# forced X threads



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

there have been a lot of chat lately about this stuff, all gets a bit personal in the end. there is obviously a lot of questions about it for a lot of people. attitudes change and so do methods.

most people want to know where the line is and do right by their dogs. i really belive training is better now than it ever was and some things are just less acceptable rightly or wrongly.

personally i look at some top FST performances the same way i look at prancing circus animals, lion tamer acts or dancing bears, the likes of which were all considered cool family entertainment for the longest time but are now generally considered grotesque and in poor taste if not outright cruel. thats how i see a schIII dog planting its nose into every footstep, its motivation based on past experience of ritual pain at the hands of its master, just not my thing.

thats just me and i'm not going to change anything or anyone.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> there have been a lot of chat lately about this stuff, all gets a bit personal in the end. there is obviously a lot of questions about it for a lot of people. attitudes change and so do methods.
> 
> most people want to know where the line is and do right by their dogs. i really belive training is better now than it ever was and some things are just less acceptable rightly or wrongly.
> 
> ...


I thought it was a little funny how you brought up the table in that thread, Gene England practically pioneered the tables and many of force methods used today...same guy, tables and force..

Peter, I get how you feel about watching a SCH III dog on the track, but the truth is percentage wise, few of those dogs are force tracked, or suffer ritual pain..that comes in the OB and Protection work....(kidding, kidding)


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

not sure what your point is Peter (yes i read what u wrote)
but i'll throw in my 02 anyway ...

for almost every dog, no matter what the breed and no matter what it is being trained for, some degree of compulsion is used 
(compulsion - taking away the "options" and physically making the dog conform to a command)

"forced this" or forced that can have a wide range of definitions and applications

most all dogs learn a "forced sit"  ...even working dogs by experienced owners 

how much compulsion was used in training is "sometimes" obvious in the way the dog performs the learned behavior, but not always so obvious
... imo most circus animals were never trained with much compulsion used at all

my point is EXCESSIVE compulsion is a fast stupid way to train and done all the time, but if u think you can get the results you want without EVER using it, you are probably dreaming


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

My point was in my mind working sports dogs extend the tradition of some instinctual based activity utilised for centuries by man, honouring both man and animal, the spectacle aspect has taken over and degraded both. Or something like that, clear....i guess not. Joby gets what i meant.


----------



## brad robert (Nov 26, 2008)

But like Joby said most dogs are not forced track just trained thru routine and reenforcement.horses for courses.And everyone is entitled to it.So peter when did you become a schh hater?


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

When i learned that people do forced tracking and such, took the mystique out of it for me. Up untill that point i thought it was some rad shit i wanted in on lol.


Anyways dont overgeneralise what you think i think.


----------



## brad robert (Nov 26, 2008)

So dont force track problem solved its still fun.The nationals are on this year in your part of the woods i should be going get a BH on my girl.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

I will prolly venture out to that, when?? which club is hosting, Jens?


----------



## brad robert (Nov 26, 2008)

sept and yep u got the club right.


----------



## Britney Pelletier (Mar 5, 2009)

Joby Becker said:


> but the truth is percentage wise, few of those dogs are force tracked, or suffer ritual pain..that comes in the OB and Protection work....(kidding, kidding)


Entirely true statement.. 

I think people often mistake the amount of work in takes to train a dog to track so precisely, for the dog being force tracked. Not everyone takes the "easy" way out, Peter.. and some dogs (many) track extremely precisely and methodically without force. If you're willing to put the time and training in, it can be done.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

knowing what I think I know about Pete, I am 1/2 thinking it is the overall picture of the dog on the SCH III track that may effect him as well, since he has tracking dogs that track in a natural fashion. 

This is not an uncommon thing for some people to "feel" about dogs when watching working dogs. 

I was drilling recalls into my dog one day, using the ecollar and a tug at a park one time, and was accused of forcing my dog to be my slave by electrocuting her...  dog never yelped at all, was really pumped, and was blasting in, something just goes boom in peoples heads, when they see the dog with an ecollar on, and the transmitter is in your hand, and the dog ignoring everything around it except you, dog must be a slave...


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

I've been accused of treating my dog like a slave too, Joby //lol//

come to think of it, maybe it's a pretty good analogy !
- i own it
- it can't escape
- i control all resources
- it must give me its undivided attention whenever i ask for it
- it works for me alone
- it gets time off to play when i say so
- it learned there would be "undesirable consequences" if it disobeys, and i never even had to use a whip to get that point across 

maybe a good dog/owner relationship could be considered a better slave "deal" than the human slave contracts ... don't know much about them tho ))

maybe we should replace the "pack leader" philosophy with a "benevolent master/slave" canine relationship //rotflmao//
....the dog seems to be ok with it


----------



## Adam Swilling (Feb 12, 2009)

I think some of it has to do with the level you're competing at, too. You're not going to get to world competitor level, for example, without some compulsion or whatever you want to call it. I have to agree with Rick's statement. I've seen dogs that were extremely good trackers that weren't force trained, but may have been taught something else through some level of compulsion.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Shade W. has gotten to this point in Schutzhund of competing at the national level at the 3s, I think? Her dog Reiki has his FR 1 as well. Takes a really special trainer to get there and I salute those who try.


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

Britney Pelletier said:


> Entirely true statement..
> 
> I think people often mistake the amount of work in takes to train a dog to track so precisely, for the dog being force tracked. Not everyone takes the "easy" way out, Peter.. and some dogs (many) track extremely precisely and methodically without force. If you're willing to put the time and training in, it can be done.


Completely agree as well.
Peter maybe you are overstating this forced tracking thing. I've been doing SchH for 5 years and never seen someone force track. As already stated the percentage is small, like I'll guess less than 5%.
I really don't like over the top compulsion, to even witness it. But sometimes dogs need it applied to get through something.


----------



## Willi Ortner (Apr 3, 2012)

It is easy to idendify a dog who has been taught to track through a lot of compulsion. It isn't necessary, as tracking is instinctual. There will come a time though in every competition dogs life, that some compulsion will come into play to solidify that "not tracking" is not an option. But when tracking is introduced correctly, and not rushed, it is very little.


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> Shade W. has gotten to this point in Schutzhund of competing at the national level at the 3s, I think? Her dog Reiki has his FR 1 as well. Takes a really special trainer to get there and I salute those who try.


I have confirmed the current FMBB world champion, achieved his succes without the use of a single correction.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

James Downey said:


> I have confirmed the current FMBB world champion, achieved his succes without the use of a single correction.


confirmed how?  

not even a single correction ever? in his whole life? on or off the field? in the house, out in public? not even for manners or behavior? that is truly amazing... 

by correction, I assume you are meaning positive punishment with a collar of some sort? and not other types of corrections.


----------



## Adam Swilling (Feb 12, 2009)

I gotta cry bullshit on the no correction ever thing. With the drive level a dog needs to go that far, there's no way in hell it was NEVER corrected.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Adam Swilling said:


> I gotta cry bullshit on the no correction ever thing. With the drive level a dog needs to go that far, there's no way in hell it was NEVER corrected.


but it is confirmed Adam...


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

I think in some sports even with a high drive dog it is possible with some dogs. I myself have one such dog who is so focussed on working and learning that I have never had to correct him, it just hasnt been neccessary. He seems totally driven to try what I ask and keep trying and experimenting untill he gets it. His little face a picture of concentration and then joy when he nails it. He won a state title in his second trial. 

Obviously I dont do protection sports so cant comment there especially after seeing that super high drive dog in Jobys video, that was some dog.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

I have reservations about this claim at that level?

Mebbe they mean not force methods? 

Be outstanding if its true, or is James hoaxing us for fun????


----------



## Britney Pelletier (Mar 5, 2009)

James Downey said:


> I have confirmed the current FMBB world champion, achieved his succes without the use of a single correction.



Mario Verslype? 

Absolutely not true.. he most _*definitely*_ uses compulsion in his training.


----------



## Britney Pelletier (Mar 5, 2009)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> Be outstanding if its true, or is James hoaxing us for fun????


Probably.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Naughty troll!!!


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

no guys, I think James was serious.

We have had conversations about corrections before _privately_...

(sorry Pete)


----------



## Britney Pelletier (Mar 5, 2009)

LOL, well I can assure you that is completely false.. Mario uses plenty of compulsion in his training.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Peter, my SAR trained, cadaver trained (land and water), article search trained, SchIII, CDX, HT, CGC, TT dog has never had physical corrections including the tracking. He has excellent nose to every foot step sport tracking. (still boring to me)
On the few occasions I have gotten physical it's been out of frustration and did nothing but set the dog (and me) back in training. THAT is what folks are talking about when they say physical corrections are abusive. 
I will say about using corrections for ANY dog training, IF DONE CORRECTLY AND FAIRLY there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
My training in the past 8-9 years is about choices and to see what can be done with a particular method. Not about "my way is the only/best way". 
The 40 or so yrs previous to that was with most every method in the books. Some of which I'd rather forget mainly because of my being less then a patient person. 
Now I'm just a nice old granpa! :twisted::wink:


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

i was moaning about force methods not corrections applied appropriately. I'm not moaning anymore.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Bob Scott said:


> Peter, my SAR trained, cadaver trained (land and water), article search trained, SchIII, CDX, HT, CGC, TT dog *has never had physical corrections including the tracking*. He has excellent nose to every foot step sport tracking. (still boring to me)
> *On the few occasions I have gotten physical* it's been out of frustration and did nothing but set the dog (and me) back in training. THAT is what folks are talking about when they say physical corrections are abusive.
> I will say about using corrections for ANY dog training, IF DONE CORRECTLY AND FAIRLY there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
> My training in the past 8-9 years is about choices and to see what can be done with a particular method. Not about "my way is the only/best way".
> ...


Bob, do you think the times "you got physical" with the dog, may have influenced the dog on his future performance at all? not only as a setback, but may have lent more weight to your "verbal corrections" that were used afterwards? (if you used them, which I am sure you did) .

I know it is semantics here, you say NO physical corrections, and then "the times that I got physical", implying that those times were NOT corrections, because they were not "ideal" corrections...but how can you really justify saying NO corrections, and then 2 sentences later talk about the times you got physical with him?

not trying to sound rude here or argumentative, just see it a little differently than you do I guess. To me the dog most certainly has had physical "corrections" by you, that maybe were unfair, and had setbacks, but also in a sense may have lent more weight to your non-physical corrections that came after that...

non saying you were super harsh or anything..but if I kick my dogs ass one time, it can mess with the bond and cause conflict, but I can guarantee that some dogs will perform better in the future, without further corrections, because of that incident...

it goes back to the old agrument about no corrections, I have yet to meet a dog that has had NO physical corrections.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

legit question Joby! Next to impossible to insult or hurt my feelings without direct eye contact.:twisted::lol:
With this particular dog I would say that those times were just as confusing to the dog as they were embarrassing to me. For me frustration creates poor timing and excess force. Timing in particular is critical to ALL methods of dog training. Bad timing and excess force can do nothing but confuse a dog. When that happens the dog learns nothing but what an idiot/ass we can be. I could be that much of a p***k.  
It was a long time when I started the no correction marker training before I allowed myself to train at home. I didn't want to back to.....being the old me. 
With my other GSD I would honestly say that similar treatment would have destroyed the dog. He's uber handler soft.....but had a very dark side on the bite field where "I" was under better control. Even in my early days when I did it right, this dog could have brought out the worst in me. I, admittedly, can't handle, don't want to, wont handle soft dogs. He's a fantastic, well mannered buddy and excellent alert/alarm dog as is my other GSD.
Probably a good thing I trained terriers for years. Take a beating and keep on ticking! GSDs and markers have brought out a more patient soul.:lol: :wink:


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> non saying you were super harsh or anything..but if I kick my dogs ass one time, it can mess with the bond and cause conflict, but I can guarantee that some dogs will perform better in the future, without further corrections, because of that incident...
> 
> it goes back to the old agrument about no corrections, I have yet to meet a dog that has had NO physical corrections.


 
Well, I don't know what you mean by ass kicking but there are some dogs that really aren't that impressed as far as future conduct by corrections. One of the things I don't like about physical corrections is that the level it would take to be effective in some incidences would cause physical injury. 

T


----------



## Amy Hisaoka (May 3, 2012)

I have a SAR trailing dog, and she was not forced tracked, but we did human "runnaways" and it was always a super hyped up fun thing... She is a great instinctive tracker, and even though we are trailing instead of tracking, she is pretty darn close on footfall. So it is in their instinct to track accurately without force, may just take more fine tuning for competition. 

I came out of the compulsion world, and now do a mixture of methods, which works really well for us. I correct when correction is needed, mostly for behavior. I try not to correct too much on tracking, becasue I can't smell human skin cells. If she "seemingly" goes off track I just wait a while, and more often than not, she gets herself back on track. But again, we are not in it for a competition, just to save lost people.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> Bob, do you think the times "you got physical" with the dog, may have influenced the dog on his future performance at all? not only as a setback, but may have lent more weight to your "verbal corrections" that were used afterwards? (if you used them, which I am sure you did) .
> QUOTE]
> 
> I doubt it. He probably gave him a WTF confused look. One of the things that happens is whether the dog connects the dots to the frustration blow up or correction to a specific behavior. They dont always do. I swear it would take a 2 x 4 knock out for my bouv not to flip her wig on panic stock.
> ...


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Joby, T is one of the people that has done a great job of keeping me on the level with Thunder. She had no problem correcting ME with the shepherd's staff:-o when I was close to correction during Thunder's and my herding. There were times when Thunder would actually leave me and follow T to the sheep field.  :lol: 
Markers and NO physical correction can also work in herding! :grin: :wink:


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

I just dont buy it, if the dog learns what a p**ck you can because you lose your head.. he knows you are capable of it. and in the future will remember that, and work harder to do what you ask, to avoid you being a pr**k again...

that is how some people train a puppy to stay on a pillow in the house.

to say it has no influence is kind of fairytale way of looking at it I think.

to say the dog has had NO physical corrections is also either a naive or self-deceiving way of looking at it as well, or just a dishonest description.....after talking about "times that things have gotten physical"......that is only MY opinion of course.. ( and the others that are of the same opinion )


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

If the timing is off then nothing is being trained. Simple as that! Some dogs will go into avoidance some don't. 
Not selling anything just telling my experiences. I've gotten used to folks "not buying it". ;-)


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Bob Scott said:


> Joby, T is one of the people that has done a great job of keeping me on the level with Thunder. She had no problem correcting ME with the shepherd's staff:-o when I was close to correction during Thunder's and my herding. There were times when Thunder would actually leave me and follow T to the sheep field.  :lol:
> Markers and NO physical correction can also work in herding! :grin: :wink:


 
Shhhhhhhhh, not one of my finer moments. I'm really working on being as positive with handlers as the dogs. And yeah, being sheep goddess, I worked my way up to Thunder considering me part of the pack. He wouldn't exactly leave ya--just not hold that pretty heel position. I came to marker training gradually and especially in herding. Physical correction with a high drive fight drive dog gets you push back and the dog loading in frustration and blowing up on the stock. It also gets you mostly confusion and conflict. It doesn't advance your herding training. Old school herding methods were based on a breed that would run 100 feet in the opposite direction if you stepped toward it, not the breeds that push back on applied pressure. But one of the things Bob says alot, there is the concept of leadership. As much as I rely on marker trainer, if I didn't have a pack leadership position with a couple of my dogs, and my bouv in particular, I wouldn't be able to get the level of work that I do.

T


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Bob Scott said:


> Joby, T is one of the people that has done a great job of keeping me on the level with Thunder. She had no problem correcting ME with the shepherd's staff:-o when I was close to correction during Thunder's and my herding. There were times when Thunder would actually leave me and follow T to the sheep field.  :lol:
> Markers and NO physical correction can also work in herding! :grin: :wink:


To think for centuries dogs have herded over the ridge out of sight, no ecollar, no nuthin, how is it possible.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

T you worked hard to be accepted by Thunder. Not to many folks can get a lick on the face from him. :lol:
Leadership is the key to training. Correcting can get compliance but no "method" of training is a guarantee for getting leadership. :wink:


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> To think for centuries dogs have herded over the ridge out of sight, no ecollar, no nuthin, how is it possible.



Magical huh! :lol:


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> I just dont buy it, if the dog learns what a p**ck you can because you lose your head.. he knows you are capable of it. and in the future will remember that, and work harder to do what you ask, to avoid you being a pr**k again...


You never worked a dog that said to hell with the consequences, I'm going to do it anyway? Just because you correct the shit out of doesn't mean the dog gives a rat's ass. There are some dogs that don't live to avoid corrections. I live with one. I know what Bob means. You can correct them but did it influence the training at all in terms of you totally stopping the unwanted behavior or getting the behavior that you really wanted? No.

T


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Bob Scott said:


> If the timing is off then nothing is being trained. Simple as that! Some dogs will go into avoidance some don't.
> Not selling anything just telling my experiences. I've gotten used to folks "not buying it". ;-)


2 more questions.

so just to clarify...

you are saying that your dog has done things in training that have upset you, you have lost your head a little and gotten physical, in your words, reacted out of anger, done things that you yourself describe as what others would refer to as abusive physical corrections, but you when you refer to the same dog you say it has "never had physical corrections"....

Is that correct?

And lastly, you view it that way because what was done does not qualify as a well timed, properly executed, physical correction, in your opinion?


----------



## Alison Grubb (Nov 18, 2009)

Joby Becker said:


> not trying to sound rude here or argumentative, *just see it a little differently than you do I guess. To me the dog most certainly has had physical "corrections" by you, that maybe were unfair, and had setbacks, but also in a sense may have lent more weight to your non-physical corrections that came after that...
> *


Interesting that you brought this up today Joby. A buddy trainer and I were talking about this exact thing earlier. We discussed how a physical correction on lead paired with a verbal correction can create a dog that is more sensitive to verbal correction off lead, even without an e-collar. Along with that we talked about teaching a dog what "no" actually means, something that many people (all people, not just working dog trainers/owners) seem to skip over.

Personally, I don't think that 100% compulsion or 100% positive reinforcement solves a problem. I like to travel the middle of the road and have found the most success in that. Are there dogs that don't care about avoiding correction? Sure. But if it is balanced out between do x and get corrected or do y and get a reward, it becomes pretty black and white.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Willi Ortner said:


> It is easy to idendify a dog who has been taught to track through a lot of compulsion.
> 
> _It will often fail when conditions are difficult. At trials the handler is powerless._
> 
> It isn't necessary, as tracking is instinctual. There will come a time though in every competition dogs life, that some compulsion will come into play to solidify that "not tracking" is not an option. But when tracking is introduced correctly, and not rushed, it is very little.


I like your statement "not tracking" is not an option." How this is transmitted to the dog is irrelevant. 

Force is what it takes to make a dog obey nothing more, nothing less. 



The more and varied tracks a dog is subjected to, the more experienced the dog will become.


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> To think for centuries dogs have herded over the ridge out of sight, no ecollar, no nuthin, how is it possible.


Yes, but what of the dogs that wouldn't?


----------



## julie allen (Dec 24, 2010)

Edward Egan said:


> Yes, but what of the dogs that wouldn't?


Those that wouldn't were culled, and replaced with good dogs.:-$


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

Joby Becker said:


> I just dont buy it, if the dog learns what a p**ck you can because you lose your head.. he knows you are capable of it. and in the future will remember that, and work harder to do what you ask, to avoid you being a pr**k again...
> 
> that is how some people train a puppy to stay on a pillow in the house.
> 
> ...



I gotta agree with this. I've met dogs who really don't care much about consequences, but most dogs do, at least on some level. Some just decide the behavior they want to do is worth the consequences. 

But I think if the dog has had compulsion at some point, even if it was done out of anger and in a confusing manner, actually especially if it was, then it gives verbal displeasure an extra "umph" for most dogs. I don't think you can say with most dogs, especially ones with any level of biddability, that the "I lost my temper and beat my dog up" moment has no lasting effect on their future performance.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> To think for centuries dogs have herded over the ridge out of sight, no ecollar, no nuthin, how is it possible.


I've known many herding people who don't use ecollars, but that doesn't mean they don't use compulsion. "hunt 'em down and put your hands on them" has worked for years with dogs. And if it didn't, taking them behind the barn for a bullet, and getting a different dog, one who responded to "hunt 'em down and put your hands on them" usually worked. 

It's like saying hunting dogs were trained without compulsion back before e-collars. I grew up around hunters who didn't use e-collars, but that didn't mean they didn't use compulsion. A shotgun packed with rock salt or light bird shot was used on a regular basis to trash break dogs. And the ones it didn't work on, took a one way trip into the woods. Frankly, I'd rather use an e-collar.


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

julie allen said:


> Those that wouldn't were culled, and replaced with good dogs.:-$


But isn't that the ultimate form of compulsion?


----------



## jim stevens (Jan 30, 2012)

Kadi Thingvall said:


> I've known many herding people who don't use ecollars, but that doesn't mean they don't use compulsion. "hunt 'em down and put your hands on them" has worked for years with dogs. And if it didn't, taking them behind the barn for a bullet, and getting a different dog, one who responded to "hunt 'em down and put your hands on them" usually worked.
> 
> It's like saying hunting dogs were trained without compulsion back before e-collars. I grew up around hunters who didn't use e-collars, but that didn't mean they didn't use compulsion. A shotgun packed with rock salt or light bird shot was used on a regular basis to trash break dogs. And the ones it didn't work on, took a one way trip into the woods. Frankly, I'd rather use an e-collar.


This is all true, I grew up with hunting dogs and we didn't have e-collars at first. I have seen pointers take after a rabbit, my dad would shoot the rabbit, pick it up and whack the dog with it till the rabbit fell apart. You can do this with a hard-headed pointer, a setter required a less firm hand, a lot less firm. As above, if they didn't learn, a bullet fixed it. Selective breeding taken to the next level.IMO


----------



## julie allen (Dec 24, 2010)

Edward Egan said:


> But isn't that the ultimate form of compulsion?


Using a dog that doesn't have to be forced? No. 

Culling doesn't necessarily mean killing. It can mean not using that dog for that purpose. We cull all the time. Slaying a dog that you decide not to breed, or placing a crap dog in a pet home is culling too.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> 2 more questions.
> 
> so just to clarify...
> 
> ...



Correct!
I don't see anything that lacks timing or control from the handler and has happened maybe 3-4 time throughout the dogs training as any sort of training at all. It's a set back for handler and dog both. It's not even a correction, physical or otherwise. It's useless frustration and a waste of energy. 
Training of any sort, again, requires timing and control to be done correctly. If either is missing no training is accomplished. 
I'll never convince anyone something works or doesn't if they've never done it to completion themselves. How can anyone say something works OR doesn't work if they've never done it to completion. 
I've had tons of people tell me they've tried it and it doesn't work. Just making an effort towards any method of training, no matter how much time is spent on it doesn't guarantee success.
We can agree and disagree till the cows come home and that wont change a thing here.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

re: "my dad would shoot the rabbit, pick it up and whack the dog with it till the rabbit fell apart. You can do this with a hard-headed pointer, a setter required a less firm hand, a lot less firm"

interesting
how many times did the dog get a chance to learn that if it chased a rabbit, the dead rabbit would return and beat it, before being shot ? 

so setters were beat with dead birds rather than rabbits ? //lol//

i see culling with a bullet exactly in the same way i see losing patience and using a lead stick boot or whatever...just using different tools with more lasting results

so this method brought us better dogs ????
..if it DID i think we should return to the past ... "retro" is always in style these days 

personally, i don't see anything better or worse, just different ways to do the same thing, and maybe equally as stupid compared to actual "training", as i prefer to call it


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

julie allen said:


> Using a dog that doesn't have to be forced? No. *I don't get this???*
> 
> Culling doesn't necessarily mean killing. It can mean not using that dog for that purpose. We cull all the time. Slaying a dog that you decide not to breed, or placing a crap dog in a pet home is culling too.
> *That may be the more modern method, but I doubt ranchers/Shepherd's did much of that years ago!*


----------



## John Wolf (Dec 12, 2009)

I think the issue is with the use of the word force. Yes, my dog is forced to do something he already wants to do, but he is forced to do it my way, not his. You get into trouble when you try to force a dog to do something he doesn't want to do at all. 

As far as doing something physical, whether it was effective or not, the dog learned something. Whether it is what you wanted him to learn is irrelevant. That is just an ineffective correction.

My theory of compulsion is that the dog needs to first understand how to turn off the correction. I use a pinch and ecollar very early with my pups. They learn very early how to turn off the correction. This is layered with a ton of reward and drive so that there is also a positive incentive to doing a command. Below is a link to a little talk from Bart Bellon that I agree with and is close to my philosophy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llxh6X8fi7s&feature=BFa&list=PL548E1ED6B2105624


----------



## julie allen (Dec 24, 2010)

I dont understand why you dont get it. 

I don't have an.issue correcting a dog, but i feel that to have a dog who truly wants to perform the task if all else is equal, will outperform the one who doesn't.
Just like anything else, being forced to do something results in an accomplished task. Wanting to gets above and beyond results. 

You can force a dog to chase and retrieve a ball, but its not the same as that dog with the extreme drive to do so.

As far as more modern ways, yes that's true. Luckily we do a lot of things more modern ways, usually as we learn and see what works best. Not everything is for the better, but many things do improve. Instead of just sticking to "well that's how grandpa did it!", we learn and create better, more successful ways to go about things.


----------



## jim stevens (Jan 30, 2012)

rick smith said:


> re: "my dad would shoot the rabbit, pick it up and whack the dog with it till the rabbit fell apart. You can do this with a hard-headed pointer, a setter required a less firm hand, a lot less firm"
> 
> interesting
> how many times did the dog get a chance to learn that if it chased a rabbit, the dead rabbit would return and beat it, before being shot ?
> ...


I never saw a bird dog shot, a couple of rabbit attacks and they got over rabbit chasing!

Fox/coonhounds were another story. Ones that weren't suitable weren't bred or sold, took to the timber, came back with a collar. I'm not saying those are my view, or that they were the correct/perfect way to train, just things that I have observed in the past. The rabbit attacks did work, the pointers would recall, slide to a stop and turn, plus we could 'wave' them up a draw to hunt it out alone, all the training was done without ecollars originally. When ecollars became available, they were used on virtually all the pointers.


----------



## John Wolf (Dec 12, 2009)

julie allen said:


> I dont understand why you dont get it.
> 
> I don't have an.issue correcting a dog, but i feel that to have a dog who truly wants to perform the task if all else is equal, will outperform the one who doesn't.
> Just like anything else, being forced to do something results in an accomplished task. Wanting to gets above and beyond results.
> ...


My grandpa used to train chesapeake bay retrievers to retrieve geese for hunting. Some of his dogs would maul the birds but they would retrieve something until they fell over exhausted. My grandpa taught a forced hold so they did not maul the birds. The dogs still had the same drive to retrieve but now there are rules that you won't chew up the birds. 

Can the same thing be achieved without corrections or "force"? Maybe but not with the same reliability and precision as if timely, fair corrections are used.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Wasnt marker training invented because you cant force a killer whale to do tricks.


----------



## John Wolf (Dec 12, 2009)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> Wasnt marker training invented because you cant force a killer whale to do tricks.


You are training a killer whale in the sterile environment of a tank.

I teach everything positively, only when they know the behavior is when consequences for not performing it come into effect.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Yes, only when the dog knows the command do I correct for non-compliance.


Related:

I think that _"he KNOWS the command"_ is one of the most frequent incorrect beliefs (and statements) in ob training. 

I'm sure many will agree that proofing (for venue, distraction, distance ... ) is very often short-changed, and that the result is the kind of handler statements that make me crazy: "He KNOWS this; he's just being stubborn" is way up high on that list.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Bob Scott said:


> Correct!
> 
> I'll never convince anyone something works or doesn't if they've never done it to completion themselves. How can anyone say something works OR doesn't work if they've never done it to completion.


What nonsense! So you are telling us that you never say that something is imposable? So if someone told you that they hit their dog three times in the head with a crowbar and without any other training the dog went on to be an IPO world champion, you would either believe it or go hit your dog in the head?

Anyway, when you got frustrated and went after your dog you are technically correct that you did not "correct" the dog. But you did give more weight to your will than you would have had without going after him. 

I do the same thing in my training. If I see my dog being too disobedient on the sport field I try to work with the problem off of the field. So I'll give him a NO command for something at home and go after the dog really hard and stress him a lot. And the next time I train he is much more obedient overall. Can I now claim that I never corrected my dog for disobedience? If I was being honest, I would have to say no.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

julie allen said:


> You can force a dog to chase and retrieve a ball, but its not the same as that dog with the extreme drive to do so.


But what do you get when you use force with a dog with extreme drive?


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> Wasnt marker training invented because you cant force a killer whale to do tricks.


No. It was invented because you can't put a pinch collar on a whale. 


Peter, marking training goes back much further than training whales.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Christopher Smith said:


> No. It was invented because you can't put a pinch collar on a whale.
> QUOTE]
> 
> Dont knock it till you tried it.


----------



## julie allen (Dec 24, 2010)

Christopher Smith said:


> But what do you get when you use force with a dog with extreme drive?


If the dog has the drives, why would you need force? 

What would happen if that force trained dog gets to a problem it can't figure out?
Would he continue to appear to he tracking because he has to? Competitive tracking is one thing. These are simple short tracks. 

Imagine your 6 year old daughter missing. I would not want to have a dog that may mislead the handler because it is avoiding correction. 

How do you use force with scenting? 

I was at a recent training where the handler was completely screwing up the dog. She thought the dog should be indicating at point X. Clearly the scent is not here, even though it was in front of the item. So she would force (just give a sit command), and reward. The dog isn't in odor, not processing the scent, so she just taught the dog to go to any spot and sit. False alert.
When checked with other dogs, you could see exactly where the odor was by reading the dogs. 
I have seen dogs keep on tracking right past the trail. They weren't allowed to figure out the scent, and if they lost it, they had no idea how to find it again.


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

Julie, I didn't see any mention of S&R tracking, it's a completely different field (pun intended).


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> Christopher Smith said:
> 
> 
> > No. It was invented because you can't put a pinch collar on a whale.
> ...


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

julie allen said:


> If the dog has the drives, why would you need force?
> 
> What would happen if that force trained dog gets to a problem it can't figure out?
> Would he continue to appear to he tracking because he has to? Competitive tracking is one thing. These are simple short tracks.
> ...


Julie, why can't you answer the question? *What happens when you use force with a high drive dog?* If you don't know, just say that and we can move on. 


As to your questions. You make the assumption that dogs lie when compulsion is used on the track and the dog will false alert. You are wrong about this. When the compulsion is used correctly, with feel and understanding, the dog will not falsely indicate. The good handler makes pressure for not working he dosen't make pressure for making scenting mistakes. When it's used badly a lot of negative results can manifest, false alerts are just one of many. 



> Competitive tracking is one thing.


And SAR is another. What do you do with a SAR dog that quits when the going gets difficult? 



> What would happen if that force trained dog gets to a problem it can't figure out?


Some may lie. Others are going to do the same thing your dog does when it has a problem.


----------



## julie allen (Dec 24, 2010)

Christopher Smith said:


> Julie, why can't you answer the question? *What happens when you use force with a high drive dog?* If you don't know, just say that and we can move on.
> 
> 
> As to your questions. You make the assumption that dogs lie when compulsion is used on the track and the dog will false alert. You are wrong about this. When the compulsion is used correctly, with feel and understanding, the dog will not falsely indicate. The good handler makes pressure for not working he dosen't make pressure for making scenting mistakes. When it's used badly a lot of negative results can manifest, false alerts are just one of many.
> ...


I have never had to use force in training tracking or trailing. So honestly, no I don't know, which is why I ask the question why would you use force in a dog that willingly wants to work the track? 

A sar dog that quits isn't used. It isn't forced to continue. Not any good ones that I have seen anyway. 

If one of mine lose a track, they circle around and find it. If a dog is corrected for leaving the track, would a compulsion trained dog do the same? 

I haven't stated that its wrong to train with corrections during tracking, only that I have seen better ways to teach a dog to stay with something in training. For the want of it, not the have to. 

Basically I work because I have to pay the mortgage. Force. I do my job, and well. However, I really enjoy my job, and there was a time I did it voluntarily. So I go above and beyond because it is rewarding. Other jobs, not so much. I did them, but sure didn't do the best I could.


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Kadi Thingvall said:


> I've known many herding people who don't use ecollars, but that doesn't mean they don't use compulsion. "hunt 'em down and put your hands on them" has worked for years with dogs. And if it didn't, taking them behind the barn for a bullet, and getting a different dog, one who responded to "hunt 'em down and put your hands on them" usually worked.
> 
> .


Why would you need to use an e collar on a well bred herding dog with the right instincts? Good herding training is all about working with a dog with good instincts, handler has good sheep instincts so knows excactly how to set the dog up to succeed with good body position and the dog has been well trained from a pup.

The more I work dogs on sheep the more I realise how important this combination is and the less I realise how effective this is versus using too many corrections. I dont lay my hands on my high drive BC any more because I realised how much more effective it is to understand why the dog is reacting as it does and it is usually all about fear of losinig control of the sheep if you give shit commands. Then you can work as a trusted team member and the dog becomes to understand this and will comply because it knows you are not setting it up to lose its sheep. A good working bred collie or kelpie with good herding traits in thye hnads of someone who knows what they are doing really should not need e collars and hunt em down and hands on mentality or the like.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

julie allen said:


> I have never had to use force in training tracking or trailing. So honestly, no I don't know, which is why I ask the question why would you use force in a dog that willingly wants to work the track?
> 
> A sar dog that quits isn't used. It isn't forced to continue. Not any good ones that I have seen anyway.
> 
> ...


I would use compulsion on a high drive dog to stop them from quitting the job. I want my dog to feel the same way you do at your job. You like your job and may enjoy doing it every day. But on those days when you really don't feel like going in you have the specter of bad things happening like the repo man calling a visit and that makes you drag your butt out of bed. 



> If one of mine lose a track, they circle around and find it. If a dog is corrected for leaving the track, would a compulsion trained dog do the same?


The good trainers don't correct or make pressure for getting lost. But leaving the track is a different thing. If the dog leaves the track he's not working and might be corrected for it.

Pressure or corrections can bring out the best in some (most?) dogs. But used poorly it can screw a dog up. *The biggest thing going against compulsion is that, when it is used well it's invisible.* But when it's not used well it stands out like a super nova. It's also draws a lot of attention and makes a permanent impression on people when they see bad compulsion and the dog is screaming and pissing itself. But few notice the person turning their dog into a weak neurotic mess with a clicker.


----------



## julie allen (Dec 24, 2010)

Thank you for explaining the way you did. I believe the only force I have seen has probably not been properly used. 

So if one of my young dogs stop to smell an odor on a track, I tell them to get to work, if they ignore me I pull them off. This is a correction, and I wasn't looking at it, but it is forced tracking.


----------



## Britney Pelletier (Mar 5, 2009)

Christopher Smith said:


> Pressure or corrections can bring out the best in some (most?) dogs. But used poorly it can screw a dog up. *The biggest thing going against compulsion is that, when it is used well it's invisible.* But when it's not used well it stands out like a super nova. It's also draws a lot of attention and makes a permanent impression on people when they see bad compulsion and the dog is screaming and pissing itself. But few notice the person turning their dog into a weak neurotic mess with a clicker.


\\/ Rock on.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Invisible compulsion...........that i would like to see more of.

So anyways on the one hand force wont make a low drive dog work and a high drive dog by definition dont need it but christopher says these are the best candidates for it? 

Ok i'm confused.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I'd much rather work a high drive dog and I'll agree that they are the easiest to train. 
Are these high drive dogs to stupid to realize they can get the bite or whatever it is with compliance? Doubtful! Mark and reward the behavior you want. Consistency is the key to any training method. Use both if you wish but, as I said before, don't discredit something that you yourself haven't take to a high level. If it still doesn't work then suspect the user of the method. That can be reward based, compulsion based or a combination.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

julie allen said:


> So if one of my young dogs stop to smell an odor on a track, I tell them to get to work, if they ignore me I pull them off. This is a correction, and I wasn't looking at it, but it is forced tracking.


Sure. You can call it what ever you want. :-D


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Christopher Smith said:


> I would use compulsion on a high drive dog to stop them from quitting the job. I want my dog to feel the same way you do at your job. You like your job and may enjoy doing it every day. But on those days when you really don't feel like going in you have the specter of bad things happening like the repo man calling a visit and that makes you drag your butt out of bed.
> 
> .


I tend to do the opposite. I know my high drive dogs love to work and they will work till they drop. Usually if they are not performing there a darn good reason and I will take it as sign not to be ignored. I dont want shabby work so I go for a walk with them and watch how it pans out. It is a rare occurrence and they are usually fired up the next time unless they are really ill or there is a physical problem developing. 

If they were not enjoying work for a non physical reason I would take another approach to figure it out and compulsion wouldnt be on my list. As Bob has found, I find that dogs often find marker training highly rewarding and it doesnt have to involve a clicker, although I did once have have a looney, way over the top cattle dog that responded so well to the use of the clicker that I used it on her with huge success.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

Sara Waters said:


> Why would you need to use an e collar on a well bred herding dog with the right instincts?


I would think the answer would be obvious, so on the occasion that you need to correct the dog, regardless of how rare or common that occasion is, you can. Are there other methods/ways the dog could be corrected? Sure. But this is one way.

I believe you were the one who mentioned in another thread that with your dogs they are sensitive/compliant enough that a strong NO is almost all you ever need, and even things like trash breaking them from chasing roos can be done with a "NO" or at most a light smack up side the head. I can see with that type of dog why you wouldn't necessarily want or need the ability to "reach out and touch someone", not when a strong verbal correction is all they need, but not everyone has dogs like that. 

Hunting dogs are another venue where much of the work is based on natural instincts, and is another venue where e-collar use is very wise spread, actually a lot of the e-collar use in dog training started with the hunters. 

Personally if I'm going to correct my herding dog I'd rather use the e-collar then the "hunt 'em down" method, quick nick and it's over and done with and we can move on. I have to "hunt 'er down" and now I get squirrely behavior because she is sensitive to me, the collar is less personal to her.


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Kadi Thingvall said:


> Personally if I'm going to correct my herding dog I'd rather use the e-collar then the "hunt 'em down" method, quick nick and it's over and done with and we can move on. I have to "hunt 'er down" and now I get squirrely behavior because she is sensitive to me, the collar is less personal to her.


 
The answer to me is not obvious, not for collies or kelpies at least and my BC is about as high drive and strong as they come and was not born with an inherited natural stop.

I guess I have never experienced anyone using an e collar while teaching a dog to herd (collies or kelpies )and we have some excellent dogs and stockman, some of the best. The training that I have learnt is rooted in the deep understanding of the interaction between livestock, handler and dog. The more I learn how to read stock and how a dogs instinct will cause it to react the less I have found the need for correction. I find this with my own 2 working dogs. The more I understand what traits they have inherited and how this will cause them to react and how my body placement and understanding of what the stock are going to do next will influence this the less time I spend correcting them for stuff that is probably due to my lack of shepherding experience.

My boy is a handful for a reletive novice such as myself but the more I have learnt the more I begin to understand how much is possible without e collars and hunting down. I cant speak for other breeds only working bred collies and kelpies.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

Different strokes for different folks, if you don't understand how/why it might be useful, I don't think I'm going to be able explain it to you. You have admitted yourself in multiple posts that you do on occasion have to correct your dogs. The e-collar is simply the tool that some people choose to use to administer that correction. 

I don't herd with BC's or Kelpies, but I know many people who do, mainly BCs. Some use them as working dogs on their ranches, some use them as trial dogs, and some use them as both. Everyone I can think of off hand that I personally know at some point has used, or uses, a e-collar. Not necessarily all the time, although some dogs do wear the collar all the time, but they do use it. It's not just a non-BC/Kelpie thing.


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Kadi Thingvall said:


> Different strokes for different folks, if you don't understand how/why it might be useful, I don't think I'm going to be able explain it to you. You have admitted yourself in multiple posts that you do on occasion have to correct your dogs. The e-collar is simply the tool that some people choose to use to administer that correction.
> 
> I don't herd with BC's or Kelpies, but I know many people who do, mainly BCs. Some use them as working dogs on their ranches, some use them as trial dogs, and some use them as both. Everyone I can think of off hand that I personally know at some point has used, or uses, a e-collar. Not necessarily all the time, although some dogs do wear the collar all the time, but they do use it. It's not just a non-BC/Kelpie thing.


Yes I am not opposed to correction, my corrections have mainly been used to stop my cattle dog from chasing things likely to get her killed and only on a few occassions which I dont regret. And very occassionally I would say out of frustration, which I do regret and these days avoid those situations.

I guess what I am trying to say that as I have worked more with my sheepdogs who are my farm dogs, and the more I learn from some very experienced sheepdog people who mainly have farm dogs they trial, the more I see how you can teach a dog by understanding instinct, sheep behaviour and body placement and the less I have need to correct the dog. It takes time to develop this skill and it is a skill I am prepared to take the time to learn.

I like to learn and understand this and some of the people I have been able to learn from have the most amazing dogs and no one I know uses e collars to achieve this where I live, it is just not a part of their training culture. and neither I might add is the hunt em down mentality.

I actually can understand how you might use an e-collar, personally if you have a good dog and good knowledge of stock and herding traits I just dont see the need. That is my opinion from what I have observed from some of the best stockmen that Australia has to offer.

I dont have anything against the ecollar in the right hands, it is just not something I ever see and we have some fab dogs and that is how I want to learn. It too is hard for me to explain, but I live sheep everyday and that skill is slowly emerging and I see the change it makes in my dogs when I train them.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Sara Waters said:


> I actually can understand how you might use an e-collar, personally if you have a good dog and good knowledge of stock and herding traits I just dont see the need. That is my opinion from what I have observed from some of the best stockmen that Australia has to offer.


Wow this sounds just like many people training protection here in the US back in the mid 80's . They had the same, "I don't see the need" argument, when they saw hunting dogs with ecollars. Interesting. 

Maybe some brave soul will break from the crowd.


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Christopher Smith said:


> Wow this sounds just like many people training protection here in the US back in the mid 80's . They had the same, "I don't see the need" argument, when they saw hunting dogs with ecollars. Interesting.
> 
> Maybe some brave soul will break from the crowd.


Some of the very best dogs and stockmen came from a bygone era.

Here is an example of how I think. 

My dog and I are out working sheep and he does something I dont want him to do. I then ask myself the question - why did he do that. Usually the answer is in the signals I gave with my body language, what the sheep were about to do which he picked up before me and what traits he was born with.

So I could zap him with an ecollar or I could work out why he just did what he did. He is a dog that likes to control his sheep and not allow them to get away. I have learnt that by working out what just happened that it is not him being disobedient, it was him responding to a set of circumstances that I was not experienced enough to pick up on.

I have had an experienced stockman take him out on sheep and he showed me excactly what was going wrong and he worked my dog beautifully because he understood the sheep, my dog and how it all worked and my dog responded.

If you want an ecollar to take the place of that knowledge and skill go for it, but I want to learn another way.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Ecollar vs good stockman and good dog ... interesting comparisons

in one way, what i read is whether you want to do the teaching or let the dog do it and you learn from the dog

especially if you use an example of the dog doing well with the "experienced" stockman but not as well when it works with an inexperienced stockman
- whereas effective Ecollar usage assumes the handler knows best

which than goes back to "genetics" and bred abilities, etc 

don't know first hand of the development of Ecollars w/ american hunters, but seems like it was first used as a tool to "remotely" break dogs who chased the wrong game and be able to apply the correction at precisely the correct time it happened rather than just use voice or catch up and correct em when it was often too late to get the point across

probably not a good comparison, but w/ marine mammals i have seen where the animal blows you off when you try to train a behavior "your" way, and then does what you want in a much more efficient manner than what you had envisioned when you planned it out, and the human feels like the dummie 
...more grey matter than a dog, but maybe the same might apply sometimes when a dog is doing something that comes instinctually for them

still think you have to try to use all the tools available and not get tunnel vision that one method (or trainer) is better than another
- but with that said, motivation trumps compulsion in every situation in my book, and dog people still use too much compulsion all too often ... i see it as being impatient and ego driven more than for any other reasons ... and definitely not because they are better more "experienced" trainers 
- get em to do what you want and make em think that's what they want, not just do it because "it's MY way or the highway"


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

Sara Waters said:


> If you want an ecollar to take the place of that knowledge and skill go for it, but I want to learn another way.


It's assumptions like this that make the conversation about how/why they are used not worth having.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Kadi Thingvall said:


> It's assumptions like this that make the conversation about how/why they are used not worth having.


Agreed.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Well in all fairness you seemed to indicate it was either e collar or hunt em down. I was just trying to explain that there was another way. Then Christopher indicated that way was probably outdated. Chris have you ever worked sheep? or trained a sheepdog?

Rick was pretty insightful there and the whale example was not far from the truth with sheepdogs at times.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

I put a HIC on a Rott. I have also played around with herding with a few Malinois. 

So?

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I have absolutely no problem with a trainer of any dog sport that can CORRECTLY use the e-collar but I see less of that then using it incorrectly. I suppose that can go for most any method though.


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Christopher Smith said:


> I put a HIC on a Rott. I have also played around with herding with a few Malinois.
> 
> So?
> 
> Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk


If you have to ask so? then you have answered my question for me.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Sara Waters said:


> If you have to ask so? then you have answered my question for me.


 Awwwww, looks like my answer mucked you up a bit. :mrgreen:

Have you ever trained a dog for protection? Tracking? Obedience? Truffle finding? Unicorn bloodsport?


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Not really it gave me the information I needed along with what I had gathered from some of your rather unproductive answers regarding herding. 

As to the above, only low level obedience (CD, CDX) and to masters agility. What is the thing with unicorn milk and blood?


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

I have just used it pretty much only for the stop and the get out. Nothing else, really. Way easier than a long line. And there is no way I am going to be able to chase down and correct a Malinois running 30+ mph towards dinner. =P~ Not going to happen. Trust me. Maybe some day after he's finished in protection sport, we'll go back to sheep or cattle. Until then, it'll be ducks where we don't have to use the e-collar cause the stimulation for ducks is lower than fleeing sheep. And thus the drive is lower and need for correction is lower.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Sara Waters said:


> Not really it gave me the information I needed along with what I had gathered from some of your rather unproductive answers regarding herding.





> What is the thing with unicorn milk and blood?


I said bloodsport not blood. Unicorns are magic and they mean different things to different people. For you it means....Herding has as much relevance and influence to what is going on today in dogdom as truffle hunting and Unicorn Bloodsport. :lol:

BTW, above you said that I indicated that a style of training is outdated. You are wrong. You need to stop making shit up in your own head. I don't think that any style of training that gets results is outdated. I was simply making a comparison of ways of thought and how they tend to repeat themselves in different sports. For instance, from looking at past trends, I'm predicting that in a few more years compulsion will be rediscovered. They will then give it a new name or call it so-and -so's method. You are going to have people that have come into the sport in the last few years, that have never seen compulsion used well, all of a sudden see some well used compulsion and claim that this is some all new stuff.


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Christopher you can have the last word on this one. I am over it.


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> I And there is no way I am going to be able to chase down and correct a Malinois running 30+ mph towards dinner. =P~ Not going to happen. Trust me. .


Thats the thing, my BC doesnt view sheep as dinner, he is more focused on bring them to me than chasing them. His over riding instinct is to gather and work them to me. Balancing them to me unless I indicate to him to do otherwise and I want him to work off balance.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Oh, he definitely has that OCD-like desire to control them too...same thing with ducks or chickens. The first time he did ducks, there was one instance where he circled and circled and circled them really tightly without taking a bite to get them to stay put in the center (since he doesn't yet have the tools not to only move in a circle, typical Malinois!). I could tell he was trying to control and not harm them. But it conflicts with his large amount of prey drive when sheep start running and he can't help but want to take a bite. Not a nip like the softer collies would do, but a "oh, ouch, nice full mouth grip there, Fawkes..." sort of thing. So...no sheep for a long time til he gets the tools to deal mentally with the ducks. The unfortunate thing is my herding instructor's ducks all got killed recently and I am not really allowed to have them in the backyard, so not sure when we're going to be able to do them again. :-(


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Sara Waters said:


> Thats the thing, my BC doesnt view sheep as dinner, he is more focused on bring them to me than chasing them. His over riding instinct is to gather and work them to me. Balancing them to me unless I indicate to him to do otherwise and I want him to work off balance.


I think this is ultimately what it comes down to--intent. When you look at different species of animals, the dog may see one as prey/dinner and not see the others in the same light. You also have to look at whether he truly thingks his little life is at stake and what his confidence level is. Grip and frenzied behavior can be as much about confidence as drive triggers. For instance, as a young dog Khira saw anything with wings as dinner. One of the reasons I decided to do all of her trial training on ducks first was because if I could get control where her kill wasn't truncated then perhaps that would transfer to sheep and cattle. To the contrary, she did not see sheep and cattle as prey/dinner. For sure her prey drive was triggered on runaway panic sheep but she is not going to go in for a grip. She wants to stop the escape and bring them to me. On cattle, she only grips with a challenge/fight. As long as sheep and cattle give to her control, its a Sunday stroll in the park. For Khira, maturity has been a huge factor. It really started at age 5 and has gelled at age 8. The prey trigger has calmed. But she also isn't the most biddable creature in the world. At this point, that's probably more the issue than her reactivity. These days, I set up escapes to send Khira on what I call a calmer cover of the stock---emphasizing her going wide and deep so that she gets to where they want to go before they do to stop them and turn them. We are doing this out in a open pasture. Arenas ruin dogs because the dog doesn't have the room to truly go out and around to cover so they go straight in trying to catch the stock on a fast run. A beginner dog should never be in a area where he can go on a 30 m chase. That's what I mean by having the right set up so as not to create a problem. Just like with the KNPV box, if you don't create the problem, then you don't have to fix it. The problem with weekend herding is not being able to select the stock and area for the dog. When you have your own, you don't have this issue. 

T


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Yes my kelpie sees anything with wings as dinner too and will dispatch even the most aggressive parrot if she gets the chance, but this doesnt transfer to sheep. She does sometimes grip runnaway sheep but this due mainly to lack of confidence. The more her confidence has increased the less innapropriately grippy she has become and the less likely she is to have a runnaway sheep.


----------

