# Stress in obedience.



## Andres Martin

My view is that if you can get a puppy to obey while it is under stress (measured according to the pups ability, not age, and progressing accordingly), you will end up with a stable and very obedient dog.

An excellent example is what you can see in Al Reanto's dogs.

As very significant by products, dogs trained in this fashion are also VERY self-confident, very focused and VERY agile and surefooted.

This "way" is directly opposed to the treats and rewards "way", because in the latter the dog works FOR HIMSELF, and in the former the dog works because of the bond between himself and the handler, and thus FOR THE HANDLER.

This "way" is not for sport dogs; at least not for sport programmes as they are currently configured, as you will not see the artificial "animation" that is so well liked in competition.

What you do see though, is a strong work ethic.


----------



## Lyn Chen

Do both methods of training necessarily contradict each other? I've found it a bit pointless to argue over them because they do have their own purposes, and I train for both (I train agility and under stress. for no reward, I train fast mechanical obedience for reward).


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Yes, but treats and rewards are introductory, right? I mean, treats and rewards for me are not a lifelong routine by any means. When my dogs continue to obey long after the treats part (the teaching phase) is over, who are they working for? Me, I thought ----- the handler.

I think treats and rewards might be a way of life in the conformation ring......


----------



## Bob Scott

When I trained in SAR, we put our pups under a lot of these kinds of stress. That helped narrow down the dogs that made it through.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Connie Sutherland said:


> .........I think treats and rewards might be a way of life in the conformation ring......


And maybe not ----- I'm speaking out of turn here based on AKC TV shows.......


----------



## Woody Taylor

What do we mean by stress?

And can you all give some examples corrallating pup ability with phased in motions of stress? Curious to hear.

...And does the stressful training you talk about here absolutely preclude sport dogs?


----------



## Lyn Chen

My idea of stress:

Getting the dog up on obstacles. Getting dog to stay there. Getting dog to obey commands while up there. Getting dog down on obstacles. Going through obstacles (like fences, etc.). Getting (prey driven) dog to lie still while a bunch of kids play soccer in front of him. Taking dog through a busy street, with lots and lots of people, and again doing obedience there. Getting dog to obey from a distance. Getting dog to stare and focus on me while other dogs are running around (albeit this latter is a byproduct of this 'sports training'). 

Like I said, I'm of the opinion that this is no way related to 'sports training' and that you can do both provided you of course don't stupidly forget what your own dog is or isn't capable of. Dogs are smarter than that. It's in how you train, not what you train.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote:artificial "animation" that is so well liked in competition

There is nothing artificial about the dogs. If it wasn't there, we couldn't get them to do it.

Quote:As very significant by products, dogs trained in this fashion are also VERY self-confident, very focused and VERY agile and surefooted. 

Like suddenly my dog is clumsy? Has no self confidence? And trust me, focus is NOT something you are going to achieve with this method. Did you not notice the dogs all looking off in different directions? What picture are you looking at?

Quote:This "way" is directly opposed to the treats and rewards "way", because in the latter the dog works FOR HIMSELF, and in the former the dog works because of the bond between himself and the handler, and thus FOR THE HANDLER. 

This is the biggest piece of crap statement since Woody posted last. I hear this all the time from trainers, and quite frankly, I have met these people and watched how hard they work with their dog. That is great, but I don't feel like training 5 hrs a day, when I can bust out some treats and have dogs that respond faster, and everytime. I can also work about 5 hrs a week, as opposed to 35 hrs. All my dogs work FOR ME. BECAUSE i ASKED THEM TO.

You can't be suprised that your getting beat over this. One of the reasons the call off will never be pretty, compulsion/no reward based OB. At that point, who is the dog working for again?????? :lol:


----------



## Lyn Chen

Jeff, if a dog breaks the stay, and you put him back in his place, is he working for you or because of you? :lol:


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote:Jeff, if a dog breaks the stay, and you put him back in his place, is he working for you or because of you? 

Cute. Until my recent trial, I could of told you to go .... yourself, as the dog hadn't broken the down stay. Now I just get to say stupid things like Cute, or dogs always are working for the pack leader or something really stupid like that.

Also, my dog scooted over and sniffed something, but never left the area. How many non food people can do this without any compulsion like I did??? Raising the dogs in the air doesn't count.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

I should add that I have to save my compulsion for the heel. Stupid dog.


----------



## Andres Martin

Jeff, have you ever trained a dog that has worked under live fire, very close up, of the 5.56 or 7.62 mm variety? With a bunch of other people around? In the dark? Loud voices everywhere? Stuff on the ground everywhere?

If you have, you can bash me all you want. If not...and more so, if you wonder why your pup breaks a down stay, or cannot control himself enough to NOT go up on tables UNSOLICITED... :lol: then, please evaluate alternative training methods with an open mind. :lol: 

By artificial, I mean...a dog is not supposed to heel looking at you in the face...
If he does that where there are holes in the ground, or obstacles, he'll be trippin'.

A dogs "focus" should not be on the handler...it should be on the TASK. His "attention" should be on the handler. Focus and attention being two different animals. Focus should translate into concentration ON THE TASK.

A dog can be born agile, but if he does not experience obstacles, he WILL BE clumsy on them. A dog's particular area of difficulty in this is REAR PAW PLACEMENT.

Regarding "piece of crap" statements, I have no comment.

And regarding my "call off" or my return to handler off a bite, I agree fully that my dog or the ones I train with, do not return in a flashy way. They all want the man. I have no problem with that, but I posted because I try to keep an open mind. I'm always willing to learn something new...

Working dogs on a field differs significantly from working them in the real world. If most of your training is field work, where you know what distractions you will face, you must experience with at least 30 or 40 different dogs, what working in street conditions is about.

Dogs that work for food, bites or tugs, as a PRIMARY REINFORCER are a bit too hectic for my taste.

The reason I posted this, is to enrich and be enriched...by the discussion...not the bashing. If we can keep the bashing and ridicule to a low roar, and concentrate on the technical stuff, we will all be better served.

Woody, Stress in obedience...obstacles, positions, confinement, the dark, noise, smell, discomfort, subordination...and IMO it does not preclude sport dogs at all...but the high points in competition perhaps won't be there, as the responses will be less flashy.

Connie, if you used treats for teaching, and the obedience is still there for the most part after a while...but when the attention falters, you go back to reinforcing with treats and tugs...then it was always treats and tugs, and you've simply been reaping the benefits of a Variable Reward Schedule.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

QUOTE: Connie, if you used treats for teaching, and the obedience is still there for the most part after a while...but when the attention falters, you go back to reinforcing with treats and tugs.. END

But I don't. I don't personally know anyone (at least not in our club) who does. 

I don't know anyone who carries treats or tugs around after the teaching phase. And the one-in-three variable reward schedule is a step (the last step in O.C.) away from tangible rewards.

Does anyone here who trains obedience with rewards in the teaching phase disagree with this?


----------



## Andres Martin

Connie, what do you do when obedience slacks after it's been taught?

Also, If possible it would be great to stay on topic...specifically: What's at work, that makes stress in obedience so valuable to some trainers and dogs?


----------



## Lyn Chen

_What do you do when obedience slacks after it's been taught? _

...compulsion? :roll:


----------



## Reinier Geel

Andres  my money is on you in this round, and by the way good reasoning and post  I agree with what you think and say  good strong advice and experience showing here, this does not come from sitting at some ones feet, it comes from having trained several dogs for real life situations yourself - i think. Bravo - my friend, a tip of the hat to you. :wink: 

Being street smart and having the experience to back it up, can beat any challenger in a street fight  or should that be a Bar fight  Jeff, just kidding.
:lol:


----------



## Connie Sutherland

*stress in OB*

Andres, 

OK, then, to stay on topic I guess I need to know exactly what kind of stress in obedience you mean, and whether the stress is introduced during the teaching phase.

I'm not sure I belong in this thread, but for now I will assume I do because you introduced it as being about obedience...... But the dogs I train are almost certainly never going to be under live fire in the dark in a crowd of people.

My point was that the dogs I train are begun with the "way" you deride (treats and tugs) and that these tangible rewards are phased out after the teaching phase. They are reintroduced if I start a new teaching phase.

Stress or fear in the teaching/learning phase is, I think, counterproductive. I believe that it slows the learning process.

In the distraction phase, then I guess we can call the distractions stress, can we not? So then who doesn't use stress *after* tangible rewards (teaching, and then distraction) in training obedience?

What I am not clear about is why these cannot be hand-in-hand, one phasing into the other.


----------



## Reinier Geel

Lyn - repetition is the key.

Obedience is the result of repetative disciplined work  how you consistently apply, your obedience training, will be the gauge  obedience is give and take. Yes some compulsion, coercion, and some grooming and affection, all in equal measures.  dogs are all about aggression, and how you control it. You can control aggression with both food and a stick.

I think
:wink:


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Lyn Chen said:


> _What do you do when obedience slacks after it's been taught? _
> 
> ...compulsion? :roll:


And yes, I want to say "of course" but that sounds condescending :lol: .....yes, after the teaching and distractions phases, if there is incorrect response or lack of response to a command then there is a correction... at least for me.


----------



## Woody Taylor

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> This is the biggest piece of crap statement since Woody posted last.


Funny stuff, Sybil. I would ask you if you ever realize in advance the karmic beatdowns you set yourself up for...but if this thread is any indication, I would say NO.

Et tu, Andres?


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Reinier Geel said:


> Lyn - repetition is the key.
> 
> Obedience is the result of repetative disciplined work  how you consistently apply, your obedience training, will be the gauge  obedience is give and take. Yes some compulsion, coercion, and some grooming and affection, all in equal measures.  dogs are all about aggression, and how you control it. You can control aggression with both food and a stick.
> 
> I think
> :wink:


But this whole thread started (I think) as an argument *against* food used in training. Didn't it?

Quote: This "way" is directly opposed to the treats and rewards "way" END QUOTE


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Woody Taylor said:
 

> Jeff Oehlsen said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the biggest piece of crap statement since Woody posted last.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny stuff, Sybil. I would ask you if you ever realize in advance the karmic beatdowns you set yourself up for...but if this thread is any indication, I would say NO......
Click to expand...

Of course he does. He likes that. :lol:


----------



## Reinier Geel

Connie;, without getting tecnical.

In my experience, dogs  young ones are just like kids, they have very little fear  we pass on and teach them most of our personal fears. Let me explain thgis with a short actual scenario:

My one friend is a serious biker, he got him self a pup, and wanted to train it, as he lives in a rural area. He phoned me, and asked when can he come to train. My advice to him was  slow it down, let the dog be a dog first, and when he turns six months bring him, concentrate on socialising, as much as possible We have little contact. So low and behold he took this to the extreme. He took the dog with on breakfast runs and on the back of his pick up, everywhere even to town. The dog sleeps in the house at his bedside  he is still single.

Then one day he arrived with a big fat dog, for training, this dog has everything a trainers hart will desire, he is well socialised with people, has no fear of load noises, will climb into and onto anything. In addition, he is as sharp as a whistle. Training was a breeze.

In my mind, stress is social interaction, and exposure to the environment we live in.

i Think :wink:


----------



## Reinier Geel

Connie Sutherland said:


> Reinier Geel said:
> 
> 
> 
> But this whole thread started (I think) as an argument *against* food used in training. Didn't it?
> 
> Quote: This "way" is directly opposed to the treats and rewards "way" END QUOTE
> 
> 
> 
> Connie  food or no food  the point is  whichever way you go  as long as you end up with a well-disciplined and social pup.  Then it worked  right or wrong  this is a general thread.
> 
> On the back of this; I will take a completely different stance if it was in the Police working environment context, on this, however, I did train civilian dogs, and have seen this  food thing work - to believe it.
> 
> I think :wink:
Click to expand...


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Hi, Reineir,

Heck yeah! Socialize socialize socialize!

But that isn't about teaching obedience, is it? It's about teaching life.

I'm saying that during the teaching phase (which for me happens to involve treats), stress is, for me, probably counterproductive.

Yes, the dog has been socialized like crazy.

And the dog will be "stressed" by distractions after the teaching phase.

Aside from the level of stress in the distraction (or proofing) phase, I'm not sure we (anyone) here is arguing against stress in obedience. Maybe we are arguing about when the stress is introduced (and remember that if it's not stressful to the individual dog, it's not stress).

Andres stated (I think) that stress in obedience was a "way" that was NOT the "way" that involves tangible rewards (quotation marks his).

I maintain that the tangible rewards are used in the teaching phase only, that they are phased out during the one-in-three phase, that they are not reintroduced unless a different teaching phase is, and that stress can be any distraction, including but not necessarily doing that ob up in the air or under fire in a dark room.

I think I train stable and confident dogs who don't have to go through a gunfire-crowded-dark-room phase because that's not what their lives will be like.

Recap: I don't see (again) how the teaching phase that involves rewards and the distraction (and correction) phases that follow are mutually exclusive.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Sorry, Reineir, you posted a second one while I was typing. 

QUOTE: on this, however, I did train civilian dogs, and have seen this  food thing work - to believe it END QUOTE

Apparently you are not arguing against treats in the teaching phase, which I read Andres's opening post to be about. Or maybe it was more about treats and stress being two entirely separate "ways." 


Good thread anyway.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Reinier,

Also sorry that I spelled your name wrong, twice!


----------



## Lynn Cheffins

"...The dog was so willing to please that training her seemed only a matter of communicating what I wanted her to do. Once she understood that, she would do it instantly and willingly. But in order to ascertain the reliability of her responce it was necessary to command a response in increasingly difficult conditions"
"motivating a dog means making him feel like doing it, Training a dog means teaching a dog to do it when the trainer says to. Training requires insistence at some point in the learning porcess"
(The Speed Mushing Manual - Jim Welch)

Is that kind of the thing you are taliking about Andres and Reiner?
(interesting subject BTW!)


----------



## Reinier Geel

Connie  dont worry about it - I am well socialised as well, and wont bite, if you miss pronounce / spelled my name  grrrrrrr

My son responds well to treats and not so well to correction, so I bribe him, and at time I just give him a good correction, which ever works in that situation we find our selves in  becomes instinctive

I think
:wink:


----------



## Greg Long

Stress is one the most important training aids for me.The pup or dog is never put under more stress than it can handle.The stress that is applied is removed by the handler communicating to the dog and therefore the dog takes comfort in the work knowing that obeying the handler will result in removal of the stress.This is started at a very young age for the maximum benefit.
In this form of work with the dog,food or toy rewards only interfere with the communication that must occur for the excercise to be successful.It is much more than just distraction training.Also in this type of work,repetition should be avoided.Again this applied stress and obed is best started around 6 weeks.To not train a pup when he is at the age when he is learning the easiest and fastest is counterproductive as is avoiding stressing the pup,just dont over do it.


Greg


----------



## Lyn Chen

I thought it started out as training the dog to work with you versus teaching the dog to work for himself (i.e. in order to get a reward). :lol:


----------



## Reinier Geel

Lyn  YES, to reiterate this point  it is all about getting the mix between the two opposing parts of the spectrum in training right, compulsion and affection in the right ratios produces the best results nice quote BTW.

I think
:wink:


----------



## Reinier Geel

Oops now there is two lyn  and Lynn Cheffins, my last post was directed at Lynn 

I Think :wink:


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote:Being street smart and having the experience to back it up, can beat any challenger in a street fight  or should that be a Bar fight  Jeff, just kidding.

Bar fights I win hands down. I am something like 1200-0 to this date. :twisted: :twisted: 

All my dogs give two shits about all the gunfire you want to put out. In the past I taught dogs to not give a crap about it. Back then you would find my dogs dead asleep on their side laying next to me at busy gunranges.

I didn't have a dog with me when I visited your exotic homeland, or they could of experienced 5.56 and 7.62 on a regular basis. I don't think they would have had anymore the clue why they were there than I did.   

If I don't stir up the pot, then the dang threads die. Remember your bungee thread??? :lol: 

Besides, if I can't take the free shots you give me at Woody, WTF fun is that? :wink: 

Nowadays, I train the dogs to see gunfire like the starters pistol. Works better for mondio. Stupid sport.


----------



## Reinier Geel

Hallo Jeff  got to love your work - the way you do your thing  please nothing personal, I was also just stirring

The dogs sleeping during gun fire -Yes, I had a crew like that once, that slept on the job during night shift, then one night I stopped next to a low water bridge and started shooting, guess how long he had to swim to get out????
You Think, I think :wink:


----------



## Andres Martin

Ah! OK... 8) 8) 8) 

So Jeff, what do you think of stress in obedience? In the teaching phase?

Lynn, what excellent quotes.

Connie, the reward for stress* in obedience is stress relief, doled out by the handler.

By the way, I'm NOT posting about the undesirability of treats or tugs. I'm posting to examine the method and benefits - if any - of stress in obedience. It not something discussed frequently, yet it may be useful...or at least enriching, if we get it discussed properly.

* The handler is NOT the source of the stress. :wink:


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Andres Martin said:


> Ah! OK... 8) 8) 8)
> 
> ......Connie, the reward for stress* in obedience is stress relief, doled out by the handler.....By the way, I'm NOT posting about the undesirability of treats or tugs. I'm posting to examine the method and benefits - if any - of stress in obedience. It not something discussed frequently, yet it may be useful...or at least enriching, if we get it discussed properly.
> 
> * The handler is NOT the source of the stress. :wink:


Stress during the teaching phase or after it? (Trying to get it discussed properly  )


----------



## Lyn Chen

LOL now we've gotten it clear...

Teaching a dog to stay motivationally...would you guys consider it 'stress' if you start throwing food around and the puppy absolutely has to sit still until you tell him to? No corrections involve if the pup decides to get up and get the food...just remove them completely. I don't know how stressful this is (unless the pup is really hungry) but...I've found it's better for obedience then just say, putting the pup back in place, because they learn to control themselves. 

I dunno if that's what you meant but this is a pretty good discussion.


----------



## Lynn Cheffins

I think Andres statement kind of sums it up "the reward for stress in obedience is stress relief doled out by the handler". Connie I think that stress can be applied somewhat in the teaching phase. Eg- If I have a dog that I am teaching to "line out" I am going to keep picking him up and plunking him back into position until he holds that line out even momentarilly. The dog is probably releived that the lesson is over but he's learned to cope with that little bit of stress. Gradually you are going to raise the stakes and introduce more distractions (stress) so let's say by using my example add more dogs behind him(10 screaming loonies jabbing the line behind him) and increasing the length of time he has to do it for. I think by using stress in obedience you teach the dog to deal with stress better and reveals more about the character and stength and weaknesses in the dog.


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

Lyn Chen said:


> ...would you guys consider it 'stress' if you start throwing food around and the puppy absolutely has to sit still until you tell him to?


Do you consider stress and frustration to be the same thing? I suppose it's a different kind of stress. When I think of stress I think of putting a dog in an unsettling situation, being off the ground is a "uh oh I hope I don't fall" type of stress, not being allowed to get the food is a "I really want that food but I'm not allowed" type stress. If that's stress at all.


----------



## Andres Martin

> would you guys consider it 'stress' if you start throwing food around and the puppy absolutely has to sit still until you tell him to? No corrections involve if the pup decides to get up and get the food...just remove them completely. I don't know how stressful this is (unless the pup is really hungry) but...I've found it's better for obedience then just say, putting the pup back in place, because they learn to control themselves.


That's not what I mean at all, as far as stress goes because, first, if the dog does well, you let him eat, therefore allowing him to reward himself; second, a pup should not be thinking that food on the ground means he has to "do something" to get it; and third, stress is not a DISTRACTION...rather, it is a situation or context that causes insecurity, which YOU as the HANDLER alleviate, thus becoming the "alleviator", which assists in establishing leadership and trust.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Andres Martin said:


> would you guys consider it 'stress' if you start throwing food around and the puppy absolutely has to sit still until you tell him to? No corrections involve if the pup decides to get up and get the food...just remove them completely. I don't know how stressful this is (unless the pup is really hungry) but...I've found it's better for obedience then just say, putting the pup back in place, because they learn to control themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I mean at all, as far as stress goes because, first, if the dog does well, you let him eat, therefore allowing him to reward himself; second, a pup should not be thinking that food on the ground means he has to "do something" to get it; and third, stress is not a DISTRACTION...rather, it is a situation or context that causes insecurity, which YOU as the HANDLER alleviate, thus becoming the "alleviator", which assists in establishing leadership and trust.
Click to expand...

Can I have an example? (The part where the handler relieves the stress.)


----------



## Lyn Chen

Ah, so it's more having to put the dog in a strange condition like say on lying down on a wall and he has to maintain his balance and stay there, and to solve his dilemma he has to listen to his handler?


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

Andres Martin said:


> My view is that if you can get a puppy to obey while it is under stress (measured according to the pups ability, not age, and progressing accordingly), you will end up with a stable and very obedient dog.
> 
> An excellent example is what you can see in Al Reanto's dogs.
> 
> As very significant by products, dogs trained in this fashion are also VERY self-confident, very focused and VERY agile and surefooted.
> 
> This "way" is directly opposed to the treats and rewards "way", because in the latter the dog works FOR HIMSELF, and in the former the dog works because of the bond between himself and the handler, and thus FOR THE HANDLER.
> 
> This "way" is not for sport dogs; at least not for sport programmes as they are currently configured, as you will not see the artificial "animation" that is so well liked in competition.
> 
> What you do see though, is a strong work ethic.



Hi Andres:

Sorry I was out to respond to this post. Indeed the exercises we do is not the way of sportdogs. Like Lyn said, it cannot be compared as both methods are headed different directions (east-west) that the only point both camps can agree with is that both require dogs. Like Bob said, it's an effective way to test strong pups for future real work. It's some sort of a preparation or a foundation for the pup for his future vocation, where obedience is heavilly underscored purpose of which is to eliminate issues in a pup for a more fluid training come the time to train for a future vocation. It also eliminates test-of-wills between handler and dog that happens when addressing issues on a matured dog. More important, it is where the pup will stand one day, discipline during the work.

The purpose of every exercise is primarilly to strengthen trust, bond, confidence and communication between dog and handler. Routines and drills are a NO-NO to make sure the pup obeys anytime anywhere, no props, no routines, no drills. Working environments must always vary, always challenging. If pup breaks or freaks out, then work need to be done, else there's nothing to do and the handler goes home with no significant development with his dog. He may be one weak or a lazy handler. He needs to overcome his own fears and hesitations as it will show in his dog. Strong dogs need strong handlers.

Agility, tracking and defense are all natural in our working dogs, obedience being the only unnatural, hence stressful. To increase bond and trust between dog and handler, stress must not come from its handler. On the other hand, the handler must be an effective stress-reliever for his dog to make his dog stable and functional at the very point of high-stress, employing obedience and stress-handling techniques. Once the dog overcomes the stress, he's ready for more, until it all becomes second-nature. Reliability for the team to work on stressfull, unknown and unexpected circumstances is then achieved. Obedience then becomes a powerful tool up the handler's sleeves in high-stress workouts, and not the source of stress itself. 

Long hours of work has nothing to do with perfecting flashy obedience. Obedience is applied and strictly enforced in the work always as a necessity. Long hours has to do with completing the task at hand, what the teams has set out to do for that training day.

Pups/dogs are always made aware of the environment. They think, they see, they feel but are always aware of their handlers. Just like in heeling, the dog looks forward and around sensing every area but is always aware of its handler beside him. Totally no cosmetics needed, no one is rating you and this must be off your head, else you lose focus yourself. When you work this, nothing else matters except you, your dog and the work.

Hope it clears somethings up....

Best regards...


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Jose Alberto Reanto said:


> ..................Agility, tracking and defense are all natural in our working dogs, obedience being the only unnatural, hence stressful. To increase bond and trust between dog and handler, stress must not come from its handler. On the other hand, the handler must be an effective stress-reliever......


Hi, Al,

Could I have an example of this (in training obedience)?

Thanks!


----------



## Bob Scott

With a working dog, handling stress is just as important as prey drive, hunt drive, etc. Regardless of how good the dog plays (chase) or hunts (search), if simple stress is more then the dog can handle, it's useless for work. 
Sport or competition dogs may be able to train through this because of the repetition of some sport (AKC, Schutzhund, etc). 
PSD,PPD, SAR dogs need to be exposed to everything and anything possible in order to expose any weakness in the event that unknow stress factor pops up in the real world.


----------



## Bob Scott

I think the obedience in itself is a stress reliever. 
If you heeling by an open sewer with a dog that stresses ove this, just giving an obedience command can take the dogs mind off of the sewer and relieve the stress. 
That's a very simple example of the handler relieving the stress.


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

Bob Scott said:


> With a working dog, handling stress is just as important as prey drive, hunt drive, etc. Regardless of how good the dog plays (chase) or hunts (search), if simple stress is more then the dog can handle, it's useless for work.
> Sport or competition dogs may be able to train through this because of the repetition of some sport (AKC, Schutzhund, etc).
> PSD,PPD, SAR dogs need to be exposed to everything and anything possible in order to expose any weakness in the event that unknow stress factor pops up in the real world.


I agree with you, Bob. But let's not forget that no matter how much we expose our dogs to varying stresses in varying forms, reality always has a funny way of putting in surprises. So it's not primarilly the teams exposure though it's a very important factor, but the trust, bond and confidence of the dog towards its handler that makes it work first-time in any environment.

Just my observation and opinion.

Best regards...


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Bob Scott said:


> I think the obedience in itself is a stress reliever.
> If you heeling by an open sewer with a dog that stresses ove this, just giving an obedience command can take the dogs mind off of the sewer and relieve the stress.
> That's a very simple example of the handler relieving the stress.



Ahhhhh............ gotcha! :>)


----------



## Bob Scott

I agree completely Al. We could never train for all the unknowns out there. Your comment about trust, bond and confidence is an excellent description of what I commented about the open sewer.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Bob Scott said:


> I agree completely Al. We could never train for all the unknowns out there. Your comment about trust, bond and confidence is an excellent description of what I commented about the open sewer.


We would give an already-learned obedience command in a stressful situation, right? As opposed to teaching it in that situation?

I mean, by the open manhole, we are asking the dog to follow an obedience command that he has been trained -- not to learn a new one?


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

Connie Sutherland said:


> Jose Alberto Reanto said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..................Agility, tracking and defense are all natural in our working dogs, obedience being the only unnatural, hence stressful. To increase bond and trust between dog and handler, stress must not come from its handler. On the other hand, the handler must be an effective stress-reliever......
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, Al,
> 
> Could I have an example of this (in training obedience)?
> 
> Thanks!
Click to expand...

Hi Connie,

Bob just gave you an example. It can be anything, of course. So it's not just doing obedience as sit, down, etc wherein one employs compulsion or rewards to achieve perfection. If one overdoes it, you may see a dog avoiding its handler like a plague. Obedience is applied in the work where the work and the environment themselves will cause the stress, and the handler causes the dog's release from his stress thru proper obedience.

That's the simplest explanation I could go so far.

Best regards...


----------



## Bob Scott

Connie Sutherland said:


> Bob Scott said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree completely Al. We could never train for all the unknowns out there. Your comment about trust, bond and confidence is an excellent description of what I commented about the open sewer.
> 
> 
> 
> We would give an already-learned obedience command in a stressful situation, right? As opposed to teaching it in that situation?
> 
> I mean, by the open manhole, we are asking the dog to follow an obedience command that he has been trained -- not to learn a new one?
Click to expand...

Correct! At that point, tyring to teach a new command would only add more stress, IMHO.
Now to contradict myself. If the dog is well trained, it should already have a lot of trust in the handler. In that case, something new shouldn't be quite as bad for the dog. I'ts already learned that trust and confidence in the handler.


----------



## Andres Martin

As a point of interest, how do workingdogforum members view their dog's trust towards them?

How do you know your dog trusts you?


----------



## Bob Scott

In my case, my dog will try anything I ask him to. I realize a lot of that has to do with a confident dog to begin with. 
The first time I had him climb a ladder, he went right up. The first time he was asked to jump into a running helicopter, he jumped right in. Just two examples of a confident dog that has learned to trust me. I don't know if the average pet could/would ever develope that same trust or confidence.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Andres Martin said:


> As a point of interest, how do workingdogforum members view their dog's trust towards them?
> 
> How do you know your dog trusts you?


My dogs follow a command I taught them (with the help of Bob Scott, I readily admit) to step behind me and stay behind me in a scary confrontation. (Remember they aren't protection-trained dogs.) Is that a small example of trust? 

I've had to use this command for real; I'm not just saying that they follow it in training conditions.

That's a really good question. I can tell because when I read it, no words fall out of my mouth. :lol: 

It will be interesting to read how others judge their dogs' trust.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Bob Scott said:


> In my case, my dog will try anything I ask him to. I realize a lot of that has to do with a confident dog to begin with.
> The first time I had him climb a ladder, he went right up. The first time he was asked to jump into a running helicopter, he jumped right in. Just two examples of a confident dog that has learned to trust me. I don't know if the average pet could/would ever develope that same trust or confidence.


Those sound to me like really good examples.


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

Bob Scott said:


> In my case, my dog will try anything I ask him to. I realize a lot of that has to do with a confident dog to begin with.
> The first time I had him climb a ladder, he went right up. The first time he was asked to jump into a running helicopter, he jumped right in. Just two examples of a confident dog that has learned to trust me. I don't know if the average pet could/would ever develope that same trust or confidence.


Exactly, Bob!!! Exactly. Do more to see more. No hesitations. If you hesitate even an ounce, then you have failed your dog. It's just you, the dog and the work you want done that day. If he fails, work him. It normally takes just 1 or 2 tries. Works like magic...


----------



## Bob Scott

Jose Alberto Reanto said:


> Bob Scott said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my case, my dog will try anything I ask him to. I realize a lot of that has to do with a confident dog to begin with.
> The first time I had him climb a ladder, he went right up. The first time he was asked to jump into a running helicopter, he jumped right in. Just two examples of a confident dog that has learned to trust me. I don't know if the average pet could/would ever develope that same trust or confidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, Bob!!! Exactly. Do more to see more. No hesitations. If you hesitate even an ounce, then you have failed your dog. It's just you, the dog and the work you want done that day. If he fails, work him. It normally takes just 1 or 2 tries. Works like magic...
Click to expand...

I might add that I like to see the dog do this happily with confidence. I don't want the dog doing something I tell it just because what I ask is the lesser of two evils.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Being that I do sport, not real life, I don't really need to get real carried away with putting dogs in high places, not that I am against it or anything but there is so much to teach the dog that all that takes a backseat to training the exersizes.

I do use distractions, but not really in the teaching phase. That leads to corrections, something I like to avoid, it just isn't as clear to the dog as it needs to be when they barely know what you are asking and you start correcting.

For distractions during the proofing stage, I start small and then get about as carried away as I possibly can. This has worked for me for all my dogs really well, except Buko. He gets so pumped up with "new" situations. This is going to be interesting, as the newness wears off rather quickly, but the problem still remains. I will be doing some e-collar work, hopefully this will fix it.


----------



## Lynn Cheffins

I think what comes to mind as trust by my dogs in me is a couple of really, warm spring days with melting conditions, a trail that the bottom was falling out of, a heavy loaded sled and the clients from hell. You could tell the dogs were hot and tired but they got up and leaned into thier harnesses with a will when I said "Awright guys, let's go".


----------



## Bob Scott

Lynn Cheffins said:


> I think what comes to mind as trust by my dogs in me is a couple of really, warm spring days with melting conditions, a trail that the bottom was falling out of, a heavy loaded sled and the clients from hell. You could tell the dogs were hot and tired but they got up and leaned into thier harnesses with a will when I said "Awright guys, let's go".


Talk about your dogs trusting you! Anyone that tells their dogs to "Awright guys, lets go", in the middle of a blizzard (Iditirod) has to have a lot of trust in the dogs.  :wink:


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Being that I do sport, not real life, I don't really need to get real carried away with putting dogs in high places, not that I am against it or anything but there is so much to teach the dog that all that takes a backseat to training the exersizes.


Obedience and stability exercises come on many forms, high, low and in between. What one does on elevations must likewise be done on the ground. No exceptions. Dogs must be made functional anywhere anytime. No excuses. Honesty will always be the best training aid...

Best regards...


----------



## Andres Martin

I think a puppy or dog trusts you, when it will do your bidding even if contrary to ITS perception AT THAT MOMENT that your bidding threatens its SELF PRESERVATION.

This varies from dog to dog, as a function of genetics, of time, and specially as a function of shared exercises. Some that are very confident will not balk at helicopters, yet perhaps will stress at a herd of cows milling about; others will feel very insecure with a little elevation. This type of trust building must start low, slow and easy for puppies...and continue advancing for the life of the dog.

The work is individualized, the dog is carefully observed, and if he's stressing, he's either reassured or taken back a notch, and the attempts repeated until his task is done. Repetition is not, "Hey, dog, do this again!"...It's actually a shared activity or task. The handler must sweat it out WITH the dog...exactly as it is in real life.

This produces dogs that really see their handler as a pack leader, and will really engage on his behalf. Dogs raised in this fashion cue off other stimuli, besides commands...they also cue off "stress" and "will" from their handler.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: If you heeling by an open sewer with a dog that stresses ove this

This to me is a case of weaker nerves. A dog with strong nerves will jump into the helo no problem first time.

If I have a dog the gets nervous over an open sewer, quite frankly, he is gone. I don't try to fix weaknesses like that. I can get another dog that won't give a crap easily enough. Nor would I feel confidant that the dog would cut it in a real world situation.

As far as the dogs doing things on high, I don't have a problem with it for PP dogs, or just dogs, but Mondio is new to me so I struggle just to teach the exersizes like object guard and escort. These are interesting, and hard, especially with new decoys. I know mine don't want to screw up the dog, mostly because they know they do not have the experience to fix what they screw up. I keep telling them that I can fix it, but this is what you deal with when they are new.


----------



## Andres Martin

Jeff,

Ideally this type of "raising working dogs" is started when pups are a few weeks old. If the genetics are good, "weaknesses" are very transitory.

Mind you, there are huge benefits to be reaped for adult dogs, though, and also when these methods are "combined" with other stuff...for sure.


----------



## Bob Scott

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote: If you heeling by an open sewer with a dog that stresses ove this
> 
> This to me is a case of weaker nerves. A dog with strong nerves will jump into the helo no problem first time.
> 
> If I have a dog the gets nervous over an open sewer, quite frankly, he is gone. I don't try to fix weaknesses like that. I can get another dog that won't give a crap easily enough. Nor would I feel confidant that the dog would cut it in a real world situation.
> 
> As far as the dogs doing things on high, I don't have a problem with it for PP dogs, or just dogs, but Mondio is new to me so I struggle just to teach the exersizes like object guard and escort. These are interesting, and hard, especially with new decoys. I know mine don't want to screw up the dog, mostly because they know they do not have the experience to fix what they screw up. I keep telling them that I can fix it, but this is what you deal with when they are new.



I do agree that I'd rather have a dog that doesn't react to new situations with avoidance. 
Ideally the pup will be steady as a rock, as my dog was as a pup. 
I don't exactly look at avoidance of a situation as weak nerved. What's more important is the recovery.


----------



## Reinier Geel

Hay, what is happening here; Just too much generalization here in the last part, we are really getting people all confused now. I for one cannot see the relevance of a few of the last post made, just too much generalization, and blanket statements here. Please forgive me, but we need some alignment here, for the sake of new handlers, looking for good advice - useable advice. This is my gripe, and then we ask why so many dogs are messed up.

For something:

There is no magic training - even in dog training  so some of the claims made here will be making someone a billionaire if you can, can it

My point:

Any and every person, and dog will at some stage or another hesitate  I.E. Even if the light at a traffic intersection is green, and the intersection is obscured, and busy, do you blindly just shoot through without  Hesitation? 

Will a dog jump  if he cannot see what is below? 
Will a dog go for a piece of meat on the ground and just eat it  no, way  them and we are much smarter - he first smells it? 
Do you get the point anything living has a tendency to hesitate  weighing up his / the options.

The other thing that concerns me is that everything is now all mixing up here, different stages of development and training is creeping in everywhere here that has no business or place in training pups. 

Believe me I can relate to everything you guys are saying, even the hardcore training methods  but hay: this thread is not about adult dogs, or teeny bobs its about pups. 0  3 months is considered a pup.

if you can get a puppy to obey while it is under stress (measured according to the pups ability, not age, and progressing accordingly), you will end up with a stable and very obedient dog.

Trust, can only come from bonding; and bonding is socialisation  you showing the dog the ropes, grooming, feeding, comforting, and caring. That is at the one side of the spectrum, the other side we have reward and punishment, discipline and disapproval.  it all comes from one source the handler  and it creates positive and negative stress.

As for balls, toys and food  these are babies for crying out load do you take the dummy away and let him scream his head off  it is a comforter, a pal, just because you want a tuff mutt  come on.

Nothing in dog training just takes one or two tries; any behaviour consistently enforced becomes a habit. Consistently means for as long as it takes.

Stress is natural and essential, and handlers do stress the dog, just by hearing the chain coming, they will get excited  this is good stress, maybe JOSE, you should distinguish between the two.

Agility, tracking and defence are all natural in our working dogs, - I assure you it is not  take this for example, Tracking a specific sent on command is Tracking, the rest is just scenting, yes that is natural. Agility, is not, how many dogs do you know, that will just walk gladly over an A frame on the first go. Defence is not  very few dogs will defend  as we understand the term in boxing. I Think :wink:


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

Reinier Geel said:


> Hay, what is happening here; Just too much generalization here in the last part, we are really getting people all confused now. I for one cannot see the relevance of a few of the last post made, just too much generalization, and blanket statements here. Please forgive me, but we need some alignment here, for the sake of new handlers, looking for good advice - useable advice. This is my gripe, and then we ask why so many dogs are messed up.


Nope, I don't see anyone confused here. In fact it was differentiated well. Different doesn't of course, mean superior, just different with applications intended for different intentions.



> For something:
> 
> There is no magic training - even in dog training  so some of the claims made here will be making someone a billionaire if you can, can it


Of course there's no magic training, not even shortcuts. What was expressed here that you may have missed were wonders of what a well-attuned dog will do for its handler. I think you have to catch the meaning, not the words used. I'm sorry I don't live in an English-speaking country. 



> My point:
> 
> Any and every person, and dog will at some stage or another hesitate  I.E. Even if the light at a traffic intersection is green, and the intersection is obscured, and busy, do you blindly just shoot through without  Hesitation?


Will you jump off a cliff to train your dog? What value will it have? Will you cross a passable swaying bridge local folks commonly use but new and thereby challenging to your dog? Probably you will and won't hesitate for the sake of your dog. After crossing it once or twice with your dog, wouldn't you check if the dog can do it alone? Considering that he's a good pup or dog and you handled him well, then trust me, he will do it alone. If you see him comfortable, will you not try to incorporate work in there like probably searching for articles somewhere on that swaying bridge, or cross that bridge and track for "missing persons" on the other side? Will there be any value in your work then? That's the point. 



> Will a dog jump  if he cannot see what is below?
> Will a dog go for a piece of meat on the ground and just eat it  no, way  them and we are much smarter - he first smells it?
> Do you get the point anything living has a tendency to hesitate  weighing up his / the options.


Will you allow your dog to hesitate and weigh his options if you're training for a precarious situation? Or would you rather train your dog to follow and obey you whatever wherever out of full trust and confidence in you? What do you think would be the value or use of presenting yourself as his comfort zone and not a stress-producer in early training until working stresses all become second-nature to him? Is it to allow him to hesitate and weigh his options before he obeys you? 



> The other thing that concerns me is that everything is now all mixing up here, different stages of development and training is creeping in everywhere here that has no business or place in training pups.


Not at all. On the contrary, I find the exchanges just that, intellectual exchanges freely expressed. Just to be fair and honest to all. 



> Believe me I can relate to everything you guys are saying, even the hardcore training methods  but hay: this thread is not about adult dogs, or teeny bobs its about pups. 0  3 months is considered a pup.


If you can relate to everything, then there should be no problem. The topic can be sidetracked a bit as usual but not too far from the original discussion. Three month pup, as everyone knows, is indeed a pup.




> if you can get a puppy to obey while it is under stress (measured according to the pups ability, not age, and progressing accordingly), you will end up with a stable and very obedient dog.
> 
> Trust, can only come from bonding; and bonding is socialisation  you showing the dog the ropes, grooming, feeding, comforting, and caring. That is at the one side of the spectrum, the other side we have reward and punishment, discipline and disapproval.  it all comes from one source the handler  and it creates positive and negative stress.


I will agree. But don't you think others may have a different spectrum? I'd rather listen if I didn't know... 



> As for balls, toys and food  these are babies for crying out load do you take the dummy away and let him scream his head off  it is a comforter, a pal, just because you want a tuff mutt  come on.


Hmmm, so that's where you're mixed up, hanging on to your belief that all these props are the only way to build a tuff mutt. Well, ideas have just been presented, not to be taken as bible truth though, but rather as points to ponder. The only way is to work it, if you care and dare to try. 



> Nothing in dog training just takes one or two tries; any behaviour consistently enforced becomes a habit. Consistently means for as long as it takes.


Allow me to rephrase your post for clearer understanding of what was actually meant. Nothing in dog training just takes one or two tries, if the dog is not well-attuned to its handler born out of rigourous and meaningful training both shared together. Now that's more like it.



> Stress is natural and essential, and handlers do stress the dog, just by hearing the chain coming, they will get excited  this is good stress, maybe JOSE, you should distinguish between the two.


Sure. You need to educate me on good stress though. Haven't heard of it. I only know of stress that can cause adverse effects on the dog and handler, which may present itself un/knowingly or un/expectedly in the work that need to be done, the working conditions, the environment or all of the above. First, I agree with you, stress is as natural and essential. Without stress, there can be no stabilization of both dog and handler. Without stabilization, there will be no confidence in the ability to perform well in all situations. Learning to work thru stress is the only way to overcome it. Stress then becomes a character-builder and a training aid second to none. 



> Agility, tracking and defence are all natural in our working dogs, - I assure you it is not  take this for example, Tracking a specific sent on command is Tracking, the rest is just scenting, yes that is natural. Agility, is not, how many dogs do you know, that will just walk gladly over an A frame on the first go. Defence is not  very few dogs will defend  as we understand the term in boxing. I Think :wink:


Let's not talk about dogs, let's begin with pups. If you walk a pup 6 weeks of age (or even earlier) in some wooded areas with fallen logs and you go thru it, wouldn't that pup try to go over it to follow you? Well I can name and even show you more under natural environments, not only a-frames which seemingly becomes a symbol for agility in dogs. If you try to loss the pup by walking a little faster and hide somewhere nearby, will it not go thru the "process" of tracking you and at the same time builds the natural bond if you acknowledge it well when he finds you? Will you need a ball to do that, or rather use his natural desire to be with you? What's the use of training obedience or training itself as a whole, if it weren't intended to use the dog's natural abilities for your own good? 

Best regards...


----------



## Reinier Geel

Ha ha  Jose  great post. I have to let you in on a little secret, I have been a little bit devious; forgive me. 

Myself and the people at the Unit read this forum broken and your posts made for interesting conversation  and they wanted to see if you are all smoke and guns, or can this guy actually shoot straight as wellwell you got the thumbs up. 

As Jeff said, threads get to political and then die, and people play their cards close to their chest  so shaking things up, seems to help, now, we have a great picture  that speaks a thousand truths. Thanks.

But I will be back I think


----------



## Andres Martin

Al...good post. By stressing one is constantly expanding the pup's comfort zone, which in turn allows the pup to DO more in more PLACES.

Some wild animals are examples of bonds and cooperation, without IMMEDIATE reward. They are in it for the benefit of the pack; and in this case, the handler is the "pack". My conclusion, is that SOME dog/handler relationships are much, much more than OC; and that many canine behaviors are hardwired, and can be harnessed by sharing with them.

The dog should not hesitate if the handler doesn't. And I'm not referring to tactical pauses, obviously. I'm referring to the fact that a courageous dog does well under the tutelage of a courageous, intelligent and AWARE handler.

For example, we teach our dogs (when they're very young) to be pulled up into trees, upper floor windows, catwalks in factories, by pulling up on their harness. When they get "up there" they should be at ease. This part is easy, because of the following instinct. But what happens when you need to send them back down - say 10 meters - from a perfectly safe catwalk? Will the pup need to be pushed into the open, because he's grabbing on FOR DEAR LIFE? Will the pup want to grab whatever he can ON THE WAY down, because he doesn't trust you? Or will he just keep going down until you place him where you indicate, by listening for your command? Will he wait quietly for you to come down?

This is simply food for thought. It's different, and I think more natural. I AM NOT SAYING EASIER.

Even if you disagree with much, little or everything...go do stressful things with - WITH - your dog. You'll reap great rewards.


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen

Interesting things Andres, Reinier and Al...but all that text :roll: cost me a lot to read (and translate). You got me thinking :wink:


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Selena van Leeuwen said:


> Interesting things Andres, Reinier and Al...but all that text :roll: cost me a lot to read (and translate). You got me thinking :wink:


It made me think too, and I'm very glad I didn't have to translate as well.

Interesting thread!


----------



## Debbie High

Great thread..... practical information that makes sense (to me)!!!!! Thanks to everyone for sharing so openly and keeping it real!!!! 8) 8) 

Regards,
Debbie


----------



## Andy Andrews

I've read and reread this thread and it never fails to capture my attention. Thanks to Al and Reinier for dropping some knowledge into this pup's food bowl.

Andy.


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

You're welcome, Reinier. Rest assured you always have my respect and admiration.

Hi Andres:

The dog that is well-attuned to its handler will not hesitate going up or down by a rope as directed by his handler. A good amount of stability had been worked on the dog of course. If you're working it first time and resistance is felt, give verbal correction and don't lower the dog until he's calm. Once he's calm then he goes down slowly. Talk (praise) to your dog while doing that. Once he's on the ground, give a sit or a downstay command and must stay there until you go down to get him. Same kind of obedience is given in doing terrain work. Obedience is of paramount importance and strictly enforced to ensure safety of both dog and handler.

It's no guarantee that my way of doing it will work for your dog. Each dog has its own character and "personality" only his handler/owner knows best. I only offer a lead. 

Best regards...


----------



## Andres Martin

Al...Hi.
I agree with you, and my dog and those that I work...all go down looking forward to continuing to work.
I was actually asking the question, so readers would understand the practical need to teach this to working dogs. To overcome the environmental stress, and to be able to obey within it.
What you recomend was what I have done. Gradually.
Cheers,
Andres


----------



## Mike Reagan

This is the biggest piece of crap statement since Woody posted last. I hear this all the time from trainers, and quite frankly, I have met these people and watched how hard they work with their dog. That is great, but I don't feel like training 5 hrs a day, when I can bust out some treats and have dogs that respond faster, and everytime. I can also work about 5 hrs a week, as opposed to 35 hrs. All my dogs work FOR ME. BECAUSE i ASKED THEM TO.

I have to agree with Jeff on this one why would someone want to spend a whole day on something when treats will spped up the process. Treats are the beginig pahse anyways they fade out eventually.


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

Mike Reagan said:


> This is the biggest piece of crap statement since Woody posted last. I hear this all the time from trainers, and quite frankly, I have met these people and watched how hard they work with their dog. That is great, but I don't feel like training 5 hrs a day, when I can bust out some treats and have dogs that respond faster, and everytime. I can also work about 5 hrs a week, as opposed to 35 hrs. All my dogs work FOR ME. BECAUSE i ASKED THEM TO.
> 
> I have to agree with Jeff on this one why would someone want to spend a whole day on something when treats will spped up the process. Treats are the beginig pahse anyways they fade out eventually.



Hi Mike:

Read the thread closely, I think I have responded to this one. I don't worry about those, our 10 week old pups obey not because we hold treats in our hands but because we say so.

Best regards...


----------



## Greg Long

I agree with Al.The more time you spend handling your dog the better.Building a strong communicational bond and avoid repetitive excercises is far better for me than using treats.To peak the dogs interest in the work is the key.

Greg


----------



## Lyn Chen

> I don't worry about those, our 10 week old pups obey not because we hold treats in our hands but because we say so.


Al, I normally like most of your posts, however if we go into another treat vs. non-treat debate again, I will SCREAM. :lol: Just for technicality's sake, can you 'ask' a 10 week old puppy to do something without 'putting' him in said position? Either way, you need to do something to show the puppy what you want him to do, and the end result is a dog that obeys you. The other side can easily say that they don't need to restrain the puppy by any means and recognize words. And by words I mean just standing there, not posturing, not having the puppy on a leash, and just saying "Sit". There is a lot of instinctive behaviour like following, but for the most part, _puppies learn because we help them learn_. 

With that out of the way, I'd like to remind people that like with all forms of training, there is a proper way to train with a treat, and a non-proper way to do it. My way? I show the puppy how to sit first by luring him, and then after the first two times, he NO LONGER sees the treat nor does he realize I have it. He just sits when I say sit and I mark the behaviour and throw him the treat out of nowhere. I think the point Jeff and co. were trying to make is that this way (while not the ONLY way you should train) is fast. I can have the pup recognizing "sit" and being marked by "good boy" in five minutes with a treat. Like I mentioned before, no posturing, no leash, no restraint. Just that command, said ONCE softly. The pup sits, waits to be told to go away, and you can change the reward with a nice praise or pat and it works just as well.

If you bond with a dog properly, it doesn't matter what you train with, the dog will obey you for you. That is part of their nature as dogs--just because you choose to reward them doesn't change or erase this. Or else anyone care to explain why I don't need treats to get my food-trained dog to listen to me away from the field?


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

Lyn Chen said:


> Al, I normally like most of your posts, however if we go into another treat vs. non-treat debate again, I will SCREAM. :lol:


Same here, Lyn...



Lyn Chen said:


> Just for technicality's sake, can you 'ask' a 10 week old puppy to do something without 'putting' him in said position? Either way, you need to do something to show the puppy what you want him to do, and the end result is a dog that obeys you. The other side can easily say that they don't need to restrain the puppy by any means and recognize words. And by words I mean just standing there, not posturing, not having the puppy on a leash, and just saying "Sit". There is a lot of instinctive behaviour like following, but for the most part, _puppies learn because we help them learn_.
> 
> With that out of the way, I'd like to remind people that like with all forms of training, there is a proper way to train with a treat, and a non-proper way to do it. My way? I show the puppy how to sit first by luring him, and then after the first two times, he NO LONGER sees the treat nor does he realize I have it. He just sits when I say sit and I mark the behaviour and throw him the treat out of nowhere. I think the point Jeff and co. were trying to make is that this way (while not the ONLY way you should train) is fast. I can have the pup recognizing "sit" and being marked by "good boy" in five minutes with a treat. Like I mentioned before, no posturing, no leash, no restraint. Just that command, said ONCE softly. The pup sits, waits to be told to go away, and you can change the reward with a nice praise or pat and it works just as well.
> 
> If you bond with a dog properly, it doesn't matter what you train with, the dog will obey you for you. That is part of their nature as dogs--just because you choose to reward them doesn't change or erase this. Or else anyone care to explain why I don't need treats to get my food-trained dog to listen to me away from the field?



You're right, Lyn. A pup has to be shown the way to do it. It's guiding him. Now my post does not in anyway mean it's the only way. In fact, it's a way of presenting there are other ways depending on one's chosen discipline. It's not to be taken as bible-truth unless one cares and dares to try it. Only then will realization set in. Yet, I have no problems with people using treats, been there once upon a short time. Can't help it, that's what the majority does and knows, or only want to know.

As for recognizing words; there is this saying that could cap this, which I find very true, and I quote:

_Our chief means of influencing our dogs are eye, gesture and voice... a good trainer can do everything with these, without any other means at his disposal for punishment... Stephanitz_

I gave an example about a long sway bridge, new to both dog and handler. That example is akin to what we do doing agility work like those in the pics, only this time it is a swaybridge. Of course it can be anything. Do you think the objective is putting the pup or dog in those positions as you put it to do obedience? Or was to work WITH the dog/pup and cross that swaybridge, using good handling and obedience to overcome stress in the dog/pup to make him functional so that we can apply more complex workouts a little later using that obstacle? 

Now will the bond and the obedience be strong? Well again, one will never know unless one cares and dares to try it. 

Best regards...


----------



## Lyn Chen

I do understand your training methods and the results you get. Believe it or not when I first saw similar pictures, I was a little less than impressed because like you said, I first thought it was simply 'putting' the dog in such a position. However I did try it out, or at least a semblance of it--working with my dog to overcome strange and often embarassing situations, and I've seen a certain improvement towards parts of his behaviour. One example is we cross horizontal logs above ground that, on his own, he can't traverse because he would slip and fall--he has to lean on me to be able to crosss it. I also help him up trees and direct him to cross certain difficult ledges in order to get to a certain location. Unfortunately there is a limit to what I can do with him, being I live in the middle of the city with only manicured lawns and playgrounds to play in, and I'm not strong enough to help him in some situations. Next month I'm taking a trip up the mountains and we'll see how far we go. There's a hanging bridge there too. 

I think the point here is I see dog trainers often arguing down to semantics or having an "I do this so I'm better than you" mentality. What people fail to understand is that dogs, people, and goals are all different; hence there is no one training method that is the best for all situations. My head hurts when I see someone put it down to having 'psychic' training abilities or that *their* dog obeys them because they love them. Again, different methods for different situations for different trainers for different dogs. As an example, I've always liked the 'problem solving ability' that clicker-trained dogs are supposed to gain, in other words they start 'throwing behaviours' at you in order to see what it is you want them to do. I do a similar type of training with puppies just for practice, however, I'd be damned if I start carrying a clicker around in the field or 'shaping behaviours'. I just don't have the patience for that. As another example, I can get away with correcting my current shepherd and in fact corrections make him 'faster' and more efficient--my other dog? No way in hell. She would shut down if I do anything apart from tell her "No". 

The fact that you can even reach a certain point in training a dog, i.e. I can tell him to go there, sit there, wait there, come here, look for that...is amazing by itself already and showcases the bond between dog and man. I can teach a dog with food until he is overweight, but by the end of the day, he will still follow me to the ends of the earth, which is more than, say, a cat would do, even if said cat has also been trained with treats. I can also train the dog by beating him into submission (though obviously not enough to make him run from me every time he sees me), and he will still follow me to the ends of the earth; do that to a cat and you get your face scratched off.

Training by itself is a way to be able to communicate with a dog, so I don't see why the method should matter as long as you GET there. What's important is the dog learns to respect you and listen to you. He probably already loves you. That's not the issue here, of course. :wink:


----------



## Lyn Chen

> As for recognizing words; there is this saying that could cap this, which I find very true, and I quote:
> 
> Our chief means of influencing our dogs are eye, gesture and voice... a good trainer can do everything with these, without any other means at his disposal for punishment... Stephanitz


I don't disagree with the quote at all, although I find it has very little relation to the subject matter.  

Dogs instinctively recognize eyes and gestures. In fact you can even communicate with cats this way. Thankfully, because of this, I managed to prevent myself from being eaten by stray dogs when I was a child and I ran after each one I saw . I find it more challenging and more beneficial to teach my dogs words without moving my body (even though using gestures would, in theory, make the learning process faster), because I can throw things at them from a distance and they start to learn to LISTEN to what I have to say rather than taking them for granted. I take it from sports training, which asks for lightning-fast obedience at one word, and you can apply it in other areas. For example, after the first few commands have been learnt, new commands are learnt extremely fast because I can tell the dog the new command, they listen knowing it's not a 'nonsense' word they can ignore, then I mark it with 'good' and it confirms the learning process. 

Another way to look at this is: if gestures are mixed with commands, the dog may start to look for the gestures AND the command rather than just one or the other, and then you're back in square one. One of my old dogs have been trained to lie down by me showing him how to lie down by pointing at the ground, an old trick that works very well. Unfortunately now I cannot ask him to lie down from a very far distance, or without bending. 

...when I am not training and just living with my dogs, I revert back to my old behaviour and gesture to them when I want something. But I still find it easier to just say, "Get upstairs" rather than have to point to the stairs. Especially when I'm on the couch and movie time can't take romping dogs in the living room. :lol:


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

Lyn Chen said:


> I do understand your training methods and the results you get. Believe it or not when I first saw similar pictures, I was a little less than impressed because like you said, I first thought it was simply 'putting' the dog in such a position.


My mistake Lyn. I realized it could be construed as such.



> However I did try it out, or at least a semblance of it--working with my dog to overcome strange and often embarassing situations, and I've seen a certain improvement towards parts of his behaviour. One example is we cross horizontal logs above ground that, on his own, he can't traverse because he would slip and fall--he has to lean on me to be able to crosss it. I also help him up trees and direct him to cross certain difficult ledges in order to get to a certain location. Unfortunately there is a limit to what I can do with him, being I live in the middle of the city with only manicured lawns and playgrounds to play in, and I'm not strong enough to help him in some situations. Next month I'm taking a trip up the mountains and we'll see how far we go. There's a hanging bridge there too.


Lyn, if you put a pup bonded as it may be in an uncomfortable position on an obstacle new and scary to him, then most likely and being an honest creature, it may whine, jump off and run away. Next he may avoid you like a plague. Like in humans, the will of self-preservation is always strong. So there's got to be something else, that the pup chooses to obey and stay. 

Well, I hope that the improvements on his behaviour that youve seen in him include increased "attachment" and responsiveness to you, and significantly became calmer and more focused to you enough to try a little more serious" workouts. 

I suppose you don't have to look for a hanging bridge. :lol: :lol: The world is one big obstacle course, if you know what I mean. I suppose there are bodies of water nearby that you can cross. You may put up a ladder leaning on that tree or mount it horizontally to work his footing, or work on chairs, tables, tires, barrels, etc.. A lot can be done without even leaving home. I live in the city too and with my age, have lesser chances of going up the mountains, though some may just be 2 hours drive. Stresses in natural environments will be much lesser and far between compared to what I have set up my dog to do right in my own backyard. But of course, it's still not a reason not to go out there to proof it.

Anyway, good luck on your trip, I hope it will be a vast learning experience for you.




> I think the point here is I see dog trainers often arguing down to semantics or having an "I do this so I'm better than you" mentality. What people fail to understand is that dogs, people, and goals are all different; hence there is no one training method that is the best for all situations.


If you noticed, this is exactly what this thread is all about and it went well. It differentiated some approaches depending on what discipline one chooses. *Different doesn't in anyway mean superior, just different intended to directly address objectives and/or applications that may not be applicable to others.*. 



> My head hurts when I see someone put it down to having 'psychic' training abilities or that *their* dog obeys them because they love them.


I don't know psychic training to even apply it. Is there such a thing? I just know that we are dealing with a creature with a form of intelligence man can relate to, with natural abilities indispensable to man. Hence, even the ancients utilized these creatures --- 24/7, 365 days, storm or shine (quite long hours, isnt it?) --- without probably the knowledge of drives but with only the need and desire to work these dogs for mans existence. You got to love these creatures as the ancients did. With their outstanding service to humanity even in times of great need, I SUPPOSE THEY LOVE US TOO, rather unconditionally. Dont you think? 





> Again, different methods for different situations for different trainers for different dogs. As an example, I've always liked the 'problem solving ability' that clicker-trained dogs are supposed to gain, in other words they start 'throwing behaviours' at you in order to see what it is you want them to do. I do a similar type of training with puppies just for practice, however, I'd be damned if I start carrying a clicker around in the field or 'shaping behaviours'. I just don't have the patience for that. As another example, I can get away with correcting my current shepherd and in fact corrections make him 'faster' and more efficient--my other dog? No way in hell. She would shut down if I do anything apart from tell her "No".
> 
> The fact that you can even reach a certain point in training a dog, i.e. I can tell him to go there, sit there, wait there, come here, look for that...is amazing by itself already and showcases the bond between dog and man. I can teach a dog with food until he is overweight, but by the end of the day, he will still follow me to the ends of the earth, which is more than, say, a cat would do, even if said cat has also been trained with treats. I can also train the dog by beating him into submission (though obviously not enough to make him run from me every time he sees me), and he will still follow me to the ends of the earth; do that to a cat and you get your face scratched off.
> 
> Training by itself is a way to be able to communicate with a dog, so I don't see why the method should matter as long as you GET there. What's important is the dog learns to respect you and listen to you. He probably already loves you. That's not the issue here, of course. :wink:



Thats all true for your training needs, your goals and objectives. For as long as it gets you there, thats fine. It's non-debatable.

To add more, others may be doing early training as foundation for future real serious work. Others may be working their dogs in a way to improve chances of developing a better service dog which as we all know, is the true and original intention for the working breed. Others, like Bob has mentioned, finds it an effective way to weed out undesirables for SAR work (my words). There may be a kind of work with demands that will challenge both man and dog pushing regular bonds way off the limits, a demand our working dogs have been historically known to have done before.

Best regards..


----------



## Lyn Chen

I haven't exactly noticed any increased attachment to me, mostly because he's already so attached to me that he has to sleep on top of me in bed. :twisted: (I push him away but I end up with dog drool on my face in the morning anyways). But, he has become more calm when facing such obstacles, and he no longer has the desire to 'question' me. "Okay, this looks stupid, but whatever, I'll stay for you," seems to be the type of mentality I'm getting from him since starting this training. This I find is a relief because he is a very intense dog that I've always had trouble with when it comes to making him do something he doesn't feel like doing. 
You can also see how excited he gets after finishing an obstacle so much that he often jumps back up and I have to call him down to me again, even though, as common training goes, he is 'unrewarded'. I will try more serious stuff when I have someone else to help me; I can't exactly lift him up anywhere. He is more than half my weight. :roll: 

It's good you've cleared up a few things, Al. You'd have to pardon me, some of the things I've said applies to a few people I've met over the years, some with very similar techniques to yours (usually the crowd who 'looks down' on treats and toys). I look forward to talking more with you in the future.


----------

