# Cops and Clickers



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

Just a thought. What might be a real life scenario if police officers went to clicker use with their duty dogs? 

You're in the car and get the call, fleeing felon found behind the school yard. You spot the bad guy hauling butt across the grass. As you pop out of the car and in a commanding voice you bellow, "Stop, stop or I'll send my dog!" The bad guy gives you the "finger" and runs away. Quickly you pull your trusty K9 out and activate him with the "clicker." 

Like the blood letting hound that he is, he is off to capture the vermin! With the clicker sound in his mind, he is like a heat seeking missle on his heels. Suddenly, K9 Stealth steps on a soda can, <click sound has now deactivated the dog> K9 is now in a platz mode...

As the bad guy skips away, many thanks can be given to the makers of soda, pop, or cola...and the bad guys win again!=;


----------



## Kyle Sprag (Jan 10, 2008)

"Quickly you pull your trusty K9 out and activate him with the "clicker." "

This leads me to believe you don't understand the Use of a clicker, not that I am a big fan or anything but "activation" is not done by one (clicker), communication that the dog has done the correct behavior is.

A command must be attached with the sound. Your statement is akin to believing telling your dog "good" or "yes" he will go into auto platz mode?


----------



## Dan Long (Jan 10, 2008)

I can see the dog being taught new tasks with the clicker, but it's not something you keep in your pocket for the rest of your life. Same with treats, once the dog is taught the task the treats are weaned off.


----------



## Wayne Dodge (Mar 7, 2008)

I am not a expert in the use of the clicker training method by any means what so ever, yet here is my take on the matter.

A clicker is a Marker of a specific action, nothing more. In no way shape or form does a “click” command the dog to do anything at all, it simply marks a desirable behavior. So in turn the above argument holds no merit because the dog does not react off of the marker as it would a command. It is simply a learning tool…. It would be like comparing a e-collar to a hot fence, the dog is not going to down, or fall into a heel, or retrieve simply due to a electrical stimulus.

I hope that small explanation makes sense.

Wayne


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

Kyle Sprag said:


> "Quickly you pull your trusty K9 out and activate him with the "clicker." "
> 
> This leads me to believe you don't understand the Use of a clicker, not that I am a big fan or anything but "activation" is not done by one (clicker), communication that the dog has done the correct behavior is.
> 
> A command must be attached with the sound. Your statement is akin to believing telling your dog "good" or "yes" he will go into auto platz mode?


Kyle we understand the use, we're not a fan. I use *verbal marks* because it stays with me, unlike a clicker. And as far as treats go, there are used in the early stages of training. But thanks for the post reply! #-o


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

The nice thing about a clicker is that it is the same sound all the time. We all have days were we cannot say that we are rewarding with the same inflection and emotion in our voice. That is why I like them.


----------



## Eric Read (Aug 14, 2006)

whether you use a clicker or verbal marker it doesnt matter, the concept is the exact same to the dog. If you want to train a dog quickly a lot of different tasks and build a good foundation, you'd be hard pressed to find a more effective way of doing it. 

and a clicker is something you use to teach behaviors, a mark, why on earth would a cop have a clicker to "activate" a dog?? Shouldn't that behavior already have been taught? Thus no need for a clicker or your voice to mark any behavior, just a command followed by execution of the desired response.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Any street K9 that needs encouragement with ANY method in order to engage with the bad guy needs to go back to school.........or the pound. ;-) 
Why would a dog refuse a command when he knows it means something wonderful is going to happen compared to a dog that does as he's told cause he knows he'll get his ass whooped if he refuses? It's all about controlling drives and that means out thinking the dog, not out muscling him.
I'll take good leadership over domination any day. Done both!    ;-)


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> Any street K9 that needs encouragement with ANY method in order to engage with the bad guy needs to go back to school.........or the pound. ;-)
> Why would a dog refuse a command when he knows it means something wonderful is going to happen compared to a dog that does as he's told cause he knows he'll get his ass whooped if he refuses? It's all about controlling drives and that means out thinking the dog, not out muscling him.
> I'll take good leadership over domination any day. Done both!    ;-)


Since I couldn't have said it any better myself, I'll just say, thank you Bob.

DFrost


----------



## ann schnerre (Aug 24, 2006)

Jeff--clickers?????? 

don't ruin your rep--CLICKERS????? since WHEN?? and why haven't we heard about this from you before now (that i know of)??? you're kinda freakin' me out here...(do you have a new girlfriend or something?....)


----------



## Guest (Mar 14, 2008)

> Suddenly, K9 Stealth steps on a soda can, <click sound has now deactivated the dog> K9 is now in a platz mode...


Howard,

Where exactly are you getting this operant conditioning information?

Whatever the source you've used, it has grossly misrepresented the process.


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

*Bob thank you for those remarks and that was MY point!*
Steven the post was an off the wall point about a training tool which many feel is the only way to train. I was born on a day, just not yesterday. I fully understand it, own one, and would never use it to replace the one tool every working dog owner needs, *a leadership voice*!

It remains my point that *great verbal marks* far and away create the foundation for learning over sound activated ones. Just like one GOOD correction beats a thousand hours of nagging. "Come on Fluffy please lie down. Daddy will make you a nice steak sandwich if you do it. I'll be your best friend. Pleeease." #-o 

If the clicker were a great educational tool, can someone tell me why they aren't used everyday in the classroom to "mark" proper student responses? Well?! With high school test scores at some of their lowest points in the United States, maybe there is a place for it, but not in my classroom! If the dog has to be motivated to work, I agree with Bob...it's time for the pound. Working police dogs or true personal protection dogs should not be activated or made to work. They either have it or they don't. 

Now with this brisk and refreshing post fanning the eyes of hate, I'm backing out to allow others freedom of speech and to express their points on a topic that contains a thousand points of light!  :twisted:


----------



## Guest (Mar 14, 2008)

I don't think there's any hate brewing here, and I realize you're not an infant.

I don't use a clicker either, but regarding this OC stuff in general, I've never once heard the cue/click/mark (what have you) mentioned in the context of activating or motivating anything. 

There is definitely misunderstanding going on, and the odds are good that it's me not understanding you. Maybe it's a vocabulary hang-up.

I would like to know, if further discussion is possible.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Howard Gaines III said:


> *Bob thank you for those remarks and that was MY point!*
> Steven the post was an off the wall point about a training tool which many feel is the only way to train. I was born on a day, just not yesterday. I fully understand it, own one, and would never use it to replace the one tool every working dog owner needs, *a leadership voice*!
> 
> It remains my point that *great verbal marks* far and away create the foundation for learning over sound activated ones. Just like one GOOD correction beats a thousand hours of nagging. "Come on Fluffy please lie down. Daddy will make you a nice steak sandwich if you do it. I'll be your best friend. Pleeease." #-o
> ...




Howard, I am looking for confirmation that you understand that a clicker does not motivate, activate or make a dog work. It is a marker, same as a verbal one like "yes". Hard to tell from your above post...see underlined.

Clickers are not used for humans because we speak can communicate through a desired language. (Though trying to shape a behavior on a human with a clicker is a fun and telling exercise about your timing as a handler! Of course you can do the same with a verbal marker) 

Clickers (markers in general) are used as a means of communication with ANIMALS since we don't speak animal. They are used successfully with all sorts of animals. One nice thing about them already mentioned is that the click is the same every time. In a setting with an animal at the zoo that may have multiple handlers, this may be an advantage over a verbal marker for example.

I have screwed around with a clicker (have a lot to learn still) for obedience stuff. I like it. I could list some reasons, but I don't think you really care. 

Despite having used a clicker I can assure you my dog requires NO activation to work. I do use motivation (as do all good trainers IMHO, cops included) for my dog to work, but a clicker is not it;-)


----------



## Ian Forbes (Oct 13, 2006)

Actually, some people are using clickers (they don't seem to call them that)to aid training human behaviours..

http://tagteach.com/index.htm


----------



## Will Kline (Jan 10, 2008)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> I do use motivation (as do all good trainers IMHO, cops included) for my dog to work, but a clicker is not it;-)


Just watch her video clips of avalanche rescues and you can hear all the positive motivation she uses with her pup! Not a knock by any means Jennifer, it was nice to see you and your dog so happy when conducting your training exercise! ;-)


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Ian Forbes said:


> Actually, some people are using clickers (they don't seem to call them that)to aid training human behaviours..
> 
> http://tagteach.com/index.htm


Well how about that! I found the gymnastics clip interesting since I used to compete and coach. Verbal marker training is nothing new in sports, but I admit I have never seen a clicker used!

I think that putting a clicker in people's hand makes them think more about marking and timing. This could make a coach (or dog trainier) better. The same thing can be done with verbal markers too of course.


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

I have screwed around with a clicker (have a lot to learn still) for obedience stuff. I like it. I could list some reasons, but I don't think you really care. 


Jennifer don't take it the wrong way, I do care or I wouldn't post and train dogs. I just don't favor some tools over ones I carry every day, my mouth. A big one it is and has served me well in coaching and training. This whole thing works from a stimulus/response mode. The clicker signals "proper or desired behavior"...and it does IMO, and to some extent, activate the dog. Nea sayers go back to the roots. Without a reward a behavior cannot be had. My dogs work for many rewards and the verbal one they eat up. They've got dad's attention.

If a Border Collie is taking a clockwise turn on sheep as instructed, clicker folks would mark that behavior, right?! Well, my "mark" is a verbal. "Good comebye" and depending upon how strong of a turn or easy I want, the marked behavior is projected, loud or soft.

Now make it make sense to me...or the other way around...


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> Well how about that! I found the gymnastics clip interesting since I used to compete and coach. Verbal marker training is nothing new in sports, but I admit I have never seen a clicker used!
> 
> I think that putting a clicker in people's hand makes them think more about marking and timing. This could make a coach (or dog trainier) better. The same thing can be done with verbal markers too of course.


Did the same coach have a shock collar on the girls? LOL


----------



## Wayne Dodge (Mar 7, 2008)

Howard,

I am going to throw my two cents into this conversation again, please take the time to correct any misunderstandings that I may have regarding your opinion, I know it is easy for miscommunication to happen concerning ones intentions on paper. In no way am I trying to cause an argument with you here, simply trying to have an educated intelligent discussion about our perceived differences on training methods.

I am getting from your posts that you feel as though a clicker is a basically invalid tool due to the fact that it makes an activated sound versus a more dynamic sound such as your voice. I honestly due not understand the reasoning behind this comment because I feel as though it is the total opposite. The foundational training of an desired response is best learned with a constant consistent reward that is given at the correct time. It is my opinion that the human voice is incapable of delivering the same noise stimulus on a constant basis due to many factors, as an example anger, frustration, happiness, excitement to name but a few emotional factors, now add in physical factors, pain, sickness, adrenalin, etc. and the list could become huge with some true thought devoted to it. A clicker on the other hand delivers the same stimulus regardless of these multiple factors, it is the same every time. 

Now I do not believe that a clicker is the end all and be all, I see it as but a tool that fits into the very early stages of training for me concerning a particular learned exercise that is always transformed into a verbal command. A clicker is the perfect tool for what it is designed to do, yet it is only a tool, and in such is limited to the amount of value that it adds to the entire picture of a trained dog. The handler is the operator of these tools, how we use them or don’t directly reflects upon our end product.

As far as the whole clicker in the classroom thing, well I will just chalk that up too frustration on your part as obviously it does not translate to dog training.

I would how ever like to dip into the whole Motivation comment. I feel as though I am either misunderstanding you or you have misunderstood Bobs comment or I have. Every dog has to be Motivated, it is simply the only way to get a dog to behave in a way that we want. That Motivation can come in many forms, a tug, a ball, a decoy, a bad guy, a pat on the shoulder, a simple “Good Boy” , a harsh correction yet do not ever think they do it simply to do it, Motivation is the key in all dog training, the very basis at its core is Motivation and Understanding without either of these two factors you would be unable to train anything. 

As far as the comment that they either have it or they don’t, well that can be taken many ways, so here is my quick comment. No dog in this world is born with all the tools it needs to be a successful street dog without a correct Motivational training program. They simply would be unable to perform in all aspects from the obvious stuff like detection, tracking, obedience, bite work to the more complicated issues within each segment like courage…..

I hope this quick response comes across as I meant it, an opportunity to discuss dog training. I have much to learn and am always open to outside input. 

Wayne


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Will Kline said:


> Just watch her video clips of avalanche rescues and you can hear all the positive motivation she uses with her pup! Not a knock by any means Jennifer, it was nice to see you and your dog so happy when conducting your training exercise! ;-)


Wow...embarassing. I was taught by the cops that oversee our program that if you are not embarrassed when rewarding your dog, you are probably not doing it right...

The real motivator for my dog (his favorite) in any search is a chance to bite/tug/shake the rag.


----------



## Eric Read (Aug 14, 2006)

Howard Gaines III said:


> If the clicker were a great educational tool, can someone tell me why they aren't used everyday in the classroom to "mark" proper student responses? Well?! With high school test scores at some of their lowest points in the United States, maybe there is a place for it, but not in my classroom! If the dog has to be motivated to work, I agree with Bob...it's time for the pound. Working police dogs or true personal protection dogs should not be activated or made to work. They either have it or they don't.


actually marking behavior is used in the classroom all the time, marking behavior is used from the time you were in infant not many days after that day you were born. 

When you do cute things as a baby, your parents smiled, clapped, etc, and you'd repeat those behaviors, watch any baby and parent, its obvious. 

Getting "good Job", "way to go" "excellent" remarks from teachers, coaches, parents told you exactly when you were doing the right thing.

I remeber plenty of times the loud "Yeah, That's it" coming from a coach when I did something right for the first time on a practice field. People mark behavior all the time, they don't even realize it.

Humans have the ability to reason things out futher than a dog does, so marks, reward, praise, correction, etc, don't have to occur within 1-2 seconds of the desired response. 

you touch on a bigger subject of low testing scores? Maybe because the parents aren't laying that foundation anymore, its all about daycare and TV for babysitters. Is it a wonder we have kids with minds programmed for 30 second bursts of info and bright lights? Maybe clicker training would work better for these guys than we think. 

a clicker or verbal mark is the same, it's the same principle, same set of concepts and the rules are the same. All it allows you to do is bridge the time between the desired action and delivering a reward. it helps dogs learn a task quicker, and more clearly. It's a heck of a lot easier to condition a dog to a marker that will allow you plenty of time to deliver a reward, than it is to try and reward within that second or two, all the while trying not to have your dog cue off your body movement rather than your words.

Once a dog is conditioned to a command and the reliably performs the action, there is no need for a clicker or verbal mark.

-----"Come on Fluffy please lie down. Daddy will make you a nice steak sandwich if you do it. I'll be your best friend. Pleeease." -----

That has nothing to do with marker, clicker, e-collar, escape/avoidance, etc. Just because of group of people either do not understand, nor do they apply the prinicples of clicker training properly, does not mean that it is the clicker that is useless, I tend to look at the people using a tool, any tool, and judge that way.


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

Wayne positive views are always look at in a positive manner. Thanks for sharing! Glad this got you writing.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Howard Gaines III said:


> I have screwed around with a clicker (have a lot to learn still) for obedience stuff. I like it. I could list some reasons, but I don't think you really care.
> 
> 
> Jennifer don't take it the wrong way, I do care or I wouldn't post and train dogs. I just don't favor some tools over ones I carry every day, my mouth. A big one it is and has served me well in coaching and training. This whole thing works from a stimulus/response mode. The clicker signals "proper or desired behavior"...and it does IMO, and to some extent, activate the dog. Nea sayers go back to the roots. Without a reward a behavior cannot be had. My dogs work for many rewards and the verbal one they eat up. They've got dad's attention.
> ...


Aw Howard, now you are going to expose the fact that I have only very basic knowledge of marker training semantics and terminology. Someone more knowledgeble is gonna have to bail me out I am sure. 

I would say that what you are doing with your "good comebye" is not marking the behavior in the way the "marker training folk" (be they clicker trainers or verbal) would mean it.

I beleive a "mark" marks the desired behavior and the dog would then stop what they were doing as a reward would be imminant. I think you are using the "good comebye" as a bridge. I would agree with you that intonation is important for bridges. Lets the dog know it is doing the right thing, but does not end the behavior.

When I do our ob routine I often say "good sit" after my dog sits from a down at a distance lets say. Then I walk back to my dog and then command him to "heel" and he starts heeling...I might say "good heel"....

THEN when his focus is just right and he is tight against my leg I may choose to MARK this desired really awesome heel position. When I do that I say "YES" and BLAMO the ball on a string drops out from under my armpit and the ob routine has stopped and rewarding (tugging) is happening. See the difference?

"YES" is my marker. Could have been a "click" and the reward could have been food not a ball on a rope. Either way the "good sit and good heel" are not markers here but they let the dog know that he is doing the right thing, I am pleased and that we will continue on.

I think I might finally see what you are getting at about "activation". Are you talking about the clicker being a release for a reward, be that food, a toy, a bite? This is the same for the clicker or the voice if you are marker training.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Howard, Excellent job of stimulating a motivational conversation. 
I will disagree about clicker training on one point though. 
High school students! Lock the parents up and go back to motivating with the pointer.  JKN...........kinda :grin: ;-)


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

Jennifer, glad to see I didn't run you off. Mr. Sensitive here! The reward for the sheepdog is to continue to work sheep in the manner that I SAY. To stop the dog, stops the reward and the proper behavior I am looking for. The verbal is the mark and reinforcement of a proper action. Now, exit stage left<<<:lol:


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

Bob Scott said:


> Howard, Excellent job of stimulating a motivational conversation.
> I will disagree about clicker training on one point though.
> High school students! Lock the parents up and go back to motivating with the pointer.  JKN...........kinda :grin: ;-)


Shucks Bob got me all warm and fuzzy on that one!!! Get the parents to the point>>>>>>>Chime in son, please!:mrgreen:


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Just my own thoughts on BC working sheep. I think, with their
almost OCD form of working, that there work is self rewarding. 
I would look at bite work, SAR, etc and just about anything comming out of a high drive dog as self rewarding. All we're doing with our markers is guiding and giving our approval, so to speak. This is where the leadership comes in. A good BC is going to instinctivly work anything that moves. A search dog has strong hunt drive. That dog will spend all day on it's own looking for a favorite toy. 
The leaders, us, are just molding and approving of what they do. If we lack that leadership they will continue doing what they have bred into them, but at their own pace.
BCs aren't corrected into doing their work. SAR dogs aren't corrected into searching for their reward. Why correct properly motivated bite dogs? To much drive? To tough? I've heard it all. Mold them! I've had really nasty little working terriers that I could call out of the ground in the middle of a war with a ****, groundhog, etc. That's nothing more then a good recall with extream distaction. It's not about "controlling" them with force. 
I've not seen a bite dog that has any more drive or intensity then many of the working terriers I've had and the herding breeds are much more compliant then many of these little monsters.
Make it fun for you AND the dog.


----------



## Kayce Cover (Oct 30, 2007)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> The nice thing about a clicker is that it is the same sound all the time. We all have days were we cannot say that we are rewarding with the same inflection and emotion in our voice. That is why I like them.


I don't understand why some trainers think that this is a good thing. Monotone in training is not superior to dynamics. It is important to me that I can modulate a verbal bridge. I can change the speed, intensity, pitch and sound quality, to improve the animal's performance and give differential reinforcement. It takes more from the handler, but is worth the effort to become adept.

In most cases, I use voice over mechanical (whistles for me, never a clicker). Does not take up the use of a hand, never lose it, free, does not break, does not get covered with dirt, in addition to the ability to vary my feedback to the animal.

Regards,
Kayce


----------



## Guest (Mar 16, 2008)

> I don't understand why some trainers think that this is a good thing.


Because you're trying to communicate the exact same thing each and every time. "Correct, you're done, reward is imminent". That's all. Period. It doesn't encourage, it doesn't wind-up, it doesn't punish, it doesn't soothe, etc...

I don't think anyone has denigrated anything having to do with the voice for other aspects.

But for _one narrow purpose_, the clicker CAN be useful, even superior.

I'd venture to say, the stupider an animal is, the less you can physically handle it, or the less social it is towards humans the more important computer-like precision is. Rats, goldfish, killer whales, etc.

Seems like the poor dogs (compared to other trainees) are usually over-estimated in their reckoning of human concepts, and thus not given the time and patience they deserve. In general.


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

Steven Lepic said:


> Because you're trying to communicate the exact same thing each and every time. "Correct, you're done, reward is imminent". That's all. Period. It doesn't encourage, it doesn't wind-up, it doesn't punish, it doesn't soothe, etc...
> 
> I don't think anyone has denigrated anything having to do with the voice for other aspects.
> 
> ...


Steven the more I read the posts in favor of clickers, the more vindicated I feel using the human voice! Before there were computer generate "tools," man relied on his voice and his abilities to communicate with animals. Just because man cannot understand the communication methodologies for each specie, I don't think makes the animal "stupider," it simply means man must work harder to understand the "bridge" between human and animal communications and the end result desired.

The idea that the clicker is used to communicate a message, exactly, and each time is a joke in my opinion. Every living creature operates differently each day, humans included. The clicker does not and cannot utter soothing sounds of reinforcement or of comfort. It cannot speed up or slow down a response. Futher, it cannot communicate a pause in a behavior to allow for a most correct behavior to take place. My example: today in dog training, a dog went up and onto a stacked set of hay bales for a bite with the decoy, me. The dog communicated MUCH stress while still on the bite sleeve. It did not release the bite in order to find "safety" at another level. While on the sleeve, I was able to communicate to the dog a comfort level which it could work with...my voice said, "good packen, that's a boy." Then I guided the dog down to the ground for a release of the bite sleeve followed by more praise. The dog worked from a position of high pressure and a willingness to want to bite, to a need for safety at a lower level.

You see, the human voice was used to reassue, guide, push, reward, and to promote positive behavior over fear. How could the clicker have been used to do more or the same? Packen...K9 fear...<click,click> Good packen. I don't think so!!! Again, the power of the human mind, spirit, and drives override any computer thing. 

As far as the cliker being superior to the human voice, can't sell that idea to me. Nope, never!=; And thanks for your opinion...this is a never ending position of those who stand in favor and those like myself who don't.


----------



## Guest (Mar 16, 2008)

> The clicker does not and cannot utter soothing sounds of reinforcement or of comfort. It cannot speed up or slow down a response. Futher, it cannot communicate a pause in a behavior to allow for a most correct behavior to take place.


What the....? Didn't *I* just say that? 

I don't know with whom you're discussing this, but it ain't me.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

This isn't an arguement folks. Just a discussion among forum members on different training methods.
Thanks! ;-)


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

Steven Lepic said:


> What the....? Didn't *I* just say that?
> 
> I don't know who you're arguing with, but it ain't me.


Not arguing dude! Your early point sounds in *FAVOR* of the clicker. My position is one not for the use as was the post above, that's all. Arguing? Not hardly, my thread from the start...#-oMy point continues to be that the *power of the human voice* can go far beyond any clicker, whistle, or thing that flaps in the wind. Because emotion is at work here! That's all Steven, no personal shot at you and if you took it that way....This is a VERY popular topic and one which fans HEATED exchanges due to passion.


----------



## Guest (Mar 16, 2008)

Fixed.


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

Using the scenario that I just outlined from today's training, tell me how the clicker could be used be the decoy or the handler to work that dog through a tough position. Help ME to learn the tool...understanding that you weren't there. How could that tool override a dog's fear of height, its desire to please the owner, its need to get back to the ground, and still remain with its "death grip" on the sleeve? It had a fight with a bad guy, on a playing field it didn't want to be on...


----------



## Guest (Mar 16, 2008)

> The idea that the clicker is used to communicate a message, exactly, and each time is a joke in my opinion.


The only thing is communicates is that a reward is coming. The sound means nothing on its own.



> -Every living creature operates differently each day, humans included.
> 
> -The clicker does not and cannot utter soothing sounds of reinforcement or of comfort.
> 
> -It cannot speed up or slow down a response. Futher, it cannot communicate a pause in a behavior to allow for a most correct behavior to take place.


First of all, which clicker training resource have you consulted which attributes these qualities to it? I've never heard of it.



> You see, the human voice was used to reassue, guide, push, reward, and to promote positive behavior over fear. How could the clicker have been used to do more or the same?


It doesn't.



> Packen...K9 fear...<click,click> Good packen. I don't think so!!!


You'd be right. Unless there is some clicker/bitework philosophy I don't know about.



> Again, the power of the human mind, spirit, and drives override any computer thing.


It's not a computer thing. It's an analogy I used to illustrate precision for a narrow purpose. 



> As far as the cliker being superior to the human voice, can't sell that idea to me. Nope, never!=; And thanks for your opinion...this is a never ending position of those who stand in favor and those like myself who don't.


Fair enough, but the fact remains you're attributing abilities of the disembodied clicker which clicker proponents never have. At least none that I heard of.


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

Bob don't you Mods have a different title other than "Green Dog?" How about Bad Puppy or Evil Kennel Troll.


----------



## Guest (Mar 16, 2008)

> Using the scenario that I just outlined from today's training, tell me how the clicker could be used be the decoy or the handler to work that dog through a tough position. Help ME to learn the tool...understanding that you weren't there. How could that tool override a dog's fear of height, its desire to please the owner, its need to get back to the ground, and still remain with its "death grip" on the sleeve?


 
Like I said, I've never heard about the clicker being used in bitework, because it's a dynamic, convoluted sitation, which a bunch of stuff going on. 

If it hasn't been said yet, I don't think anyone who advocates the use is talking about anything other than teaching obedience. Maybe that clears things up a bit?


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

XXXOOO, not going crazy Steven! =; 
Spicy ain't it?!
Welcome to the WDF and Green Dog Gaines. One thing that We can agree on, I think, dog training IS fun! :lol:


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

:grin: :grin: Nothing wrong with stiring up a discussion. The problems arize when people PERCEIVE emotion on a web board. 
It's part of that "human voice" thing. ;-) 
I will agree with Steven that the clicker is nothing more then a MARKER to a behavior. Praise, with emotion, can very well be a part of the reward.
vocal emotion is a huge RE ENFORCER of a behavior. Can also be used as a marker though. I use voice markers with my older dog because that what I trained him with. No reason to change. My younger dog is being trained with a clicker. I like what I'm seeing in his response but I will ALWAY use my voice as a re enforcer.


----------



## Guest (Mar 16, 2008)

To boot, I don't even use the clicker, and I doubt I ever will with this dog 

I am a verbal/physical praising goon, but as an example, the difference between a hovering sit and a proper sit represents a small window of time and space, and can be most clearly delineated with a single, crisp, consistent syllable (to match the small difference between good and bad) which is always associated with an imminent and highly valued reward. 

Impossible to do without OC principles? Obviously not. But assuming that more contrast between black/white, yes/no, good/bad is always better, then clarity, precision, and consistency is always better with the primary and secondary recinforcers both rewarding and punishing. There's the value of a consistent cue (or click)...that if nothing else, that the cue in questions means a high value reward is a-coming. Not maybe, not sometimes, not to this degree, not to that degree, but always. As a new handler I was in awe of how much could be done with an 8 week old puppinator with the positive side of OC principles. Of course, I had parents from the Woodhouse era...

The other important thing which OC training shed light on; really, really recognizing how small of a window you have to reward the snapshot in time you want to reinforce. This of course applies to the punishing aspects as well.


----------



## Eric Read (Aug 14, 2006)

The benefit of a clicker is that it takes away any distractions to the dog for that instant in which the desired behavior is performed. 

The quicker you can reward a dog for performing an action the better. Most studies show 1-3 seconds, with the closer to the instant it is done correctly the more quickly and strongly the connection will be made in the dogs mind.

Yes you can obviously train a dog without it. I don't even remember the original scenerio, but we need to get it clear that the clicker or marker (i'm with Steve, I don't use one either, just voice) isn't used to illicit anything other than it instantly marks the instant the dog does a correct behavior.

I use my voice all the time for bridging/secondary reinforcers etc to communicate with my dog, the clicker wouldn't take any of that away, as some are suggesting.

Take teaching a sit with no marker, click or verbal. I don't care how you begin teaching it by capture method, luring, whatever. but when the dog sits, you have to reward, the more instaneous the better.

The dog sits, you get excited, move your hand to your pocket, to the bowl of treats from behind your back etc. All these movements or different sounds you might make are all different cues to the dog and by the time you've rewarded, the dog has most certainly broken the sit. At the beginning the dog can't make the connection as quickly with the action of sitting and the reward because of everything else that is going on. Sure they'll learn it after more trial and error.

They have to learn that your hand moving isn't the cue, that you moving anything isn't the cue, that them getting up to come forward isn't the right action, even though that is when they are first getting rewarded, etc.

Doing the same thing with a marker, click or voice you take all that away. Now the same scenerio with a clicker. First the dog is conditioned to the marker, whatever it is. Everything a dog learns is conditioned responses, markers are easy to teach and open a lot of doors for very easy communication.

You get the dog to sit, as soon as his butt hits the floor, mark, and he knows he just did the right thing because a reward is coming. It also gives you time to get the reward from your pocket, under your shirt, from a table top, wherever. None of those motions now mean anything to the dog. There is no confusion no distraction.

I taught all my basic positions with markers, retrieves, even the blind search.

I use my voice because I just dont' want to carry a clicker, plus all my friends will think i'm a pussy and I don't want to be made fun of. But the principles are the same.

The inflection changes I make in my voice for commands have nothing to do with a marker. The mark or click doesn't serve that purpose, Steve has said it, but nobody seems to be understanding it.

Once the behaviors are conditioned, the marker is not used as frequently, to rarely. Other "marks" are added. I shouldn't call them marks, but bridges to communicate and link more behviors together. 

The same voice changes, tone, level, etc are still used by the handler and they mean something to the dog, but they have nothing to do with how I mark a behavior.

most of you use it without realizing it, but it's not as effectively as it could be. If you're doing transports, and the dog is heeling in the correct position, you may give a head nod and have someone signal the helper to turn and attack, that's the dog's "mark", some may say Paken at first and that "marks" the dog to get his reward. But then for OB you don't use a marker, and for long bites, you send him on the crack of a whip (which gets cracked at all other times in training, but he gets no reward for thos) etc. Those marks then don't mean anything and don't add clarity, in fact they probably add a degree of confusion.

you can still train a dog through that, but if you used a consistent marker, it would eliminate a lot of confusion and bring clarity to an exercise more quickly. Marker training is based on very sound science. That doesn't mean I relegate the intelligence of a dog to a goldfish, far from it. I think dogs are far more intuitive than some trainers give them credit for.


----------



## Kayce Cover (Oct 30, 2007)

Steven Lepic said:


> Because you're trying to communicate the exact same thing each and every time. "Correct, you're done, reward is imminent". That's all. Period. It doesn't encourage, it doesn't wind-up, it doesn't punish, it doesn't soothe, etc...
> 
> I don't think anyone has denigrated anything having to do with the voice for other aspects.
> 
> ...


Hi Steve,

The animal - including rats and rabbits, can process the time marker and the voice inflections simultaneously. So, no reason to abandon one for the other. Kind of like you can hear the loudspeaker in the train station while also carrying on a conversation. So, I use bridges to both mark and encourage, at the same time.

And, I have worked animals ranging from chickens and crabs to dolphins and primates, along with a ton of people, and just for the record, I use exactly the same methods for everyone. I find every animal so far, with the exception of the crab, and I did not try with them, has easily taken on concepts in a matter of minutes, and they all learn at approximately the same rate. If anything, the so-called more intelligent animals are more difficult, as they seem to always be calculating the odds, trying to do an end run around the trainer, playing to the audience, outsmarting the trainer, making the trainer look bad, playing jokes on the trainer.... ;> Of course, the trainer makes it easy for them to do all this  

Regards,
Kayce


----------



## Kayce Cover (Oct 30, 2007)

Howard Gaines III said:


> Steven the more I read the posts in favor of clickers, the more vindicated I feel using the human voice! Before there were computer generate "tools," man relied on his voice and his abilities to communicate with animals. Just because man cannot understand the communication methodologies for each specie, I don't think makes the animal "stupider," it simply means man must work harder to understand the "bridge" between human and animal communications and the end result desired.
> 
> The idea that the clicker is used to communicate a message, exactly, and each time is a joke in my opinion. Every living creature operates differently each day, humans included. The clicker does not and cannot utter soothing sounds of reinforcement or of comfort. It cannot speed up or slow down a response. Futher, it cannot communicate a pause in a behavior to allow for a most correct behavior to take place. My example: today in dog training, a dog went up and onto a stacked set of hay bales for a bite with the decoy, me. The dog communicated MUCH stress while still on the bite sleeve. It did not release the bite in order to find "safety" at another level. While on the sleeve, I was able to communicate to the dog a comfort level which it could work with...my voice said, "good packen, that's a boy." Then I guided the dog down to the ground for a release of the bite sleeve followed by more praise. The dog worked from a position of high pressure and a willingness to want to bite, to a need for safety at a lower level.
> 
> ...


As long as the voice is also delivering precise time markers, I agree. :!: 


Regards,
Kayce


----------



## Guest (Mar 17, 2008)

> The animal - including rats and rabbits, can process the time marker and the voice inflections simultaneously. So, no reason to abandon one for the other. Kind of like you can hear the loudspeaker in the train station while also carrying on a conversation. So, I use bridges to both mark and encourage, at the same time.


Do begin training that way as well? What would be an example of how you use your voice in conjuction with the clicker? Is it something as monosyllabic and quick? Or would it be like a click centered inside a "gooooood boy"?

And then does the verbal bridge cause a release just like the click?

Furthermore, what do you think is the best way for me (who doesn't use a clicker) to associate a verbal bridge the same way? Since already I use my voice, and I can't do both at once.



> And, I have worked animals ranging from chickens and crabs to dolphins and primates, along with a ton of people, and just for the record, I use exactly the same methods for everyone. I find every animal so far, with the exception of the crab,


Hehe...What was the crab's deal?


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

Kayce the crab story PLEASE! It didn't work because it was a Hermit crab ???Antisocial??? More info :lol:


----------



## Kayce Cover (Oct 30, 2007)

Steven Lepic said:


> Do begin training that way as well? What would be an example of how you use your voice in conjuction with the clicker? Is it something as monosyllabic and quick? Or would it be like a click centered inside a "gooooood boy"?
> 
> And then does the verbal bridge cause a release just like the click?
> 
> ...


I don't use a clicker either. And yes, I start the animals this way. Initially, they are just working for an instant, so there is not much in the way of modulation, except that the Intermediate Bridges are softer than the emphatic Terminal Bridge. As the work extends, modulation naturally develops, just as people cheer runners into home base. In seminars, I demonstrate with people, and they report it is very compelling and observers can see the difference in performance with and without modulation and/or IBs.

The TB can stop the behavior, but I can immediately recue, or I can show by other things, like context, that we are marking a special event but not done with the whole, like the dog comes off a ball he was chasing, mid-stride, but then must way for the go-ahead to cross the street to get it, etc.

It takes 1-5 minutes to teach animals the basic communication signals in this system. Send your email, if you like, and I will send the directions to you, and you can try it and see if you like it. You would just be using your voice. You can hear video of the bridging on the video page of my website: http://www.synalia.com

Crabs were part of a research project and were routinely examined under the microscope. If you stress them, they can drop their claws, which is not good for them or the project. So, I taught them to get into the observation dish voluntarily, and my genius crab, Spike, showed me a better way to get it done. Blew my mind. I show video at seminars. 

Regards,
Kayce [email protected]


----------



## Kayce Cover (Oct 30, 2007)

Howard Gaines III said:


> Kayce the crab story PLEASE! It didn't work because it was a Hermit crab ???Antisocial??? More info :lol:



:grin: Green crab, an illegal alien from Europe via bilge ballast in days of yore, who had his eye on Aphrodite, the girl next door. However, being a crab, it is not known if he was romantically attracted, or gastronomically attracted.

I taught him the bridges and targets, but did not know if he could hear the verbal bridging, especially with the background noise, and anatomically, I don't think they have any ears. However, they may be sensitive to vibrations, etc. Anyway, it worked fine. Then, using a target, we built a behavior of him getting into a net.

Great, but he did not like to get out of the net and I needed to transfer him to a glass bowl to observe him anyway, so I asked him to get into the bowl instead. At first, he was significantly smaller than the bowl. As time progressed, he had to fold his arms close and let his swimmerettes hang out the back. He would sit quietly, allow me to touch him without agitation, and go all over the lab in his glass spaceship. 

I wondered, will crabs do this naturally? I tried catching an untrained crab and it was like trying to net a polo ball in play. So, I taught all the crabs just to get in the bowl. Took just a couple of sessions each.

However, crabs don't walk forwards or backwards - just side to side. So, to get him in the bowl, I had to slide the bowl behind him and gently lift, following him as he walked slowly from one side to the next, till we made it to the surface where the water tension helped him fit himself into the bowl (he being neutrally buoyant and all). Took about 30 seconds to do this. Then I could carry him around.

One day, I put the bowl in, in front of him, and it was as if he had been waiting for me to wise up, and he reached straight out and reached for my thumb with his claw. It freaked me out and I shook him off. I was instantly moved to shame. Here this little crab put his life in my hands on a regular basis, and I was not trusting him to touch my thumb. I put my hand back in immediately, and he reached forward and pulled himself straight into the bowl. 

The crab had a better idea..... !  

Very humbling.

Moulting is a dangerous time for crabs and he did not survive his last moult. I was actually quite upset, and if you can believe it, it moves me to tears to type this now. Intelligence and personality have nothing to do with size. 

Once I was hired to train sharks at an oceanarium, and they had an intellectual stingray, named Shirley Temple, due to a curly tail. She was a ball afire and beat the sharks to the targets and loved to learn. As soon as she heard us come in to work, she started making her way across the .5 million gal tank, and squeezed through the grate into the shark holding area. She would then bubble up and down at the training station and as soon as targets were presented, she would race through them all, learning to turn circles, etc, on cue. Only reinforcer for her was bridging and stroking. 

The sharks themselves were another amazing situation... but I digress from dog training.

I will try to post some video soon and will announce it on this thread - although it may take me some weeks. I feel I owe it to Spike, and Aphrodite, and Marlin, and Venus, and Salty, and... (13 crabs in the original research set up). I show video at seminars, but it is on dvd and I have not figured out how to get it out of that format to put it on the internet.

Thanks for asking about Spike! ;-) 

Regards,
Kayce


----------



## Kayce Cover (Oct 30, 2007)

Dang! #-o I meant to let that sit and edit it later and I pushed submit instead of preview. 

Oh well! 

Here's to your memory, Spike!


----------

