# Relationship



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Christopher Smith said:


> You're not wrong, you're just not 100% right. The thing that you, and others on this thread, are failing to take into account is relationship. A good relationship with the dog can overcome a lot of bad training including timing mistakes.
> 
> I think it's short sighted to apply to much of Skinnerian theory to dog training. You have to remember that the Skinner Box was created to remove the influence of the observer from the subject. That's the opposite of what I want to do in my dog training. With modern training we tend to seek to remove handler influence and make the training field a big Skinner Box. We use e-collar. We don't praise, we drop balls from Pringles cans. We don't use our hands to correct. I think that these types of things diminish the relationship and if the relationship is not built up in other places to make up for this, you tend to get the problems that the OP is having.


I am hearing this a lot these days...so thought that maybe it deserves its own thread.

I would love to hear more about how people ensure that their "relationship" with their dog ensures better performance. How do *you* go about building that "relationship"?

Actually Chris has given some examples to start things off...

Praise...does this feel good to all dogs, even if never paired with other rewards? What if I have a dog for whom petting and praise is not rewarding, does that mean I have a crappy relationship with my dog, even if said dog is good at his job? 

Correcting with ones hands? Wouldn't think of this as a "relationship builder", but I think I know what Chris is getting at...it is at least "personal".

What are the "other places" you are talking about Chris? I think that spending time with your dogs in situations where the dog has to learn to trust you and you need to really be a team can help.

What about just time spent? Can my relationship with my kennel dog be as good as with my house dog? 

Anyways...my relationship with my dogs is something I have been thinking a lot about lately, so Chris' comments were timely.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

It would be hard for me to give specifics. Just some things I've always done and basically it revolves around spending time with the dog. I'd rather spend time with my dogs then get free tickets to the World Series and the Superbowl together. 
I have two outside dogs now but I haven't seen any difference with them from any house dogs I've owned. Fact is, one of the outside dogs is far and away the best dog I've ever owned (lots over the past 60+ yrs). That's both the connection I have and his ability to learn.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Dave Colborn said:


> The thing you are failing to take into account is what I said. I re-quoted so you can see it. I am talking about teaching and repeating specific behaviors. Can you clearly state what problems the OP is having besides getting behaviors?
> 
> Define your good relationship with a dog. I bet you can find a number of times where you did things at just the right time, to let your dog know what you were happy or upset with how your relationship was going with it. IE reward, and correction. They are predators trying to reach an end goal of what they want. It is a bonus when we get a dog and a task suited for each other. IE the dog that loves to hunt, being a detector dog, a self rewarder. Mix it with good rewards and judicious use of the dog to not burn it out, and you have a dog that will kill himself hunting, and look "happy" the whole time.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I just read that.
Spot on!!!


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

I answered on the other thread, but I would like to add a little here.

Relationship is simply how we relate to the dog. How he perceives us and how we perceive him. So I don't think Chris is off with hand corrections or praise. The advantage if you can do this, is you take your hands with you everywhere if you are blessed with two. What better way to let you dog know you have access to a correction and reward than to carry both with you. Never without either. May not be as valuable as a tug or a hot dog, but still there.

I like my relationship to start in training with a dog. Immediately. Let him know i have a hot dog. Let him know I lead him to bites, or rewards for a tougher older dog. That food comes from me. It is a mindset, not really so much structured. If he is out of the kennel, he is learning. If I am playing ball with a new dog, and he stops to pee or poop, and then hunts to find the ball, I just learned that I didn't give him a long enough break, and a little bit about his hunting. So, what I do is focus on the goal of our session together. If focus is given, there is less to correct later. So. I think about what behaviors I want, and try and do things to help condition them.

For me what not to do is important as well. I think when you start with long walks, etc, all you do is create a dog that learns to take long walks, even learns to take longer to pee and poop. Unless part of your interaction is going to be long walks, then there is no point. I want to start the conditioning early on what to do, not to teach him to walk, sniff pee etc, and have to cover that up later when I teach him to track or trail. So. I think about what behaviors I don't want, and I don't expose the dog to them.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Bob Scott said:


> It would be hard for me to give specifics.


And there-in lies the problem.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> And there-in lies the problem.


Let me shorten mine up a bit.

Encourage what you want.

Stay away from what you don't want.

Forget about them loving you, get them to eat hot dogs!!!


----------



## Steve Estrada (Mar 6, 2011)

My relationship with my dogs hasn't been anthromorphical but meeting their needs, not loving them for my needs but for their needs. I try to explain to clients that to have a better relationship meet their needs. Now that to me means in training that they must focus on me the leader. I try to hide from them as play and they freak when they look for me, I know the drive it builds. I'm also an advocate of enrichment trying to offer them something different yet using the opportunity to make it a training exercise also. The German frugheit explains it although it isn't translatable. My life is blessed by working daily with every kind of behavior and breeds. But my passion is the working dog yet I appreciate them all. I don't sleep with them unless camping and every time we see each other it's special. They aren't in the house except to be with me in special time, relational. Don't get tearyeyed I'm always firm but fair and I advertise and practice leadership vs dominance. A real pack leader is fair, I try my best after learning this from a true alpha male Rottweiler who bit three owners by ten months. I dominated him and he sulked I led him and he blossomed. He taught me so much!


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> And there-in lies the problem.



 Then what Dave said! Simple and to the point!

"Let me shorten mine up a bit.

Encourage what you want.

Stay away from what you don't want.

Forget about them loving you, get them to eat hot dogs!!!"


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

James Downey said:


> In the grand scheme of things. I think relationship is not a training tool. It's a by product, a result of the training.


Hope you don't mind I put this over here James!


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Steve Estrada said:


> My relationship with my dogs hasn't been anthromorphical but meeting their needs, not loving them for my needs but for their needs. I try to explain to clients that to have a better relationship meet their needs. Now that to me means in training that they must focus on me the leader. I try to hide from them as play and they freak when they look for me, I know the drive it builds. I'm also an advocate of enrichment trying to offer them something different yet using the opportunity to make it a training exercise also. The German frugheit explains it although it isn't translatable. My life is blessed by working daily with every kind of behavior and breeds. But my passion is the working dog yet I appreciate them all. I don't sleep with them unless camping and every time we see each other it's special. They aren't in the house except to be with me in special time, relational. Don't get tearyeyed I'm always firm but fair and I advertise and practice leadership vs dominance. A real pack leader is fair, I try my best after learning this from a true alpha male Rottweiler who bit three owners by ten months. I dominated him and he sulked I led him and he blossomed. He taught me so much!



If you hadn't dominated him, you may have never had the blossoming, other than the blood blossoming through your shirt or pants when he whacked you.

We can't say one way or the other at this point, just an observation. I agree with you though, I like a dog to appear a willing partner in what I am doing. Not a sulky thing just there because he has to.

I am working on a fire hydrant analogy in regards to leadership and dogs. Stand by.


----------



## Adam Rawlings (Feb 27, 2009)

If you're having problems Jennifer, flowers and I nice meal out might do the trick.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Adam Rawlings said:


> If you're having problems Jennifer, flowers and I nice meal out might do the trick.


Sweet! You buying?


----------



## Thomas Jones (Feb 4, 2011)

I've always had really really strong bonds with every dog I've ever owned. The more stuff I read on this board the more I think its just a gift. My dog(s) go everywhere with me when I'm home and I mean everywhere. I can walk inside and the dog with sit down at the door and stay there til I come out and its not a command with my pup. She'll be 8 months the first of Oct. I have some vids on my phone but I can't figure out how to get them off. I can transfer music from my phone but I can't find the option for the vids. She's wild tho


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Well, my dogs are my house buddies. My training approach is about what Dave has outlined. There is a sport/trial part of what I do and a real part of what I do that requires partnership. I will say the more I work a dog and especially up to what I call advanced work, the more connected I am to that dog. The guide dog people talk about the dog that takes responsibility. This isn't trained. Its instinct. I think you have to be in a position where you actually rely on a dog to understand their ability to read a situation and respond. Dave's comments on the walks made me laugh. When I raise a puppy, I take him out to potty and back in. I end up with dogs who have no use for the great outdoors unless we are working stock. There's no concept of engaging the environment and ignoring me. One of the dogs I train sorta evolved into a dog that didn't seemingly care about anything. Reward from the handler meant nothing. Part of my fix-it was for the owner to stop kenneling him with other dogs. Take him into the house and put him in a crate. The owner was to take care of all his needs--not the wife and no playing with the grandkids. All things necessary to the dog were to come through the owner. Add marker training without him being satiated with food in his training. Part of the problem was his thyroid. However, I 've seen aussies pack up with dogs to the degree that take one away from the dog pack on a long trip and open the crate and it acts like it doesn't know you. A few weeks later and the dog is a marker training poster child. This dog will trial but his #1 job is a farm chore dog. The guy needs to be able to rely on him with holding off the rams and ewes gone crazy at feeding time. You can't command every second of this or the mindset that it takes. Correction training is totally inapplicable. Its a partnership where the owner needs to be able to rely on the dog and the dog needs to understand the job and take responsibility. That taking responsibility is broadly based in the relationship.

T


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I think you have to be in a position where you actually rely on a dog to understand their ability to read a situation and respond.


Kind of important with what I do.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Originally Posted by *Terrasita Cuffie*  
I think you have to be in a position where you actually rely on a dog to understand their ability to read a situation and respond. 



Jennifer Coulter said:


> Kind of important with what I do.



This is simple. Stimulus = Response = Reward or Variable Reward.

Not instinct in most cases, unless you are running a rabbit down for supper.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> Kind of important with what I do.


Yes and I think we rely on some of the same traits and know that there are things we need in a dog that go wayyyy beyond task training. When I get around to selecting that next puppy, I want to look at Jim Delbridge's selection ideas. I think though what each dog needs for optimum performance is specific to that dog. My personal belief is that my dogs are part of a pack/family unit. I don't think I can have that with them outside and in kennels. They know my every habit which gets funny when I change something. There's training and then there is day-to-day life around the house. Each dog's mental package is different and I relate to them differently. I don't think they are the lab rats that you see in Pavlov's dog. They have an intelligence that goes beyond that. Besides, that was limited to a biological response. It can go both ways. With Ferris, I had to bond to the dog before I could even begin to load him for marker training. Once he let me in and trusted me, bingo. That was a learning experience. With Khira, I can marker train all I want but the results are limited if I don't deal with the respect issue. For me none of its black and white.

T


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Dave Colborn said:


> Originally Posted by *Terrasita Cuffie*
> I think you have to be in a position where you actually rely on a dog to understand their ability to read a situation and respond.
> 
> 
> ...


Agreed. My point was that I have some experience in what it feels like to have to rely on, and read your dog in real life, stressful circumstances. I would not leave that to instinct, or "relationship". Training has everything to do with it. As James said, I think that the training builds the relationship...and trust...going both ways.


----------



## Adam Rawlings (Feb 27, 2009)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> Sweet! You buying?


Sorry I can't help you out. If my "I'm in shit" fund get's depleted any further, I will be sleeping on the couch.

Seriously, all you need to do is give a working dog a job, treat it with respect, be fair, patient, consistant and you'll have it made.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Dave Colborn said:


> Originally Posted by *Terrasita Cuffie*
> I think you have to be in a position where you actually rely on a dog to understand their ability to read a situation and respond.
> 
> 
> ...


Not bunnies unless it happens to run through the pasture but sheep, cattle and ducks for me. I can't always control the stimulus either.

T


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> Agreed. My point was that I have some experience in what it feels like to have to rely on, and read your dog in real life, stressful circumstances. I would not leave that to instinct, or "relationship". Training has everything to do with it. As James said, I think that the training builds the relationship...and trust...going both ways.


I was laying that out more for Terrasita. 

I hear you though. There is nothing like trying to find stuff when you don't know where it is and you have to trust a dog's nose. It will make you learn things about yourself, never mind them.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Yes and I think we rely on some of the same traits and know that there are things we need in a dog that go wayyyy beyond task training. When I get around to selecting that next puppy, I want to look at Jim Delbridge's selection ideas. I think though what each dog needs for optimum performance is specific to that dog. My personal belief is that my dogs are part of a pack/family unit. I don't think I can have that with them outside and in kennels. They know my every habit which gets funny when I change something. There's training and then there is day-to-day life around the house. Each dog's mental package is different and I relate to them differently. I don't think they are the lab rats that you see in Pavlov's dog. They have an intelligence that goes beyond that. Besides, that was limited to a biological response. It can go both ways. With Ferris, I had to bond to the dog before I could even begin to load him for marker training. Once he let me in and trusted me, bingo. That was a learning experience. With Khira, I can marker train all I want but the results are limited if I don't deal with the respect issue. For me none of its black and white.
> 
> T


I don't share a Jim's views on selecting dogs for SAR, but we work in very different areas of SAR, so that is some of it maybe.

I also believe you can have a kennel dog and have a meaningful relationship with it. I will let you know in a couple of years what I think LOL. I will have raised one working dog inside and one outside. I will let you know if I think the "relationship" differed. An outdoor kennelled dog fits my working profile, as there is lots of being kennelled in the cold involved at work and lots of adverse working conditions in the field.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> Agreed. My point was that I have some experience in what it feels like to have to rely on, and read your dog in real life, stressful circumstances. I would not leave that to instinct, or "relationship". Training has everything to do with it. As James said, I think that the training builds the relationship...and trust...going both ways.


But can you scenario train everything that you will need the dog to do? I think we try to do this as much as possible but for me at least, there are some situations that aren't within the scope of that. 

T


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Not bunnies unless it happens to run through the pasture but sheep, cattle and ducks for me. I can't always control the stimulus either.
> 
> T


You can't command the dogs to keep the stock away from the feeder? That would be the stimulus in your example. Where the livestock go, I understand you can't control. The line in the sand where the dogs are supposed to keep them out, you can.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> I don't share a Jim's views on selecting dogs for SAR, but we work in very different areas of SAR, so that is some of it maybe.
> 
> I also believe you can have a kennel dog and have a meaningful relationship with it. I will let you know in a couple of years what I think LOL. I will have raised one working dog inside and one outside. I will let you know if I think the "relationship" differed. An outdoor kennelled dog fits my working profile, as there is lots of being kennelled in the cold involved at work and lots of adverse working conditions in the field.


I think the kennel set up works for some people. Its just not my cup of tea. Its like choice of food--lifestyle issue. I think bottom line, its how much time you put into the dog and working the dog and the individual dog's make up. If I remember correctly, you do the avalance work? As for the relationship, beyond living as a pack--clear communication, criteria, and reward. I tthink the dog is happiest [for want of a better word] when he is clear on what right is and he is rewarded [what he sees as reward] for it.

T


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> But can you scenario train everything that you will need the dog to do? I think we try to do this as much as possible but for me at least, there are some situations that aren't within the scope of that.
> 
> T





Terrasita Cuffie said:


> But can you scenario train everything that you will need the dog to do? I think we try to do this as much as possible but for me at least, there are some situations that aren't within the scope of that.
> 
> T


What do you mean? Can you give me an example? Are you talking about searching or life in general? I can't train for every variable no. But are you saying the dog would then fall back on "instinct, or relationship"? I think the dog would fall back on training it has come to generalize and a bunch of cues that would still be present, even if some things were novel.

If the situation was *too* novel, and not enough cues were present, and the dog did not understand the task, I would expect that the dog may not be successful, and would need more training in that environment. I would not say the dog had bad instinct or that we had a bad relationship.

Did I miss the point?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Dave Colborn said:


> You can't command the dogs to keep the stock away from the feeder? That would be the stimulus in your example. Where the livestock go, I understand you can't control. The line in the sand where the dogs are supposed to keep them out, you can.


Ahhhh, stimulus control. I think you are right for most of it. Yes, I have put a "hold" on command and even mental pressure/eye in one dog that was completely loose eyed. The hold requires a frame of mind on the part of the dog-i.e. mental pressure on the stock, ability to handle a fight, yet maintain the hold--balance. Its not just the dog's physical position. My marker training has been inclusive of the frame of mind. We've seen alot of yes the dog is obedient and goes where you tell him to go but he is not "working" the stock. They are turned off so to speak. With the situation in particular and how its set up there are a zillion pieces. You have a flock and while the dog might be focused on one head, the others are trying to slip by him if he can. You can't command his management of this. He has to understand the big picture and manage the details himself. I have a trained grip/bite in some dogs, but if I don't see it or happens that fast, I can't call out the command. A lot of times the dog will see it or is aware of it before I am. This is usally more with rams and more fight stock. The dog is reading the actions or intent of the stock. Mary Alice Theriot is famous for her saying that "the handler is always a day late and dollar short." 

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> What do you mean? Can you give me an example? Are you talking about searching or life in general? I can't train for every variable no. But are you saying the dog would then fall back on "instinct, or relationship"? I think the dog would fall back on training it has come to generalize and a bunch of cues that would still be present, even if some things were novel.
> 
> If the situation was *too* novel, and not enough cues were present, and the dog did not understand the task, I would expect that the dog may not be successful, and would need more training in that environment. I would not say the dog had bad instinct or that we had a bad relationship.
> 
> Did I miss the point?


In your context, I dont' know. In mine, there are things that aren't trained where instinct and relationship will carry the day. Things have a way of happening that you don't have a scenario for. Stock can be unpredictable. For instance, I'm trialing and set my dog at the post. I send her on the outrun and she is literally running off course she is so wide [open field, no fence]. It dawns on me when she stops and puts her nose in the air, she couldn't see the stock. She was ten inches tall and due to the distance, tall grass and the incline, she couldn't see them. Putting her nose in the air, she tracked them. She finished the outrun and got behind them and brought them to me. Good thing because I certainly didn't have any commands for it. I've seen dogs in that case [blind outruns] shut down and quit. I think instinct/relationship and a sense of the big picture of the job will keep some dogs in the game beyond rewards for performed behaviors. 

T


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> , I think that the training builds the relationship.


Do you believe that if you have a dog and did nothing but walk it around your neighborhood and played with it, that you would have no relationship with the dog?


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> How do *you* go about building that "relationship"?


It's inevitable that you will have a relationship with your dog. The only question is if that relationship is conducive to your goals. I don't really think that there is any such thing as a good or bad relationship. There are only ones that work or don't work. But working ones can be called "good" and ones that don't work can be called "bad". 



> What if I have a dog for whom petting and praise is not rewarding, does that mean I have a crappy relationship with my dog, even if said dog is good at his job?


I think in most cases, yes. But it might be a case of the dog not liking the way that you praise or the dog might simply be a weirdo. 



> Correcting with ones hands? Wouldn't think of this as a "relationship builder", but I think I know what Chris is getting at...it is at least "personal".


It might not build the type of relationship that most people want, but some people build a hands on relationship that yield the results to reach their goals. 



> What are the "other places" you are talking about Chris? I think that spending time with your dogs in situations where the dog has to learn to trust you and you need to really be a team can help.
> 
> What about just time spent? Can my relationship with my kennel dog be as good as with my house dog?
> 
> Anyways...my relationship with my dogs is something I have been thinking a lot about lately, so Chris' comments were timely.


Ill just talk about what works for me. The other places I was talking about are activities done outside of schutzhund. Most anything will do. I like making up games to play with my dogs. My favorite things to go someplace like Venice Beach , sit on a bench and chill. 

I think a pure kennel dog can work for some people but it has not worked very well for me. I like a dog to be both a kennel and house dog. I think that if a dog only sees kennel and training field it's hard to know the dog well enough to train optimally. I make some of my training decisions based on what the dog does naturally.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Christopher Smith said:


> Do you believe that if you have a dog and did nothing but walk it around your neighborhood and played with it, that you would have no relationship with the dog?


No, I don't believe that. But one could argue that in walking and playing with your dog, you are training, though not formally perhaps.

I would also say that if I did more with that dog, including some more structured training as well as some different unstructured stuff, we would know each other better, develop more of a trust and bond, and perhaps the relationship would be even stronger.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Christopher Smith said:


> It's inevitable that you will have a relationship with your dog. The only question is if that relationship is conducive to your goals. I don't really think that there is any such thing as a good or bad relationship. There are only ones that work or don't work. But working ones can be called "good" and ones that don't work can be called "bad".
> 
> I think in most cases, yes. But it might be a case of the dog not liking the way that you praise or the dog might simply be a weirdo.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your insights, I appreciate it!


----------



## Randy Allen (Apr 18, 2008)

To add to Christopher's thoughts, I'd like to say; 
as quaintly as we'd like to put it, there are no short cuts. A relationship can't be qualified or set out in rote. Be it man and women or man/women and beast.

As we are 'supposedly' the superior it is to us to figure out how to communicate. 
Relationship? It develops over time. And not a month or two, but over time.
As a general rule, consistency works though.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

i agree with 99% of what has been written on this thread. can't agree 100% cause i'm a trainer 
but i'd like to broaden the issue a bit, and believe me, i'm NOT just trying to "stir the pot" 
obviously all of the posters on this thread have a good grasp of canine behavior and OC, and explain the way they handle dogs that way.
...well, i think this applies to ALL dogs in any way they are used
so here's the rub
.....f/f to the KNPV dog trainers, the Dick and Mike crowd, etc., who focus on the "hard hitters" and BAMF's categories.... tuff dogs trained by tuff owners 
- by trainers and breeders with LOTS of experience, who generally say it's all genetics
...why are they always silent in these threads, and why do some trainers (Alice, as a good example), when they DO have a comment, basically look down on all this "philosophizing" and come out with a comment that essentially says "none of this behavioral talk is important" ?
- is it because "building interspecies relationships" don't matter when training a really tuff dog, since high drive aggressive performance is all that is necessary, and the control and social stuff is WAY secondary ? Does it mean you show that kind of dog what you want "in black and white", and if it flips you off, you "show em Jesus" ?? or does it mean that what's being discussed on this thread is not all that important for some kinds of dogs ?
* but i also want to add, i'm referring to the TRAINING aspect, since i realize not many of these dogs live in a family environment where being happy and social (the interspecies stuff) is all that necessary
...i might be exaggerating the difference, but hopefully you will get what i mean, since there ARE people in this current thread who have worked with these type dogs 

i have very limited experience here, but i have seen BIG differences in the way mwd's work and react with different handlers, and i feel it pertains to what is being discussed on this thread. hopefully some of the ex-military handlers will agree.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

rick smith said:


> i have very limited experience here, but i have seen BIG differences in the way mwd's work and react with different handlers, and i feel it pertains to what is being discussed on this thread. hopefully some of the ex-military handlers will agree.



Rick. I have seen military dogs do better with one handler than another. We say things like "oh, this dog is a better match for you" or "this dog is a bad match". 

Truth is there are handlers of all different skill levels. Some are good and some are bad. Some dogs will respond better to more reward and some respond better to more compulsion. It may be training or genetics. So it isn't really a bad match, it's that handlers have a style. They work the same dog for years, and get good with that one dog. Then get a new one and have a hard time and have a slow learning curve. Then there are plain bad handlers. Then there a few who, when you put a dog on leash with them, they get great behaviors out of the dog no matter which dog. They get it. You see them in all walks of life, the people that just get it. Some can explain it, some can't, but they can just do it. Really well. Watch them and see how they interact. Their timing is good. With reward and correction. Dog does well with them because of it.

Why can a trainer take a misbehaving dog and get better behaviors? Proper timing with reward and correction. And there is no confused past (prior conditioned responses) for the dog with this new stimulus, the new trainer. They have no pre learned bad behaviors with a new trainer. They may explore the bad ones they know, but the trainer has an answer based on the dog's titration and willingness to work for reward or correction. Is that leadership, love, etc? No it's a conditioned response animal, learning. Most of these terms come about when we try and explain it to people. Don't dumb it down for people. Teach them the right way, and why training works. Explain philosophy. Stimulus=Response=Reward. Talk to them and get them to listen and understand. It's a responsibility as a teacher to try and make the student smarter and better than yourself in the end. 

Trainers can be just like the piece of equipment a well trained dog is conditioned to. 

Pinch collar = good behavior. Trainer = Good behavior. No collar = bad behavior. No Trainer = bad behavior.

Not the ideal, as the dog should be conditioned to the command, but we all know that this happens with dogs prior to proofing.


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> No, I don't believe that. But one could argue that in walking and playing with your dog, you are training, though not formally perhaps.
> 
> I would also say that if I did more with that dog, including some more structured training as well as some different unstructured stuff, we would know each other better, develop more of a trust and bond, and perhaps the relationship would be even stronger.


This is quite interesting to think about. I think the strongest bonds I have had with dogs is with a couple of cattle dogs before I even thought about formal training. With one in particular, my first dog, she travelled everywhere with me. She came surfing, camping, motorbike riding. She sat outside shops and waited and she waited for me on the beach, under my car when I was out for the good part of a day working on a crayboat, waited outside late into the night at parties etc. It wasnt something I conciously trained her to do.

I never deliberately trained her, she knew nothing about working for reward. She was just such a good dog and did what I expected her to do. She never acknowledged any other person other than me. I once left her with a good friend on his farm when I was away overseas for nearly 3 months and he told me that she would position herself everday looking down his driveway waiting. 

When she became deaf,(she lived till she was 17) I didnt really notice until I left her with my mother once and she was totally confused as there was no avenue for communication between the 2 of them. I realised that she must have been totally tuned into my body language.. 

The dogs I have now I do a quite a bit of training with and obviously work stock with a couple of them. They love training but are tuned into working for reward, or by instinct - love of working sheep. I have a good working relationship with them but it is nothing like the bond I had with those first couple of dogs. Maybe I dont do enough of the non training stuff with my current dogs LOL.


----------



## Britney Pelletier (Mar 5, 2009)

Dave Colborn said:


> Let me shorten mine up a bit.
> 
> Encourage what you want.
> 
> ...


 
Well said, Dave! :smile:


----------



## Ted Efthymiadis (Apr 3, 2009)

Every dog I train I am more and more aware of how little relationship has to do with a dog responding to a human. I am always better with my clients dog then they are, for 2 reasons. I know how to communicate with them better, I know how to motivate them better.

Relationship is highly over rated, one of the best pieces of advice I have ever been given was this: 
"Dogs don't love you, they only love what you have.... If you stop feeding you're dog, stop giving it a place to stay, stop giving it attention, stop giving it water... It will go to the chump next door."

This is the way I see it, so I don't get mad when I understand my dog does not love me, nor do I assume he would die for me because of relationship. Just my 2 cents, just the way I see it.



Jennifer Coulter said:


> I am hearing this a lot these days...so thought that maybe it deserves its own thread.


----------



## Peter Cho (Apr 21, 2010)

I don't know if training builds relationships. I know GOOD training does, with clear direction and excellent handling..........not many are excellent handlers, though.

All I know for 100% certain is that a good relationship is built on trust. Training does provide an avenue for that trust to be built since you are building predictable, wanted behavior. A dog will trust that a certain event (reward or even a negative reinforcement will happen) will happen. I believe predictability from the dog's point of view also builds relationship. 

You know, I think for a working dog, a relationship is built on meeting expectations. BOTH dog and his handler. More so on the handler, to be frank.

It is like this. When my dog does awesome in training and his focus is so good and his actions precise...........I say, "dammmmmm you are a cool dog!!!!"
If he goes into avoidance due to weak nerves, well, no matter how friendly a dog is, we are not going to have any relations.

Predictability, meeting expectations, building trust.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> Anyways...my relationship with my dogs is something I have been thinking a lot about lately, so Chris' comments were timely.


So are you questioning your relationships with your dogs because their performance is less than what you want?

T


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Ted Efthymiadis said:


> Every dog I train I am more and more aware of how little relationship has to do with a dog responding to a human. I am always better with my clients dog then they are, for 2 reasons. I know how to communicate with them better, I know how to motivate them better.
> 
> Relationship is highly over rated, one of the best pieces of advice I have ever been given was this:
> "Dogs don't love you, they only love what you have.... If you stop feeding you're dog, stop giving it a place to stay, stop giving it attention, stop giving it water... It will go to the chump next door."
> ...


I would like to see you even try and train and motivate one of my tightly bonded cattle dogs better than me LOL. They would simply ignore you. They have no interest in toys or food offered by other people in a training context and they are highly food and toy driven. Others have taken up the challenge and failed LOL.

I dont believe it is love as love is often mingled with reward even in human relationships. But I do believe that there can sometimes a be very strong bond. Not in all human dog relationships - my collies for example will work for anyone and could happily be rehomed.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Sara Waters said:


> I would like to see you even try and train and motivate one of my tightly bonded cattle dogs better than me LOL. They would simply ignore you. They have no interest in toys or food offered by other people in a training context and they are highly food and toy driven. Others have taken up the challenge and failed LOL.
> 
> I dont believe it is love as love is often mingled with reward even in human relationships. But I do believe that there can sometimes a be very strong bond. Not in all human dog relationships - my collies for example will work for anyone and could happily be rehomed.



She drew a line and said "Cross it Ted!!!" 

Just make sure you get the rules in advance. I got my money on you, buddy!!


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Do you guys deny that there are dogs that don't engage anyone else besides their owners? This used to be a character trait of GSDs. It was what "aloof" was described as--no fear or aggressive reaction but wouldn't interact with strangers.

T


----------



## Ted Efthymiadis (Apr 3, 2009)

Sara Waters said:


> I would like to see you even try and train and motivate one of my tightly bonded cattle dogs better than me LOL. They would simply ignore you. They have no interest in toys or food offered by other people in a training context and they are highly food and toy driven. Others have taken up the challenge and failed LOL.
> 
> I dont believe it is love as love is often mingled with reward even in human relationships. But I do believe that there can sometimes a be very strong bond. Not in all human dog relationships - my collies for example will work for anyone and could happily be rehomed.


If I lived near you I would. 
Try training some of the 140 lb human/dog/cat aggressive Bull Mastiffs I have coming at me with no desire for food, praise, or toys, even from their handlers.

I have trained several very hard cattle dogs with great success.


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

This is a very interesting thread. I am coming to find the opposite of many of the posts, the more I time I spend with dogs the more I think the bond is important part. It is what makes the dog do things it would rather not under tougher conditions. It might take a little bit more time than using hot dogs or balls but I think it’s worth it if it is done right with the right dog. I haven’t been in the dog world long enough to know exactly but I am starting to think that the ball and hot dog tricks were started to sell dogs that would have normally been culled in the olden days. Now these dogs, hot dogs and balls are the new norm. That’s my conspiracy theory at least and it must be true because you are reading it in type. :razz:


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

i believe just going for a random walk in the woods occasionally with yr dog is great for building relationships - cheaper than hot dogs to - but it could just be a conspiracy theory.


----------



## Ted Efthymiadis (Apr 3, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Do you guys deny that there are dogs that don't engage anyone else besides their owners? This used to be a character trait of GSDs. It was what "aloof" was described as--no fear or aggressive reaction but wouldn't interact with strangers.
> 
> T


I'm not sure you understand the concept....

Dogs are opportunistic animals, so the fact that they engage only for an owner, just means that they are trained to engage for those people close to them. It's not a concept of love, it's a "I know this person will treat me well thing" because of 1000's of repetitions. 

Just the way I see it.... As humans we thrive on love, so we assume our dogs are also that way.


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

So what is wrong with a dog doing something because it thinks this person treats me well? I must be missing something?


----------



## Ted Efthymiadis (Apr 3, 2009)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> i believe just going for a random walk in the woods occasionally with yr dog is great for building relationships - cheaper than hot dogs to - but it could just be a conspiracy theory.


Ever person who calls me to help with their dogs does just that.
I walk my dogs, 1,2,3 times a day in the woods, and still they won't come back to me.... hahaha


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Ted Efthymiadis said:


> *"Dogs don't love you, they only love what you have.... If you stop feeding you're dog, stop giving it a place to stay, stop giving it attention, stop giving it water... It will go to the chump next door."*


 
haha you talking about my ex-wife, thats what she did - just kiddin.

seriously Ted you could apply that theory to anyone with a job or any of the world's armies - excluding slaves of course. 

just so happens a dog won't work for paper dollars - i see no difference.

jus sayin


----------



## Ted Efthymiadis (Apr 3, 2009)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> haha you talking about my ex-wife, thats what she did - just kiddin.
> 
> seriously Ted you could apply that theory to anyone with a job or any of the world's armies - excluding slaves of course.
> 
> ...


That is just what I am saying.....

The thing is, a job is something someone can 100% hate, and they will still go to that job, because it pays the bills and puts food on the table.

You don't have to love your boss to show up at work on time, you just have to want money....

It's just a conditioned response to pleasant stimulation in hopes that the stimulation with continue.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

*"You don't have to love your boss to show up at work on time, you just have to want money....

It's just a conditioned response to pleasant stimulation in hopes that the stimulation with continue"*


man u have just done what poets throughout the centuries have tried and failed to achieve - you have defined *true* *love* in so many words.


----------



## Ted Efthymiadis (Apr 3, 2009)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> *"You don't have to love your boss to show up at work on time, you just have to want money....
> 
> It's just a conditioned response to pleasant stimulation in hopes that the stimulation with continue"*
> 
> ...


Tell that to my wife Peter!


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

i will leave you do that 

i told you what happened to mine ,


----------



## Ted Efthymiadis (Apr 3, 2009)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> i will leave you do that
> 
> i told you what happened to mine ,



You just need better communication and more motivation to win her back.
hehehehe.


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

Ted Efthymiadis said:


> You just need better communication and more motivation to win her back.
> hehehehe.


 
Or a bigger hot dog and balls?


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

like that chump across the way - nah if i had a wife i wouldn't be loungin around playin on the 'puter to then just go run the dawgs when i feel like it, i would be shifting furniture around in the million'th different permutaion, makin pretty flower gardens or slavin away to pay for the latest $100 hair-do.

think i like it just the way it is.


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Ted Efthymiadis said:


> If I lived near you I would.
> Try training some of the 140 lb human/dog/cat aggressive Bull Mastiffs I have coming at me with no desire for food, praise, or toys, even from their handlers.
> 
> I have trained several very hard cattle dogs with great success.


My cattle dogs are not aggressive or hard. One of them in particular (my old girl now)had great desire to work for me and she was my favourite agility dog ever even though she came to it late. Not because she was as fast as some, but because she tried with every fibre of her body to please me. She trusted me - I could ask her to do stuff like get on a surf board in the waves etc that would have my other dogs looking at me like I was nuts - I would have to train them. She would take the leap of faith and go with me on what ever I asked her. No reward like toys or food required although she is partial to both.

It would be interesting if you lived close LOL. I could guarantuee that you would not need protective clothing LOL, but I could also guarantuee you that she would not do anything for you or even acknowledge you past maybe a mock charge on first meeting.

I dont doubt you are probably better trainer than me with the dogs you talk about above. That is not what I am talking about.


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Do you guys deny that there are dogs that don't engage anyone else besides their owners? This used to be a character trait of GSDs. It was what "aloof" was described as--no fear or aggressive reaction but wouldn't interact with strangers.
> 
> T


You and I both know they exist! I have had dogs for 40 years and they most certainly do. It also tends to be a charater trait of many cattle dogs. If the guys have never experienced that bond then that is a shame.


----------



## Kara Fitzpatrick (Dec 2, 2009)

you watch movies and sleep in the same bed.


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Ted Efthymiadis said:


> I'm not sure you understand the concept....
> 
> Dogs are opportunistic animals, so the fact that they engage only for an owner, just means that they are trained to engage for those people close to them. It's not a concept of love, it's a "I know this person will treat me well thing" because of 1000's of repetitions.
> 
> Just the way I see it.... As humans we thrive on love, so we assume our dogs are also that way.


See I dont think love is a factor either. But I have 6 dogs and they all know I will treat them well but 4 of them will engage with other people in a training context because they know good things happen and they are happy to work for or run for other people in agility or on sheep.

One may eventually work for someone else, not sure. One most definitely wont. She was not formally trained untill she was 6 years old and the bond that formed between her and me had nothing to do with toys, treats, training or anything else. We just travelled and hung out together and at 6 when I introduced her to agility I just showed her what I wanted and she was up for it and was very successful in her short career. 

Treats and toys were not what she worked for. She appeared to work for me.


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Kara Fitzpatrick said:


> you watch movies and sleep in the same bed.


With my dogs? Absolutely not LOL gross.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

it's not like there would ever be any disagreement on a WDF thread - especially when the topic is a clear cut and objective as love and relationships in a working, dog / handler team.

you people are just arguing for the sake of it.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Ted Efthymiadis said:


> I'm not sure you understand the concept....
> 
> Dogs are opportunistic animals, so the fact that they engage only for an owner, just means that they are trained to engage for those people close to them. It's not a concept of love, it's a "I know this person will treat me well thing" because of 1000's of repetitions.
> 
> Just the way I see it.... As humans we thrive on love, so we assume our dogs are also that way.


Nahhhhh, I think there is a concept that you haven't experienced, hence your opportunistic viewpoints. You don't train them to limit their interaction to the person that provides the resources. 

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Sara Waters said:


> Treats and toys were not what she worked for. She appeared to work for me.


I think this is a character trait that has been lost also. Unless you have experienced it, you don't know that it exists.


T


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> So are you questioning your relationships with your dogs because their performance is less than what you want?
> 
> T


No, I am not questioning my relationship with my dogs. I was really looking to spark some conversation and see what other handlers thought on the subject. 

I will say that I think my relationship with my young dog is still evolving, and it is of course "different" (not better or worse) than the relationship with my older dog. I am excited to see how it develops over this winter at work.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Nahhhhh, I think there is a concept that you haven't experienced, hence your opportunistic viewpoints.


They are opportunistic. They are predators. They want to do what they want to do, the easiest way possible. If what they want is praise from you, it still supports this viewpoint.

I have seen dogs that appear to like to work. Even Sara said it above. The dog appeared to work for me. Some do appear that way I'll agree. No one is saying it doesn't happen that dogs appear that way. I am saying you are misreading desire to work for you and be around you for something other than a conditioned response. You praise the dog, they work. You correct the dog, then praise, they work. Conditioned response. Praise is the reward. It's on a variable schedule and gives the appearance of a desire to work. 

I haven't experienced fairies, the Easter bunny, and Santa either, because they don't exist. 





> You don't train them to limit their interaction to the person that provides the resources.
> 
> T


Of course you do. Can you explain how you don't? I teach them a sit behavior to stop jumping, thus training them to limit their interaction with me, on their terms, the guy that feeds them. This is a basic premise of a lot of programs.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Dave Colborn said:


> I haven't experienced fairies, the Easter bunny, and Santa either, because they don't exist.
> 
> 
> QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Dave Colborn said:


> They are opportunistic. They are predators. They want to do what they want to do, the easiest way possible. If what they want is praise from you, it still supports this viewpoint.
> 
> I have seen dogs that appear to like to work. Even Sara said it above. The dog appeared to work for me. Some do appear that way I'll agree. No one is saying it doesn't happen that dogs appear that way. I am saying you are misreading desire to work for you and be around you for something other than a conditioned response. You praise the dog, they work. You correct the dog, then praise, they work. Conditioned response. Praise is the reward. It's on a variable schedule and gives the appearance of a desire to work.
> 
> ...


No I havent experienced fairies either. However I think I am reading more that a conditioned response in this particular dog, considering she really wasnt a dog I conciously spent much time training. She wanted to have a go at what I was doing, whether it be surfing, skateboarding, jumping into a rocking boat (despite being clearly very anxious), many things that were totally unatural and scary. Come to think of it I am not sure I was even heavy on the praise, I found it amusing and probably exploited her willingness a bit.

I found when I started traing her formally in agility at age 6 we skipped all the conditioning foundation work I do with my current pups. She nailed the weaves quicker than any other dog I have trained and we just went on course and ran and had a ball. I have absolutely no doubt she was loving running with me out on that course. I have never seen a dogs eyes shine so bright. My other dogs would be expecting their conditioned reward. With her she had already had her reward - running with me. She would keep going to if I had let her - she was like that at training, never got tired of trying.

I doubt I will ever have another like her. She was obviously my fairy LOL.


----------



## Ted Efthymiadis (Apr 3, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Nahhhhh, I think there is a concept that you haven't experienced, hence your opportunistic viewpoints. You don't train them to limit their interaction to the person that provides the resources.
> 
> T


Oh really...
My Malinois I work with 12-14 hours 6 days a week. He is at my side all day every day. Given the right trainer, he will work for that person as good as the way he works for me, or better. It all depends on communication, and motivation. 

Like it or not, dogs are opportunistic animals.


----------



## Ted Efthymiadis (Apr 3, 2009)

Sara Waters said:


> She was not formally trained untill she was 6 years old and the bond that formed between her and me had nothing to do with toys, treats, training or anything else.


Maybe that is part of you're problem, she has been conditioned to work for attention. Why people think there is a difference between a hot dog and a open bar of praise I will never understand.

Currency is currency.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Sara Waters said:


> No I havent experienced fairies either. However I think I am reading more that a conditioned response in this particular dog, considering she really wasnt a dog I conciously spent much time training. She wanted to have a go at what I was doing, whether it be surfing, skateboarding, jumping into a rocking boat (despite being clearly very anxious), many things that were totally unatural and scary. Come to think of it I am not sure I was even heavy on the praise, I found it amusing and probably exploited her willingness a bit.



Oh, dogs also learn through mimicry. Do you suppose that was it?


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Sara Waters said:


> I found when I started traing her formally in agility at age 6 we skipped all the conditioning foundation work I do with my current pups. She nailed the weaves quicker than any other dog I have trained and we just went on course and ran and had a ball. I have absolutely no doubt she was loving running with me out on that course. I have never seen a dogs eyes shine so bright. My other dogs would be expecting their conditioned reward. With her she had already had her reward - running with me. She would keep going to if I had let her - she was like that at training, never got tired of trying.
> 
> I doubt I will ever have another like her. She was obviously my fairy LOL.



No two ways about it, sounds like she is a one of a kind. I don't disagree, and it is nice to see people enjoy their dogs. Agree with me on anything else or not, I am sure we agree there.

Sitting at the agility area, how did you get her to do the weave poles? Were you just sitting there? She ran it on her own? How did you start her?


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Dave Colborn said:


> No two ways about it, sounds like she is a one of a kind. I don't disagree, and it is nice to see people enjoy their dogs. Agree with me on anything else or not, I am sure we agree there.
> 
> Sitting at the agility area, how did you get her to do the weave poles? Were you just sitting there? She ran it on her own? How did you start her?


She was different to my other dogs and yes she has given me enormous enjoyment. 

With the weaves I started with an open channel, which is not uncommon, and closed them up. What was different about her was the speed with which she got it. Maybe 6 goes and she never missed an entry, from any angle, my agility instructors were somewhat surprised at the time. Yes she was quite capable of running them unsupported on the course although I never specifically trained independent weaves. 

With my other dogs, I had to condition the entrance from all entries as you do, and the whole process took quite a bit longer although they are all reletively reliable now. 

She got me out of lots of not particularly good handling situations on course as she was my first agility dog. She was just plain good and I am convinced it had not a great deal to do with my handling or training. She was reading me and processing the data into correct action despite my oft times clumsy handling, possibly because she knew me so well ?. 

Mimicry - I didnt get that feeling and still dont, but anything is possible. She just has such passion even now she is old and her eyes still shine if I take her out with me on her own without the other dogs to go fencing or whatever. 

I like to think it is something more than a bunch of conditioned responses anyway.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Ted Efthymiadis said:


> Oh really...
> My Malinois I work with 12-14 hours 6 days a week. He is at my side all day every day. Given the right trainer, he will work for that person as good as the way he works for me, or better. It all depends on communication, and motivation.
> 
> Like it or not, dogs are opportunistic animals.


It doesn't matter how much time you spend with the dog. The dog bring's his own genetic mental package to the table. YOUR current dog and maybe others are opportunistic and will work for anyone with a hot dog. They aren't all like that.

T


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Dave Colborn said:


> No two ways about it, sounds like she is a one of a kind. I don't disagree, and it is nice to see people enjoy their dogs. Agree with me on anything else or not, I am sure we agree there.


I wouldn't say she sounds one of a kind at all.

I have had simialr experience to Sara, I also took a prior gsd to agility training with very little formal training prior. The dog loved it, would negotiate everything first off and I would run round with him. The club folks thought we trained like hell at home, we never trained at all at home.

I have no idea that I can recall how I motivated him, or how I communicated with him, other than a let's go do it.

That's one definition I have of relationship, we did stuff together, got good at it, and had a blast.


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Ted Efthymiadis said:


> Maybe that is part of you're problem, she has been conditioned to work for attention. Why people think there is a difference between a hot dog and a open bar of praise I will never understand.
> 
> Currency is currency.


I dont think there is any difference. I dont have a problem, she is a bloody good dog, always has been, always will be, with very little effort on my part. Certainly nowhere near the effort I put into my current youngsters.

I dont know about the attention bit. I was way more interested in surfing than training dogs when I got her. She just came with me everywhere and I would leave her on the beach with everyone elses dogs when I paddled out . We all had dogs. She was quirky and determined and was known as a bit of a character. 

I dont really know how she came to be as she was and I also know she wont work for anyone else..


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

maggie fraser said:


> I wouldn't say she sounds one of a kind at all.
> 
> I have had simialr experience to Sara, I also took a prior gsd to agility training with very little formal training prior. The dog loved it, would negotiate everything first off and I would run round with him. The club folks thought we trained like hell at home, we never trained at all at home.
> 
> ...


Yes that sounds like us. LOL


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

maggie fraser said:


> I wouldn't say she sounds one of a kind at all.
> 
> I have had simialr experience to Sara, I also took a prior gsd to agility training with very little formal training prior. The dog loved it, would negotiate everything first off and I would run round with him. The club folks thought we trained like hell at home, we never trained at all at home.
> 
> ...


Sounds like you had one like that Maggie. One of a kind for you.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> No, I am not questioning my relationship with my dogs. *I was really looking to spark some conversation and see what other handlers thought on the subject.*
> 
> 
> > Good luck with that one Jen. LMAO


----------



## Brian Anderson (Dec 2, 2010)

Ted Efthymiadis said:


> Oh really...
> My Malinois I work with 12-14 hours 6 days a week. He is at my side all day every day. Given the right trainer, he will work for that person as good as the way he works for me, or better. It all depends on communication, and motivation.
> 
> Like it or not, dogs are opportunistic animals.


someone grabs my dogs lead and thinks they are going to work him. he will be opportunistic alright. last one who tried almost got de-nutted. they are all different.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

For Dave and Ted--how do you go about getting a conditioned response?

T


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> For Dave and Ted--how do you go about getting a conditioned response?
> 
> T



What behavior do you want?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Sara Waters said:


> She was different to my other dogs and yes she has given me enormous enjoyment.
> 
> With the weaves I started with an open channel, which is not uncommon, and closed them up. What was different about her was the speed with which she got it. Maybe 6 goes and she never missed an entry, from any angle, my agility instructors were somewhat surprised at the time. Yes she was quite capable of running them unsupported on the course although I never specifically trained independent weaves.
> 
> ...


There's another concept, a dog that will actually correct the handler's mistakes to achieve the ultimate goal or get the job done. Yes, she is reading you and what's in front of her, or I guess we should say thats how it appears.

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Dave Colborn said:


> What behavior do you want?


Doesn't matter, you can pick.

T


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Doesn't matter, you can pick.
> 
> T


A sit then.

Bait the position with food. Pair up the command "sit" when the butt hits the floor. End of this phase, rewarding for the command "sit", and the butt hits the floor. Negative punishment, with holding reward until the dog sits. No positive punishment yet. 

Start introducing the correction for non-compliance. Guiding corrections at first (negative reinforcement/escape training) Then go to light corrections. Once correction is understood shown by compliance to the command, and the rate of success goes up for the sit command, without correction, go to variable reward.

Start introducing distractions. Make the reward come for more precise responses, withhold the reward and wait for the most correct response. IE slow sit might get a "good", but no reward. Or "good" but only praise.

None of this is linear. Dogs don't take food, are too driven for food, don't take correction well, etc... This is just a basic plan as the dogs are alive and are calling some of the shots by their responses to what we are doing. If you are teaching several behaviors at once, they may be at varying levels of proficiency. 

The basic idea is Stimulus (Sit command) = Response (Sit) = Reward (food or praise, this moves to Variable Reward)


I think that got it.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Dave Colborn said:


> Sounds like you had one like that Maggie. One of a kind for you.


Wrong. More than one.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> There's another concept, a dog that will actually correct the handler's mistakes to achieve the ultimate goal or get the job done. Yes, she is reading you and what's in front of her, or I guess we should say thats how it appears.
> 
> T


You mean conditioned to respond a certain way with the stimulus of a trial? Certain set of stimulus produce a certain set of responses in the dog, regardless of the handler. Happens all the time. Teach a place command and then teach the dog to heel past the place command. Dog will veer to the place if you are too close. 

What you said is a good example of not really SEEING what you are seeing. The dog is conditioned to perform. Will actually BLOW THE HANDLER off to make the performance better to meet the requirements of the conditioning.


----------



## Ted Efthymiadis (Apr 3, 2009)

Brian Anderson said:


> someone grabs my dogs lead and thinks they are going to work him. he will be opportunistic alright. last one who tried almost got de-nutted. they are all different.


hahaha, I never said that wouldn't happen!
Why do you think I use a suit for the first lesson with some of my clients... just incase.


----------



## Ted Efthymiadis (Apr 3, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> For Dave and Ted--how do you go about getting a conditioned response?
> 
> T


Don't forget motivation can be positive or negative or a combo.

I used to have video of a 2 year old female Rottie, very human Aggressive.
The clients said, you will never do anything with this dog, she will try and eat you, and will take you out, if she doesn't get to eat you, she will just plant her butt and not move. 

I had them muzzle the dog, and went at it.

They said i could never get the dog to do anything, including get it on a Place board (flipped over plastic crate in this case).
Not only did I do it, I had the dog sitting on it, staying in position for several minutes until being released. I then had her do it without the use of a leash. They were stunned.

All this in ten Minutes.

If you think it's can't be done... it can't be. If you know it can be, it can be.

I wish I still had the video footage but just changed computers and lost some footage in the switch.

I'm training a timber wolf right now, the owners said "I hear you are the best, but I don't think you can get this one off leash. She's a timber wolf, they just want to run and take off." That was 3 weeks ago, she's off leash around other dogs now. No relationship, just good handling.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Dave Colborn said:


> You mean conditioned to respond a certain way with the stimulus of a trial? Certain set of stimulus produce a certain set of responses in the dog, regardless of the handler. Happens all the time. Teach a place command and then teach the dog to heel past the place command. Dog will veer to the place if you are too close.
> 
> What you said is a good example of not really SEEING what you are seeing. The dog is conditioned to perform. Will actually BLOW THE HANDLER off to make the performance better to meet the requirements of the conditioning.


 
Well no, because its not just in trials or in patternized responses that have a reinforcement history. You guys seem to only deal in trained responses with all aspects or behavior previously conditioned. You don't account for behaviors that have never been previously rewarded or conditioned/taught. Maybe in your dog world they don't happen. For instance I walk through a pasture with a young dog on a leash and a 2 year old. The young dog is completely unreliable off a line--does not call off and will literally run sheep all over gods green creation. A flock of sheep are off in a distance at a water tank. By the laws of whatever that is where they should stay given I have a dog and they don't really have people affinity. I am walking toward a gate to leave. Strangely enough, a sheep breaks off the flock and is running toward me. I drop the line and reach to pick up the two year old. The 12 inch dog takes off toward the ewe. I thought great, now he'll be headed toward the flock and I need to get the baby outta there and catch him. Noooooo, he's running toward the ewe, takes a flying leap towards her neck and hits the ground [12 inches tall dog]. Ewe turns and runs back toward the flock. I fully expected the dog to take off towards them all. He doesn't. He stood in his ground and called off. First, what do you think was motivating this dog's actions? Second, where do you think the training and conditioning is?

T


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Well no, because its not just in trials or in patternized responses that have a reinforcement history. You guys seem to only deal in trained responses with all aspects or behavior previously conditioned. You don't account for behaviors that have never been previously rewarded or conditioned/taught. Maybe in your dog world they don't happen. For instance I walk through a pasture with a young dog on a leash and a 2 year old. The young dog is completely unreliable off a line--does not call off and will literally run sheep all over gods green creation. A flock of sheep are off in a distance at a water tank. By the laws of whatever that is where they should stay given I have a dog and they don't really have people affinity. I am walking toward a gate to leave. Strangely enough, a sheep breaks off the flock and is running toward me. I drop the line and reach to pick up the two year old. The 12 inch dog takes off toward the ewe. I thought great, now he'll be headed toward the flock and I need to get the baby outta there and catch him. Noooooo, he's running toward the ewe, takes a flying leap towards her neck and hits the ground [12 inches tall dog]. Ewe turns and runs back toward the flock. I fully expected the dog to take off towards them all. He doesn't. He stood in his ground and called off. First, what do you think was motivating this dog's actions? Second, where do you think the training and conditioning is?
> 
> T


Prey movement incited the dog to charge the Ewe. Dog hitting the ground determined he should come back to you, that his idea of charging the ewe caused pain. 

Just a guess. How would you expect me to put a diagnosis on a dog that I don't know the history on. You must have trained the call off to know that he wouldn't. Maybe he finally got it.

With your other example. Dog is trained to do a course. Dog bails handler out because his conditioning is better than that of the handler. No love or anything else. Conditioning.


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

rick smith said:


> .....f/f to the KNPV dog trainers, the Dick and Mike crowd, etc., who focus on the "hard hitters" and BAMF's categories.... tuff dogs trained by tuff owners
> - by trainers and breeders with LOTS of experience, who generally say it's all genetics
> ...why are they always silent in these threads, and why do some trainers (Alice, as a good example), when they DO have a comment, basically look down on all this "philosophizing" and come out with a comment that essentially says "none of this behavioral talk is important" ?
> - is it because "building interspecies relationships" don't matter when training a really tuff dog, since high drive aggressive performance is all that is necessary, and the control and social stuff is WAY secondary ? Does it mean you show that kind of dog what you want "in black and white", and if it flips you off, you "show em Jesus" ?? or does it mean that what's being discussed on this thread is not all that important for some kinds of dogs ?


I'm curious about that as well. I cannot speak for them or their experiences. That said, I have kind of read, heard, and seen enough were people with BAMF's seem to usually do the same things. It seems they have VERY black-and-white rules and are very firm-yet-fair in handling them. At its most extreme, it seems like a balancing routine on a high-wire. Too loose and the dog realizes it can get away with things and will push harder, too hard or too unfair and the dog might tell you to F-off. That said, some of them keep a dog as a house dog and they seem to love their dogs (the ones they keep and are not planning to sell after a short period of training/titling). Just an observation.

On one side, I think the behavioral philosophizing _can_ serve a point. It's interesting to sort of discuss what motivates a dog, how dogs & people interact, different philosophies, etc. On the other hand, can't you argue there is some weight to Alice's (I'm presuming it was her) stance that none of it matters. What DOES matter is will the dog do the work. Very black and white, here are the rules, reward when they do right, correct when they do wrong. KNVP and NVBK people for instance (since both venues have a reputation for producing really strong dogs), still seem to REALLY love their dogs, and you do definitely hear about how these otherwise BAMF dogs can (although perhaps not as an absolute) adore their handler/family or "their" people.

Anyway, it's interesting (to me, at least) and I think it's generally a bit different than most do it in the U.S. (although maybe I'm wrong on that). I'd imagine it probably breaks down to the same equation (Stimulus = Response = Reward), just different variables for the different factors in the equation, at least to some extent. And if I'm wrong, hey, at least it might spur more conversation on the topic. 

-Cheers


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Dave Colborn said:


> Prey movement incited the dog to charge the Ewe. Dog hitting the ground determined he should come back to you, that his idea of charging the ewe caused pain.
> 
> Just a guess. How would you expect me to put a diagnosis on a dog that I don't know the history on. You must have trained the call off to know that he wouldn't. Maybe he finally got it.
> 
> With your other example. Dog is trained to do a course. Dog bails handler out because his conditioning is better than that of the handler. No love or anything else. Conditioning.


 
Dog wasn't in prey with stock coming toward him. That will always put a dog in defense. The ewe was running toward the dog's direction, but really directly on line toward the baby. Dog in prey would run after sheep and the only way I got him back was to step on the line. Do you realize how far this dog had to come off the ground to grip a ewe at the neck. A trained call off is one that works. I hadn't been able to train a call off prior to that and no he didn't finally get it. It was probably a couple of years after that I could call him off stock in motion. I gave you a history and a scenario. The key---dog's relationship to me and the baby and instinct. Nothing conditioned. Nothing trained. 

T


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Regarding the bond a/o dogs "loving" their handlers or not. Probably more for Dave C. & Tim E.

First off, even if it's not love like humans, do you still think bond and a positive relationship make little difference in the ability to work/train a dog? Call it whatever you like, can't dogs be fond of and have feelings of "like lots" toward people, not to mention respect? I would be inclined to say yes, to varying degrees respective to different individual dogs, and that if somebody has a better bond with their dog they are more likely to work better with that dog. Maybe that was two questions. Anyway, it could just a side-effect of somebody that bonds better with their dogs are more likely to notice things a/o respond faster in training or whatnot (basically, I think, what Dave C. was saying), however I still think it would (and does) work.

Second, for what it's worth, I am inclined to agree with Ted and think that a really good trainer can probably get virtually ANY dog to work for them and getting through to making it a positive experience for the dog. So even though I think a bond is important, I also think you can get a dog to work without that through conditioning and just being able to read the dog and respond appropriately.

But I'm fine being proven wrong on any of the above, so feel free to shoot me down if I'm off-base.

-Cheers


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

David
i see what you're saying
the only thing that kinda bothers me is when people try and say their way is the only way 

i have a very good friend who raises breeds and trains Ja kai-kens for hunting boar. his only training tool is a stick 
- but he respects and listens to me and i do the same when i'm with him, and we have lots of "philisophical" dog training conversations ....until the sake merges our positions


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Dog wasn't in prey with stock coming toward him. That will always put a dog in defense. The ewe was running toward the dog's direction, but really directly on line toward the baby. Dog in prey would run after sheep and the only way I got him back was to step on the line. Do you realize how far this dog had to come off the ground to grip a ewe at the neck. A trained call off is one that works. I hadn't been able to train a call off prior to that and no he didn't finally get it. It was probably a couple of years after that I could call him off stock in motion. I gave you a history and a scenario. The key---dog's relationship to me and the baby and instinct. Nothing conditioned. Nothing trained.
> 
> T


Nothing will always do anything with a dog. 

Letting go of the leash probably incited the dog to run. IE contextual control when you have the leash. Dog is probably inclined to run when you drop it. Runs. Prey is kicked in because it's running. Young dog or no, probably doesn't have any reason NOT to run at the stock, as by your own admission, he literally "RUNS STOCK ALL OVER CREATION" no fear, shoots down your idea of defense. Probably learned to be defensive of that ewe (right then and there was one trial learning, dog learns to be defensive of sheep, and as a part of that one trail learning returned to you) and came back. I didn't see it, so I can't say. I am more inclined to believe this than my first guess. You are right, you did give enough info to solve this. Your dog A. Chases stock B. Does not have a defensive reaction yet, from being conditioned to "Run stock all over creation" C. Learned in one sitting to be scared of a sheep facing him and run to mom to be safe.

Again, this is just a guess, do you think this is possible, or do you have other info to add to this scenario.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Dave Colborn said:


> Nothing will always do anything with a dog.
> 
> Letting go of the leash probably incited the dog to run. IE contextual control when you have the leash. Dog is probably inclined to run when you drop it. Runs. Prey is kicked in because it's running. Young dog or no, probably doesn't have any reason NOT to run at the stock, as by your own admission, he literally "RUNS STOCK ALL OVER CREATION" no fear, shoots down your idea of defense. Probably learned to be defensive of that ewe (right then and there was one trial learning, dog learns to be defensive of sheep, and as a part of that one trail learning returned to you) and came back. I didn't see it, so I can't say. I am more inclined to believe this than my first guess. You are right, you did give enough info to solve this. Your dog A. Chases stock B. Does not have a defensive reaction yet, from being conditioned to "Run stock all over creation" C. Learned in one sitting to be scared of a sheep facing him and run to mom to be safe.
> 
> Again, this is just a guess, do you think this is possible, or do you have other info to add to this scenario.


Ahhh, gotta go--kid's soccer but you will never get it. Dogs don't learn to be defensive. They READ the stock. Stock comes toward a dog and you will either get flight or fight. Dog is not inclined to run just because I drop a line. If what you think is true, he would have stayed in motion gathering them all and moving them--that's his prey/control instinct. He didn't return to me and come back off of flight. For the rest of his life he was known for his ability to control even the most aggressive stock. Intense fight drive. Never flight return until he had won. For a stock dog in this situation---winning is the stock turning and moving off of him. He quit because what he intended to do, he accomplished. You just can't see that because you are conditioned to your theories. He wasn't conditioned to run the stock. Light stock, area too big, he was really trying to control them but doing it wrongly. He was outrun and didn't have that insitnctive cast. He actually figured that out a couple of years later covering my mistake in a nine acre pasture. If I were dealing with rams or any stock that could have a tendency to come at me, this is the dog I took with me. He was always watching and always a clean grip to the nose. Never nervy or frantic and always had a gleam in his eye while doing it. We used to call him the make my day type of dog. He was never going to let me take a hit or him either from a head of stock. Just like before, he would stand his ground between me or it. You've never had a dog come to the front of you to put himself between you and what he or you perceives as a threat, have you? Before that incident above I thought he was just a cute little dog that I bought to hang out with the baby. Later on, same dog would tend the lambs keeping them in a corner of the yard and obviously away from the perimeter fencelines and gates. That wasn't trained/conditioned either. I learned a lot about him watching him do this from the bath room window. After that day I started taking him more seriously. Sara has her ACD. Rory was one of my dogs of a lifetime. Always there to back me up and always going beyond mere training and conditioning. Since him and my GSD Ingrid, I have had a few opportunists along the way where its really about conditioned responses.

Years ago there was an Animal Planet episode where the introduction was that the corgi was herding the toddler and they needed to shut down his herding instinct. Then they showed the video clip. Unfenced swimming pool that the toddler had access to. Dog was frantically blocking the baby from the edge of the pool, constantly barking and putting himself between the water and the pool edge. See for me, he wasn't herding the kid. He was keeping him away from something. I guess its all in the interpretation.

T


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Ahhh, gotta go--kid's soccer but you will never get it. Dogs don't learn to be defensive. They READ the stock. Stock comes toward a dog and you will either get flight or fight. Dog is not inclined to run just because I drop a line. If what you think is true, he would have stayed in motion gathering them all and moving them--that's his prey/control instinct. He didn't return to me and come back off of flight. For the rest of his life he was known for his ability to control even the most aggressive stock. Intense fight drive. Never flight return until he had won. For a stock dog in this situation---winning is the stock turning and moving off of him. He quit because what he intended to do, he accomplished. You just can't see that because you are conditioned to your theories. He wasn't conditioned to run the stock. Light stock, area too big, he was really trying to control them but doing it wrongly. He was outrun and didn't have that insitnctive cast. He actually figured that out a couple of years later covering my mistake in a nine acre pasture. If I were dealing with rams or any stock that could have a tendency to come at me, this is the dog I took with me. He was always watching and always a clean grip to the nose. Never nervy or frantic and always had a gleam in his eye while doing it. We used to call him the make my day type of dog. He was never going to let me take a hit or him either from a head of stock. Just like before, he would stand his ground between me or it. You've never had a dog come to the front of you to put himself between you and what he or you perceives as a threat, have you? Before that incident above I thought he was just a cute little dog that I bought to hang out with the baby. Later on, same dog would tend the lambs keeping them in a corner of the yard and obviously away from the perimeter fencelines and gates. That wasn't trained/conditioned either. I learned a lot about him watching him do this from the bath room window. After that day I started taking him more seriously. Sara has her ACD. Rory was one of my dogs of a lifetime. Always there to back me up and always going beyond mere training and conditioning. Since him and my GSD Ingrid, I have had a few opportunists along the way where its really about conditioned responses.
> 
> Years ago there was an Animal Planet episode where the introduction was that the corgi was herding the toddler and they needed to shut down his herding instinct. Then they showed the video clip. Unfenced swimming pool that the toddler had access to. Dog was frantically blocking the baby from the edge of the pool, constantly barking and putting himself between the water and the pool edge. See for me, he wasn't herding the kid. He was keeping him away from something. I guess its all in the interpretation.
> 
> T


I certainly don't get it. I am giving you valid answers and you are ignoring them and moving on to other anecdotes or changing the info. I wasn't there, and with your read on it set into your brain, we probably won't get to the bottom of this, other than your answer. I am fine with that.

I was looking for you to sway me with some evidence you hadn't shown.

No matter. I'd still like to see you work stock, I am sure I would learn a lot.

OH, and dogs do learn to be defensive. Very, very wrong belief there.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> I am hearing this a lot these days...so thought that maybe it deserves its own thread.
> 
> I would love to hear more about how people ensure that their "relationship" with their dog ensures better performance. How do *you* go about building that "relationship"?
> 
> ...


Jennifer, it isn't so much about the dog loveing you and all that. The dog has to respect you. The stronger the dog the more you need that respect for him to want to work for you and give it's best. You can't test the value of praise on a dog after the dog spent a year getting rewarded with treats for every little thing it did right, or close to right. It is no different than spoiling a kid rotten for the first 7 years and then deciding your not going to spoil the kid anymore. He is now conditioned to being spoiled and will hate you if you stop. Dogs are no different that have been conditioned to treats.

How do you get that respect from a dog? Tough love darlin. Always fair but tough when needed. Fear is a very integral part of life that makes things work. Take a good boss that is always fair. People fear them because the boss has a definite, very important control over part of your life. You still fear a good boss because of the power he has, but, you do respect them. Because of that, you try to do a good job for them. All types of fear are not bad, yet, it seems to be the general assumption in training today. What made you walk the straight and narrow as a kid when your folks weren't there? FEAR of getting caught. If you respected them also, the fear of disappointing them was just as strong. Without an element of fear, you got nothing but a spoiled dog, a spoiled chld that will work for treats and a lot of training to do.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

I think there is a difference between intimidation and earning respect, one does not equal the other.

For eg. I feared my father, and because of that, I did not respect him. No amount of training could enforce that. Same as your boss analogy, respect is earned...not given or demanded.

I think you are off base Don.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

> I think you are off base Don.


So, it is my fault your comprehension skills are lacking?


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Don Turnipseed said:


> So, it is my fault your comprehension skills are lacking?


You tell me .

Big Hat..No Cattle.. haha


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

You know I tend to think that although dogs respond to conditioning and to some extent are products of conditioning it is probably not always that black and white depending on genetics and environment.

My sheep dogs will handle sheep using a combination of intelligence, instinct and training. The best sheepdogs have certain characteristics that can neither be trained or conditioned. They can be bred for and that includes intelligence.

I have also always owned horses and you would say they like dogs are creatures of conditioning.

One day I heard a horse calling from the paddock. I looked out and saw my young Arab on the fence closest to the house, looking toward the house and calling. I went outside and his calling became more intense. I noticed he had a bott fly buzzing around him. Pesky little insects that annoy the heck out of horses at certain times of the year, laying their eggs on the hrses coats and manes.

The other horses were doing what most horses do when they have a bott fly - gallop around madly and try to pass off on to other horses.

I was rather amused and guessed what he wanted although I wasnt exactly sure - I took off my shoe and my arab tried to keep as still as he could bare to while I swatted away under his belly untill I killed the fly. Off he trotted. From that day on, everytime he got a fly he would stand up against the fence and call.

None of the other horses cottoned on and would race madly around season after season. Not this resourcefull horse. I came to expect these odd little resourceful moments from him through his life till he died at age 27. 

I have noticed this in certain animals and I am not sure thay have a lot to do with being conditioned responses.


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Don Turnipseed said:


> How do you get that respect from a dog? Tough love darlin. Always fair but tough when needed. Fear is a very integral part of life that makes things work. Take a good boss that is always fair. People fear them because the boss has a definite, very important control over part of your life. You still fear a good boss because of the power he has, but, you do respect them. Because of that, you try to do a good job for them. All types of fear are not bad, yet, it seems to be the general assumption in training today. What made you walk the straight and narrow as a kid when your folks weren't there? FEAR of getting caught. If you respected them also, the fear of disappointing them was just as strong. Without an element of fear, you got nothing but a spoiled dog, a spoiled chld that will work for treats and a lot of training to do.


If I feared my boss there is no way I would work for them or respect them. I work a part time job in agricultural consulting and we had a new boss come in who had the elements you describe. He soon learnt that fear was no way to get repect from his senior people. He had to learn to trust that we could make good decisions and that we knew more about certain areas than he did. He learned he was better off consulting with us than laying down the law. He learned that exerting too much control was one quick way to losing good people who would happily take their skills elsewhere.


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Ted Efthymiadis said:


> Don't forget motivation can be positive or negative or a combo.
> 
> I used to have video of a 2 year old female Rottie, very human Aggressive.
> The clients said, you will never do anything with this dog, she will try and eat you, and will take you out, if she doesn't get to eat you, she will just plant her butt and not move.
> ...


Ted, you are dealing with dogs that have either toxic relationships or no relationships with their owners. I can quite believe that a good trainer and handler could most certainly work wonders with some of these dogs.

However I am talking about a dog that has a very good relationship with her handler (me). My dog is motivated to work with me, for me or whatever. She simply has no interest in working for other people, it is not what motivates her, it is not something that she wants to do. 

I predict it would be a long wearisome journey by someone like you to motivate her to work for you if it could be done at all.

My BC on the other hand is motivated by sheep, not by me in particular. I know that he would work for anyone as long as sheep are involved. And if he thinks you didnt know what you are doing he would work the sheep and factor you out of the equation. He tries that with me on occasion LOL


----------



## leslie cassian (Jun 3, 2007)

Terrasita's story reminded me of my own stock and dog experience.

I had a Great Dane that I got at 10 months old. She came from an abusive owner - not speculation - she still had healing wounds when I got her. She never really got over the abuse and was spooky with most people all of her life.

We were at a farm and out for a walk in one of the fields. The dog was about 3-4 yrs old at this time and had lived in the city her whole life. I turned around and some cows were following us at a trot. Just close enough and fast enough to be intimidating, though still a good distance away. She got between me and the cows and turned them back and away. I thought it was pretty cool - my big chicken dog taking on cows and doing a good job. 

Not a herder, city raised, no training and no prey drive... but something in her made her look out for me.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Dog wasn't in prey with stock coming toward him. That will always put a dog in defense.
> T


I do not think that a sheep coming toward a dog is going to ALWAYS put a dog in defense...in fact I know it doesn't...I never worked sheep with a dog, but that statement is false...

That would be like saying a helper or decoy coming towards a dogs always put it in defense..


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Sara Waters said:


> However I am talking about a dog that has a very good relationship with her handler (me). My dog is motivated to work with me, for me or whatever. She simply has no interest in working for other people, it is not what motivates her, it is not something that she wants to do.
> 
> I predict it would be a long wearisome journey by someone like you to motivate her to work for you if it could be done at all.


Sara...I think with a dog like your talking about, it would take a little building of a relationship, it might take some time...but take you out of the picture, the dog will learn to work for someone else and like it, if they know what they are doing...

Like say for instance, god forbid it, you died tonight...someone else gets the dog, forms a bond with it, it will work...it will not curl up in a ball and die also...


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> I do not think that a sheep coming toward a dog is going to ALWAYS put a dog in defense...in fact I know it doesn't...I never worked sheep with a dog, but that statement is false...
> 
> That would be like saying a helper or decoy coming towards a dogs always put it in defense..


Depends on the intent, true. Some cows mosy up with the what manner of creature are you. Sheep don't do this. There are some dogs that can draw a head of stock towards it in a really un-natural manner. Bob Vests' Kelpie Mick used to do that and then he would bite the sheep on the nose. It was a game for him. Lambs can get away with moving toward a dog to a point--again intent. Dogs will sort of nudge them along. But mostly if a sheep comes toward the dog, its with a threat intent and the dog responds with flight or fight. The dog will turn up the mental pressure and try to stop it and if that doesn't work, usually a bite to the nose does. Some dogs will flee. Mostly though with adult sheep, dogs take offense at the sheep moving directly toward them.

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Oh for Joby, I guess there may be a terms thing. I don't necessarily equate defense with fear. Its the dog's response when the sheep charges--fight vs. flight\. The fight drive dogs will almost have a gleam in their eye when they bite the charging sheep's nose. They don't seem worried or concerned. Some seem worried or anxious but will still stand their ground rather than flee. And some flee.

T


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Joby Becker said:


> Sara...I think with a dog like your talking about, it would take a little building of a relationship, it might take some time...but take you out of the picture, the dog will learn to work for someone else and like it, if they know what they are doing...
> 
> Like say for instance, god forbid it, you died tonight...someone else gets the dog, forms a bond with it, it will work...it will not curl up in a ball and die also...


That is possible, but with me still in the picture definitely not. I had visions of Ted walking on to my place and being able to get said dog to work for him, even after a few sessions, I know that wouldnt happen. She is the only one of my dogs I cant trust to leave with even close friends when I go away. She has a single minded purpose to escape and try and find me the little cow, has even been found teetering up the top of a very tall cyclone fence when she was younger, trying to escape.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Sara Waters said:


> That is possible, but with me still in the picture definitely not. I had visions of Ted walking on to my place and being able to get said dog to work for him, even after a few sessions, I know that wouldnt happen. She is the only one of my dogs I cant trust to leave with even close friends when I go away. She has a single minded purpose to escape and try and find me the little cow, has even been found teetering up the top of a very tall cyclone fence when she was younger, trying to escape.


Not sure if that is what Ted meant or not, but hey...it could happen....its all speculation...I have had many dogs that I thought would for surely do one thing, whatever it was...and they did something completely different than what I might expect them too...that is why dogs are so fun..


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> But mostly if a sheep comes toward the dog, its with a threat intent and the dog responds with flight or fight. The dog will turn up the mental pressure and try to stop it and if that doesn't work, usually a bite to the nose does. Some dogs will flee. Mostly though with adult sheep, dogs take offense at the sheep moving directly toward them.
> 
> T


Yes I have found this to mostly be the case. At the sign of an approaching sheep, my young BC will arc up and apply mental pressure and so will my kelpie. If that doesnt work like when the last few weeks I have been castrating and vaccinating lambs and the mothers will stamp and charge, my BC will meet them head on and nip their noses and if any are particularly threatening and less likely to respond to mental pressure, he knows who they are and he will apply physical pressure. My kelpie on the other hand will run so I dont use her on ewes with lambs. 

If a lamb comes towards my BC it is sometimes curiosity and he will ignore it, he is totally focussed on the mothers. Rams are also likely to challenge.

Exceptions can be pet sheep and cows. Most sheep will run and a few will challenge.


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Joby Becker said:


> Not sure if that is what Ted meant or not, but hey...it could happen....its all speculation...I have had many dogs that I thought would for surely do one thing, whatever it was...and they did something completely different than what I might expect them too...that is why dogs are so fun..


True. However I had an ex who was very much involved with working stock dogs and a good dog handler and had some very nice dogs. My cattle dog knew him well obviously and really liked him, in as much as she actually greeted him which was a rare honour bestowed on only a few LOL, but try as he might, he could not get her to work for him, as I said other people have tried and failed, she just wasnt interested while I was around. But no doubt if I was gone and he had been left with her it may well have worked. 

People at agility run each others dogs all the time, mine just wasnt prepared to be one of them, no matter how much she loved the game.


----------

