S. Norton said:


> I believe clicker is just a novelty, a panacea for people who train foo foo fi fi dogs.Modifying behavior is only created by developing a bond wth your k9.That bond is developed in such a way as to create,you the pack leader.The k9 fulfills the desired behavior because he has to and then because he WANTS to.
> Praise comes direct and correction indirectly.There is no substitute for the bond that praise creates.
> Solid understanding of k9 behavior transfers directly to becoming a good pack leader.


I rarely completely disagree. I almost never say a trainer is wrong. I often say there are many ways to accomplish a goal and I keep an open mind to try many of them.

Behavior CAN be modified without any bond with the dog. Bonding is unnecessary for to begin training. Bonding will happen during training. (train = play = bond)

There is a substitute for a bond - it is skilled training. How is it that I can train a dog I've never met and get better results in 5 minutes than the owner that the dog has a great bond with? I certainly don't have a bond with the dog, but I have the skill and knowledge to change the dog's behavior.

I can do this with either clicker training or compulsion. Or a combination of these.

A dog can perform because it has to or because it wants to. We can use compulsion first and teach it it has to perform first. Or, we can get the dog to want to first, and then either but classical conditioning, or with compulsion, teach it that is must perform. The difference between this has nothing to do with bonding. It is the major conflict between 2 schools of thought. I like both of them.


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Tracy,
> 
> In theory, the mark is a release---FREEEEEEEEEEE!!!! Unless, you devalue it with commands and corrections following it. Mark---reward, reset the next behavior. It doesn't matter what you do AFTER the reward. However, if you clutter it with commands/corrections before the reward then you are lessening the effectiveness of the marker training---or so the theory goes.
> 
> Terrasita


Um ok fair enough, I can follow that but that is not what I said that is what Lynda is saying no? Im getting confused again  8-[

t


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Gregory S. Norton said:


> I believe clicker is just a novelty, a panacea for people who train foo foo fi fi dogs.Modifying behavior is only created by developing a bond wth your k9.That bond is developed in such a way as to create,you the pack leader.The k9 fulfills the desired behavior because he has to and then because he WANTS to.
> Praise comes direct and correction indirectly.There is no substitute for the bond that praise creates.
> Solid understanding of k9 behavior transfers directly to becoming a good pack leader.


 
That sounds like it's straight from a text book, you a Koehler fan by any chance ? I don't disagree with you on the praise bit, my odd jaunt with the clicker threw up this very issue too..getting bitten by a very excited dog, I just side stepped it though, I have a very praise orientated dog.

Clicker isn't a novelty by the way, I'm quite sure the good folks posting on this thread can put you right there...no need to be disrespectful.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Clicker training goes back to the 50's if not further. 
I will agree that those little frog clickers are quite a novelty though. :grin:


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

Gillian Schuler said:


> Quote: Linda Myers
> Originally Posted by *Mary Buck*
> _I have also had them undeniably screw up a dog when handled badly or with poor timing. Unless you have brilliant timing and a full understanding of the exercise and the finished product , scent articles are incredibly difficult to shape via a clicker. Add a little help...and it comes along very well._
> 
> ...


No where in the above post did I question the intelligence of anyone those are your words and your trying to make them mine. Sorry but that dog won't bite. Mary set the frame for my response with... 

"I have also had them undeniably screw up a dog when handled badly or with poor timing. "

As if the clicker could work itself!!!! LOL right. Please lets not forget the human factor in this equation. 
Seriously though no matter the tools used, be them hammers, saws, weed whackers, whips, chains, collars or clickers their only as good as the person's understanding, knowledge and skill of said tools. I only pointed out that the clicker was safer in the hands of those less capable.(timing wise). Because the worst thing that could happen while misusing one is you reward the wrong behavior and extinguish the right one!
Again sorry but this just isn't the case with the correction collars that's a fact there is nothing warm and fuzzy about them even though some try to paint them in that light. As they require much more skill and finesse in order for them to be truly harmless and effective. 
I'm basing this off of watching many handler's (professionals who are suppose to be well versed in them) dogs scream, shriek and tremble the whole time they were working the dogs. I'm talking about dog trainers not the average Joe. Below is what happens when the average Joe get their hands on an e-collar before first learning the proper way to use it.

One day watched a man on the football field at my job completely shut down a yellow lab pup about 6-7 months old with the repeated stimulation I mean shocking with the e-collar. Why because the jerk didn't know how to read the pup. the only reason I didn't go out there and tap his face was because I was on the clock otherwise he'd got it. Wouldn't have been the first or the third time I've ever cold cocked man for being utterly stupid. I was thoroughly pissed that day.:evil::mrgreen:::lol::lol:
Does all this mean I'm against correction collars? God no as I do own a couple of prong collars. But I'm against the unskilled, village idiots and yahoos from using them especially e-collars. 

I know they have some merit and have saw an e-collar used in a very humane and effective way. It was used to fix a running off problem and once the behavior was the fixed it went back in the trick bag. So not against them just think there is more room for error using them and therefore more responsibility.

I realize this post might infuriate some but that's why I own and train ABs they have much thicker skin then their furry counterparts. D/


----------



## Mary Buck (Apr 7, 2010)

[

I don’t think we disagree all that much I use a reward based marker system too…I just do not shape behaviors . I model and lure if necessary to develop understanding . 

“The fact that you mention this makes me think you haven't been able to carry the clicker training to the next step with any success or you were just to impatience to see it through to it's natural end.”

Umm really? I choose not to get offended by that…but darlin since you don’t know me 
Or what I may or may not have accomplished me thinks you ought to tread carefully. Not everyone is as cheerful as I am . I did not abandon shaping because of some inherent flaw in my ability or because I am impatient. I watched a ton…I learned a ton..and I quickly came to believe it made dogs too hectic for my tastes, I like dogs trained with clarity. How on earth did you get the the point where shaping becomes “the natural end” to clicker training?

That doesn’t make sense to me ..please clarify. 


“Dogs are only indecisive because the handler is unclear in what they want or don't know how to communicate in a way the dog understands”

Completely disagree…dogs are indecisive with too many choices. Remove the options and 
clarify the task. My job is to show my dog exactly what’s expected and not let it try and figure it out on its own . 

I do indeed have my hands my body my voice and my energy in the ring. The transition is seamless because I use them every day in training..I doubt we disagree on this,,,I just lose the crutches faster (toys and cookies) 

So let me ask this. You want a quick tight fast competitive sit. You would do what:

Stand around and wait for the dog to offer it? Do you give NRM when the dog sits sloppily? How do you convey to your dog that the behavior you want is front legs stay stationary…rear end moves up into the front legs and no motion is rocking back? How
Many “bad” sits do you get while you wait for a better one? What do you do if you dog starts throwing out behaviors? 

I want a tight fast competitive sit I put on hand under dogs butt…one hand on its nose with a cookie. use my hand to scoop the dog forward and use the cookie to prevent forward 
Motion. Its black and white..I have nothing to FIX..I have created exactly what I want…each time and every time..until its firmly established as muscle memory?

The eternal debate between the lurers and the shapers. You think your behavior is stronger why? I think my behavior is stronger because it was created without conflict . 

I don’t think shaping is bad..I just have never seen it hold up in competition….(beyond just getting a Title…you can most likely accomplish that)

Its pretty fun for teaching tricks though!


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

> No where in the above post did I question the intelligence of anyone


I didnt see that either....



> I'm basing this off of watching many handler's (professionals who are suppose to be well versed in them) dogs scream, shriek and tremble the whole time they were working the dogs.


What on earth???? Dog "trainers"??? :-# Although I have seen some overly dramatic dogs in all fairness...



> One day watched a man on the football field at my job completely shut down a yellow lab pup about 6-7 months old with the repeated stimulation I mean shocking with the e-collar. Why because the jerk didn't know how to read the pup. the only reason I didn't go out there and tap his face was because I was on the clock otherwise he'd got it. Wouldn't have been the first or the third time I've ever cold cocked man for being utterly stupid. I was thoroughly pissed that day.:


I would be too and Im a fan of ecollars [-(



> I realize this post might infuriate some but that's why I own and train ABs they have much thicker skin then their furry counterparts. D/


lol aint that the truth. I see some of these folks getting upset and Im scratching my head :-k


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

Bob Scott said:


> Creating a bond is a totally separate thing from training.
> YES! Training can create a great bond but that's still something between the dog and handler and not necessarily because of training methods.
> Training methods used improperly can create a lack of trust in a dog also.
> I think I've got a pretty good bond with my clicker/marker trained foo foo, fi fi dogs. :wink:


Yeah Thunder the FooFoo dog...hehehehe Right that's the first thing comes to mind when you see him.


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

I think you both have valid points... but why does it always have to be one way or no way? :mrgreen:

now Im out for my 4 day weekend.... play nice\\/

t


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Speaking for myself, and knowing Lynda, I can say that the issue isn't about using the e-collar OR clicker in itself. It's using either one incorrectly. 
Less damage, both physically and mentally, to the dog with poorly timed marker training then poorly timed correction training. 
I trained for many years with corrections. Often times to heavy handed in my younger years. That's MY (the trainer) temperment problem.
With marker training I have still lost it with my dogs. Again my (trainer) problem, not the method.
I've still had really nice success with both methods. Marker training with NO physical correction can work! 
I'll forever use marker training but I still will use correction if I see it fits. Other them MY (trainer) problems, it hasn't been needed in the past 5-6 yrs with my dogs. and that's competition training not just manners.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

What is wrong with dog people ??? You get some weirdo horse people, bitching mainly, but not this huge aggressive division between subtleties. I used to put the difference down to that anyone can go out and get a dog, a book, and a crate and call themselves a dog trainer, not so much with horses. I'm reverting here, I don't even think we're referring to bite work lol


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

Mary Buck said:


> [ Umm really? I choose not to get offended by that…but darlin since you don’t know me  Or what I may or may not have accomplished me thinks you ought to tread carefully. Not everyone is as cheerful as I am . I did not abandon shaping because of some inherent flaw in my ability or because I am impatient. I watched a ton…I learned a ton..and I quickly came to believe it made dogs too hectic for my tastes, I like dogs trained with clarity. How on earth did you get the the point where shaping becomes “the natural end” to clicker training?


First off I'm not your darling and it makes me no never mind what you've accomplished as long as your happy with it and no animals were hurt in the process. I am also quite bounce and bubbly so we're tic for tac there. I guess what I'm having issue with is the fact that you think because for whatever reason you didn't get what I and others have gotta using a clicker and shaping. Then somehow it's has no place in competition training. I hate to burst your bubble but there many people out there who have those quick snapping sits and downs along with that gay schutzhund heeling including my own dogs and we got it with...click click click. 



Mary Buck said:


> That doesn’t make sense to me ..please clarify.


Wow...Why you pretty much said earlier that you were bout it, bout it and that I would be wise to what was the word? Oh yeah I remember now tread carefully. With all that watching and learning guess you weren't watching and learning from the right folks !!!! Because that's how I learned by watching and learning and hot damn...snapdragons I manged to found the right ones to pattern my training off of:-\". 



Mary Buck said:


> Lynda said “Dogs are only indecisive because the handler is unclear in what they want or don't know how to communicate in a way the dog understands” Completely disagree…dogs are indecisive with too many choices. Remove the options and


Everyone's free to their opinions and I disagree as well so on this one we agree to disagree. I know dogs are capable of thought and reason on a very basic level and cultivated it through training and actively select a pup who you can see the wheels turning in their little heads. Most people don't like these dogs because they can often times out think aware handlers. 



Mary Buck said:


> clarify the task. My job is to show my dog exactly what’s expected and not let it try and figure it out on its own .


 You make it sound like the dogs trained with only clicker are out there without a brain in their fluffy little brains all willy nilly and that simply is not true. But I guess you get what you expect.



Mary Buck said:


> I do indeed have my hands my body my voice and my energy in the ring. The transition is seamless because I use them every day in training..I doubt we disagree on this,,,I just lose the crutches faster (toys and cookies)


Crutches???? When has being rewarded for good behavior ever been deemed a crutch? Me thinks that all the watching and learning didn't teach you bout random rewards. And if you think it doesn't work or isn't effective then why are the casinos filled with hopeful people? Because the slot machine principle is powerful stuff right there.



Mary Buck said:


> So let me ask this. You want a quick tight fast competitive sit. You would do what: Stand around and wait for the dog to offer it? Do you give NRM when the dog sits sloppily? How do you convey to your dog that the behavior you want is front legs stay stationary…rear end moves up into the front legs and no motion is rocking back? How



Awww see I don't want it I already have it and there quick!!!



Mary Buck said:


> Many “bad” sits do you get while you wait for a better one? What do you do if you dog starts throwing out behaviors?



When you fully understand how to shape and use the marker training you don't have this problem with bad behaviors. Tot tot remember you already know it doesn't ork. So it's not for me to try and change your mind. 




Mary Buck said:


> I want a tight fast competitive sit I put on hand under dogs butt…one hand on its nose with a cookie. use my hand to scoop the dog forward and use the cookie to prevent forward



Wow and to think I've been doing it wrong all this time...not! I didn't have to touch any of dogs when teaching them to give me the correct sit.:-k 




Mary Buck said:


> Motion. Its black and white..I have nothing to FIX..I have created exactly what I want…each time and every time..until its firmly established as muscle memory?


Neither do I the difference I bet is I didn't work as hard as you did to get it either.


All throughout you keep implying that those who shape a behavior in the beginning dogs are battling with conflict and that's just not corrected.



Mary Buck said:


> I don’t think shaping is bad..I just have never seen it hold up in competition….(beyond just getting a Title…you can most likely accomplish that) Its pretty fun for teaching tricks though!


then ya need to get out a little more because they can and do hold up very well.


whew gotta get to training have a trial in 17 days.


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

Bob Scott said:


> Speaking for myself, and knowing Lynda, I can say that the issue isn't about using the e-collar OR clicker in itself. It's using either one incorrectly.
> Less damage, both physically and mentally, to the dog with poorly timed marker training then poorly timed correction training.
> I trained for many years with corrections. Often times to heavy handed in my younger years. That's MY (the trainer) temperment problem.
> With marker training I have still lost it with my dogs. Again my (trainer) problem, not the method.
> ...


Bob you would be correct use whatever mthod works for you but please do it right!!!


----------



## Mary Buck (Apr 7, 2010)

Lynda Myers said:


> First off I'm not your darling and it makes me no never mind what you've accomplished as long as your happy with it and no animals were hurt in the process. I am also quite bounce and bubbly so we're tic for tac there. I guess what I'm having issue with is the fact that you think because for whatever reason you didn't get what I and others have gotta using a clicker and shaping. Then somehow it's has no place in competition training. I hate to burst your bubble but there many people out there who have those quick snapping sits and downs along with that gay schutzhund heeling including my own dogs and we got it with...click click click.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow did you ever get your panties in a bunch . 

Endlessly I repeat..I use the clicker I use it alot...i think its fine for alot of stuff....there is stuff its not fine for. 

And good luck with your Trial. First one? 

Your determination to decide that shaping is the only way to flyand anyone that does not buy into the pure shaping scenario leads me to believe there is a lack of depth of training and experience on your part.

I believe you mentioned four whole dogs though. Four! Wow ! Lots of people are naive and combative until they have a few more miles under them.


----------



## Sarah ten Bensel (Mar 16, 2008)

Very interesting thread. I have used both luring and free shaping - both witth a marker/clicker. Most recently i decided to teach perch work as an exercise in rear-end awareness. I used free shaping and got success with my puppy. I lured with my other dog and got success. However it is a simple behavior. 
So far my five year old male has fairly fast sits and downs in motion. I used luring for muscle memory to teach. The problem I have had with luring is ARTFULLY fading the lure since dogs seem to learn body motion before the verbal. I used shaping to learn to take the dumbbell as a puppy.
With my new guy Pele, now 8 months I lured and marked for sit, down and stand. I am still working on "fading the lure" with the stand. I am glad I did this work when he was little because he had more food drive then. 
My general observation is that using such positive markers and shaping also makes the learning deeper a solid default muscle-memory built skill.. It seems to give the dog more confidence and the tendency to think he is controlling the training session. They really are selfish creatures. "whats in it for me.." seems to be their M.O.
I am also seeing some value in "leash pressure" to teach a behvior.In my opinion leash pressure is not really a correction, just a means to gently guide. In particular heeling. Pele is a bit crazy these days. The heat and his age has diminshed his food drive somewhat. I bring out the toy and I seem to send his brain into the stratosphere.
TTTOOOOYYYYY!!!!! I have put on Mr. Pinch and gently I am guiding him with leash pressure into correct position. Pele out of position? slight pressure - no verbal "no"/correction. when he adjusts for "pressure off" into correct position - I mark and reward. The idea is that he understand he causes the pressure and he also causes the reward. Does that make sense? My hope is to make it crystal clear for him. So far this seems to be working. This all has followed plenty of luring to heel position with food as well as choosing to heel through shaping as a young puppy. The toy brings out a much different frame of mind using this method seems like a natural segue from the muscle-memory work I did when he was 3-7 months old. I don't want to go down the path of nagging him with corrections at his young age. The risk there is to desensitizing. Of course right now at 8 months he seems to be rapidly changing. I can only hope I can get better and better at training.


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

Mary Buck said:


> Wow did you ever get your panties in a bunch .
> 
> Endlessly I repeat..I use the clicker I use it alot...i think its fine for alot of stuff....there is stuff its not fine for.
> 
> ...


Hehehe you really are a hoot. Of course you would believe that I had only trained a total of four whole dogs . Man the more I read that the funnier it gets!


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

tracey delin said:


> I think its dog dependent……… not breed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





tracey delin said:


> I guess I haven’t had a dog with low food drive so I don’t see it as an option to not teach it prior to further work???
> 
> t


You guys are soooo funny with the tit for tat. Just because my dog doesn't eat my hand, you took that big giant leap to ohhhhhh, she has low food drive. Now if you would have said low object drive or toy drive--you would be correct. If it isn't alive, she could care less. Perhaps I've established that bond, relationship, etc. early on and we don't have to revisit it after the first episode. Perhaps she's just clear. Even in drive la la land, she's not gonna put teeth on me. This is not a bad thing. 

Terrasita


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Mary Buck said:


> I use a clicker for many things..but have to disagree with the above. With some dogs waiting around for them to make the initial choice, just leads to conflict...which then colors the whole perception of training. I use lures and or modeling and get quick repsonse, full understanding and zero conflict. I wil also l go to the mat on believing I gain the upmost in willingness.
> 
> Some trainers confuse that frantic offering with a dog that is fully engaged and "willing" I see a dog thats desperately asking the trainer what the heck the question is...so they can answer it. Never found a shaped behavior any stronger than a lured one....except manybe in the trainers mind...since they had to work so darn hard to get it .
> 
> ...


 
Okay,

There's luring vs. pure shaping. There are various theories regarding how you GET the behavior. Some use pure shaping. Some use shaping. Some use both. I don't mind luring or shaping but I'm not big on modeling and one shouldn't get dependent on lures. To each's own which you use to get the behavior. What you call frantic offering, we were taught as operant. Its a great state of mind---"what can I do for you." The spontneous rehearsal---offering stage, generally precedes the adding the cue to the behavior. The dog knows several behaviors that will trigger the slot machine and he will throw all of them at you in rapid fire succession. Khaiba was this type of dog. Phase 2 was for him to develop the attitude of absolute attention and asking me to COMMAND him to do something to trigger the slot machine. This is how I faded the spontaneous rehearsal to the idea of "what can I do for you, please tell me." The dogs have a blast with this training and I wouldn't use the word frantic. The behaviors that they offer are ones that you have trained. Only if you trained them incorrectly via marker, do they perform them incorrectly. 

As for the scent articles, I don't know why correction based training wouldn't require the same brilliant timing and full understanding of the exercise and finished product. I'm not one for legislating for others. You use whatever you want with your dog. Things I can't handle seeing or hearing [dogs screaming with e-collars], I'll choose to train elsewhere. I'm not an absolutist either way except to say that I prefer marker training in the teaching phase. I don't really understand how someone who says that they use it thinks someone is naive and lacking in trial miles who is a proponent of it. My consistency in trialing improved with marker training. Did you use marker training only to have it completely fall apart in a trial? If so in what way?

Terrasita


----------



## Anne Vaini (Mar 15, 2007)

I have seen frantic spontaneous rehearsal and *I've learned that spontaneous rehearsal is not a fault of clicker training, it is a result of a trainer's mistake*. 3 - 4 years ago, ALL of my dogs did spontaneous rehearsal to the point I was ready to give up on clicker training. Then, I accepted it is as part of clicker training. ... Until a clicker-trained service dog began spontaneously rehearsing closing a car door and nearly smashed my hand!

That motivated me to find what I was doing wrong. While all of my dogs did spontaneous rehersal, not all clicker-trained dogs did it. I found my mistake, fixed it. Now, it is rare for me to see if past the first week or so of training when the dog is learning "I can do something to earn a reward."

To avoid spontaneous rehearsal:

1) Only work on one un-named behavior at a time. Exception: Puppies being raised for disc, performance stunts - but that is another topic.

2) As soon as a behavior is named, STOP rewarding it when the dog offers it. ONLY reward when you have asked for it. Exception: Attention/Focus/Recall behaviors.

I introduce these rules to clients when the dog has learned 3 behaviors it can do to earn a reward, or after 1 week of training. None of my clients have had a problem with spontaneous rehearsal.


----------



## Mary Buck (Apr 7, 2010)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Okay,
> 
> As for the scent articles, I don't know why correction based training wouldn't require the same brilliant timing and full understanding of the exercise and finished product. I'm not one for legislating for others. You use whatever you want with your dog. Things I can't handle seeing or hearing [dogs screaming with e-collars], I'll choose to train elsewhere. I'm not an absolutist either way except to say that I prefer marker training in the teaching phase. I don't really understand how someone who says that they use it thinks someone is naive and lacking in trial miles who is a proponent of it. My consistency in trialing improved with marker training. Did you use marker training only to have it completely fall apart in a trial? If so in what way?
> 
> Terrasita


Hey some misunderstanding to clear up . I do not use corrections for scent work. I do think clickers are a problem for teaching this simply because the dog has to learn to work on its own and be self reliant. Its why a lot of trainers use a tie down board…if the dog is wrong it self corrects. Its never looking to the trainer for right/wrong markers. I teach it in hunt drive and its all a big game…about as far from correction based as you can get.

And I will try one more time to clarify I do use markers I do use clickers ..I just use them for everything and I DO think free shaping lacks in ring carryover. I pretty much write this in every post but it gets missed because someone’s head exploded. :lol: Not using free shaping does not equal compulsion based training. I do free shape tricks and fun things when I am not worried about producing a finished product..ala the perch work the last poster mentioned .

My point about being naive was not based on the use of shaping training It was based on the posters insistance that it’s the only gig going. The best trainers I know have a pretty big toolbox, an open mind, and a relatively small ego. 

I think most trainers here have a lot of tools….you try things and see if they work. But you don’t really know unless you put it out there in Trials and Shows. Until then, your just another trainer who gets pretty good behavior in your backyard.

Take in on the road, .see how it holds up of if you need to change things . 

 sorry about big type ...stoopid computer


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

Anne Vaini said:


> I have seen frantic spontaneous rehearsal and *I've learned that spontaneous rehearsal is not a fault of clicker training, it is a result of a trainer's mistake*. 3 - 4 years ago, ALL of my dogs did spontaneous rehearsal to the point I was ready to give up on clicker training. Then, I accepted it is as part of clicker training. ... Until a clicker-trained service dog began spontaneously rehearsing closing a car door and nearly smashed my hand!
> 
> That motivated me to find what I was doing wrong. While all of my dogs did spontaneous rehersal, not all clicker-trained dogs did it. I found my mistake, fixed it. Now, it is rare for me to see if past the first week or so of training when the dog is learning "I can do something to earn a reward."
> 
> ...


Aww hell the world must be coming to an end I better pack for the trip...Anne that's right I can't argue with any of this.;-)


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Terrisita

Lol not trying to be tit for tat? If you mean that I said I never had a low food drive dog? I actually take that back I had a med-low who took food gently she had a nice slow methodical track but in the end she didn't make it far as we washed her...and no I'm not directing that at you or your dog.

My apologies in thinking your dog was not high food drive, wasn't trying to ruffle anyones feathers its how I interpreted it. 

I don't even know how we wound up here. I only said I thought your way of delivering food was more consistent with your methodology than Lyndas which I found in complete contrast...and if I understand you do too.... But I still think if you drop food to avoid getting bit your avoiding the issue but still a more consistent option than lynda. I'm also not a fan of dropping food because if the dog misses his face is in the ground and that's the last place I want my dogs face unless we are tracking. 

I don't know how everytime I ask lynda for more information it winds up on me and you?... Althoug I think you articulate better than lynda I would like to hear her personal responses and opinions.

T


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

No offense to you lynda on the "articulate better" although I know your not the sensitive type. ;-). I'm just feeling a lil self conscience about it right now...

T


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

tracey delin said:


> No offense to you lynda on the "articulate better" although I know your not the sensitive type. ;-). I'm just feeling a lil self conscience about it right now...
> 
> T


I don't ever take offense to the stuff people say on here. I know, I know it doesn't sound like it but if we were to talk about this topic on the phone or person then you would know that. I am very direct in my speech and often times don't think about who it might offend. Y
You are correct Terrasita is great at putting things into words its partially because she's a teacher at heart and a good one.


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Lynda Myers said:


> I don't ever take offense to the stuff people say on here. I know, I know it doesn't sound like it but if we were to talk about this topic on the phone or person then you would know that. I am very direct in my speech and often times don't think about who it might offend. Y
> You are correct Terrasita is great at putting things into words its partially because she's a teacher at heart and a good one.


Good I'm the same way. I don't have much of a filter I'm usually just thinking and expressing out loud....my hubby yells at me all the time because I'm direct but its never with an ill intent, don't have a poker face either. In person its just conversation... On a mb all kinds of imaginary emotions and intent come about.

Ob and training talk is something I like doing and flushing out ideas and opinions.

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Anne Vaini said:


> I have seen frantic spontaneous rehearsal and *I've learned that spontaneous rehearsal is not a fault of clicker training, it is a result of a trainer's mistake*. 3 - 4 years ago, ALL of my dogs did spontaneous rehearsal to the point I was ready to give up on clicker training. Then, I accepted it is as part of clicker training. ... Until a clicker-trained service dog began spontaneously rehearsing closing a car door and nearly smashed my hand!
> 
> That motivated me to find what I was doing wrong. While all of my dogs did spontaneous rehersal, not all clicker-trained dogs did it. I found my mistake, fixed it. Now, it is rare for me to see if past the first week or so of training when the dog is learning "I can do something to earn a reward."
> 
> ...


 
Anne,

You are dead on. The spontaneous rehearsal came from learning multiple behaviors before they learned the words/cues for the behaviors. Your above is basically what I did with Khaiba. He learned real quick it was what can I do for you--you'll tell me with a cue. This also freed up his mind to really start learning the cue/command for the behavior.

Terrasita


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Mary Buck said:


> My point about being naive was not based on the use of shaping training It was based on the posters insistance that it’s the only gig going. The best trainers I know have a pretty big toolbox, an open mind, and a relatively small ego.
> 
> I think most trainers here have a lot of tools….you try things and see if they work. But you don’t really know unless you put it out there in Trials and Shows. Until then, your just another trainer who gets pretty good behavior in your backyard.
> 
> ...


 
Again, your post implies that the trial result proves the worth of the training and that marker training can fall apart on the trial field. If I understand you right, you say that you use use clicker but to get the behavior you use modeling or luring as opposed to free shaping. You seem to indicate that a shaped behavior is less reliable for trialing. If I'm understanding you correctly, why. What specific behavior did you shape for trialing that fell apart in the trial?

For the record, I've used lures and shaping. I'm not real big on modeling and don't use it as a rule, but that's neither here nor there. As for the backyard, there is a lot of successful training and performance going on that never sees a trial/sport context. If you aren't duplicating your training on the trial field, there may be several reasons why: 1) The handler turns into an imposter and it screws up the dog mentally; 2) Regardless of what method you use, you just didn't adequately prepare the dog for the trial conditions and behaviors needed so back to the drawing board because there is a hole somewhere. 

BTW, you sound about as open minded about shaping as I am about e-collars.:wink:

Terrasita


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

Mary Buck said:


> And I will try one more time to clarify I do use markers I do use clickers ..I just use them for everything and I DO think free shaping lacks in ring carryover. I pretty much write this in every post but it gets missed because someone’s head exploded. :lol:



LOL It's not that it got missed, I gotcha. However what your not getting is the fact that just because you were not successful in using the free shaping and clicker as I do feel it's not a good tool for training competition OB. True I don't compete in AKC or UKC obedience now. But not because I can't! Instead it's because I find it extremely boring. Unless of course one of my friends is competing with their dog that was trained using free shaping and a clicker. Love it then because they almost always squash the competition.
Can your dog give you all the behaviors you've taught for competition with a helper on the field? How bout when his favorite toys and such are scattered all over the field? Things that trigger object and prey drives in your dog and now you must run your ob routine over them? Or do a long down where you are 15-20 feet away with your back turned and tasty treats are literally right under his nose? Have you done a motion exercise where the helper is a couple feet away in a chair chucking items like balls, hula hoops, caution tape pompoms, pool noodles etc. near the the dog? Mine can and my male is a high object drive dog. The only thing I trained for was schutzhund ob never the PSA stuff just found out recently that it does carry over. Behaviors...fuss, down, sit etc are to be done no matter whats going on around the dog! So in my world trained using free shaping and a clicker not only works well but the behaviors learned definitely crosses over from one discipline to another(schutzhund to PSA) with little or no proofing. But then again my dogs are encouraged to analyze stuff, ya know think on their own. Ok yeah they are bulldogs so it takes a little longer for them to connect the dots. Which they do eventually and once they do the behavior rock solid most of the time as no dog or thing is 100%.




> Not using free shaping does not equal compulsion based training.


Never said it was.



> My point about being naive was not based on the use of shaping training It was based on the posters insistance that it’s the only gig going.


 
OMG you are outer there aren't you? Again never said it was nor do I believe it. 



> The best trainers I know have a pretty big toolbox, an open mind, and a *relatively small ego.*


Guess this counts you out then huh...remember these words?



> *but darlin since you don’t know me
> Or what I may or may not have accomplished me thinks you ought to tread carefully. Not everyone is as cheerful as I am*


:-\":-\" :wink:



> I think most trainers here have a lot of tools….you try things and see if they work. But you don’t really know unless you put it out there in Trials and Shows. Until then, your just another trainer who gets pretty good behavior in your backyard.
> Take in on the road, .see how it holds up of if you need to change things .


Oh snap are you saying that if one doesn't trial or participate in shows their training has no merit? Some of your best competitors and trainers are found in the backyard! Just because you don't trial or show doesn't mean that a person never leaves home. Because running a dog through a ob routine in a crowded area where there are outdoor cafes, bands playing, with people/animals going here and there is a great test of one's training.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Lynda,

I was trying to think about the lures vs. shaping. I know I used it with my finish, sits and downs but I use a lot of movement to get the dog in heel position. Thinking back to Deacon and now with Katarra, would you agree you do the same. When I think of total free shaping I think of the retrieve and my work with some livestock things. I know when I got myself into that sticky situation with the crazy sheep last night that Khira had never seen, thank goodness for how I had marker trained her ability to walk into the pressure calmly and flank from there. Otherwise, I would've gotten creamed. With all my dogs I think she is the best in generalizing with Khaldi being the most specific.

I've had the benefit of watching your dogs on the training field and then on the trialing field. Rook was on an unknown field and we took him to unknown fields prior to the actual trial. This is what I mean in terms of preparation. What's neat about Rook is again that generalization. It didn't matter where you did the 300 paces and it didn't matter whether there was a reward in site as we did it with both. We built the 300 paces gradually until they were set as habit and no expection of reward; changed locations; and he performed. What you posted above in terms of scenarios and distractions might be a process in the training that is skipped; hence the trouble. I don't know. I only know that, as a learning system it works. 

Maybe Mary can list competition behaviors that were marker trained with modeling that she thinks were successfully performed in a trial situation vs. behaviors that were shaped that were unreliable . I'd be curious as to how they were shaped. Also, Mary are you familiar with Morgwyn Spector. This is an awesome book for AKC competition and for breaking down obedience behaviors. I really like how he approaches the directed retrieve and gradually builds the heeling in terms of duration. 


Terrasita


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

tracey delin said:


> Um ok fair enough, I can follow that but that is not what I said that is what Lynda is saying no? Im getting confused again  8-[
> 
> t


Please don't misunderstand me here. I don't have an issue with getting attention or intense focus from my dogs as it something that comes very natural to me. Don't mean to be braggadocios but I have this in spades. This is one behavior I can teach well ithout even trying. So feel it doesn't hurt the long term goal when I correct for grapping the hand with the reward in it during a training session. Besides it doesn't usually require more the two hits on the nose to eliminate the behavior. Because if I have to go there it will be quick swift and effective that way we don't have to revisit it. Do I think others should follow my example no not if your not sure about it as the dog will pick up on the uncertainty in the handler.


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> A
> 
> BTW, you sound about as open minded about shaping as I am about e-collars.:wink:
> 
> Terrasita


Oh stop that's not fair... we've talked about where they possibly maybe be used.LOL So you haven't close the door on them all togehter!!:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

My interest in it wasn't about whether or not it worked, corrections work...training mistakes can be fixed etc etc.. My interest is the conflict in overall theory that you seem to be very set on.... And why do you chose this one thing to differentiate when you can also train it in a more cohesive manner?

If its just a simple cuz I want to so be it lol. I just find that interesting that's all.

T


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Lynda,
> 
> I was trying to think about the lures vs. shaping. I know I used it with my finish, sits and downs but I use a lot of movement to get the dog in heel position. Thinking back to Deacon and now with Katarra, would you agree you do the same. When I think of total free shaping I think of the retrieve and my work with some livestock things. I know when I got myself into that sticky situation with the crazy sheep last night that Khira had never seen, thank goodness for how I had marker trained her ability to walk into the pressure calmly and flank from there. Otherwise, I would've gotten creamed. With all my dogs I think she is the best in generalizing with Khaldi being the most specific.
> 
> ...


Yeah ya we train similar but I said earlier if the lure is used will try to eliminate it quickly. I like to shape a behavior and once I've got it being offered reliability will start to tagging it may result to luring if I can't practice the behavior correctly. For instance the the "basic" position. if I don't have a wall, fence couch to working against will initially use a lure. But will work on fading it out at the start by using less hand motion each time I ask for the behavior.
Love Khaldi who also sports a Mohawk:smile: and the way he executes "and a finish". You really to video his flat retrieve together with the "and a finish. he's adorable.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Lynda Myers said:


> Oh stop that's not fair... we've talked about where they possibly maybe be used.LOL So you haven't close the door on them all togehter!!:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D:-D


 
Hahahah. You remind me that I have to set up my control at a distance experiment with my voice activated radio attached to Khira's collar. I'm kinda interest in the fancy do dads with the pagers and such. I'm also supposed to be training myself to use a whistle to see the affect on a a dog in gaga land. But haven't gotten around to that either. But this weekend I have a lot of time off so I should take the BC out for a spin or two and charge the radios.

As for theory, what Lynda does with her bop on the nose isn't really as "against theory" as you think. Implementing marker training can vary depending on who you talk to. Some people call themselves purists and are free shaping only. Others employ luring and modeling to get the behavior. Even Karen Pryor isn't purist "free shaping" only type of thinker on this. A lot gets losts in clicker discussions. You say clicker/marker and people jump to thinking you are free shaping only or you don't believe in correcting a dog ever. "Marker" isn't synonomous with "purely positive." Depending on the behavior, Lynda may sound like she is absolute pure shaping but I know that she is a pragmatist and will work with whatever it takes to get the behavior. Like me she probably is the least in favor of modeling. We see value in the dog doing it himself, even if we lure. To me in the modeling, there is room for conflict. Even though you didn't correct the dog, you are putting the dog in the position and then marking the position. In essence you physically forced the dog into position, just in a warmer friendlier way. I think that has room for conflict city but maybe it works for Mary. Again, to eaches own. We want to get rid of lures as soon as possible. With me, I rarely have to lure a dog more than a couple of times and generally its the first session for that particular behavior. They generally connect the dots pretty quick if they have the brain power and I select for analysis so this is never an issue for me with my personal dogs. 

I think in all the literature that I've read on this some folks think of the mark ending the behavior and releasing the dog. With that there is the proposition that after you have marked, you have the value of the marker in indicating to the dog that he did the correct behavior. You will hear marker referred to as the keep going signal as opposed to the release or end of the behavior signal. Kayce Cover with her Syn Alia actually uses an intermediate bridge as the you are right keep going signal and the marker as the terminal bridge; i.e. end behavior release. Either way for the purpose of LEARNING, with the properly marker conditioned dog, if you mark, you have indicated the correct behavior. The marker in and of itself becomes the reinforcer. So if you don't immediately reward, all is not lost. Personally, I think you have to be VERY careful with this because, its the reward and the possibility of reward that gives the marker value. If you delay that reward to long then you weaken the effectiveness of the marker. However, we do fade the behavior chain/duration and fade the mark/reward [i.e. intermittent reinforcement]. I think if you are fighting over how the dog takes the reward then you are getting into conflict land and reducing the value of the process. 

I think it has a lot to do with where you are with the dog. This all began for me with Carol talking about Ajay. At this stage in the game, I wouldn't want to clutter the reward phase so proposed alternatives until he learns to control his mouth and state of mind. There is an element of knowing and reading the dog in front of you in the choices you make. Its not cookie cutter from dog to dog.

Terrasita


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

tracey delin said:


> My interest in it wasn't about whether or not it worked, corrections work...training mistakes can be fixed etc etc.. My interest is the conflict in overall theory that you seem to be very set on.... And why do you chose this one thing to differentiate when you can also train it in a more cohesive manner?
> 
> If its just a simple cuz I want to so be it lol. I just find that interesting that's all.
> 
> T


What conflict? There's no conflict in my training theory...when training (competition) I strictly use a marker based method. But bad manners will always be approached in a compulsive nature. If and when the two (manners/competition) ever meet then may sacrifice an easy to obtained behavior in order to eliminate a bad manner. But this particular manner (biting the hand) we're talking is usually dealt with when loading the clicker or when teaching the focus/attention. So the integrity of the behavior is still...make sense?
Our views on somethings are vastly different at no time will I ever tolerate one of my own dogs biting me for any reason. In the past if a dog bite me I would either hang them or take an axe handle and beat the living tar out of them! Please know that I am not joking. 
Any one who knows me now knows that I am no longer like that Thank God! Dog training and owning is so much more fun and stress free now!\\/ Now if I could just get Kandy to stop eating those mystical socks that she's magical getting it would be all goody in the doggie hoodie.


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Ok so I tagged you wrong? Your not the "purest" I thought you were? I honestly envisioned you as very set in your "strokes" but I can only gather by your posts (and terresitas answers for you ;-) ) like I said because you want to is cool, just not at all what I expected to hear based on your other posts, obviously I missed some ;-).

What is the point of loading a clicker to you? I'd like to hear your theory on that and maybe that will explain what I am missing here. I don't load a clicker, don't use one hardly if ever.

Terresita, can you walk me through the steps of the bob on the head and explain how in theory it is the same? I'm obviosly missing something.

T


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

tracey delin said:


> ... What is the point of loading a clicker to you? I'd like to hear your theory on that and maybe that will explain what I am missing here. I don't load a clicker, don't use one hardly if ever. ...


Not addressed to me, but I read this with puzzlement. If you don't load the clicker ("charge the mark" for me; I usually use a verbal marker), then it's nothing but a random noise. 

Maybe I missed something ....


----------



## Mary Buck (Apr 7, 2010)

Lynda Myers said:


> OMG you are outer there aren't you? Again never said it was nor do I believe it.
> 
> Guess this counts you out then huh...remember these words?
> 
> ...


 
LOL  Ok I will give you that one..let's try it again. Darned typing leaves too much room for interpretation: When I said be you don't know who I am...there was no emphasis on I in my words....just a general comment that you don't know who people are on the internet and making assumptions can point you down a crazy path. Wasn't no ego meant in that.you added that part in on your own. Just a statement that you leapt to the conclusion I had some sort of epic fail with shaping which made me feel this way. Nope sorry. 

And nope I am not saying at all that if you don't participate in shows training as no merit. I am merely speaking to my point that I feel shaping doesn't hold up well in Trials...and your feeling that it does. If you don't Trial...what are you basing your opinion on?


----------



## Mary Buck (Apr 7, 2010)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Lynda,
> 
> 
> Maybe Mary can list competition behaviors that were marker trained with modeling that she thinks were successfully performed in a trial situation vs. behaviors that were shaped that were unreliable . I'd be curious as to how they were shaped. Also, Mary are you familiar with Morgwyn Spector. This is an awesome book for AKC competition and for breaking down obedience behaviors. I really like how he approaches the directed retrieve and gradually builds the heeling in terms of duration.
> ...


Cool ..I like modelling for head positon ala Sylvia Bishop. I think it makes it very clear to a dog right out of the chute where they are supposed to be looking..and eliminates eye flicking and head ducking. I can establish the idea with luring in a baby dog....and then to refine use modeling of the head .

Also what I establish early on is a strong opposition reflex..so if I have a dog dropping its head...I use hand to push away..head comes up in response and I have a rewardable response. This is what I was trying to convey that somehow got twisted into compulsion. 

I also shape sits as I wrote before...becuase I want a tight fast tuck up sit. I would rather not let the dog do it wrong..instead I show it with my hands just how I want the behavior to happen .

Yup I have the Spector book..some good stuff in there . 

Its not so much certain behaviors that are unreliable as it is my feeling that conflict creates stress in dogs..so much of what I do is try and erase that conflict..and make behaviors very exactling and clear. And I do so with my hands...rather than a clicker for some stuff.


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Connie Sutherland said:


> Not addressed to me, but I read this with puzzlement. If you don't load the clicker ("charge the mark" for me; I usually use a verbal marker), then it's nothing but a random noise.
> 
> Maybe I missed something ....


Yes but in its simplest terms what exactly does that mean? What is the theory behind it? I know my thought curious if it deviats for others. In others words not what someone read or was told, what does it personally mean to load or charge the mark?

T


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Please click one of the Quick Reply icons in the posts above to activate Quick Reply.


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Better explained... What are you teaching? Why are you doing it? What's the purpose of it?

And lynda or terrista if you want to furhter explain in theory how the bop on the head works into that, your personal view of it.

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Tracy,

You're more stuck on that Bop on the head and theory that me, Lynda or her dogs. For me it just doesn't merit anymore explanation than what's given.

Connie,

I don't know how you DON'T load the marker [clicker, voice, whatever] and still call it marker theory. As far as I know, the dog must identify the mark as indication that reward is imminent for it to be a marker. I'll admit, it doesn't take much loading with my guys for them to perform the association but I do load it. 

Mary,

I think you have indicated some personal aspects about this and it has nothing to do with establishing one way or the other that shaped behaviors are unreliable in trialing. So now I'm really confused with all those words between you and Lynda and your suggestion that she trial more and not be naive and combative. I thought you had some examples where shaped behaviors were unreliable or even that the shaping process created conflict. So we are back to to each's own. You think shaping can beget conflict. I think modeling has more room for conflict. So you'll model and I'll shape and that's the end of the story.

Terrasita


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

tracey delin said:


> Ok so I tagged you wrong? Your not the "purest" I thought you were? I honestly envisioned you as very set in your "strokes" but I can only gather by your posts (and terrasitas answers for you ;-) ) like I said because you want to is cool, just not at all what I expected to hear based on your other posts, obviously I missed some ;-).
> 
> What is the point of loading a clicker to you? I'd like to hear your theory on that and maybe that will explain what I am missing here. I don't load a clicker, don't use one hardly if ever.
> 
> ...


No you may not have pegged me wrong because I do only train behaviors required for schutzhund or PSA trials completely all marker based (clicker). It is a fine balancing act for sure. 


the reason for loading the clicker is twofold - don't want the dog's thinking split in two directions. One thing at a time for dogs is best when learning as most aren't multi-taskers. Especially if your working with the bull breeds they tend to process slower. 
Secondly, I want the dog to know that whenever or wherever he hears the click it signals a treat is coming. So will keep a clicker and treats on me when at home the first day/night or two and randomly click giving a reward.The dog learning that whenever or wherever he hears the click it signals a reward iso starts to expected. At no time (barring human error) will the dog get/hear a click or later the marker word not receive a reward. For me this is as serious a rule as the no biting one.LOL Simply because the dog's will come to later view the mark as a secondary reward. Once the dog understands the rule of clicker, whenever they hear it will give you the "oh yeah I got it right" dance or look.

I love the clicker here's a very short story about Rook if you don't by now is my most favorite dog I own. Anyway my mom and were in the living room watching TV and Rook was scooting this cardboard box around and eventually worked it into the the bedroom about 8-9 feet away. I had been hearing about the 101 things you can do with box. So told my mom lets see if I can get Rook to bring me the box without verbally telling him by just using the clicker. long and short it only took five clicks within a 5 - 10 minutes time frame. Pretty damn good for a bulldog I think.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

tracey delin said:


> Yes but in its simplest terms what exactly does that mean? What is the theory behind it? I know my thought curious if it deviats for others. In others words not what someone read or was told, what does it personally mean to load or charge the mark?
> 
> T


I load the marker to demonstrate that rather than a random noise, the marker means "Correct! Reward coming!"

I'm not sure if that's what you're asking... ? If the marker doesn't mean "Correct!" then what good is it? It "marks" the exact time when the dog did the desired action.

Loading the marker is what turns it into a marker.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Lynda Myers said:


> ... Rook was scooting this cardboard box around and eventually worked it into the the bedroom about 8-9 feet away. I had been hearing about the 101 things you can do with box. So told my mom lets see if I can get Rook to bring me the box without verbally telling him by just using the clicker. long and short it only took five clicks within a 5 - 10 minutes time frame. Pretty damn good for a bulldog I think.



Pretty damn good indeed. 8)


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Connie Sutherland said:


> I load the marker to demonstrate that rather than a random noise, the marker means "Correct! Reward coming!"
> 
> I'm not sure if that's what you're asking... ? If the marker doesn't mean "Correct!" then what good is it? It "marks" the exact time when the dog did the desired action.
> 
> Loading the marker is what turns it into a marker.


Connie, I don't know. Maybe they think they can load it in the process and the dog will figure it out as they go along. One thing for sure though, now if someone says they do marker training, I know to ask, okay, HOW do you do it.

Terrasita


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> ... if someone says they do marker training, I know to ask, okay, HOW do you do it.
> 
> Terrasita


This is a great point. It's pretty basic, pretty simple to get started in (IBs and free-shaping, etc. don't have to be involved in the beginning, or even ever, if the trainer wants a simple M.O. for teaching short, simple behaviors), but there are a couple of things that make it marker training. JMO. For me, loading the marker to the point that the dog hears it and looks for the reward is a non-optional Step One.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Maybe they think they can load it in the process and the dog will figure it out as they go along.
> 
> Terrasita


That sounds like adding a bunch of unnecessary confusion.

JMHO.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Connie Sutherland said:


> This is a great point. It's pretty basic, pretty simple to get started in (IBs and free-shaping, etc. don't have to be involved in the beginning, or even ever, if the trainer wants a simple M.O. for teaching short, simple behaviors), but there are a couple of things that make it marker training. JMO. For me, loading the marker to the point that the dog hears it and looks for the reward is a non-optional Step One.


 
I agree and I was assuming that this is everyone's step one no matter how they get the behavior. I learned in this thread not to assume.

Terrasita


----------



## Gregory S. Norton (Jan 17, 2010)

Anne Vaini said:


> I rarely completely disagree. I almost never say a trainer is wrong. I often say there are many ways to accomplish a goal and I keep an open mind to try many of them.
> 
> Behavior CAN be modified without any bond with the dog. Bonding is unnecessary for to begin training. Bonding will happen during training. (train = play = bond)
> 
> ...


You missed the point as so many women often do in dog traing.They miss the whole point in the Pack theory.Do clicker training on my working K9's with heavy distraction and see how your rediculous clicker training works.Workking real dogs and Phoo-Phoo Fi Fi are very different.If you have soooo much skill,why do you need the clicker ?


----------



## Mary Buck (Apr 7, 2010)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Tracy,
> 
> Mary,
> 
> ...


My dogs no...plenty of students dogs we attempt to fix yes.....most notably with the shaped retrieve . I have not found it at all reliable..clicker started ....with a bit of modelling seems to work pretty well. 

But it goes beyond that to the essence of how some shaped dogs that I have seen work. I feel less clarity becuase its been "ok" for them to offer different answers to the same question I pose. My dogs always answer the question the same way...and more than a few of the shaped dogs have collapsed and reverted to less than the behavior asked for in the ring. My belief is the inherant stress of the ring overrides the shaped behavior. 

Perhaps a worthy poll would be to count he number of shaped dogs on the podium vs the number of lured /modelled ones? Any venue . 

An dof course...you do it your way I will do it mine....there are plenty of ways to reach the end goal and you have to go with what you feel works best for you and your dog.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Gregory S. Norton said:


> You missed the point as so many women often do in dog traing.They miss the whole point in the Pack theory.Do clicker training on my working K9's with heavy distraction and see how your rediculous clicker training works.Workking real dogs and Phoo-Phoo Fi Fi are very different.If you have soooo much skill,why do you need the clicker ?


Just when I thought we were winding down on this, we now have the sexist touch. What type of work does your working K9 do and what would happen if you used clicker training with heavy distraction? What point of pack theory are the women folks missing and what does that have to with clicker or marker based training. And I asked before, just what is a Phoo, Phoo Fi Fi dog?


Terrasita


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Gregory S. Norton said:


> You missed the point as so many women often do in dog traing.They miss the whole point in the Pack theory.Do clicker training on my working K9's with heavy distraction and see how your rediculous clicker training works.Workking real dogs and Phoo-Phoo Fi Fi are very different.If you have soooo much skill,why do you need the clicker ?


:lol: This video of Anne's was always a favorite of mine...a nice little pit bull (yes, a real working service dog even) at a public dog park.

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

Well, off to go train my phoo phoo fi fi Malinois in obedience (getting ready for the same trial as Lynda). And I'll even bring my clicker for kicks.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Just when I thought we were winding down on this, we now have the sexist touch. ....are the women folks missing and what does that have to with clicker or marker based training. And I asked before, just what is a Phoo, Phoo Fi Fi dog?
> Terrasita



I did notice this was a women folk kinda argument..LOL all these posts a couple guys....=;

Not sure what a Phoo Phoo dog is, but I think I own one. I use the vibrate on the collar for a marker. That and "yes". Works very well..a clicker would probably work better...


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> I did notice this was a women folk kinda argument..LOL all these posts a couple guys....=;
> 
> Not sure what a Phoo Phoo dog is, but I think I own one. I use the vibrate on the collar for a marker. That and "yes". Works very well..a clicker would probably work better...


 
Perhaps you and Jim Nash have that male confidence thing going where you don't feel threatened by what has been now termed Phoo Phoo Fi Fi training or dogs. Where's Bob. He's confident and he [along with several RWDC dogs I can think of] has a to die for shaped retrieve that has stood the test of AKC trialing and Sch III trialing. Mary, my gut says there is a break down inthe shaping process with your students but unless you see it from beginning to end, every session, you don't know what occurred. How do you model with the retrieve.

T


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> I did notice this was a women folk kinda argument..LOL all these posts a couple guys....=;


Well, all someone has to do is say "what is the difference between defensive and fight drive and being civil?" and the thread invariably goes on and on and on for often 100+ replies between the menfolks invariably with about the same amount of escalating nastiness, despite a new thread gets brought up at least once a month. ;-) :lol: Men are from Mars...?


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> Men are from Mars...?


kinda what I was thinking...


----------



## Sarah ten Bensel (Mar 16, 2008)

Gregory S. Norton said:


> You missed the point as so many women often do in dog traing.They miss the whole point in the Pack theory.Do clicker training on my working K9's with heavy distraction and see how your rediculous clicker training works.Workking real dogs and Phoo-Phoo Fi Fi are very different.If you have soooo much skill,why do you need the clicker ?


 
Ha Ha Ha. That is so funny. Didn't know men had the goods on" pack behavior" knowledge. I didn't know that having ***** resulted in such greatness. Maybe I should get one. Apparently Ronen Sharon, a woman, and herNOT foo-foo fi fi male GSD, who won the WUSV 2009 didn't get that memo either. Of note she used marker training. She painstaking built each and every behvior that way with her dog. The point I make is that marker training is a very clear way to communicate with your dog. Period. You can still use pack drive, etc...What a silly statement. Its a good tool to know even with your badass dogs. A balanced approach that is consistent is my goal.
Here is her OB performance 97 points

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXNfqs62wQ4&feature=fvsr


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

Mary Buck said:


> My dogs no...plenty of students dogs we attempt to fix yes.....most notably with the shaped retrieve . I have not found it at all reliable..clicker started ....with a bit of modelling seems to work pretty well.
> 
> But it goes beyond that to the essence of how some shaped dogs that I have seen work. I feel less clarity becuase its been "ok" for them to offer different answers to the same question I pose. My dogs always answer the question the same way...and more than a few of the shaped dogs have collapsed and reverted to less than the behavior asked for in the ring. My belief is the inherant stress of the ring overrides the shaped behavior.
> Perhaps a worthy poll would be to count he number of shaped dogs on the podium vs the number of lured /modelled ones? Any venue .
> ...


Ok here's a thought to ponder... we know that any behavior reward will be repeated and that which is not will cease to manifest. What most likely has happen in shaping the shaped retrieve or any other behavior for that matter is the students got the behavior (sloppiness, so,so execution etc) they marked and reward. I can tell you when you only reward the behavior you want this will be the behavior you get.
I have good retrieves on all my dogs including the pup and honestly think it's one of the easier behaviors to teach. Actually since I have changed training methods find that all of the behaviors necessary for schutzhund and PSA obedience to be easy to train. I think where the trouble lays for some is in knowing how to read the dog and/or understanding how a the dog connects the information given him.

Bottom line if the trainer is not getting the response or correct expression of a given behavior their after then the trainer has failed somewhere in the teaching phase:wink:.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

So girls! Whilst I've been sleeping / working, you have tried to banish the only male who had the courage to enter this debate!!!! Shame on you!

I can't remember who said it, either Linda or Terrasita but I guess if we were all to turn up on the training field, we'd see similar results in training because, whatever "tools" we use, the training methods remain the same!

I don't use an e-collar or a prong. Both are forbidden in my country. It took a while to adjust but, with my last dog, a short period with the prong was useful, i.e. light tug, "hey mate, focus, focus came, reward either verbal or food, followed mostly verbal.

A lot of trainers made the mistake of correcting without rewarding, either vocally or with toy, food, etc. These dogs are and were doomed. They hung their tails, they "tried" to do what was required of them because the outcome was certain. This isn't training as I know it. It's BS for the dog and trainers like this are the reason that prong and e-collar get a bad name.

I've nearly always had "bright-eyed, bushy-tailed" dogs in training, and, when this wasn't the case, I questioned my methods seriously and adjusted. If a dog slinks beside me, tail down, head down, then I've failed, miserably.

Two weeks ago, my dog in bitework was nothing but obnoxious in the control work and I wondered whether to give up as I saw no light at the end of the tunnel. I was even called "unfair" which hurt!

I told myself "either you give up or you change your methods". I changed my methods - and one week later, I presented my dog, still eager to get to the helper but,* more or less *willing to follow me. I used a motivation object - gave clear commands, walked away from the helper with a convincing "Fuss" and completed a session that gained a compliment from the helper.

I'm not a clickerer but I'm not for the heavy tour, especially if it doesn't work. If the dog can't see light at the end of the tunnel, then it's time to think!

Linda, I may have read your post wrongly. I interpreted that clickerers are lenient and prong / e-collar users are not which is entirely untrue. There are clickerers that stress the dog just as much as there are prong and e-collars who stress them. Both are harmful.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Sarah ten Bensel said:


> Ha Ha Ha. That is so funny. Didn't know men had the goods on" pack behavior" knowledge. I didn't know that having ***** resulted in such greatness. Maybe I should get one. Apparently Ronen Sharon, a woman, and herNOT foo-foo fi fi male GSD, who won the WUSV 2009 didn't get that memo either. Of note she used marker training. She painstaking built each and every behvior that way with her dog. The point I make is that marker training is a very clear way to communicate with your dog. Period. You can still use pack drive, etc...What a silly statement. Its a good tool to know even with your badass dogs. A balanced approach that is consistent is my goal.
> Here is her OB performance 97 points
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXNfqs62wQ4&feature=fvsr


Ahh, Ronan Sharon!!! Well, that sells it. One successful known name and it clinches the deal. LMAO. Conformation ladies do the same thing if it makes anyone feel better. Accuse the conformation world of taking the hunt out of the airedale and in one voice they will deny it with *WHAT ABOUT WINSTON. WINSTON WAS ON THE COVER OF GUN DOG MAG AND WAS A CONFORMATION DOG!!!!!!!!* Yeh, right. One dog out of the whole breed that every conformation person gloms onto like they personally bred him as proof that the breed still hunts. Now we have Ronan Sharon for the clickers.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Nice looking woman though, Ronan Sharon! 

I don't know her personally and I don't know the training she did to make her a success, apart from what has been written here.

Why can't you write about your own successes or failures?

Who has won the WUSV or similar, and with what methods?


----------



## Gregory S. Norton (Jan 17, 2010)

Nah,this is Obamanite thinking.Nice try.We're not eating your apple Eve.Small exceptions do not make the rule.Besides,do you realize how much politics are involved in such large scale events ? !


----------



## Gregory S. Norton (Jan 17, 2010)

Sarah ten Bensel said:


> Ha Ha Ha. That is so funny. Didn't know men had the goods on" pack behavior" knowledge. I didn't know that having ***** resulted in such greatness. Maybe I should get one. Apparently Ronen Sharon, a woman, and herNOT foo-foo fi fi male GSD, who won the WUSV 2009 didn't get that memo either. Of note she used marker training. She painstaking built each and every behvior that way with her dog. The point I make is that marker training is a very clear way to communicate with your dog. Period. You can still use pack drive, etc...What a silly statement. Its a good tool to know even with your badass dogs. A balanced approach that is consistent is my goal.
> Here is her OB performance 97 points
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXNfqs62wQ4&feature=fvsr





Gregory S. Norton said:


> Nah,this is Obamanite thinking.Nice try.We're not eating your apple Eve.Small exceptions do not make the rule.Besides,do you realize how much politics are involved in such large scale events ? !


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

Gillian Schuler said:


> So girls! Whilst I've been sleeping / working, you have tried to banish the only male who had the courage to enter this debate!!!! Shame on you!


LOL Gillian how is that, when he came on here and said that by virtue of our sex(female) we are unable to understand the dynamics of pack hierarchy much less carry it out. Seems to me he may be the one with the lack of understanding. Because when one is truly the pack leader no force is necessary in order for the subordinates to do as the Alpha dictates. As anything other then total compliance would be seen as a challenge to his authority...definitely not a safe place to be for an underling. Think about this obviously the dog saw a weakness in the leader that gave him the impression of being able to challenge.selah 
The is the reason pack life works so well. Because there is only one dog in charge and all without question must defer to him/her. This is what keeps the pack safe, sound and peaceful. 

Terrasita has two great examples of this very thing with regard to her husband's dog Thor and Ann's dog Izzy(sp) both are strong minded confident Bourv.(sp). Maybe she will come on here and tell about it.


> Do clicker training on my working K9's with heavy distraction and see how your rediculous clicker training works.Working real dogs and Phoo-Phoo Fi Fi are very different.If you have soooo much skill,why do you need the clicker ?


Ya know the poster who stated this missed a couple small details...first at no time does the pack leader need to make the other members stay around him! They do so out of desire to be near. So have to wonder why working under heavy distractions would be such a big deal? Especially when the Alpha is providing rewards ie food, fun and games to do so. I'm curious to know if they are truly the Alpha why is force needing to make the dog comply? Hate to bring clarity to an otherwise delusional mind but anyone skilled in the use of a clicker and able to read a dog would get great stuff out of his REAL WORKING DOGS. This is a funny term "REAL WORKING DOGS" as oppose towhat...fake ones?:-D Things that make you say hmm.



Gillian Schuler said:


> Linda, I may have read your post wrongly. I interpreted that clickerers are lenient and prong / e-collar users are not which is entirely untrue. There are clickerers that stress the dog just as much as there are prong and e-collars who stress them. Both are harmful.


I agree about the stress factor. True it's not the method of choice that always causes the stress but often times the handler. When the handler doesn't know what triggers, motivates and confuses the dog or how that particular dog relates to the world around him. You are going to have problems and a boat load of undue stress. The other key element in training is fairness...dogs have a good sense of right and wrong and will accept a correction if they deem it fair. But in order for it to be used to its greatest advantage the rules and behaviors must be clearly taught and well understood. This is where I think the other side drops the ball. Which brings us back to if you taught it right to begin with there's really no need for force.jmt
My own personal belief is that if you truly are the Alpha ie pack leader then there really is no need for arm twisting in your training sessions.


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Terrisita
Of course its not about lynda or her dogs and about theory! That's what I have been saying all along lol. I am one who actually enjoys theory talk and why folks do what they do, you can only learn from it as something to consider or not.

Lynda my apologies at directing the last post at you, you already explained that you utilize two seperate theories on training in your overall training, manners and markers, and one overrides the other. That makes sense to me, your aware of it and its just how you train. You may not be as articulate but that make sense to ME Lol. I was on my phone and typing fast between lights... Shhhhh lol 

It was really directed towards terrisita who said the two theories where not that different after saying they were in conflict, in conflict I agree with, not that different I don't understand. How does giving a correction during loading the clicker (ex. bopping a dog on the head for being too mouthy which is exactly where lynda said she did it) not that different in theory? Terresita, if you can't explain it or point out how I misunderstood your words or you mistyped...... I understand.... ;-)

Shoot at this point if ANYONE can explain it that would be great!

T


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Lynda said;


> My own personal belief is that if you truly are the Alpha ie pack leader then there really is no need for arm twisting in your training sessions.


Some leadership Lynda, being the dogs human is reason enough to have control. Lowering yourself to the dogs level as an alpha is more apt to leave you open for challenge by the stronger pack members. Dogs know the difference. Even wild animals know humans are their superior and that is why they avoid us in the wild. Yet people want to believe dogs see the owners as an alpha. They see a weak human or a strong human.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

This is too interesting to have feuds!

I've realised from my attempt to "heel" my dog away from the helper and have him focus on me will not come about just by force, albeit a combination of force and motivation. Force, tug on "slip lead" to walk him away from helper and motivation whilst heeling afterwards. Probably more elegantly done with e-collar? But not allowed here. We have "PC Plod sniffers".

I am a hopeless internet trainer. I act on what I see and don't give it much thought to it, to be honest. I have my dog focused on me (helfer not engaged!!!) and act accordingly. I say I don't need a clicker, I have full communication with the dog. The better was the Briard, there the communication was 100%, thereby getting him through to IPO 3 with SG. I might add that he once trumped 11 Malinois and GSDs in the OB.

I try to be fair to my dogs but, if I fail, I have full knowledge that the good relationship between us will overlook any failures on my part. I can't quite understand the emphasis on "faults" made by the handler?

With a good relationship dog-handler, these should not set you back weeks / months, as I've heard???


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Lynda said;
> 
> 
> Some leadership Lynda, being the dogs human is reason enough to have control. Lowering yourself to the dogs level as an alpha is more apt to leave you open for challenge by the stronger pack members. Dogs know the difference. Even wild animals know humans are their superior and that is why they avoid us in the wild. Yet people want to believe dogs see the owners as an alpha. They see a weak human or a strong human.


The Alpha
The Alpha be he human or dog is usually strongest/smartest member of the pack. I don't feel like I'm lowering myself to a dog's level by being the Alpha. Because in my household its not who wears the pants but who wears the skirt!!!:-D


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

tracey delin said:


> Terrisita
> Of course its not about lynda or her dogs and about theory! That's what I have been saying all along lol. I am one who actually enjoys theory talk and why folks do what they do, you can only learn from it as something to consider or not.
> 
> Lynda my apologies at directing the last post at you, you already explained that you utilize two seperate theories on training in your overall training, manners and markers, and one overrides the other. That makes sense to me, your aware of it and its just how you train. You may not be as articulate but that make sense to ME Lol. I was on my phone and typing fast between lights... Shhhhh lol
> ...


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

tracey delin said:


> Terrisita
> Of course its not about lynda or her dogs and about theory! That's what I have been saying all along lol. I am one who actually enjoys theory talk and why folks do what they do, you can only learn from it as something to consider or not.
> 
> Lynda my apologies at directing the last post at you, you already explained that you utilize two seperate theories on training in your overall training, manners and markers, and one overrides the other. That makes sense to me, your aware of it and its just how you train. You may not be as articulate but that make sense to ME Lol. I was on my phone and typing fast between lights... Shhhhh lol
> ...


Okay, I got losts in the tits for tats. I did not see that Lynda was bopping in the loading phase. My comments are regarding behavior...mark....reward. I thought we were correcting the biting after the mark and while giving he reward; hence my explanation of mark ends behavior and its sorta release an doggie gets reward. Some say you can have an interval between the mark and reward, some say not. PERSONALLY, and certainly early on in the training, I don't want to confuse the dog regarding mark means reward. I think you lessen the effect and confuse the meaning of the marker; especially with the beginning dog. Anyone that trains with me will have me jumping and shouting if they get after a dog after they have marked a behavior. 

Now, regarding Lynda and her BOP while she's loading[-X:smile: for ME that's against theory. I wouldn't do it. BEFORE, we start training and markers and such I would sit in the floor and teach puppy dog about eating from my hand. Lynda is gonna say that biting her hand overides any theory. It hasn't affected her dog's understanding of the marker. But it still drives me batty when I see someone correcting a dog after a mark while they are in the process of the reward. 



Terrasita


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Lynda said;
> 
> 
> Some leadership Lynda, being the dogs human is reason enough to have control. Lowering yourself to the dogs level as an alpha is more apt to leave you open for challenge by the stronger pack members. Dogs know the difference. Even wild animals know humans are their superior and that is why they avoid us in the wild. Yet people want to believe dogs see the owners as an alpha. They see a weak human or a strong human.


Don,

Its not just strong or weak. If the dog doesn't see you as part of the pack, you could be as strong as you wannbe and it could mean nothing. If you are a part of a pack, its what position you have in the pack---top, bottom, in between????? If a certain type of dog doesn't have a pack relationship to you and you wanna play strong human, you might just get bit. If he is in a pack relationship to him yet you aren't on top, at the least you are ignored. On he other end of the spectrum, ya might just get bit. If you hold that top rung, the dog acknowledges that top rung, no matter what word you call it---alpha, leader, or who wears the skirt or pants.


Terrasita


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Gregory S. Norton said:


> You missed the point as so many women often do in dog traing.They miss the whole point in the Pack theory.Do clicker training on my working K9's with heavy distraction and see how your rediculous clicker training works.Workking real dogs and Phoo-Phoo Fi Fi are very different.If you have soooo much skill,why do you need the clicker ?



Dear Sir,

I have not followed this thread, but clicked (sorry) on it one day and saw your post.

I am not sure you have introduced yourself to the board, but you are obviously a very seasoned trainer in the methods that work for you. I am not sure what consitutes a "real workking K9" to you, but being that you are police K9 handler I bet they are pretty hard core and I for one would love to see them in action.

If you were able to post some video of your non fi fi dogs working under the heavy distraction as you describe, it may contribute to the culture of learning and sharing on a working dog board. If poeple see your product and like the results, they will want to hear more about how you train.

I don't think that there is anything new about pack theory, or praise and correction based training, time has shown it to be very effective and it is not going anywhere soon. But that said, neither is marker training I am afraid. I am sure that you know that there are plenty of police departments and competitive bitwork trainers (most of them men) working some pretty nice dogs using marker training. Of course that is just one tool, they use praise and corrections of various kinds too.

I respect that it is not for everyone, in fact I think it is wrong for some dogs and people...especially pet people. I actually think that some marker training is way better suited to serious trainers....but alas I digress.....


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Gregory has to be a wind up ! He sounds straight out the dark ages....I say we have some fun with him. :-D


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Okay, I got losts in the tits for tats. I did not see that Lynda was bopping in the loading phase. My comments are regarding behavior...mark....reward. I thought we were correcting the biting after the mark and while giving he reward; hence my explanation of mark ends behavior and its sorta release an doggie gets reward. Some say you can have an interval between the mark and reward, some say not. PERSONALLY, and certainly early on in the training, I don't want to confuse the dog regarding mark means reward. I think you lessen the effect and confuse the meaning of the marker; especially with the beginning dog. Anyone that trains with me will have me jumping and shouting if they get after a dog after they have marked a behavior.
> 
> Now, regarding Lynda and her BOP while she's loading[-X:smile: for ME that's against theory. I wouldn't do it. BEFORE, we start training and markers and such I would sit in the floor and teach puppy dog about eating from my hand. Lynda is gonna say that biting her hand overides any theory. It hasn't affected her dog's understanding of the marker. But it still drives me batty when I see someone correcting a dog after a mark while they are in the process of the reward.
> 
> ...


Ok great lol.... Now we are all n the same page and THIS I understand and I agree with you...man that was painful to get to lol.... Ill blame it on the. 
Platform..... Thank you for clarifying. 

T


----------



## Gregory S. Norton (Jan 17, 2010)

Is it any coincidence that most of ther posts on here are women.Not.
The more things change the more they stay the same.dark ages or not.
That is all.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Gregory S. Norton said:


> You missed the point as so many women often do in dog traing.They miss the whole point in the Pack theory.Do clicker training on my working K9's with heavy distraction and see how your rediculous clicker training works.Workking real dogs and Phoo-Phoo Fi Fi are very different.If you have soooo much skill,why do you need the clicker ?


Hi Greg!
I'm thinking about buying a pink collar for my SCH III, CDX, SAR trained, HT, TT, CGC clicker trained, working line GSD. 
Would that be ok by your definition of a "working dog" ? 
He never had a physical correction of ANY kind in earning those titles.
DAMN! Guess I'm gonna have to start calling him Fi Fi. 

I can and have also stopped my dogs on a dime with nothing more then a "platz" command when they chased deer, bunnies, squirrels, cats AND going after a decoy/helper. (wont talk about sheep just yet :lol::lol Their "Platz" commands have never been taught with anything BUT markers and reward. AGAIN, NEVER with a physical correction.
Just what is your expierience with clicker/marker training that your so sure about it's uselessness? 
I find some men are a bit insecure to use anything but physical force in dog training. Seems to go against some sort of macho code.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Gregory S. Norton said:


> Is it any coincidence that most of ther posts on here are women.Not.
> The more things change the more they stay the same.dark ages or not.
> That is all.


Excellent rebuttle sir. I said nothing of dark ages...but I guess we are all the same to you. Fair enough.

I took the bait....shame on me, I should have known better.


----------



## leslie cassian (Jun 3, 2007)

Bob Scott said:


> Hi Greg!
> 
> I find some men are a bit insecure to use anything but physical force in dog training. Seems to go against some sort of macho code.


=D>


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

Gregory S. Norton said:


> Is it any coincidence that most of ther posts on here are women.Not.
> The more things change the more they stay the same.dark ages or not.
> That is all.


What does this mean exactly? 
You can thank the short sighted men for being stuck in the Dark Ages. As women were still pissing through chastity belts and locked behind doors at that time.
Its painfully clear you're not a free thinker and are having a difficult time adjusting to the 21 century. Where women are allowed to have their own thoughts and opinions, vote, own and run there own properties and businesses. And their place being anywhere they choose to stand...which could possibly not be bare foot in the kitchen. 
This is a time where moving out their parents house doesn't necessarily mean moving into their husband's home. 
Just what is it that you dislike about women? Is it that we're able to think our way out of a problem where men tend to strong arm their way though?
Or is it the fact that women have successfully train dogs to a high level there by displacing a few men on their rise to the top? 

Ya know it's human nature to fear the things we sometimes don't understand. Kind like in your case with operant conditioning or put other way click, click, click!:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
Ya know testicles are not a prerequisite of a good trainer...the brain is. Which usually works best when open.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

:evil: Damn Feminists :twisted:


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> :evil: Damn Feminists :twisted:


hehehehe not really.:-D Actually very conservative in my views just hate it when men act like women are somehow beneath them...fetching slippers an all.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Well Lynda I think he would say you just can't comprehend the nature of the bond between men and women that is based on pack theory and solid understanding of male behavior.


T


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Well Lynda I think he would say you just can't comprehend the nature of the bond between men and women that is based on pack theory and solid understanding of male behavior.
> 
> 
> T


Good one :mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> Guess I'm gonna have to start calling him Fi Fi.  ...


I was hoping that you (or maybe Michael Ellis) would stop by. :lol:


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2010)

Oh, goodness gracious...

http://www.angelfire.com/theforce2/k9bodyguardteam/


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Thanks for digging that up. Good Lord... :roll:


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Don,
> 
> Its not just strong or weak. If the dog doesn't see you as part of the pack, you could be as strong as you wannbe and it could mean nothing. If you are a part of a pack, its what position you have in the pack---top, bottom, in between????? If a certain type of dog doesn't have a pack relationship to you and you wanna play strong human, you might just get bit. If he is in a pack relationship to him yet you aren't on top, at the least you are ignored. On he other end of the spectrum, ya might just get bit. If you hold that top rung, the dog acknowledges that top rung, no matter what word you call it---alpha, leader, or who wears the skirt or pants.
> 
> ...


T, to put it as simply as I can, if the dogs saw you as a pack member, they would warn you off with a growl or a bite just like they do pack members. They don't do it because they don't see you as a dog or a pack member. They know you are superior to them. Even wild animals sense it and avoid humans.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Don,
> 
> Its not just strong or weak. If the dog doesn't see you as part of the pack, you could be as strong as you wannbe and it could mean nothing. If you are a part of a pack, its what position you have in the pack---top, bottom, in between????? If a certain type of dog doesn't have a pack relationship to you and you wanna play strong human, you might just get bit. If he is in a pack relationship to him yet you aren't on top, at the least you are ignored. On he other end of the spectrum, ya might just get bit. If you hold that top rung, the dog acknowledges that top rung, no matter what word you call it---alpha, leader, or who wears the skirt or pants.
> 
> ...


Terrasita, are you familiar with and if so, what are your thoughts on 'Debunking the Dominance Myth' as in the following paper ..

Gregory's oh so _profound_ statement kind of tickled me and jogged my memory on an extract from this paper;



The theory of a linear hierarchy based on dominance relations, originally developed from observations of ants, was one of 
the first models used in ethology to describe or account for the behavior and the social structure of wolves and the groups 
they live in (Mech 1995, 2000; Sax 1997). The dominance hierarchy model was adopted by others to explain the behavior of 
canis familiaris, and is still broadly in use today among both scientists and laymen who deal with domestic canine behavior.

This model as applied to wolves was from the beginning, based on dubious evidence (Mech 2000). Furthermore, it has 
been shown that throughout history humans have modeled the animal kingdom in ways analogous to the societies humans 
themselves were living in (Dahles 1993; Darnton 1985; Evans 1994), and that perceptions of scientists are influenced by 
their belief systems and the need to protect various kinds of investment (Kuhn 1962; Pernick 1985; Phillips 1993; Rollin 
1989). The dominance hierarchy model was developed in a period in which many human societies were struggling with 
authoritarian forms of government and the culture and ideologies that form of government propagated (Deichmann 1996; 
Sax 1997). Its spread continued in a post-war world in which a competitive market economy and its ideologies, based on a 
selective and flawed interpretation of Darwin's theory of natural selection, shaped a new generation of humans' perceptions 
of natural reality. A final factor is that the model was developed in a period in which there were very few women involved in 
scientific research. This means that a limited group of existential repertoires and paradigms was used as background in the 
search for explanations of observed animal behavior. For example, it is now widely known that human males and females 
differ from a very early age, with males displaying largely competitive behavior in groups even before they develop verbal 
skills, while females tend at the same age to show cooperative and appeasing strategies in dealing with group membership. 
This raises the question of whether observations were not biased in advance toward perceiving mostly the competitive 
elements of any observed social system. It is also a widely investigated psychological fact that the first thing human males 
do when two or more of them have to share a physical space is investigate and order their relative power relations within the 
(fleeting) group. The conclusion that dogs are equally preoccupied with establishing “dominance” in their social interactions 
is most likely a failure of imagination. Unable to conceive of any other way of organizing a group, scientists seem to have 
projected their own existential paradigm onto the animals they were observing. Secondly, most of the legal and illegal 
violence in human societies is committed by males. This raises the question of a third observer bias, namely the possible 
tendency to give more weight than is really justified to seemingly violent encounters between observed animals, and thus 
the model's focus on what it calls aggression. Finally, it has also been shown that women make the scientific effort in a 
different way from men, less career oriented, more interested in fundamentally sound and thorough research (Kollantaj 
1982; Holton 1998; Sonnert 1998a, b). This, combined with the proven tendency of humans, including scientists, to impose 
their own existential paradigms in modeling the world around them, suggests that the model contains, besides a cultural 
bias, a gender bias in its perceptions and models of the behavior of other species as well as the methods by which models 
are developed.

*Semyonova, A. 2003, The social *
*organization of the domestic dog; a *
*longitudinal study of domestic canine *
*behavior and the ontogeny of domestic *
*canine social systems, The Carriage *
*House Foundation, The Hague, *
*www.nonlineardogs.com version 2006.*


It can be downloaded in it's entirety (38 pages or so) from this link..

http://www.nonlineardogs.com/socialorganisation.html


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

Don Turnipseed said:


> T, to put it as simply as I can, if the dogs saw you as a pack member, they would warn you off with a growl or a bite just like they do pack members. They don't do it because they don't see you as a dog or a pack member. They know you are superior to them. Even wild animals sense it and avoid humans.


No dog below the Alpha warns him off with aggressive display as this could misconstrued as a bid for his position...top dog! Hell the position of power and influence is so great of Alpha, that only the Alpha pair in a wolf pack produces young and the whole pack helps in the raising of the offspring.
With dogs a dominate bitch in the home/pack will kill off the young pups of a lower ranking bitch.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Lynda Myers said:


> No dog below the Alpha warns him off with aggressive display as this could misconstrued as a bid for his position...top dog! Hell the position of power and influence is so great of Alpha, that only the Alpha pair in a wolf pack produces young and the whole pack helps in the raising of the offspring.
> With dogs a dominate bitch in the home/pack will kill off the young pups of a lower ranking bitch.


 
If that is so, what is the answer where one does not believe in the 'Alpha Theory' ? Domestic dogs don't live in wild packs, the natural habitat according to Alexandra Semyonova (see article above), states that the natural habitat of domestic dog is with or near to humans.


----------



## Anne Vaini (Mar 15, 2007)

Gregory S. Norton said:


> You missed the point as so many women often do in dog traing.They miss the whole point in the Pack theory.Do clicker training on my working K9's with heavy distraction and see how your rediculous clicker training works.Workking real dogs and Phoo-Phoo Fi Fi are very different.If you have soooo much skill,why do you need the clicker ?


Pack Theory has never taught a new behavior. And using pack order training does not contraindicate clicker training. They pair up beautifully together. 

I would love to work with your K9's. The higher drive the dog, the better the response. Heavy distraction to you/your dogs is _______? I like to park my dog(s) in a busy shopping mall and leave. Training new behaviors (yep, clicker style) with EMT's, fire trucks and sirens. Training a 6 - 7 week old pup (clicker style) in the median of a 6-lane highway.

I don't "need" a clicker, I can accomplish the same with my voice. The training style isn't so much about a device, but a method of communication. I CAN train with several training methods, even straight-up Koehler. But after a decade and a few hundred dogs, I use what is most likely to work in all cases and adapt when I need to.


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

I agree with Don on this.

I think the "pack leader" and "alpha" terms have been popularized by books and tv show but I don't see it as accurate. If and when I use the terms I usually cringe inside but unfortunately these are words that the general public aka pet homes seem to understand.

If a dog shouldn't be humanized why would a human be "dogamized" lol 

If for arguements sake dogs are pack animals in the traditional sense (usually based on wolves) I am curious has a pack ever allowed interspecies? What about interspecies into the alpha position? Then there is the thing of "domesticated" dogs which are what they are because humans have bred away from traditional behaviors by breding for animals to serve their purposes.

I wonder do the folks that speak that language really mean what they say.. They are the pack leader, hold alpha position do you REALLY believe that or has it just become an easy to understand language?

T


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Lynda Myers said:


> No dog below the Alpha warns him off with aggressive display as this could misconstrued as a bid for his position...top dog! Hell the position of power and influence is so great of Alpha, that only the Alpha pair in a wolf pack produces young and the whole pack helps in the raising of the offspring.
> With dogs a dominate bitch in the home/pack will kill off the young pups of a lower ranking bitch.


Wow! Where did you reall all this Lynda. What about all the people that get the advice they have to get tough and be the alpha. Obviously they weren"t the alpha and they are not getting bit. Or, maybe nobody reallynhas alpha dogs. Be that as it may, dog still see you as a human and not a pack member, like it or not. As for the rest of the assertion that in dogs, the alpha bitch will kill the offspring of a lesser bitch... it is nonsense. I have raised my dog in family units(packs) for years. One dominate male to multiple females. I have yet to see the dominate bitch kill the others offspring. Quite the contrary, they are there to help raise them. Here is one of dozens of pictures I could post as proof. The male in this picture is the one facing the camera. Guess which is the dominate female.










If you need more, here is some older pups in the whelping box checking on some newborns. Packs are not normally self destructive or they cease to exist. The alpha bitch doesn't even hurt the pups of another when they go in and check on her newborns. It is common for older pups to sit in the whelping box while the new mom is whelping a new litter. Even in that kind of stress the bitches don't hurt the pups.


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

maggie fraser said:


> If that is so, what is the answer where one does not believe in the 'Alpha Theory' ? Domestic dogs don't live in wild packs, the natural habitat according to Alexandra Semyonova (see article above), states that the natural habitat of domestic dog is with or near to humans.


 No it's true their not wolves. What is your experience with feral dogs? Because when dogs are turned loose and left to fend for themselves do revert back to form packs and taking down prey and humans on occasions because the natural fear man is not there. In fact here in ST. Louis a couple years back a boy was either maimed or killed by a pack of strays that had formed a pack in the city. After that there was a massive crack down on strays in the city. Science and theory are great...but I know from personal experience that the pack hierarchy is true. Because I have witness it with my on to eyes. In years past use to have and kept multiple dogs -intact males of mix breed but big dogs (75-80lbs) as pets with out the benefit of crates and there definitely was a pecking order. It wasn't really until my interest in Rottweilers that I changed how I housed dogs... enter the crates. But even with Rotties there was a definitely leader...Queen, who was also over my two Rottie males.

A co-worker ran her dogs(15-20) all together on a 22 acres and it was a pack in the truest sense of the word. 
The above is all I have to go on and so from it have to say that yes dogs can and do lives in packs.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

maggie fraser said:


> Terrasita, are you familiar with and if so, what are your thoughts on 'Debunking the Dominance Myth' as in the following paper ..
> 
> Gregory's oh so _profound_ statement kind of tickled me and jogged my memory on an extract from this paper;
> 
> ...


 
Okay, I think the above is sexist. I've read a LOT on the wolf pack theory both in terms of wolves in captivity and wolves in the wild---ala Mech. Even within the family structure there is a hierarchy. Once I started living with multiple dogs and watching puppies grow into adulthood within a multiple dog pack I could see the same hierarchy issues going on. Also when the dog pack alpha dies, watch the shift and scramble for position. I do believe some breeds are more domesticated in certain respects than others. I have a friend who breeds/works working line aussies and she says if they get lost it doesn't take long for them to revert to a feral state. 

I just bought Michael Fox's treatise on wild canids his description of prey drive in the hunt is EXACTLY what I deal with with my bouvier. 

Terrasita


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Don Turnipseed said:


> T, to put it as simply as I can, if the dogs saw you as a pack member, they would warn you off with a growl or a bite just like they do pack members. They don't do it because they don't see you as a dog or a pack member. They know you are superior to them. Even wild animals sense it and avoid humans.


 
What makes you think this doesn't happen Don with some dogs? I get calls all the time from people with dogs that growl or even bite over possession of objects. My dad's Czech line GSD puppy would get in his recliner and growl. I've had several dominant dogs challenge at some point in their lives amongst the bouv and GSDs. Its how you deal with it that determines whether they will challenge again. Where I raise puppies. I guarantee with the more dominant types at age two I'm going to have a challenge fight. 

Don, your pack may function one way but there are others that function differently. My friend's aussies function like yours until she bred in another line so we decided that the dogs know what family they belonged to. Dominant bitches not only will kill another's puppies but they really attempt them from being even bred. 

Whether you believe in dominance heirarchy or not, wolves and dogs continue to share certain characteristics that have not been selectively bred out.


Terrasita


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Wow! Where did you reall all this Lynda. What about all the people that get the advice they have to get tough and be the alpha. Obviously they weren"t the alpha and they are not getting bit. Or, maybe nobody reallynhas alpha dogs.


True those people weren't and yes some of them most certainly did get bite. Why more don't get bite is because Tiger doesn't like certain things so his person rationalizes that it doesn't make sense to force the dog to tolerate something he doesn't like or want to do. The other reasons are some people enlist the help of those like Caesar Milan(sp) or chose to just get rid of the dog.



Don Turnipseed said:


> Be that as it may, dog still see you as a human and not a pack member, like it or not. As for the rest of the assertion that in dogs, the alpha bitch will kill the offspring of a lesser bitch... it is nonsense. I have raised my dog in family units(packs) for years.


I have or witness it on other people yards. I didn't say it was common just that it does happen. Have you ever raised Rottweilers? 
Don, you think that because you run your dogs in packs, that that's how all other breeds are going to behave and react that simply isn't the case. Besides how would you know with any certainty that another bitch hasn't killed some pups of bitch who has whelped a litter? Because out of your own mouth(fingers) on this board have stated that you don't know anything about the pups until at which time they crawl out of the doghouse around 4 weeks old. It's no big whoop if you check them earlier or not honestly. But I have to go on what you have said prior to this conversation.
It all comes down to ones life experiences...you haven't had it knowingly happen.. but I have. I also know this in not unique to the dogs on my yard.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I never said I didn't believe there was a dominance hierarchy ....among dogs. I said they will never see people as part of a pack. They are not deaf, dumb, and blind.



> What makes you think this doesn't happen Don with some dogs? I get calls all the time from people with dogs that growl or even bite over possession of objects. My dad's Czech line GSD puppy would get in his recliner and growl. I've had several dominant dogs challenge at some point in their lives amongst the bouv and GSDs. Its how you deal with it that determines whether they will challenge again. Where I raise puppies. I guarantee with the more dominant types at age two I'm going to have a challenge fight.


So there are two options, either the dogs are not really dominate....or they see you as a superior being. Let's face it. Any dog I own could take me down. The dogs you mentioned could take you down far more easily than mine could take me down. Same with Lynda. The reason they don't is not that they couldn't but if they thought you were a pack member you would be in trouble. They know you are their superior....and yes, there is a small prtion of dogs that just don't care and will bite you or anyone else.



> Dominant bitches not only will kill another's puppies but they really attempt them from being even bred.


A lot of dogs will kill pups, especially if they squeal. I have lived with 4 to 5 packs for years, 24/7, I am amazed that all my bitches breed,even the submissive ones. Doesn't really sound like the dogs you are talking about were born and reared in the family group as in always outdoors.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Kind of back on the original topic and dedicated to Mary, a bit of a pic spam from today's training with Lynda and Rook. The dog is expected to heel with handler over pretty high level object distraction (tugs, sleeve covers, pool noodles, balls, etc) all over the ground along with the decoy in full bite suit seated in a chair. If I recall correctly, at higher levels of PSA, they have to heel with the decoys walking around right near the handler/dog pair. The last two pics are of a 40ish pace recall back through all the distraction objects to the handler. They get more points if they run straight over the top of the objects.









































The normal speed of the "fast slow normal" leg of the heeling pattern:










Fast portion:










Recall over the distraction objects:


----------



## Lynda Myers (Jul 16, 2008)

Thanks Maren Rook looks great! OMG the faces I make while training are just awful. 
Below is my favorite one of the day:









Did ya notice how the green mesh cloth was all kicked up and in the other photos it was laying flat? Brother was hauling ass to me on the recall for sure.\\/ 
Againg Thank you for taking the pictures.:smile:


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Okay, I think the above is sexist. I've read a LOT on the wolf pack theory both in terms of wolves in captivity and wolves in the wild---ala Mech. Even within the family structure there is a hierarchy. Once I started living with multiple dogs and watching puppies grow into adulthood within a multiple dog pack I could see the same hierarchy issues going on. Also when the dog pack alpha dies, watch the shift and scramble for position. I do believe some breeds are more domesticated in certain respects than others. I have a friend who breeds/works working line aussies and she says if they get lost it doesn't take long for them to revert to a feral state.
> 
> I just bought Michael Fox's treatise on wild canids his description of prey drive in the hunt is EXACTLY what I deal with with my bouvier.
> 
> Terrasita


Hi Terrasita, the link to the paper I posted has quite a different take on things, re the organisation of dogs, I wasn't sure if you were familiar with it or not I suppose I was kind of teasing you into having a wee read of it sometime, and maybe share your thoughts on it.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Lynda Myers said:


> No it's true their not wolves. What is your experience with feral dogs? Because when dogs are turned loose and left to fend for themselves do revert back to form packs and taking down prey and humans on occasions because the natural fear man is not there. In fact here in ST. Louis a couple years back a boy was either maimed or killed by a pack of strays that had formed a pack in the city. After that there was a massive crack down on strays in the city. Science and theory are great...but I know from personal experience that the pack hierarchy is true. Because I have witness it with my on to eyes. In years past use to have and kept multiple dogs -intact males of mix breed but big dogs (75-80lbs) as pets with out the benefit of crates and there definitely was a pecking order. It wasn't really until my interest in Rottweilers that I changed how I housed dogs... enter the crates. But even with Rotties there was a definitely leader...Queen, who was also over my two Rottie males.
> 
> A co-worker ran her dogs(15-20) all together on a 22 acres and it was a pack in the truest sense of the word.
> The above is all I have to go on and so from it have to say that yes dogs can and do lives in packs.


Lynda, I have a little experience with feral dogs/dogs left to fend for themselves when I worked in Portugal years back. The dogs would congregate in a pack in the forest where I would ride through regularly, there wasn't a big food source there. They attacked a horse at the back on two occasions that I remember, I always rode a bull ring stallion as a matter of routine when I knew the dogs were there, I could easily see them off quickly with him.

Those packs to me always seemed a bit lost and disorganised, but obviously very hungry...you could always feel the intent. I am not as studious as many on here, at least not yet, I just don't really buy into many of the theories, I kind of like the paper I posted by A Semyonova which I hope to explore some more in the future.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

maggie fraser said:


> Terrasita, are you familiar with and if so, what are your thoughts on 'Debunking the Dominance Myth' as in the following paper ..


Thanks for the read! Very interesting.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Lynda Myers said:


> Don, you think that because you run your dogs in packs, that that's how all other breeds are going to behave and react that simply isn't the case. Besides how would you know with any certainty that another bitch hasn't killed some pups of bitch who has whelped a litter? Because out of your own mouth(fingers) on this board have stated that you don't know anything about the pups until at which time they crawl out of the doghouse around 4 weeks old. It's no big whoop if you check them earlier or not honestly. But I have to go on what you have said prior to this conversation.
> It all comes down to ones life experiences...you haven't had it knowingly happen.. but I have. I also know this in not unique to the dogs on my yard.


Lynda, I have to quit this thread. You originally said dominate (dog) bitches kill subordinate bitches in pack situations. Blank statement. I said that wasn't true. To correct your comment above....I don't run my dogs in packs, they are born and raised for generations in packs. I can put up dozens of pictures of pups of all ages, whelped by subordinate bitches, very peacefully co-existing with the dominate bitch plus several aunts. Obviously proof means little in this conversation. You have had experience. You have had no experience with dogs raised in a true pack setting. If you had, you may realize that if a dominate bitch would not go in and kill a couple of pups if she was driven by a pack instinct....she would kill them all, plain and simple. What you saw was a dog raised by you, probably in the house, that had no pack mentality and was a big enough squirrel to kill anothers pups. Happens all the time. My examples and references are never based on Terrasita's "a friend of mine has a friend who raises dogs like you do and that proves I am wrong", they are based on actually having the dogs in front of me raised in packs 24/7. Pack oriented animals are not self destructive, their purpose is to provide safety for pack members. You may have noticed the only incident Terrasita specifically mentioned, she added that the subordinate bitch was red to an outside dog and her pups were killed. I seriously doubt that but it is her story. Long story short, bitches kill pups every day, they even kill their own many times, let's just not blindly put it off on pack mentality because Gregory was right, until you have raised dogs in pack, you won't understand the dynamics of what goes on in a pack. Believe this, in the beginning, it was touch and go getting house dogs with no pack mentality to peacefullu co-exist as a family unit. It took a few generations.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Lynda Myers said:


> No it's true their not wolves. What is your experience with feral dogs? Because when dogs are turned loose and left to fend for themselves do revert back to form packs and taking down prey and humans on occasions because the natural fear man is not there.



I think Maggie is right. I have spent a some time watching feral dogs in Asia over the last several years. Dogs turned loose and feral dogs are really different. Packs of stray dogs that I have seen in the US are liable attack humans. True feral dogs on the other hand are very different. They are a permanent parasite on man. In the Philippines for instance there are feral dogs, they call them Askals, everywhere in towns. They are hardly ever seen in in groups other than young dogs or mothers with pups. Adult dogs usually pick a small territory and stick to that area for the most part. They just avoid each other for the most part. They don't fight very much. The only time I saw adult Askals fight is over a female in heat. And they are not afraid of people. They are lounging around all over the place. You can be in the most busy areas of a town and the Askals are sleeping on the sidewalk and doorways. they seem to ignore people and people ignore them. Like this....



















Another thing that I noticed was that when there were more people there were more Askals. That kind of shows me that these dogs stay close to man. They don't hunt. I have spent some time in the jungles there and you never see Askals. They don't even hunt the chickens that roam around everywhere.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

QUOTE=Terrasita Cuffie;202978]What makes you think this doesn't happen Don with some dogs? I get calls all the time from people with dogs that growl or even bite over possession of objects. My dad's Czech line GSD puppy would get in his recliner and growl. I've had several dominant dogs challenge at some point in their lives amongst the bouv and GSDs. Its how you deal with it that determines whether they will challenge again. Where I raise puppies. I guarantee with the more dominant types at age two I'm going to have a challenge fight. 

Don, your pack may function one way but there are others that function differently. My friend's aussies function like yours until she bred in another line so we decided that the dogs know what family they belonged to. Dominant bitches not only will kill another's puppies but they really attempt them from being even bred. 

Whether you believe in dominance heirarchy or not, wolves and dogs continue to share certain characteristics that have not been selectively bred out.


Terrasita[/QUOTE]


Don,

I did not SAY that my friend's bitch was bred to an outside line and killed another bitch's puppies. Actually what I was getting at is that her pack functioned the same as yours until she bred to an outside line. Let me expand upon that so that it isn't confusing. Until she bred to an outside line she was basically line breeding within her pedigree. As long as she stayed within that pedigree, multiple males and bitches ran together an coexisted together without problems. If you observed, there was a recognized alpha male and alpha bitch. They all participated in the raising of puppies. Now when she bred to an ouside line dogs kept from that breeding didn't mutually coexist as well with the base family of dogs. Another friend of mine has observed this as well with her corgis. Now in my own house, Morgwyn grew up from puppyhood with Thor. When I brought her home at 6 weeks, I had two adult GSDs. A couple of weeks later we got Thor and raised them as puppies. When she had her first ltter at 2, she allowed Thor and Thor only to visit the whelping box. It has been interesting even in a multi dog household where they tolerate each other, the development of actual sub packs. I think within a familial setting where the rank order is established, there won't be any altercations for years. For instance, my pack was the same in terms of who was in it for 7 years. When Teva died recently, we had some grumbling and a few episodes. Nothing big and nothing compared to when Ingrid died and we had weeks of chaos as a couple were trying to climb the ladder. Its true with a pack and an established order that everyone recognizes, you don't have aggression incidences. Futhermore, whether or not they are intact and even what age they were spayed or neutered makes a big difference. 

Now my statement that dominant bitches as a general rule may kill another's puppies and try to keep others in the pack from being bred is just that general. I've seen it with my own. It had nothing to do with the aussie pack I was referring to. Its an interesting discussion. I think if you have a true familial pack they will function as such and everyone mutually coexists. None of this refutes the dominance hierarchy theory. Even within a familial pack of intact dogs and it may be subtle, someone is the leader. We do not generally get a merry band of equals. Once established amongst the same group of dogs, it can stay that way for years. Now, what may be the issue here and what I discovered amongst my own dogs is that just because they live together in the same location or household doesn't mean that THE DOGS consider themselves a pack. This may be the reason for the aberrant behavior. 

Don appears to have a group of sub packs with electric fencing separating them because of male-to-male aggression. What I'm not sure is the composition of each sub pack. I do think he has true familial packs or dogs out of the same pedigree and generations like my friend with the aussies. 


Terrasita


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Dern nice of that dog to push his sick friend across the street! 8-[


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> Dern nice of that dog to push his sick friend across the street! 8-[


Nope, she's just been to the Jean Donaldsen school of dog training. Puts a whole new spin on "motivational" methods.


----------

