# In-board vs. Lessons



## Dave Colborn

*Resolved: A great majority of pet dogs are better trained for the owner from training with a professional trainer for a 2-5 week in board course vs. basic lessons with a trainer with the owner.*

If anyone can make that more clear, please let me know. 

Anyone want to be an unbiased judge and make a decision who makes a better argument after 4-5 days of posting?

Please post clearly taking either the affirmative or the negative. Although I believe that lessons serve a purpose for some clients and dogs, I don't agree that in most cases they work nearly as well, initially training the dog.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Dave Colborn said:


> *Resolved: A great majority of pet dogs are better trained for the owner from training with a professional trainer for a 2-5 week in board course vs. basic lessons with a trainer with the owner.*
> 
> If anyone can make that more clear, please let me know.
> 
> Anyone want to be an unbiased judge and make a decision who makes a better argument after 4-5 days of posting?
> 
> Please post clearly taking either the affirmative or the negative. Although I believe that lessons serve a purpose for some clients and dogs, I don't agree that in most cases they work nearly as well, initially training the dog.


Why is this restricted to pet dogs?


----------



## Catherine Gervin

my lone experience with sending-away-a-dog-to-be-trained is with my shrink's GIGANTIC Rhodesian Ridgeback, who was a very sweet girl, and freakishly large but unaware of how to interact with the world around her...she was Great Dane-sized. anyhow, my therapist got this puppy two weeks after her wonderful Rottweiler died. she said she didn't have time to raise a puppy but she got one anyways and when doing nothing didn't work she sent the dog away to learn some manners. it had an enormous house to patrol and a decent fenced in yard and the dog walking service came everyday and took her out to play with other dogs in a rural setting they drove to in a van and that was just how this lady dealt with maintaining a dog. 
when the dog returned from "camp", a 6 week obedience course, there were probably a lot of things the owner was supposed to do to maintain the progress/education but she just expected the dog to behave itself and listen to her, like a clockwork dog, "because it was trained now". the dog kindof mostly didn't. then she got an ecollar.


----------



## Dave Colborn

That is what the poster was talking about, his pet dog, going to training. You stated that it was a bad idea. 



Gillian Schuler said:


> Why is this restricted to pet dogs?


----------



## Peta Het

His pet dog that he wants to do PSA with.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Gillian Schuler said:


> Why is this restricted to pet dogs?


 If you can re-word it to better suit what we are talking about, please do. I am leaning towards pet dogs, from the comments on the other thread.


----------



## Rob Maltese

Peta Het said:


> His pet dog that he wants to do PSA with.


Petra, just to clarify if I didn't do it clearly enough on my introduction - I am interested in PSA, might go through with the training, and might not. Although I am interested...


----------



## patricia powers

so many horror stories about dogs being sent away to a trainers. i doubt very much that i would ever consider it. pjp


----------



## Meg O'Donovan

It depends on the quality of the trainer and the commitment of follow-up learning and practice by owner.

Leaving the dog in an environment where it can have multiple lessons/practices each day with a trainer (who has respected experience) setting the dog's foundation would be less confusing and more efficient for the dog than having dog and novice owner learning at the same time less often. The dog will have a better understanding of expectations by the time the owner takes up the leash, as long as the communication between trainer and new handler is very clear and not just a one-time deal. 

Maybe new handlers could pay a "subscription" fee for follow-up advising... you pay for the inhouse training and then for x hours/month (for six months or a year) for follow up advising/supervised training (whether by phone, video or in person w/ dog). This would be part of the initial payment; since it is already paid for, the dog owner would be more inclined to make use of it, and the dog&owner would also be better representatives of the trainer's program when they go out in public. It would sort the wheat from the chaff as far as motivation of dog owner/learners go. Maybe they could even take that paid-for-up-front investment and use it as credit for supervised training in other disciplines, e.g. dog sports, competition OB, etc. if they are quick/solid learners and don't need to use up all their already-paid hours just maintaining the foundation work.

It also depends on people's schedules and what works in their lives. I would rather learn with my dog than send my dog out, because I want to know what that trainer is doing, and I want feedback when I am implementing that same training (quality control of my training efforts). But if it works for someone else to get their dog started with a reputable trainer, and they have the money to invest in that, I think it is great. The trick is for people to find trainers whose methods they understand and accept. Sometimes it is hard for a novice to sort through the advertising and sales talk to understand how the trainers and their programs differ.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Interesting question and very relevant to my life right now. I think the answer is--it depends. Ever work a dog and he works perfectly and then hand him back to his owner and it falls apart? There are some basics that are just commands and are quite general--sit, down. Then there are things that are contextual. A LOT of the training is based on what the dog reads in the individual--some external, some internal. In a nutshell--you can't duplicate that in another person. I am personally experimenting with this. I am training a dog for someone else and she will spend some time with me when she picks him up learning what I've taught him. How effective this will be for his future performance, I don't know. 

T


----------



## Bob Scott

I would answer the same as T. IF I trained a dog for someone else I would definitely require the owner to go through some sort of training or up keep to see they understood the process. Even with that, some will never get it.
If it's a choice of one or the other it's no contest. I want the owner to handle the dog under close supervision/training of both. If not, how can you know if the owner is capable? 
SIIIGH! Some will still never get it.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Bob/T,

Let's simplify this with some yes,/no answers first that you should be able to answer yes to before training a dog for someone else in-board (or lessons). We'll use "down" to keep it simple, but you should be able to answer yes to anything you choose to train. My answers are behind my questions. 

Can you train a dog to "down" on a verbal command? Yes.

Can you train it to "down" better than most pet owners who would seek your help? Yes.

In your living room? Yes.

Your yard? Yes.

Pet Smart? Yes.

A warehouse? Yes.

Around distractions like dogs, cats, rabbits, running engines, gunfire, traffic?? Yes.

Can you teach the owner to say "down" when he needs the dog to down, and at no other time? Yes.

Can you teach an owner a strategy if the dog doesn't down? Yes.

Can you answer a phone when they encounter something odd with their dog and need to call you? Yes.

Can you treat the owner with dignity and respect so they want to call when they forget something? Yes.

In board training works better more often than lessons for initial training, because the dog is left with someone that is committed to teaching them. The owner is committed to the process as well by finding you, researching you, driving to you, dropping the dog off with required shots, food, and last and not least, by paying you. An owner has a lot more invested when they leave their dog with you than when they commit to an hour of their time for a group lesson.

You can apply the myriad reasons people have for not training a dog (I Can't,I won't, It doesn't, No way, No time, stupid dog, etc) and in-board training trumps them all. The owner gets instant gratification when they pick their dog up and see a demo. "Is that fluffy"??? "Oh my stars, she pulled my pants down to my knees with her jumping up with knocking at the door, this can't be her!!!!" "Where is my dog?!!!!" Now that they know you taught the dog what it needs to know, they realize what they always new to be true at least in their subconscious. They were holding the dog back from learning. Some people know they are the problem, and are comfortable with you doing the work. They are paying for a service, why shouldn't it be that way? 

I have a car and tools, I can fix anything that goes wrong. I have a kitchen, I am a chef! I have a body, I can perform surgery! I can talk I am a defense attorney! I have a gun I am a cop! I have a hammer, I can frame a wall!! I have a dog I can train it.


One general misconception about in-board training is that there are no lessons or training of the owner in handling. In good programs, there is a drop off interview to set standards and goals, and a go-home about what to do and what not to do once the dog is trained. Explanation/demonstration of how to get the behaviors and a strategy to address the dog if they don't perform. Strategy for follow up lessons if needed.

Dogs, as T pointed out, learn in context. When you train in-board, it is of utmost importance to make context that is important to the dog are the cues. Down. Don't look at it backwards saying that a dog should obey in every context, keep the context of "down" meaning down, no matter the distraction. Expect a learning curve, but as Fred Hassen says, "Sit means Sit".

Sure, there is a learning curve for an owner. But you are bringing the owner in on a dog that is in his final phase of learning vs. taking them through all three phases, acquisition, fluency, and generalization. Much easier to train one than all three.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Interesting question and very relevant to my life right now. I think the answer is--it depends.


 You say it depends. On what? Your text supports no opinion, not speaking for or against anything. Will you have an opinion after you "experiment"?



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Ever work a dog and he works perfectly and then hand him back to his owner and it falls apart?


 No. Can you describe when you did, and maybe you can get some help here? I have however had dogs that had to generalize what I had taught and people that needed to use cues I taught vs. what they had repeatedly desensitized the dog to. Not what I'd call falling apart, just a performance drop that went away with practice.



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> There are some basics that are just commands and are quite general--sit, down. Then there are things that are contextual.


 What things are contextual? Like the dog seeing legs and a person and not jumping up? No command is given but it is expected of the dog to perform? The cue is the human just like sit means sit. The dog isn't allowed to jump up when he sees a person. Either he is rewarded for all four feet on the ground, or he is corrected for jumping. Still just a cue that consistently enforced will become a habit.



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> A LOT of the training is based on what the dog reads in the individual--some external, some internal. In a nutshell--you can't duplicate that in another person.


 This is a cue, what the dog reads. The context is the human presenting cues. what internal cues do you give a dog? How does the dog receive your physiological cues from inside? IE you fear something and your dog acts different? what signals did you display that he could pick up with his senses?

People bring a dog to where I have worked. Generally if the dog has lived in the house, I can get them to sit, with my hand balled up pretending I have food in it or some rendition of that. This is because I CAN duplicate their cues, because I know what they do. I take that and build on it with some dogs. With some, it is easier to retrain behaviors. I think if you speak to most in-board trainers, this behavior is the easiest to get, because everyone does something very similar to get a sit at home, plus the sit command is one people more readily try, because they can do it from a standing or sitting position, and they have seen more people do it, than say a down or a come. 

Put this in terms that work for your program. You have to make the "Sit" a command the dog understands from you, proofed/generalized, not "sit in your training room with food in your hand." Otherwise, you are on one hand saying a dog isn't trained when you have to raise food in your hand to get him to sit, like the owner at home. On the other hand you are saying that they have to come to your training room to get the dog to sit, like you do it, and they are blaming you from the same perspective that you see their dog untrained in the first place. The problem in both cases is that the dog doesn't know what sit is, by that cue itself.



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I am personally experimenting with this. I am training a dog for someone else and she will spend some time with me when she picks him up learning what I've taught him.


Glad you are trying it. Do a video of the commands with you and the dog with no one else around once it is trained. Show the owner the video with just the two of you present, no dog yet. If you are shooting video of yourself, you can review it and see if there are areas you need to clean up within the dogs training. You can explain all commands taught, strategy for dealing with non-compliance, and you have just put out a marketing tool if they show their friends how their dog works vs. how it looked before. Also, you have proof the dog is trainable and trained by you. 



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> How effective this will be for his future performance, I don't know.


 Good luck. I think you will find that "it doesn't depend". Dogs trained in-board by competent committed trainers, turn out better than most dogs trained with lessons.


----------



## Dave Colborn

I can teach anyone to some level better than they are initially. The problem is communication with ones that "don't get it". People are talking or formulating a response instead of listening. Teachers are judged on how well they teach the "some" as well as the ones that get it. If "some" don't get it, I need to take pride in teaching and find out how to address as many of the "some" as possible to make sure my teaching is effective.

Student: "my dog won't listen to me. I can't get him to sit!!" Instructor, "do x,y,z."

Instructor: "My student won't listen to me, I can't get him to get his dog to sit." You have to look outside of you, if you make this statement. Find resources that help make you be a better teacher for the sake of dogs.

The P90X guy says something I like. "Think of things you presently struggle with, vs. I can't." 

How many people would stop posting here if a little part of them didn't believe people who don't get what they are saying, someday will?....




Bob Scott said:


> I would answer the same as T. IF I trained a dog for someone else I would definitely require the owner to go through some sort of training or up keep to see they understood the process. Even with that, some will never get it.
> If it's a choice of one or the other it's no contest. I want the owner to handle the dog under close supervision/training of both. If not, how can you know if the owner is capable?
> SIIIGH! Some will still never get it.


----------



## Joby Becker

Dave Colborn said:


> In board training works better more often than lessons for initial training, because the dog is left with someone that is committed to teaching them. The owner is committed to the process as well by finding you, researching you, driving to you, dropping the dog off with required shots, food, and last and not least, by paying you. An owner has a lot more invested when they leave their dog with you than when they commit to an hour of their time for a group lesson.
> 
> You can apply the myriad reasons people have for not training a dog (I Can't,I won't, It doesn't, No way, No time, stupid dog, etc) and in-board training trumps them all. The owner gets instant gratification when they pick their dog up and see a demo. "Is that fluffy"??? "Oh my stars, she pulled my pants down to my knees with her jumping up with knocking at the door, this can't be her!!!!" "Where is my dog?!!!!" Now that they know you taught the dog what it needs to know, they realize what they always new to be true at least in their subconscious. They were holding the dog back from learning. Some people know they are the problem, and are comfortable with you doing the work. They are paying for a service, why shouldn't it be that way?
> 
> I have a car and tools, I can fix anything that goes wrong. I have a kitchen, I am a chef! I have a body, I can perform surgery! I can talk I am a defense attorney! I have a gun I am a cop! I have a hammer, I can frame a wall!! I have a dog I can train it.
> 
> 
> One general misconception about in-board training is that there are no lessons or training of the owner in handling. In good programs, there is a drop off interview to set standards and goals, and a go-home about what to do and what not to do once the dog is trained. Explanation/demonstration of how to get the behaviors and a strategy to address the dog if they don't perform. Strategy for follow up lessons if needed.
> 
> Dogs, as T pointed out, learn in context. When you train in-board, it is of utmost importance to make context that is important to the dog are the cues. Down. Don't look at it backwards saying that a dog should obey in every context, keep the context of "down" meaning down, no matter the distraction. Expect a learning curve, but as Fred Hassen says, "Sit means Sit".
> 
> Sure, there is a learning curve for an owner. But you are bringing the owner in on a dog that is in his final phase of learning vs. taking them through all three phases, acquisition, fluency, and generalization. Much easier to train one than all three.


I agree with this.

also I think that anyone taking a dog in for in-kennel training should be sure to discuss any future plans/activites that they may have for the dog, especially in regards to work, or sports. Some methods used by some trainers for board and train dogs may not be ideal for some dogs, that may also be expected to participate in certain activities later in life.


----------



## Meg O'Donovan

Dave, the send-home video idea is excellent. Often people need multiple exposures to "get it". If the trainer watches it with the owner, s/he can point out human or dog body language that is important which the owner might not see/know. The video also shows the dog at its best, so the dog can't be blamed for a downward slide after going home. It puts accountability back on the owners.


----------



## Stefan Schaub

For me it is the same if i do it for pet or sport people.i teach them a strong foundation,repeat again and again and again.the dog learns the comments and i make sure that he really understand them.when the owner picks the dog up we make a few lessons together, that the handler and the dog understand what is going on.if problems come up, i go there or they come back with the dog and we go over it again.

the only important thing on all that is ,that my foundation work must be strong enough to fix upcoming problems fast!!!and most time there are some smaller problems coming up.


----------



## Stefan Schaub

Meg O'Donovan said:


> Dave, the send-home video idea is excellent. Often people need multiple exposures to "get it". If the trainer watches it with the owner, s/he can point out human or dog body language that is important which the owner might not see/know. The video also shows the dog at its best, so the dog can't be blamed for a downward slide after going home. It puts accountability back on the owners.


the send home video on youtube is your insurance for the success of your training.
if you put a video online up where the dog is doing all what is ask for the most owners try to make it right with out that you get for sure in some arguments.many people in sport and pet forget to fast how the dog have work before.


----------



## Sarah Platts

Some things are only able to be done well in an in-board situation. I know there's a guy the sar folks send their dogs to get them broke from deer chasing. Guy's got a herd of deer that he keeps fenced around his house so it's something he can work on 24/7. Can't get that kind of exposure at home. Some people know what they want but lack the time to do it themselves (bird hunting). They know how to train a bird dog but don't want to wait the year or more so they buy a dog and send it out for training. 

If I look at it from a pet dog standpoint, the problem in this particular instance is three-fold, a dog that is untrained, an owner that isn't dog savvy enough to train it, or a owner that is his own worst enemy and causes all his own problems. 
In sar work, the owner takes the longest to train. If I put them with a dog that already knows his job, he helps to train the handler along with the trainer. Things just move faster. Put two clue-less things together (dog and handler) and you have to fix two things at once. Sometimes it just works out better if you only have to work on one-half or the other. 

Is this right for all situations, not really. Most of the trainers have a boarding kennel situation. Stick a dog there that is unuse to that and you could end up with more problems since not all dogs adjust well. I think you have to guage your dog and the trainer's set-up to see if it's a good fit. Also, the trainer shouldn't just hand you back your dog without putting you through some kind of training course so make sure you know what was done and make sure you can replicate. If the owner can't or won't change then it was just a waste of money.

The trainer should also be willing to let you watch him train your dog. You may not be able to interact with it but you should be able to watch and learn as he goes along.


----------



## Larry Krohn

I do both. When I do a board and train I only take one dog at a time and it stays at my home, not in a facility with other dogs being boarded. Only my personal dogs. My private lessons are done at the clients home and with both packages I spend a lot of time training the owner. I believe the client learns more in the privates because I put a lot of the responsibility on them. The dog is slower to learn but in the end both programs workout about the same. Even though I spend plenty of time with the owner after a board and train, they are not going to learn as much or put in the same effort. Both ways are beneficial for the dog


----------



## Dave Colborn

lots of good points. I especially like the dog helping train the handler. 



Sarah Platts said:


> Some things are only able to be done well in an in-board situation. I know there's a guy the sar folks send their dogs to get them broke from deer chasing. Guy's got a herd of deer that he keeps fenced around his house so it's something he can work on 24/7. Can't get that kind of exposure at home. Some people know what they want but lack the time to do it themselves (bird hunting). They know how to train a bird dog but don't want to wait the year or more so they buy a dog and send it out for training.
> 
> If I look at it from a pet dog standpoint, the problem in this particular instance is three-fold, a dog that is untrained, an owner that isn't dog savvy enough to train it, or a owner that is his own worst enemy and causes all his own problems.
> In sar work, the owner takes the longest to train. *If I put them with a dog that already knows his job, he helps to train the handler along with the trainer.* Things just move faster. Put two clue-less things together (dog and handler) and you have to fix two things at once. Sometimes it just works out better if you only have to work on one-half or the other.
> 
> Is this right for all situations, not really. Most of the trainers have a boarding kennel situation. Stick a dog there that is unuse to that and you could end up with more problems since not all dogs adjust well. I think you have to guage your dog and the trainer's set-up to see if it's a good fit. Also, the trainer shouldn't just hand you back your dog without putting you through some kind of training course so make sure you know what was done and make sure you can replicate. If the owner can't or won't change then it was just a waste of money.
> 
> The trainer should also be willing to let you watch him train your dog. You may not be able to interact with it but you should be able to watch and learn as he goes along.


----------



## Rob Maltese

As someone who will be sending my dog to in-board training I see it as extremely beneficial. To send your dog to a known professional, someone who has been training dogs for years to lay the foundation work for you to only continue that education is great. 

Look at it this way, you send your children to school for training...the same training you can teach them. Yet you allow an professional to do it for you... I think if the client does the research on the trainer, knows what to realistically expect, and continues to properly educate and train with the dog then it will work well. The key is what happens when the dog leaves the training facility, if the client fails to keep up with the training and fails to do the follow up training then it is no fault of the trainer. 

My plan is to continue the follow up training, then continue working with the dog everyday no matter what. If needed, my plan is to contact the trainer, explain what's going on - see what his course of action is and go from there.


----------



## Bob Scott

Dave, good points you brought up. I guess it boils down to the trainer believing they will follow through with either way. 
I understand the ""not get it" can fall into play with either one.It would be hard for me to spend the time in training and then realize this owner either wont follow through or will never understand the why or how of what the trainer has done. 
On the other side of the coin that can happen in either way of doing the training.

When I taught pet obedience at a local civic center the rate of graduating students was maybe 8-10 out of a class of 25. There were many times I would look at a dog and wish I had it for a month or so. 
I've done a bit of one on one and the success rates jump way up. 
I've started a number of pups (mostly family members) but I knew they would be in great hands after they left me cause were all pretty doggy. 

Yo do get people thinking! :grin: :wink:


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Dave Colborn said:


> You say it depends. On what? Your text supports no opinion, not speaking for or against anything. Will you have an opinion after you "experiment"?
> 
> 
> 
> No. Can you describe when you did, and maybe you can get some help here? I have however had dogs that had to generalize what I had taught and people that needed to use cues I taught vs. what they had repeatedly desensitized the dog to. Not what I'd call falling apart, just a performance drop that went away with practice.
> 
> 
> 
> What things are contextual? Like the dog seeing legs and a person and not jumping up? No command is given but it is expected of the dog to perform? The cue is the human just like sit means sit. The dog isn't allowed to jump up when he sees a person. Either he is rewarded for all four feet on the ground, or he is corrected for jumping. Still just a cue that consistently enforced will become a habit.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a cue, what the dog reads. The context is the human presenting cues. what internal cues do you give a dog? How does the dog receive your physiological cues from inside? IE you fear something and your dog acts different? what signals did you display that he could pick up with his senses?
> 
> People bring a dog to where I have worked. Generally if the dog has lived in the house, I can get them to sit, with my hand balled up pretending I have food in it or some rendition of that. This is because I CAN duplicate their cues, because I know what they do. I take that and build on it with some dogs. With some, it is easier to retrain behaviors. I think if you speak to most in-board trainers, this behavior is the easiest to get, because everyone does something very similar to get a sit at home, plus the sit command is one people more readily try, because they can do it from a standing or sitting position, and they have seen more people do it, than say a down or a come.
> 
> Put this in terms that work for your program. You have to make the "Sit" a command the dog understands from you, proofed/generalized, not "sit in your training room with food in your hand." Otherwise, you are on one hand saying a dog isn't trained when you have to raise food in your hand to get him to sit, like the owner at home. On the other hand you are saying that they have to come to your training room to get the dog to sit, like you do it, and they are blaming you from the same perspective that you see their dog untrained in the first place. The problem in both cases is that the dog doesn't know what sit is, by that cue itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Glad you are trying it. Do a video of the commands with you and the dog with no one else around once it is trained. Show the owner the video with just the two of you present, no dog yet. If you are shooting video of yourself, you can review it and see if there are areas you need to clean up within the dogs training. You can explain all commands taught, strategy for dealing with non-compliance, and you have just put out a marketing tool if they show their friends how their dog works vs. how it looked before. Also, you have proof the dog is trainable and trained by you.
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck. I think you will find that "it doesn't depend". Dogs trained in-board by competent committed trainers, turn out better than most dogs trained with lessons.


You have a conclusion that you already believe in. Nothing is going to change that. What I am training the dog to do goes beyond sit, down, heel and stay. That's the first part. Second, I gave you an opinion, you just don't accept it because you want a yes or no answer. I train dogs and people all the time. Unfortunately, as Bob says, some will never get it. Do you remain a resource for questions and video analysis? Sure. But each person brings their own individuality to the training. You can demo the dog and have the person work the dog and the person exhibits an understanding and the dog performs as trains. Send them home and two weeks later, that dog will look like you never trained him to do anything. Can you get it back? Yes. But that's not the issue. I'm also not doing pet dog training--hence the context and the handler's ability to read the context. Dogs pick up more physiologically than fear. Some dogs generalize better than others. But even with the pet dog training, you can say "sit means sit," and train the dog as such and two weeks later sit won't mean sit to that dog with the owner. Let say you have a pressure sensitive BC and I trained him to sit front. I show this to his handler and explain the process of getting the dog over the pressure sensitivity and comfortable sitting that close to my body with attention. They appear to understand it and they both execute it. Two weeks later when the owner says sit, the dog is 5 feet away from him. He is unaware of how he relapsed to body pressuring the dog out of position. You end up retraining the dog and that handler when really, you could have trained the two of them together. I really don't know how much of a leg up the dog got from the in house training when you have to reassemble the puzzle. You can try to train and proof in terms of the common mistakes made but that results in operating with an assumption--something I don't generally do. Also, corrections and rewards and understanding how to deliver them can be an art form. I'm not sure how how much time the handlers are spending with the trainer afterwards but part of the "it depends" is the learning curve of that handler. Again by the time you get through video consulting the tear down and rebuild, they could have done in person training. 

When X dog returns to his owner, he would have spent nearly 6 months with me living as my personal dog for some fairly complex training. The sit, down, heel, stay stuff is the easy stuff. The other, as it relates to livestock is contextual and based on my internal nuances that the dogs do pick up on no matter how hard I try to keep things subjective. So that's part of my "we will see." To me to say that one is categorically better than other or the dog turns out better is just self serving marketing. I think there are some handlers out there that if they take lessons with their dog they can have a dog performing just as well as if the trainer trained the dog. Its all about how well that trainer can teach the human and the human's ability to understand and execute the information.

T


----------



## rick smith

- so far i've stayed out of this thread because i do not board any dog to teach it basic OB like sits, down, walk without lunging, stay, recalls, etc
this is simple stuff that i require any owner to know how to do, and of course if they are having trouble i will show them ways that might make it easier for them. of course i demo, but i will never do it all for them. to me it is irrelevant that i might be able to teach a recall faster than the owner. sometimes when you show the owner how easily you can do something it just frustrates them more. i want the owner to constantly build up their confidence thru small successes

- my system seems similar to Larry's. i only train one on one and never do group sessions either

- 99% of the time i board a dog for one of these reasons :
1. to teach a dog the fundamentals of using markers. mostly this is just to get a dog focused to learn and to learn how to learn, and of course that will involve simple OB, but the OB is not the objective at all (30%). using markers is still not common in Japan
- btw; it was mentioned that the dog was going away to learn fundamentals. i agree, as long as BOTH parties are on the same page about what the "fundamentals" will be
2. to rehab or work on certain "bad" behaviors that the owner can't correct, which is usually a 24/7 effort (70%). most of the time the dog will make better progress when it is away from the owner, but the final result will still depend on what the owner can do when they are with the dog, not what i can accomplish during boarding. it becomes even more obvious if the owner does not apply compulsion as consistently as it was applied while boarded

of course i do a thorough eval with the owner and dog b4 anything is decided, and that involves 99% owner and dog only. i do not interact with the dog. only observe, and i do it in more than one place. after that i will make suggestions on what i think they need to work on, and sometimes that is something entirely different than what they had intended when they first came to me. if we are on the same page we move on, but it might take a couple outings b4 we agree on a plan. 
- i keep a daily log when a dog is with me and vids are taken, and i have no problem with the owner visiting and observing, but sometimes i want them to observe away from me and the dog 
- but Always, i want the owners to know up front that as long as they are motivated i will help, but i never intend to "train their dog". what i can do with their dog will not always transfer to how much control they have when their dog is with them and away from me

- as i said in the other thread, i think there are pros and cons to boarding, and people should consider them before making the decision, so i can't take a stand that one way is better than another. there are other professional outfits around my area that board/train. they work dogs that go to the police K9 academy and they prep dogs who will work SAR so i don't consider them backyard training outfits. i've seen it work well and i've seen it not work so well. i would be willing to list pros and cons as i see it

but overall i tend to try and constantly emphasize that the owner is the ultimate trainer. my job as i see it is just to help the owner get more control of their dog. i know, it's the same old worn out cliche : "people trainer vice dog trainer", but i really do feel that's the best way to help the dog and the owner

as far as the "follow up" by the owner, most of the time you will know whether the owner will follow up or not. their interest and motivation to learn will show throughout the boarding process. they may not have great coordination and timing, but you will see if they have patience and you will see the motivation

that's my take ... interesting thread


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Rob Maltese said:


> As someone who will be sending my dog to in-board training I see it as extremely beneficial. To send your dog to a known professional, someone who has been training dogs for years to lay the foundation work for you to only continue that education is great.
> 
> Look at it this way, you send your children to school for training...the same training you can teach them. Yet you allow an professional to do it for you... I think if the client does the research on the trainer, knows what to realistically expect, and continues to properly educate and train with the dog then it will work well. The key is what happens when the dog leaves the training facility, if the client fails to keep up with the training and fails to do the follow up training then it is no fault of the trainer.
> 
> My plan is to continue the follow up training, then continue working with the dog everyday no matter what. If needed, my plan is to contact the trainer, explain what's going on - see what his course of action is and go from there.


I really had to laugh about sending the kid to school for training. I spent elementary and high school cleaning up behind teachers at "top schools." . There's no doubt that board/train CAN work. Have fun with him. 

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> You have a conclusion that you already believe in. Nothing is going to change that. What I am training the dog to do goes beyond sit, down, heel and stay. That's the first part. Second, I gave you an opinion, you just don't accept it because you want a yes or no answer. I train dogs and people all the time. Unfortunately, as Bob says, some will never get it. Do you remain a resource for questions and video analysis? Sure. But each person brings their own individuality to the training. You can demo the dog and have the person work the dog and the person exhibits an understanding and the dog performs as trains. Send them home and two weeks later, that dog will look like you never trained him to do anything. Can you get it back? Yes. But that's not the issue. I'm also not doing pet dog training--hence the context and the handler's ability to read the context. Dogs pick up more physiologically than fear. Some dogs generalize better than others. But even with the pet dog training, you can say "sit means sit," and train the dog as such and two weeks later sit won't mean sit to that dog with the owner. Let say you have a pressure sensitive BC and I trained him to sit front. I show this to his handler and explain the process of getting the dog over the pressure sensitivity and comfortable sitting that close to my body with attention. They appear to understand it and they both execute it. Two weeks later when the owner says sit, the dog is 5 feet away from him. He is unaware of how he relapsed to body pressuring the dog out of position. You end up retraining the dog and that handler when really, you could have trained the two of them together. I really don't know how much of a leg up the dog got from the in house training when you have to reassemble the puzzle. You can try to train and proof in terms of the common mistakes made but that results in operating with an assumption--something I don't generally do. Also, corrections and rewards and understanding how to deliver them can be an art form. I'm not sure how how much time the handlers are spending with the trainer afterwards but part of the "it depends" is the learning curve of that handler. Again by the time you get through video consulting the tear down and rebuild, they could have done in person training.
> 
> When X dog returns to his owner, he would have spent nearly 6 months with me living as my personal dog for some fairly complex training. The sit, down, heel, stay stuff is the easy stuff. The other, as it relates to livestock is contextual and based on my internal nuances that the dogs do pick up on no matter how hard I try to keep things *objective.* So that's part of my "we will see." To me to say that one is categorically better than other or the dog turns out better is just self serving marketing. I think there are some handlers out there that if they take lessons with their dog they can have a dog performing just as well as if the trainer trained the dog. Its all about how well that trainer can teach the human and the human's ability to understand and execute the information.
> 
> T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Meg O'Donovan said:


> Dave, the send-home video idea is excellent. Often people need multiple exposures to "get it". If the trainer watches it with the owner, s/he can point out human or dog body language that is important which the owner might not see/know. The video also shows the dog at its best, so the dog can't be blamed for a downward slide after going home. It puts accountability back on the owners.


You can get pretty fancy with video edit programs to annotate the video. I've done a couple of those for people.

T


----------



## Dave Colborn

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I really had to laugh about sending the kid to school for training. I spent elementary and high school cleaning up behind teachers at "top schools." . There's no doubt that board/train CAN work. Have fun with him.
> 
> T


 I want you to understand that what you say here could be construed in two different ways at least. 1. you were a janitor in your elementary and high school days. 2. You have a messiah complex.

I am sure neither of these were you meaning, but you get my point? Probably not, but what you say is rarely clear. I can imagine that it would be hard to train a dog and tell someone to how to handle it for you.


----------



## Dave Colborn

I appreciate your post.

The big difference I see in the two programs is teaching someone to fish vs. feeding them fish. I think if someone can make bread and trade it to me for the fish, there is nothing wrong with that. They won't learn how to train a second dog, but they get their goals accomplished of having a trained dog. Whereas person that is successful with lessons can more likely train his next dog with much less help than the first one.

I can make an observation from the military working dog world. A lot of guys think that they are trainers after handling one pre-trained MWD for a short period of time and certifying and working. They get the job done with their dog, but they don't learn as much as a guy who trains his own, or has an issue laden dog. The training comes from experience of multiple dogs with different problems to address and behaviors taught. In my opinion.




Larry Krohn said:


> I do both. When I do a board and train I only take one dog at a time and it stays at my home, not in a facility with other dogs being boarded. Only my personal dogs. My private lessons are done at the clients home and with both packages I spend a lot of time training the owner. I believe the client learns more in the privates because I put a lot of the responsibility on them. The dog is slower to learn but in the end both programs workout about the same. Even though I spend plenty of time with the owner after a board and train, they are not going to learn as much or put in the same effort. Both ways are beneficial for the dog


----------



## Dave Colborn

T. Yet again you chose to post to have others respond and then find that you don't like the answer and avoid answering any further. I do have a conclusion that I believe in, it's an opinion and it's mine. Get one. Defend it, let it grow and change. It will feel good, I promise. Good luck to you with your in board training, training dogs to do whatever it is you are training them to do. 





Terrasita Cuffie said:


> You have a conclusion that you already believe in. Nothing is going to change that. What I am training the dog to do goes beyond sit, down, heel and stay. That's the first part. Second, I gave you an opinion, you just don't accept it because you want a yes or no answer. I train dogs and people all the time. Unfortunately, as Bob says, some will never get it. Do you remain a resource for questions and video analysis? Sure. But each person brings their own individuality to the training. You can demo the dog and have the person work the dog and the person exhibits an understanding and the dog performs as trains. Send them home and two weeks later, that dog will look like you never trained him to do anything. Can you get it back? Yes. But that's not the issue. I'm also not doing pet dog training--hence the context and the handler's ability to read the context. Dogs pick up more physiologically than fear. Some dogs generalize better than others. But even with the pet dog training, you can say "sit means sit," and train the dog as such and two weeks later sit won't mean sit to that dog with the owner. Let say you have a pressure sensitive BC and I trained him to sit front. I show this to his handler and explain the process of getting the dog over the pressure sensitivity and comfortable sitting that close to my body with attention. They appear to understand it and they both execute it. Two weeks later when the owner says sit, the dog is 5 feet away from him. He is unaware of how he relapsed to body pressuring the dog out of position. You end up retraining the dog and that handler when really, you could have trained the two of them together. I really don't know how much of a leg up the dog got from the in house training when you have to reassemble the puzzle. You can try to train and proof in terms of the common mistakes made but that results in operating with an assumption--something I don't generally do. Also, corrections and rewards and understanding how to deliver them can be an art form. I'm not sure how how much time the handlers are spending with the trainer afterwards but part of the "it depends" is the learning curve of that handler. Again by the time you get through video consulting the tear down and rebuild, they could have done in person training.
> 
> When X dog returns to his owner, he would have spent nearly 6 months with me living as my personal dog for some fairly complex training. The sit, down, heel, stay stuff is the easy stuff. The other, as it relates to livestock is contextual and based on my internal nuances that the dogs do pick up on no matter how hard I try to keep things subjective. So that's part of my "we will see." To me to say that one is categorically better than other or the dog turns out better is just self serving marketing. I think there are some handlers out there that if they take lessons with their dog they can have a dog performing just as well as if the trainer trained the dog. Its all about how well that trainer can teach the human and the human's ability to understand and execute the information.
> 
> T


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Dave Colbourn

You say I am "absolutely wrong"

I would never express this as there is always an amount of truth in each post. 

We have an unwritten rule in most of our Clubs, German, Belgian, Dutch Shephers and other breed Clubs that we "teach" the new handler how to train h/her pup / dog. This involves not taking the pup / dog and showing the handler how easy it is. It's easy for us of course but the handler is often green and needs guiding lessons.

One handler with a Great Dane insisted that I heeled with it. OK, I did a short heeling which was successful. She complimented me but what did she learn? Nothing.

Just because a pup / dog can carry out the exercises with an experienced handler does not mean that the would-be handler can put this into force, how ever many times the pup / dog is put through its routines, even watched by its owner.

I watched an IPO dog do its obedience routine and was puzzled. The dog carried out the bring exercises and the sendaway ok but the heeling was catastophic - the dog and handler each went its own way. I went to the start list and everything was clear - the breeder was known to me and had trained it.

I would like to discuss this without "you're wrong - I'm right".

Is this possible?


----------



## Dave Colborn

Geez Gillian I thought I was getting nicer.

I didn't say you are absolutely wrong. I said "I think you are very wrong about this". 

Specifically you said to a guy with little experience "There is no way to do this than doing it yourself." 

I disagree with this.

I think with dogs and any thing else in life there are several ways to do things. One may yield better results than another. It is my opinion that in-board training yields better results for the reasons I have mentioned previously. 

I can think of a bunch of instances where I got very clean behavior out of imported dogs that were trained. Military working dogs, contract dogs, pet dogs trained by another, etc..

What would you attribute this to? I provide similar cues and get similar behavior. I am always very interested in a dogs previous training, as I will use what is there to get to my goal. 

I do agree that going to a club or getting lesson will help, I believe in-board training yields better results a majority of the time.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

I think that "absolutely wrong" and "very wrong" are the same in the english language but whatever!

Maybe a difference is that we train our handlers and dogs voluntarily. No commerce.

Can you give me a few examples of how you bring the new handler to work his dog, or do you deliver the "finished product*?


----------



## Dave Colborn

No one in your country trains dogs for money? Are the lessons not for money when training pet dogs as a group or one on one?

Are you asking about pet or working dog training? I just want to be clear so I explain myself as to what you are asking.





Gillian Schuler said:


> I think that "absolutely wrong" and "very wrong" are the same in the english language but whatever!
> 
> Maybe a difference is that we train our handlers and dogs voluntarily. No commerce.
> 
> Can you give me a few examples of how you bring the new handler to work his dog, or do you deliver the "finished product*?


----------



## Gillian Schuler

I have never trained or helped dog owners for money.

We have various GSD, Mali, other breed dog Clubs throughout the country where help is given freely.

Of course there are commercial dog institutions but the main dog training is done in the dog Clubs and the normal annual fee is about SFr. 60.-

You never stated whether your help was commercial or freely given.


----------



## rick smith

geez Gillian, you are a softie 

i'm a money grabbing capitalist pig.
i don't charge for evaluations, but as soon as i start working they pay....up front and in advance 
- i don't charge by the hour; my fees fluctuate....the more motivated they are, the less i charge, the less motivated they are the more i charge....so i can get them to quit sooner rather than later


----------



## Gillian Schuler

I like to be a Softie :smile:


----------



## Dave Colborn

rick smith said:


> - i don't charge by the hour; my fees fluctuate....the more motivated they are, the less i charge, the less motivated they are the more i charge....so i can get them to quit sooner rather than later


 Nice concept, really. I talked to a guy that runs some fantastic classes close by, and he charges more for older dogs.. His thought is that the dogs have more bad conditioning already if older, puppies not so much. Nice to see how other folks do it.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Dog training is and has been a job, when I am doing it. Usually enjoyable. I will offer free help to people, if they need it (and want it) and in depth training isn't required. I will freely offer advice how to fix something and whether the owner and dog would be better suited for lessons or in board training during an eval. For example if someone comes for a free eval and the dog knows how to sit, down, heel, stay etc, without distractions, knows corrections, but goes out of control when it sees a cat or a squirrel and tries to pull the owners shoulder out of the socket, they don't really need in-board training. They simply need a plan to address distractions with the training the dog already has. That may require a lesson or two, or just some advice.

A majority of what I have done has been bite work or detection related while in the military and as a civilian contractor. I have also worked at a facility that trained pets and working dogs selling dogs to police both finished and green. I have earned a living through training dogs or handling dogs for several years. 

Typically in the contract environment, I am drawn to people that like to train, and advice is passed freely between like minded people. It benefits everyone involved, if information about training and working a bomb dog for example, is passed between handlers. I have had instances where I have the knowledge to fix something, but standing over the dog I am working I may get tunnel vision, it takes a second set of eyes to suggest a good solution.



Gillian Schuler said:


> I have never trained or helped dog owners for money.
> 
> We have various GSD, Mali, other breed dog Clubs throughout the country where help is given freely.
> 
> Of course there are commercial dog institutions but the main dog training is done in the dog Clubs and the normal annual fee is about SFr. 60.-
> 
> You never stated whether your help was commercial or freely given.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Dave Colborn said:


> T. Yet again you chose to post to have others respond and then find that you don't like the answer and avoid answering any further. I do have a conclusion that I believe in, it's an opinion and it's mine. Get one. Defend it, let it grow and change. It will feel good, I promise. Good luck to you with your in board training, training dogs to do whatever it is you are training them to do.


I know this is hard for you to understand or accept but I don't have to defend anything to anybody and any opinion I may have doesn't have to be subjected to so called growth and change because its not intrinsically wrong. I also don't post to have others response. You started the thread soliciting responses. There is no like or dislike about anything you have to say and I did answer. Its just not an answer that fits your prescribed parameters. You are mostly looking for an amen corner. Sorry. I'm good with agree to disagree and move on and thanks for those well wishes.



T


----------



## Bob Scott

I'll toss another factor in the equation.
How many of these pet owners WANT to learn how to train a dog? They just want it trained. 
From that does a trainer then have to decide NOT to train for that person? That would be my choice if they just wanted a trained dog because chances are great that the training wouldn't hold up in the owners home.


----------



## Clarence Pierre

I think in-board training is a much better choice the majority of the time provided the trainer is experienced or good and correctly works the dog. Included in the B&T price should be 3-5 follow up lessons with the owner. 
Important things to be considered:
1. Who is the handler? ( Old, Young, Active, Involved)
2. Will they perform the necessary maintenance training?
3. What are their expectations?

Either of the above can ruin a dog within a week. If the dog is to be a sport dog then maintenance is absolutely necessary because of the larger skill set. An owner/handler is easier to train if the dog knows the required behavior. That is why I feel the B&T is better. That enables the trainer to train the dog and then be able to "use" the dog to "train" the owner/handler. If not the trainer has to essentially train both the handler and the dog at the same time and that can be...difficult to manage.


----------



## rick smith

re: "I'll toss another factor in the equation.
How many of these pet owners WANT to learn how to train a dog? They just want it trained. "

VERY good point that comes up all the time with my customers.
MANY feel that they are not trainers, and have no confidence they can learn how to be a dog trainer, and that an owner has to go to some special school to learn how to be a dog trainer.

precisely why i emphasize that training is nothing more than improving one's ability to control one's dog, and why i consider the owner the ultimate trainer. i also point out subtle ways to show them how their dog is learning from them on a daily basis. they ARE "training" it, whether they choose to accept that or not 

sure, if you do this all the time with a lot of different dogs, etc., you should get better at it than a single owner with a limited number of dogs. but that still doesn't mean the dog won't be learning from its owner on a daily basis. once i can get the point across to the owner that they ARE training their dog, they usually take more responsibility for their actions and start to see the cause and effect from their daily handling and how it affects their dog.


----------



## rick smith

just like parents are teachers for their kids when the kids aren't at school, and most kids spend more time at home than in school ....DUH :roll:


----------



## Larry Krohn

Bob Scott said:


> I'll toss another factor in the equation.
> How many of these pet owners WANT to learn how to train a dog? They just want it trained.
> From that does a trainer then have to decide NOT to train for that person? That would be my choice if they just wanted a trained dog because chances are great that the training wouldn't hold up in the owners home.


I'm very honest with clients Bob. I tell them that their dog will work for me but its useless if WE can't get it to work for you. If thet don't want to learn I can't help them


----------



## Dave Colborn

Bob there are several things that come out in an evaluation, and even talking on the phone. Part of doing this type of work, you have to know what the client wants/needs before you can start. If they WANT to train the dog, that is way different than wanting a trained dog. I think it's important to think of, but this thread is about the dog as I posted it. Opinions how it is trained better.

Knowing what owners want and need is of paramount importance, though. This is why AKC obedience or sport obedience on the field has nothing (usually) to do with pet obedience. Sure we teach the foundation similar, but an owner doesn't need a front and finish for a pet that stays in the house it's whole life, and only interacts with the owner and guests, there. We offer just a recall, because that's what some people need. He runs away from me/won't come when called. They don't need sit, down, stay, etc. They are more likely to keep this up because they need it. Communicating with the owners is huge so that they can get what they want and need.




Bob Scott said:


> I'll toss another factor in the equation.
> How many of these pet owners WANT to learn how to train a dog? They just want it trained.
> From that does a trainer then have to decide NOT to train for that person? That would be my choice if they just wanted a trained dog because chances are great that the training wouldn't hold up in the owners home.


----------



## Janet Hammond

Dave Colborn said:


> *Resolved: A great majority of pet dogs are better trained for the owner from training with a professional trainer for a 2-5 week in board course vs. basic lessons with a trainer with the owner.*
> 
> If anyone can make that more clear, please let me know.


I am not sure what you want "clarified", but you are comparing apples to oranges. 

Sending a dog to a professional trainer teaches the dog.

Attending a course of basic lessons teaches the human. 

It depends on one's goal which one would be the better choice.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Janet.

The idea is to pick a side and debate it. Which is better. The dog gets trained in both scenarios. Which way works better for the owner.



Janet Hammond said:


> I am not sure what you want "clarified", but you are comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> Sending a dog to a professional trainer teaches the dog.
> 
> Attending a course of basic lessons teaches the human.
> 
> It depends on one's goal which one would be the better choice.


----------



## Janet Hammond

Dave Colborn said:


> Janet.
> 
> The idea is to pick a side and debate it. Which is better. The dog gets trained in both scenarios. Which way works better for the owner.


I am super libra - sorry. 

An inexperienced owner or an owner out of his/her depth should find good obedience classes. An owner who wants to really know their dog and have a relationship with him/her should find good obedience class. Everyone else can send the dog out. Better?


----------



## Bob Scott

Dave said
"Knowing what owners want and need is of paramount importance, though."


That was a huge point in learning when I taught my first ob class to pet folks. 
I went in thinking everyone wanted that perfect dog with straight sits, excellent recalls, etc. I was first in the very first class I enrolled in. My two, then young daughters were first in their very first classes. I expected nothing less.
At the end of the 12 wk course one lady with a Yorkie came up to me and started giving me great thanks and how I saved her little dog's life, yadda, yadda.. This lady and her yorkie didnt pass one exercise so I was scratching my head with a big WTF rolling around in there.
Her comment then was "I can finally open the front door and Joey wont run out". 
She got exactly what she wanted!


----------



## Janet Hammond

Off topic warning



Bob Scott said:


> The words of a fool offend only another fool!


 I will remember that next time I get offended. I may be a fool, but at least I can laugh at myself. In fact, I never cease to be amused.


----------



## Bob Scott

Janet Hammond said:


> Off topic warning
> 
> 
> 
> I will remember that next time I get offended. I may be a fool, but at least I can laugh at myself. In fact, I never cease to be amused.



??????????????
You didn't just first notice that under my almost 19,000 posts did you. :grin: 
I consider at least a dozen or more of them to be pretty serious. :wink:


----------



## Janet Hammond

Bob Scott said:


> ??????????????
> You didn't just first notice that under my almost 19,000 posts did you. :grin:
> I consider at least a dozen or more of them to be pretty serious. :wink:


 As a very new member, I haven't quite gotten though all 19,000 posts. Apparently I have a lot to look forward to! :razz:


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Well, you've sure been busy whilst I have been away.

Pet owners here in Switzerland want to learn* how* to handle their pets. They want to be able to exercise them without their being aggressive to other dogs and for the shy pups, to hopefully get used to other canines. 

We are of course in an ideal situation in that there are breed clubs in every corner of this extremely small country.

The Swiss Kennel Club supports the idea that all members of their organisation, i.e. all breed and breed clubs should give help to persons wishing to train and educate their dogs.

Most of these clubs have trialling events which all members of the Swiss Kennel Club can attend in whichever sport art.

A feature of many clubs is that they offer "Erziehungskurse" for the public at large. These "education courses" cater for the pup to the older dog. The participants do not have to be a member of the Swiss Kennel Club or the local club and pay something like Swiss Francs 10-15.- an hour.

The members of the club teach these people how to handle thier pups or dogs. There is a theory lesson and often a vetinerary surgeon partakes one evening for Q and A about health, feeding, etc.

The course money flows into the club’s finances and is often a welcome addition.

I profited from my first club’s support in sport training with my first dog and so I am happy to help others. At the time, we didn’t have such courses but the help I received was invaluable.

Nowadays, the “puppy classes” are a fantastic way of earning money for private dog firms. I am against these classes mostly, because the weaker pup often becomes weaker and the strong, stronger. There is a huge amount of plastic furniture and very often “overseers” who do not have a clue of what they are overseeing. 

When we gave courses at our all-breed club years ago, we extended the age limit to include 8-week old pups and over. We went down to the river with them – into the woods etc. and let them play together. Once we had two litter pups who tried to terrorize the rest, so we separated them.

Most of our first puppy / dog owner want to learn how to handle their canines.


----------



## Rob Maltese

Bob Scott said:


> I'll toss another factor in the equation.
> How many of these pet owners WANT to learn how to train a dog? They just want it trained.
> From that does a trainer then have to decide NOT to train for that person? That would be my choice if they just wanted a trained dog because chances are great that the training wouldn't hold up in the owners home.



I may be one of those who want to learn how to train my dog, however I could read every book out there on training my dog and still not understand. I do better learning things by doing them, being visually trained how to do something is easier for me to pick up on. 

Knowing what you expect from your trainer and training in your dog is a big thing, you cannot expect your dog to go to this trainer and come back perfectly listening to you, you must put in the time and effort to re-establish that bond between you and the canine. This is my personal opinion, and I feel from what I've read so far I need to put that disclaimer so here goes my opinion... I don't particularly think that a dog needs to be dominated or shown who is the "alpha"... I think *PERSONALLY* it is the bond that you build with a dog and the confidence that they feel in you. If they have no confidence in you, why would they trust you?

I trust my dog more then I trust many people, and he's only 8 months old...so far he's been an incredible judgement of character, he played a large part in me not getting jumped not to long ago while on a walk, needless to say I could've handled myself just fine in more ways then one but just knowing that the 2 shady fella's we walked passed and he kept his eyes on them the whole time and when I felt as if there was someone behind me, he was 2 steps ahead of me growling to alert.


----------



## rick smith

like most threads on here, this one has drifted and the orig post hasn't gotten specific answers.
sometimes that's good and sometimes not, and i'm not gonna judge 

as far as the orig resolution, i have thought it over more and i would now say, YES, i agree that the boarding is better than at home training

my (yes) answer is assuming that we are talking about a pet dog that won't be doing bitework or personal protection and that the owner wants simple OB commands such as sit/stay/down/basic recall, etc., to be solid
* and for me, some "reward biting" (tug, toy, etc) wouldn't be considered bitework

if the dog is going beyond that level of training then i think the owner needs to be involved with the trainer and the dog together, but i would also agree some of this can be done remote too

my disclaimers :
* looks like everyone agrees, both parties have to be on the same page b4 the dog is sent out *
1. boarding a dog to try and resolve "issues" away from the owner is another type of boarding entirely and should be treated as a diff type of boarding and training
2. the longer the dog is boarded, the more the dog will bond to the trainer and this should be something the both trainer and owner has to keep in mind so it doesn't become a problem for either the dog/trainer/owner. i have seen this become an issue when it never should have been one in the first place

but still don't know if this would be considered a clear response or not, regarding what Dave stated as resolved


----------



## Joby Becker

Rob Maltese said:


> I may be one of those who want to learn how to train my dog, however I could read every book out there on training my dog and still not understand. I do better learning things by doing them, being visually trained how to do something is easier for me to pick up on.
> 
> Knowing what you expect from your trainer and training in your dog is a big thing, you cannot expect your dog to go to this trainer and come back perfectly listening to you, you must put in the time and effort to re-establish that bond between you and the canine. This is my personal opinion, and I feel from what I've read so far I need to put that disclaimer so here goes my opinion... I don't particularly think that a dog needs to be dominated or shown who is the "alpha"... I think *PERSONALLY* it is the bond that you build with a dog and the confidence that they feel in you. If they have no confidence in you, why would they trust you?
> 
> I trust my dog more then I trust many people, and he's only 8 months old...so far he's been an incredible judgement of character, he played a large part in me not getting jumped not to long ago while on a walk, needless to say I could've handled myself just fine in more ways then one but just knowing that the 2 shady fella's we walked passed and he kept his eyes on them the whole time and when I felt as if there was someone behind me, he was 2 steps ahead of me growling to alert.


how can you say that he played a large part of you not getting jumped, cause you walked past "two shady characters"....how do you know they were even thinking about jumping you? just curious...

I mean I get it...he is a deterrent, but that almost reads that if the dog wasnt there, you were getting jumped...


----------



## Rob Maltese

Joby Becker said:


> how can you say that he played a large part of you not getting jumped, cause you walked past "two shady characters"....how do you know they were even thinking about jumping you? just curious...
> 
> I mean I get it...he is a deterrent, but that almost reads that if the dog wasnt there, you were getting jumped...


When two folks you crossed paths with, turn to begin walking behind you in the manner they did - you have a sense that they were up to something. Jumped, mugged, robbed, either one - your choice. I don't play that knock out game the kids are raging about, you try to knock me out. You'll get shot. End of story.


Back on topic \\/


----------



## Catherine Gervin

Rob Maltese said:


> When two folks you crossed paths with, turn to begin walking behind you in the manner they did - you have a sense that they were up to something. Jumped, mugged, robbed, either one - your choice. I don't play that knock out game the kids are raging about, you try to knock me out. You'll get shot. End of story.
> 
> 
> Back on topic \\/


then, since you would probably just maim them, right?, while they are recuperating from their gun shot wounds, they would have learned not to try and sock strangers! they had to be sent to a hospital, though, so that is boarding and training, in reverse...


----------



## Rob Maltese

Catherine Gervin said:


> then, since you would probably just maim them, right?, while they are recuperating from their gun shot wounds, they would have learned not to try and sock strangers! they had to be sent to a hospital, though, so that is boarding and training, in reverse...


I don't shoot to injure...


----------



## Bob Scott

Rob Maltese said:


> I don't shoot to injure...


----------



## Rob Maltese

For those who are interested, although my dog isn't the favored "working dog" Axle the Pitbull has started his training with Jeff Riccio from Riptide K9, he is a few days shy of being there for a week. Once he returns to us and we've gotten settled I will post some opinions, comments and such.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Rob Maltese said:


> As someone who will be sending my dog to in-board training I see it as extremely beneficial. To send your dog to a known professional, someone who has been training dogs for years to lay the foundation work for you to only continue that education is great.
> 
> Look at it this way, you send your children to school for training...the same training you can teach them. Yet you allow an professional to do it for you... I think if the client does the research on the trainer, knows what to realistically expect, and continues to properly educate and train with the dog then it will work well. The key is what happens when the dog leaves the training facility, if the client fails to keep up with the training and fails to do the follow up training then it is no fault of the trainer.
> 
> My plan is to continue the follow up training, then continue working with the dog everyday no matter what. If needed, my plan is to contact the trainer, explain what's going on - see what his course of action is and go from there.


 That hinks and also some.

My parents sent us to school to learn academical subjects they couldn't teach us themselves.

Educating us to be members of the general public and to know right from wrong was done by them and only by them.


----------



## Rob Maltese

Clearly I cannot read, I failed to click the Old Thread Warning check box - therefore I shall try it again...

As some are aware I sent my dog Axle away for 4 weeks in-board training with a professional trainer. Overall things went very well, I firmly believe that Axle now knows the commands, the first few days following his return he was allowed to become a puppy again and just relax. After about 2 days we began training with him everyday for at least 20 minutes to go over everything. The one thing that I will say is that I feel the transition and learning process for us as the handlers would have been better if we were able to attend the training with him however given our schedules and the requirements of the trainer it was unable to occur which we understood. Right now we still do the training everyday, he does put up some resistance occasionally which we are working on. 

Commands he learned on & off leash :

Heel
Recall
Sit 
Down
Place
Kennel

All commands include a stay, he does not release until we tell him he is "free". The one command we're having issues with is the recall which we are working with the trainer on.

I am willing to answer any questions except for cost, I will mention that it cost over 500$ (USD).


----------



## Joby Becker

Rob Maltese said:


> Clearly I cannot read, I failed to click the Old Thread Warning check box - therefore I shall try it again...
> 
> As some are aware I sent my dog Axle away for 4 weeks in-board training with a professional trainer. Overall things went very well, I firmly believe that Axle now knows the commands, the first few days following his return he was allowed to become a puppy again and just relax. After about 2 days we began training with him everyday for at least 20 minutes to go over everything. The one thing that I will say is that I feel the transition and learning process for us as the handlers would have been better if we were able to attend the training with him however given our schedules and the requirements of the trainer it was unable to occur which we understood. Right now we still do the training everyday, he does put up some resistance occasionally which we are working on.
> 
> Commands he learned on & off leash :
> 
> Heel
> Recall
> Sit
> Down
> Place
> Kennel
> 
> All commands include a stay, he does not release until we tell him he is "free". The one command we're having issues with is the recall which we are working with the trainer on.
> 
> I am willing to answer any questions except for cost, I will mention that it cost over 500$ (USD).


Yes let him free back up a little for a couple days.
Hope you are happy with the progress.


----------



## Bob Scott

"I am willing to answer any questions except for cost, I will mention that it cost over 500$ (USD)."



HUH!  :-k


----------



## rick smith

thanks for providing an update Rob

my Q's are in regards to this part : 
"The one thing that I will say is that I feel the transition and learning process for us as the handlers would have been better if we were able to attend the training with him however given our schedules and the requirements of the trainer it was unable to occur which we understood. Right now we still do the training everyday, he does put up some resistance occasionally which we are working on. "
--- i don't like to read between the lines, so i'd like you to add some more about that part 

next, i remember when the thread started and want to clarify that i never recommended you go to PetSmart vice board with a professional trainer 

But i did say ime there were drawbacks to boarding a dog and not seeing the sessions and not being part of them when the dog is away, so i want to expand on that.

I have done it both ways. boarded and worked the dog without the owners around. the training ALWAYS progresses faster that way. the problem is that the dog will work for me better than when it goes back to the owner. many reasons for this that i don't want to go in to here, but it it is not because i am a better trainer than they are . and sometimes the main problem the owner had is still there when the dog is returned, and the owner doesn't really care that the "dog worked great with me" 
- otoh, when i have had the owners around, the dog then has to respond the same with both of us, and when working on neutral ground, the dog seems to revert periodically, but eventually gets "back on step" with the owner IF they apply the same methods and techniques i use when i am with their dog. Consistency is the key. it also gives me an opportunity to talk to the owner and explain how i am reading the dog' reactions as i am working with it in real time, which i also think is beneficial to the owner. my bottom line is always that it is THEIR dog and THEY are the ultimate trainer. It is usually harder and slower this way, but ime, the end results have been better when the owner attends some of the boarding, observes and participates.

- i'm not sure if any of this applies to your situation, so that's why i'm asking for some more details....the devil is always in the details //lol//

- of course i can't speak for your trainer, but i would assume they explained their reason in advance why they preferred you not being there, and do you still feel it is the best way based on where you are now with the dog ?

- or is it too early to tell ?


----------



## Rob Maltese

Bob Scott said:


> "I am willing to answer any questions except for cost, I will mention that it cost over 500$ (USD)."
> 
> Every dog, every trainer, every situation is different therefore I didn't want to have to explain the pricing given to me. I wanted to give a number to keep those curious minds at bay.
> 
> 
> 
> HUH!  :-k





rick smith said:


> thanks for providing an update Rob
> 
> my Q's are in regards to this part :
> "The one thing that I will say is that I feel the transition and learning process for us as the handlers would have been better if we were able to attend the training with him however given our schedules and the requirements of the trainer it was unable to occur which we understood. Right now we still do the training everyday, he does put up some resistance occasionally which we are working on. "
> --- i don't like to read between the lines, so i'd like you to add some more about that part
> 
> next, i remember when the thread started and want to clarify that i never recommended you go to PetSmart vice board with a professional trainer
> 
> But i did say ime there were drawbacks to boarding a dog and not seeing the sessions and not being part of them when the dog is away, so i want to expand on that.
> 
> I have done it both ways. boarded and worked the dog without the owners around. the training ALWAYS progresses faster that way. the problem is that the dog will work for me better than when it goes back to the owner. many reasons for this that i don't want to go in to here, but it it is not because i am a better trainer than they are . and sometimes the main problem the owner had is still there when the dog is returned, and the owner doesn't really care that the "dog worked great with me"
> - otoh, when i have had the owners around, the dog then has to respond the same with both of us, and when working on neutral ground, the dog seems to revert periodically, but eventually gets "back on step" with the owner IF they apply the same methods and techniques i use when i am with their dog. Consistency is the key. it also gives me an opportunity to talk to the owner and explain how i am reading the dog' reactions as i am working with it in real time, which i also think is beneficial to the owner. my bottom line is always that it is THEIR dog and THEY are the ultimate trainer. It is usually harder and slower this way, but ime, the end results have been better when the owner attends some of the boarding, observes and participates.
> 
> - i'm not sure if any of this applies to your situation, so that's why i'm asking for some more details....the devil is always in the details //lol//
> 
> - of course i can't speak for your trainer, but i would assume they explained their reason in advance why they preferred you not being there, and do you still feel it is the best way based on where you are now with the dog ?
> 
> - or is it too early to tell ?


The trainer said that it would make the process longer and more stressful for the dog if us as handlers were coming and going frequently, the dog wouldn't understand why he wasn't leaving with us and had to stay there. As for the schedules part, my significant other and I work opposite shifts and in her line of work it's much more difficult to get extended period of time off to do classes and such during the day when it is easier for me, for I work 3-11pm and she works usually 7-5ish. 

As for the resistance he puts up, in terms of that I mean that he doesn't always listen first command as he would with the trainer here which was an issue that was brought up during this threads earlier days, we understood this consequence but did not anticipate it being as difficult. I do believe that consistency is one of the main issues here, I am not home when my significant other is therefore I do not know what or how she is correction him so if I do it different, the dog goes "what the hell, Dad lets me do that..." When we got him back March 16th, the first 3 weeks were great - spot on commands, no issues. Trainer came down for the follow up appointment, stated everything looked great and that he was progressing correctly. Fast forward to most recent and he's fallen off the wagon a bit, more due to us most likely not being consistent. I do ask my significant other to continue the training when I'm not here, but as mentioned - I can only go by what she tells me, not by what I see and she has mentioned that she isn't very confident handling him outside the house yet... :-|


As for has it been worth it, right now I'm 50/50... I enjoy knowing that he has learned the commands and listens I would say 60% of the time - is that good enough - no. I work with dogs at work (by work, I mean same field of work) and the handlers say a command, boom it's done - no fuss at all. After talking with them they both state that it's because they attended a 6 month handling course where all they did was work with the dog therefore it built the bond, trust, respect and understanding.


----------



## rick smith

just a quickie comment ...

consistency of handling is a whole subject in itself and something that ALWAYS enters into play for any dog that will live in a family situation.

everyone knows handling consistency is important, and you can talk about it as much as you want, but that is never gonna happen in the real world  ...so over the years i have changed the way i deal with that fact

the usual problems that i deal with is when family members start playing the "blame game" rather than work individually on getting control of the dog

interesting topic


----------



## Rob Maltese

rick smith said:


> just a quickie comment ...
> 
> consistency of handling is a whole subject in itself and something that ALWAYS enters into play for any dog that will live in a family situation.
> 
> everyone knows handling consistency is important, and you can talk about it as much as you want, but that is never gonna happen in the real world  ...so over the years i have changed the way i deal with that fact
> 
> the usual problems that i deal with is when family members start playing the "blame game" rather than work individually on getting control of the dog
> 
> interesting topic


Not to get too off topic Rick but yes, I could see where the blame game comes into play and in my household it's both our faults because we haven't spoke about how we want things done. We've started to impliment a few new rules in the house with the dog to gain structure, just simple things - putting him in a sit before going into any doors so we enter first. Before getting in the car he gets into a down or a sit.


----------



## Sarah Platts

Rob Maltese said:


> - putting him in a sit before going into any doors so we enter first. Before getting in the car he gets into a down or a sit.


For me there is a difference between a dog that barges his way past you to enter first and one that's invited to enter first. One isn't under control and the other is.


----------



## Rob Maltese

Sarah Platts said:


> For me there is a difference between a dog that barges his way past you to enter first and one that's invited to enter first. One isn't under control and the other is.


I completely agree, he used to barge right past and be the first in the door from now on he will be the last through the door. As of today he has taken to this just fine and we hope to continue this. We've made some mistakes in our training that are now being brought to our attention, this was our first puppy, definitely a learning experience.


----------

